Wow, someone had the guts to say this on Sept. 20? Oh wait...........
Worrying review: Tom Chick says AI and Diplomacy are dumb. Has "Serious Problems"
- Thread starter solidsmooky
- Start date
Wow, someone had the guts to say this on Sept. 20? Oh wait...........
I have to think this has been posted somewhere on this forum but, http://www.1up.com/do/reviewPage?pager.offset=0&cId=3181540&p=1
This is the only reviewer that actually played Civ 5 more than once. Good review.
This is the only reviewer that actually played Civ 5 more than once. Good review.
Dark_Jedi06
"Deus ex Machina."
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2006
- Messages
- 1,399
You'd be right.
cf_nz
Prince
For interest, a follow up podcast by Tom Chick (the reviewer in question).
http://www.quartertothree.com/fp/2010/09/30/qt3-games-podcast-slantz-and-civilization-v/
http://www.quartertothree.com/fp/2010/09/30/qt3-games-podcast-slantz-and-civilization-v/
mirkwooduk
Chieftain
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2010
- Messages
- 20
I could not have put it better
Like the reviewer I loved it at first and then realised the flaws and I agree wholeheartedly with his comments on the wooden diplomacy
Like the reviewer I loved it at first and then realised the flaws and I agree wholeheartedly with his comments on the wooden diplomacy
Morningcalm
Keeper of Records
Thanks for the podcast link! Listening now. He mentions someone got him to change his score. Kind of intrigued.
Cool, thanks for posting. Definitely going to have to listen to this later. I hope Tom didn't cave and change it to an A+ ... and if he did, I'd be interested in hearing why.
The review isn't, in fact, any good because the reviewer pays too much attention to the negative aspects of Civ V without perspective. Civ IV had Ai faults as well, those being just as bad as the ones in Civ V, if not worse. The AI in Civ games has never been what anyone would call "good."
Tom Chick is known for dissing popular franchises, probably for hits and so people will talk about his stuff. It's kind of like trolling.
Tom Chick is known for dissing popular franchises, probably for hits and so people will talk about his stuff. It's kind of like trolling.
Yngvi
Chevalier du Tastevin
An excellent article, very balanced. Quite similar to my own experience. The game does, like he said, have many positive features, but the massive flaws drag the good stuff down with them.
EDIT: I like the social policies more than he does, but they do need more flexibility.
EDIT: I like the social policies more than he does, but they do need more flexibility.
Psyringe
Scout
I listened to the whole podcast - which was mostly pointless, imho, although it may have been interesting for people who are active in Qt3 and know slantz. After a rather boring first hour (estimated), in which the guest got ample opportunity to talk about a failed game he once designed, they finally got to Civ5, and talked mainly about interface stuff. Then the podcast became extremely shallow and boring for a while (at one point The Woman Of My Dreams (tm), who was in the same room, frowned and asked me: "Are these guys talking about tap water? Why do you listen to guys discussing tap water??"). And then it ended. They did discuss Chick's rating of Civ5 at one point, but Chick circumvented the debate and if he really changed his score, then I missed it. I wonder if that's something that he said in joke and then took out of the final mix for the podcast.
It's kind of odd that a lot of criticism levied against him consists of low-blow personal attacks. Especially when Chick does usually lay his arguments out quite well in his reviews ... if someone disagrees with him, I'd expect him to address the arguments and not the person. But for some reason this rarely happens.
Personally, while I certainly don't agree with every review he writes, he's one of the very few reviewers whose work I actually regard worth the read. He's not just an extension of the publishers' PR department, and he has already shown that he can't be compromised. He usually lays out a well-thought argument with which I may agree or not, but which I can always respect for being solid work.
However, the distinction between "a good review" and "a review that agrees with my opinion" is apprently lost on many people. You rarely her someone say "The reviewer's opinion differs from mine, but the review itself is well done." Which lets me think that the gaming community probably has the kind of journalism it deserves; there's much more interest in hype and in finding people who share one's opinion than there is in actually getting a well-rounded view of a product.
Psyringe:
I've read several of his reviews and in all of them, he either focuses unnecessarily on the bad parts of the game, or he's just flat out wrong. He's both in his Civ V review. He makes a habit of scoring popular franchises low. This to me is indicative of a trend, and warns me of possible ulterior motives, especially when some of his opinions are largely based on flaws in the game that he blows up beyond all proportion.
I respect reviews that are done well, whether or not they agree with my personal views, but Chick's just strikes me as having a strong flavor of ulterior motive. This is not a personal attack - it's an observation of a trend. I can't prove that he intentionally sinks major franchises to score hits, but it sure looks like it.
I've read several of his reviews and in all of them, he either focuses unnecessarily on the bad parts of the game, or he's just flat out wrong. He's both in his Civ V review. He makes a habit of scoring popular franchises low. This to me is indicative of a trend, and warns me of possible ulterior motives, especially when some of his opinions are largely based on flaws in the game that he blows up beyond all proportion.
I respect reviews that are done well, whether or not they agree with my personal views, but Chick's just strikes me as having a strong flavor of ulterior motive. This is not a personal attack - it's an observation of a trend. I can't prove that he intentionally sinks major franchises to score hits, but it sure looks like it.
TheMeInTeam
If A implies B...
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2008
- Messages
- 27,989
Show me a reviewer (or site/pub) that is not consistently showcasing bias or an ulterior motive. I am genuinely curious since I've yet to find one, but it *would* be nice to have a semi-trustworthy source of review. I'll tell you what, whether or not you liked his review, it's a LOT better, objectively, than say the one by gameinformer, which just about fails to mention any flaw at all and gives the game just under a perfect rating (and higher than every other game in the issue).
TheMeInTeam:
Gamers with Jobs is generally good about not being extensions of marketing campaigns. NoobToob also generally speak their minds honestly, though neither of those sites are really so into TBS that they're pick up gameplay flaws that you would find fundamental.
I didn't know that gameinformer had a review for Civ V. Is that an online magazine for games or something?
Gamers with Jobs is generally good about not being extensions of marketing campaigns. NoobToob also generally speak their minds honestly, though neither of those sites are really so into TBS that they're pick up gameplay flaws that you would find fundamental.
I didn't know that gameinformer had a review for Civ V. Is that an online magazine for games or something?
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2008
- Messages
- 14,926
Wow.
I pretty much agree with this review. Especially about how Social policies don't really carry the same....I don't know exactly, "power" of civics I guess. You don't know what policies your enemies have besides their title and even that changes whenever they pick a policy outside the tree of the last policy.
I pretty much agree with this review. Especially about how Social policies don't really carry the same....I don't know exactly, "power" of civics I guess. You don't know what policies your enemies have besides their title and even that changes whenever they pick a policy outside the tree of the last policy.
Psyringe
Scout
I'm sorry, but you're again piling up vague accusations and personal attacks instead of saying on which grounds you actually disagree with him. You're not laying out an alternative opinion in any way, you just throw claims and accusations around ("ulterior motives"?).
You're saying that Chick's review is both (a) unnecessarily focusing on bad parts, and (b ) is factually wrong. Let's have a look. Chick's criticism is based on three parts:
- weak AI
- inefficient interface
- shoddy diplomacy
Now, look at Civ5 and ask yourself: Is the AI strong? Is the interface efficient? Is the diplomacy working well? It isn't. So, is Chick factually wrong when he criticizes these things in Civ5?
Regarding the claimed "unnecessary focus on bad parts", I'd like to ask: Since when have interface, diplomacy, and especially AI, not been core elements of a 4x game? What are you trying to say here?
You're also saying that Chick is habitually(!) "dissing popular franchises". You don't really provide any proof or example along with that, but you claim that you read several of his reviews. Well, let's see. Chick had a list of reviews at Rotten Tomatoes. Bioshock, 5/5. C&C Tiberium Wars, 4/5. Prey, 4/5. Caesar IV, 4/5. And so on. Where exactly is that "trend" that you take as a basis of accusing him of "ulterior motives"?
What you can see is that he gave HoMM5 a 3/5, and criticized that the interface hides a lot of information from you. Does that remind you of something? I mean, one could say that he highly values an interface that gives him a lot of information about the game (which is okay, as every critic will, and should, have his focus points). This means that his reviews are probably quite valuable for players with similar wants, and less valuable for players who don't care about these issues. But that's not the conclusion you arrive at. You arrive at slander and even accuse him of consciously writing dishonest reviews to "score points", and you don't even find it necessary to provide any evidence at all.
I'm sorry, but so far you're doing exactly what i said further above: You're throwing mud at the person (and badly sourced mud too) instead of addressing his arguments. And when called on that, you just do it again. I'm reminded to a politician in pre-election times who tries to discredit his opponent by attacking him with vague and unsourced accusations, hoping that something will stick, while completely circumventing the factual issues. This is a very poor way of dealing with a review (or a person), imho.
Psyringe:
If you must know, then here are the things I object to in his review:
He notes a lot of things good about the game, but he does not acknowledge that these make the game good, by giving the game a "C."
First thing he notes is that the AI is bad, and even says that previous Civ AIs have always been bad. Where he fails is that he doesn't realize just how bad Civ IV combat AI actually was. In fact, it was generally much worse than Civ V AI!
Civ IV combat is based on SoDs, and in general, you do not want to be the first to be in the target sights of your enemy's SoD. The most successful wars in Civ IV are first waged defensively, to cut down on WW and to leverage defensive advantages. The Civ IV AI obliges by marching his SoD right in front of your SoD to be slaughtered. No human would be that idiotic, and the only reason the AI offered any challenge was because they fielded stacks five times your size.
In point of fact, that kind of differential can also be seen in Civ V Deity levels. The fact that he can perceive this more in Civ V is a triumph of transparency. He could not tell how bad the AI was in Civ AI, apparently.
Second thing he notes is that Policies are bad because they do not change (or if not, then he cites no reason other than baldly stating that Religion and Civics are better). It's badly criticized, and I'm not entirely sure he really knows what's what in terms of the Policies.
Then he notes that he can't plainly see whatever the other Civs are doing. He perceives this as a missed gameplay opportunity. I do not. Being fed this information for free is both good and bad. I also don't perceive how knowing that the other Civ has Writing does anything for its character.
Here's something more:
This is whole and completely in context.
Civ V diplomacy is more opaque than Civ IV's dial-a-puppet diplomacy system, but it is not so opaque that you can't tell what's going on. Maybe Chick can't, but that's his failing, not the game's. He is wrong on this count.
The Civs have different animations and opening statements depending on how much they like you, and they'll even point out aspects of your Civ they respect or fear. Secret Pacts are just that - secret pacts. There is nothing non-obvious about it. If you deal with the guy you just agreed not to deal with, the other Civ you formed a Secret Pact with will get annoyed with you. This is not rocket science. It's perfectly obvious.
Not being able to see modifiers for AI behavior is a plus for me, not a minus. He cites this as being an obvious lack, and states it like this is how it is for everyone.
He goes on about the interface as well. The numbers on the top of the screen are actually useful to me. I'm not sure why he finds them useless and "messy," because he doesn't say.
He notes that you can't queue up orders for units, which hurts pacing in the endgame. I'm again not sure how this can be, since Civ V doesn't feature that many units to begin with. Does he have thousands of Riflemen that need units? He wails about 15-second bomber runs. Exactly how many Bombers is he fielding anyway? I mean, we were fielding gobs and gobs of Bombers in Civ IV.
The review is so bad, I'm highly inclined to call it a malicious misrepresentation of the game, if I didn't think that he was honestly that clueless.
I would not recommend this review to anyone who wished to find out what the game was about. Too many inaccuracies and purely interpretative statements.
If you must know, then here are the things I object to in his review:
He notes a lot of things good about the game, but he does not acknowledge that these make the game good, by giving the game a "C."
First thing he notes is that the AI is bad, and even says that previous Civ AIs have always been bad. Where he fails is that he doesn't realize just how bad Civ IV combat AI actually was. In fact, it was generally much worse than Civ V AI!
Civ IV combat is based on SoDs, and in general, you do not want to be the first to be in the target sights of your enemy's SoD. The most successful wars in Civ IV are first waged defensively, to cut down on WW and to leverage defensive advantages. The Civ IV AI obliges by marching his SoD right in front of your SoD to be slaughtered. No human would be that idiotic, and the only reason the AI offered any challenge was because they fielded stacks five times your size.
In point of fact, that kind of differential can also be seen in Civ V Deity levels. The fact that he can perceive this more in Civ V is a triumph of transparency. He could not tell how bad the AI was in Civ AI, apparently.
Second thing he notes is that Policies are bad because they do not change (or if not, then he cites no reason other than baldly stating that Religion and Civics are better). It's badly criticized, and I'm not entirely sure he really knows what's what in terms of the Policies.
Then he notes that he can't plainly see whatever the other Civs are doing. He perceives this as a missed gameplay opportunity. I do not. Being fed this information for free is both good and bad. I also don't perceive how knowing that the other Civ has Writing does anything for its character.
Here's something more:
Tom Chick said:
This is whole and completely in context.
Civ V diplomacy is more opaque than Civ IV's dial-a-puppet diplomacy system, but it is not so opaque that you can't tell what's going on. Maybe Chick can't, but that's his failing, not the game's. He is wrong on this count.
The Civs have different animations and opening statements depending on how much they like you, and they'll even point out aspects of your Civ they respect or fear. Secret Pacts are just that - secret pacts. There is nothing non-obvious about it. If you deal with the guy you just agreed not to deal with, the other Civ you formed a Secret Pact with will get annoyed with you. This is not rocket science. It's perfectly obvious.
Not being able to see modifiers for AI behavior is a plus for me, not a minus. He cites this as being an obvious lack, and states it like this is how it is for everyone.
He goes on about the interface as well. The numbers on the top of the screen are actually useful to me. I'm not sure why he finds them useless and "messy," because he doesn't say.
He notes that you can't queue up orders for units, which hurts pacing in the endgame. I'm again not sure how this can be, since Civ V doesn't feature that many units to begin with. Does he have thousands of Riflemen that need units? He wails about 15-second bomber runs. Exactly how many Bombers is he fielding anyway? I mean, we were fielding gobs and gobs of Bombers in Civ IV.
The review is so bad, I'm highly inclined to call it a malicious misrepresentation of the game, if I didn't think that he was honestly that clueless.
I would not recommend this review to anyone who wished to find out what the game was about. Too many inaccuracies and purely interpretative statements.
