Crispy Review of Civ V

JLoZeppeli said:

Don't worry, fanboys choose a game to love at a time and hate the others, after mating with the game, they get bored and go to find another partner... I'ts the wonderful nature!! I'm lovin'it! parapapapa

Click to expand...

Kind of like your love for Civ 4, is that how it goes fanboy?
Moderator Action: Using derogative labels is not allowed in this forum.

OP, send your review to 2K, they'll probably hire you at PR for your enthusiastic approach towards their decisions.

Propaganda, not a review imo. Oh well, some people like Civ5, others don't (and NOT because it's not a Civ4.5, but because it's Civ0.5 with a lot of regress).

Despite my "rabid bias" I too hope that one day, patches and expansions dozens of DLC's will make playing the game an enjoyable experience. But so far Civ5 was nothing but an utter disappointment to me and first time in my life I'm unhappy that I've bought a Firaxis game.

EDIT
Oook, I've read the links you've given. I'm sorry, it seems that you just genuinely like Civ5 - if that's the case so be it - I won't be bashing others for having different opinion to my own. But I do disagree with it of course

Guardian_PL said:

OP, send your review to 2K, they'll probably hire you at PR for your enthusiastic approach towards their decisions.

Propaganda, not a review imo. Oh well, some people like Civ5, others don't (and NOT because it's not a Civ4.5, but because it's Civ0.5 with a lot of regress).

Despite my "rabid bias" I too hope that one day, patches and expansions dozens of DLC's will make playing the game an enjoyable experience. But so far Civ5 was nothing but an utter disappointment to me and first time in my life I'm unhappy that I've bought a Firaxis game.

Click to expand...

This is clear propaganda against Civ 5.

Eh, ... nevermnd

Somehow reads like if EA made a mistake and paid for the wrong review

Don't take it personal and I don't want to imply you are bribed (tell me if you are, will you?), but this really reads more like a advertisement rather than a critical review.

Charvel1 said:

Kind of like your love for Civ 4, is that how it goes fanboy?

Click to expand...

No, i'm a playboy and I play a lot Battlefield 2 now, it has huge tits, but i love Company of Heroes butt too, and on Sunday i have some party in my room with either Medieval Total War and Civ IV....


By the way, i'm married actually to Football Manager, please don't tell him that i'm cheating...

stethnorun said:

And yeah of course I'm advertising my own stuff on here. People that don't self-promote don't get anywhere in life. So well done Sherlock, you found me out!

Click to expand...

You know, there are people who are honest enough to say something like "I've wrote a review here ...". then there are people who, when they did something wrong, apologize. Of course, there are also people who, if they did something wrong, attack the people who tell them they did.

stethnorun said:

I did talk about the faulty AI.

Click to expand...

I think you marginalized the AI's problems by saying that it oscillates between very stupid and very brilliant. While you did mention some negatives, you took care to couple each of them either with a positive or with a confirmation that it will certainly get better. This is not a review imho, it is marketing psychology.

stethnorun said:

But yeah, you are one of those whose opinion is set in stone. Not only that, you are so hateful that you research my credentials in an effort to "discredit" me. If that doesn't speak to your emotional bias, I don't know what does.

Click to expand...

Actually, I didn't enter your name in "Google" because I'm "hateful" - I entered your name in Google because after reading the "review", I couldn't believe that any professional reviewer would actually write such a thing, so I got curious. Also, I thought I was actually polite to you because I didn't even mention everything. Like the connections to Baltimore (where Firaxis is located), Big Huge Games (where many ex-Firaxians worked), and Towson (where Jon Shafer graduated). As someone who apparently tries to make a name of himself as a reviewer, I really think you're not in a position to attack people who criticize your approach and question your sincerity with regard to Civ5.

But yeah, you "only linked a review", and "everyone needs to advertise", and people criticizing either Civ5 or you must be full of hate ... *shakes head*

stethnorun said:

Cool thanks for the input. Yeah I'll be honest, I'm not very good at glowing reviews(or at least, I don't enjoy it as much). Civ 5 is a really good game, in my opinion. As a gamer, I'm thrilled. But as a writer, it does present a bit of a conundrum. Even I sort of cringe at the glowing nature of a positive review (which is why I really can't read IGN anymore...that's all they do recently). I'm much better on the offense (refer to the links I posted above), or at least, I HOPE I'm better on the offense. Anyway thanks for the thoughtful critique.

Click to expand...

No problem. I hope none of the remarks came off too harshly. As one writer / editor to another, I'd prefer to offer constructive criticism on the written piece even if as a player, I disagree with the viewpoint.

You're spot-on about the difficulty of glowing reviews, though. I ran into the same problems when I wrote music reviews for a local paper; if I really liked a band or album, it was blatantly obvious and I was less than objective. It's far easier to preserve objectivity while slamming something for its faults than it is to stay neutral while praising something you really, really like.

If you haven't already (and I assume you have, but just in case), check out Tom Chick's review of Civ5 at 1UP. He does a great job of hitting the high points without being too soft on the low points.

crispyreview said:

The new embarking system, whereby (once you have the requisite technology) units simply build their own transports when you march them off into water tiles, is so wonderful that I nearly cried in thanksgiving.

Click to expand...

I almost cried too...reading this review.

They were tears of absolute fulfillment after laughing my bottom off.

(It is just terrible review dude. Or satire of one. Cannot decide which)

stethnorun said:

See these are the sort of hyperbolic rants I was talking about. Unless it isn't and you just didn't get a chance to qualify this statement. How, exactly, is Civ 5 an RTS (in TBS form) and how is it targeted at FPS gamers? If you can back that statement up with some examples and facts, I am eager to hear it.

Click to expand...

Civ V, IMO, is a game designed towards winning the game as the most important aspect of it. This, while true for most games, is not true for a civ game, where the journey is just as or even more important as winning the game. This type of mentality is very close to what you see in RTS and FPS. I say that cause I play that type of game and that's the feeling I get. And I like playing them.
Playing them fells like running a race, while when playing civ I feel like sigth seeing and deviating from the main path to just enjoy the game, you know? I barelly worry about a particularly way of winning up to end of the game, cause I'm enjoying being an empire and living an alternate history.
I just don't get this feeling anymore.

There's other problem which is the game shortcomings, like bad AI and bland victory types. The only interesting(in a way) victory type is Culture. The others are too easy and bland. This is bad in a game where the focus is just winning, with little to no attention to the journey. Specially when you just get a "You win" in the end. I expect that in a Solitaire game, not in a Civ one.

That's one of the worst reviews I've ever had the displeasure of reading. And to be honest, I wouldn't actually call it a review.

[Insert Nonsense Review Here]

Click to expand...

obvious troll is obvious

Moderator Action: Please don't call others a troll, if you have an issue with a post, report it or don't respond at all.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

stethnorun said:

*rolls eyes* My point, which I'm sure you will get confused by yet again, is that he didn't like my review, then proceeded to say basically: "This guy is even low enough to advertise his own review and then hide that fact from people!" It was an attempt to discredit me in some way, which had nothing to do with Civ 5.

But again, on the 2k forums, steam forums, gamefaqs forums...none of this weird reaction of "you advertised your own review!" I'm really not so sure why people care this much. All I did was post a link.

Click to expand...

You posted a link to your own review.... Do I have a problem with that? Not really -- but let's not pretend this was simple innocence.

Or - to put it more succinctly - why did you a post link to your review rather than simply including the text of the review in a post titled "My review of Civilization"....

I think it would be fair to say that you had an ulterior motive for going about sharing the link in the manner you did, no?

zonk said:

You posted a link to your own review.... Do I have a problem with that? Not really -- but let's not pretend this was simple innocence.

Or - to put it more succinctly - why did you a post link to your review rather than simply including the text of the review in a post titled "My review of Civilization"....

I think it would be fair to say that you had an ulterior motive for going about sharing the link in the manner you did, no?

Click to expand...

My ulterior motive was to self-promote my work. And I wouldn't call it "ulterior" I would call it blatantly obvious. And technically speaking, this IS Crispy's review of the game. They now own that piece of writing because I sold it to them.

stethnorun said:

My ulterior motive was to self-promote my work. And I wouldn't call it "ulterior" I would call it blatantly obvious. And technically speaking, this IS Crispy's review of the game. They now own that piece of writing because I sold it to them.

Click to expand...

And do you think they'd be happy with you coming to this forum and acting in this way, representing them? If they do they are a bunch of idiots. I, for one, now know to disregard anything I read on that site.

What is the point of this thread? You come in, post a review that you wrote, and then you judge the community on whether or not we were worthy of reading your enlightened views?

DavidPBacon said:

Civ V, IMO, is a game designed towards winning the game as the most important aspect of it. This, while true for most games, is not true for a civ game, where the journey is just as or even more important as winning the game. This type of mentality is very close to what you see in RTS and FPS. I say that cause I play that type of game and that's the feeling I get. And I like playing them.
Playing them fells like running a race, while when playing civ I feel like sigth seeing and deviating from the main path to just enjoy the game, you know? I barelly worry about a particularly way of winning up to end of the game, cause I'm enjoying being an empire and living an alternate history.
I just don't get this feeling anymore.

There's other problem which is the game shortcomings, like bad AI and bland victory types. The only interesting(in a way) victory type is Culture. The others are too easy and bland. This is bad in a game where the focus is just winning, with little to no attention to the journey. Specially when you just get a "You win" in the end. I expect that in a Solitaire game, not in a Civ one.

Click to expand...

Ok now this is a little more meaty and I can work with this. I totally agree that Civ is about the journey, not the end goal. What I don't quite see is why you think Civ 5 is all about winning, whereas Civ 4 wasn't (I'm assuming you think that of Civ 4). Can you elaborate on why Civ 5 is geared towards end-goal and not journey?

protocol7 said:

And do you think they'd be happy with you coming to this forum and acting in this way, representing them? If they do they are a bunch of idiots. I, for one, now know to disregard anything I read on that site.

Click to expand...

Hehe...and I now know to disregard anyone using cyber-trendy (from 5 years ago, no less) four-chan lingo like "obvious troll is obvious".

Edit: and to respond to your edit, I came on to hear all types of opinions and even to debate the points I raised in my review. I like to engage with people, especially people that have differing points of view. The problem is that not many people (especially on this board, it seems) have very well thought out opinions.

protocol7 said:

What is the point of this thread? You come in, post a review that you wrote, and then you judge the community on whether or not we were worthy of reading your enlightened views?

Click to expand...

Huh?

When did he judge the community on whether or not we were worthy of reading his enlightened views?

stethnorun said:

Ok now this is a little more meaty and I can work with this. I totally agree that Civ is about the journey, not the end goal. What I don't quite see is why you think Civ 5 is all about winning, whereas Civ 4 wasn't (I'm assuming you think that of Civ 4). Can you elaborate on why Civ 5 is geared towards end-goal and not journey?

Click to expand...

As the buliding and expansion sides are quite annoying, of the base mechanics and the low-paced overall speed of the game... So it turns in a wargame, because, at least, crushing the idiotic AI is the most fun thing left...

Charvel1 said:

Huh?

When did he judge the community on whether or not we were worthy of reading his enlightened views?

Click to expand...

In the review, dude, in the review...

Guardian_PL said:

OP, send your review to 2K, they'll probably hire you at PR for your enthusiastic approach towards their decisions.

Propaganda, not a review imo. Oh well, some people like Civ5, others don't (and NOT because it's not a Civ4.5, but because it's Civ0.5 with a lot of regress).

Despite my "rabid bias" I too hope that one day, patches and expansions dozens of DLC's will make playing the game an enjoyable experience. But so far Civ5 was nothing but an utter disappointment to me and first time in my life I'm unhappy that I've bought a Firaxis game.

EDIT
Oook, I've read the links you've given. I'm sorry, it seems that you just genuinely like Civ5 - if that's the case so be it - I won't be bashing others for having different opinion to my own. But I do disagree with it of course

Click to expand...

Hey thanks for going to the effort of reading those links and then having the integrity to correct yourself. Takes maturity. On a personal note, I do hope Civ 5 gets to the point where you like it, or at least someone makes a patch that you like, such that you don't feel like you wasted your money.