5/5 say gamespot perfection now=graphical artifacts and crash known crash issues

[combathanger]

I dont know what the journalistic standard are like at Gamespy, but Im getting a pretty good idea from the way they reviewed Civ4. Let me start by saying that I think Civ4 has the potential to be the best TBSG ever, but it is FAR from that goal at the moment, with so many having game stopping error, I was stunned to read:

"Civilization IV performed fine on our test machines (which include both NVIDIA and ATI video cards), save for a couple of graphical artifacts that didn't impact gameplay. There's even widescreen support. However, readers on various forums around the net are reporting troubles with certain video drivers, especially with ATI cards. Firaxis is expected to release an update tonight addressing these issues." -gamespy review

Well at least they achknowlege the issues, but I find it curious they didnt have any crashes on any of their systems, it is plausible. However they do admit to a very evident (and verified) group of game stopping crash bugs, and that even they had graphical issues....but its still a 5/5.....perfect....top of the heap? Somewhere between here any there the truth lays, but I sure souldnt give the game more than a 3/5 in its current state.

I also like the fact that Fraxis aparently promised the reviewer a patch was comming out that same day........I can hear that conversation, cant you

 

[Moss]

I always thought one should rate the game one how it plays once one can get it running. The greatest game in the world, even if it can only be played on certain systems, is still the greatest game in the world.

I would NEVER rate a game on system availablity or possible glitches unless those glitches prevented one from playing the game or affected the actual gameplay. Everyone here can play the game, or will be able to in the near future. The rating is based on the game itself, not the technical aspects...that's why it's getting high reviews.

 

[Lucky The Fox]

So should they write a new review every time there's a new patch?

 

[Mujadaddy]

Well at least they achknowlege the issues, but I find it curious they didnt have any crashes on any of their systems, it is plausible.

I haven't had a single crash OR graphical artifact.

 

[ombak]

Well at least they achknowlege the issues, but I find it curious they didnt have any crashes on any of their systems, it is plausible. However they do admit to a very evident (and verified) group of game stopping crash bugs, and that even they had graphical issues....but its still a 5/5.....perfect....top of the heap? Somewhere between here any there the truth lays, but I sure souldnt give the game more than a 3/5 in its current state.

I also like the fact that Fraxis aparently promised the reviewer a patch was comming out that same day........I can hear that conversation, cant you

They're reviewing the game for the most part. Unless bugs are crippling to a large percentage of players/systems (not just a certain number), then maybe you'd expect them to take it into account.

Care to guess how many people have bought the game so far? How many are playing and not having any problems? Only having minor problems?

I'd wager it's a huge number. Perceptions on the forum are skewed by the fact that if you do have a problem you are much likelier to post than if you don't.

 

[combathanger]

So should they write a new review every time there's a new patch?

340 in the GENERAL FORUM
117 in the TECH SUPPORT FORUM

that percentage speak volumes....

No, they should review the game AS SHIPPED. Anything else is pandering to the publisher, period. Would you want a Movie review based on the movie AS SEEN or on the reviewers hopes for the as yet to be see/released/or gaurenteed DVD 'directors cut'? When you go into a merit preformance review at work do they base it on what you have done so far, or what you promise to fix soon.

Im very happy that some can play the game with no issues, but a great percentage cant, and I consider myself lucky since I can at least play for quite a while without major issues (although graphic corruption is present 90% of the time when I zoom out). I can still play, there are many who can not play at all, and there is no way this could have been unknown to Fraxis, the intensionally delivered a product they knew for a fact was unstable beyond what any reasonable person would accept.

The wide range of systems and video cards having problems leaves no doubt. it means that someone(s) at Fraxis decided that the loyal Civilization Fan base wanst important. It was a premeditated, intentional "SCREW 'EM" from the Fraxis corperate offices to your harddrive.

 

[Black_Hole]

I haven't had a single crash or graphical glitch, but I have a high powered computer...
my theory is that since of course gamespot's computers are also high end, the glitches happen on computers just beating the system requirements....

 

[Carver]

I would NEVER rate a game on system availablity or possible glitches unless those glitches prevented one from playing the game or affected the actual gameplay. Everyone here can play the game, or will be able to in the near future. The rating is based on the game itself, not the technical aspects...that's why it's getting high reviews.

Yeah, if I ran a gaming mag or website I would do the same thing. It's like the car mags never try to rate a vehicle on reliability - that would just be asking for trouble, from consumers and from developers.

 

[Mujadaddy]

340 in the GENERAL FORUM
117 in the TECH SUPPORT FORUM

that percentage speak volumes....

No, they should review the game AS SHIPPED. Anything else is pandering to the publisher, period. Would you want a Movie review based on the movie AS SEEN or on the reviewers hopes for the as yet to be see/released/or gaurenteed DVD 'directors cut'? When you go into a merit preformance review at work do they base it on what you have done so far, or what you promise to fix soon.

Im very happy that some can play the game with no issues, but a great percentage cant, and I consider myself lucky since I can at least play for quite a while without major issues (although graphic corruption is present 90% of the time when I zoom out). I can still play, there are many who can not play at all, and there is no way this could have been unknown to Fraxis, the intensionally delivered a product they knew for a fact was unstable beyond what any reasonable person would accept.

The wide range of systems and video cards having problems leaves no doubt. it means that someone(s) at Fraxis decided that the loyal Civilization Fan base wanst important. It was a premeditated, intentional "SCREW 'EM" from the Fraxis corperate offices to your harddrive.

Most of the technical issues people are having are Bill Gate's fault, not Sid Meier's fault.

You said "a great percentage can't" --- The game is GOLD. There are 117 people in the tech support forums. What's THAT percentage, there, bub?

 

[teccuk]

I don't get all of this. My PC is'nt exactly top spec, (amd 2200 / GeF 4 mx), and okay the graphics kind of suck, theres bugs everywhere - but it has'nt crashed, not once, not even nearly.

 

[Willem]

340 in the GENERAL FORUM
117 in the TECH SUPPORT FORUM

And how many of those Tech posts deal with the fact that their video card simply doesn't support T&L? Which is a requirement of the game, not a bug.

 

[combathanger]

Yeah, if I ran a gaming mag or website I would do the same thing. It's like the car mags never try to rate a vehicle on reliability - that would just be asking for trouble, from consumers and from developers.

Ummm we arent talking about how the game will run 3 years from now, we are talking that as you make a left turn the door falls off .....I think they'd report that

Its exactly this kind of attitude that caused PC Gamer to give Ascendancy a 93%, and 'top rated' mark......a strategy game that could be repeatedly won at its highest difficulty setting by doing nothing more than pressing the next turn button....the 1st (and as far as I know) and only game that could be easily beaten without turning on the monitor.

I understand the great game underneath the issued...cause Im playing it. But I would hope that 5/5 would be reserved for something with less issues....and if you feel the game will rate a 5/5, you can do an extensive preview, and then write your review later. Ah well....lets hope they fix it soon before the entire TBSG economy completely implodes.

 

[warpstorm]

Sorry, I agree with them, considering the fun I've had with it lately and the fact that it works well on my system, from my point of view it easily rates a 5 and is the most fun game I've bought in a while. Obviously, YMMV.

 

[Willem]

I understand the great game underneath the issued...cause Im playing it. But I would hope that 5/5 would be reserved for something with less issues....and if you feel the game will rate a 5/5, you can do an extensive preview, and then write your review later. Ah well....lets hope they fix it soon before the entire TBSG economy completely implodes.

I guess being computer game reviewers they realize that all titles have some issues when they're first released. They probably base their judgements on the game itself, not on the inevitable quirks that they know will be fixed in the first patch.

I just love the way some players claim the sky is falling just because there's a few glitches in the game when it first comes out.

 

[hands]

i cant play so this game sucks ???

 

[EdCase]

I guess being computer game reviewers they realize that all titles have some issues when they're first released. They probably base their judgements on the game itself, not on the inevitable quirks that they know will be fixed in the first patch.

I just love the way some players claim the sky is falling just because there's a few glitches in the game when it first comes out.

Disclaimer..the game works wonderfully for me personally.

That being said...the whole Civ IV "launch" has been laughable..misquoted release dates, wrongly labelled disks, wrong language tech charts, basic installation problems (directx is an integral part of windows now) ..I could go on.....
More than just a few glitches methinks

 

[Ravinhood]

I can play it and have had no ctds or graphics glitches in 3 days play, but, I would still agree with origional poster 3/5 is about right. I wasn't impressed with the slow build times, the slow ability to get out there and do something besides press the end turn button. Until I modded the game myself and a mod doesn't count for an origional review. So 3/5 is correct.

 

[yo_gadgetboy]

Mmm, can’t say I agree with your logic.

Apart from the known ATI issue, are you saying that the reviewer should have regressed all their machines back to old video drivers just because some people cannot be bothered to keep their machines updated.

 

[IATyco]

I dont know what the journalistic standard are like at Gamespy

5/5 say gamespot perfection now=graphical artifacts and crash known crash issues

Um, I think you mixed up Gamespot and Gamespy. They are different sites run by different people.

 

[Novaya Havoc]

340 in the GENERAL FORUM
117 in the TECH SUPPORT FORUM

that percentage speak volumes....

<snip!>

The wide range of systems and video cards having problems leaves no doubt. it means that someone(s) at Fraxis decided that the loyal Civilization Fan base wanst important. It was a premeditated, intentional "SCREW 'EM" from the Fraxis corperate offices to your harddrive.

Brother, power to you, and I back you 100%. But you aren't going to phaze the "Ivory Tower" sect of PC Gamers on this forum (or Apolyton). If it doesn't run, it's your fault. If you own a laptop, sucks to be you. If you say it should be backwards compatible with a low-graphics option, they'll ask "What next? Do you want it compatible on your Commadore 64?"

You're just preaching to a deaf crowd. But power to ya.