Another mediocre review for Civ5

[Moss]

Moderator Action: As a reminder, this is a forum for civil and constructive discussion and criticism, if your post doesn't contain those two elements, please don't post.

 

[Generals3]

"There are also natural wonders to be found, some of which instantly upgrade the unit which found it"

What?

"and since the game won't let you pay to rush-complete anything anymore"

What?

"It doesn't really look any better than Civ IV in that regard, particularly on low-end computer set ups like mine."

WHAT?

Did you write this review?

1) he meant ruins, duh . Everyone can make mistakes once in a while

2) Yes , he's right , well not entirely you can purchase it but at full price even if its 99% completed

3) Again he's right. Dunno about your Civ IV but i could actually SEE trees . Now forests look like green bubbles , even with High terrain details on certain graphics are worse than in Civ IV . Sure the water is shiny but than you have the ugly forests and rivers. Can't really say its much better . So i can easily see how it can be worse for PC's who could handle Civ IV on high settings but not Civ V

 

[fantsu]

"and since the game won't let you pay to rush-complete anything anymore"


"It doesn't really look any better than Civ IV in that regard, particularly on low-end computer set ups like mine."

These two are actually correct.
It doesn't let you rush-complete anything?
At least my un-modded doesn't.

It doesn't look any better.
Damn sure it doesn't, even on maxed out graphics.
Forests doesn't even look like forests anymore, they look like green clouds.
Not that I care.

 

[Thormodr]

Although the reviewer makes a few errors, his analysis is pretty well spot on. ciV has some serious problems.

Naturally the ciV ultra positive fans jump all over a couple of errors but miss the content of the whole article. It's like not seeing the forest for the trees.

It's nice to have some honest critiques and analysis from reviewers. It is sorely needed.


Perhaps Firaxis will then get the message that they have an enormous amount of work to be done. Placating Firaxis and boot licking isn't going to help any. They need to know in no uncertain terms that this half baked, unbalanced mess is unacceptable.

 

[dexters]

Civ V is a divisive game, but I have no doubts this is where Civ will go. Perhaps Civ VI will build on the lessons of V and VI built on III and be less divisive.

for me though, the core concepts are there, but the Soren-isms that so defined 3/4 are gone. Which is fine. New game, new day.

 

[Danei]

Naturally the ciV ultra positive fans jump all over a couple of errors but miss the content of the whole article. It's like not seeing the forest for the trees.

Well, that's hardly surprising, given the way forests look in Civ V.

Dohoho.

 

[Ayt]

Lets see... you are reviewing a two-week old game against one which had been patched and expanded on... how many times? And then you talk about mods people develop and release? How is a raw copy of Civ 5 going to compete?

I'm sorry, but that's a huge flaw that many, many people make. Compare Civ 5 to Civ 4, straight as released and out of the package. They need the income from the sale of Civ 5 to help pay for the cost of developing the expansion. And then that expansion for the next. If one of them fails, expect the next expansion to never be released. These people are about making money, not delighting in your perfect whims.

I honestly don't understand people who make this argument. Civ5 is competing with all current games. BTS is a direct competitor of Civ 5 since they are the same type of game thus they should definitely be compared. Civ 5 should also be compared to games like Gal Civ 2.

If Civ5 is an improvement it should stack up favorably to any game in the genre that has been developed up to this point.

 

[Danei]

If Civ5 is an improvement it should stack up favorably to any game in the genre that has been developed up to this point.

I agree with this, but I feel the need to make a qualification; Civ V is its own game. It isn't supposed to be "Civ IV only better". It's a different game, with different core mechanics, different focus, etc.

So I don't think it's supposed to be an "improvement". It's supposed to be a good game. And I think it will be, if they fix all the stupid bugs.

I wonder if people would still be complaining so much if they'd just called it Sid Meier's Hex Wars or something.

 

[Ayt]

Civ 5 is indeed its own game. That being said, it still should be compared to the competition in its genre as well as other video games overall. In this case, its strongest competition in the genre is BTS (I would argue anyway). Civ 5 doesn't get mulligans because it is new. In fact, it should have a huge advantage from coming 3+ years after BTS was released.

 

[MadRat]

Seriously did this clown even play the game or was copious amounts of acid involved.

"Bushido" roflmao.

It remind me of the 1Up review of elemental where the chap spoke fondly of a "robust multiplayer" when the feature wasn't even implemented in the game.

I don't think reviewers are paid off, but I do think some of them seriously poke the pooch.

Rat