View Full Version : 1up.com review posted


Auncien
Sep 23, 2010, 02:01 AM
Enjoy. :)

http://www.1up.com/do/reviewPage?cId=3181540

ZimbuTheMonkey
Sep 23, 2010, 02:05 AM
Good find.

Can't wait for the head explosions and "told-ya-so's" soon because of the score.

Auncien
Sep 23, 2010, 02:07 AM
I agree with a lot of what he's saying but I think C is a tad harsh. That AI business really can be fixed it's just going to take some work from Firaxis and a patch or three.

ZimbuTheMonkey
Sep 23, 2010, 02:09 AM
I agree with a lot of what he's saying but I think C is a tad harsh. That AI business really can be fixed it's just going to take some work from Firaxis and a patch or three.

I just finished reading it and I'm with you. I agree with basically everything he has said, but for me the game feels more like a B in terms of fun and the experience I am getting out of it.

But I don't think a C is unreasonable because the changes in V are pretty drastic, there are bound to be people that just plain don't like them.

And yeah, mods and patches/updates can fix or change some of the stuff, but a good reviewer should not let that change his opinion of the product currently available to play.

EDIT: The reason it's a B for me is because I really, really like where the series is going with hexes and 1UPT. I'm not taking off points for bad AI because:

A) I'm not good enough at the game so I figure it balances stuff out
B) It will be fixed (I hope)

My major concern is the social policies and no religion, mostly because they ruin the immersion. Having real names for government types and religion in there REALLY made me feel like the game took place in the real world.

anandus
Sep 23, 2010, 02:11 AM
Very interesting review. Some good criticism there.

Although the rating is a bit odd. Did they run out of stars and numbers?
Is a 'C' a 3 out of 26 with Z being the highest? Or is it a 24 out of 26 with A being the highest?

exorbit
Sep 23, 2010, 02:11 AM
stupid review is stupid
@-anandus- no , it is a 5/10 !

Andoo
Sep 23, 2010, 02:13 AM
and 1up gave gta4 10/10..

Auncien
Sep 23, 2010, 02:14 AM
And yeah, mods and patches/updates can fix or change some of the stuff, but a good review should not let that change his opinion of the product currently available to play.

Good point. The bit he says about "what is going on over at 2k's flagship studio" rings true. A bit more polish and maybe just talking more to players and a lot of these complaints wouldn't even be happening.

ZimbuTheMonkey
Sep 23, 2010, 02:14 AM
stupid review is stupid
@-anandus- no , it is a 5/10 !

Wanna tell us what you disagree with and why?


and 1up gave gta4 10/10..

A different reviewer gave another completely different game in a different genre a score you don't agree with so that automatically discredits this reviewer. Well, that makes sense.

Tom Chick gave Deus Ex a really low score back in the day. Deus Ex is one of my all-time favorite games. I still think he is one of the best reviewers out there.

V. Soma
Sep 23, 2010, 02:21 AM
I respect the staright sound of the review.
I read it that there is great potential in cvi5,
I do hope Shafer an Co. will listen to these observations
and patch the game to near perfection by the end of the year...

exorbit
Sep 23, 2010, 02:26 AM
First of all the AI is not as bad as he says .Second of all he bashes social policies , which i think they work very well and are a nice replacement for religion and governments.Then , he says''The other civilizations were basically war-mongering brain-dead speed bumps between you and whatever victory condition you were pursuing. But, you know, console games.'' No , it depends sometimes the Ai goes to war sometimes is very peacefully , and he mentions consoles ! WTF this has nothing to do with rev , i have it on my xbox , and i think civ 5 is more closer to 3 than it is to 4 or rev+ he bashes diplomacy .... i think that diplo works great !
Last - this is a fu...ing review ! are you trying to point out all the things that you don't like and not show the ones that work great ? and even those he pointed , civ 5 is NOT 4 it is better and especially DIFFRENT ! how can you give this game a 5/10 ? stupid reviewer !

squadbroken
Sep 23, 2010, 02:27 AM
Isn't this the same guy who said Deus Ex was "90% bad"?

edit: Why yes, it is.

Drake L. Dragon
Sep 23, 2010, 02:29 AM
Well, to quote one of the things said:

"The first is that the game already has a tech tree. Now it has two, each with its own resource. If you want to streamline out Civics and Religion, duplicating a concept that's already in the game is a strange choice."

And the civics system in Civilization IV was, by that logic, duplicating the units, buildings, and wonders system. Units, buildings, and wonders became available as new technology was founded, just like the civics were, but nobody criticized that the civics system was too dependent on the tech tree then. A separate tree of progression for intellectual and societal life versus technological life would seem to be the logical step, because, historically, there was a difference, and, gameplay-wise, it allows the player to focus on different ways of gameplay in order to win.

Another thing is that the grading scale for 1up uses basically the histogram system. It puts the conclusions into bins of A, B, C, D, etc., but, versus, per say, IGN's system of numerical scoring from 1 to 10 of different, pertinent aspects of the game and then averaging all the numbers together for a total score, I frankly find that to be not only a more elaborate but a more accurate, per say, method of grading to get the reviewer's entire perspective and viewpoint out. The 1up review was limited in the way that it was much more arbitrary.

sohvan
Sep 23, 2010, 02:36 AM
I agree with him on everything except the complaints about the social policy tree. The thing about techs is that you know you will always get nearly all techs. You are never truly choosing between getting the wheel instead of bronze working, but rather choosing when you get each. Even if you ignore some techs to rush for a more advanced one, the increasing tech costs will let you pick up the useful earlier techs in very little time.

On the other hand with policies you will never get all of them in one game, so deciding between two policies is a bigger decision. If I focus on tradition, it might mean I never get most of the policies in liberty for the entire game. If I get Iron Working early, I'll still end up getting all of the alternative early techs sooner or later. You have to think about both your current situation, and future developments when picking policy paths.

Tortellini
Sep 23, 2010, 02:38 AM
You can't change combat animations in game? What the hell???

I was only playing the demo for now, so I did not notice it yet. But seriously - they are already getting on my nerves sometimes. Until this point I thought C was a bit harsh, but for this alone he's right. That is so easy to fix and so annoying when it can't be done...

Ayt
Sep 23, 2010, 02:41 AM
Isn't this the same guy who said Deus Ex was "90% bad"?

edit: Why yes, it is.

Thus all his opinions aren't valid?

Anyway, I agree with him about the AI being very poor in terms of military strategy and the ridiculously opaque diplomacy.

The diplomacy needs to be worked out in the next patch, IMO. There needs to be more feedback and a way to actually know what is going on the in the world diplomatically. I don't want completely transparent diplomacy, but there needs to be at least some information to make it somewhat fun.

I'm sure the AI will be worked on heavily, but right now the military AI isn't good at all.

dannythefool
Sep 23, 2010, 02:48 AM
Thus all his opinions aren't valid?

No, it just means he's been publishing one-sided reviews for quite some time. In fact he's known for his Deus Ex review, people still write features about it ten years later. So it seems like it's just his business strategy.

He does have some valid points, but there also are glaring omissions in his review. For example, he doesn't mention multiplayer at all (which is a key aspect of the game), and he's focusing on technical difficulties more than on design issues.

In short, it's more like the type of review I'd expect to see on the forums, maybe posted by some raging nerd who liked Civ IV a lot more. That doesn't mean it's all wrong, it's just not a very good review.

Azazell
Sep 23, 2010, 02:51 AM
This same reviewer give a R.U.S.E. Vote: B. buahahahhahah

and Civ 5 - vote: C? This is amator :D

AveiMil
Sep 23, 2010, 02:52 AM
Thanks for the review link. The reviewer notices important details about the game that I can imagine would piss me off.

I'm definitely not buying this game. I was at an impasse trying to decide whether or not to devote my time for StarCraft 2 or Civilization 5. But now Iíve decided that Iíd rather spend my time trying to get into the top 200 in Europe in SC2 than play an unfinished game.

I guess the true release date of Civilization 5 wonít be till 1-2 years after the initial release. I even loaded up the Demo and quit after 5 minutes because it looked like an alpha build where rivers were just blue lines pasted onto the landscape. The terrain looked really freaking bland and ugly as well.

Sounds like Iíll go back to Civilization 4 if I plan to play any Civ again.

Kashim
Sep 23, 2010, 03:00 AM
No, it just means he's been publishing one-sided reviews for quite some time. In fact he's known for his Deus Ex review, people still write features about it ten years later. So it seems like it's just his business strategy.


I think the same. Basically he bash a popular game when he have the chance to increase his recognition. In doing so he is clever enough to appeal those who have some reason to be disappointed with the game, so in many discussions about it there will be someone who posts the link to his articles.

ZimbuTheMonkey
Sep 23, 2010, 03:00 AM
I even loaded up the Demo and quit after 5 minutes because it looked like an alpha build where rivers were just blue lines pasted onto the landscape. The terrain looked really freaking bland and ugly as well.

So, in short, you would rather trust the word of a stranger than try something yourself.

You played for 5 minutes and quit because you didn't think the rivers were pretty enough?

Gimme a break. The game has problems, but not any that would reveal themselves in the first 5 MINUTES (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias).

AveiMil
Sep 23, 2010, 03:17 AM
So, in short, you would rather trust the word of a stranger than try something yourself.

You played for 5 minutes and quit because you didn't think the rivers were pretty enough?

Gimme a break. The game has problems, but not any that would reveal themselves in the first 5 MINUTES (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias).

I don't trust reviews to tell me much about a game in depth at all. At least not since the entire review scene gave Empire Total War close to a perfect score when it's (or was) clearly the most broken and useless game of all time if you look beyond your nose.

I don't blindly trust the word of this stranger, as you put it, but I don't think he's lying about the observations he's made about the game either. Do you? Is he just blatantly lying about all the problem he has mentioned and in truth everything's fine?

Secondly, that review is not the only source of information available, I've read other people's complaints and reviews and heard concerns from friends.

Thirdly, it's just a matter of looking at the history of Civilization IV and you soon realise that "OOPS! They did it again!". The game probably won't be very interresting until after the first expansion pack and after many patches.

Civilization 4 BTS with patches and PIG Mod is such an amazing game, definetly one of my all time favourites. I have to judge Civilization 5 on those merits and as far as I can tell it fails to deliver.

Mivo
Sep 23, 2010, 03:32 AM
I agree with a lot of what he's saying but I think C is a tad harsh. That AI business really can be fixed it's just going to take some work from Firaxis and a patch or three.

It is important to score games the way they come out of the box. The product that customers pay for, not the game it "may" turn into. The "C" is appropriate and I wish more commercial reviewers had the courage and credibility to give "what is" scores rather than misleading the readers by focusing on the fluff and the potential.

Mentioning the potential is of course important as well. Giving it so much importance that a game with a sub-standard AI, in a genre where the AI is crucial (Civ is not a typical MP title, nor does it have a strong MP audience - and even MP is lacking, i.e. no save feature), is rated highly, however, leads to a score that doesn't really describe the game that the customer actually buys and plays "right now".

Until the day I can buy a game with the "potential to pay for it in the future" (i.e. by having a job), I'm mostly concerned with what a game delivers right now. (This is different for independent developers, but Firaxis/2k do not have a good record of delivering patches quickly. Their level of communication post-release isn't stellar. Companies like Stardock do.)

Kashim
Sep 23, 2010, 03:50 AM
Mentioning the potential is of course important as well. Giving it so much importance that a game with a sub-standard AI, in a genre where the AI is crucial (Civ is not a typical MP title, nor does it have a strong MP audience - and even MP is lacking, i.e. no save feature), is rated highly, however, leads to a score that doesn't really describe the game that the customer actually buys and plays "right now".


Actually the AI is the least important consideration regarding CIV V because it's fully in line with the genre standard which is obviously quite bad.
The Galactic Civilizations series is the one of the few with a barely competent AI while the rest is generally in the braindead territory. Don't expect miracles from the patch regarding this matter because, aside from some corrections in the calculations, it can't be fixed, not in a computer game and not without a supercomputer.
Honestly all boils down to the CIV IV vs CIV V argument and for that matter i have seen more interesting opinions on this forums than in the quoted review.

abso
Sep 23, 2010, 04:01 AM
there are no governments in civ5?

and really, you can't see other civs diplomatic ties & political or tech decisions?

is that true what the reviewer says?

Takeda
Sep 23, 2010, 04:13 AM
there are no governments in civ5?

and really, you can't see other civs diplomatic ties & political or tech decisions?

is that true what the reviewer says?

sadly yes

Overall, I'm in enthusiastic support of most of the changes made since Civ IV, but diplomacy just has me scratching my head. Why can't I see: who's allied with who, who likes/hates who, who's at war with who, TRADE MAPS, or see the social policies employed by other Civs? :dubious: As is, diplomacy is just one big black hole.

I seriously hope some of this stuff changes as patches start to come our way :undecide:

Mivo
Sep 23, 2010, 04:18 AM
Why can't I see: who's allied with who, who likes/hates who, who's at war with who, TRADE MAPS, or see the social policies employed by other Civs? :dubious:

Lack of espionage? :joke:

bernlin2000
Sep 23, 2010, 05:12 AM
I'm lost all respect for 1up.com for letting this review get posted: he bases his score off of CivIV, not gaming in general, and even then a C is just pure BS. He goes off on social policies not properly reflecting the concept of tough decisions, but having already played the game I know that they're a fun aspect, and do involve making choices, including deciding whether to expand your empire (and thereby make it increasingly harder to acquire new policies). A critical review with really bad critical analysis, and some hubris thrown in (the "Chick Parabola"?, what a joke).

Isn't this the same guy who said Deus Ex was "90% bad"?

edit: Why yes, it is.
Even if he had given the game A+, I would have still said his review was crap, can't forget the worst review ever made for one of the greatest rpg-style FPS.

You can't change combat animations in game? What the hell???

I was only playing the demo for now, so I did not notice it yet. But seriously - they are already getting on my nerves sometimes. Until this point I thought C was a bit harsh, but for this alone he's right. That is so easy to fix and so annoying when it can't be done...
He mentioned in his review (and I believe he's right) that you can only disable the animations when you're setting up the game, in the advanced settings. The options menu, in general, leaves a lot to be desired: you can't change any video settings and there's no options for worker automation (I assume they can chop down trees and destroy whatever improvements they like, no documentation on it). The game right now feels like a really pretty wall: it's nice to look at and sorta play with (draw pictures on it?), but you have no idea what the inner workings are for so many systems, as you did in CivIV.

Thirdly, it's just a matter of looking at the history of Civilization IV and you soon realise that "OOPS! They did it again!". The game probably won't be very interresting until after the first expansion pack and after many patches.

Civilization 4 BTS with patches and PIG Mod is such an amazing game, definitely one of my all time favorites. I have to judge Civilization 5 on those merits and as far as I can tell it fails to deliver.
That's not fair to CivIV, though: vanilla CivIV was excellent, even with its problems (I have more gameplay problems with CiV, had more bug problems with CivIV). I love BTS + PIG mod as well, but if for whatever reason those two weren't available, I could still open up vanilla CivIV and still have a blast: BTS didn't mess with the core gameplay, it just improved on the edges. PIG just has a lot of wonderful extra information that I really want to see in CiV :-D. It would be awfully hard to buy new games if you only ever judged them on their previous iteration, with all of its expansion packs and patches installed.

Lanstro
Sep 23, 2010, 05:28 AM
He does make some valid points. I agree with his points on the social policies, and more importantly am concerned about the AI's stupidity in combat. I hope that the AI weaknesses can and will be ironed out, but I've seen other potentially good games destroyed by stupid AI which are never fixed despite several patches and the best efforts of modders (hello Empire total war).

That said, C seems pretty harsh. That's the kind of score you reserve for games like... um... Empire Total War.

Mivo
Sep 23, 2010, 05:54 AM
I'm lost all respect for 1up.com for letting this review get posted: he bases his score off of CivIV, not gaming in general, and even then a C is just pure BS.

No, he gave it a C because of the miserable AI, and the AI is the most important aspect in a strategy game with a heavy single-player focus -- at least to me (and obviously to him). I don't mind the eye candy, and I even welcome it, but that is not what makes a strategy game appealing to me. It's the AI, and I have little respect for reviewers who comment on the poor AI but still give a 90+ score. That's misleading. Tom Chick at least has the courage to let this affect the score.

Firaxis and 2k apparently chose to put more resources into the visuals and the Steam support than into the actual AI. GalCiv2 and (especially) AI War have had much lower budgets, are complex strategy games and yet still have superb AI. It's not "impossible". It just takes effort and competence.

I don't care for any particular review site, but I find that my taste in games, and my expectations of them, has pretty much always agreed with Tom Chick and Eurogamer.

Hopefully, the AI can be improved by modders or through patches. The game certainly has potential and it's exciting to get a new installment. I'd have bought it even if it had been much worse, just to support the franchise, but that doesn't change my priorities: the AI.

Infiltrator
Sep 23, 2010, 05:59 AM
Tom Chick gave Deus Ex a really low score back in the day.


Deus Ex?? One of the best games ever conceived?! He can take his reviews and shove them up his *@#$@$ #@$.

Mivo
Sep 23, 2010, 06:08 AM
Deus Ex?? One of the best games ever conceived?! He can take his reviews and shove them up his *@#$@$ #@$.

Mature response.

I thought Deus Ex was widely overrated and hyped. I didn't enjoy it and Chick's review expressed my view on the game accurately. Plenty of people liked it, and that's fine. Reviewing games isn't a popularity contest.

Azazell
Sep 23, 2010, 06:19 AM
Tom Chick is very average reviewers ;/

hadberz
Sep 23, 2010, 06:21 AM
His review is spot on IMO. I give Civ 5, C for the AI (AI is weak in all strategy games for the most part), A for graphics, sounds/music, and combat system. The game gets a F for the policy system. Why did they turn the whole civic/gov system into just another tech tree system. Maybe it can be modded down the road. I hope anyways.

Lanstro
Sep 23, 2010, 06:48 AM
I find it interesting you cite AI war as a game with a 'good' AI Mivo. That game's AI is designed to not 'fight back and win' as such but to be more of a 'director', left4dead style. All it does is send random waves at you, depending on the AI progress. It's competent at micromanging its units but it has no wider grand plan to actually beat the humans. That is, it is a solid tactical AI but has a nonexistent strategic plan. Any AI that is designed to actually win the game on a strategic level beats the AI war AI by default.

That said, Civ V's AI looks rather lacking even in its ability to micromanage its units. An AI with grand strategic plans to take over the world but is completely ineffectual at doing it due to its inability to use its units properly is still a shockingly bad AI (see, once again, Empire Total War).

digitCruncher
Sep 23, 2010, 06:54 AM
Interesting...

I sort of agree with Social Policies a little bit. It isn't a second tech tree by any stretch of the imagination, but removing the ability to SWITCH between social policies *is* a staple of Civ. I would think the game would be marginally improved if you could only adopt one social policy at a time (Tradition / Pious etc. etc.) and switched between them when you want to work on your capital / happiness / military. The only problem that would cause would mean that the culture victory condition would need to be changed.

AI is a serious problem, and Civ IV had to wait for the Better AI mod before it really started being competitive. Like Civ IV, however, you *can* brute force to victory with more units, and at higher difficulties the AI will (or should. I only have the demo ATM :( )

It seems biased towards the negative aspects of Civ V, but at least he backs up his claims with evidence that is remotely objective and verified.

Kharum
Sep 23, 2010, 07:03 AM
Ugh, why is it always, ALWAYS, when someone puts facts and objective observation in the table, so many people have hard time accepting it and are all butthurt. Perhaps this forum isn't the best example of that, there are -a lot- worse ones. Not to mention that thing called real life.

He uses rational, objective thinking, you who criticizes him as a reviewer act by feelings and denial. I know who I find more believable. I won't deny though, that he might, just might be bit over critical and demanding, but I don't think that's never a bad quality in a reviewer, but I don't find him to be.

/end of rant

snoochems
Sep 23, 2010, 07:10 AM
I'm not sure why so many here are defending Civ 5 like it was there own reputation depended on it.

It has some flaws. I'm not sure how you can't see that.

Usually with Civ, you can't drag me away from it. But I am actually bored with it enough that I'm going to bed at reasonable hours since unlocking it. And the fact that i'm not "just-one-more-turn'ing" till 3am, I can't really say that this is a proper Civ game. Something is wrong.

ohioastronomy
Sep 23, 2010, 07:20 AM
Actually the AI is the least important consideration regarding CIV V because it's fully in line with the genre standard which is obviously quite bad.
The Galactic Civilizations series is the one of the few with a barely competent AI while the rest is generally in the braindead territory. Don't expect miracles from the patch regarding this matter because, aside from some corrections in the calculations, it can't be fixed, not in a computer game and not without a supercomputer.
Honestly all boils down to the CIV IV vs CIV V argument and for that matter i have seen more interesting opinions on this forums than in the quoted review.

I'm afraid I have to disagree, in fact quite strongly. They changed the game in a way which makes it much, much harder to have a good AI. Galactic Civilizations is actually a good example; the AI is good because they designed a simple set of mechanics that a competent AI could handle. Their recent followup (Elemental) is a disaster because the game is complex and the AI can't do a decent job.

Unlike many of the other reviews, which read like press releases, the 1Up reviewer clearly took the time to play the game enough to become aware of its drawbacks. His complaints aren't first impressions complaints; they are observations that, basically, once you spend a bit of time playing you'll find that the computer is really bad at waging war. I've never seen a game developer able to fix that class of problem within a given design; it requires rethinking the game structure.

apotheoser
Sep 23, 2010, 08:07 AM
Elemental is a disaster for many reasons; the AI is the least of them. But that's a discussion for elsewhere. Suffice it to say I was happy to get even 75% of my money back and I'll never pre-order another Wardell game again.

As for for Chick's review, I think a C is defensible though I might have gone with a B-.

The entire Social Policy mechanism feels like a first-run design - it needs a few more rounds through the grinder. It NEEDS to link up to Diplomacy in some way. Civics and government have always been one of the most important ways to define your playstyle. Currently, the choices come too infrequently and too incrementally. Remember how governments and civics would be replaced during a "revolution" or "anarchy"? That's how social change works. There's gradual progress too, of course, but there are also sudden moments where things shift drastically. Playing through the history of an entire civilization without a single revolution feels BORING. Give me my revolutions back!

Finally, I should say I agree with the guy who mentioned the rivers. I looked at the rivers and I thought, "Wow, really? That looks worse than Civ 4". (My graphics are all set to medium or high, so it's not that.)

Infiltrator
Sep 23, 2010, 08:07 AM
Mature response.

I thought Deus Ex was widely overrated and hyped. I didn't enjoy it and Chick's review expressed my view on the game accurately. Plenty of people liked it, and that's fine. Reviewing games isn't a popularity contest.

As mature as his review. It's probably got more to do with him trying to be different than others than anything else.

Deus Ex was never really overrated nor hyped. At the time marketing hype machines practically did not exist so I can't see how you've reached that conclusion.

Anyway it appears he's trying to be the black sheep once again to me, except he's doing a poor job at it. If he wants to bash on everything he should at least take some lessons from zero punctuation.

Me,myself,and,I
Sep 23, 2010, 08:12 AM
And there is another reviewer, and former game dev, I'll post a link when I find him again, that said ciV is probably the best strategy game to come out in twenty years. It's all a matter of opinion.

wilebill
Sep 23, 2010, 08:24 AM
At Metacritic, the current score is 9.1 based on 29 pro reviews, including Tom Chick's C. Gamespot gave it a 9.0. The User Score at Gamespot is 9.1 based on 347 player scores.

Perhaps Tom was sending a message to Firaxis? If so, what will be its long term effect on the future development of this game? If any.

As for the review itself, most of the criticisms seem based on solid game play experience and sound reasoning. I liked the review. Looking at things from my own point of view I think a 9.4 or 9.5 is what the game will deserve two or three years from now.

dannythefool
Sep 23, 2010, 08:38 AM
As for for Chick's review, I think a C is defensible though I might have gone with a B-.


When I read reviews, I don't really care about the score. I gather as much information about a game as possible and then try to match it to my expectations. And for this purpose, this review just fails. It leaves out important parts of the game, and it bases a lot of what it doesn't omit on what things were like in Civ IV. I know what Civ IV is like, I played it for five years now, I don't need a review for a different game to tell me that the author likes it as well.

I don't mind if he gives the game a C, it's obvious it's not an A+ at this time, but the review itself is just not very useful for me.

Gre_Magus
Sep 23, 2010, 08:43 AM
Jon Schafer made a bold move departing from the transparent, "others civs are part of the world", "gamey" diplomatic system of Civ 4 and going with the "your playing against another player who's out to win" system of Civ 5. In the end, "gamey" is not bad, because games are fun; it's fun to do things like spread your religion to make friends, just like it's fun to beeline to alphabet and then trade it for 3 or 4 other techs plus gold. But it was also fun to make a spread sheet, calculate worker moves, tile yields, and figure out how to pump out a settler every 4 turns in Civ 3, never worrying about how mysterious maintenance was going to punish you for expanding as fast as possible. Heck, it was also fun to build 6 workers and take your capital city to twelve the turn after you finished your aqueduct.

Don't hate on a man because he gave the game you like a "C"! I loved Halo PC - an "A" in my book - but I would give Call of Duty 4 a "C". I love the real time battles in the Total War series, but the strategy portion is unnecessarily plodding and repetitive. Hearts of Iron III is fun, and that's as buggy as all heck!

Second, it is totally legitimate to score a game based on how it plays when it's released. Things like AI and bugs ought to be polished on release, not after a few months.

Markstar
Sep 23, 2010, 08:44 AM
How about you look at the review itself instead of just dismissing it because he wrote something in the past that you don't agree with. Geez. Like little children here.

Personally, I agree with lots of stuff he wrote and disagreed with some as well. But overall I think he got it right.

I played the second game as king and had no trouble exploiting the AIs horribly weak strategy dominate my continent. I love the social policies, but do think there should be some way to change you government, probably with a 100-turn delay or something. I also like the city states, but imo they are not that big of a deal. UI is horrible, though, and sorry, after such arrogant claims from the developers I really expected more, but instead got a bit mess. Also, MP is a joke - Civ is a turn-based strategy game and you can't play in turns (which is actually easier to program than real-time networking)? :confused:

I'm not disappointed though. I wasn't that happy with Civ3 vanilla, regretted my Civ4 purchase (even though I really liked the idea of religions and GPs) and will no be playing this one anytime soon, either.

But I guess it's a decent game for most of the potential customers, but as a hard-core Civ player, this is, in the current state, not a game for me.

Kashim
Sep 23, 2010, 09:32 AM
His complaints aren't first impressions complaints; they are observations that, basically, once you spend a bit of time playing you'll find that the computer is really bad at waging war. I've never seen a game developer able to fix that class of problem within a given design; it requires rethinking the game structure.

Honestly i found the 1up review uninformative and more focused on showcasing the reviewer than the game. At it's heart is a confrontation with CIV IV that leads to a score put there merely for shock value and more appropriate for an Harry Potter licensed game. Other reviews exposed similar concerns in a non destructive way. Of course the reviewer will come up later with arguments like "the game is good, it's only that i use a different scale..." etc. Meanwhile the review got a million of hits. A clever marketing strategy ;)

Regarding the rest of the argument, I play a lot of strategy games and wargames and the AI is poor even there, but i wouldn't trade a great combat system for one that an AI programmed for a computer game can manage better. Specifically i wouldn't trade the combat system of CIV V for stacks of doom and horrible artillery mechanics.
Elemental is a poor example because everything in that game literally falls apart.

Like other people in the forum i am more concerned about other elements, like the diplomacy that seems to be designed to be integrated with an espionage system (it would explain the lack of info) that wasn't ready for the release.

Starfury
Sep 23, 2010, 09:51 AM
So what?
At least we now know that, according to 1up, the game is just a little worse than Elemental was.

abso
Sep 23, 2010, 09:55 AM
like the diplomacy that seems to be designed to be integrated with an espionage system (it would explain the lack of info) that wasn't ready for the release.

if the AI builds diplomatic ties like pacts and alliances, this would be some info i would like to have before I go to war with some AI player. it might be I cannot access that info until I develop some ability at some point in time. But letting the AI build alliances and never showing to to the human player, even in, say, year 2020 - that's really releasing a non-finished game, or a game lacking of features we should pay for later.

was there diplomacy in Civ Revolution?

dannythefool
Sep 23, 2010, 10:04 AM
was there diplomacy in Civ Revolution?

Yes there is diplomacy, it's not as powerful as in Civ IV or Civ V though. It's little more than tech trading and declaring/ending wars. Not even open borders.

Pangaea
Sep 23, 2010, 10:31 AM
Enjoy. :)

http://www.1up.com/do/reviewPage?cId=3181540

Thanks. That's the best and most honest review I've read so far:thumbsup:

mrt144
Sep 23, 2010, 11:28 AM
I like how the posts decrying the review focus on:

1. His past reviews
2. An esoteric belief that it's just to get attention
3. He's evaluating the game as a comparison to other Civ games

None of these are a good defense for some pretty poignant and obvious statements he made in his review.

LoneWolf5050
Sep 23, 2010, 11:37 AM
So far, my first game on Prince (or whatever the middle level is called), feels more like a Settler game in previous versions of Civ. I'm looking forward to trying Deity for the first time ever in my Civ playing history, and seeing if I can beat it, because the way this AI is looking so far, I don't think it could fight its way out of a paper bag. I'm a little shocked frankly. The AI is the most important aspect of the single player experience. What is the point of a game of Civ if you don't have a challenge...might as well play simcity.

I hope Firaxis takes Tom's review to heart and improves on all the things he mentioned, especially the AI.

For the Social Policies, I think it would be cool if you still bought them like you do now, but you had a limit on how many policies you could have active at once, say only three or something like that. So you still have all the decisions about what you want to buy, but you have that either/or choice still about what you want to focus on at the moment.

--Julian

the_lor
Sep 23, 2010, 11:47 AM
C feels a bit harsh to me. Honestly Iím only 3 hours into my first game so I havenít experienced everything yet. I feel like itís a solid game with a great base to patch/expand on. Iíd give it a B with a potential to be a solid A in the future.

Even cleaning up a couple minor things like fixing path issues and things like that would make the game a lot better.