Fail.
Hey, don't kill the messenger.IIRC Gamestar also said Civ5 was excellent (when it was still broken) and called Gods and Kings disappointing, so their opinion doesn't count.
Fail.
Hey, don't kill the messenger.IIRC Gamestar also said Civ5 was excellent (when it was still broken) and called Gods and Kings disappointing, so their opinion doesn't count.
Reading that review it just struck me how natural the 1upt now feels. I cannot even imagine anymore what Civ4 was like with its unit stacks.http://games.on.net/2013/07/civilization-v-brave-new-world-reviewed-finally-the-system-works/
Good:
Cultural Victory requires actual strategy
AI quality now finally the way it should be
Diplomacy is now required, rather than an optional extra
World Congress + Multiplayer = Hilarity
Bad:
Performance is much better but still lags in some cases
Very few changes outside of Culture and Diplomacy
(It seems like most of the reviewers are very fond of Venice)
That is exactly how it was. Once our friendship ceased being mutually beneficial, I terminated it. To much grief on my friend's part, who still enjoyed his benefits. Therefore I choose not to make any more friends: to avoid hurting more folks, as interests inevitably shift and I'd have to get rid of them at some point. A narcissist presumably wouldn't have such objections. I don't know if there is a name for folks like me, and frankly if there is I don't want to know it. There's enough labels in the world as it is.So, is there any chance you've seen a psychiatrist about that probable narcissistic/antisocial personality disorder? Humans aren't that far from AIs if you think about it - just a set of pre-programmed responses based on past experience and hardware; they're only fickle if you're looking at them the way you do CiV's AI: how well they work towards achieving YOUR goals. The default state is going to be working towards their own goals, so you just need to find one whose goals naturally mesh with yours in a mutually beneficial relationship - and realize that this will only be as reliable as long as the relationship remains mutually beneficial;
I don't really care that much about 'victory' in Civ. Well -- I do aim generally towards it and I'm mad if I lose to the AI, but it's not the be-all and end-all for me like for some folks. I'm more of a role-player and just want to build up an empire and be immersed in the experience. To pick Autocracy as Germany and build up Welthauptstadt Germania, roaming the continents for other people's artifacts; to found colonies in all the right spots as England on the Earth-map; etc. A 'victory' for me is simply a trophy above the fire-place, meaningless in itself; what really counts is the memory of attaining said trophy. Such role-playing is generally inefficient in mp, which is one big reason for my reluctance to try it.CiV can only have one winner, so at the end of the day it would be silly for an AI not to turn on you eventually. This was the problem with Civ IV - the AI was too friendly and let you walk away with victory.
http://games.on.net/2013/07/civilization-v-brave-new-world-reviewed-finally-the-system-works/
Good:
Cultural Victory requires actual strategy
AI quality now finally the way it should be
Diplomacy is now required, rather than an optional extra
World Congress + Multiplayer = Hilarity
Bad:
Performance is much better but still lags in some cases
Very few changes outside of Culture and Diplomacy
(It seems like most of the reviewers are very fond of Venice)
"Civ V is still fundamentally broken"
"The tactical A.I. is still a sack of potatoes"
"Ideologies are just another grab bag of inconsequential, random bonuses"
"Conclusion:
The first 100 turns or so of a Civ V game hold that magic of the better prequels in this series so full of exploration, discovery, mystery, and chance. It doesnt hurt that the animations are beautiful and the attention to detail gorgeous; at times, Id start a war just to see rockets fly or swords clash.
But as the game progresses, it quickly devolves into the same cycle of rote resource accumulation of filling culture and gold and science and tourism and faith and happiness buckets. Thatd be all right if their buildup wasnt a surefire thing you could depend upon. Sometimes Civ V feels like its on autopilot, which isnt the hallmark of a strategy game worth your time."
Not sure if this has been posted already but here's another review:
Score: 50/100
I’m convinced now that not even Firaxis (this being the studio’s second attempt) can correct the mistake of using happiness as the only growth limiter. It’s just far too easy to keep your nation content, and thus, it’s again always in your interest to spam as many cities as possible.
Read more at http://venturebeat.com/2013/07/08/civilization-v-brave-new-world-review/#ElApGgFBSsCeamA4.99
Same reviewer gave Gods & Kings a 65/100.
So it's quite clear he really doesn't like Civ 5 in general.
Won't argue with his opinion, just wanted to add a reference point to that review =)
I guess it's the typical "reviewer plays on Chieftain and wins handily so everything is inconsequential" ..I have to really question whether the reviewers have the understanding that, say, MadDjinn does about the game, since MD has repeatedly pointed to the ideologies as where you really tailor what you do to the endgame.
I am very much interested in more details on the first critique.
Settings should not matter.If money is too easy it ruins game choices.Day1 patch hopefully sorts it.
I guess it's the typical "reviewer plays on Chieftain and wins handily so everything is inconsequential" ..
VentureBeat's bucket-filling critique seems more tailored towards the human condition in modern society than this game. I have issues with the happiness mechanic in Civ 5 but from his description of it, I suspect he wasn't playing it at a very high difficulty level.
I know all of us here defend Civilization, but they are actually valid criticisms. He supports everything he says with examples. We may not agree, but it's clear Civilization is not the game for everyone and he represents a large crowd of that type of gamer whether we like it or not
"And Civ V still doesnt have much for you to do while youre waiting for those buckets to fill. At times, Id end my turn, waiting for my next chance to issue new orders or build additional city structures or select another technology to research. And Id stare at the screen, waiting for these prompts only to realize minutes later that Id been looking at another next turn button."
I know all of us here defend Civilization, but they are actually valid criticisms. He supports everything he says with examples. We may not agree, but it's clear Civilization is not the game for everyone and he represents a large crowd of that type of gamer whether we like it or not
I know all of us here defend Civilization, but they are actually valid criticisms. He supports everything he says with examples. We may not agree, but it's clear Civilization is not the game for everyone and he represents a large crowd of that type of gamer whether we like it or not
I know all of us here defend Civilization, but they are actually valid criticisms. He supports everything he says with examples. We may not agree, but it's clear Civilization is not the game for everyone and he represents a large crowd of that type of gamer whether we like it or not