1up.com review posted

[Auncien]

Enjoy.

http://www.1up.com/do/reviewPage?cId=3181540

[ZimbuTheMonkey]

Good find.

Can't wait for the head explosions and "told-ya-so's" soon because of the score.

[Auncien]

I agree with a lot of what he's saying but I think C is a tad harsh. That AI business really can be fixed it's just going to take some work from Firaxis and a patch or three.

[ZimbuTheMonkey]

Originally Posted by Auncien

I agree with a lot of what he's saying but I think C is a tad harsh. That AI business really can be fixed it's just going to take some work from Firaxis and a patch or three.

I just finished reading it and I'm with you. I agree with basically everything he has said, but for me the game feels more like a B in terms of fun and the experience I am getting out of it.

But I don't think a C is unreasonable because the changes in V are pretty drastic, there are bound to be people that just plain don't like them.

And yeah, mods and patches/updates can fix or change some of the stuff, but a good reviewer should not let that change his opinion of the product currently available to play.

EDIT: The reason it's a B for me is because I really, really like where the series is going with hexes and 1UPT. I'm not taking off points for bad AI because:

A) I'm not good enough at the game so I figure it balances stuff out
B) It will be fixed (I hope)

My major concern is the social policies and no religion, mostly because they ruin the immersion. Having real names for government types and religion in there REALLY made me feel like the game took place in the real world.

[anandus]

Very interesting review. Some good criticism there.

Although the rating is a bit odd. Did they run out of stars and numbers?
Is a 'C' a 3 out of 26 with Z being the highest? Or is it a 24 out of 26 with A being the highest?

[exorbit]

stupid review is stupid
@-anandus- no , it is a 5/10 !

[Andoo]

and 1up gave gta4 10/10..

[Auncien]

Originally Posted by ZimbuTheMonkey

And yeah, mods and patches/updates can fix or change some of the stuff, but a good review should not let that change his opinion of the product currently available to play.

Good point. The bit he says about "what is going on over at 2k's flagship studio" rings true. A bit more polish and maybe just talking more to players and a lot of these complaints wouldn't even be happening.

[ZimbuTheMonkey]

Originally Posted by exorbit

stupid review is stupid
@-anandus- no , it is a 5/10 !

Wanna tell us what you disagree with and why?

Originally Posted by Andoo

and 1up gave gta4 10/10..

A different reviewer gave another completely different game in a different genre a score you don't agree with so that automatically discredits this reviewer. Well, that makes sense.

Tom Chick gave Deus Ex a really low score back in the day. Deus Ex is one of my all-time favorite games. I still think he is one of the best reviewers out there.

[V. Soma]

I respect the staright sound of the review.
I read it that there is great potential in cvi5,
I do hope Shafer an Co. will listen to these observations
and patch the game to near perfection by the end of the year...

[exorbit]

First of all the AI is not as bad as he says .Second of all he bashes social policies , which i think they work very well and are a nice replacement for religion and governments.Then , he says''The other civilizations were basically war-mongering brain-dead speed bumps between you and whatever victory condition you were pursuing. But, you know, console games.'' No , it depends sometimes the Ai goes to war sometimes is very peacefully , and he mentions consoles ! WTF this has nothing to do with rev , i have it on my xbox , and i think civ 5 is more closer to 3 than it is to 4 or rev+ he bashes diplomacy .... i think that diplo works great !
Last - this is a fu...ing review ! are you trying to point out all the things that you don't like and not show the ones that work great ? and even those he pointed , civ 5 is NOT 4 it is better and especially DIFFRENT ! how can you give this game a 5/10 ? stupid reviewer !

[squadbroken]

Isn't this the same guy who said Deus Ex was "90% bad"?

edit: Why yes, it is.

[Drake L. Dragon]

Well, to quote one of the things said:

"The first is that the game already has a tech tree. Now it has two, each with its own resource. If you want to streamline out Civics and Religion, duplicating a concept that's already in the game is a strange choice."

And the civics system in Civilization IV was, by that logic, duplicating the units, buildings, and wonders system. Units, buildings, and wonders became available as new technology was founded, just like the civics were, but nobody criticized that the civics system was too dependent on the tech tree then. A separate tree of progression for intellectual and societal life versus technological life would seem to be the logical step, because, historically, there was a difference, and, gameplay-wise, it allows the player to focus on different ways of gameplay in order to win.

Another thing is that the grading scale for 1up uses basically the histogram system. It puts the conclusions into bins of A, B, C, D, etc., but, versus, per say, IGN's system of numerical scoring from 1 to 10 of different, pertinent aspects of the game and then averaging all the numbers together for a total score, I frankly find that to be not only a more elaborate but a more accurate, per say, method of grading to get the reviewer's entire perspective and viewpoint out. The 1up review was limited in the way that it was much more arbitrary.

[sohvan]

I agree with him on everything except the complaints about the social policy tree. The thing about techs is that you know you will always get nearly all techs. You are never truly choosing between getting the wheel instead of bronze working, but rather choosing when you get each. Even if you ignore some techs to rush for a more advanced one, the increasing tech costs will let you pick up the useful earlier techs in very little time.

On the other hand with policies you will never get all of them in one game, so deciding between two policies is a bigger decision. If I focus on tradition, it might mean I never get most of the policies in liberty for the entire game. If I get Iron Working early, I'll still end up getting all of the alternative early techs sooner or later. You have to think about both your current situation, and future developments when picking policy paths.

[Tortellini]

You can't change combat animations in game? What the hell???

I was only playing the demo for now, so I did not notice it yet. But seriously - they are already getting on my nerves sometimes. Until this point I thought C was a bit harsh, but for this alone he's right. That is so easy to fix and so annoying when it can't be done...

[Ayt]

Originally Posted by squadbroken

Isn't this the same guy who said Deus Ex was "90% bad"?

edit: Why yes, it is.

Thus all his opinions aren't valid?

Anyway, I agree with him about the AI being very poor in terms of military strategy and the ridiculously opaque diplomacy.

The diplomacy needs to be worked out in the next patch, IMO. There needs to be more feedback and a way to actually know what is going on the in the world diplomatically. I don't want completely transparent diplomacy, but there needs to be at least some information to make it somewhat fun.

I'm sure the AI will be worked on heavily, but right now the military AI isn't good at all.

[dannythefool]

Originally Posted by Ayt

Thus all his opinions aren't valid?

No, it just means he's been publishing one-sided reviews for quite some time. In fact he's known for his Deus Ex review, people still write features about it ten years later. So it seems like it's just his business strategy.

He does have some valid points, but there also are glaring omissions in his review. For example, he doesn't mention multiplayer at all (which is a key aspect of the game), and he's focusing on technical difficulties more than on design issues.

In short, it's more like the type of review I'd expect to see on the forums, maybe posted by some raging nerd who liked Civ IV a lot more. That doesn't mean it's all wrong, it's just not a very good review.

[Azazell]

This same reviewer give a R.U.S.E. Vote: B. buahahahhahah

and Civ 5 - vote: C? This is amator

[AveiMil]

Thanks for the review link. The reviewer notices important details about the game that I can imagine would piss me off.

I'm definitely not buying this game. I was at an impasse trying to decide whether or not to devote my time for StarCraft 2 or Civilization 5. But now I’ve decided that I’d rather spend my time trying to get into the top 200 in Europe in SC2 than play an unfinished game.

I guess the true release date of Civilization 5 won’t be till 1-2 years after the initial release. I even loaded up the Demo and quit after 5 minutes because it looked like an alpha build where rivers were just blue lines pasted onto the landscape. The terrain looked really freaking bland and ugly as well.

Sounds like I’ll go back to Civilization 4 if I plan to play any Civ again.

[Kashim]

Originally Posted by dannythefool

No, it just means he's been publishing one-sided reviews for quite some time. In fact he's known for his Deus Ex review, people still write features about it ten years later. So it seems like it's just his business strategy.

I think the same. Basically he bash a popular game when he have the chance to increase his recognition. In doing so he is clever enough to appeal those who have some reason to be disappointed with the game, so in many discussions about it there will be someone who posts the link to his articles.