IGN claims Civ 5 "has no soul".

[drhirsch]

Interesting, after the first few games I played, I thought the game is "seelenlos" (=lacking a soul). But not a native english speaker, I didn't know to transport the meaning without changing it

 

[SuperJay]

I actually think the author has a good point, but not for the reasons he thinks he does. I don't feel that 5 has the soul of previous Civ games, but this guy seems to think that cinematics are emotionally relevent.

And seriously... Civ5 = "overwhelming" with too much detail / information / numbers??

Really?

It's streamlined and organic, guy. If anything, it's oversimplified and underwhelming.

 

[Maxor127]

I've been using those exact words that Civ5 lacks soul for weeks now. It's not about instant gratification versus long term effects. It's about the game being a meandering mess, and a lot of the complexity is gone. Simpler isn't always better. They took away a lot of the nuances of the previous games and left you with fewer choices in how to manage your civ. And there are less touches that pull you into the game, like era specific music. The music in Civ4 went a long way in setting the mood. Certain accomplishments are meaningless now and you get rewarded less for success and punished more, like defeating another civ and taking their cities could cripple your empire. And the game no longer cares who reaches certain techs first or who circumnavigates the world. And the AI feel like nothing more than sheep waiting to be slaughtered rather than actual civs trying to manage their empires.

 

[sosueme]

This just in. Collection of 1s, 0s is lacking an immortal living presence. Theological experts believe that it not transcend to an afterlife after being uninstalled. News at 11.

Shill Review plus navel-gazing, vaguely negative editorial does not a balanced news source make. Most of his complaints can be applied to any game that doesn't have long CGI cut scenes. I bet he was the annoying kid who wanted to pretend to take your bags and show you to your room whenever you landed on one of his hotels in Monopoly.

 

[Guardian_PL]

Despite that I ignore these marketing hubs (IGN/Gamespot) I completely agree with the idea of Civ5 being soulless. That's exactly what it is - there's no connection between me and game whatsoever, there's nothing about my games I want to share with my friends (even comments about abysmal AI gotten old pretty fast).

In Civ4 I could talk for hours with my mates abut the games we've had/were curently playing. In civ5 there's nothing but boredom.

 

[SirMaru]

I agree and don't agree with many of the points he makes. I find it odd that he complains about all sorts of things that aren't actually that annoying, but barely mentions the horrible AI and the things that are currently harming the game the most.

Thoughts?

So far playing one on one with a single AI (no City States or Barbarians) I've lost 3 and won 2. My losses were at King Level and my wins were at Prince Level. I use the Duel Board and start in the Industrial Age.

That's way enough competition for me. Remember, I do like to win once in awhile. Having just one AI definitely improves the AI skill level.

 

[Venereus]

The point is clear and straight foward. A current trend in the videogame industry, and particulary in videogaming journalism, is to push for a more proggresive conception of video games, seeing them as a narrative tool, like cinema. If they can tell a story, then they are a addition to human culture. If they are just a hobby to kill some time in a meaningless way, then they're pointless. Civ V is too gamey and too "play to win" to tell a story, wich is one of the reasons many players can't enjoy it, and the reason it can be considered a "cultural failure". Not far-fetched at all.

 

[Thoughtful Thug]

is this supposed to be a joke?

why do strategy games need souls all of a sudden

He did choose the name "Hard Core" gamer for a reason.

 

[Cincinnatus C.]

The point is clear and straight foward. A current trend in the videogame industry, and particulary in videogaming journalism, is to push for a more proggresive conception of video games, seeing them as a narrative tool, like cinema. If they can tell a story, then they are a addition to human culture. If they are just a hobby to kill some time in a meaningless way, then they're pointless. Civ V is too gamey and too "play to win" to tell a story, wich is one of the reasons many players can't enjoy it, and the reason it can be considered a "cultural failure". Not far-fetched at all.

The article isn't saying that that's a trend that is popular with most common players nowadays - it's asserting that it is a fundamental trait of the medium that determines how "cinema with interactivity" is inherently superior to a "gamey" game.

Saying that things with stories are the only things that have cultural vale is ridiculous, unless you really hate, for example, visual arts. Hobbies are cultural; sports, for example. Culture doesn't mean art, and if it did most movies wouldn't count, either.

You can't reasonably argue that this article isn't elitist, because it simply is, very obviously and more or less unapologetically.

 

[Sullla]

I'm pretty well known as a critic of Civ5, but that editorial was completely meaningless, and its criticisms baseless. Why would Civilization need to become more "cinematic"? How would that make it a better game? Why is it even desirable in the first place for games to imitate movies?

That's leaving aside the pseudo-intellectual babble about "emotional purpose" and "irresolvable conflict." I thought we were talking about games, not reading Pride and Prejudice.

 

[JoxerNL]

Here is a recent and a interesting article from IGN:

IGN has lost all their credability the day they posted this piece of garbage :
http://uk.pc.ign.com/articles/107/1078650p2.html

See how positive they are towards that pile of junk, now read the civ V review, sounds more like they are trying to sail on others their work done on this very forum.
What a joke.

 

[Charvel1]

Vague and meaningless article is vague and meaningless.

 

[Thormodr]

Shafer 5 indeed has no soul and it certainly has a lot of problems but that piece was complete rubbish.

IGN trying to look like they have even a tiny bit of credibility and integrity after word has gotten out that Shafer 5 isn't so hot in spite of glowing reviews from their bootlickers.

 

[ChaplainDMK]

Most games could be played 1000 years ago ... Its basicaly just a bunch of statistics.
Civ just throws them in your face.
While I agree that it lacks cinematics, that would up the experience, I find saying that a game "has no soul" because of it is a bit dumb.
Any game resting on cinematics for soul is kinda shallow then...

 

[Thander]

IGN has lost all their credability the day they posted this piece of garbage :
http://uk.pc.ign.com/articles/107/1078650p2.html

See how positive they are towards that pile of junk, now read the civ V review, sounds more like they are trying to sail on others their work done on this very forum.
What a joke.

Oh much earlier than that. They have been like this even from the beginning. They started out as exclusively N64 games always bumping up the scores by a few points, ajust s bad as Nintendo Power. As PS1, Xbox, and more consoles have been added over time, they have continued the undeserved high scores across the board. I saw a study a few months ago where someone had checked average review scores for some websites. IGN was consistently a point or so higher than every other site.

I can only guess they have really low standards for what makes a great game. I guess you could say they review games in a closed box. They treat each game as brand new, never before done when other sites are doing the correct thing of comparing a new game with previous ones in the genre or series.

 

[Officerjackboot]

I agree with some of the content of the article but overall the critique that it "has no soul" is corny. I don't exactly even know what that means but if I do understand it correctly only a handful of games I have played in my life have evoked emotion the rest are what they are you play them have fun then move on.

This critique of "no soul" should apply to pretty much every game imo.

 

[zomg]

I think he meant it lacks "sole", as in the fish. There is fishing but its very generic, it doesnt specify what type of fish, and there is certainly no animation for it.

I was thinking the same, but lobster would be better imo.

 

[Cincinnatus C.]

I think he meant it lacks "sole", as in the fish. There is fishing but its very generic, it doesnt specify what type of fish, and there is certainly no animation for it.

I was thinking the same, but lobster would be better imo.

Additionally, the bottom of most units' feets aren't rendered.

It's also possible that the reviewer simply didn't encounter Seoul and therefore assumed it wasn't included.

 

[sosueme]

Maybe the writer is also a music enthusiast and feels that the game's soundtrack is lacking? Perhaps a bit of James Brown in the classical era and Erykah Badu in the modern era would have left him with a more favorable impression?

 

[Justicex]

Well, you know that you are pwned when Sulla hates your review more than he does Civ V

I have felt similarly about Civ V though. While I am one of the proud few who actually enjoy Civ V, it doesn't have the same feel, or charm, or heart, or soul or whatever you wish to call it as previous games. An easy target is the cinematics since they are so visual and their absence is easily noticeable. On top of that, the few graphics you do have are generally blocked by other game elements (like the launching of the rocket for the scientific victory being blocked by the victory screen).

The reviewer undoubtedly has no clue what he is talking about. And when he talks about not making stories, I have to wonder what kind of childhood he had. This individual obviously has little to no imagination. I make up great stories all the time as I'm playing. Like in this game I'm playing now, I'm parked right beside America in the very beginning. I expand near him because there's massive resources I want for my civ. So of course, Washington gets snippy. After getting his civ to 3 cities, and a half-decent military, he decides that he's going to whup a near-by city-state just cuz it's there! I'm like "Oh no you di-ent! I've been waiting for you to make a stoopid mistake like that!" So I march my measly army (I'm out-teched at this point. too much focus on expansion ><), take out the remainder of his military from behind, rush-buy a couple of horsemen and take Washington by any means necessary, laughing the whole time I did it. I went on to wipe out America, allied with that city-state and even gifted some spearmen to it (I don't normally as a genreral rule).

Now in my head the story contains a lot more detail and dialogue than I care to get into here, but you get the idea. Stories are created by the storyteller, not the quill and ink. For every Jerry Brukheimer and Steven Spielberg, there's an Ewe Bolle (sp?) and an Ashok Amritaj.