Crispy Review of Civ V

I'm sorry but this looks like a some kind of pamphlet from a Civ5 apologist. Moderator Action: Usage of derogative lables is not allowed in ths forum. It just tries to prove that Civ5 is superior to Civ4, and fails. Yes, the 1UPT is better than the old SoD system, at least in theory. Everything else is so much inferior to Civ4 it isn't even funny.
 
My goodness.

"moves the franchise forward in almost every way" ... " tiresome gameplay is a thing of the past" ... "SPs are always helpful and cumulative. Now the only question you have to ask yourself is, "Which cool new bonus do I want for my nation?". (...) I'm like a kid in a candy store, trying to decide between a Hershey's chocolate bar and Sweet Tarts." ... "Another brilliant invention by Firaxis." ... "immersion level shoots through the roof" ... "The new embarking system (...) is so wonderful that I nearly cried in thanksgiving."

The review would make a good satire, but unfortunately think it's made in earnest ... including the pre-emptive sweeping away of possible negatives: "the AI is always (...) either staggeringly stupid or Rommel-level brilliant." ... "a perfectly polished game launch (is) just an unreasonable expectation in this day in age", "occasional bugs (...) I'm too not worried that the devs will get Civ V in perfect shape in short order."

And in the end, there's even some derision for anybody who dares to have a differing opinion: "Many are furious (or claim to be furious, in a "Danish Cartoon" sort of way) at the slightly flawed launch" ... "those that wanted Civ 4.5 are so rabidly biased the other direction, that nothing anyone says will make an impact."

Sorry, but this is not a review, it's a propaganda piece. It exaggerates the praise into ridiculous levels ("cried in thanksgiving"??), marginalizes all known faults it mentions, and even attacks and derides those that have a differing opinion.

I don't know CrispyGamer, and I don't know whether they have any kind of editorial process or if users can simply submit such "reviews" there, but I do have a hunch why metacritic ignores them ...

By the way, don't you think it's interesting that there's a guy called stethnorun at Digg, who happens to digg each and every bit of work from Brian Mardiney, the author of this review? Furthermore, isn't it even more interesting that on hulu, stethnorun and Brian Mardiney are actually the same person? I mean, with a bit of imagination, one could actually imagine that someone tried to advertise his very own review here, while labeling it neutrally as "crispy review" ...
 
Metacritic isn't compatible with Crispy simply because we don't use number scores, that's it. 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!

As for it be propaganda, I did make sure to state my bias from the outset. I'm a Civ fan, through and through. I did talk about the faulty AI. 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.

Moderator Action: Please don't assume others are hateful just because they are researching someone's credentials.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
 
stethnorun said:
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...

Just from the few information which I have found in this thread:
The one who seems to be hateful is just you. You seem to be hateful about anybody not sharing your opinion.

Furthermore, I think it would have been a better style to announce that "review" by honestly telling that it was your own work.
 
Perhaps stating "Here's the review I wrote for site X I write for" might have been a good idea.
 
I've done this numerous times before on a host of different forums, and no one has thought that my posting my own reviews was "underhanded" or whatever. This is the first forum that seems to think it is untoward.

As for people not agreeing with my review, of course I expected it and I welcome it. I just take issue with people that write everything off as "propaganda". If Civ 5 really did suck, A) Lots of review sites would say so and B) I would be right there with them. The fact is, the "backlash" against Civ comes almost entirely from Civ 4 veterans that have a huge bone to pick. Their arguments against Civ 5 are, most times, quite vapid which is why they don't engage in a point by point debate. Just hyperbolic forum rants.
 
That's one hell of a streamlined and organic review. :)

EDIT: And yeah, I thought it was obvious that this was written by a CFC member, given the sniping at other Civ fans (the "Civilization 4.5" comments at the end). That was too coincidental to have come from anywhere else.
 
stethnorun said:
Metacritic isn't compatible with Crispy simply because we don't use number scores, that's it. 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!

As for it be propaganda, I did make sure to state my bias from the outset. I'm a Civ fan, through and through. I did talk about the faulty AI. 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...

So let me get this straight. Your convenient lapse in identifying yourself as the author of that puff piece is cool and to be expected, while Psyringe simply tells the truth you neglected to tell about yourself, and he's "hateful". Please, crawl away in shame.
 
Jolly Rogerer said:
So let me get this straight. Your convenient lapse in identifying yourself as the author of that puff piece is cool and to be expected, while Psyringe simply tells the truth you neglected to tell about yourself, and he's "hateful". Please, crawl away in shame.
Click to expand...

*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.
 
MkLh said:
I'm sorry but this looks like a some kind of pamphlet from a Civ5 apologist. It just tries to prove that Civ5 is superior to Civ4, and fails. Yes, the 1UPT is better than the old SoD system, at least in theory. Everything else is so much inferior to Civ4 it isn't even funny.
Click to expand...
Yes, unlike this post, which is totally NOT a pamphlet against Civ5.

Nothing about Civ 5 is inferior to Civ 4. It isn't even funny.
 
stethnorun said:
Metacritic isn't compatible with Crispy simply because we don't use number scores, that's it. 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!

As for it be propaganda, I did make sure to state my bias from the outset. I'm a Civ fan, through and through. I did talk about the faulty AI. 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...

Yeah, the funniest thread ever, thanks for make me laugh, mister!:lol:

And are people like this who became fanboys Moderator Action: Derogative labels like this one are not allowed in this forum here. of every trash-game come out... Mind me why i love to use my own brain to make my views. ;)
 
Sorry, but I'm a Civ fan to the bone I will defend even Civ III. The thing is Civ V is not Civilization in anything but name. It's a RTS in TBS form, targeted at RTS and FPS young crowd. If it was called anything other than Civ, it would be bashed for being an atrocious strategy game. Maybe in the future they fix it, but my disapointment with my most beloved franchise wont go away.

BTW, I liked CTP I and II, very different and changing games, that moved away from many old Civ II concepts, so I'm not afraid of changes, except when they are bad ones.
 
DavidPBacon said:
It's a RTS in TBS form, targeted at RTS and FPS young crowd.
Click to expand...

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.
 
stethnorun said:
I hesitate to ask...but what does that mean? :)
Click to expand...

It means that, to me, your review reads more like a marketing piece than an actual review. :blush: I don't mean that to be insulting - overall I think the writing itself is good and you do know your subject matter (which is also good). And you start off the review by admitting you're biased, so it's not exactly surprising that the end result has a bit of cheerleading. You do exaggerate the good points and marginalize the bad ones, but again, you kind of admit up front that you're going to do so; at least you're warning people not to expect an objective viewpoint.

Aside from the bias, the sniping at disappointed Civ fans at the end seemed unnecessary and unprofessional. Maybe that's okay, if you're not trying to deliver a professional review and this is just an informal writeup. But if you are, I'd consider avoiding that kind of thing in your future reviews. Just my .02.
 
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 :lol:
 
SuperJay said:
It means that, to me, your review reads more like a marketing piece than an actual review. :blush: I don't mean that to be insulting - overall I think the writing itself is good and you do know your subject matter (which is also good). And you start off the review by admitting you're biased, so it's not exactly surprising that the end result has a bit of cheerleading. You do exaggerate the good points and marginalize the bad ones, but again, you kind of admit up front that you're going to do so; at least you're warning people not to expect an objective viewpoint.

Aside from the bias, the sniping at disappointed Civ fans at the end seemed unnecessary and unprofessional. Maybe that's okay, if you're not trying to deliver a professional review and this is just an informal writeup. But if you are, I'd consider avoiding that kind of thing in your future reviews. Just my .02.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

mastrude
Civ V Calculator Nerds
Replies
0
Views
336
mastrude
mastrude
A
Thinking about bailing on Civ V for VI...
Replies
17
Views
3K
Licentia
Licentia
S
Is it Possible to Set Up Civ-V to play like Civ-III...?
Replies
5
Views
1K
aieeegrunt
aieeegrunt
The_J
Kotaku: The Best Strategy Games On PC
Replies
4
Views
2K
Tiberiu
Tiberiu
CanusAlbinus
PolyCast 414: Nerve Staplers are NOT Still in Vogue
Replies
0
Views
660
CanusAlbinus
CanusAlbinus
Top Bottom