PC Gamer gives Civ V 93%

[Niniux]

I think you're quite correct in terming it as a psychological phenomenon too.

I played Ultima Online, when it first came out. It was arguably the first major MMO. I absolutely loved the game and played it for years. Every once in a while, another MMO would come out that would grab my interest, but it would quickly be dismissed as inferior to UO. In actuality, the graphics and the gameplay of the following games would be markedly better than UO, but my nostalgic view of the game would make it seem like those other ones paled in comparisons. For a long time, I was embracing things about the game that could even be considered flaws, and using them as reasons why it was a better game. (The ability to attack anyone outside of town and steal their belongings off their corpses, for example.)

So, I agree, that it could exist to some extent. I think it's more to do with nostalgia than anything else.

 

[kozzer]

"Mean" is similar to "average". "Regression to the mean" simply refers to the idea than in statistical data, noise will disappear over a larger sample set, and data will trend toward the average of that set. For instance, if you've got a baseball player who's a .280 hitter, but has a month where he hits .300, then in order to be at his customary .280 at the end of the year (the mean), he'll have a month of batting .260. That's putting it very simplistically, but that's the idea.

Stating that trying out City of Heroes or Guild Wars then going back to WoW is an example of "regression to the mean" is just not correct. And applying it to anything subjective (such as peoples' opinions) is not really correct either (but I do see where Piece of Mind is coming from now).

Saying that Civ5 probably won't be as good as Civ4, because there's some baseline of quality Civ games have, where we need to balance out the awesome Civ4 with a subpar Civ5 to get our baseline (which would be regression to the mean) is really kind of a non sequitur. I LOVE Civ4 (my favrote PC game ever, with the possible exception of MOO2 or Age of Kings), but from what I'm seeing - 1upt, social policies, limited resources, city states - I'm loving all the changes and for my tastes I think that I might even like vanilla Civ5 more than BTS. Could be wrong (haven't played the game myself), but the point is that there's no number attached to how good a game is. It's merely someone's opinion, that isn't really quantifiable. Well, even though the article referred to in the OP attempts to do just that.

But, as in all things that are subjective opinion, YMMV.

 

[Bad Brett]

Everything that is going on right now is about building hype to sell a product. You think 2k Greg is here because they thought we needed a friend? You think they're letting people play early to give 'the fans' a sneak peak out of the goodness of their hearts? It's not about friendship. It's not about 'the fans.' It's not about 'the gameplay.' It's about manipulating your emotions so that you'll hand them money. That's it. It's about what people will pay for. Everything else is just incidental. If people can have fun with it, great. If not, it's marketing and PR's job to move it anyway.

No. I never trust previews. I rarely trust reviews. I don't befried "community managers." I trust what I experience. It's the only rational course of action in a capitalist society.

Best post I've read in a long time. Of course you're absolutely right. And their strategy seems to be working really well, because very few people seem to remember that the most recent PC titles (Civ 4: Col and Railroads!) were complete disasters.

Aucien, the previews are of course there to sell you the game, but there done by 3rd parties, i.e. they don't get any benefit from achieving sales, they don't work for 2k, there only paid to write a preview, they don't get commison.

Therefore you can trust that there opinion is just that there opinion, they make money by giving thier honest opinions and not lying to thier readers, to assume otherwise is contrary to logic.

If you don't want to pre-order thats fine, if you want to think that all previwers are all evil liars out to get you. Then fine. But why ruin other peoples anticipation of the game by constantly accusing it of being rubbish and scaring people away from the game?

You are 100% wrong. Gaming Magazines make profit by previewing new games, especially the big titles. It's therefore very important that they have good relations with the big gaming companies. If a magazine started to give low graders, 2k Games would most likely stop sending them early releases. This would of course hurt the magazine, because they would get less to write about. So most likely both software companies and gaming magazines profit from good reviews. Railroads! and Civ: Col got about 75-80% in general, even though the games are really, really bad.

 

[DeepQantas]

Confusing big publications for critics is like confusing the White House Press Corps for journalists.

 

[Azazell]

I give this game 9.5 points out of 10 (preview version)

 

[Lyoncet]

Confusing big publications for critics is like confusing the White House Press Corps for journalists.

Good sir/ma'am, would you mind if I made this my sig?

 

[Szpilman]

Is that a totem you've made?

 

[Wolle68]

Perhaps you're just getting older, and the excitement for computer games is not what it used to be..

Pfft... I'm 41 and I'm as exited as ever.

 

[civ_king]

Pfft... I'm 41 and I'm as exited as ever.

"exited" you're getting old man, seems your brain isn't quite what it used to be

 

[Darth Caesar]

More emphasis on combat is just fine with me.