I just watched it, I agree with you it's a step up for them. They do mention that the AI needs improvement and he made a good argument for the world congress including a system to set the agenda.
The polygon article came up in my google feed today, I still can't make any sense out of it though. With all the new content GS introduces, $40 is a fair price especially considered discounts as was mentioned earlier. The 8 news civs and Eleanor alone are worth $20-25. In addition it includes:
- Natural disasters and climate change
- Strategic resources and the power system
- The world congress returning
- Diplomacy changes and the diplomatic victory
- Canals, mountain tunnels, a whole new terrain system
- More natural wonders and wonders in general, more units, a future era
If they want to make a case that all of these additions, and maybe more that I'm forgetting, aren't worth $40, I didn't see enough arguments for that in the article. It doesn't really feel informative to me.
I had skimmed over the Polygon article and then reread it after your comments and agree with your assessment. Much like the blind review by Robert Zak @ PCGames, the author seems upset that the game doesn’t match his opinion on the timetable global warming and is not “nice” enough for his tastes.
At first glance, I suspected there would be a mound of rubbish to sort through when I saw that he had snuck in a reference to his company’s name (Polygon) with his opinion of the games treatment of global warming (Pollyanna).
This Colin fellow’s faux (ill)umianations are more consistent with enteric ruminations than a game review! My best guess his he’s had a few too many cans of Campbell’s BBQ’ed Beans. You will pardon me if I mix the themes of global warming with an opinion piece on gaming journalism, but it seems in keeping with the article. Half of the article strikes me as irrelevant to the subject matter and I am taxed to find an appropriate metaphor. By best attempt at an affirmative metaphor for the article’s logic might with the diverse course a mighty river might carve over time as it snakes its way through the landscape. This article seems smaller though, more petty. I’m thinking more of a babbling brook.
In his opening statement the fellow says Gathering Storm is “an improvement,” but “costs $40, which is poor value.” After which, he begins bashing in earnest.
After ranting about the games treatment of the (digital) environment and his own desire not to destroy the (digital) environment by playing “nice,” he goes on to diplomacy. I will give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he is cracking a joke on real world diplomacy by almost immediately stating the AI has been fixed, saying…
“Having played the DLC for a few dozen hours, it’s clear to me that enemies are less likely to behave stupidly than before. Their actions are generally explicable and based on reasonable interpretations of the world, from their point of view. This is a welcome fix, that ought to have been implemented (a) earlier and (b) without charge to long-suffering players.”
This is at odds with the consensus opinion who have played the game as well as what I’ve been able to see from the livestreaming.
In conclusion, this Polygon article parrots the hard line environmental ice caps are melting in 12 years (20 years ago) thesis and is more of a rambling diatribe on sleep habits and “value” (subjective) than a game review. More an environmental enforcers “hit piece” than game review. I also can’t help but get the feeling that this fellow will be coming for my digital army next and would have me competing with my neighbors in Civ VII to see who can grow the biggest and best crop of tulips.
Disclaimer: That rant felt good! I’m not really sure it’s quite as bad as all that, but feel quite inspired by the authors treatment of the game relative to his own agenda(s).
