Rate Civ V

[Toulouse]

The game's current state is a little screwed up but with a few mods it is great.

Which mods? I'm asking because I honestly was shocked at how boring and hollow I found the game. I've voted 3 because the music is good.

 

[Bad Brett]

Currently the average score is about 5.4.

 

[AfterShafter]

Does anyone else find it hard to take the people who gave it either a 1 or a 10 seriously?

 

[Solo4114]

Not really, no. I believe that's what they personally think of the game. It may not have anything to do with my sense of the game, and their bases for rating it that way may be totally alien as compared to mine, but I do believe that there are people who feel that strongly about the game, and for whom such a vote reflects their strong feelings.

 

[cman2010]

Does anyone else find it hard to take the people who gave it either a 1 or a 10 seriously?

not really I gave it a 5 but I know some people said they only played 5 hrs of it and could not stand to play it anymore so I could see giving it a 1 if that was the case, on the other side some people are in love with this game for whatever reason so I can see giving it a 10 if you like really simple games, with little to no depth.

 

[AfterShafter]

not really I gave it a 5 but I know some people said they only played 5 hrs of it and could not stand to play it anymore so I could see giving it a 1 if that was the case, on the other side some people are in love with this game for whatever reason so I can see giving it a 10 if you like really simple games, with little to no depth.

Got to ask, if this is a "really simple game" "with little to no depth," then what's a game like, say, Plants VS Zombies or heaven forbid, Civ Revolutions?

Anyways 1 being on part with the worst game someone has ever played, if someone got through even five hours, then I'd wonder if there has never been a game they only gave five minutes to. As for the 10, that implies a near perfect game - really? I think even objectively one has to admit there are things holding this game back from perfection by a good margin.

I still have trouble taking 1's and 10's seriously. I just can't see the extremes "BEST EVER" or "WORST EVER" being applied to this game without some hyperbole. And I can't help but wonder if many of the 10's/1's are the Gamespot System Wars Effect in action... When a big PS3 game comes out, all the XBOX owners go to the user rating sections and give it a 1 and the PS3 owners give it a 10 - and when a bit XBOX game comes out, vice-versa. Unfortunately, this forum has become similarly polarized where "like it" or "hate it" have become causes with veritable PR campaigns that go beyond just how we feel about the game. So much theatrics in the forum now, all centered around denouncing or applauding this game.

 

[Me,myself,and,I]

Got to ask, if this is a "really simple game" "with little to no depth," then what's a game like, say, Plants VS Zombies or heaven forbid, Civ Revolutions?

Anyways 1 being on part with the worst game someone has ever played, if someone got through even five hours, then I'd wonder if there has never been a game they only gave five minutes to. As for the 10, that implies a near perfect game - really? I think even objectively one has to admit there are things holding this game back from perfection by a good margin.

I still have trouble taking 1's and 10's seriously. I just can't see the extremes "BEST EVER" or "WORST EVER" being applied to this game without some hyperbole. And I can't help but wonder if many of the 10's/1's are the Gamespot System Wars Effect in action... When a big PS3 game comes out, all the XBOX owners go to the user rating sections and give it a 1 and the PS3 owners give it a 10 - and when a bit XBOX game comes out, vice-versa. Unfortunately, this forum has become similarly polarized where "like it" or "hate it" have become causes with veritable PR campaigns that go beyond just how we feel about the game. So much theatrics in the forum now, all centered around denouncing or applauding this game.

The difference being that some of us have a life.
Edit: Wait! Thats not how I meant it to come out. I meant to say that we have a life AS OPPOSED TO THE GAMESPOT PEOPLE MENTIONED IN THE ABOVE POST.
Moderator Action: Trolling is not allowed in these forums.
Moderator Action: Edit: Now this post is okay .

 

[Thormodr]

Does anyone else find it hard to take the people who gave it either a 1 or a 10 seriously?

By a remarkable coincidence the ones outnumber the tens 27 to 13. I suppose it would change the poll numbers more in favour of your line of thinking if you dropped them.

However, I am quite sure if the tens outnumbered the ones 27 to 13 then there would be no objection your honour.

 

[JohnnyW]

I still have trouble taking 1's and 10's seriously.

So why even look at poll results? There is always human bias. It's a subjective poll, not an objective one.

edit: btw 1 and 10 don't mean "worst/best game ever." If they did then only 1 game could ever hold either rating. If that's the case why not have the poll go from 2-9? But wait, then 2 and 9 would represent worst/best. Hmm, better to make it from 3-8. No, 4-7. Well...let's just rate everything 5.5, k?

 

[blind biker]

By a remarkable coincidence the ones outnumber the tens 27 to 13. I suppose it would change the poll numbers more in favour of your line of thinking if you dropped them.

However, I am quite sure if the tens outnumbered the ones 27 to 13 then there would be no objection your honour.

You're diabolically smart

 

[MaximumPain]

Does anyone else find it hard to take the people who gave it either a 1 or a 10 seriously?

Yes but more so the ones! I can see people hating the game I totally understand peoples frustration with it not being as good as Civ IV but a 1???!!! WTF its not that bad or they have never played any other bad games. I can see a few people thinking its among the best ever rating it a 10 but both extremes are a bit odd. I saw Civ IV BTS as one of the best games ever and only gave it a 9.

 

[AfterShafter]

By a remarkable coincidence the ones outnumber the tens 27 to 13. I suppose it would change the poll numbers more in favour of your line of thinking if you dropped them.

However, I am quite sure if the tens outnumbered the ones 27 to 13 then there would be no objection your honour.

You know, I rated the game a seven, and I think if you actually check my posting history (things like this: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=408313 - among others ) you'll see that I'm more than willing to call a spade a spade with this game, admit that it's not perfect, and explain to someone who's considering coming back to the game what's right and wrong about it quite candidly. What's more, I've been VERY open with my position that it's a polarizing game and that a lot of people who liked older Civs will not like it and should avoid.

Whereas you... Well, take a look at this thread:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=406607&page=14

You come in, make grandstanding repeated claims (in more than one thread, and quite vociferously) that "That's why 2K Games tries to stamp out any and all dissent on their forums" (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=406607&page=14) then when posters come in and outright refute that, you disappear and have no comment. Yeah, that's you outright making stuff up to discredit the publisher and then slinking away without comment after getting caught.

This isn't even mentioning things like your whole "Shafer 5" stunt, where you barged into many threads with people having unrelated discussions trying to make them adopt that derogatory moniker that you made up.

I think it's pretty obvious that we aren't even in the same ballpark for objective treatment of this game, and I invite you to point out some cases where I've made stuff up to make this game or its developers seem better than it is. This game ain't perfect, and I know that - which is why I have trouble taking a 10 seriously either. If it's a 10 now, and the next patch/expansion makes it better, does it become an 11? Conversely, with the 1, I think there are *plenty* of objective ways to make the game a lot worse. And for the record, I don't take the 10's on the 2K forum poll seriously either, and there isn't a single zero there.

The difference being that some of us have a life.

Not entirely sure I get what you're saying, ESPECIALLY seeing as my average posts per day is 1.02 and yours is 1.62. Am I the one with the "life" then, seeing as it looks like I spend less time per day posting around here?

So why even look at poll results? There is always human bias. It's a subjective poll, not an objective one.

edit: btw 1 and 10 don't mean "worst/best game ever." If they did then only 1 game could ever hold either rating. If that's the case why not have the poll go from 2-9? But wait, then 2 and 9 would represent worst/best. Hmm, better to make it from 3-8. No, 4-7. Well...let's just rate everything 5.5, k?

Yeah, actually, there is some truth to that. I guess human bias, even extreme, is just a factor in poll taking. I guess it's not the norm that someone does more than vote what they FEEL, for whatever reason, without sitting back and breaking down why they hold a certain view.

As for your edit, there is a bit of miscommunication here and I'll try and explain.

Anyways 1 being on part with the worst game someone has ever played.. As for the 10, that implies a near perfect game.

That's from the post in question. First off, "part" is a spelling error and should be "part" and I take note of "near perfect." I was trying to communicate that a rating of one meant "this game is among the worst I've ever played" and a ten is "this game is among the best I've ever played," and each respectively meaning there's little room for improvement or all but infinite room for improvement. Not necessarily the VERY best game or the very worst. Even my caps sections were meant as paraphrases "BEST EVER" being "in the ballpark of the best ever" and worst ever being the contrast to that. That was poorly communicated on my part, and my apologies.


I still have a bit of trouble taking votes of 1's and 10's that seriously. I can see very low ratings for people who strongly disliked it and thought it was a stop back from Civ IV, and I can see high ratings for someone who really enjoyed it out of the box. But 1 and 10 are EXTREME ratings, and I just can't see those types of extreme labels being applied to something that I have trouble seeing as that close to perfect or that utterfly flawed. Well, barring people who couldn't play the game at all because of crashes... But if you rated this a 1, I have doubts that you've played a *REALLY* badly designed game, because this game looks good, has a decent amount of depth, and the AI is actually the low end of middling rather than really terrible, it has a lot of content, etc etc... And a 10? The game ain't perfect, and there's obvious and significant room for improvement. How does it warrant a 10?

 

[AfterShafter]

Yes but more so the ones! I can see people hating the game I totally understand peoples frustration with it not being as good as Civ IV but a 1???!!! WTF its not that bad or they have never played any other bad games. I can see a few people thinking its among the best ever rating it a 10 but both extremes are a bit odd. I saw Civ IV BTS as one of the best games ever and only gave it a 9.

Yeah, this is kind of what I'm saying. I just have trouble believing anyone *seriously* believes it's an extreme 1 or 10. You think the AI sucks and the game is shallow and you give it a 1? I could probably track down a game you'd give a -5 to then where the AI spends most of its time running into walls. This game at least can string together a coherent attack, build a functioning empire - the main problem is that it doesn't do it was well or as intelligently as a human, and the contrast is problematic for the game.

(though, for the record, I just got freaking plowed by an attack the Japanese initiated in the early game on Emperor - archers were in the back, a few horses for mop up, and a bunch of spears in the front, and staggering numbers for the point in the game it came at - the AI CAN pull off some decent attacks, but it tends to fall apart when put into odd situations and it can't recover from an attack that doesn't work, or from having its initial forces wiped out when you initiate the attack - or sometimes it's just stupid).

And for the 10's? Yeah, I could see raw elation pushing someone into voting a 10... But, I think if they took a step back and analyzed the game, they'd see a lot wrong with it and would consider parsing that score down a point or two.

 

[Solo4114]

Got to ask, if this is a "really simple game" "with little to no depth," then what's a game like, say, Plants VS Zombies or heaven forbid, Civ Revolutions?

Those games do not purport to be anything more than they are: simplistic, fun little timewasters. I don't know about you, but I hold them to different standards. Not every game is measured along the exact same standards for me.

Anyways 1 being on part with the worst game someone has ever played, if someone got through even five hours, then I'd wonder if there has never been a game they only gave five minutes to. As for the 10, that implies a near perfect game - really? I think even objectively one has to admit there are things holding this game back from perfection by a good margin.

Well, I think you're imposing your own interpretation of what a 1 or a 10 means here on someone else. For all you know, a 1 means "This game failed to entertain me, even after I really really tried to like it for 30 hours" or it could mean "WORST...GAME...EVAR." Or it could mean "This game was a TERRIBLE game as far as RPGs go! I mean, yes, you could upgrade your units, but your civ leader NEVER advanced in any levels!" Personally I'd find that last one to be a bit...off...but for all I know, that's what's driving the response. I may not AGREE with it, but I believe that the person sincerely means it.

I still have trouble taking 1's and 10's seriously. I just can't see the extremes "BEST EVER" or "WORST EVER" being applied to this game without some hyperbole. And I can't help but wonder if many of the 10's/1's are the Gamespot System Wars Effect in action... When a big PS3 game comes out, all the XBOX owners go to the user rating sections and give it a 1 and the PS3 owners give it a 10 - and when a bit XBOX game comes out, vice-versa. Unfortunately, this forum has become similarly polarized where "like it" or "hate it" have become causes with veritable PR campaigns that go beyond just how we feel about the game. So much theatrics in the forum now, all centered around denouncing or applauding this game.

Again, I think you're seeing it as some kind of internally consistent standard which measures this game against others you've played. That may not be the case here. There may be no internal consistency whatsoever here. The 1 or 10 could simply be a numerical representation of a visceral, emotional response that can't really be broken down into some ranked comparison among other games and such. Really, a "1" could simply translate (for someone) as "GRAAH!! ANGRY RIGHT NOW!!!" Whereas a 10 could translate as "I AM SO HAPPY RIGHT THIS VERY SECOND...but my mind could change tomorrow."


Don't get me wrong -- I understand that, for you, things aren't that extreme. I tend to agree with that approach, myself. But I also recognize that the ranking scheme that I use to determine where Civ 5 falls isn't the same as other folks. I also don't think that -- even though those folks don't share my view, or even if they are simply offering their current momentary gut reaction to the game -- that their opinion is "wrong." It's inconsistent with mine, probably, but not wrong.

So why even look at poll results? There is always human bias. It's a subjective poll, not an objective one.

edit: btw 1 and 10 don't mean "worst/best game ever." If they did then only 1 game could ever hold either rating. If that's the case why not have the poll go from 2-9? But wait, then 2 and 9 would represent worst/best. Hmm, better to make it from 3-8. No, 4-7. Well...let's just rate everything 5.5, k?

Actually, the poll itself is pretty objective. It's simply asking folks to rank the game on a 1 to 10 scale. The end. It's not like "1" is described as "This is the worst piece of crap I've EVER PLAYED and I am a complete MORON!" and "10" is described as "The game is sublimely wonderful. I am not a blithering idiot who only likes min/maxing and stupid micromanagement like those jackasses who prefer Civ 4 do." THAT would be a "subjective" poll.

The responses themselves are, however, entirely subjective....but it's an opinion poll, so the very subject-matter of the poll IS subjective opinion.

--EDIT--

Also, "These go to 11."

 

[AfterShafter]

Solo, points are well taken. I guess this might just be a clash of how different people read 1's and 10's. I'll leave the subject be.

 

[cman2010]

Got to ask, if this is a "really simple game" "with little to no depth," then what's a game like, say, Plants VS Zombies or heaven forbid, Civ Revolutions?

I have not played plants vs zombies, but I would not judge the game based on depth like I would a tbs. also did you get droped on your head as a child? Moderator Action: Please refrain from insults in the future and keep the discussion civil, thanks. I just dont see why you cant understand that some people have different opinions about a game even if they played it for 5 hrs to try it out they might still only think its a 1.

 

[Misotu]

Solo, points are well taken. I guess this might just be a clash of how different people read 1's and 10's. I'll leave the subject be.

Actually your original wording reflects (presumably unconsciously!) how 2k define the scale for their poll. 1 is defined as "worst game ever" and 10 is "best game ever". This is significant, since I think their definitions would cause people to vote slightly differently from a poll which just asks for a rating between 1 and 10. For example, based on their definition, my own vote would have changed from 3 out of 10 here, to 5 out of 10 there.

I really don't think the results of the two polls can be compared directly, for this and other reasons. To be honest I think this factor alone (giving each score an express definition) is more than sufficient to account for the disparities being highlighted!

 

[Ataxerxes]

I haven't played the game, admittedly. I read the reviews when it first came out, thought I'd wait, and then the storm broke! I didn't want to spend $50 when I think I've only scratched the surface of IV. I think the CivIV forum is almost as active as it was before V.

1s and 10s are probably a little skewed. 1s are often from people who were ready to embrace it and the disappointment they had made them hate it. I think disappointment fuels a lot of the 1s. On the flip side, 10s MIGHT be from people who love a new game.

I'd recommend going back to IV. There are so many mods available, fan scenarios and everything else to keep us entertained for a long time.

 

[Thorite]

I gave it a 4. Its just boring....

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=394243

If I was to include my sense of disappointment, I'd jump on the "1" bandwagon.

 

[JohnnyW]

As for your edit, there is a bit of miscommunication here and I'll try and explain.
[...]
That was poorly communicated on my part, and my apologies.

No worries. Everyone does that sometimes (I know I do).

The responses themselves are, however, entirely subjective....but it's an opinion poll, so the very subject-matter of the poll IS subjective opinion.

That's exactly what I was trying to say. (See? Told you. )

Actually your original wording reflects (presumably unconsciously!) how 2k define the scale for their poll. 1 is defined as "worst game ever" and 10 is "best game ever". This is significant, since I think their definitions would cause people to vote slightly differently from a poll which just asks for a rating between 1 and 10. For example, based on their definition, my own vote would have changed from 3 out of 10 here, to 5 out of 10 there.

It's funny, but I also voted a 3 here and would put it as a 5 or maybe a 6 on the other poll.