Destructoid hands-on preview - 12th of Aug

[Schuesseled]

I'm afraid im gonna have to step in and agree with arioch here, a person who advicates that they like both civ rev and civ 4 seriously can't be trusted to form an unbiased opinion on civ 5.

They are clearly too much of a fan of civ, to be objective about civ.

 

[Txurce]

Read the original, nuanced quote.

 

[Schuesseled]

pardon?

 

[Helmling]

I'm afraid im gonna have to step in and agree with arioch here, a person who advicates that they like both civ rev and civ 4 seriously can't be trusted to form an unbiased opinion on civ 5.

They are clearly too much of a fan of civ, to be objective about civ.

Or maybe that person has been around for the whole ride. I've been playing Civ for 17 years now and Civ Rev reminds me a lot of the first game. I played it quite a bit, and no, it's clearly not the same nuanced experience I enjoy when I play Civ 4, but it is a Civ experience I can have in one sitting, which is very, very nice.

So, to your elitist snobbery, I reply with my own: I have played every version of Civ since the beginning and I think only arrogant little upstarts dismiss Civ Rev!

(Being sarcastic, obviously. But seriously, it's a fun little game.)

 

[Schuesseled]

Or maybe that person has been around for the whole ride. I've been playing Civ for 17 years now and Civ Rev reminds me a lot of the first game. I played it quite a bit, and no, it's clearly not the same nuanced experience I enjoy when I play Civ 4, but it is a Civ experience I can have in one sitting, which is very, very nice.

So, to your elitist snobbery, I reply with my own: I have played every version of Civ since the beginning and I think only arrogant little upstarts dismiss Civ Rev!

(Being sarcastic, obviously. But seriously, it's a fun little game.)

quote the part of my post where i dismissed civ rev, i merely stated that if someone was capable of liking two drastically different civ games like civ 4 and civ rev, then they are incapable of forming an unbiased opinion on civ 5, as there all too likely to love it without compromise.

Personally i dislike civ rev (and i have played it unlike some people who judge it) and found it too simple and too short, i would still judge myself to incompetent to the task of forming an unbiased opinion of civ 5, because im all too likely to love it without comprimise too, although im less genetically proposed to do so.

 

[ZimbuTheMonkey]

quote the part of my post where i dismissed civ rev, i merely stated that if someone was capable of liking two drastically different civ games like civ 4 and civ rev, then they are incapable of forming an unbiased opinion on civ 5, as there all too likely to love it without compromise.

Personally i dislike civ rev (and i have played it unlike some people who judge it) and found it too simple and too short, i would still judge myself to incompetent to the task of forming an unbiased opinion of civ 5, because im all too likely to love it without comprimise too, although im less genetically proposed to do so.

Your arguments make absolutely no sense to me.

" if someone was capable of liking two drastically different civ games like civ 4 and civ rev, then they are incapable of forming an unbiased opinion on civ 5, as there all too likely to love it without compromise."

What does this even mean? Where are you getting this from?
Only YOU are saying that those two conditions make someone "incapable of forming an unbiased opinion". You are equating liking those two games with being a zealous fanatic for the Civilization brand. The reviewer may be that, or may not, but the two are not correlated like you say.

"incompetent to the task of forming an unbiased opinion of civ 5, because im all too likely to love it without comprimise too, although im less genetically proposed to do so."

Now it's our genetic makeup that determines how we feel about Civilization games? Your genetic predispositions make it so that you don't like Civ Rev, that you like Civ 4, are incapable of offering an unbiased look at Civ 5 (although to a lesser extent than someone who likes both games)?

My head hurts... I don't even know how to begin comprehending all this...

I think a simple explanation of all this is that you are a major fanboy and you are projecting those feelings out on the rest of us. I can't speak for the rest of this forum community, but my love for Civ 4 doesn't mean I am already predisposed to irrationally loving Civ 5. I'm very interesting in it, I'm very curious about it, but the reason is because I like what I see so far. If you go through my post history, you'll see that I am very skeptical of the new changes and their impact on the gameplay.

Moderator Action: Flaming. Using the label 'fanboy' is not conducive to civil discussion.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Schuesseled]

makes perfect sense, civ 4 is a lot like civ's 1, 2 and 3, there all basically the same game with tweaks here and there, civ rev is a completley different game designed for a different audience, and if you can fit into the audience for both genres then you're definetly a civ junkie who'll love civ no matter what, if you only fit into one audience e.g. mainstream civ games, then your not necessarily gonna love every civ game although you might, depends on the person, hence genetic predisposition.

Simple.

 

[Txurce]

Maybe even too simple!

 

[Zechnophobe]

"When in past games you would get a notification from the game and then have to hunt down the right thing on the map, now the icon zips you straight there, saving you lots of time that you can use to play more delicious Civ, or even save your social/romantic lives."

Oh well that's a relief, I'm glad you pointed this out. Well, except for it working the exact same way in Civ 4 though. I mean, the exact same way. You get popups warning you of events, where you choose to deal with them.

Did you even play Civ 4?

 

[Schuesseled]

well not exactly the same, it was easy to miss the unit icons that popped up on the screen, these are a lot more visible now and fixed in position.

 

[Zechnophobe]

I'll put my snark bat down for a second. What do you mean by unit icons? The ones that pop up when someone bad is in your territory?

Those had some small problems in civ 4, like disappearing after a short time. But you could click on them to have them zoom to the spot which was nice. If those were turned into popups... that could be a benefit, so long as a large force of bad guys wouldn't generate like a dozen popups to wade through.

 

[Schuesseled]

yes, spot on. snark bat lol.

I could also see that as being a problem, lets hope its not.

 

[Krill]

Zimbu, can you stop pwning everyone posting in this thread please? You are raising the average CFCers intelligence.

 

[Zechnophobe]

Although I lose respect for anyone who aggressively uses the term 'fanboy'. It's an ad hominem and strawman rolled up into a single vulgar expression, offering little explanation or rationale.

I think it isn't completely unreasonable to think that a person who likes something you dislike, may also be similarly dissonant with your views in other areas. Just don't put too much stock in it.

 

[PieceOfMind]

A reminder:

Moderator Action: A notice:

Using labels to mock other users and/or their arguments will no longer be tolerated on this forum.

...

We will be warning/infracting people we see using these terms from this point on

 

[Lyoncet]

It's an ad hominem and strawman rolled up into a single vulgar expression, offering little explanation or rationale.

I believe Hannah Arendt categorized such things as "politics of poor faith." In one's own ideology, that is. Hm, that gives me an idea.

*Hannah Arendt for Civ V!*

 

[Helmling]

makes perfect sense, civ 4 is a lot like civ's 1, 2 and 3, there all basically the same game with tweaks here and there, civ rev is a completley different game designed for a different audience, and if you can fit into the audience for both genres then you're definetly a civ junkie who'll love civ no matter what, if you only fit into one audience e.g. mainstream civ games, then your not necessarily gonna love every civ game although you might, depends on the person, hence genetic predisposition.

Simple.

No, seriously man, you're not making a whole lot of sense.

Honestly, did you play Civ 1? It was pretty simple compared to 4. I swear, Civ Rev takes me back to it. Yes, it's faster. Some people played on small maps in Civ IV for fast games. It's hard to find time to play a 30 hour marathon session (though I often did!). Me, my favorite games are epic and long and endanger my marriage.

But a game can still be good without having to suck up a week or two of your life. And it's possible to admit that without being irrevocably biased in favor of all future iterations of the franchise.

 

[JonoLith]

I'm afraid im gonna have to step in and agree with arioch here, a person who advicates that they like both civ rev and civ 4 seriously can't be trusted to form an unbiased opinion on civ 5.

They are clearly too much of a fan of civ, to be objective about civ.

My understanding of what you are saying is thus; "A person who enjoys two different types of games, even if they acknowledge fully that the two games they are playing are different, is incapable of giving an opinion of another game."

Basically what you have said is that if I love Halo, and I also love The Sims, my opinion of Starcraft 2 is invalid. Or, if I loved Toy Story 3, and Inception, my opinion of Star Trek is invalid.

I hope I don't have to go into too much detail about why this line of thinking is horribly horribly flawed.

 

[rh1n0man]

The real question is why the reviewer went for a complete cultural under the Iroquois, a rush civilization, that has little chance at a cultural if the Egyptians or French are around. Is someone playing on settler?

Also worried about enemy tactical AI. Either he is exaggerating his own abilities or the AI needs some work before release. 3 units that are not moving should not be able to hold off an army!!

End the Civilization Revolution flaming!!!

 

[Lyoncet]

The real question is why the reviewer went for a complete cultural under the Iroquois, a rush civilization, that has little chance at a cultural if the Egyptians or French are around. Is someone playing on settler?

Egypt and France can't win culture if they're dead.