Crispy Review of Civ V

Disgustipated said:

People were way too hard on the OP and review. Is it that inconceivable that people could actually like the game?

Click to expand...

Yes, it is. If you like purdy pictures I can send you a screen saver.

Disgustipated said:

People were way too hard on the OP and review. Is it that inconceivable that people could actually like the game?

Click to expand...

Of course it isn't, but then, you've created a strawman: people aren't attacking the reviewer because he likes the game, at all. They're attacking him for any of several entirely different reasons:

1) He broadly attacks anyone who doesn't care for Civ V;

2) He employs a host of empty, PR-created cliches to praise the game;

3) He treats the game in his review as flawless, ignoring the presence of some major flaws in his current state of existence (notably, in the AI);

4) He brings the review to the attention of people using one name, but doesn't mention that it's his review, published under another.

I would add that #2 is a matter of style, and #3 puts him in the same class of so many other reviewers that have spent insufficient time on Civ V--except that having committed #4 in particular doesn't dispose a lot of people in the reviewer's favor.

Obviously, you like the game: good for you. Others don't: good for them. Is it too much to ask those in one category not to seek argument with those in the other? The beef of those who don't like the game (at least, not in its current state) is rightly with the developers, while there's no reason the folks who enjoy Civ V as-is should be displeased, at all.

(Full disclosure: Played the demo, was thoroughly bored, hated the AI and like of diplomatic feedback, haven't bought Civ V, waiting 6-12 months and will revisit it. Fully fledged, card carrying mod player of Civ IV who likes complex strategic gaming, and has nothing against others who don't.)

The review did mention the crummy AI btw.

And for the record, I'm not agreeing fully with what I wrote, I'm just doing the devil's advocate thing. But people are entitled to liking the game. But I feel if you wish to be a legitimate game reviewer, you do need to look at the game from a less biased viewpoint, which the reviewer in the OP did not do. So my point is don't slam him for liking the game, there's nothing wrong with that. But If you do intend to portray yourself as a game reviewer you need to show a broader viewpoint (ie not slamming the haters)

As for my disclosure I have played the early game, but I have not bought the game yet. I got bored in the early game. The lack of tension really is a downer for me. Which is funny as sometimes I felt Civ4 had too much tension. But now I realize that's what made the game great.

The review is pretty bad. The only sizable criticism of the game I saw was the half-paragraph complaint about the AI but overall, it wasn't a good review. And a review that bashes people who may disagree with the reviewer is never the way to go.

Disgustipated said:

The review did mention the crummy AI btw.

Click to expand...

Yes, you're right: it did. But in such a way as to completely downplay both its lack of quality, and the importance it plays in the game.

And for the record, I'm not agreeing fully with what I wrote, I'm just doing the devil's advocate thing.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure I follow you. "Playing devil's advocate" means taking an opposing side in order to bring out salient facts that have not been demonstrated. At this point in the thread, I don't think there's a fact that hasn't been brought out, run over, backed up over, and run over again. Nevermind; it doesn't matter. When you think about it, this forum doesn't matter either, since the game, with its aim solidly at a younger market, has sold extremely well. You and I are no longer the target audience.

As for my disclosure I have played the early game, but I have not bought the game yet. I got bored in the early game. The lack of tension really is a downer for me. Which is funny as sometimes I felt Civ4 had too much tension. But now I realize that's what made the game great.

Click to expand...

I'm personally in the middle of a Rise of Mankind: A New Dawn game of Civ IV. I recommend the mod and the modmod heartily to those who don't get enough of AI or options control from Civ V.

Has the game sold that well? I'm curious what the numbers are. I actually don't want the game to sell well. Then Firaxis will realize their design philosophy was not right. But if it has sold that well, then we have to conclude dumbing down games does increase sales. Which means the expansions won't be any better...

What you said scares me. You and I are no longer the target audience. Am I that old now? I miss it when games were designed to appeal to me.

To be honest, I can't see how young people could enjoy the game any more than us old fogeys. Do they enjoy a game with little challenge? I guess it's to be expected. Schools have been dumbed down too. It's almost impossible to flunk out of school anymore (unless you don't show up). Nothing is more satisfying to me than overcoming a challenge. This is why civ4 is fun and civ5 is not. It has nothing to do with 1upt or hexes. It has to deal with one game being more challenging and filled with tension (tension being created by more meaningful choices and negative outcomes of these choices). I'm hoping Firaxis will wake up and realize what makes a game "fun". But if the game is selling well, that means Firaxis is right, and we're SOL.

Disgustipated said:

People were way too hard on the OP and review. Is it that inconceivable that people could actually like the game?

Not everyone is a hardcore gamer and plays Diety level Civ4. [...] Not everyone plays strategy games for the challenge. That's my point. There are people who genuinely think civ5 is a great game. And they aren't wrong. Because for them it is a great game.

Click to expand...

OP has written this review. Asked what ppl think about it.
And my opinion is simple: review is poor because it is biased.

Dont get me wrong: he might be satisifed with this game, as well as many ppl probably is. Everybody are entitled to their own private opinions. I dont belive in "objective" statements - all of them are more or less, but definitely "subjective".

But, the point is that if I had read this review, then bought the game and see what it is, I would get VERY angry at the reviewer. Thats why I find it unprofessional: reviewer should recommend game to the ppl who actually might like it.
He addressed wrong target, didnt give any hints to the actual shape of game, minimized criticism, and even allowed himself to disregard people who might have different oppionon than his own. Very, VERY unprofessional.

Then he takes all responsibility for what he gets.

Disgustipated:

I'm as old a fogey as they come, and I like Civ V. In fact, I like it better than I did the demo, which I kind of liked, since I bought the game off the demo experience.

It's not what I would call "dumbed down," since it's still similarly complicated as Civ IV, though not as deep as EU or Anno. It's still a game for TBS gamers, and sufficiently complex to be a challenge to a 10-12 year old, even on Warlord.

Players who think otherwise have forgotten what they were like at that age, and do not regularly interact with children of that age.

I started on Civ 1 when I was 12, and it was new back then. I couldn't win at the highest levels. Civ V is significantly more complex than Civ 1 in several ways.

Looking broadly at the series, I would say that Civ V brings the game back to Civ 3 and then progresses it in a different direction. Civ IV is really the outlier here in many specifics.

Disgustipated said:

Has the game sold that well? I'm curious what the numbers are. I actually don't want the game to sell well. Then Firaxis will realize their design philosophy was not right. But if it has sold that well, then we have to conclude dumbing down games does increase sales. Which means the expansions won't be any better...

Click to expand...

I've read that the game has sold over 9 million units. That would seem to indicate very good sales, indeed, but I wouldn't conclude that expansions are likely to be poor, that the AI will remain unfixed, or diplomatic feedback so opaque. The last two are likely to be dealt with in patches, and the expansions might add depth to bring in older players.

Or, they might not. I would only suggest people read what each expansion actually includes, and then the remarks of users who buy them, before going that route, too.

What you said scares me. You and I are no longer the target audience. Am I that old now? I miss it when games were designed to appeal to me.

Click to expand...

What happened is that the arcade/shooter crowd grew up, and the franchises built around RPGs or strategy decided they wanted a piece of that much larger action. It explains on the one hand why Oblivion was so dumbed down after Morrowind, and on the other, why Civ V is so "streamlined" (to use the developers' own term) after Civ IV. I only wish that Firaxis had farmed out the Civ franchise to two different developers, so we could have had our Civ V, and those who wanted a less complex game could have had that, too. But I suspect they weren't willing to take the financial risk, which is understandable. Shame, though: sucks to be us.

To be honest, I can't see how young people could enjoy the game any more than us old fogeys. Do they enjoy a game with little challenge?

Click to expand...

Remember what kind of thing they used to play. For its target audience, Civ V represents a strategic challenge. It's really entry level strategy, as we see it, but there's nothing wrong with that. The only fault, if there is one, lies in not letting us know what was going on. The anger you're seeing here is comparable to that Origin Systems suffered when Ultima IX first appeared, after Richard Garriott hyped it up as a model RPG. It turned out to be a very linear action game with some RPG elements, and fans of the series howled. They felt betrayed. I suspect the reaction to Civ V in some quarters is like that as well, but the developers are insulated from the screams by the sound of all that money rolling in.

May I suggest Europa Universalis III as a good game to check out? Turn-based, very different in many respects from the Civ series, but well worth a look.

zonk said:

Perhaps the builder simply plays more FOR the journey than the win --

War was the challenge, the limiting factor to what I found to be the "fun" part of Civilization.... I enjoyed a variety of resource types which had a variety of uses and yields and building the infrastructure on them. I enjoyed multi-purpose buildings and figuring the cost/benefit of OOBs. I enjoyed using diplomacy to cultivate AI relations, sometimes in a quite machiavellian manner, to create buffers against potential attackers. I enjoyed spreading religions and configuring civics throughout the game to best suit the state of the empire and what I needed to accomplish.

"Winning" wasn't the end goal -- the end goal was to do precisely those things. As I said, war was the challenge and the limiting factor -- I couldn't just do those things, there was a need to defend and be able to defend one's self. In some cases, that even meant going on the offensive or cementing AI relationships by coming to their aid in war.

In V -- most of that fun is gone... tile improvements and resources were intentionally simplified and variety reduced. Buildings were made more costly and single dimensional. Diplomacy has been reduced to 'trading'.

Everything in V is locked into single swimlanes... going for the pink spaceship? Then build cultural buildings and pick pink sciences that boost pink science output. Going for the blue spaceship? Build science buildings and pick pink sciences that boost blue science output. There's no point in crossing into other swimlanes - it's too obviously counterproductive.

To the warmonger, perhaps there's some joy in tinkering with what are secondary things -- be they 'mildly amusing baubles' while I wait to build more horseman or 'necessary annoyances' while I build more horseman.

To the builder - they don't even rise to the level of mildly amusing baubles.... They're just occasional breaks in 25-30 Next Turn wastelands.

Click to expand...

Testify, brother! Amen! I can dig this. I am too tired to keep writing why Civ V blows now, this adequately addresses many of my grievances.

Soro: Your argument with refreshing the publicity touches the very core of problem.
I can fully understand what Firaxis intends, but cannot agree with it.
It is classical marketing dilemma: is it better to go Mainstream or stay with Niche products.

Probelm is, there isnt too much space for many mainstream, pop products. That said, I dont think Civ might really well compete on this market. Can really any TBS strategy game, be a popular product? Going for 70% publicity, they can lose the 30% they have.
And you know, though Lady Gaga sells very well, doesnt mean that there should be no rock, jazz, folk nor classical music. I think some old good bands and names still sells very good. Maybe even better than one-year-brand-fresh pop-up starlets.

The change 2k is coming through is so deep, that we have a completely new product as an outcome. And if it is so, this should be logically completely new franchise (As it is now, it is like car company decided to produce motorcykles, and kept the name of a car for their product).
I guess that after success of Civ Rev somebody decided not to make offer range broader, but rather completely redesign their flagship product. Maybe it will bring profit, but hey, why they'd burnt bridges right after their backs? Risky.

I've read that the game has sold over 9 million units.

Click to expand...

lol lol Where you read that?Do not read from there anymore. I would be surprised if the game hit 1 mil before any expansion.

I believe that the 9 million was the sales figures for Civs I through IV.

Click to expand...

That must be the case.

Soro said:

I've read that the game has sold over 9 million units. That would seem to indicate very good sales, indeed, but I wouldn't conclude that expansions are likely to be poor, that the AI will remain unfixed, or diplomatic feedback so opaque. The last two are likely to be dealt with in patches, and the expansions might add depth to bring in older players.

Or, they might not. I would only suggest people read what each expansion actually includes, and then the remarks of users who buy them, before going that route, too.



What happened is that the arcade/shooter crowd grew up, and the franchises built around RPGs or strategy decided they wanted a piece of that much larger action. It explains on the one hand why Oblivion was so dumbed down after Morrowind, and on the other, why Civ V is so "streamlined" (to use the developers' own term) after Civ IV. I only wish that Firaxis had farmed out the Civ franchise to two different developers, so we could have had our Civ V, and those who wanted a less complex game could have had that, too. But I suspect they weren't willing to take the financial risk, which is understandable. Shame, though: sucks to be us.



Remember what kind of thing they used to play. For its target audience, Civ V represents a strategic challenge. It's really entry level strategy, as we see it, but there's nothing wrong with that. The only fault, if there is one, lies in not letting us know what was going on. The anger you're seeing here is comparable to that Origin Systems suffered when Ultima IX first appeared, after Richard Garriott hyped it up as a model RPG. It turned out to be a very linear action game with some RPG elements, and fans of the series howled. They felt betrayed. I suspect the reaction to Civ V in some quarters is like that as well, but the developers are insulated from the screams by the sound of all that money rolling in.

May I suggest Europa Universalis III as a good game to check out? Turn-based, very different in many respects from the Civ series, but well worth a look.

Click to expand...

I believe that the 9 million was the sales figures for Civs I through IV.

Also, I agree with EU3 being an excellent game. It's actually real time technically but you can pause it whenever you want. Very solid game.

Soro:

Pardon my impertinence, but wasn't it clear from the get go that they wanted to reboot the franchise and head somewhere distinctly away from Civ IV?

Roxlimn said:

Soro:

Pardon my impertinence, but wasn't it clear from the get go that they wanted to reboot the franchise and head somewhere distinctly away from Civ IV?

Click to expand...

Roxlimn, and you are somehow...surprised that long time fans are upset about this?

Especially if the quality is bad and the new game features have clear lack of depth and strategies are rather limited to earlier.

Strange...really strange.

EDIT: Actually...sorry, no need to answer that. I really need to get away from this crap (the game not the forum)

I'm not surprised that people who liked Civ IV would not like Civ V. I am kind of surprised that they bought the game and are here complaining about having bought the game. I mean, wasn't it obvious from the demo that there was no religion and no espionage? What were they thinking?

Now, I AM a long time fan. I have played every Civ game, Call to Power series, AC, SMAC, MoM, and the MOO franchises (except for MOO3, which I did not like).

I do not start my Civ experience from Civ 4, and I still remember my prior Civ days quite well. I did not hold every new facet in Civ 4 to be good. For instance, I did not particularly like either religion, or the Corporations that came after; and particularly not after finding out how transparent the diplomacy was.

I liked Civ 3 more, and Civ 5 is like Civ 3 in many ways. The quality of the game is okay-ish, about on par with other Civs, and the lack of polish and AI performance is about normal for a Civ game as well.

Really, I do not perceive this "lack of depth," unless we are comparing it rote to Civ IV, at which point we're not really evaluating the game on its own merits.

Disgustipated said:

Has the game sold that well? I'm curious what the numbers are. I actually don't want the game to sell well. Then Firaxis will realize their design philosophy was not right. But if it has sold that well, then we have to conclude dumbing down games does increase sales. Which means the expansions won't be any better...

What you said scares me. You and I are no longer the target audience. Am I that old now? I miss it when games were designed to appeal to me.

To be honest, I can't see how young people could enjoy the game any more than us old fogeys. Do they enjoy a game with little challenge? I guess it's to be expected. Schools have been dumbed down too. It's almost impossible to flunk out of school anymore (unless you don't show up). Nothing is more satisfying to me than overcoming a challenge. This is why civ4 is fun and civ5 is not. It has nothing to do with 1upt or hexes. It has to deal with one game being more challenging and filled with tension (tension being created by more meaningful choices and negative outcomes of these choices). I'm hoping Firaxis will wake up and realize what makes a game "fun". But if the game is selling well, that means Firaxis is right, and we're SOL.

Click to expand...

You are correct. Firaxis and 2K Games are definitely trying to target a different demographic now. I also hope that the game does not sell well. If it sells better than cIV then that will validate what they did. Then we'll see more of the same in Civ VI.

It's a consequence of a "everyone has to win or everyone wins a gold medal" generation. You can see it in the schools now as you said. It's less about overcoming challenges and more about making people feel good and not hurting anybody's feelings.

Video games and computer games seem to be trending in this direction. Final Fantasy is another franchise that has whole heartedly embraced this.

I will be doing my part by not buying any of the expansions or DLC unless there is a drastic change in the next year. I'm not confident they'll do that unfortunately.

Thormodr:

I think you are grossly underestimating the amount of challenge Civ V poses to people who haven't played Civ IV for a thousand hours.

I'm not surprised that people who liked Civ IV would not like Civ V. I am kind of surprised that they bought the game and are here complaining about having bought the game. I mean, wasn't it obvious from the demo that there was no religion and no espionage? What were they thinking?

Click to expand...

I personally was thinking that there must be something new and interesting that replace the cuts.But no,there is only cuts ,not a single new feature worthy to be a sequel.Like in IV when the palace and army was cut,i was disappointed ,but there was so many big new thing that fill that gap.

Roxlimn, i still don't get it, that a person like yourself, thinks CIV 5 is complex. Really, to me it sounds soooooooo silly. But then it hits me, you play mostly on lower difficulties. That must be it, the difference of opinion between you and me, or anyone else who is used to play on higher then average difficulty.

But lets forget that. Lets asume CIV 5 is more complex. So what then ? Does accepting that gonna change how i feel about the game ? Let me tell you it does not, not one bit. It still is as boring as hell. Because i cannot think of anything exiting to do in CIV 5, except "experimenting" with the settings and the way you are used to play. If you like that, then CIV 5 is the game for you. Not for me though, i am not lookin for a game that let me search for any exitement; i want a game that exite's me; from the beginning to the end.
And that's a difference.....