CTP Review Gamesmania - 3/5 Stars - Go SMAC!!!

  Alpha Centauri Forums
  The Game
  CTP Review Gamesmania - 3/5 Stars - Go SMAC!!!

profile | register | prefs | faq | search

Author Topic:   CTP Review Gamesmania - 3/5 Stars - Go SMAC!!!

swampy posted 04-07-99 07:33 AM ET
This is the first official review of CTP I've come across, and the review was a fair assessment of the game.
I really want to love CTP, but it has been hard. There are definite improvements to the Civ genre, which have been noted in other sections of this forum. But overall, Activision once again released an unfinished product.
If Activision does some major fixes and improvements, and fans of Civ pitch in with their own modifications, then maybe CTP will give SMAC a run for its money.
Until then, long live SMAC! The amount of support and dedication Firaxis have put into SMAC speaks well for the company. SMAC may not be perfect, but at least the designers have made every effort to improve and further enhance the game.
I will always be hesitant of picking up any Activision title,but I will not hesitate to buy future Firaxis titles because I know that out-of-the-box quality will be there, as well as follow-up support.
And Yin, if you read this, your comments about Activision and CTP on the Apolyton website were spot on. The first time I saw my interceptors shot down by a troop of pikemen, well, I knew that CTP was just another unfinished product dumped upon us all-to-gullible gamers who really want to believe that eventually publishers will treat us like real consumers instead of fools. Doh!
swampy posted 04-07-99 07:39 AM ET
Oops. It's Gamecenter, not Gamesmania. Sorry!
yin26 posted 04-07-99 08:20 AM ET
Swampy,
Well, you know what they say: "Throw enough sh*t at the wall, and some of it will stick."
I read that article, of course, and it sounds like a level-headed review. Without the game on my computer, though, it's hard to say. I will say, however, that I'm just damn tired of the endless patch-a-thons.
Anyway, I hope this genre the best. I really do.
yin26 posted 04-07-99 08:21 AM ET
Swampy,
Well, you know what they say: "Throw enough sh*t at the wall, and some of it will stick."
I read that article, of course, and it sounds like a level-headed review. Without the game on my computer, though, it's hard to say. I will say, however, that I'm just damn tired of the endless patch-a-thons.
Anyway, I hope this genre the best. I really do.
umbra1 posted 04-07-99 11:03 AM ET
Swapmy, did you read the head to head review that PC gamer (UK) gave to SMAC and CTP ? Considering that review is nearly two months old now it makes me wonder just which versions they got hold of...
BTW PCG-UK gave CTP 93%, SMAC 92%
umbra1 posted 04-07-99 11:04 AM ET
Swampy, did you read the head to head review that PC gamer (UK) gave to SMAC and CTP ? Considering that review is nearly two months old now it makes me wonder just which versions they got hold of...
BTW PCG-UK gave CTP 93%, SMAC 92%
umbra1 posted 04-07-99 11:06 AM ET
Damn, to slow on the stop button. Sorry
swampy posted 04-07-99 12:23 PM ET
Umbra: Wow. That's a pretty high mark for CTP, and better than SMAC? Maybe if Activision really fixes it up, but as it stands now SMAC (even v1.0) is twice the game that CTP is.
To be fair, however, CTP has a great deal of potential and COULD be a classic one day. But I doubt if Activision is going to devote as much time to patches and fixes as Firaxis did with SMAC. I think it will take one, possibly two, major patches just to make CTP on par with SMAC 1.0, so they have a serious mountain to climb.
Bossman posted 04-07-99 12:34 PM ET
CTP is crap anyway so why bother talking about it. If they were not in such a rush to beet SMAC to the shelves it would be a good game. But after one glance it makes you wonder whether CTP was Beta tested at all!
TheClockKing posted 04-07-99 01:18 PM ET
The 3 stars for CTP is one or two stars too many.
Bossman posted 04-07-99 01:27 PM ET
CTP deserves a well rounded 0 stars/percentage whatever it woul still score badly in my eyes
HGB posted 04-07-99 02:37 PM ET
Three out of five stars is too high (I've read the review); CTP is a mess as it presently exists and even extensive patching from Activision (don't hold your breath) isn't going to fix inherent problems like a terrible UI and poorly designed Wonders. But to change topics slighly, I find it interesting how most people on this forum (and the CTP forums) view ratings. I would rate CTP at two stars because I consider three stars to be a solidly above average rating unmerited by CTP, but most posters seem to think that anything much less than a five is a pan of the game (I went to college a long time ago, I guess this is grade inflation). Similarly, many posts rate aspects of these games, for ecxample, 8 with the comment that the aspect rated was not that good. I think that a rating of 7 or 8 is pretty good, with less than good feature deserving under 5. 9's and 10's should be reserved for the truly great (of course, like Nigel Tufnel, we can always go to 11).
AUH20 posted 04-07-99 05:34 PM ET
Activision had the arrogance to assume they could do better than Sid and Brian, the greatest geniuses in the industry. They tweaked the aspects of Civ which worked and kept the parts which weren't so great. They presented the TBS genre almost apologeticaly by attempting to throw in RTS features. I think CTP was pretty good, but couldn't hold a candle to SMAC. Sorry, Mark, Dan, and Dracos.
P.S. I can't believe that the project desinger had the pompous foolishness to attack SMAC in a Gamespot preview.
PPS: CTP won't keep me from playing SMAC-I expect to play SMAC until SMAC 2 comes out.
rogera posted 04-07-99 07:17 PM ET
CTP is full of bad coding, ideas, and implementation. First some of the Wonders of the world are the most unbalanced gameplay options I have ever seen. Second I can have a year 3000 superfusion tank and get killed by a rifleman. The planes can get killed by a legion - mind you these are only a small sample of the unit problems. There is no warning when you attack a friend. The enemy seems to have unlimited units that appear out of nowhere. You can't attack someone who is fortified - for some reason you just walk over the fortification without attacking. The interface totally sucks and can get very frustrating. I sent it back and am getting SMAC instead.
TheHelperMonkey posted 04-07-99 08:39 PM ET
Kudos to you rogera! Thanks for the information.
Kedryn posted 04-07-99 11:05 PM ET
And there I stood in the store; CTP in one hand, ImperialismII in the other. I couldn't decide which one to get so I just stood there. My roommate walks up to me, grabs one out of my hand and puts it back on the shelf. I went home with Imperialism 2. A few days later, I read up on some CTP forums and see that it's almost unanimous in how awful it is. And I was going to get it this week too... I must thank my roommate. And you guys too, of course.
P.S. Is it really *that* bad?
Bossman posted 04-08-99 03:59 AM ET
Kedryn
I am afraid it is as bad as everyone makes out. For your money Imperialism was by far the best choice.
Happy gaming
Bossman
MarkG posted 04-08-99 05:42 PM ET
Some time ago people were saying that the idea of unconvetional units, like the lawyer, was terrible. They had doubts that they would fit in the game. Now nobody talks about them.
Now, people doubt that Activision will support the game with patches and editors. History will be repeated imho.
I haven't seen the Gamecenter review, but I think they gave 3/5 in graphics. How can this be right? For a TBS it is pretty obvious that CTP should get (at least) 4-4.5(not to say 5 )
Hold on until the demo(yes, there should will be one and yes there should be one already but that has nothing to do with the game) and then say that it sucks or that it doesn't deserve your money...
Markos, Apolyton CS
Darkstar posted 04-08-99 05:59 PM ET
MarkG,
I bought CtP (Crappy to Pissy). Obviously, I think it bites. One good thing came out of it though. Whenever I think SMAC is a horrible game and begin plotting the best way to express this, I remember that Activision piece of Doo, and suddenly, I feel much better about SMAC.
It will be a LONG time before I by another Activision product. (Activision and Sierra are about on the same level in my review book... to be avoided if at all possible).
If you like it, more power to you, but Crappy to Pissy should have stayed in the Developers box for another 6 months to a year to get the major uglys knocked out of it. (SMAC needed another 3 to 5 months, I think)
-Darkstar
Jojo posted 04-08-99 06:15 PM ET
I like CTP more than SMAC.
I wanted to like SMAC more than CTP, but I honestly couldn't, even with my prejudices in favor of Sid and Brian.
HGB posted 04-08-99 06:21 PM ET
MarkG--
I see your unwavering defense of CTP and Activision has invaded the SMAC forums. I have played and won the game and I say, despite a number of good things, because of many, many major flaws in game design it does "suck" (I'm using your terminology) as presently constituted. As Darkstar syas, nothing makes you appreciate SMAC and Firaxis as much as time spent in CTP. We'll see how well your faith in Activision is justified; I hope that you're right, but am doubtful. By the way, I don't see how the CTP graphics are so hot by present standards. They're OK with some individually cool effects (I like the paratrooper's attack). However, I admit that the varied look of CTP's units does beat out SMAC; one of SMAC's greatest weaknesses is the little graphical variation between a handful of basic units (this may have been a deliberate design decision to enhance the Planet athmospher, but I don't care for it). But the play balance of the available variations of SMAC units blows CTP away. I don't talk about the lawyer (although its description in the manual sounds like a parody) since I didn't find it very useful. Although in honesty, this may be because I was so far ahead of the other civs in my first game on chieftain level (which gave me a chance to see how all the units of the game played); perhaps whem I get into a Wonder race in a more evenly matched game, I'll change my mind. I did find the corporate branch entertaining and useful; after a while, I was siphoning off the production equivalent of a moderately sized city. By the time I got the subneural ad, the other civs were so reduced, there wasn't much need for it (but I liked the attack graphic).
MarkG posted 04-08-99 09:39 PM ET
I''ve been following the firaxis.com and alphacenaturi.com forums for more than a year now. I just dont post so much.
I'm glad to see that despite the fact you say that it "sucks" you also find good things in it.
When I talked about graphics I was talking about TBS games.
See http://civilization.gamestats.com/ctp/forums/Forum1/HTML/000856.html on some of the things that will be added in the first patch.
Also, Gamesmania gave CTP a 9/10
http://www.gamesmania.com/English/reviews/new/call/call.htm
Markos, Apolyton CS
To close this thread, click here (moderator or admin only).


Hop to:

Contact Us | Alpha Centauri Home

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.18
© Madrona Park, Inc., 1998.

Author	Topic: CTP Review Gamesmania - 3/5 Stars - Go SMAC!!!
swampy	posted 04-07-99 07:33 AM ET This is the first official review of CTP I've come across, and the review was a fair assessment of the game. I really want to love CTP, but it has been hard. There are definite improvements to the Civ genre, which have been noted in other sections of this forum. But overall, Activision once again released an unfinished product. If Activision does some major fixes and improvements, and fans of Civ pitch in with their own modifications, then maybe CTP will give SMAC a run for its money. Until then, long live SMAC! The amount of support and dedication Firaxis have put into SMAC speaks well for the company. SMAC may not be perfect, but at least the designers have made every effort to improve and further enhance the game. I will always be hesitant of picking up any Activision title,but I will not hesitate to buy future Firaxis titles because I know that out-of-the-box quality will be there, as well as follow-up support. And Yin, if you read this, your comments about Activision and CTP on the Apolyton website were spot on. The first time I saw my interceptors shot down by a troop of pikemen, well, I knew that CTP was just another unfinished product dumped upon us all-to-gullible gamers who really want to believe that eventually publishers will treat us like real consumers instead of fools. Doh!
swampy	posted 04-07-99 07:39 AM ET Oops. It's Gamecenter, not Gamesmania. Sorry!
yin26	posted 04-07-99 08:20 AM ET Swampy, Well, you know what they say: "Throw enough sh*t at the wall, and some of it will stick." I read that article, of course, and it sounds like a level-headed review. Without the game on my computer, though, it's hard to say. I will say, however, that I'm just damn tired of the endless patch-a-thons. Anyway, I hope this genre the best. I really do.
yin26	posted 04-07-99 08:21 AM ET Swampy, Well, you know what they say: "Throw enough sh*t at the wall, and some of it will stick." I read that article, of course, and it sounds like a level-headed review. Without the game on my computer, though, it's hard to say. I will say, however, that I'm just damn tired of the endless patch-a-thons. Anyway, I hope this genre the best. I really do.
umbra1	posted 04-07-99 11:03 AM ET Swapmy, did you read the head to head review that PC gamer (UK) gave to SMAC and CTP ? Considering that review is nearly two months old now it makes me wonder just which versions they got hold of... BTW PCG-UK gave CTP 93%, SMAC 92%
umbra1	posted 04-07-99 11:04 AM ET Swampy, did you read the head to head review that PC gamer (UK) gave to SMAC and CTP ? Considering that review is nearly two months old now it makes me wonder just which versions they got hold of... BTW PCG-UK gave CTP 93%, SMAC 92%
umbra1	posted 04-07-99 11:06 AM ET Damn, to slow on the stop button. Sorry
swampy	posted 04-07-99 12:23 PM ET Umbra: Wow. That's a pretty high mark for CTP, and better than SMAC? Maybe if Activision really fixes it up, but as it stands now SMAC (even v1.0) is twice the game that CTP is. To be fair, however, CTP has a great deal of potential and COULD be a classic one day. But I doubt if Activision is going to devote as much time to patches and fixes as Firaxis did with SMAC. I think it will take one, possibly two, major patches just to make CTP on par with SMAC 1.0, so they have a serious mountain to climb.
Bossman	posted 04-07-99 12:34 PM ET CTP is crap anyway so why bother talking about it. If they were not in such a rush to beet SMAC to the shelves it would be a good game. But after one glance it makes you wonder whether CTP was Beta tested at all!
TheClockKing	posted 04-07-99 01:18 PM ET The 3 stars for CTP is one or two stars too many.
Bossman	posted 04-07-99 01:27 PM ET CTP deserves a well rounded 0 stars/percentage whatever it woul still score badly in my eyes
HGB	posted 04-07-99 02:37 PM ET Three out of five stars is too high (I've read the review); CTP is a mess as it presently exists and even extensive patching from Activision (don't hold your breath) isn't going to fix inherent problems like a terrible UI and poorly designed Wonders. But to change topics slighly, I find it interesting how most people on this forum (and the CTP forums) view ratings. I would rate CTP at two stars because I consider three stars to be a solidly above average rating unmerited by CTP, but most posters seem to think that anything much less than a five is a pan of the game (I went to college a long time ago, I guess this is grade inflation). Similarly, many posts rate aspects of these games, for ecxample, 8 with the comment that the aspect rated was not that good. I think that a rating of 7 or 8 is pretty good, with less than good feature deserving under 5. 9's and 10's should be reserved for the truly great (of course, like Nigel Tufnel, we can always go to 11).
AUH20	posted 04-07-99 05:34 PM ET Activision had the arrogance to assume they could do better than Sid and Brian, the greatest geniuses in the industry. They tweaked the aspects of Civ which worked and kept the parts which weren't so great. They presented the TBS genre almost apologeticaly by attempting to throw in RTS features. I think CTP was pretty good, but couldn't hold a candle to SMAC. Sorry, Mark, Dan, and Dracos. P.S. I can't believe that the project desinger had the pompous foolishness to attack SMAC in a Gamespot preview. PPS: CTP won't keep me from playing SMAC-I expect to play SMAC until SMAC 2 comes out.
rogera	posted 04-07-99 07:17 PM ET CTP is full of bad coding, ideas, and implementation. First some of the Wonders of the world are the most unbalanced gameplay options I have ever seen. Second I can have a year 3000 superfusion tank and get killed by a rifleman. The planes can get killed by a legion - mind you these are only a small sample of the unit problems. There is no warning when you attack a friend. The enemy seems to have unlimited units that appear out of nowhere. You can't attack someone who is fortified - for some reason you just walk over the fortification without attacking. The interface totally sucks and can get very frustrating. I sent it back and am getting SMAC instead.
TheHelperMonkey	posted 04-07-99 08:39 PM ET Kudos to you rogera! Thanks for the information.
Kedryn	posted 04-07-99 11:05 PM ET And there I stood in the store; CTP in one hand, ImperialismII in the other. I couldn't decide which one to get so I just stood there. My roommate walks up to me, grabs one out of my hand and puts it back on the shelf. I went home with Imperialism 2. A few days later, I read up on some CTP forums and see that it's almost unanimous in how awful it is. And I was going to get it this week too... I must thank my roommate. And you guys too, of course. P.S. Is it really that bad?
Bossman	posted 04-08-99 03:59 AM ET Kedryn I am afraid it is as bad as everyone makes out. For your money Imperialism was by far the best choice. Happy gaming Bossman
MarkG	posted 04-08-99 05:42 PM ET Some time ago people were saying that the idea of unconvetional units, like the lawyer, was terrible. They had doubts that they would fit in the game. Now nobody talks about them. Now, people doubt that Activision will support the game with patches and editors. History will be repeated imho. I haven't seen the Gamecenter review, but I think they gave 3/5 in graphics. How can this be right? For a TBS it is pretty obvious that CTP should get (at least) 4-4.5(not to say 5 ) Hold on until the demo(yes, there should will be one and yes there should be one already but that has nothing to do with the game) and then say that it sucks or that it doesn't deserve your money... Markos, Apolyton CS
Darkstar	posted 04-08-99 05:59 PM ET MarkG, I bought CtP (Crappy to Pissy). Obviously, I think it bites. One good thing came out of it though. Whenever I think SMAC is a horrible game and begin plotting the best way to express this, I remember that Activision piece of Doo, and suddenly, I feel much better about SMAC. It will be a LONG time before I by another Activision product. (Activision and Sierra are about on the same level in my review book... to be avoided if at all possible). If you like it, more power to you, but Crappy to Pissy should have stayed in the Developers box for another 6 months to a year to get the major uglys knocked out of it. (SMAC needed another 3 to 5 months, I think) -Darkstar
Jojo	posted 04-08-99 06:15 PM ET I like CTP more than SMAC. I wanted to like SMAC more than CTP, but I honestly couldn't, even with my prejudices in favor of Sid and Brian.
HGB	posted 04-08-99 06:21 PM ET MarkG-- I see your unwavering defense of CTP and Activision has invaded the SMAC forums. I have played and won the game and I say, despite a number of good things, because of many, many major flaws in game design it does "suck" (I'm using your terminology) as presently constituted. As Darkstar syas, nothing makes you appreciate SMAC and Firaxis as much as time spent in CTP. We'll see how well your faith in Activision is justified; I hope that you're right, but am doubtful. By the way, I don't see how the CTP graphics are so hot by present standards. They're OK with some individually cool effects (I like the paratrooper's attack). However, I admit that the varied look of CTP's units does beat out SMAC; one of SMAC's greatest weaknesses is the little graphical variation between a handful of basic units (this may have been a deliberate design decision to enhance the Planet athmospher, but I don't care for it). But the play balance of the available variations of SMAC units blows CTP away. I don't talk about the lawyer (although its description in the manual sounds like a parody) since I didn't find it very useful. Although in honesty, this may be because I was so far ahead of the other civs in my first game on chieftain level (which gave me a chance to see how all the units of the game played); perhaps whem I get into a Wonder race in a more evenly matched game, I'll change my mind. I did find the corporate branch entertaining and useful; after a while, I was siphoning off the production equivalent of a moderately sized city. By the time I got the subneural ad, the other civs were so reduced, there wasn't much need for it (but I liked the attack graphic).
MarkG	posted 04-08-99 09:39 PM ET I''ve been following the firaxis.com and alphacenaturi.com forums for more than a year now. I just dont post so much. I'm glad to see that despite the fact you say that it "sucks" you also find good things in it. When I talked about graphics I was talking about TBS games. See http://civilization.gamestats.com/ctp/forums/Forum1/HTML/000856.html on some of the things that will be added in the first patch. Also, Gamesmania gave CTP a 9/10 http://www.gamesmania.com/English/reviews/new/call/call.htm Markos, Apolyton CS