Civ 3: PTW review at gamespot...YIKES!

Tom Chick really hammered this game.

So is anybody else here playing it? Same views or diffrent?

If only wumpus was a Civ worshiper. We could start a weekly wumpus v. Chick debate like Chick and Geryk have. :wink:

Good. The game needed to be hammered originally! Civ 3 was overrated! Who needs Civ3 when we already have Call to Power 2 (with mods) and smac and Civ 2!?!

Bah, Iron Storm wasn’t that bad!

etc

Hammered, yes. Absolutely right? Also yes. Even if the multiplayer worked perfectly it just isn’t a significant or needed add-on to merit above a 7.5 or so. Wish they could have fixed some of the diplomacy and the AI tricks (aka cheating).

I’ve played Alien Crossfire, Play the World, sir, is no Alien Crossfire.

Would it kill you to post the link and save me from actually going to go and dig this up? Fer crying out loud, you’re supposed to make surfing easy, not hard. :D

Game should be called Civ 3 : Play the PATCH! :lol:

etc

http://gamespot.com/gamespot/stories/reviews/0,10867,2897110,00.html

Here you go!

etc

Civ3:PTW - Patch the World

The mystery to me is that, with the complaints about lag and crashes, the add-on still gets a 5.0. It reads more like a 3.0.

Peter

Welcome to the wonderful world of the Gamespot rating system.

–Dave

You’re forgetting that Sid has a Magical Shield of +2 Against Reviewers.

Remember that the 5.0 is the overall rating. Looks like the Graphics and Sound (8.0 each) gave it an artifical boost. The gameplay and tilt ratings wree both 4.0 (officially in the crapbox area).

That’s the thing I hate about category ratings systems–the need to incorporate the individual ratings into the whole. Should a game that’s essentially caca, as this one appears to be, get a higher rating because it’s caca with nice graphics and sound?

Peter

That’s what Tilt is for.

This is disappointing. Robert Mertes at Gamesdomain also gave it a mediocre score (3.5), but not nearly as harsh as Tom. He seemed to find more in the single player additions to enjoy than Tom did. For me, Mulitplayer and Civ were always an odd fit. Despite the range of MP options, I’m not shocked that none of them are done quite right.

I’ll still buy it, nonetheless. The more I play Civ3, the more I enjoy it so a little more of the same ain’t a bad thing. I’m not sure I’ll pay full price, though.

Troy

edit: typo

When I was playing Trespasser, I got to the end boss (a t-rex) and once I had killed it, it died by burrying its head in the ground and sticking straight up into the air like this:


   me              tail   
    o              | 
   -|-           =/ \
___/ \____________\ /________________ ground
                   |
                   V head


Gamespot gave this game a 3.9

I think a 5 is about right for SMCiv3:PTW.

You’re forgetting that Sid has a Magical Shield of +2 Against Reviewers.[/quote]

It’s full title is “Sid Meier’s Magical Shield of +2 Against Reviewers”.

Sigh. More stuff about numbers and ratings. Fuck that. What about the game?

Basically, the Civ III expansion is in bad shape. The single player stuff is minor, especially compared to what you can get from mods like Double Your Pleasure, Warp’s watercolor graphics, and Sn00py’s terrain mods. The multiplayer stuff has no business being released in the shape it’s in.

I love Civ III. I think it’s an excellent game and Play the World doesn’t really do anything to hurt that, as long as you’re playing solo. But as an expansion that enhances the single player game and adds multiplayer support, it’s a huge disappointment.

For me, Mulitplayer and Civ were always an odd fit. Despite the range of MP options, I’m not shocked that none of them are done quite right.

This isn’t something that’s never been done before. I’d wager that Age of Wonders 2 is much more graphically intensive, and yet it’s got solid turn-based multiplayer support. Firaxis showed with Alpha Centauri that they know how to do multiplayer support for their turn-based games. With Civ III, they seem to have forgotten what they learned.

 -Tom

If you guys think Gamespot’s rating system is bad, you should set the WABAC machine for a visit to the classic ZZAP! 64 magazine. Their review of Ballblazer states that “Hookability” is 98%, but “Lastability” is a mere 97%. I wonder how they calculated that?

I assume this will be patched up the wazoo and be a worthy game in a few months.

Definitely shouldn’t have been released in its current state though. I’ve had to re-load multiplayer simul because a modal dialog grabbed my focus and was stuck behind another modal dialog. Couldn’t figure out how to continue.

And I’d love the focus in multiplayer simul to wait for the results of a battle before it hustles me off to another unit.