The IGN review is an outrage (unbiased opinion)

[Triphosphatase]

The reviewer is obviously a rts fan and should not have written the review at all. Let me quote:

quote: You’ll often need to override or turn this feature off to grow your empire effectively.

Did you want the mayors to completely take any responsibility off your hands so all you have to do is move your troops and press End Turn?

quote: Combat is much too abstract, with units neatly lined up and victory based on mathematical formulas

What did you want then? A mini-RTS game where you get to play a short skirmish? (that would be interesting but is too unreasonable)

quote: The combat screen is utterly uninspiring to watch and could easily be cut from the game with no loss.

Your saying that you should not be able to watch how your army lost to your opponents in a 12vs12 battle?

quote: As you slowly and methodically explore, build, and manage in the early stages of the game, there’s almost no sense of tension or emotional engagement.

Your right, its not fun at all if you can't control a laser take in real time. [cough] short attention span [/cough]

quote: You can literally play for an hour without any drama or conflict as you march your exploring units about the map hoping to stumble across another empire

Maybe you shoudn't have picked Gigantic Map/4 Civs in that sole game that you played before you wrote the review.

quote: The fairly weak AI running the other empires also makes things a bit too easy.

Did you play on Easy in the only game you played? Have you actually tried Impossible? (For the people that do not own the game, Impossible is very hard (much better than Civ2/CTP)

quote: To an extent, this easiness holds true further into the game and on “harder” difficulty settings. Fortunately, the harder settings let you encounter other empires more quickly, particularly if you’ve chosen to play on a small map.

Ooo you did try a harder setting. They actually come to you instead of you coming to them...

quote: In the face of an onslaught of 3D, animated games, the designers of Call to Power II were faced with the hard task of bringing life to what’s essentially a complex board game

CTP2 wasn't and never was trying to compete with those games...

quote: Still, the overall graphic style of the game world and units is bland compared to similar-looking games like Age of Empires II, and animations are minimal and dull, even in combat.

Another reviewer that overlooks gameplay over 'pretty' graphics.

quote: Sound effects and voice responses from your units are equally lifeless

This sentence was actually funny. I sure want the units to shout, 'SIR, YES SIR' every time I select them. Another RTS biased opinion.

And the last one:

quote: It would have been better to reduce or reorient the focus to city building and management or to combat instead of slightly covering those, plus diplomacy, trade, scientific research, and on and on.

Did the game overwhelm you too much. Do you really think the developers should make Civ: Science, Civ: Trade, Civ: Diplomacy, Civ: Combat as seperate games?

The review is completely unacceptable. People that do not like CTP2 could see this. How could they call SMAC a 'masterpiece' (different reviewer) and bash CTP2?

[MarkG]

quote: It would have been better to reduce or reorient the focus to city building and management or to combat instead of slightly covering those, plus diplomacy, trade, scientific research, and on and on.

dear god, just noticed that one. someone should tell him that civ is ALL that!!! and that's why it's great

[Paulypav]

This is a joke or something, right? How could a magazine whose opinion is valued by its readers do such a terrible job reviewing the game. This review is basically an attack on the TBS style of game and has no specific criticisms of CTP2. I haven't gotten the game yet, waiting for Christmas and I can't afford the time loss with finals coming up. So far these reviews have done nothing to change my desire to buy the game. I hope that people don't make their decision to buy the game based on such incomplete reviews.

------------------
“The American people have now spoken, but it’s going to take a little while to determine exactly what
they said.” — President Clinton

[Monkey]

quote: Still, it feels as if the game takes on too much at once and does it too abstractly. It would have been better to reduce or reorient the focus to city building and management or to combat instead of slightly covering those, plus diplomacy, trade, scientific research, and on and on.

That quote by the reviewer clearly showed that he didn't know what he was talking about. Obviously this was the guy's first civ game(or TBS). I don't understand IGN at all. I reread the preview that they wrote with another guy and the indication is that CTP2 is thumbs up compared to CTP1. Then they give the game to a complete newbie who proceeds to destroy a game(or genre) that he knows nothing about. Note that there are NO comparisons with the other civ games like civ2 or SMAC or even CTP1. The only comparison is with AOK, which is absurb. A big thumbs down to IGN.

[Provost Harrison]

Yes I agree. Now although I was deterred from the original CtP and still CtP2 unless I see opinion to change my opinion, I am more dismayed by this reviewers capabilities to review the game. I want it reviewed at a TBS, not some very shallow approach which was about as much use to me as a chocolate fireguard...

[Apollon]

Bah! Major BS from that guy I must add. (I did it in Imrams topic, but I'll just do it again: )
*sigh* *double sigh* *Unconcious*
that's how I feel about that idiotic review, he clearly never play the game enough (or he's just one who doesn't like Civ games.

""quote:


To an extent, this easiness holds true further into the game and on “harder” difficulty settings. Fortunately, the harder settings let you encounter other empires more quickly, particularly if you’ve chosen to play on a small map.



Ooo you did try a harder setting. They actually come to you instead of you coming to them...

""

Yup, bet he didn't know that one before

Apollon
67651077

[Depp]

This guy should be told what a fool he made of himslef. I mean he is just didn't know what kind of game this was. And im pretty sure he is 14 years old as well...

[Matte979]

Have anybody written to them asking for an explaination?
[This message has been edited by Matte979 (edited November 21, 2000).]

[Imran Siddiqui]

Oh come on! Simply because he gave a bad review doesn't mean you have to call him 14 years old?! What does that do? Despicable! Call the review bad, ok, but leave the ad hominem attacks aside?

And what do you mean ask them for an explination? They'll say that was their review for the game...

[Matte979]

Explaination why he compares it to AOE II..totaly diffrent game.

[Big Dave]

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui on 11-21-2000 01:47 PM Oh come on! Simply because he gave a bad review doesn't mean you have to call him 14 years old?! What does that do? Despicable! Call the review bad, ok, but leave the ad hominem attacks aside? And what do you mean ask them for an explination? They'll say that was their review for the game...

Yes Imram, an explanation why an allegedly professional magazine assigned the wrong style of game to this reviewer. This person is obviously familiar with RTS (what a misnomer!) and has no clue about TBS. I mean this is like asking me to review how difficult it is to work on different makes of car and truck engines. I'm not qualified to write that review, get a mechanic. Now if you want me to review computers, CPU's, video cards or something like that, yes, you have the right man. But I'm not competant to review automotive engines, and this person was not competant to review TBS games.
Respectfully,

David

[Imran Siddiqui]

quote: Explaination why he compares it to AOE II..totaly diffrent game.

He COMPARED THE GRAPHICS to Aok... which seems fair to me (they look similar).

And do me a favor LOOK AT THE REVIEW, DID THEY CHANGE IT? I ask because some of the quotes here aren't in the review (I just checked). I see no reference to Aok... hmmm....

[Imran Siddiqui]

Interestingly, if you look at the end of the (new?) review, he compares it to Civ2... so there is some comparison to what came before.

[Yatermie]

Thats the entire problem these days.

We are no longer confined in the graphics department. Things can be made photorealistic in realtime now.

That is not the point of a civ game. I don't care if it was in 320x240, if the gameplay is good, i'll play it.

Before you HAD to have gameplay because the graphics sucked compared to TV and the consoles. Now well.. "lets spend millions on graphics and **** the gameplay, the "massmarket" only wants gameplay"

I'm no programmer, but I think that if people would confine the graphics in a TBS to what can be windowed, and is crisp, clear and gets the job done, we could have the great gameplay that would create another "killer app" and get people back to what I believe is the core of computer games, STRATEGY.

If i want mindless killing, I'll use a console. If i want strategy, I'll use my computer. I suppose.. well.. HOMM for gameboy.. the end is near.. sigh..

[Monkey]

Hey guys guess what?? I wrote to IGN about the appaling state of the CTP2 review last nite and they HAVE appeared to change the review. They seem to have removed the reference to AOK and have rewrote parts of the review. Read it again now. It's definitely different. Unfortunately the 6.0 still stands though.


Also if anyone has the original copy of the review in their browser cache or have saved it, try comparing it to the old one.