I think there is some lying going on.

[jarcher]

This game has rav reviews everywhere on the web. Everyone thinks it is great, a near perfect piece of gaming software. ...

I am pretty sure there is a bunch of lying going on, and it disappoints me. Isn't the internet a worldwide forum of freedom of speech?

I agree, the web is flooded with positive reviews. But there is a reason for this, and it is quite the opposite of what you are suggesting. I understand that you have specific technical issues with this game, and so have many others. However, there are also MANY people who have had no problems whatsoever with this game. I am one of those people - not a single graphical glitch or CTD.

Perhaps more of these reviews on the web should have mentioned the technical issues many are facing. Agreed. But, then again, I have read many reviews that do mention these issues.

You can not make generalised statements about 'a bunch of lying' when you have absolutely no proof to back this up. You fail to appreciate the fact that this is a great game, and this is simply what the reviewers on many sites are putting into writing.

Provide facts to back up your illogical statements.

 

[snizzake]

I have yet been able to finish a game, due to the game crashing when it gets too much for my PC to handle (I have a P4 2.6, 1 Gig RAM, 128mb ATI 9800 Pro), yet I still find this game fun. I have d/l the memory leak fix, the patch, and even turned down the settings (low graphics, no zoom-in fighting, etc). The game is still full of issues, but I still find enjoyment from it. I am even saving money to buy a better comp to run it! That says a lot if you ask me.

I have almost the exact same system as you do, only difference is I have 256mb of ram less than you. I only have problems in modern era and anything larger than standard maps. I've finished/played dozens of maps. So it sounds like something on your end and not the system/game. Try alt+ctrl+del and shut off all processes under your user name except Explorer and of course Civ

 

[Psyringe]

Hmm, I don't think our opinions are that far apart. The two lines you disagree with are a much shortened version of my previous post, which was a little less ... blunt.

My point was that that a review should mention current technical problems of a game, but not lessen a final rating because of these, unless all or most users have them. The reason is that the review should be valid not only for the month in which it's written, but even two or three years later. However, technical problems of a game are unlikely to remain the same after two years. The game will have been patched. Bugs will have been fixed. New hardware will have introduced new problems and incompatibilities. On the other hand, the new hardware may also mitigate performance problems that the game had when it was released.

There are so many reasons why these "tech issues" will change that it doesn't make sense to *rate* a game according to them. Doing so would turn a review into a snapshot that's only true for a very short time. The rating should be done for criteria which will be the same even intwo years: Is the game designed well? Does the gameplay work? Are the different parts of the game well balanced? Is the sound and music enjoyable? Is the interface intuitive and efficient? Does the AI understand to play the game?

I agree that these criteria are subjective, but that's the point of a review. If you're interested in objective criteria then you'd do a test, not a review, and write down the results you measured instead of opinions about the game. However, since games are made for enjoyment, and enjoyment is a rather subjective issue, there's little point in doing so. Also, the issues may be much more subjective than you think. A game performance that one player describes as "unplayable" may not even be an issue to another player.

On the other hand, much information about non-tech issues may be much more objective than you think. What's subjective about "The game now implements religions", "Instead of governments, you can now choose between five civic each in four categories, each providing different bonuses", or "The offense/defense combat values have been reduced to a single strength value, but you can train your units for certain tasks with different promotions"?

Regarding the car (and other) analogies, I don't think they can be applied to software. Software is a totally different product.

 

[Tactilus]

Its pretty stupid I agree not seeing multiple negative Reviews. Sometimes I can read a Negative review (when I rarely find them), and the person complains exactly about the problems they didn't like with the game but that I enjoy. For instance someone complaining that one of the Final Fantasy games is Turn Based and they want it Real Time. Well I just happen to love Turn Based, at least have the option of Turn Based for a Action RPG like FF series. No point to having Strategy in the Action part of a RPG game if it is so fast you can't utilize the different strategies. May aswell just be a hack'n'slash imo. So yeah I've seen negative Reviews and they have encouraged me to buy products alot more than good reviews.

What is that saying of how even bad Publicity is still good Advertisement? Don't the Stars of Movies and Music get into trouble and have love scandels just to get in the papers more? The more they are in the papers and Mags, the more people recognize them in another movie, and then buy and watch the movie. This too could help the industry in the same way. How would they go about doing this? Its simple really, utilize Advertisement even with a Negative review, have the game posted right up there next to the review. It will catch peoples eyes more, and the more it is out there, the more familiar it will become. Eventually, it will get people to buy the product due to familiarity. A picture is worth more than a thousand words. Plus, most people are inclined to not take Negative reviews as credible. But, seeing the Negatives reviews getting "squashed" by Big Brother goes along way towards people not wanting to buy the newest game because now they are distrustful of the industrial behavior.

The problem is the Industry as a whole hasn't clued in upon how much Negativity can boost products being sold. Someone just might complain about one of your most favorite features in any game. That ensures that you would like the game even more because a person who dislikes your tastes dislikes the game. So it has to be good right? Yes, someone who dislikes Real Time and likes Turn based, will like some Final Fantasies better than others due to this specific game feature.

But, treating the consumers as if they are stupid and fools will soon come to haunt those trying to do this very thing.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

If you think you've been Fooled then make a list, and check it every now and then to see who has been naughty or nice. Then buy accordingly.

 

[Fru]

I definately concur with both Leebloom and Meisen.

Whenever there is money involved things get glossed over. Buyer beware etc.

What about the poor sods who bought the game in good faith and don't have the means to update the game etc? They may have no net connection or are just not that net literate enough. Maybe they played a good strategy game back when they had a Spectrum and decided to get back into gaming with their shiney new Dell.

The current market setup is preventing games from evolving properly. Slice it any way you want. Games are invented and then evolve. Not continually re-invented. There are too many money and middle men involved and this brings about huge conflicts of interest.

 

[Seven05]

Last time I paid anywhere near $50 for a car I was suprised that it even started at all. And it had rave reviews, albiet slightly dated but certainly no less enthusiastic!

For the orignal poster and his/her supporters:

I'm sorry that I enjoy this game and that my enjoyment of this game offends you in any way. I regret the fact that I agree with many, perhaps even most of the reviews I've read and I'm sorry that I've been able to run it without any significant issues on my computer since it was released as have several of my friends on their completely differently configured PCs. It's obvious that we are doing something wrong and at my ealriest opportunity I will try to mis-configure all of our computers so that the game doesn't run anymore and we are unable to enjoy it so I can join you in your complaints. I will also endeavor to contact each of the reviewers and inform them that prior to publishing any future revies they should contact you and make sure that the game runs perfectly on your computer, if not they shall be required to automatically deduct no less than half of their final score, in the intrest of fairness of course.

I wasn't too sarcastic, was I?

 

[leebloom]

Right on, my thinking exactly.


Just for the heck of it I took a little sampling of some reviews, to see if their content mentioned anything about the performance issues. I gotta admit, I can see why the OP saw a bias.

Thanks Butter. This was most of the point I was trying to make. Glad you actually read the sense of my post.

BTW, If you do buy a Ferrari (meisen's post), and it breaks down all the time, wouldn't you tell your friends about the break-downs in your "review" of the car?
Example: Hi friend, that Ferrari is amazing! Rating 10/10 !!!
#2 : Hi friend, that Ferrari is amazing, but I spent $6000 dollars fixing stuff on it last month and it broke down every time I went on a 50 mile trip. Rating for now 5/10

The 1st example is what the advertisers are saying, #2 is what I believe is what they should be saying about Civ4.

Regards

 

[leebloom]

Last time I paid anywhere near $50 for a car I was suprised that it even started at all. And it had rave reviews, albiet slightly dated but certainly no less enthusiastic!

lol

It's obvious that we are doing something wrong and at my ealriest opportunity I will try to mis-configure all of our computers so that the game doesn't run anymore and we are unable to enjoy it so I can join you in your complaints.

need any help?

 

[leebloom]

It's not really lying per se, it would be a marketing disaster if they officially recognized the fact that there are numerous bugs.

If the game won't run on the minimum specs on the game box, then it IS a lie. It can be nothing else. Look up lie in the dictionary.

I agree it would be a marketing disaster if they put the bugs in their reviews, but it would also be an "honesty" bonanza. We would feel more loyal to the reviewers and game companies if they didn't hide behind various filters and gimmicks to allow their products to "look" good.


Merry Christmas everyone, I hope you had a great one.

 

[Xavier Von Erck]

Wow, I have minimum specs. The game runs fine for me.

Amazingly, most reviewers didn't have technical problems. And most players don't have technical problems. The ones that do though, certainly cry, whine and scream about it enough... rather than actually oh, finding out what their issue is.

There's an old saying in technical support, it's always been true:

"99% of problems are user-created, and 99% of solutions no matter how easy, will be screwed up by those same people that create their own problems to begin with."

It's too bad Firaxis wasn't able to test every single computer configuration on the planet. It's too bad EA wasn't able to do that with any of their games, or Company A on any of Company A's games. But what's really too bad, is that users here are so whiny/irrational about something that is nothing new, a staple of PC gaming.

 

[Stylesjl]

I have not had any technical issues with the game. Mostly because i have a kickass computer

However there have been some strange pauses and lagging during the game often when i switch to the global view or an AI requests an audience

 

[Breunor]

That's why I think technical issues shouldn't affect the rating: The situation is bound to change anyways.

An interesting point, Psy! This has been a bigger issue with computer games' reviews than a lot of people think.

SIDE COMMENT -- Ok, for the record, I WAS a 'professional' reviewer years ago. Anyone who thinks that we are all bribed and biased into giving out good reviews just becuase we like the franchise or are intimidated isn't being realistic or respectful. (Look at HOMM 4 and MOO 3, for example).

Back to the discussion -- OK, the game review magazines do have differences about this. I think, for instance (please don't quote me on this), Computer Gaming Review doesn't allow a new review for new additions and/or patches. I know a lot of developers are pretty angry about this policy. Other magazines and online reviews do.

I agree with you that it is hard for a reviewer with a pre-publication version of the game. The only 'real' solution is to wait until the final version is out. Unfortunately, then, to test it well means some time, which means the review is published way later than the original release, making its value less useful to readers.

So, I agree with you. I do think it is useful to mention technical issues, but its really hard to base a review on them.


Note this issue comes up in 'all time best game' type of polls. Older games often crashed and had technical problems that are far worse than modern games. Master of Magic is the epitome. It often is viewed as the deepest, most strategically gratifying game made, but those BUGS -- yikes! I would have trouble rating MoM against a modern game with less depth but is ore stable ......



Best wishes,

Breunor

 

[dvandyke]

It is too much of a coincidence, they are all paid to give positive reviews.

 

[EdCase]

Amazed that anyone even the OP pays any attention to "reviews" anyway.
My purchases of games is dictated by.

1. Does the subject matter interest me.
2.Is it a genre I enjoy.
3. What is being said in its relevant official/unofficial forums.
4.How much of what is being said is actually coherent
5.Finally I look at the developer (not the publisher, since they are 100% guaranteed to screw up no matter who they are) and if i've been pleased by them before...I'll probably buy at release.If not I'll hang back and see what happens after a couple of weeks.

Reviews especially online reviews are merely showcases for the product. Positive or negative(it does happen).

 

[BCLG100]

anyone know if there are anymore planned patches?

 

[Breunor]

It is too much of a coincidence, they are all paid to give positive reviews.

This is just plain false.

Maybe it isn't a coincidence?

Breunor

 

[Padma]

anyone know if there are anymore planned patches?

Nothing confirmed, but knowing the developers, you can count on it.

 

[spymonkey]

I personally find it hard to believe that bugs and the like are ever even a factor for most people in buying a game. This makes software completely unlike cars and such, where reliability and safety are often prime concerns. I, personally, will never base my decision to buy a game on how buggy it is. If I trust the company enough (as I do Firaxis), I can rest assured that most bugs will be ironed out over time.

Printing disclaimers in reviews? Sure, why not. But magazines and sites should save themselves the time and effort by just having a giant page saying "COMPUTER GAMES ARE OFTEN BUGGY!" This way, they wouldn't have to write it in essentially every single review.

Why is it so hard to believe that reviewers didn't have any problems with this game? With state-of-the-art, top-of-the-line, what-have-you computers, they're likely not going to have many issues with games. Some reviews are written based on review copies that are sent to them before the rest of the gaming community can get their mitts on the game, so how can they mention problems other people are having when they haven't had problems yet? It's also not the responsibility of the reviewer to test the game on other systems, as it's a waste of time and fairly ineffective anyway. When I read a review, I expect to read about what the reviewer thought about the gameplay features, how well they were integrated, how well it looks and sounds, etc.

Also, why does it matter that they reviewed it 10/10? A lot of review sites have increments of 1 or .5, so a 9.6 might get bumped up to a 10/10. Plus, everybody has their own opinion on what 10/10 means. For some, a 10/10 means it's in the upper 1-5% of all games, and for others, it's the absolute pinnacle of gaming awesomeness. Personally, I fall in the latter category, and I also don't feel that any game ever deserves a 10/10. Sorry Civ2, sorry Half-Life, sorry Metroid Prime, but there'll never be a 10/10 game in my book. However, not everyone feels this way, and it doesn't make them an idiotic, inbred, naive fanboy extraordinaire to feel that Civ4 is a 10/10 game.

 

[ZubieMaster]

It seems to me the OP is leaning too much towards conspiracy theory and some of the responders are leaning too much towards naivety (payola does happen: see last July, Sony's settlement with the State of New York).

I don't think that the technical issues should even be the deciding issue of giving Civ IV a lower grade. I personally think on its merits Civ IV is not that great of a game; so far it's very boring to me. But I have only played a couple games. Those here that seem to love Civ IV the most have played a lot of games and fully explored its ins and outs. Reviewers I would guess only played a couple games at most before their write-ups, which I don't think should have been enough time to conclude Civ IV among the most exciting, greatest things they've ever seen.

That said, it doesn't mean they are "lying" or wrong or evil. It's fully possible for all the reviewers to be among those that love it and their computers are so good they had no technical problems to report. Still, it's very disappointing that there's not one dissenting voice among the reviewers based on the merits of the game, which for me personally tends to take away from the credibility of the reviews as a whole. I mean, there *has* to be at least *one* reviewer out there that doesn't like the addition of religion, or the whole forest chopping thing, or spamming cottages, or the way combat has changed... doesn't there?

I'm not suggesting payola is going on, but I do think there is a bandwagon factor (they read what everyone else says and just sign on) and/or a respect for the franchise's past factor being played (they are giving it a great grade because they loved past Civs and this one looks like it's even better on the surface) that take away from the credibility of the reviews. Oh well, bottom line is if you love the game you love the reviews, and vice versa.

 

[andrew_yaweb]

The big tip was the mislabelled play disk...but after the patches, the game is cool. I was really freaked out at first by the video problems.
Civ4 rocks.