Kudos to Gamespot

[Maquiladora]

Wow 2.56 MHz Im jealous

[Alex]

Originally posted by Maquiladora
Wow 2.56 MHz Im jealous

I'm not. All that power and he won't be able to play it online...

[Switch]

I just think it's sad that Firxais is getting and will get all of the blame for Civ3 and PtW's problems, even though it was an Infogrammes decision/mistake to rush it out so soon

To Firaxis,

To Infogrammes,

[PrinceBimz]

Tom Chick? Yeah I remember that name. People trust me...this guy does not have a clue when it comes down to game reviews.

[Civfan]

Was wondering if this review from gamespot was before or after the release of the ptw patch?

Did you use the new patch?
From alot of people this ptw is a peice of $hit? Well is it really?

I haven't and probably wont get this product. Its alittle weird to find out the game is released and a day or two after they release the patch.

Will wait til price is 1/10th of what it is now.
Thanks for the review and stuff.

[Fatwreck]

The game is full price while its features is only half of what it should be (working SP buggy MP)... is that fair ... I´m getting so tired of games coming out before they are finished...add to that the high price, and they wonder why people buy less and burn more?

[KoalaBear33]

Why is the game worth buying from a single player point of view? As far as I can tell, the single player features are very minor. Sure, you get a few more civilizations, but they are practically the same as what was there before (since there are only 6 traits). Even the new units and city improvements are few and it's almost as if they don't even exist. If this were to be a good single player add-on it should have shipped with at least 5 or 6 more wonders, 10 city improvements and a few unit tweaks or additions.

This has got to be one of the worst add-ons I have ever heard of (for its price)...

Just for reference, I didn't think that highly of Civ III (the base version). I liked it but didn't think it was that great (mostly because it is not innovative, except for culture and borders which I loved, and resources). The best ting about Civ III IMO is the price. The original version cost something like $50 which is amazingly good for a game. People should just buy Civ III because of the price alone... unfortunately, the expansion is totally opposite (too costly and people should avoid it--it seems)...

KoalaBear33

[WarpStorm]

Originally posted by KoalaBear33
Why is the game worth buying from a single player point of view? As far as I can tell, the single player features are very minor. Sure, you get a few more civilizations, but they are practically the same as what was there before (since there are only 6 traits). Even the new units and city improvements are few and it's almost as if they don't even exist. If this were to be a good single player add-on it should have shipped with at least 5 or 6 more wonders, 10 city improvements and a few unit tweaks or additions.

Well, since you say in the part I snipped out that you didn't particularly like Civ3 to start with I am wasting my time trying to convince you, but here goes...

8 new civs - done professionally
ability to play with all 24 civs at once (actually 32)
ability to make HUGE maps
faster play
smarter AI
useful user interface enhancements
3 new city improvements - these really effect game play
1 new wonder - fairly minor unless you are going for a culture or spaceship win
2 new units - professionally done
4 new terrain graphics sets
removal of most hard coded values in the editor
a bunch of scenarios that need PTW to run
a mod manager
3 new worker actions - the RADAR Tower really changes the end game
stack moves and attacks
new victory and loss conditions
ability to change time scale
ability to name any unit
and I'm sure I'm forgetting something

BTW, PBEM works just fine as does hotseat.

[vmxa1]

Me, I do not need innovation, only fun.

[Master Marcus]

Originally posted by WarpStorm
Well, since you say in the part I snipped out that you didn't particularly like Civ3 to start with I am wasting my time trying to convince you, but here goes...

8 new civs - done professionally
ability to play with all 24 civs at once (actually 32)
ability to make HUGE maps
faster play
smarter AI
useful user interface enhancements
3 new city improvements - these really effect game play
1 new wonder - fairly minor unless you are going for a culture or spaceship win
2 new units - professionally done
4 new terrain graphics sets
removal of most hard coded values in the editor
a bunch of scenarios that need PTW to run
a mod manager
3 new worker actions - the RADAR Tower really changes the end game
stack moves and attacks
new victory and loss conditions
ability to change time scale
ability to name any unit
and I'm sure I'm forgetting something

BTW, PBEM works just fine as does hotseat.

I agree, the SP additions are in fact wider than just 3 new city improvements and 2 units.... just the smarter AI, which is indeed smarter than 1.29f, justify PtW ( perhaps not the price however ). So Gamespot review was "rushed" by a MP addict reviewer who was right to depict the actual unstability of PtW's MP compounds - but at the expense of IGNORING its SP tweaks, small but numerous additions like WarpStrom has listed here, and I can confirm. Why then review Civ III as a great game last year with a score of 9.3, and a 9+ for gameplay, when a year later Ptw scores a 5, AND that 4/10 for gameplay???? It's the same core gameplay........

[wervdon]

Well, I can't comment alot since I didn't buy it (cause of competition from infogrames other title due out in less than a month-moo3), but here's my take on it anyways.

The gamespot review was accurate provided the MP is as buggy as they say (not having tried it or really even visited the forums on poly lately other than moo3), I dont know). They should not of released an expansion with its most advertised feature not working properly (or at least a patch immediately available), period. Its definately bad business to do so, and no one can argue that they used the MP as the main selling point. If it doesn't work, then they deserve the negative reviews.

But reviews and advertising aside, it doesn't mean its a bad game. As was already pointed out it has alot of other neat stuff (though the only thing that even tempts me to pay for it is the 24 civs at once on a huge map thing), and firaxis has *NEVER* failed to fix anything thats broken via patches that Ive known of. If the MP is broken, then there is almost no chance it will remain so in the long run. So those who bought it for MP can enjoy the extra features that do work, and in time will be able to enjoy the features that dont. Its not good from a business standpoint, but its also not like they bought a game from a company thats going to throw its hands up and say oh well we got our $, its your problem now.

I think I allowed (having read other people's comments here)to say that the improvements for SP alone, warrant the
purchase of ptw.

It's a matter of opinion, but I don't agree at all. At least not at the going price for it now. I think I read someone's opinion that it could been sold as is as a single player add-on, and I have to say that for my $, a single player add on better at least have more diplomacy and espionage options :P I will say that when/if the price drops to about $15-20 then Ill pick it up just for the single player changes.

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!

Your probally right. At least most of the negative reviews would of been alot better. Maybe not 9 out of 10s, but I bet it'd be doing better than it is. The main reason is though that the MP stuff being there as the major feature, causes it to get focused on. There would still be a few fringe reviewers saying it was light on content though if it was exactly as-is without any MP at all.

---
Oh and I also want to give Kudos to gamespot. Not because I think PtW is a bad game (I have no room to talk anyways not having bought it), but because they at least said what they thought about it honestly, which Im not so sure many reviewers do when a big developer puts out a new game.

[-proletarian-]

Originally posted by Olaf Hårfagre
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...)

I'm confused.....does this mean that your computer will be better than my AMD 500mhz, with 56 MB of RAM?

[Alexander's Horse]

It is great to see an honest review for a change instead of the usual creepy boosterism from game sites for any old piece of unfinished shoddy crap, which is what PTW is

Apolyton could really take a leaf out of Gamespot's book

Maybe then game makers would take this site more seriously

[player1]

The only problem with this rewies is that he solely based his mark on just a Internet MP feature (other MP features work GREAT for me) which is just one part of whole expansion.

For those who just think that PtW is just MP add-on I could say that they are WRONG.

Non MP fetures on their own are worth of expansion.

And I am NOT talking about scenarios at all (since they could have been downloaded from net).

I am talking about complete streamlineing of game in playability and AI.

And Hotseat and PBEM are worth GOLD on their own.
And LAN is OK too.


A little bit nitpicking:
The only "problem I see in it is that PtW looks a little bit like a Civ3 patch.

I mean most bugs found out in Civ3 and in AI behavior are fixed in PtW, but since base Civ3 won't have anymore patches, you need to BUY PtW in oreder to get those fixes. Still, you can live without them too.

[KoalaBear33]

Quick thoughts... my comment in bracket...

8 new civs - done professionally (very similar to all the other civs )
ability to play with all 24 civs at once (actually 32)
ability to make HUGE maps
faster play (in single player? how?)
smarter AI (should be part of the original or a patch; people shouldn't be paying for AI unless it is SIGNIFICANTLY different)
useful user interface enhancements (should have been part of the original; the UI still sucks)
3 new city improvements - these really effect game play (not enough)
1 new wonder - fairly minor unless you are going for a culture or spaceship win (need more wonders)
2 new units - professionally done (lame--why have so many units that create obsolescence?)
4 new terrain graphics sets
removal of most hard coded values in the editor
a bunch of scenarios that need PTW to run (the scenarios suck; these aren't true scenarios)
a mod manager (no comment; don't know anything about this)
3 new worker actions - the RADAR Tower really changes the end game (no comment)
stack moves and attacks
new victory and loss conditions
ability to change time scale
ability to name any unit (should have been there from day 1)

BTW, PBEM works just fine as does hotseat. (I thought I read that hotseat doesn't work well due to problems trading with each other)

The game is even worse now IMO... you can't tell what is going on in multiplayer (units fight and die with few indicators)

KoalaBear33

[player1]

Originally posted by KoalaBear33
BTW, PBEM works just fine as does hotseat. (I thought I read that hotseat doesn't work well due to problems trading with each other)

I don't know abouy you but Hotseat works perfectly for me.

And don't base your opinion on just what somebody else said.


As for your they are most becasue "it should be done in the 1st palce". But they are done, and they are , not

That argument in only OK, if you say that PtW in overpriced.

Overpriced maybe, but imporvement in any case.
Those who like Civ3 will probably buy it, one the other hand, casual games probably won't, exept if they whatnt MP, but in that case some patching is needed.

[WarpStorm]

Originally posted by KoalaBear33
faster play (in single player? how?)
2 new units - professionally done (lame--why have so many units that create obsolescence?)

BTW, PBEM works just fine as does hotseat. (I thought I read that hotseat doesn't work well due to problems trading with each other)

The game is even worse now IMO... you can't tell what is going on in multiplayer (units fight and die with few indicators)

Faster play - I don't know what they did, but I know my turns are a lot faster on single play (I can even play a 24 player huge game)

The 2 new units are there to fight unit obsolescence they allow the previous dead end units to have an upgrade path.

Having played a few hotseat games I can say that it does work.

I get a message on the screen when a unit is attacked. You can go to the message to see what is happening. This obviously doesn't apply to hotseat and PBEM which leads to one of my gripes. There is no way to see exactly what happened between your turn.

Have you actually played PTW or are you basing your opinions on what you read here?

[Inverse Icarus]

they probably fixed a memory leak or streamlined an algorithm.

they tore a huge assed one in the multiplayer though.

[player1]

Originally posted by UberKruX
they probably fixed a memory leak or streamlined an algorithm.

they tore a huge assed one in the multiplayer though.

Yes Intenet based Mp needs fixing.



P.S.
By teh way has anybody though that Firaxis made an error by investing so much to make more then 20 units for WWII, Japan and Dino packs, without making any scneario which would support them.

If they just made ONE units pack, and several scenarios based on it, it would be much better.

While these packs are a good thing for MODers, they benfit too little a casual gamer.

In fact, if casual games doesn't like MP, there is no point for him to get PtW.

Of course for hard-core based Civ3 fan like me, even those SP fatures are worth of price.

[player1]

Originally posted by player1


Yes Intenet based Mp needs fixing.



P.S.
By the way has anybody though that Firaxis made an error by investing so much to make more then 20 units for WWII, Japan and Dino packs, without making any scneario which would support them.

If they just made ONE units pack, and several scenarios based on it, it would be much better.

While these packs are a good thing for MODers, they benfit too little a casual gamer. (read: waste of resources)

In fact, if casual games doesn't like MP, there is no point for him to get PtW.

Of course for hard-core based Civ3 fan like me, even those SP features are worth of price.

[Boris Godunov]

I have to say that PtW has improved my Civ3 experience tremendously, just through the faster turns, new civs/units/tech etc. and the extras included.

Was it worth $30? Not as of yet. Most of the things I like seem like they should have been made available through downloads.

[WarpStorm]

Originally posted by player1

By teh way has anybody though that Firaxis made an error by investing so much to make more then 20 units for WWII, Japan and Dino packs, without making any scneario which would support them.

TET's scenario which comes with PTW uses most if not all of them (I'm not sure that the dinos are in it). The Dinobarb scenario uses some of the dinosaur units. In the case of the dino units I'm sure that they are left over art assets from SId's abortive dino game and they just threw them in.

[Whohangs]

I'd also like to laud Gamespot for what looks like a pretty fair review based on the feedback here. Especially since Gamespot had a number of hands on previews of the game prior to release, I thought the game was going to get a better review.

I was waiting for the Gamespot review, the majority of reviews from Gamespot have been pretty good as far as the games I have bought. The main reason I would be getting the expansion would be for multiplayer. So for me, the reviewer hit the correct aspect of the expansion pack, which is multiplayer.

$30 might be worth it to some people for just the single player features, but for me, it doesn't seem worth it. I'd rather spend the money on a new game, rather then spend more money on a game I bought a year ago and thought was good, but not great. I typically only buy one game every one to three months, so only the best games gets my money. This expansion pack doesn't look like one of them.

[Switch]

To quote player1

"Of course for hard-core based Civ3 fan like me, even those SP features are worth of price."

[player1]

Originally posted by WarpStorm


TET's scenario which comes with PTW uses most if not all of them (I'm not sure that the dinos are in it). The Dinobarb scenario uses some of the dinosaur units. In the case of the dino units I'm sure that they are left over art assets from SId's abortive dino game and they just threw them in.

Yes, that's true.

But still not enough of them in order to make casual gamers interested.

[notyoueither]

Casual gamers who bought and liked Civ3 are likely to buy PTW simply for SP imrovements and the ability to hotseat or LAN with a buddy. If they are in the store shopping and see it. Not everyone needs to budget money closely.

Furthermore, most TBS junkies do not play solely for MP. Yes, there are 30 or 40 ghosts holding the fort in the Civ II MP forum (based on member numbers). There is Uber and a few like him. Then, there is the rush of RTS players coming in to check out the new MP in town. Hense the screaming. Civ is not, never has been, and hopefully never will be AoE.

Anyone who is a TBS junky would benefit from the expansion, so long as they liked the original Civ3. That's it. That's all.

[Huzurdaddi]

Anyone who is a TBS junky would benefit from the expansion, so long as they liked the original Civ3. That's it. That's all.

Ok, I'll call bullshit on that.

How many people do you think would have bought Civ3 PtW if were called "Civ3 better AI"?

Do you think the sales would have been lower?

I'll give you my opinion: of course you dip ****. Their sales would have been pathetic. By adding the mystical works multiplayer they got far more coverage and buzz.

Here at work a few people came by to say, "hey did you hear that Civ3 is getting multiplayer, maybe we should all go out and get it."

If it was called "Civ3 good AI" I don't think that anyone would have raised an eyebrow at work.

They knew this. So they lied. Pure and simple. They said that they had multiplayer on the box, and it simply does not work. They figured that they could pay off some sites (*cough* like gamesdomain) and get away with it. Thank gosh there are sites like gamespot out there.

[WarpStorm]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Casual gamers who bought and liked Civ3 are likely to buy PTW simply for SP imrovements and the ability to hotseat or LAN with a buddy. If they are in the store shopping and see it. Not everyone needs to budget money closely.

I'll agree with nye here. I impulse buy games just about every week. Most games I never give a second chance. PTW I've been playing steadily for a while.

[-proletarian-]

Originally posted by Huzurdaddi


Ok, I'll call bullshit on that.

How many people do you think would have bought Civ3 PtW if were called "Civ3 better AI"?

Do you think the sales would have been lower?

I'll give you my opinion: of course you dip ****. Their sales would have been pathetic. By adding the mystical works multiplayer they got far more coverage and buzz.

Have some respect. Just because you disagree with someone doesn't mean you have to call them names. Try to keep it civil.

[Artifex]

I bought it at CompUSA tonigth for $20 bucks. I know its not the most awe inspiring expansion. But honestly I think $20 bucks is a fair price to pay for the new additions in single player alone. That's pretty cheap for an expansion.

If they get Multi to work it will be an added bonus.

BTW when is a patch coming out and whne do you think multi will be playable?

Also, where is a good place to go find games for multi?