CFC rating

[slothman]

Though I've only played 1/2 and 1/10 of a game,
I was basically killed in the first and haven't finished the second,
It's still pretty good.
I haven't seen any bugs of significant.
Nor were any of the usual effects like corruption too high.
Now don't distract me since I need to go back to civ.

 

[DBear]

I don't have the game because I have an obsolete computer, but based on the comments, I'd like to say this:

It appears that Firaxis tried to give you all what you wanted--3D world, check. Civics system, check. Religions, check. Corruption eliminated, check.
End of ICS, check.

Now the price for that is--you need a god PC to run it.

Be careful what you wish for--you might get it.

 

[Harbringer]

I gave it a 9, I personally think that firaxis gave us what we wanted and it turns out to be not all that great. Sure Im glad corruption is gone, but 3d turns out not all that great and they took out instant city sprawl which a lot of people(myself included) liked.

 

[Stuie]

If I stick to "standard" size maps, the game is near perfect.

 

[MrMahk]

9 because I'm really pissed off by "you have just built a archer" or "you have just completed a walls in Rome"

 

[Paradoxus]

5
Very disapointed.
If they could have left more of Civ3 in it and not redone the whole thing maybe higher.
I hate the speed of the tech tree and units being ovsolete so fast, like before you could build one fast.
Dont like the Combat seems to take too long to accomplish anything and at the same time the game is flying by.

Unsatisfactory is my vote.

 

[Morten Blaabjerg]

9/10. It is a wonderful game. Just had my first game of multiplayer today with a friend, over LAN. It worked like a charm. And I hate the AI civs as much as I used to do in Civ1. They've grown too intelligent for their own good. Damn those mongols or aztecs, be sure if you're sitting on that copper or iron, they won't let you in peace. And when that well-prepared Alexander-kid then suddenly declares war, oh well... I hate that. I will return with a vengeance... later... when I get more time...

The only reason it misses a point, is that I think a game such as this ought to run smoothly and with no glitches on a brand new computer such as mine, and I hate it when it heats up my harddrive in that peculiar way - it is noisy as hell. That, and a few historical misunderstandings, which I easily forgive the designers, for all the fun they put into this game.

 

[walt526]

5
Very disapointed.
If they could have left more of Civ3 in it and not redone the whole thing maybe higher.
I hate the speed of the tech tree and units being ovsolete so fast, like before you could build one fast.
Dont like the Combat seems to take too long to accomplish anything and at the same time the game is flying by.

Unsatisfactory is my vote.

I agree that there needs to be a better balance between tech advancement and unit creation.

 

[Morten Blaabjerg]

5
Dont like the Combat seems to take too long to accomplish anything and at the same time the game is flying by.

Yeah well true enough, I agree, I've found each game to be extremely different. Wars can take forever, they are hard to master. I've found a handful of catapults can work wonders, first with bombardment, then with their collateral damage! They're extremely powerful, not to be underestimated - I expect artillery, battleships and bombers to have an even more significant effect in the later game, although I have yet to wage a real modern war.

 

[MeteorPunch]

9, compared to other PC games, so that's what I voted. It will be fun to play for a few months.


But - I would give it a 4-5 based on my expectations of the Civilization series and the let down that this game was. It has so many flaws it would be hard to count them all. Bring on the mods.

 

[Matrix]

The average so far is 8.38.

I think the poll here is a little skewed.

10: Perfect.
9 - 7: Solid.
6 - 4: Adequate.
3 - 1: Poor.
0: Horrendous.

When you make a 6 "just adequate," 7-10 are going to get the highest votes by far.

Well, in the Netherlands this system is actually standard at schools, and 5.5 is the average of 10 and 1 (the highest and lowest possible), so quite logicaal to make that the border between ok and not ok. I might've added 9.5, 8.5 and 7.5 though. But with this many votes it doesn't really matter.

I don't have the game because I have an obsolete computer, but based on the comments, I'd like to say this:

It appears that Firaxis tried to give you all what you wanted--3D world, check. Civics system, check. Religions, check. Corruption eliminated, check.
End of ICS, check.

Now the price for that is--you need a god PC to run it.

Be careful what you wish for--you might get it.

Did we want a 3D world?

 

[gmaharriet]

5
Very disapointed.
If they could have left more of Civ3 in it and not redone the whole thing maybe higher.
I hate the speed of the tech tree and units being ovsolete so fast, like before you could build one fast.
Dont like the Combat seems to take too long to accomplish anything and at the same time the game is flying by.

Unsatisfactory is my vote.

I agree with all of the above and I only gave it a 4. BTW, it runs just fine on my system, so it's not a technical issue. I keep playing and hoping I'll like it better when I know more about it, but I find it boring. *Ducks and runs for cover.*

 

[KingKHAN]

8.0, they left out alot of the civ 3 features/civs that I liked alot.

 

[skadistic]

7 And heres why.

1. Very high specs needed to run the game well. ( If it wasn't for oblivian I wouldn't be getting a new computer and remain in a small map with few civs.)

2. Lack of civs. ( Not specific ones just a low overall #)

3. Lack of the right-click function. ( Shift click doesn't cut it. Sometimes I just need text)

4. Diplomacy. ( I think its worse but thats me.)

5. Tech progression ( Some units are obsolete in two techs.)

6. Lack of some city improvements. ( Super highways, sewers and masstransit to name a few.)

Now don't get me wrong I love the game. And I'm sure the patches and expansion packs will negate some of my complaints. But I don't think a 10 or 9 is warrented.

 

[Mujadaddy]

I'm sorry...I'd vote in this poll, but I'm busy enjoying Civ4...

 

[Dairuka]

I wish I could enjoy Civ 4... however I suffer from Acute One More Turn Syndrome. AOMTS.

Everytime I sit down to play another game, it's impossible to stop me until that game is won or lost. Therefore I can not play even one hour before going to bed.

I need help! I'm suprised the Privatized Health Care hasn't come up with a Miracle Drug that helps you with AOTMS.

 

[ComradeDavo]

I give it 10/10. It is such a good step up from Civ3 I think it deserves this

 

[Matrix]

I've made some statistics about the rating in reviews.

The average is: 9.39
The median is: 9.4.
The mode is: 9.0.

Now our own poll...

The average is: 8.4
The median is: 9
The mode is: 9

 

[Matrix]

At 9.0, the CFC and review ratings are at exactly the same height (90 and 9, resp.).

Edit: improved chart.

 

[Zany]

3, the core game itself, it's features, additions, and changes (except for the concept of religion, civics, and great people, though those need to be better implemented), is not that good. However, so buggy with horrible graphics, a civilopedia that makes me feel like I'm going to vomit, an interface that is like a cruel joke, and just damn laggy on my computer that greatly surpassess all the recommendes settings, it earns lower than the middle-of-the-road 5 I was going to give it at first.