'Devastating' evaluation? Or is it just honest?

FNBrown · December 16, 2002, 15:11

Quote:

DEVASTATING `PTW` EVALUATION
(15 December 2002, 20:35 | Civ3) The most devasting review of a Civilization-series title to date from a gaming publication comes from Gamers.com in their assessment of expansion pack Civilization III: Play The World. In the words of the site`s Thomas Macdonald, writing on behalf of Computer Gaming World:

It`s hard to reconcile the reputation of Firaxis with the shoddy, inexcusable mess that is [PTW]. [..] [It] is, simply, the worst implementation of multiplayer gaming in recent memory.

Just before smacking CivIII`s younger sibling with a stinging 2/10 (20%) score, Macdonald builds on his progressing outrage before going in for the final blow.

It would be charitable to call the rest of the package an afterthought; it`s more like a half-terthought. [..] There isn`t a single, solitary element of this package worth $3, much less $30. An utter debacle.

Five screenshots in total are also available for viewing. - DanQ

Aww... sounds like Infogrames didn't buy enough advertising on Gamers.com

Raion · December 16, 2002, 15:18

As with all points of view, it is only an opinion and since everyone has one, they are like *ss*oles!

Each graphic has 120 frames for the movement of units.
Anyone care to do all that work for nothing.

Its amazing that people do not really want an economy!
Some people will make up mods for the love of it, just think if they actually were allowed to charge for it.
Nothing is free! It takes time. And time is a commodity!
Unless, one is stupid enough to think that people are actually going to work for nothing -- in the future!

I don't think it will sell, though!
Use the Shrawtz instead of the Force!

Something from Space Balls the movie.

CrONoS · December 16, 2002, 16:02

The problem is:

I enjoy Civ3:Play The World! I really enjoy this Expansion Pack, but I know the pack is a mess of scenario made by user fan, and some scenario doesnt work or dont have all the files to work correctly. Now with the new patch, MP is better but with lag, maybe with the next patch we will see game with no lag.
It's really hard to judge this Expansion Pack, since we are like some Religious Fanatics, unable to make a clear jugment over any Civilization stuff.
Nice day Everyone!

Velociryx · December 16, 2002, 16:47

If we were seeing the first generation of games to roll out internet play, I'd say that review was very definitely on the harsh side. As it stands, internet MP is a pretty standard component of an awful lot of games rolling off of the corporate presses these days, and in fact, has been for some time now.

One would think that the greater bulk of those mysteries would have already been encountered and solved, and yet, from what I can see, Jeff listed in his letter just about every component that makes up MP as being where they had problems (his list includes approximately half a dozen components/areas that had problems serious enough to warrant a patch, and if I'm not mistaken, that's about all of them!).

Since this ain't exactly brand spanking new technology any more, I'd say the reviewer has a point.

There have been a great many games released that came (off the shelf, no expansion pack required) with MP. Some of them have been better than others, but it appears that the greater bulk of them have figured out the basic connectivity issues, and done so quite some time ago.

Just my observation.

-=Vel=-

SirOsis · December 16, 2002, 17:27

I think the review was about right. The game as released was not playable for MP. It was released too early to satisfy the Christmas buying season. There is no other excuse I find reasonable.

The game has improved with the 1.14 patch, but still needs work.

While 1.14 has helped dilute the foul taste in my mouth upon buying PTW it is difficult to forget the disgust I found when I tried to play some MP with 1.04. I had spent 30 bucks on a game I couldn't play MP.

The state of the game on release deserves a 2. With the 1.14 patch I'd rate it a 4. Further patches will bump this up some but the game was released seriously flawed in order to capitalize on the christmas buying season. I just hope with the money they duped out of consumers will be spent on making PTW playable.

ACooper · December 16, 2002, 17:57

What I don't get is how the expansion pack is "so flawed". It works like it's supposed to. Many of the "problems" have been listed by people who don't RTFM. And saying "other games did this" or "other games did that" is misleading because there is no real game that is comparable to CIV 3.

Give some hard examples.

Granted, I don't play MP often because most people quit half way through or when things start turning against them. The MP games I have played have been good. No lags or connection problems. (Except I can't host behind my firewall) Most of these complaints seem to be of the hollow "I don't like it" variety.

Whatever...

player1 · December 16, 2002, 18:23

Note to the reviwer:

GET A PATCH!!!

And then review the game.

And if game was revied before the patch then RELEASE the review on time, NOT ONE MONTH after the patch.

P.S.
Of course, for him, it looks like PtW was MP ONLY game.

But, it IS NOT.

P.P.S.
That's why it is importatnt to release the game out-the-box with woarkable fetures as much as possibile.

PR, PR, PR...

Velociryx · December 16, 2002, 18:32

ACooper: I wasn't comparing game to game...MP is MP....the 'net don't care what's in the datapackets, and the methodologies for sending them from point A to point B are pretty much the same whether you're playing WC3 or Civ3.

One of these had resonably stable MP out of the box.

One of them did not.

Player1: Well said!

-=Vel=-

WarpStorm · December 16, 2002, 19:08

In an interesting counterpoint most of the user reviews on that site are positive.

Huzurdaddi · December 16, 2002, 21:16

Quote:

In an interesting counterpoint most of the user reviews on that site are positive.

Another interesting data point is that almost all of them originate from IPs that also frequent this board.

Another fair assessment of the game. Still wondering what gamesdomain.com was smoking. Or how much they got paid.

ACooper · December 17, 2002, 00:18

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
ACooper: I wasn't comparing game to game...MP is MP....the 'net don't care what's in the datapackets, and the methodologies for sending them from point A to point B are pretty much the same whether you're playing WC3 or Civ3.

One of these had resonably stable MP out of the box.

One of them did not.

Player1: Well said!

-=Vel=-

It's not what's in the data packets, it's the amount of data packets.