Civ V is Tom Chick's #1 most disappointing game release of the year.

[attackfighter]

Tom Chick, like all gaming "journalists", is a hack. Not only that, he's the notorious hack that gave Deus Ex a 3/10.

 

[Fariic]

Ok, let's have a look at the five last reviews from your link:

'nuff said.

Really?
You're showing the last 5 of over 2300 reviews?
5?

You sir just blew my mind.
How about the other 2366 reviews?

The "magority" here do not dislike the game, nor are the that disappointed. It's the minority. People who for some strange reason will make post after post on a forum for something they don't enjoy. Welcome to the age of the Internet, we people who are unhappy about something can voice that opinion on forums dedicated to that something, and then claim their opinion as the on EVERYONE shares. Because these people haven't been able to learn that he folks that like that something spend their time enjoying it; not creating thread after thread repeating the same thing over and over.

Lurkers, just like herpes, never go away.

What magazine or gaming site does this guy work for?

 

[Kamino]

Tom Chick's review of CiV is exactly what I think about the game. And thus my disappointment is number 1 too. Period.

 

[bpheater]

I've never even heard of this fool. AI problems? Every game has crappy AI upon first release. The last patch improved gameplay and I'm sure future patches will fix some of the bad combat decisions by the AI.

 

[LordTC]

"Some of these problems are minor, but they're the sorts of things I'd expect from a rookie developer scrambling to meet a deadline. What are they doing in 2K's flagship strategy game, under the brand of one of the greatest game developers we've ever known? 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."

I think that about sums up the review quite well. Is it a good game? A: Yes.
Is it the kind of thing we expect from one of the best computer gaming franchises of all time? A: No

And a lot of the comments in the Review are rather apt. In fact some of them were bad enough errors that they got fixed in the patch.

And his comment about the Parabola is entirely correct.

 

[nokmirt]

http://fidgit.com/archives/2010/12/the_ten_most_disappointing_gam.php#more

I certainly disagree with Singularity and Fallout: NV.

I disagree that Civ 5 is a lost cause, it is not. I believe the 1UPT AI can be fixed, the reason the game is last is because they brought it out broken. But it can be worked out. The problem was they did not take into consideration getting feedback from hex tactical wargame hobbyists, which have been around since the late 70's. This was a mistake and made them all look like idiots. They should have also looked into the AI for Panzer and Allied General which was a good AI system for tactical combat. These game designers had plenty of tools right under their noses, that they completely disregarded.

I bet Tom Chick never even played the game, if he had post patch, he would have thought differently. The game has a long way to go but that patch was a very good start and showed marked improvement. I think the AI has resolve but gives up to easy, I have to play more to verify that though. It was able to surround one of my cities far out on the fringes of my empire, by surrounding it and capturing it after a prolonged siege. The AI then razed the city. My main army was perhaps 5-6 hexes to the south along a river line. I figured going that far to save my city was not in my best interests. I could always rebuild it later. I was having some issues with happiness anyway. Then the AI tried to come after me with a conquistador and three musket regiments. I killed the conquistador with archers and slingers, and cut them down with some sword units. After that I started getting my new musketmen to the front line, and was able to hold them off to get a ten turn peace treaty. For a short war the AI did fairly well. I have yet to have a protracted war to see how the AI does over the long haul. Nevertheless the AI has shown much much improvement, and it sent units to protect a city named Montreal, closet to me. The AI seemed to send what available forces it had to take the fight to me, but after I wiped out two of three musket units it decided that was enough. I think it probably would have been better off making a defensive line to protect its city of Montreal, which would have been my first target if the war continued.

 

[Buccaneer]

You guys do realize that we went through all of this when Tom's initial review came out? He was the one that got it right and when all of you realized that and learned who Tom was, it made many of you looked foolish.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=380574

 

[Moss]

Moderator Action: Lets please try to discuss why you think Tom Chick is right or wrong, and not just personally attack him too much.

 

[attackfighter]

Okay, reasons Tom is wrong that aren't personal attacks:

1. He says previous Civ's had good AI. Not true at all, amongst other things Civ AI has never been able to launch oversea invasions, properly utilize siege weapons, or plan tile improvements.

2. He praises religion in Civ 4. That feature basically made the AI perform diplomacy arbitrarily, and was exploitable by the player.

3. Says Civ 4 civics is like the government system in Alpha Centauri. Wrong, it was an extremely dumbed down and exploitable feature. Nothing like AC except on the most basic level.

4. Bashes Civ 5 for social policies. SP's are amazing and add tons of potential depth. Their one caveat is that they're imbalanced, but he doesn't even mention that.

5. Bashes social policies because "you can't change them". So what? He doesn't give any reasoning for this. Allowing you to change them is just unrealistic and would be dumbing it down.

6. He gets angry that he can't see other civ's social policies. Okay, by now this obsession over SP's is getting irritating, but I will debunk this criticism as well, by asking the Author "why does that matter?" (awnser: it doesn't)

7. Says Civ Revolution was a "slick port". LOL, well I'm not going to bash civ rev, but it is a fact that they cut out and streamlined tons of content. Call of Duty PC to CoD xBox is a "slick port", Civ Rev is definately not (not to mention it's A STAND ALONE GAME NOT A PORT - but obviously this does not matter to someone as infamous as Tom Chick)

8. He says diplomacy sucks. It's not as good as Alpha Centauri's, but it has much more depth than Civ 4's (and isn't abusable via religion) and it's about the same as Civ 3's diplomacy, possibly better.

9. He says there're too many "numbers". This is rather ambiguous, but in the context he used it I think he's angry about the "stats" at the top of your screen; such as gold, culture, happiness... Well if he can't handle that maybe he should stay away from PC gaming. I'd hate to see him review a Paradox Interactive game

10. Says there're bugs. Yes there are bugs, but I experienced far less than in Civ 4 and most other games for that matter.

Ok and that is the end of his "review". I found his "review" to be uninformative and biased. Furthermore he failed to mention any of the REAL flaws, such as late game lag. I would rate his review 3/10, the same score he gave to the much acclaimed Deus Ex when it appeared. Another Tom Chick review, another billion brain cells lost...

 

[Arsenic Steel]

1. He says previous Civ's had good AI. Not true at all, amongst other things Civ AI has never been able to launch oversea invasions, properly utilize siege weapons, or plan tile improvements.

Wrong. Sure CivIV AI was not comparable to a real person in naval combat but fleets were built and it was not an automatic routing. SoD helped the AI while 1UPT hurts the AI.

2. He praises religion in Civ 4. That feature basically made the AI perform diplomacy arbitrarily, and was exploitable by the player.

Not arbitrarily. +'s for being of a like mind and -'s for being different. The player could do things to influence their +'s and -'s in the game but those are far from being an exploit, folks not trying to be pervasive would just call them tactics.

4. Bashes Civ 5 for social policies. SP's are amazing and add tons of potential depth. Their one caveat is that they're imbalanced, but he doesn't even mention that.
5. Bashes social policies because "you can't change them". So what? He doesn't give any reasoning for this. Allowing you to change them is just unrealistic and would be dumbing it down.

Not so much depth or realism since SPs are not able to be changed. Since we all know real civilizations do change their social views from time to time. SPs is just skills that you level up for your civ but many games still all players to respec, at a cost.

6. He gets angry that he can't see other civ's social policies. Okay, by now this obsession over SP's is getting irritating, but I will debunk this criticism as well, by asking the Author "why does that matter?" (awnser: it doesn't)

At the time of his writing that might have been true but the recent patch and some mods do show you the gist of what other civs have picked. Why does it matter? Well in a series like Civilization being able to see and understand the culture of others is a relatively old and accepted function.

8. He says diplomacy sucks. It's not as good as Alpha Centauri's, but it has much more depth than Civ 4's (and isn't abusable via religion) and it's about the same as Civ 3's diplomacy, possibly better.

CiV4 diplo was not abusable. The game gave the player the tools and information needed to judge and alter their standings with other civs. You can beg that power gamers used religion to their advantage but did everyone? Being possibly abusable means nothing since any could abuse the mod system and make it so their civ of choice would be unbeatable.

10. Says there're bugs. Yes there are bugs, but I experienced far less than in Civ 4 and most other games for that matter.

Bully for your anecdotal experiences. I however have encountered more game-breaking bugs in Civ5. Now bully for my anecdotal experiences.

I find Tom's review to be a refreshing break from the Gamespots of the world. His review read like a person that had bought and played prior versions of civ, not just the free copy plopped on his desk.

 

[vlkm]

Its pretty funny how some try to force their own opinion of the game onto others and attacking the man because they don't agree with what he thinks and post on the internet .
I agree with his review and also his opinion of disappointment with the game. He was spot on with the review, and no other A class game this year was as disappointing to me as much as Civ5. Many games were worse but not as disappointing, seems like some can't understand the difference.
While I also loved Deus Ex I can understand why he didn't like it, after all it was just his opinion on the game and it didn't stop me from enjoying it very much.

 

[Sonereal]

I'm so glad that Tom Chick is here to tell me a subjective fact.

 

[Beef Hammer]

I've never heard of this guy so he's not really credible to me in the slightest anyway...

 

[attackfighter]

Wrong. Sure CivIV AI was not comparable to a real person in naval combat but fleets were built and it was not an automatic routing. SoD helped the AI while 1UPT hurts the AI.

By overseas invasion I meant the AI's ability to transport land troops overseas into hostile territory, and it has always, always, ALWAYS sucked at that. In Civ 5 embarking helps that btw. And yeah tactically SoD is better, but I'm talking about STRATEGY, which niether method realls has an effect on. So yes, you're right, Civ 4 is better in regards to AI tactics but niether me nor Tom Chick was talking about that so it's a pointless strawman to bring that up.

Not arbitrarily. +'s for being of a like mind and -'s for being different. The player could do things to influence their +'s and -'s in the game but those are far from being an exploit, folks not trying to be pervasive would just call them tactics.

Only the player knows how to use religions to his advantage (diplomatically) so either he exploits the AI's ignorance or he joins in with them, thus making it a pointless and arbitrary feature. Also I fail to see how diplomacy is a "tactic" as you call it.

Not so much depth or realism since SPs are not able to be changed. Since we all know real civilizations do change their social views from time to time. SPs is just skills that you level up for your civ but many games still all players to respec, at a cost.

It doesn't currently detract from gameplay, but if changed it potentially could. Tom Chick was just padding his "review" with this tbh.

At the time of his writing that might have been true but the recent patch and some mods do show you the gist of what other civs have picked. Why does it matter? Well in a series like Civilization being able to see and understand the culture of others is a relatively old and accepted function.

Again, it doesn't detract from gameplay. The author was merely trying to think up criticisms for what would've otherwise been a very short "review".

CiV4 diplo was not abusable. The game gave the player the tools and information needed to judge and alter their standings with other civs. You can beg that power gamers used religion to their advantage but did everyone? Being possibly abusable means nothing since any could abuse the mod system and make it so their civ of choice would be unbeatable.

So if you use something to your advantage you're a power gamer? Strawman if I ever saw one. Fact is the AI couldn't cope with religion, so unless you were basing your decisions off the roll of a dice you were abusing a feature only available to yourself.

Bully for your anecdotal experiences. I however have encountered more game-breaking bugs in Civ5. Now bully for my anecdotal experiences.

Same could be said for Tom Chick, and since my review was of his review and not the game itself I guess you're only furthering my point

I find Tom's review to be a refreshing break from the Gamespots of the world. His review read like a person that had bought and played prior versions of civ, not just the free copy plopped on his desk.

Well I'm not going to bother clicking his link again, but iirc he actually did write that for gamespot. Delicious irony.

 

[nokmirt]

I don't have time right now for an intricate post but I stand by attackfighter all the way on the preceding excited conversation!

 

[Surgeon]

bah, regarding Fallout. I'd rather play a buggy game that is as awesome as fallout than a relatively bug free game that is as dull as <insert bad game here> (my choice, Fable)

 

[boredatwork]

I find it hilariously ironic how a bunch of message board lurkers will call someone elses Internet opinion worthless.

Hello Pot? This is Kettle. You're black.

^win12345

 

[Islet]

By overseas invasion I meant the AI's ability to transport land troops overseas into hostile territory, and it has always, always, ALWAYS sucked at that. In Civ 5 embarking helps that btw. And yeah tactically SoD is better, but I'm talking about STRATEGY, which niether method realls has an effect on. So yes, you're right, Civ 4 is better in regards to AI tactics but niether me nor Tom Chick was talking about that so it's a pointless strawman to bring that up.

I beg to differ. I just ended a session of Civ IV BTS, Continents map. 4 landmasses at the corners of the world. Each landmass was occupied by 2 civs, except for 1 landmass, which Alex had for himself.

In the Ancient era, I got the Warships quest to build a sizable fleet of triremes. Into the Renaissance era, this fleet was upgraded to frigates and I proceeded to vassalize Alex. I had dominance of the seas. By the time of Industrial era, the fleet, was too expensive to upgrade into destroyers, so I just built 2 destroyers and 4 submarines to reinforce this experienced wooden fleet, with hopes of upgrading them later.

Kublai Khan, suddenly decided to DoW (Aggressive AI was checked, and I had finished SS Casing ) me and promptly sunk my entire fleet with 6 destroyers on expedition and even managed to land a full stack of 8 infantry, 2 arty and 3 antitank onto my landmass using 4 transports, which I couldn't stop as I only had my pitiful 2-destroyer coastal fleet which was part of my rebuilding navy. I managed to sink one transport and that's about it. And I only sunk it after it had disembarked its cargo.

At the same time, Khan landed 2 stacks on my ally's landmass which I had sent my upgraded modern army to counter. My army was trapped overseas

Short version: My army was overseas aiding allies, my entire navy decimated and I was being invaded on my own landmass. At this point, w/o my treasury, I'd probably lose half my empire.

Compare this to CiV, where an ancient trireme could pick off modern infantries and artillery at sea, as they have to waddle hex-by-hex to shore. A 3-trireme fleet can possibly stall an invasion long enough for you to assemble a coastal landforce to halt the invasion entirely.

Try sending your frigate or ship-of the-line at transports in Civ IV and tell me if you can stall the invasion w/o sending your navy to its doom.

Only the player knows how to use religions to his advantage (diplomatically) so either he exploits the AI's ignorance or he joins in with them, thus making it a pointless and arbitrary feature. Also I fail to see how diplomacy is a "tactic" as you call it.

Right, except even with the same religion, "Brothers and sisters of the same faith", it's still entirely possible for the AI to DoW you. Mouse over the diplo screen just to find the same religion just adds a +1 while your other acts net a -7.

It doesn't currently detract from gameplay, but if changed it potentially could. Tom Chick was just padding his "review" with this tbh.

If Civ IV is 100%, I want CiV to be 110%. I buy sequels for improvement, not a remake of the original Civ. If you're selling me a remake, then don't pass it off as a sequel.

Again, it doesn't detract from gameplay. The author was merely trying to think up criticisms for what would've otherwise been a very short "review".

Take a look at the forums, diplomacy itself has a mountain of issues, MP is unplayable. And don't even get me started on the system optimization. I have a system that surpasses the recommended specifications that the developers themselves state. Why is it still crashing and freezing? And I haven't even gone into balance issues.

So if you use something to your advantage you're a power gamer? Strawman if I ever saw one. Fact is the AI couldn't cope with religion, so unless you were basing your decisions off the roll of a dice you were abusing a feature only available to yourself.

Religion in Civ IV also nets extra and to a city, especially with civics such as Organized Religion and Theocracy. And the AI knows how to spread religion and adjust civics accordingly. AI with the same religion also tends to band together in Apostolic Palace voting. AI also switches religion w/o your intervention.

Maybe it's other AI persuasion or simply another religion has taken over? Who knows? But at least, it's dynamic unlike CiV.

Same could be said for Tom Chick, and since my review was of his review and not the game itself I guess you're only furthering my point

His point doesn't further your point nor Tom Chick's. You say you never experienced any technical glitches. Well, good for you! But don't make it sound as though those who do report technical difficulties are somehow liars, trying to discredit CiV. Look at the 2K CiV technical board to get a sense of the technical failures, even after the patch. Crasing in Modern Era

 

[sketch162000]

I've never heard of this guy so he's not really credible to me in the slightest anyway...

Credibility is a moot point for a reviewer. It's an opinion. Funny how people come in here to bash the guy's honesty just because they don't agree with him...I bet if he gave another glowing review several people would have no issue with "never hearing about him."

 

[nokmirt]

Wow I am amazed at the number of Civ 4 to Civ 5 comparisons I see.