big differences in reviews on amazon with Civ V, G&Ks

Leathaface

Emperor
Joined
Mar 11, 2012
Messages
1,720
Location
Cork, Ireland
This is a positive review from amazon.com about the Gods & Kings add-on:
51 of 55 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars And just that easily, the game becomes playable! June 19, 2012
By Chris Swanson TOP 500 REVIEWERVINE™ VOICE
Fun: 5.0 out of 5 stars
I wasn't overly impressed with Civ 5 when it first came out. I was so unimpressed, in fact, that for the last year or so I've ignored it and been playing Civ IV. There were a lot of things I didn't like about 5, like the lack of religion and espionage, the no-unit-stacking policy, the limited number of civs, the strangeness of the naval units and, frankly, I didn't get why everyone went so mad over the idea of the hex grid. I always found it rather annoying.

Thankfully while the hex grids and no stacking remain, this expansion adds in more civilizations, more city-states (for them as likes those), more naval units, espionage and religion! And boy, let me tell you about the religion options. They are astounding. First off, you get to adopt a pantheon fairly early in the game, which adds some minor bonuses. But then, once you have a great prophet, you can found an actual religion. There's all the ones from IV, plus ones like Zoroastrianism and Sikhism, as well as Tengriism, which sent me to Wikipedia, since I'd never heard of it before (though my guess on what it might have been was correct. Hooray!).

The diplomacy options have also expanded significantly. Now you can establish embassies in other countries, which gives you the location of their capitol and allows for other diplomatic niceties. You can also, if you are playing the Austrians, buy city-states, which is remarkably useful. There's also a large number of scenarios, including a steampunk one that I look forward to playing.

Now like I said, not all the "problems" I have with the game are fixed. But that said, I find that I enjoy the game much, much more with these features added and it might, finally, be time for me to retire from Civ IV.

Then you have this negative review from amazon.co.uk:

52 of 56 people found the following review helpful
2.0 out of 5 stars Don't waste your money 27 Jun 2012
By Yuki
Fun: 2.0 out of 5 stars
So here it is: The long-awaited expansion to Civilization 5 and I can't say I'm impressed. There was plenty that went wrong with the original that could have been put right, but unfortunately this hasn't happened.

Upon playing, you may be a little confused by the title "Gods and Kings", because although religion has been reintroduced into the game, there doesn't seem to have anything added in the realm of empire governance and the only other major feature to have been added is espionage. The failure to mention "spies" in the title is somewhat appropriate, as they're almost completely useless (more about *that* later).

The religion in Civilization is probably the most significant addition and it works as follows: You build various temples and wonders in your cities to generate "faith" points. Once you've got enough of those, you can add new traits to your pantheon, enhance your existing religion, or purchase a great prophet and found a new religion. Normally, the traits and enhancements come in the form of bonus gold or culture from owning certain tile improvements or resources, which to be honest does add something to the game and is worth going out of your way to pursue. Having said that, I've heard it claimed that civilizations of a different religion are more likely to declare war on you, although I've seen no evidence of this in practice; the other civilizations seem to be as unresponsive to differing religions as they do to differing social policies.

There are also a few new units, buildings, wonders of the world, civilizations and city states to play with, too. Some of the unit requirements have also been changed - thankfully, you no longer need aluminium to build a nuclear sub (which was a stupid requirement in the first place). Instead, you don't need anything at all (huh?). And I'm still puzzled at why you need a constant supply of uranium to keep an atom bomb in your arsenal, or why twice as much uranium is needed to build a nuclear bomb in its place.

As for everything else in the game, it's either not worth mentioning or hard to talk about in a positive sense.

Espionage has been reintroduced, although it's only worthwhile purpose seems to be for stealing technology, which you can only do if you're lagging behind your rivals. No longer can you sabotage production, poison enemy cities or damage strategically important tile improvements. The intelligence reports your spies come out with are less than useless: "So-and-so is plotting against you", "So-and-so is about to launch a sneak attack against you" my spies warn me every few turns, which sounds all very exciting, except that I've yet to see any evidence of any these monstrous conspiracies taking place. No sneak attack. No declaration of war. Not even increased troop movement. Reports of invasion plans continued turn after turn - none of which ever happened. As for the other aspects of espionage, getting my spy to launch a coup in a city state sounded exciting at first, until I realised that it didn't actually grant me any sort of control over the city state - it merely made it my ally, which it almost was anyway. What a waste of time.

Another unwelcome introduction to the game is this rather silly "zone of control" concept. You see, your units aren't able to use their full set of moves if there's an enemy unit in an adjacent tile, nor can you attack afterwards and it doesn't seem to matter what the unit is, what it's armed with, or where it is (this rule even applies to naval units). I don't know what exactly this adds to the game or what real life mechanism it's supposed to represent. Why couldn't I move my riflemen to outflank my enemy's swordmen? I'm the one with the guns: I'm not in their "zone of control" - they're in mine.

Other than that, not much has changed. The AI is so lacking in tactical finesse it makes Leeroy Jenkins look like Napoleon (failing to spot obvious weakpoints in my defences, failing to capture a city after it had reduced its defences to zero when it was perfectly capable of doing so. Sometimes, it also seems to have difficulty placing embarked units back on land.) And then there's the diplomacy system, which seems to have been programmed by Cristina Kirchner (A city state declared war on Spain, who I'd recently signed a defensive pact with. I then got nasty messages from two other civilizations warning me that they didn't like my "acts of aggression" against this warmongering city state. Trying to make trade deals with supposedly friendly civilizations is ridiculously expensive, nor do they ever seem to offer you assistance at any point).

All in all, Gods and Kings isn't worth buying, not when there are so many free (and arguably superior) fan-made mods for original.

In both case scenarios a lot of people agree with each reviewer. Where do you guys stand?

Is the 2nd review negative because Civ V isn't similar to Civ IV?
 
Random guess: People who agreed with the Civ5 review didn't play it any further and thus didn't read the G&K review and therefore didn't disagree.
 
Humans are individuals. it would be sad if everyone agreed that everything was great like clones.

There are good things about Civ5, but there are definitely bad things about Civ 5 too!

I would say Civ4 is better than Civ5 in general, except for the better Leaders and no stacks.
 
i dont go to amazon for a review on games. it would be like asking paris Hilton what the virtues of Abstinence are. :D cheap shot i know.
 
I find Amazon is one of the best places for non-bias reviews especially because they`re by individual customers. They may be harsh, but they leave no stone unturned. If you want to know the truth, that`s the place to look.

The trick is to read most of them then make a balanced decision on what you`ve read - Add the good and bad and take what you like.

Far better than the gushing Official biased reviews that are designed to please the publisher.
 
Problem is, the people can only be bothered to write games if they loved it to DEATH or hated it so much they wished DEATH on it. Its rare anyone actually writes a balance article.
 
i dont go to amazon for a review on games. it would be like asking paris Hilton what the virtues of Abstinence are. :D cheap shot i know.

:lol:
 
Problem is, the people can only be bothered to write games if they loved it to DEATH or hated it so much they wished DEATH on it. Its rare anyone actually writes a balance article.

Totally agree, people easily get overboard with their opinions. I find it unwise not getting a game because of the others opinions in sites like amazon.
 
Both reviews have their points. But one pretty much skips past the negatives, while the other completely ignores the many positives. Despite the negatives that remain, it is still an awesome game... IMO, of course.
 
Gods and Kings is great. There are so many improvements that make the game much more playable and enjoyable than before.

I'll go with the first one.

Cheers.
 
Best to look at sites that amalgamate reviews. Doesn't Metacritic do this?

Also, beware reviews on the first day of release. Look how SPORE was hyped, got tons of great reviews, then after a few days/weeks, the bad reviews started come in. It died a DEATH. Not all the reviews ever were updated, you can still see top reviews for such a flawed game. DEATH to those reviewers!
 
Gods and Kings is great. There are so many improvements that make the game much more playable and enjoyable than before.

I'll go with the first one.

Cheers.

Can you tell me which improvements, I only played Vanilla a bit before upgrading to G&K's.
 
Best to look at sites that amalgamate reviews. Doesn't Metacritic do this?

Also, beware reviews on the first day of release. Look how SPORE was hyped, got tons of great reviews, then after a few days/weeks, the bad reviews started come in. It died a DEATH. Not all the reviews ever were updated, you can still see top reviews for such a flawed game. DEATH to those reviewers!

Good point. Best reviews are best read after the game`s been out at least a few weeks. Often games are made to work ok for the 1st half, then collapse the 2nd half. Anyone playing a new game is also still `hypnotised` by the euphoria of `my new game` and don`t want to admit when something isn`t all that good until later.
Because of stuff like this I...

1. Never buy on release.
2. Wait a few weeks for balanced reviews.
3. I always read bad or negative reviews as well as good. Bad or negative reviews are good as long as they detail why they think it`s bad. That`s why I like to see at least one. This way I can decide if it really is bad.

No one wants to trust reviews that just say good things- Something is wrong there. check as many independent and CUSTOMER reviews sites as much as possible. Stay away from official ones. Follow this advice and you won`t go wrong when spending your hard-earned money on games.

That`s if someone doesn`t buy your games for you, that is.
 
Can you tell me which improvements, I only played Vanilla a bit before upgrading to G&K's.

Umm, the improvements I'm thinking about are:

1. The upgrade units path.

Now all very logical and units all upgrade sensibly. For example Longswordsmen to Musketmen.

2. The AI in combat

The AI is so much better in combat and acts much more like a human player.

3. Changed Combat

All units now have 100 hps and fights take longer to resolve and are more fun tactically.

4. Religion and Espionage

These two new features are great (Religion more than Espionage).

5. New Civs, Units, Buildings, Wonders, Resources

Lots and lots. Makes the game even more enjoyable and re-playable.

For more info: http://well-of-souls.com/civ/civ5_expansion.html

Cheers.
 
2. The AI in combat

The AI is so much better in combat and acts much more like a human player.

I strongly disagree with you here. You'll never see a human player let a Great General saddle up next to an enemy unit unprotected. (This happened during a King-level game, by the way. I was fighting Dido in her territory, and for no apparent reason she moved a Great General right next to one of my units, completely unguarded. Of course, I took it.)
 
The point still stands. The AI is still relatively poor - but it is much better than the AI at the start of this game in Vanilla
 
I strongly disagree with you here. You'll never see a human player let a Great General saddle up next to an enemy unit unprotected. (This happened during a King-level game, by the way. I was fighting Dido in her territory, and for no apparent reason she moved a Great General right next to one of my units, completely unguarded. Of course, I took it.)

Acts MUCH MORE like a human player. Not totally like one :)

Cheers.
 
Both reviews have their merits; there are a lot of good things about Gods & Kings (as the first review says, the Religion system is amazing), but the AI can still make some strange tactical choices and it's almost universally agreed that the Espionage system needs some work.

Per most things in life, the truth is somewhere in the middle. G&K is great and a massive step up from CiVanilla, but there are some tweaks to be had (though I disagree with the 2nd review that Zone of Control is a problem in the game [and it's been in the game since Vanilla], though I wish mounted units could ignore it).
 
Top Bottom