Kudos to Gamespot

Inverse Icarus · November 8, 2002, 21:19

for having the balls to say what needed to be said. that sums it up there.

Edgar Newt · November 8, 2002, 21:30

I would like to second the Kudos.

Gamespot will continue to get my yearly payment for Gamespot Complete so long as they continue to be brunt with both their criticism and praise.

Tuberski · November 8, 2002, 21:36

When I first saw it, I thought it said GameSPY.

ACK!

Minmaster · November 8, 2002, 21:59

thnx to gamespot, ill be putting off buying ptw until it is worth my money. if i did buy it, i probably wouldve been furious just like the guy who reviewd it.

alva · November 8, 2002, 22:25

although I can't comment on the MP aspects of PTW.
I think I allowed (having read other people's comments here)to say that the improvements for SP alone, warrant the purchase of ptw.

hexagonian · November 8, 2002, 22:55

My faith in the reviewing commuity has been restored...

The main jewel of the PTW crown, (multiplay) is buggy and crash-prone.

And if Firaxis had made civ3 more modifiable in the first place, most of those SP add-ons could of been fan-created and in play months before PTW was ever conceived...

Ah well, ther's always patches!

thinkingamer · November 9, 2002, 00:41

Thank goodness! a honest review at last!

Hopefully firaxis will learn from their mistakes, and as a fan i will whine as much i want (partly because i wasted 65 dollars on a Incomplete game [civ3 limited])

Remember, whiners are necesary; if we dont complain, then the company will never improve.

monkspider · November 9, 2002, 01:14

This review is terribly flawed because it downplays the level of additions to the one player game. Therefore, it can simply be dismissed out of hand as a poor attempt at reviewing this particular game.
I suggest anyone who is looking for a more accurate review of PTW to head on over to IGN. There you will find a review that much more accurately appraises PTW's features, warts and all.

Maquiladora · November 9, 2002, 01:57

The review didnt play it down at all. He commented on the addition of the Celts and the Spanish conquistadors but come on, theyre only extra civs, with slightly different stats. You cant dismiss the whole review as pish just because he didnt infinitely laud parts of the game you thought were important. Afterall, how much praise can he give to the addition of some extra civs and tile improvements.

Sarxis · November 9, 2002, 03:42

OMG! I really criticized Gamespot for their subscription fees, but with this review they have vindicated themselves!

There goes $24.95 of my money

sun_tzu_159 · November 9, 2002, 04:18

Well done to GameSPOT, The MP is not finished, cannot have been finished to anybodies satisfaction.

Firaxis would have done better to hire Apolyton server for matchmaking and chat. At least there would be a large fan base ready to go.

The review is a bit unfair on the non-MP side of the game. Indeed if this had been a non-MP patch/expansion the reviews would be more positive. But that review is now out there and yet more damage is done to the reputation of publisher/developer. Going to ING may be to late to turn negative opinion.

The pack is worth buying for the single player additions alone. But as the box says MULTIPLAYER on the front alot of people will be disappointed.

It should have been released as simple expansion then patch to MP.

Positive note - Thankyou Firaxis, we know you can turn it round.

Regards
Sun_Tzu

notyoueither · November 9, 2002, 04:30

Pish.

The review is good on several points but not as comprehensive as some trolls would wish. I like it, even though he missed the boat on a lot.

Fact is it was another rushed review. Only, this time the reviewer went negative. Oh well, at least there is some balance in the crap that gets posted as 'reviews'.

Are any of you gonna spend money based on the crap that gets posted as reviews? Then are you gonna not based on the same schtick with a different view?

I thought most of the people round these parts decided to wait for the word of the players. Maybe not...

The word is wait, if you want only INet MP and are not a fanatic. There. That was an honest review. Mark should post it on page 1.

monkspider · November 9, 2002, 04:53

The sad fact about all this is that if this game included no MP features at all and only it's impeccable one player features it would be getting scores in the 9's!

Nubclear · November 9, 2002, 04:54

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
Fact is it was another rushed review.

Rushed review for a rushed game.

notyoueither · November 9, 2002, 04:55

Quote:

Originally posted by Tassadar5000

Rushed review for a rushed game.

Too true. Stick around to see what Firaxis does about it.

Alex · November 9, 2002, 08:42

Yes, it seems to be a rushed review. I've been following the development of this XP since it was announced, and I know, from reading other players comments, that there are some substantial improvements made to single game. So the reviewer at Gamespot was a bit unfair to the pack, IMO.
On the other hand, PTW was/is billed as a multiplayer expansion pack, so that's what will grab people's attention in the first place. That was the bulk of the Gamespot review.
Now imagine you're a casual gamer, who relies in online reviews to make his/her purchasing decision. The casual gamer did not follow the development of this expansion pack, he doesn't read these forums. He looks at that shiny box which says "multiplayer" and he thinks "hmm, that seems nice. Let me check out what the reviews are saying about this". He directs his browser to Gamespot and... BAM! There goes another customer.

I think the damage is done.

Minmaster · November 9, 2002, 09:28

some say it was rushed for the holiday season but there was still a lot of time. they couldve taken few weeks since early november is still early for holiday season.

WarpStorm · November 9, 2002, 09:37

I think at least part of the blame for rushing PTW (and it seems rushed out the door to me) has to go to Infogrames. The guys I've talked to at Firaxis wouldn't have shipped something out the door before it was ready if they had a choice in the matter.

Like Alexmn said, the damage is done. Firaxis will lose a lot of sales due to pressure to release something before it was really ready. Will Infogrames suffer form this? Not really, as long as they turn a profit. Will Firaxis? Yes, their name and reputation go downhill.

player1 · November 9, 2002, 12:01

Quote:

Originally posted by alva848
although I can't comment on the MP aspects of PTW.
I think I allowed (having read other people's comments here)to say that the improvements for SP alone, warrant the purchase of ptw.

EXACTLY.

For me SP improvements and Hotseat MP (which should work perfectly) are enough to buy the game.

hexagonian · November 9, 2002, 13:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Alexnm
Now imagine you're a casual gamer, who relies in online reviews to make his/her purchasing decision. The casual gamer did not follow the development of this expansion pack, he doesn't read these forums. He looks at that shiny box which says "multiplayer" and he thinks "hmm, that seems nice. Let me check out what the reviews are saying about this". He directs his browser to Gamespot and... BAM! There goes another customer.

I think the damage is done.

Trollin' here...

And this is why the review is accurate, because the game is billed as Multiplayer, and the feature was heavily trumpeted by Firaxis. Should a reviewer give a breakdown based on how the game is now, or for the game in a few months after patched...???

I do feel that the game will eventually be patched to the point that it will offer a more stable and enjoyable multiplay experience, but as it stands now, it appears to need a lot of work still.

Wait, this was the pattern with civ3. Rinse and repeat.

I'll hold onto my money. Others are free to do what they want. Its a free market.

ChaotikVisions · November 9, 2002, 13:56

Is it just me or does this reviewer seem a tad biased? I mean he starts off the review ranting about how multiplayer should have been in a patch. Now admittedly multiplayer isn't working properly currently, but i've been able to play games. He also completely negates all the SP improvements, theres like 1 paragraph about it. Did he even try playing the game singleplayer? I mean they should be on the same level as the mp improvements, since improving the game will improve it sp or multi. But meh, maybe its just me. I personally stopped going to gamespot when they started charging me to hear their opinion.

Cartouche Bee · November 9, 2002, 14:43

Multiplayer games like "Play the World" should be reviewed in context and this review did just that.

If someone wants to sell a multiplayer edition, it should fullfil the claim. I'll pass until I see broader satisfaction by actual players and that won't happen until the next patch at the earliest. In the mean time if I want some 'eye candy' there are plenty of mods for the existing Civ3 product.

Boris Godunov · November 9, 2002, 15:19

He didn't seem to mention the improved AI, which is a big part of what makes PtW worthwhile for me as a predominately SP. The computer civs now seem to wage war much better and it is a good challenge.

However, many of his points are valid. I still would say the score is too low. I'd give it a 7.0.

isak · November 9, 2002, 15:42

Well, he must have rushed the review a bit, caused he failed to notice that the DyP mod wasn't even on the CD, but in the 1.04f patch.

I wonder what people would have said if the full graphics version of the DyP mod was included in the 1.04f patch... it would have been a 40 mb. patch

Nubclear · November 9, 2002, 17:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
The computer civs now seem to wage war much better and it is a good challenge.

Actually, from what I hea r(especially on higher difficulty levels), they ALWAYS wage war....

Inverse Icarus · November 9, 2002, 18:25

Quote:

Originally posted by monkspider
The sad fact about all this is that if this game included no MP features at all and only it's impeccable one player features it would be getting scores in the 9's!

the f*cking box says "MULTIPLAYER" in huge letters.

Inverse Icarus · November 9, 2002, 18:27

Quote:

Originally posted by Tassadar5000

Actually, from what I hea r(especially on higher difficulty levels), they ALWAYS wage war....

me and my buddy are playing an emperor game, and i got demands from the ottomons every 3 turns.

i'm at war with everyone with the arabs and my friend.

Catt · November 9, 2002, 19:21

I am a big fan of Civ 3 -- I think it's a fabulous game. I bought PTW the day after it was available, but haven't had a lot of time to play (currently playing my third SP game on standard map -- first two games on tiny maps). I haven't tried to play MP, and will rarely, if ever, have the time to play MP (other than PBEM). I am very happy with PTW and the AI improvements -- supposedly just small tweaks, but makes a much better game, IMHO. And I'll probably buy the next expansion (assuming there is one) just as readily as I did PTW.

All that said, the review could almost be called generous, from the reports I've read from posters whose opinions I respect. I don't know if Gamespot gives ratings lower than 5, but if they do, PTW probably got a kind rating. The fact is that PTW was and is designed, marketed and sold as a "multiplayer expansion" (even though I and others didn't buy it for MP). For MP to have all of the problems that it apparently has is just about unforgiveable.

My guess is that the production team bit off more than they could chew with (1) the innovative and numerous MP styles, and (2) the absolutely unmovable, market-driven demands around release dates for the holiday shopping season. A shame, as I'm sure Firaxis had high hopes for at least a gentler landing. Firaxis has proven that they are serious about producing a quality game, even if it takes several patches to do so, and I fully expect them to continue such efforts with PTW. IMHO, they're a great company that will do right by its customers, even if it takes a little time. Nonetheless, to turn a blind eye to the problems with PTW out of the box is to ignore the obvious.

Catt

werdhertz · November 9, 2002, 19:50

WHy are people saying GameSpots review is bias because it didnt comment on SP predominatly? IGN didnt even mention INTERNET MP, only LAN. Are you guys being hypocritcal or what?

Chemical Ollie · November 9, 2002, 20:09

I will not buy PtW as it is now, as it is not on sale in my part of the world. DUH!

Instead, all my computer time will be spent on installing my new incredible gaming monster - 2.56 MHz CPU with 128 MB GForce 4 ( compared to my 450 MHz with 4 MB graphics...)