The most hatred-filled review you'll come across

[Andulias]

This part of the review caught my eye, because in C4 there is a huge effect on Diplomatic relations for having the same, or having a different religion as another AI:



What a bummer! I wonder if the mechanic is not there, or if it's just hidden to the player.

The way you can cheese the AI in civ4 with religions is maybe not realistic but very fun.

Or maybe it's there alright and the review period was just to short for TC to notice.

Check out this thread thread. It is a much more reliable source than this review, and you will find an explanation of how religion impacts diplomacy. An absolute must-read is this one as well

 

[dtolman]

A review does indeed list all the features of the game and then evaluates how well those are implemented and how well they work in the context of the game.

This is everything wrong with modern game reviews in one sentence. Games are more than a collection of features. Movies aren't reviewed on how well the color correction process was executed. Or the crispness of the editing. Or the quality of the foley artist. Why are games reviewed this way?

Paint Drying Simulator 2012 might bring all the features of PDS 2011 and advanced voxel based paint drying, visible air density changes when the user forgets to open the window, and new coop play - but its still a friggin' simulation of watching paint dry - why would you play it???*

At the end of the day, a review needs to inform the reader about whether or not the game is worth their time and money, and how the reviewer came to this conclusion. This review did just that.

*Note - their is no such thing as PDS 2012.

 

[Andulias]

This is everything wrong with modern game reviews in one sentence. Games are more than a collection of features. Movies aren't reviewed on how well the color correction process was executed. Or the crispness of the editing. Or the quality of the foley artist. Why are games reviewed this way?

Paint Drying Simulator 2012 might bring all the features of PDS 2011 and advanced voxel based paint drying, visible air density changes when the user forgets to open the window, and new coop play - but its still a friggin' simulation of watching paint dry - why would you play it???*

At the end of the day, a review needs to inform the reader about whether or not the game is worth their time and money, and how the reviewer came to this conclusion. This review did just that.

*Note - their is no such thing as PDS 2012.

And in what way what I just said doesn't do it? Isn't it the best way to put yourself in the shoes of the target audience and evaluate the game from their perspective? People aren't reading reviews to see if some guy the don't know likes the game, they read them to see if THEY will like the game. He did just NOT do that. He hated, he ignored improvements, he ignored all the patching, he whined about religion fading out when it was the same in 4, in other words, he has 0 credibility. I followed another poster's advice and listened to a podcast with Tom Chick. Read the post, I think it was on page 3. Sums up what a prick he seems to be rather well.

 

[dtolman]

Isn't it the best way to put yourself in the shoes of the target audience and evaluate the game from their perspective?

You're exactly right. So here I am - the target audience who was disappointed by Civ V a year and half ago for almost identical reasons. So disappointed, I haven't even THOUGHT about it in a year, let alone bothered playing it. How is this review a disservice to me?

I know Tom is a prick, I'm on his forum - despite that. And thats saying something. But I see nothing here that disagrees with the fundamental premise of his review - if you're looking for this expansion to make Civ V into something more than what it was at release, you're going to be disappointed.

I know I'm looking for something more. Tacking on a few more tech trees in other garbs is not what I'm looking for. Two is enough.

 

[Andulias]

You're exactly right. So here I am - the target audience who was disappointed by Civ V a year and half ago for almost identical reasons. So disappointed, I haven't even THOUGHT about it in a year, let alone bothered playing it. How is this review a disservice to me?

I know Tom is a prick, I'm on his forum - despite that. And thats saying something. But I see nothing here that disagrees with the fundamental premise of his review - if you're looking for this expansion to make Civ V into something more than what it was at release, you're going to be disappointed.

I know I'm looking for something more. Tacking on a few more tech trees in other garbs is not what I'm looking for. Two is enough.

The target audience for an expansion pack is the people who bought the game in the first place. The people who play Civ V. Did he put himself in their shoes? No.

And read this. There are a lot more changes than you think.

 

[Baleur]

Ridiculous "review", but i do agree with one point.

"Furthermore, religion matters even less as a game goes on. Firaxis intends that religion will get less relevant as history progresses, which is plenty realistic from the perspective of a bunch of privileged overeducated Americans like me and Firaxis. But it’s also a gross mischaracterization of the rest of the world to present religion as something that you can pretty much forget about once the Enlightenment has run its course."

This always struck me as odd too. Especially considering that religion (aka cultural differences and life values & lifestyle differences) is the main reason nations go to war even in the modern day.
Just look at the Middle East and Israel. Though the term "overeducated americans like me" is funny in two levels.

So i do agree with that point. It is a ridiculous game mechanic that religion gets less important as time goes on, and is very unrealistic at that. I mean it's akin to saying that a billion indian hindus would suddenly drop their faith and thousands of years of customs just because they got cars on the streets of calcutta.
Did that happen irl? Not even close.

 

[K7avenged]

The target audience for an expansion pack is the people who bought the game in the first place. The people who play Civ V. Did he put himself in their shoes? No.

And read this. There are a lot more changes than you think.

Out of curiosity, what do you think of his review of Civ 5?

 

[marx666]

It's ok. meh. adds more content to a dying franchise.

 

[joutlan]

Err, he's Tom Chick, the guy who hated Deus Ex; I don't think you guys should take it too seriously.

What does a Chick know about Civ anyway?

PS: I'm enjoying the G&K expansion myself. I do hope they tweak the bipolar AI a little in stock form. But still, it's loads of fun!

 

[Maledict]

It's Tom Chick, what does anyone expect? He's an attention seeker with dodgy connections.

He writes deliberately provocative reviews slamming popular games to get attention. He gives favourable reviews to companies that employ him, or just because it's again provocative. When Civ 5 was released he rated Elemental as better.

*Elemental*. The game so broken the publishers are giving a copy of the completely rebuilt expansion to everyone who bought it for *free*. Yes Civ 5 had issues but elemental flat out didn't work.

(and god knows what he was on or getting for the ridiculously lavish over the top praise Bioshock 2 got from him).

He writes stuff to get attention and praises stuff by people who employ him. He can write well but should be totally ignored as a reviewer.

 

[nokmirt]

What does a Chick know about Civ anyway?

PS: I'm enjoying the G&K expansion myself. I do hope they tweak the bipolar AI a little in stock form. But still, it's loads of fun!

Tom Chick is lame. I agree GnK is really a substantial improvement for CiV.

 

[AriochIV]

Why is open borders thrown all the way to civil service? I basically had to delete about 5 scouting units that got trapped/couldn't explore further because I couldn't get open borders until the middle ages?

I have to agree that this a very curious change, and makes early exploration very difficult. I'm not sure why they thought this was necessary.

 

[Andulias]

Ridiculous "review", but i do agree with one point.

"Furthermore, religion matters even less as a game goes on. Firaxis intends that religion will get less relevant as history progresses, which is plenty realistic from the perspective of a bunch of privileged overeducated Americans like me and Firaxis. But it’s also a gross mischaracterization of the rest of the world to present religion as something that you can pretty much forget about once the Enlightenment has run its course."

This always struck me as odd too. Especially considering that religion (aka cultural differences and life values & lifestyle differences) is the main reason nations go to war even in the modern day.
Just look at the Middle East and Israel. Though the term "overeducated americans like me" is funny in two levels.

So i do agree with that point. It is a ridiculous game mechanic that religion gets less important as time goes on, and is very unrealistic at that. I mean it's akin to saying that a billion indian hindus would suddenly drop their faith and thousands of years of customs just because they got cars on the streets of calcutta.
Did that happen irl? Not even close.

But it did. When was the Last Crusade? And I'm not talking about Indiana Jones. Does the everyday person care about what religion you are following? No, not at all. I have a Muslim, an atheist, lots of Christians and one Buddhist for neighbours. We get along just fine, something that would have been unthinkable during the Middle Ages. Religion doesn't go away, your cities still follow you religion, you still get the bonuses for it. But you can't really use faith to get prophets, holy warriors and so forth. And AI civs don't care that much about your religion, just like in real life.

As for the Middle-East - that's not religion. It's nationalism and lust for power, not religion. So I think the system in Civ 5, while not perfect, works fine. It also gives a sense of progression, something the game sorely needs.

Out of curiosity, what do you think of his review of Civ 5?

I actually started following CivFanatics shortly after the release of Civ V, so I hadn't given that review much though (otherwise I would have named the threat Tom Chick Strikes Back). In any case, page 2, post 28. To say it again - it's a lot better. He doesn't rage on like some idiot, he simply brings up valid issues (AI, bugs) and things he felt worked better in IV (civics, although I actually like SPs too). While he still shows how full of himself he is with that Chick Parabola, he is pretty fair, the only thing I have a beef with is this:

What's more, the game loves big messy numbers. Numbers in the dozens, hundreds, thousands. You'll have piles of unhappiness, heaps of culture, clumped maintenance costs, and truckloads of food. Large numbers perch at the top of the screen like crows. Traditionally, the Civilization series has been about discrete bits and pieces, each an icon lined up in neat rows on elegant screens, easy to read at a glance, and easy to relate to the game world. A hammer here, a piece of food there, a coin, a flask, a bushel. This boardgame elegance is almost entirely gone in Civilization V, despite its attempts to streamline the gameplay.

Last CIV game I played a single one of my cities was making 400 beakers by the end of the game. His claim is preposterous, in fact I just noticed someone called him out about that in the comment section, a post entitled "Big numbers aren't new to Civ".

Apart from that, it is actually a good review, and while I would have given V a B- or C+, it's pretty good. I particularly like his verdict:

In many ways, Civilization V is an admirable game, bolder and sexier than the average strategy game, and sporting some nice innovations that will make it hard to go back to Civilization IV. But in other ways, it's a disappointment that needs a lot more work before it earns its place as the successor to Civilization IV.

That's a very good summing up of Civ V's bad launch. That doesn't excuse him for this review, where he calls it a "disappointing mess". See the shift in tone? He hates patched and improved game now more than the buggy and full of exploits one at launch?! I still think Civ IV BTS is superior, but it at least seems to me the expansion is pretty big and tweaks many aspects of the game, all for the better. And fans so far have contradicted a lot of the points he makes, particularly about the AI. I have yet to see that myself though.

 

[i_imperator]

All i have to say about this review is....haters gonna hate.

Its kinda amusing to read his review on civ v vanilla, which he linked in this artical, as he gave it a very mixed opinion at the time.And when i say that it isnt as rant filled or negative as this review.

 

[TomChick]

He writes deliberately provocative reviews slamming popular games to get attention. He gives favourable reviews to companies that employ him, or just because it's again provocative. When Civ 5 was released he rated Elemental as better.

I'm not sure where this talking point got started, but I never reviewed Elemental. In fact, I was openly critical of it when it launched. I'd love to link to some of the stuff I wrote about it, but it's not online any longer. Thanks, Syfy!

As for your other accusations, well, I disagree. I'm not sure what game companies you think are employing me, but the one time I was hired to write a manual (Galactic Civilizations II), I recused myself from writing about the game when it was released, much less reviewing it. And if you think that somehow meant I was going to handle Stardock with kid gloves...well, here again, I wish I could link to my early reactions to Elemental.

-Tom

 

[markusbeutel]

While hardly anyone left on this forum would agree with Tom's review, (seeing as those left probably really like Civ), he backs up his points - it's just that he merely represents the other side of civ gamers (I'd count myself in that group) that were disappointed with Civ V.

Basically, there's a bastion of players out there that were looking at this expansion and hoping it would fix the internals, rather than just add more features on top of existing ones. And on that front, in their eyes, the expansion falls short. If you disliked the mechanics to begin with, this is how you'll view the expansion:

1) Diplomacy still feels random, with no way to maintain lasting friendships without going through xmls.
2) The tactical AI is still terrible.
3) The UI is still unintuitive and unwieldy for anyone that would consider themselves a power / micro user.
4) Global Happiness, along with no concept of distance maintenance or health, means that ICS is still the dominant strategy.
5) The Tech Tree is still basically 2 straight lines, (an upper half, and a lower half).
6) Policies are inferior to Governments and don't represent any trade-offs.

G+K's could add countless new features, but as long as these core concepts remain the same, detractors will keep ranting, (because they care), and there's nothing that can be done to change that (apart from CIV VI). In a way, the end result is pretty great for Firaxis. These players will continue to play and mod CIV IV, while newer players will continue to play and mod CIV V. Like having your cake and eating it too.

 

[OrsonM]

Congrats on the steam workshop btw Marcus, it's looking fiiine.

And yeah, get a newer version of Nights and show them cityfolk how it's done (even though I'm pretty sure you live in a city and Firaxis is in like the county)

 

[Esoteric Arcane]

With you Markus,

I agree, I started with Civ 2 and tried Civ 3, but went back to Civ 2, Civ 4 came out and I like a lot of its concepts over Civ 3 (although I missed the bombard ability) BTS expansion was another good step. Civ 5 like civ 3 was trying to go in a new direction for Civ, which is why I go back to Civ 4 over playing Civ 5. Two completely different game concepts. I dont hate civ 5, but I dont feel it is Civ.

 

[Sarda]

Tom also seemed to miss mentioning that the AI is basically brain dead when it comes to religion, they never spread it. Ever. They don't even use religious units. My test game was a Diety game vs 7 other civs and not one of the competeing faiths spread their religion out of their founding city. I did see them charging generals ahead of their armies however, directly into my citadels with my multi-hundred-XP-ranged units that single handly wiped out armies, which I coulda swore they claimed didn't happen anymore. My scouts still can't be set to auto-explore, they walk right thru enemy land annoying city states, and walk right past goodie huts. Majority of my time was still spent as busy work hunting barbarians with archers, babysitting scouts, and dismissing city state requests. So really nothing changed, we just added another broken part. I will admit however, I didn't even attempt to try the espionage, I was so bored and deprived of mental stimulus that I had to quit before I reached that, and despite not playing since 1.1 over a year ago, first game on diety, in the lead by almost 10% over 2nd place. Lol.

 

[BobDole]

Tom also seemed to miss mentioning that the AI is basically brain dead when it comes to religion, they never spread it. Ever. They don't even use religious units. My test game was a Diety game vs 7 other civs and not one of the competeing faiths spread their religion out of their founding city. I did see them charging generals ahead of their armies however, directly into my citadels with my multi-hundred-XP-ranged units that single handly wiped out armies, which I coulda swore they claimed didn't happen anymore. My scouts still can't be set to auto-explore, they walk right thru enemy land annoying city states, and walk right past goodie huts. Majority of my time was still spent as busy work hunting barbarians with archers, babysitting scouts, and dismissing city state requests. So really nothing changed, we just added another broken part. I will admit however, I didn't even attempt to try the espionage, I was so bored and deprived of mental stimulus that I had to quit before I reached that, and despite not playing since 1.1 over a year ago, first game on diety, in the lead by almost 10% over 2nd place. Lol.

I can't argue everything, because I haven't played enough, but the AI definitely spreads religion at least somewhat. I would know: Austria sent a Great Prophet over to my capital (and holy city) and converted it. And they sailed across an ocean to do so.