Who else agrees that Civ 5 has been dumbed down?

[JLoZeppeli]

Because i can tell it for sure? As i have a friend working as reviewer on an Italian megazine (who dare to assign insanely high votes to games not worth of it, as Dawn of War 2 or Empire Total War or Mafia 2) and he told me exactly that more often are publicitary advertisements? Because most of game-megazines receive contributes from publishers?

They can't biase hyped games too much, even if are piece of crap... They compensate with indie games or niche games, where they used to give bad votes, to give the impression of impartiality (the same magazine gives 60 out of 100 to Man of War, to make an example, but the fanbase is well established and that does not hurt sales ).

 

[tom2050]

From seeing the initial good work Firaxis is putting in with bug fixes and what not... I think in the end Civ 5 will become another masterpiece. And modding will put the game over the top.

I believe the other thread was correct which states Take-2 rushed the game out of the door so they could include it on their 2010 financial reports (the same people that blamed modders for porn that they put into their game IIRC). Nothing Firaxis could do about the rush (if it was the case, which is likely). Firaxis = 2 thumbs up always!

 

[blizzrd]

Conspiracy theory? Hardly. Why don't you tell that to all those posters accusing every major reviewer of being sold out and outright lying to the public in its scoring of civ5?

Come on now PieceofMind, time to wake up and smell the roses.

Unless you can prove that no incentive was given to a particular reviewer by the makers of the game that they are reviewing, there is every chance that their opinion has been somewhat swayed by some sort of sweetener from the makers (or the marketers or anyone else with a vested interest).

I don't for a moment believe that gaming reviews are ever written based on some sort of conspiracy theory. But neither are the majority of them independent critiques either. I personally don't even bother reading them for their opinion content because I believe that they are not so much opinion pieces as marketing pieces. I only read reviews of computer games to hear news of the features, which is not exactly something that can be a subjective opinion.

 

[PieceOfMind]

JLoZeppeli and blizzrd, and you have you looked at reviews from people who are not paid for them?

How about http://www.gamefaqs.com/pc/938528-sid-meiers-civilization-v/reviews

Here is a sample from one review:

Final Review:
I am going to give three separate scores, one for new players, one for veterans and one overall:

Veteran: 7/10
New: 10/10
Overall: 8.5/10

New players will definitely be able to come into the Civ universe and begin playing almost immediately with little trouble. The whole system has been streamlined to make things more user friendly although some veteran players may see this as "dumbing" down. However, there is still a lot of strategy to the game and a lot of thought is needed to win the game. Personally, Civ 5 seems more like an expansion pack than it does another installment; this is due primarily because so much was taken away and the biggest visible change was the combat and hexagonal tiles which also affects combat the most. The game still plays more like Civ 4 and when comparing the changes made from each installment, Civ 5 seems to have the least. That's not saying it's a bad game but it probably didn't live up to the expectations of veteran players. However, if you haven't played ANY civ games before, Civ 5 is the best to start out with because things have become more user friendly and the game will aid you throughout most of the gameplay. For veteran players, you can probably wait until more expansions come out or when the game drops in price.

 

[JLoZeppeli]

Are you selling me that these review titles are overall positive?

1) A great Civ game for those new to the series but veterans may feel it's a step back

2) Good ideas, but lack of charm and polish left me with a resounding feeling of "meh"

3) Does away with much of the dead weight, but may be cutting it a bit thin

out of 4 reviews??

Are you sure you want to walk this road?

PS So the review stated that for civ veteran is dumbed down, you are trying to strenghten the statement of dumb game?

Gameplay:

Here is where many veterans to the series may not approve of the steps taken by Sid. I will split this section into three parts: War, Diplomacy and Overall.

War:
This is perhaps the biggest change from Civ 4 to Civ 5. Battles in Civ 5 are shorter and on a smaller scale. Unlike past series in which one player might have 50 or so units to take down 20 defenders of a city, battles rely much more on positioning your units and the type of units you use. Units also tend to be much more durable than in the previous series and in general, battles will still favor the defender. Cities are also no longer defenseless and can bombard enemy units that are close enough and can even kill some units that have been weakened. Personally, I do prefer this system of battle as it no longer takes 5 to 10 minutes to conclude a battle.

Diplomacy:
Veterans will not like the current diplomacy system in the game. From Civ 4 to Civ 5, this is truly a step back. Diplomacy no longer plays a large role in the game and even diplomatic victories are nearly unbeatable unless you bribe city states or liberate other civs. In general, diplomacy has been toned down; players can still negotiate trade agreements and open borders but that's about the extent of it. Another major difference is, besides the leader's tone of voice or words, there isn't a way to gauge how much a leader likes or dislikes you nor are there ways to substantially influence another leader.

Overall Gameplay:
Civ 5 is much more militaristic and economic than in previous installments. AI tends to be more aggressive and will go to war for little reason. Barbarians are more rampant but the game does make things easier to start out by having stronger initial warriors. Scouting is also a huge part of the game early on as finding city-states (basically one city civs) can help tip the scales in your favor. Overall, plays very similar to Civ 4 but with changes to combat, a weakened diplomacy system, and a hexagonal tile system instead of squares.

Thanks to give me an help to strenghten my position

 

[blizzrd]

JLoZeppeli and blizzrd, and you have you looked at reviews from people who are not paid for them?

No. As I said, I don't go looking for reviews to read for their opinion content.

How about http://www.gamefaqs.com/pc/938528-sid-meiers-civilization-v/reviews

What credibility do these people have that should make me want to read what they have to say? How do I know that they aren't some 11-year old with an internet connection and a penchant for writing a review? On what basis are their scores at all relevant?

I would be marginally interested in reading reviews from players who I know have played previous versions of Civ, and specifically Civ4BTS a lot. But wait, I've already been doing that. In the mod community that I've hung out in for the last 2+ years, the thoughts of those that I value on the subject have already been posted here. After cross-posting with some of these people for a very long time, I am comfortable in reading their opinions about Civ5. But I certainly can't say this for the random opinions on the site that you posted a link to.

 

[PieceOfMind]

Are you selling me that these review titles are overall positive?

No.
5chars

What credibility do these people have that should make me want to read what they have to say? How do I know that they aren't some 11-year old with an internet connection and a penchant for writing a review? On what basis are their scores at all relevant?

Um, I think most of those people write better than what 11-year olds can. But you are right, there is no guarantee they have any credibility. Just like most people on civfanatics too, including myself.

On what basis are the scores of civfanatics relevant? Maybe they are more relevant to like-minded civfanatics or other vets of the series, but what about the main player base - all the people who might not have already bought civ5?

Reviews don't need to preach to the converted. All the die-hard civfanatics already bought the game. And it's a little more than amusing that many bought it without even checking whether it would be a good game or not. That's not a very sound decision making process if you ask me.

I would be marginally interested in reading reviews from players who I know have played previous versions of Civ, and specifically Civ4BTS a lot. But wait, I've already been doing that. In the mod community that I've hung out in for the last 2+ years, the thoughts of those that I value on the subject have already been posted here. After cross-posting with some of these people for a very long time, I am comfortable in reading their opinions about Civ5. But I certainly can't say this for the random opinions on the site that you posted a link to.

That's fine. You are more interested in the opinions of a select group of people - nothing wrong with that. But one shouldn't expect that major review sites would share the same opinions of a dedicated group of players who spend a lot of time with the game.

 

[JLoZeppeli]

Oh ok, then you agree with me on reviews.

So we can say that reviews from players are more objective than from megazines, and they point out that the game is dumbed down for civ veterans to appeal new customers and their votes are lower than magazine's...

As you can see at Gamespot, the user score is only 8.3 when the review stated a 9.0....

 

[PieceOfMind]

Oh ok, then you agree with me on reviews.

So we can say that reviews from players are more objectives than from megazines, and they point out that the game is dumbed down for civ veterans to appeal new customers and their votes are lower than magazine's...

As you can see at Gamespot, the user score is only 8.3 when the review stated a 9.0....

Your words, not mine.

I don't have an opinion at the moment on whether the game is dumbed down or not. However I would say that in general, stating one's opinion in that particular way causes offense to some people (e.g. people enjoying the game). So even if I did believe it, I probably would choose better words to describe it. 'Streamlined' and 'simplified', or even 'condescendingly simplified' for example.

 

[blizzrd]

But one shouldn't expect that major review sites would share the same opinions of a dedicated group of players who spend a lot of time with the game.

I don't expect anything from a site that is dedicated to random reviews by posters without any particular credibility, do you? I don't read such reviews and really don't see the point of these sites.

 

[JLoZeppeli]

Your words, not mine.

I don't have an opinion at the moment on whether the game is dumbed down or not. However I would say that in general, stating one's opinion in that particular way causes offense to some people (e.g. people enjoying the game). So even if I did believe it, I probably would choose better words to describe it.

Yes i understand, but somewhat i forget to be more polite due to my english, it's not my native so sometimes i indulge in mistakes, as with the maso example, perhaps i need to use it more, last times in Mauretania i used french a lot, with so many languages i make mistakes, sorry.

Calling him streamlined si more polite, stating that streamlining a game implies to simplify the overall gameplay, you think not?

 

[PieceOfMind]

I don't expect anything from a site that is dedicated to random reviews by posters without any particular credibility, do you? I don't read such reviews and really don't see the point of these sites.

For games that I am not personally familiar with, gamefaqs I can find useful for gauging some of the reactions of its players. I know that especially for some games, ratings will be a mixture between both very high and very low. I usually look at the most critical reviews and make note of the harshest criticisms. Because I mostly only buy games that are already cheap, I don't have to worry so much about burning money on a game I won't enjoy, because it's pittance anyway.

The thing is, you argue that random reviewers don't have any credibility (or aren't guaranteed to have any credibility), same as magazines. Who does have credibility, and why do they have it?

If I am not a fanatical follower of a particular series, am I really interested in reading reviews of the fanatics who think the game is terrible because of nitpicking, when I would probably enjoy it just fine as a new player? If I'm not mistaken, TF2 was originally criticised heavily by the players of the original because of the different direction it took, yet these days it is easily one of the most popular online FPS games.

 

[JLoZeppeli]

Team Fortress 2 is nice, but i prefer, as an example, Bad Company 2, i don't criticize Team Fortress, because it was at start a mod, an the 2 was sold at low cost anyway, so complains about gameplay\design\cell shading are futile, because it'is plentry of alternatives...

bad is that Civ as no alternatives to itself...

 

[blizzrd]

The thing is, you argue that random reviewers don't have any credibility (or aren't guaranteed to have any credibility), same as magazines. Who does have credibility, and why do they have it?

I've already stated this. Here you go, just to be clear:

I would be marginally interested in reading reviews from players who I know have played previous versions of Civ, and specifically Civ4BTS a lot. But wait, I've already been doing that. In the mod community that I've hung out in for the last 2+ years, the thoughts of those that I value on the subject have already been posted here. After cross-posting with some of these people for a very long time, I am comfortable in reading their opinions about Civ5.

 

[darksmith]

I'm folowing this forum for some time now but I wasn't registered untill I saw this thread.

I just had to vote that Civ V is dumbed down.

 

[lschnarch]

I don't have an opinion at the moment on whether the game is dumbed down or not.

I don't care whether you think it's the greatest game ever, or it's very good, or really good, or decent or stripped down.

But having no opinion about this topic? Strange.

 

[Guardian_PL]

I'm folowing this forum for some time now but I wasn't registered untill I saw this thread.

I just had to vote that Civ V is dumbed down.

Well then, thank you very much and welcome to civfanatics!

 

[PieceOfMind]

I don't care whether you think it's the greatest game ever, or it's very good, or really good, or decent or stripped down.

But having no opinion about this topic? Strange.

Why is it strange? I don't believe I have played the game enough yet, and I do not know enough about what problems with the game are going to be addressed by the developers, for me to make an informed decision about whether this game has been 'condescendingly simplified'.

Can't a guy get a decent number of games in before he decides?

 

[zonk]

Why is it strange? I don't believe I have played the game enough yet, and I do not know enough about what problems with the game are going to be addressed by the developers, for me to make an informed decision about whether this game has been 'condescendingly simplified'.

Can't a guy get a decent number of games in before he decides?

No.

We've gone militant - and it's now a convert or die situation... call it an approach with a nod towards the symbolic, what with the removal of religion

 

[Jharii]

Why is it strange? I don't believe I have played the game enough yet, and I do not know enough about what problems with the game are going to be addressed by the developers, for me to make an informed decision about whether this game has been 'condescendingly simplified'.

Can't a guy get a decent number of games in before he decides?

Apparently, it has become more accepted to make snap judgements about games (and obviously, people too).

Take youre time, you freakin' weirdo.