Oh dear god. Someone actually paid money for this "review"? Regardless of how one feels about Civ5, that truly is horrible writing. It is full hyperboles and non-sequitors.
Crispy Review of Civ V
- Thread starter stethnorun
- Start date
Oh dear god. Someone actually paid money for this "review"? Regardless of how one feels about Civ5, that truly is horrible writing. It is full hyperboles and non-sequitors.
Jediron:
To be honest, I think you guys are kind of a lost cause at this point, since it appears like you just don't like the game for reasons you can't articulate, and you're just jumping on whatever the latest bandwagon thread appears to be. It's not that these reasons are actually true - you just don't like the game for some reason you don't appear to know and just cite anything and everything as the reason, even when those reasons don't pan out later on.
Now, I like the game well enough, but I've been accused of this very thing, when I've been quite good about not praising the game without qualification. I note that the combat AI is bad. I note that the game does have bugs. I note that the game may not be balanced at higher difficulty settings.
All these failures (and a few others besides) I mention and for some reason, some posters still think I am wholly and unabashedly for the game at every turn. Projection, much?
To be honest, I think you guys are kind of a lost cause at this point, since it appears like you just don't like the game for reasons you can't articulate, and you're just jumping on whatever the latest bandwagon thread appears to be. It's not that these reasons are actually true - you just don't like the game for some reason you don't appear to know and just cite anything and everything as the reason, even when those reasons don't pan out later on.
Now, I like the game well enough, but I've been accused of this very thing, when I've been quite good about not praising the game without qualification. I note that the combat AI is bad. I note that the game does have bugs. I note that the game may not be balanced at higher difficulty settings.
All these failures (and a few others besides) I mention and for some reason, some posters still think I am wholly and unabashedly for the game at every turn. Projection, much?
You're absolutely correct. To be honest, I'm glad I was wrong. Not that I want Civ V to fail, but if it isn't a howling success, there's a greater chance the franchise owners will consider something with a bit more gameplay the next time they farm out development. Perhaps. Possibly. Maybe.
Not impertinent an inquiry at all, Roxlimn, though your delicate sarcasm is duly noted. Consider this comment from John Shafer, during an interview with Eurogamer, earlier this year:
Eurogamer: When you add a new feature to Civ, are you aware that it's a pretty dense game anyway, and something has to be taken out?
Jon Shafer: With Civ V, we've recognised the need to keep the complexity the same as Civ IV. Of course, you can't just keep adding things, it wouldn't be manageable for the players. We want to keep the hardcore players, but we also have to keep expanding the number of players who're going to enjoy Civilization.
Similar comments have been made over time during other interviews by the Civ V development team. In any case, the overall impression I receive from this excerpt is that Civ V will be just as complex as Civ IV, keeping all its features (or alternatively, replacing several with others just as thorough), while going for game aspects likely to broaden the franchise appeal--such as more animations, and graphical effects. Nothing would be removed.
Of course, I didn't believe what was said by Shafer, because I've seen too many instances of developers over the years say one thing and go in the opposite direction. But other players did so believe. And while there's certainly room among cynics for head-shaking, if I were the franchise owners, I'd be a bit concerned over how future developer comments both for expansions and my forthcoming games were going to be taken by my former core user base, and how quickly they would jump to buy. You always want to broaden your appeal, that goes without saying. But leaving your core behind by promising one thing and arguably delivering the opposite (whether this is true or not, the impression is certainly there among many players) creates a feeling of betrayal that turns into a loss of brand value recognition. This isn't a condemnation, by any means. I certainly intend to take another look at Civ V in 6-12 months, to see about possible purchase. It is simply a statement of fact that can be proven by looking at any number of products over the years. New Coke, any one?
Please, get serious when you post, you will generally find proper responses when you do so!
Soro:
I dunno. Shafer was clearly talking about taking away features of the game, and all that malarkey about keeping the game "as complex" sounds like marketing talk. Certainly, I don't think that Civ V overall is less complex than Civ 4, so I have no doubt that Shafer thinks even better of his baby.
That said, if I liked features of Civ 4 inherently and think that that kind of complexity is the only one that counted, this would be a pretty big red flag to me.
I dunno. Shafer was clearly talking about taking away features of the game, and all that malarkey about keeping the game "as complex" sounds like marketing talk. Certainly, I don't think that Civ V overall is less complex than Civ 4, so I have no doubt that Shafer thinks even better of his baby.
That said, if I liked features of Civ 4 inherently and think that that kind of complexity is the only one that counted, this would be a pretty big red flag to me.
Jolly Rogerer
Prince
- Joined
- May 16, 2008
- Messages
- 402
Mmm, that's good irony. People dislike the game for reasons they can't articulate? That may be true for some, but there are literally pages and pages of well-articulated reasons given. You may not agree with those reasons, but they seem clear enough.
Zechnophobe
Strategy Lich
What I really don't understand, is how someone can see a body of data, both good and bad, and then try to mix the too.
Consider how much better this would have been, if you had listed the 'rough things' as well as the 'improvements in every way' things? The reason someone said you talk like an apologist, is because this verbiage is clearly glossing over problems without exploring them. You spend a long time appreciating the diplomacy information and detail of using native language... but the only actual acknowledgment you talk about otherwise is Diplomacy... and even then you say it is 'sometimes brilliant'.
Consider how much better this would have been, if you had listed the 'rough things' as well as the 'improvements in every way' things? The reason someone said you talk like an apologist, is because this verbiage is clearly glossing over problems without exploring them. You spend a long time appreciating the diplomacy information and detail of using native language... but the only actual acknowledgment you talk about otherwise is Diplomacy... and even then you say it is 'sometimes brilliant'.
Panda_Power
Warlord
Judging from the reaction this post is getting here and over at 2K and probably on other sites, I can't help but wonder if maybe the OP deliberately wrote and introduced his review this way because he knew it would cause a stir and his review would get a lot of hits.
I'm sure this "Crispy" whatever website will be more than happy to keep paying him for "reviews" if he can get so many visitors to their website!
It sounds like marketing talk only in retrospect; unless, of course you're an expert on these matters--but then, most people (including myself) aren't. Quite a few people who have provided anecdotal support in this forum believed that the game would lose none of the Civ IV features, as this loss isn't mentioned. It would be possible to construe this interview as meaning nothing would be lost that was already in there, but that new elements would give it a broader appeal. That was my point. You wanted to know how people could think Civ V wasn't a reboot on the franchise, moving away from Civ IV? I showed you how.
"That kind of complexity is the only one that counted...?"
My, you do have quite a chip on your shoulder, redefining the opinions of others through a strawman lens! And all, just because people disagree with you. But then, that's the problem with the world: it doesn't always believe exactly what we want. My advice to you (for what little it's admittedly worth) is to stop being so irritated at the remarks of others about Civ V and misrepresenting those opinions--and instead, just go play the game. You'll be much happier. Zechnophobe
Strategy Lich
It seems more like every time we cite a reason, you just go 'oh, well...' and then apologize for it being the way it is. (Edit: "You" meaning fervent proponents, not necessarily Roxlimn himself).
Bugs? Oh they'll get fixed soon.
AI? It's playing to win! (even if it always loses).
Lack of Depth? Oh, it is Deep, we just haven't figured it out yet. (Nevermind that it is extremely easy to win).
Maritime CS ruining many economic aspects of the game? Obviously an exploit that will get patched.
No End game statistics? Why would you want those, you already won!
Features flat out removed? You just want to play a carbon copy of previous title (We just want something to REPLACE them!)
Diplomacy?... ??? ... Profit!
Modability? What do you expect, they need to sell DLC!
Or maybe you assume we think that way because YOU are projecting?
You don't have 40% of your most fervent customer base become EXTREMELY angry just because they had a random whim (all at the same time) to do so.
Is self-promotion of this kind really allowed on these forums? The OP himself states that he want to promote his own articles to "get somewhere". I don't know what the rules say about this, but my personal opinion is that this kind of advertising should be prohibited, since it's obviously something that the OP makes money on.
Charvel1
Chieftain
The man is an evil genius!!!
Jolly Rogerer
Prince
- Joined
- May 16, 2008
- Messages
- 402
KahunaGod
Warlord
Isnt the OP nothing but a spam -bot -human? Wether its a bot or human, aren't advertising spam threads against the rules of this forum? Because, if not, I have a lot of stuff to sell, and I can craftily tie it all to civ5 with about 5 seconds of thought.
Jolly Rogerer:
If you followed the train of thought, I mentioned that most people who think Civ V sucks appear to just be taking every reason under the sun and putting it forward. That suggests that they don't really know what's going on and just ally with whoever appears to have a similar viewpoint. There is no nuance in their critiques.
For instance, if I specifically dislike Civ V because I prefer Civics over Social Policies, then I would not also vehemently agree when someone says that they dislike it because they don't think 1UPT works. I have my reasons, he has his, and they're not the same reason. In fact, I may challenge him on his dislike because I might actually like that part of Civ V.
This is not happening. Players who do not like Civ V seemingly do not like every facet of it, even right down to the music choices. That is not reasoned and nuanced opinion.
Soro:
I think it would be more reasonable to have mentioned the state of the forums at the time. I mean, has no one read any game review or interview, ever? Those always cast the game in question in the best possible light.
The way I interpreted the interview was that some features lost, some features gained. This was not in retrospect. I suspected that religion would be the most likely to get the axe, though I did not think Espionage would go with it. When people read that a game is to be "streamlined," do they not realize what that really means?
If this is the best that can be shown, then I have to say that buyers who expected otherwise from Civ V are either foolish or fanatical.
I can't. Steam is still updating the game. For a week now. That's why I'm here and really irritated. I like Civ V well enough, but this Steam business has me steamed.
Zechnoprobe"
I think it would do you and others well to understand that I am not every person who likes Civ V and that they are not me. We don't convene every Wednesday to discuss how to express our fervent devotion for this flawless masterpiece of a game that we all would pay a thousand bucks to play.
For the most part, I have not seen a player who liked Civ V who said that it was perfect and flawless. I certainly do not think so.
That said, what would you want to hear specifically? In a discussion about bugs, people who like the game are hopeful that they will get fixed, and they have reason to believe that that hope is reasonable, given Civ IV history.
Would you prefer that we all asked for our money back? What fruitful discussion could be had at that point?
There is really a very easy and observable explanation for why 40% of the Civ 4 customer base does not like Civ V - it is because it is not a progression of Civ 4. It really is that simple.
Jolly Rogerer said:
If you followed the train of thought, I mentioned that most people who think Civ V sucks appear to just be taking every reason under the sun and putting it forward. That suggests that they don't really know what's going on and just ally with whoever appears to have a similar viewpoint. There is no nuance in their critiques.
For instance, if I specifically dislike Civ V because I prefer Civics over Social Policies, then I would not also vehemently agree when someone says that they dislike it because they don't think 1UPT works. I have my reasons, he has his, and they're not the same reason. In fact, I may challenge him on his dislike because I might actually like that part of Civ V.
This is not happening. Players who do not like Civ V seemingly do not like every facet of it, even right down to the music choices. That is not reasoned and nuanced opinion.
Soro:
Soro said:
I think it would be more reasonable to have mentioned the state of the forums at the time. I mean, has no one read any game review or interview, ever? Those always cast the game in question in the best possible light.
The way I interpreted the interview was that some features lost, some features gained. This was not in retrospect. I suspected that religion would be the most likely to get the axe, though I did not think Espionage would go with it. When people read that a game is to be "streamlined," do they not realize what that really means?
If this is the best that can be shown, then I have to say that buyers who expected otherwise from Civ V are either foolish or fanatical.
Soro said:
I can't. Steam is still updating the game. For a week now. That's why I'm here and really irritated. I like Civ V well enough, but this Steam business has me steamed.
Zechnoprobe"
Zechnoprobe said:
I think it would do you and others well to understand that I am not every person who likes Civ V and that they are not me. We don't convene every Wednesday to discuss how to express our fervent devotion for this flawless masterpiece of a game that we all would pay a thousand bucks to play.
For the most part, I have not seen a player who liked Civ V who said that it was perfect and flawless. I certainly do not think so.
That said, what would you want to hear specifically? In a discussion about bugs, people who like the game are hopeful that they will get fixed, and they have reason to believe that that hope is reasonable, given Civ IV history.
Would you prefer that we all asked for our money back? What fruitful discussion could be had at that point?
Zechnoprobe said:
There is really a very easy and observable explanation for why 40% of the Civ 4 customer base does not like Civ V - it is because it is not a progression of Civ 4. It really is that simple.
Zechnophobe
Strategy Lich
Well, there it is. I always thought someone would stoop to referring to me as 'zechnoprobe' at some point. You are the first however to actually do so. I'll refrain from referring to you as 'meanie face' since who knows how fast that downward spiral spins.
So, I had edited in, before you quoted me, that I did not mean 'you' the person but 'you' the category of people. I notice you quoted just below that part of the text.
What do I want to see? People not deny these problems exist, or get inconsiderate of those who point them out. It seems like by disliking the game, you take it as an attack or something, and so defend against it as if I had insulted your mother, or other loved one.
40% of fervent civ customers, not just civ 4. Either way This game is a sequel. Sequels operate under the assumption they are a progression from previous titles. That's what a sequel is. People were not so nearly distressed by CivRev, because it wasn't marketed as a sequel, and was very open about being a fairly different game experience. This was not the case with civ 5.
So, I had edited in, before you quoted me, that I did not mean 'you' the person but 'you' the category of people. I notice you quoted just below that part of the text.
What do I want to see? People not deny these problems exist, or get inconsiderate of those who point them out. It seems like by disliking the game, you take it as an attack or something, and so defend against it as if I had insulted your mother, or other loved one.
40% of fervent civ customers, not just civ 4. Either way This game is a sequel. Sequels operate under the assumption they are a progression from previous titles. That's what a sequel is. People were not so nearly distressed by CivRev, because it wasn't marketed as a sequel, and was very open about being a fairly different game experience. This was not the case with civ 5.
C~G
Untouchable
- Joined
- May 24, 2006
- Messages
- 4,146
Yes, in fact it is just the opposite.
Regression.
That's BS.
Not every person have to go through list of like or don't likes, haves or have nots in able to say whether they like the game in general or not.
Nobody has any kind of duty to report to you how they like about each feature (or missing one) to you. If it's crap in somone's opinion, it's crap. It's nice they tell why they think so but what's the idea of telling "well music is pretty nice though"?
I would have liked the music better fit to the each period of time. Otherwise it was all good. Unfortunately aside from ears and eyes, my brains felt like succumbed into a vacuum.
And I don't buy Civilization games for music. Neither I expect ANY Civilization game to be streamlined labyrinth with onyl two or three choices each time available and hardly any elbow room (unless you use dynamite).
AlpsStranger
Jump jump on the tiger!
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2009
- Messages
- 5,820
Fans labor under the conviction, which is only partly true, that this is the case. This is *usually* the case but this assumption is, on the face of it, baseless.
- Warcraft3 could hardly be called a progression from Warcraft2
- Dawn of War 2 is not a clean progression from Dawn of War
- Civ4 wasn't really a clean progression from Civ3
- Team Fortress 2 is certainly not a direct progression from TF
- Master of Orion 2 is not a direct progression from MOO(We'll leave MOO3 aside, it was an abortion)
- Fallout 3 was a wild departure from Fallout 1/2
I'd have to sit and think of more. The point I am making is fans are always like "Why do all these sequels not follow the rules that all sequels follow?" I think the simplest assumption to make is that fans made this 'rule' out of whole cloth and nobody is bound by it whatsoever.
I agree. I wouldnt' call this a sequel, but an installment. But the guy you quoted, and his line of reasoning, is why so many people come across as wanting Civ 4 2.0.
Yet once again, you previously asked, "Wasn't it clear from the get go that they wanted to reboot the franchise and head somewhere distinctly away from Civ IV?" It is of course possible to quibble one's way out of interview A, B, C, or any others that appear to do just this, by finding any set of circumstances to wish it elsewhere. At base, however, the objection remains untouched. It wasn't possible for quite a few people to understand that the franchise was heading into a place far away from Civ IV, thanks to interviews whose content emphasized continuity, as in the example I provided.
Sadly, no, and certainly Shafer is complicit in this when he has repeatedly stated--as he does in that EuroGamer piece,"We want to keep the hardcore players." This can't reasonably be set aside.
Consider them unblooded, instead: products of a culture that teaches us all to implicitly trust the content of commercials, rather than doubt our reactions. A condition that Civ V's release has, hopefully, remedied. Whether one likes or dislikes it, it is drastically different from Civ IV, and I sincerely hope many won't pay attention to the content of PR releases, gamesite previews, developer diaries, and interviews in the future.
Similar threads
