Tom's Games is the game site of Tom's Hardware. Here's the review :
http://www.tomsgames.com/us/2008/07/09/civilizationrevolution_review/
http://www.tomsgames.com/us/2008/07/09/civilizationrevolution_review/
Tom's Hardware / Games gives Civ : Rev a 9.5
- Thread starter TheMystic
- Start date
Sullla
Patrician Roman Dictator
Wow. Either that guy really, REALLY liked Civ Revolutions, or this is a successful viral marketing technique disguised as a review. (Before you attack me, read the first couple paragraphs and the conclusion again. The language is... suspicious, and this "review" glosses over every potential negative with the game while hitting every marketing talking point.)
I like Civ Revolutions, quite a lot actually, but hopefully we can agree this is more of an "8" type game than a "9.5".
I like Civ Revolutions, quite a lot actually, but hopefully we can agree this is more of an "8" type game than a "9.5".
bonafide11
Worker
Wow. Either that guy really, REALLY liked Civ Revolutions, or this is a successful viral marketing technique disguised as a review. (Before you attack me, read the first couple paragraphs and the conclusion again. The language is... suspicious, and this "review" glosses over every potential negative with the game while hitting every marketing talking point.)
I like Civ Revolutions, quite a lot actually, but hopefully we can agree this is more of an "8" type game than a "9.5".
Considering the amount of reviews that gave GTA4 a 10/10, I don't think a 9.5 is unreasonable. Unlike GTA4, which basically just tweaked the graphics and a few other minor things from GTA3, Civ Rev is doing something completely different that hasn't really been done before for consoles.
KAZUY4
Warlord
GTA IV was unreasonable rated, that game does not deserve a 10 specially because the MP was crappy, slow and with the Auto-aim in ranked games..... pff is a joke.
bonafide11
Worker
Wow. Either that guy really, REALLY liked Civ Revolutions, or this is a successful viral marketing technique disguised as a review. (Before you attack me, read the first couple paragraphs and the conclusion again. The language is... suspicious, and this "review" glosses over every potential negative with the game while hitting every marketing talking point.)
I like Civ Revolutions, quite a lot actually, but hopefully we can agree this is more of an "8" type game than a "9.5".
A potential negative was mentioned, but it was being looked at as a new game to the series, not a continuation of Civilization X. Team Xbox just gave it a 9, Game Informer gave it a 9.25, IGN an 8.8, etc. There's not some viral marketing conspiracy theory just because someone really felt this was a great game.
These reviews also really need to be looked at in the consoles context. I thought that Eurogamer's reviewer summed it up nicely when he wrote that, "This slick new Civilization may be more reduction than Revolution, but it's easily one of the most distinctive games on 360 and PS3." (link) The same game for the PC may have received different scores. It's speculative. It is certainly likely to appeal to players who may otherwise never get into anything Civ-like at all.
I'm curious about the DS version, but that'll be even more limited. Still, may be nice for the road. Still, would really have liked a PSP version.
I'm curious about the DS version, but that'll be even more limited. Still, may be nice for the road. Still, would really have liked a PSP version.
NikNak
Warlord
Yes, if a review disagrees with your assessment of a game, it can only be a viral marketing conspiracy. It couldn't possibly be the reviewer's honest opinion that he likes the game more than you.
