Brave New World reviews

ptoss1 said:

Fail.

Click to expand...

GoodSarmatian said:

IIRC Gamestar also said Civ5 was excellent (when it was still broken) and called Gods and Kings disappointing, so their opinion doesn't count.

Click to expand...

Hey, don't kill the messenger.

Eagle Pursuit said:

http://games.on.net/2013/07/civilization-v-brave-new-world-reviewed-finally-the-system-works/

Good:

Cultural Victory requires actual strategy
AI quality now finally the way it should be
Diplomacy is now required, rather than an optional extra
World Congress + Multiplayer = Hilarity

Bad:

Performance is much better but still lags in some cases
Very few changes outside of Culture and Diplomacy

(It seems like most of the reviewers are very fond of Venice)

Click to expand...

Reading that review it just struck me how natural the 1upt now feels. I cannot even imagine anymore what Civ4 was like with its unit stacks.

OT (well... OT OT ) spoilered:

MadMage86 said:

CiV can only have one winner, so at the end of the day it would be silly for an AI not to turn on you eventually. This was the problem with Civ IV - the AI was too friendly and let you walk away with victory.

Click to expand...

I don't really care that much about 'victory' in Civ. Well -- I do aim generally towards it and I'm mad if I lose to the AI, but it's not the be-all and end-all for me like for some folks. I'm more of a role-player and just want to build up an empire and be immersed in the experience. To pick Autocracy as Germany and build up Welthauptstadt Germania, roaming the continents for other people's artifacts; to found colonies in all the right spots as England on the Earth-map; etc. A 'victory' for me is simply a trophy above the fire-place, meaningless in itself; what really counts is the memory of attaining said trophy. Such role-playing is generally inefficient in mp, which is one big reason for my reluctance to try it.

I greatly preferred the Civ IV AI due to its more predictable nature: only a select few civs would backstab you when you were Friendly, and the modifiers to relations were easy to understand and accumulate. If it was easier, well, I hardly noticed it. I played on Immortal in Civ IV and also in Civ V and there's not that much difference. I suppose the easiness of the diplomacy was counter-acted by the fact that the AI was an actual threat in combat due to stacking (if they brought big enough stacks to bear and had a tech advantage). So the Civ IV AI was like a tame Kodiak bear and the Civ V one like a rabid kitten.

Eagle Pursuit said:

http://games.on.net/2013/07/civilization-v-brave-new-world-reviewed-finally-the-system-works/

Good:

Cultural Victory requires actual strategy
AI quality now finally the way it should be
Diplomacy is now required, rather than an optional extra
World Congress + Multiplayer = Hilarity

Bad:

Performance is much better but still lags in some cases
Very few changes outside of Culture and Diplomacy

(It seems like most of the reviewers are very fond of Venice)

Click to expand...

Trade routes is a pretty big change that they missed.

Not sure if this has been posted already but here's another review:

http://venturebeat.com/2013/07/08/civilization-v-brave-new-world-review/

Critiques divided into three separate sections:

• "Civ V is still fundamentally broken"

  Click to expand...

• "The tactical A.I. is still a sack of potatoes"

  Click to expand...

• "Ideologies are just another grab bag of inconsequential, random bonuses"

  Click to expand...

"Conclusion:

The first 100 turns or so of a Civ V game hold that magic of the better prequels in this series — so full of exploration, discovery, mystery, and chance. It doesn’t hurt that the animations are beautiful and the attention to detail gorgeous; at times, I’d start a war just to see rockets fly or swords clash.

But as the game progresses, it quickly devolves into the same cycle of rote resource accumulation of filling culture and gold and science and tourism and faith and happiness buckets. That’d be all right if their buildup wasn’t a surefire thing you could depend upon. Sometimes Civ V feels like it’s on autopilot, which isn’t the hallmark of a strategy game worth your time."

Click to expand...

Score: 50/100

Is that venturebeat article written by Sulla?

seancolorado said:

Not sure if this has been posted already but here's another review:

Score: 50/100

Click to expand...

Same reviewer gave Gods & Kings a 65/100.
So it's quite clear he really doesn't like Civ 5 in general.
Won't argue with his opinion, just wanted to add a reference point to that review =)

I have to really question whether the reviewers have the understanding that, say, MadDjinn does about the game, since MD has repeatedly pointed to the ideologies as where you really tailor what you do to the endgame.

I am very much interested in more details on the first critique.

I’m convinced now that not even Firaxis (this being the studio’s second attempt) can correct the mistake of using happiness as the only growth limiter. It’s just far too easy to keep your nation content, and thus, it’s again always in your interest to spam as many cities as possible.
Read more at http://venturebeat.com/2013/07/08/civilization-v-brave-new-world-review/#ElApGgFBSsCeamA4.99

Click to expand...

I find it hard to believe (or take seriously) anyone who says it's 'always in your interest' to do ICS. Maybe that's the way he plays, but considering the number of discussions here where that is actively derailed or derided, it's hard to take them seriously.

As MonorailCat says, it's clear that he doesn't like CiV. It's more data.

MonorailCat said:

Same reviewer gave Gods & Kings a 65/100.
So it's quite clear he really doesn't like Civ 5 in general.
Won't argue with his opinion, just wanted to add a reference point to that review =)

Click to expand...

He does, indeed, just seem to not like Civ V in general. I'm not sure what kind of Civ game he wants, since the basic idea of "filling up buckets" (as he calls it) is fundamental to all Civ games.

Ulthwithian said:

I have to really question whether the reviewers have the understanding that, say, MadDjinn does about the game, since MD has repeatedly pointed to the ideologies as where you really tailor what you do to the endgame.

I am very much interested in more details on the first critique.

Click to expand...

I guess it's the typical "reviewer plays on Chieftain and wins handily so everything is inconsequential" ..

Ashbery76 said:

Settings should not matter.If money is too easy it ruins game choices.Day1 patch hopefully sorts it.

Click to expand...

Playstyle matters. Who knows how well this person knew how to play. He could have been playing well under his difficulty level and was able to min-max his gold better than most at lower levels. Or he could have been a massive noob who didn't know how best to spend his money and he just let it accumulate.

I'll be perfectly honest. Most likely the guy is a massive noob who doesn't understand the power of rush buying/upgrading your army. There is just no way you could have more money than you could handle. There is simply too much crap you can buy. Alternatively, you could assign your trade routes to your own city for food/production boost if things did somehow get out of control.

MonorailCat said:

I guess it's the typical "reviewer plays on Chieftain and wins handily so everything is inconsequential" ..

Click to expand...

Quite possibly. I mean, I play on Prince when I want a challenge, and I know better than to make the ICS argument. (One of the reasons I don't play on anything harder is because I do like to ICS, but I also know that this doesn't work very well on higher difficulties.)

I know all of us here defend Civilization, but they are actually valid criticisms. He supports everything he says with examples. We may not agree, but it's clear Civilization is not the game for everyone and he represents a large crowd of that type of gamer whether we like it or not

VentureBeat's bucket-filling critique seems more tailored towards the human condition in modern society than this game. I have issues with the happiness mechanic in Civ 5 but from his description of it, I suspect he wasn't playing it at a very high difficulty level.

HemlockMartinis said:

VentureBeat's bucket-filling critique seems more tailored towards the human condition in modern society than this game. I have issues with the happiness mechanic in Civ 5 but from his description of it, I suspect he wasn't playing it at a very high difficulty level.

Click to expand...

I'd say the gist of it is that if you didn't like Vanilla, and you didn't like G&K, then this won't change your mind. However, the inverse would also be true. If you liked Vanilla and you liked G&K, then you will like BNW.

seancolorado said:

I know all of us here defend Civilization, but they are actually valid criticisms. He supports everything he says with examples. We may not agree, but it's clear Civilization is not the game for everyone and he represents a large crowd of that type of gamer whether we like it or not

Click to expand...

Yeah sure, I wont argue with his opinion. But some parts just sound weird.

"And Civ V still doesn’t have much for you to do while you’re waiting for those buckets to fill. At times, I’d end my turn, waiting for my next chance to issue new orders or build additional city structures or select another technology to research. And I’d stare at the screen, waiting for these prompts … only to realize minutes later that I’d been looking at another “next turn” button."

Click to expand...

When does this happen? In the late game I get bombarded with notifications. I can only think of the first 20 turns, but in this time I'm busy exploring and turn waiting times are about 5 seconds.

Then his commentary that he likes strategy games, but Civ V is at its heart 'a terribly uninteresting strategy game'. Thats just mean and not objective

seancolorado said:

I know all of us here defend Civilization, but they are actually valid criticisms. He supports everything he says with examples. We may not agree, but it's clear Civilization is not the game for everyone and he represents a large crowd of that type of gamer whether we like it or not

Click to expand...

Well, to be honest, if he's 'not the type of gamer that CiV is meant for', why did he get a review of it? That's just bad marketing.

"Hey, let's have someone who doesn't play 4X games review our game!"

While I agree that there has to be a discussion about whether to try for demographics not traditionally within the arena or not, I think that's trying too hard.

And, honestly, I'd like counterexamples as well. I don't deride the reviewer for the fact he has reasons. As Chesteron notes in Orthodoxy, 'It's not an issue that the facts aren't convincing. They are, in fact. However, the facts are not facts.' 'No reason not to ICS' shows an appalling lack of understanding of even basic game mechanics. And here's the reason: he cites it as an issue hindering the growth of the game, when there's plenty of work on that very issue with the expansions and other patches. He's, quite bluntly, wrong if he thinks there's no reason not to ICS, and to state that in a review as something wrong with the game when he is, in fact, incorrect does nothing for his credibility as a reviewer.

seancolorado said:

I know all of us here defend Civilization, but they are actually valid criticisms. He supports everything he says with examples. We may not agree, but it's clear Civilization is not the game for everyone and he represents a large crowd of that type of gamer whether we like it or not

Click to expand...

I can't really see the antagonism you are speaking to in this thread. Everyone mostly seems to be shrugging and taking your view.

seancolorado said:

I know all of us here defend Civilization, but they are actually valid criticisms. He supports everything he says with examples. We may not agree, but it's clear Civilization is not the game for everyone and he represents a large crowd of that type of gamer whether we like it or not

Click to expand...

The VentureBeat review isn't very professional, and I don't say this merely because he gave BNW a low score. The guy barely mentions the culture/tourism mechanics, even though it is one of the biggest overhauls in the expansion. His opinion is that it's just another bucket to fill: that's fine, but can you provide some details as to why? There is barely a passing mention of archaeology, and no real mention of the Great Works. When you can't be bothered to devote even a couple paragraphs to one of the bigger changes, your agenda has taken over.

The professional thing to do is to say up front, "I don't like the core mechanics of Civ 5, and this doesn't offer sweeping fundamental changes. If you didn't like Civ 5 before, don't buy this. However, if you do like it, here are the things that seem fun and here are the things that don't add a whole lot/are still a problem." It's easy to do, makes it clear where you stand, and offers the right information for each segment of your audience.

This guy just wants you to hate Civ 5 the same way he does. I don't think that adds much of anything at this point.

Embargo lifted this morning. My review posted at 9:00am.

http://gamerant.com/civ-v-brave-new-world-reviews/

I gave it 4 out of 5. There are some really annoying bugs that the AI exploits though (like being able to build cities with no hex restriction).