Destructoid hands-on preview - 12th of Aug

[PieceOfMind]

I think the point is that to like CivRev requires some level of suspending one's criticism of a game. If a food critic told me he/she enjoyed cheeseburgers from McDonalds, I would naturally be skeptical of their taste in finer foods.

If a reviewer liked Civ4 and liked CivRev, it just means their opinion of Civ5 is not going to be a good predictor of what my view of Civ5 will be. On the other hand, someone who liked Civ4 but loathed CivRev would be able to give me a better idea of whether I'll like Civ5 or not.

I must admit, I raised my eyebrow when I read he liked CivRev in the article. Even with the qualification he attached to that comment, it immediately made me a bit less trusting of his ability to be critical of the game. He's entitled to have that view, but I'm entitled to disagree with his assessment.

 

[Lyoncet]

I agree with your sentiment POM, but I don't think the the evidence bears out the scenario you set up here. The quotation is:

"I personally enjoyed the change of pace that Civ Rev brought with it, while fully recognizing that it lacked the same depth and strategy of its PC lineage."

To me, this doesn't read as "I appreciate Civ Rev." I could say "I appreciate the ingenuity of Scottish cuisine," but that doesn't mean that I like haggis. The writer could certainly like Civ Rev, but we can't tell based on what he's said.

Further, even if we accept your reading, your position doesn't really shore up the "'nuff said" argument, since that makes it a blanket statement of "this guy's opinion isn't worth considering," not "this guy's opinions will be different than mine." Still, not to say that there's no merit to your line of thought.

 

[PieceOfMind]

I think I was too distracted by the voice acting (or should I say gibberish acting) and disappointed by the absence of any difficulty to even begin to consider appreciating the change in pace that CivRev brought to the series.

Civ4 had a Quick speed, and I modded in an even faster speed (I called 'Lightning' -it's in PIG Mod). Those things provided a change in pace.

CivRev's faster pace was a consequence of its lack of depth and lower difficulty.

 

[Calouste]

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!!!

I would expect mistakes from the tactical AI on Settler. Wouldn't be much fun for the player if the AI ruthlessly punished all the mistakes they make with their limited understanding of the combat mechanism.

 

[JonoLith]

I think the point is that to like CivRev requires some level of suspending one's criticism of a game. If a food critic told me he/she enjoyed cheeseburgers from McDonalds, I would naturally be skeptical of their taste in finer foods.

Even if they they acknowledged everything that gives McDonalds a negative view, when compared to Fillet Mignon, and spoke specifically and objectively on the points?

Not every meal can be an expensive dinner, and no matter what anyone can tell me, sometimes you simply want a Big Mac.

If the food critic simply said "Big Macs are equal to Fillet Mignon" then yes, his opinion should be considered invalid, but that isn't what is happening here. What is happening here is more akin to a food critic saying "I understand that a Big Mac is a poor substitution for Fillet Mignon, however, sometimes I do not have time for Fillet Mignon, or I simply have the craving for a Big Mac." Is that bad? Does that sentence throw his opinion under the bus? I should truly hope not.

I simply do not understand the opinion that states that simply because someone loves the most exquisite and beautiful things that an art form can deliver, they should shun and despise the least. There are times and places for both.

For goodness sake, the guy was talking about how he likes playing Civ Rev on his iPhone. How does that invalidate his opinion on Civ 5? Exactly? Specifically? The guy likes civilization, obviously, and wants to play it, on his iPhone. Do we honestly believe that when he's playing Civ, on his iPhone, he's looking for the deep intense gameplay experience? Or do you think he's reaching for that big mac while on the forty five minute bus ride to work?

The more I talk about this the more the scathing and cruel elitism of it all strikes me. The guy has gone so far as to say that Civ Rev is an inferior product, if we are to be judging inferiority based on depth, and yet people still question his judgment? If anything he's shown that he's quite capable of being objective, and is utilizing that judgment to facilitate his own enjoyment. You can't put Civ 5 on an iPhone. You know what you can? Civ Rev.

The man's just trying to have some fun, and informing others how they can also have fun. Saying this invalidates his opinion somehow is, quite possibly, one of the most skewed things I've ever even heard uttered in a serious manner. It is akin to saying "How dare he find Civ Rev enjoyable under any circumstances, as I deem it to be tripe!"

He wants to play a game on his iPhone. Everyone here has played an internet game that was stupid and mundane, and easy, and yet we played it because it was exactly what we wanted in that moment. Suddenly, because civilization is involved, we must look down our noses at it?

Ridiculous.

 

[EmpireOfCats]

I simply do not understand the opinion that states that simply because someone loves the most exquisite and beautiful things that an art form can deliver, they should shun and despise the least.

You, Sir, are obviously not an Elitist. At least in Europe, an intellectual is still defined by what he shuns (computer games and American movies are the top of the list, by the way). It's just a form of "my gang, your gang" on the level of the whole society: If you like McDonalds, you can't be in my fine food gang.

But let's wait for Civ V to come out to call each other names, shall we? Then we can look down on the Civ IV "religious fanatics", and they can call us Civ V "eye candy whores" or something. Great fun for all!

 

[JonoLith]

You, Sir, are obviously not an Elitist. At least in Europe, an intellectual is still defined by what he shuns (computer games and American movies are the top of the list, by the way). It's just a form of "my gang, your gang" on the level of the whole society: If you like McDonalds, you can't be in my fine food gang.

But let's wait for Civ V to come out to call each other names, shall we? Then we can look down on the Civ IV "religious fanatics", and they can call us Civ V "eye candy whores" or something. Great fun for all!

I'm so happy that we have such advanced ways of hating one another nowadays. Oh how I long for the old days where I could hate someone simply because of where they were born geographically, or by what family fate decided to place them in. Things were simple then.

Those were the days!

 

[PieceOfMind]

Even if they they acknowledged everything that gives McDonalds a negative view, when compared to Fillet Mignon, and spoke specifically and objectively on the points?

Not every meal can be an expensive dinner, and no matter what anyone can tell me, sometimes you simply want a Big Mac.

If the food critic simply said "Big Macs are equal to Fillet Mignon" then yes, his opinion should be considered invalid, but that isn't what is happening here. What is happening here is more akin to a food critic saying "I understand that a Big Mac is a poor substitution for Fillet Mignon, however, sometimes I do not have time for Fillet Mignon, or I simply have the craving for a Big Mac." Is that bad? Does that sentence throw his opinion under the bus? I should truly hope not.

I simply do not understand the opinion that states that simply because someone loves the most exquisite and beautiful things that an art form can deliver, they should shun and despise the least. There are times and places for both.

For goodness sake, the guy was talking about how he likes playing Civ Rev on his iPhone. How does that invalidate his opinion on Civ 5? Exactly? Specifically? The guy likes civilization, obviously, and wants to play it, on his iPhone. Do we honestly believe that when he's playing Civ, on his iPhone, he's looking for the deep intense gameplay experience? Or do you think he's reaching for that big mac while on the forty five minute bus ride to work?

The more I talk about this the more the scathing and cruel elitism of it all strikes me. The guy has gone so far as to say that Civ Rev is an inferior product, if we are to be judging inferiority based on depth, and yet people still question his judgment? If anything he's shown that he's quite capable of being objective, and is utilizing that judgment to facilitate his own enjoyment. You can't put Civ 5 on an iPhone. You know what you can? Civ Rev.

The man's just trying to have some fun, and informing others how they can also have fun. Saying this invalidates his opinion somehow is, quite possibly, one of the most skewed things I've ever even heard uttered in a serious manner. It is akin to saying "How dare he find Civ Rev enjoyable under any circumstances, as I deem it to be tripe!"

He wants to play a game on his iPhone. Everyone here has played an internet game that was stupid and mundane, and easy, and yet we played it because it was exactly what we wanted in that moment. Suddenly, because civilization is involved, we must look down our noses at it?

Ridiculous.

If a reviewer liked Civ4 and liked CivRev, it just means their opinion of Civ5 is not going to be a good predictor of what my view of Civ5 will be. On the other hand, someone who liked Civ4 but loathed CivRev would be able to give me a better idea of whether I'll like Civ5 or not.

He's entitled to have [his] view, but I'm entitled to disagree with his assessment.

Don't turn this into some argument of morality or something else serious (questions of good vs. bad, invalidating opinions, elitism and looking down noses etc.).

All I'm saying is the guy's assessment of civrev is very different to mine and so he's unlikely to make the same criticisms of civ5 that I would probably make. I don't want him hanged for his opinion, and I certainly don't view his opinion as any lesser than my own.

 

[migkillertwo]

Another piece of writing here.

An interesting part of the preview:

Despite the fact that I was grossly out-manned, my placement allowed me to shell their expansionist pants off with my strong ranged unit while the Americans either threw cannon fodder uselessly at my front or got whittled down trying to work their way around the sides. Eventually, the AI got wise and sent naval units to drop troops behind my formation, but by then it was too late. I had bought myself just enough time to build a force to repel them with.

If the AI is that smart at this stage in development, I am extremely optimistic about CiV

 

[Schuesseled]

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.

Actually no i never played civ 1, i believe i watched my dad play civ 2 (maybe civ 1) when i was little, but the first civ game i played religously was civ 3, when i was older.

My post was on the differences of the two games, this did include time, but civ rev is a whole other puppy to civ 4, it isn't civ 4 on quick mode, its civ rev stuck on quick mode.

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.

Then you clearly misread my post and didn't understand it. My post was about liking two different games based on the civ concept.

If i was to use your example, if you like Sims 1 and 2, as well as a theorectical Deathmatch Sims Battle Champion Pro, then you would be extremely likely to like any Sims game released.

My point wasn't that you couldn't like lots of different games (or movies which for some reason you also mentioned) without being unable to form a decent opinion on anything, that would defy all logic.

My point was that if you love every civ game even though they are radically different, and for radically different audiences, then you are the audience that will love every civ game.

Let me break it down for you:

Civ 4 (and other mainstream civs)- Audience - Turn-Based Strategy Lovers, and Civ Junkies

Civ Rev - Audience - An intro in strategy for gamers who like fps's, and rpgs and who have never picked up a civ game in thier life, and, Civ Junkies.

See if you like both games, then your probably a member of the civ junkie audience, you might be if you only liked one the games, everyones different, and a civ junkie is more likely to like another civ game no matter what.

Hope that makes sense now fellas.

 

[Txurce]

That was a little better, Schuesseled, but the problem that I think others are having with your reasoning (and POM's) is that it's too reductionist. You aren't factoring all of the qualifiers (or nuancers) that the original reviewer took the time to specify, and so keep arriving at a black-or-white answer. Hence, in the eyes of someone with elevated tastes, anyone who likes Big Macs is unqualified to judge haute cuisine, and anyone who likes CivRev is unqualified to judge Civ5.

To my surprise, I've read more than one restaurant critic at a major newspaper cite an occasional craving for fast food. I can disagree with his opinion, and POM may dismiss his taste outright, but to say that he is unqualified to judge haute cuisine because of the breadth of his likes strikes me as simple-minded.

The same goes for your argument. What would you say about someone who prefers to play Civ4 at Deity level because he appreciates both the complexity and the added challenge, but occasionally slums at Chieftain on Saturday mornings before going to the gym? And how would you specifically differentiate him from the Civ4/CivRev reviewer? I can't imagine doing it other than in shades of gray. You may have more ability than me to distill it to blacks and whites. But neither of you accomplishes that by reasoning in absolute terms.

 

[ShaqFu]

If someone likes Civ4, does that invalidate their opinions on The Operational Art of War?
If someone likes Civ4, does that invalidate their opinions on SimCity?
If someone likes Civ4, does that invalidate their opinions on M.U.L.E.?

I still don't understand how recognizing and appreciating CivRev's design goals for what they are somehow sullies a reviewer's opinion on Civ5. We might as well go ahead and lock this forum because we've all played and liked games simpler than Civ4, and if that invalidates our opinions, then there's nothing meaningful to say here.

 

[AriochIV]

If a movie reviewer really liked a movie that I thought was absolutely horrible, would that make him a terrible person, or an incompetent reviewer, or one of Satan's minions? Of course not. He just has an opinion that is different from mine.

However, a reviewer's opinion is the beginning and the end of his usefulness to his or her readers. If I know that a particular reviewer loves things that I hate and vice versa, then his reviews don't have any value for me.

 

[ShaqFu]

However, a reviewer's opinion is the beginning and the end of his usefulness to his or her readers. If I know that a particular reviewer loves things that I hate and vice versa, then his reviews don't have any value for me.

Do you dislike CivRev because it's a poorly designed game, or because it's just not your type of game?

If a reviewer says "I think Shaq-Fu is the pinnacle of game design" then you shouldn't pay much attention to his opinion. If he says "I think Gran Turismo games are well made," then I won't ignore him just because I don't like playing racing games, no matter how well crafted said game may be. There's a difference between not liking a game, and not liking a game because of bad design; if your issue with CivRev is the former, then you shouldn't harp on reviewers for liking it.

If you're only going to listen to reviewers that like the exact same games you do, you might as well not bother reading reviews at all.

 

[Tarkhan]

If someone likes Civ4, does that invalidate their opinions on The Operational Art of War?
If someone likes Civ4, does that invalidate their opinions on SimCity?
If someone likes Civ4, does that invalidate their opinions on M.U.L.E.?

I still don't understand how recognizing and appreciating CivRev's design goals for what they are somehow sullies a reviewer's opinion on Civ5. We might as well go ahead and lock this forum because we've all played and liked games simpler than Civ4, and if that invalidates our opinions, then there's nothing meaningful to say here.

I agree with this. I saw CivRev for what it was, a simplified Civ that works on consoles. And, I might add, I felt it was very well done considering the history of console strategy games.

 

[12agnar0k]

Civrev was an okay game, I just don't think it was very re-playable because it was a little too simplified for my taste, it wasn't particularly a bad game.

 

[Schuesseled]

That was a little better, Schuesseled, but the problem that I think others are having with your reasoning (and POM's) is that it's too reductionist. You aren't factoring all of the qualifiers (or nuancers) that the original reviewer took the time to specify, and so keep arriving at a black-or-white answer. Hence, in the eyes of someone with elevated tastes, anyone who likes Big Macs is unqualified to judge haute cuisine, and anyone who likes CivRev is unqualified to judge Civ5.

To my surprise, I've read more than one restaurant critic at a major newspaper cite an occasional craving for fast food. I can disagree with his opinion, and POM may dismiss his taste outright, but to say that he is unqualified to judge haute cuisine because of the breadth of his likes strikes me as simple-minded.

The same goes for your argument. What would you say about someone who prefers to play Civ4 at Deity level because he appreciates both the complexity and the added challenge, but occasionally slums at Chieftain on Saturday mornings before going to the gym? And how would you specifically differentiate him from the Civ4/CivRev reviewer? I can't imagine doing it other than in shades of gray. You may have more ability than me to distill it to blacks and whites. But neither of you accomplishes that by reasoning in absolute terms.

No one is aware of all the "qualifiers" as you put it, hardly anything in life can be qualified perfectly, especially people. (as i mentioned early it depends on the person involved) but a basic formula can be worked out most of the time, which is true most of the time. This concept is cetarus parebus (bad spelling there i think), and it is always internally implied when i use my logic, my reasonings hold as long as everything thing else is ignored. tis beautiful, really is.

 

[Txurce]

It is always internally implied when i use my logic, my reasonings hold as long as everything thing else is ignored. tis beautiful, really is.

I like it!

 

[Niniux]

Don't turn this into some argument of morality or something else serious (questions of good vs. bad, invalidating opinions, elitism and looking down noses etc.).

All I'm saying is the guy's assessment of civrev is very different to mine and so he's unlikely to make the same criticisms of civ5 that I would probably make. I don't want him hanged for his opinion, and I certainly don't view his opinion as any lesser than my own.

I figured that I would pipe in. I recently got an iPhone and happened to get CivRev when it was free for a day. I've played it and enjoyed it quite a bit but as a game to play on my cellphone, while waiting for something or needing to kill time. The reviewer did say that he enjoyed CivRev and qualified that he played it on the iPhone.

So, basically, that condensed, more fast paced and easier version of Civ was a positive experience for him as a cell phone game. I mean, I can understand that CivRev as a standalone experience would be disappointing to many Civ fans wanting a full game experience but I think, especially in the cell phone game he was referring to, a condensed form of Civ is not only adequate but is warranted.

I don't think his views are invalidated because he enjoyed CivRev but I could be biased as I enjoy playing CivRev on my phone at work breaks, myself.

 

[PieceOfMind]

That was a little better, Schuesseled, but the problem that I think others are having with your reasoning (and POM's) is that it's too reductionist. You aren't factoring all of the qualifiers (or nuancers) that the original reviewer took the time to specify, and so keep arriving at a black-or-white answer. Hence, in the eyes of someone with elevated tastes, anyone who likes Big Macs is unqualified to judge haute cuisine, and anyone who likes CivRev is unqualified to judge Civ5.

To my surprise, I've read more than one restaurant critic at a major newspaper cite an occasional craving for fast food. I can disagree with his opinion, and POM may dismiss his taste outright, but to say that he is unqualified to judge haute cuisine because of the breadth of his likes strikes me as simple-minded.

Wait. I'm not entirely sure you're accusing me of it or whether it's a result of you replying to me at the same time as anyone else, but I never wished to say a food critic would be unqualified if he liked cheeseburgers. Note the I in the following:

I think the point is that to like CivRev requires some level of suspending one's criticism of a game. If a food critic told me he/she enjoyed cheeseburgers from McDonalds, I would naturally be skeptical of their taste in finer foods.

It's a fact of life that people listen and value the opinions of some more than others, especially when it comes to politics. I don't think it's at all simple minded to treat with skepticism the views of a food critic who enjoys junk food. McDonalds is junk food. Also note that fast food does not imply junk food but it seems they often get lumped together.

If a reviewer liked Civ4 and liked CivRev, it just means their opinion of Civ5 is not going to be a good predictor of what my view of Civ5 will be. On the other hand, someone who liked Civ4 but loathed CivRev would be able to give me a better idea of whether I'll like Civ5 or not.

Nowhere in there do I argue the reviewer is unqualified to assess the game for communicating to others.

Frankly I don't want to get into an argument here, but I don't like being called simple minded because I am skeptical of a reviewer's assessment in predicting my own satisfaction of the game when I can plainly see that I see things differently (note: not better!, just differently) to how he does. I played CivRev on the DS, so it was of a similar portable nature to that on the iphone, and I still disagree with his "nuanced" opinion. I said before, he's entitled to that opinion. I didn't appreciate the change in pace CivRev brought because, as I said earlier, IMO the change in pace was a result of the problems with the game and not the result of good game design (in the context of a civ game).