Reveiw of CTP

epn810j · April 8, 1999, 17:23

The swedish "version" of the PC Gamer magazine gave CTP 92% and SMAC 91%.
I haven't played SMAC yet but I don't think the rating is to high on CTP. (great game)!
I have had no difficulties at all moving my units, not even in the beginning. The tutorial is lifeimportant!

LordStone1 · April 8, 1999, 17:30

I honestly think that Gamecenter.com was paid to give a bad review to CTP. The fact that they rated SMAC's graphics higher than CTP's raises a lot of red flags for me. Everyone knows that CTP graphics are better. So, how can I trust the rest of the review.

There may be some truth to rumors that Firaxis paid off some reviewers.

AustralianJeremy · April 9, 1999, 01:32

I don't know, maybe they could actually get SMAC to run on their computers at the specs it claimed to run on...

Are you sure that CTP's graphics are better? SMAC's terrain is 3D, a whole step up. You weren't superficial enough to be immediately put off by the unorthodox space-y colour scheme were you?

TheClockKing · April 9, 1999, 14:13

The graphics in CTP are better than SMAC. The problem that arises for CTP is probally that Gamecenter played the game and realized its numerous faults.

Jeje2 · April 12, 1999, 03:38

About grafics
(I havent played myself CTP yet, but have seen the game close enough)

SMAC:
A excelent use of 3D terrain. It is also important since altitude = energy.

CTP:
2D terrain, but so sharp terran and unit drawings that I am amased.

Conclusion:
After playing SMAC the 2D-terran grafics doesn't feel anything. It leaves me cold.

So if someone gives SMAC better scores for grafics, I can understand him.

But, altough I love the 3D-terran, I do give my vote for grafics to CTP. CTP simply has a more appealing look.