IGN claims Civ 5 "has no soul".

[LDiCesare]

Leaders that don't age, the talk of tile improvements and terrain benefits in warfare are the hallmarks of the series and may apply to almost any game in the franchise.

I respectfully disagree. In Civ I, leaders were hardly ever seen. You waged war against Germany. In Civ V, you wage war against Bismark. The games have moved from portraying civilizations to portraying leaders.
All the more so, leaders used to change as time changed. They'd wear different clothes as time passed. In V, they always appear the same way. Napoleon is on a horse when he's still in the Stone age and hasn't tamed a cow.
Leaders used to age. They changed aspect as their civilization evolved, were part of thier civ, now they are decorrelated, things that live outside their time. Worse, they all behave like opportunists who stab whoever was born on their continent, unlike IV. They are so predictable that they feel more like mathematic formulas than IV leaders ever did, despite their showing of numbers in diplomacy.
The difference between improvement and warfare is not that off either. Buildings are so very long to build in this version. Wonders are so not wonderful. And I still miss caravans from civ 2 to make trade as fun as warfare.

 

[neptune2000]

I have heard his voice, so I can confirm that Thomas Sowell indeed did NOT provide the voice for tech discoveries.

 

[neptune2000]

I probably won't bother to read the article, but I have to agree with the statement that CiV feels "souless", though in the sense that it isn't very immersive for me. In previous iterations it was easy to imagine my empire growing over time. Cool wonder construction cinematics, the tech illustrations, leaders changing clothes over time, these added to the previous game(s). The ever expanding cultural borders pushing up against each other and overtaking tiles, and even spreading religions gave a "story" feel to the game.

Yes, games like Civ are about creating your own story with your imagination, but this iteration hasn't yet helped me along. I can't yet put my finger on it, but I don't feel like I'm "building an empire to stand the test of time".

 

[mva5580]

I don't know if I agree with the specifics of articles like this, but I agree with the overall premise. Whenever I play Civ V....I don't know. It just feels empty. I don't like the pace, I don't like a number of things being taken away from my view (whether they were "good" or not, I don't care, I just liked the information,) and overall it just doesn't feel right to me.

I have hope and confidence that a few quality patches and expansion pack or two will put this game on par with Civ IV. But right now I just can't bring myself to complete a game in Civ V, where as in comparison time absolutely flies in IV. And I'm not interested in 10 pages of justifying why I do or don't feel that way....I just do.

 

[Futumch]

IGN isn't the be-all and end-all of review sources. If they didn't mention some of the flaws in the game then you'd probably be thinking "has this person actually played the game, or are they cherry picking from other people's articles?"

 

[Ataxerxes]

IGN isn't the be-all and end-all of review sources. If they didn't mention some of the flaws in the game then you'd probably be thinking "has this person actually played the game, or are they cherry picking from other people's articles?"

IGN isn't even the beginning of review sources. Remember their review of CivIV? It was so bad it was a joke and is legendary on the CivIV forum. It was considered a great comedy read - BTS Huayna Capac was hands-down the worst leader in the reviewer's opion. Most CivIV polls rank HC as one of the top three - some think you shouldn't play him he's so good in CivIV.

 

[logintime]

I'm one of the people on this forum who severely dislikes Civ5, someone who has a hard time thinking of much positive to say about it... and yet, I can say with certainty that this article is an overwritten piece of rubbish. All his complaints- "it's all numbers! delayed gratification!"- could be said about any strategy game, rpg, or sim game. He misses almost all reasonable criticism in favor of longwinded hubris. This might be the worst review I've read in ages.

 

[Chryso]

The author wants cinemas? Well, go to the cinema then!

We have already seen games being dumbed down and seen all interaction being taken away, as most of the games are put on railroads, and we are having our hands held through the entire game.

Narrative (cinema) is anti-game. So if the author wants cinema, games is not the right place to look.
A clash between game and narrative

 

[Andvare]

IGN has lost all their credability the day they posted this piece of garbage :
http://uk.pc.ign.com/articles/107/1078650p2.html

See how positive they are towards that pile of junk, now read the civ V review, sounds more like they are trying to sail on others their work done on this very forum.
What a joke.

I see your C&C 4 review, and raise you a MoO3 review:

http://pc.ign.com/articles/386/386281p1.html

9.2 overall, out of 10. That should have been 9.2 out of 100. 9.2!
It was unplayable. You could win by just clicking end turn. The AI was coded to not invade. It was actually incapable of it.

Gameplay
Superb. Best AI on several levels for this kind of game. Great game balance. Strong replayability, fine strategic rules implementation in battle.

 

[Morningcalm]

Aside from the IGN "review," and the "Second Opinions," the major problem with this latest of IGN's statements about Civ 5 is the equating cinema with soul--and if he differentiates them (as he should, as words in the English language they have different meanings)--he never clarifies their differences. A faulty, weak analogy for a faulty, weak argument. Probably just a ploy to satisfy some users who didn't like Civ 5.

We aren't falling for it. We know Civ 5 has *other* issues.

 

[jagdtigerciv]

When I read this article I thought "pseudo historian (read an ancient history book and now thinks he's a historian) meets first year philosophy student."

It was terrible. Miserably, miserably terrible.

 

[Disgustipated]

Terrible article. He portrays himself as an intellectual, yet seems to want all flash and no substance (immediate gratification via video and audio). I will agree with him that the game does need more flash for non war activities (wonder movies *cough*). The game does not reward the "builder"at all.

 

[TLF]

Leaders that don't age?

Are they supposed to look 4000 years old by the end of the game?

 

[Disgustipated]

Isn't it 6050 years old? Not to be nitpicky or anything.

 

[TLF]

It was actually a good article.
Civ isn't his cup of tea however.

 

[Thormodr]

You don't go to the bakery and get your car's oil changed and you don't go to the bank and have a workout.

If the reviewer wanted "cinema" then he should go watch a movie.

Well, that or watch a game with lots of cut scenes and little meaningful content.

 

[Psyringe]

I see your C&C 4 review, and raise you a MoO3 review:

http://pc.ign.com/articles/386/386281p1.html

9.2 overall, out of 10. That should have been 9.2 out of 100. 9.2!
It was unplayable. You could win by just clicking end turn. The AI was coded to not invade. It was actually incapable of it.

Yep. There are also lines like this one:

Diplomatic AI has never been anywhere near as clever as in MOO3

... which are utterly hilarious considering that shortly after, the developers admitted in the official MoO3 forums that the diplomacy made no sense whatsoever. (When asked whether the upcoming patch would fix the diplomacy, they said that they were aware of the issue and that the AI statements didn't actually reflect what it really "thought", but couldn't fix because the person who had coded the diplomacy didn't work at Quicksilver anymore.) Later on, modders found out that due to bugs, the AI would just randomly pick its statements out of all available.

Which means that the diplomacy AI praised in the IGN review as better than any other before it ... was actually just rolling dice and randomly spouting out statements.

 

[patriarchaleksi]

You could just as easily claim that since games = cinema + interactivity, cinema is just literature + visuals. Then this idiot could write another 1000 word pseudo-intellectual nonsense piece on how cinema has no 'soul' because it has to strip all the complexity out of literature to work as 90 minutes of entertainment.

 

[tm01xx]

Leaders that don't age?

Are they supposed to look 4000 years old by the end of the game?

How's about idea that leader actually can die? Then his son would replace him in power. If he has no son then a best general would come. I take this from Knights of Honor game. Quite interesting.

 

[neptune2000]

Isn't it 6050 years old? Not to be nitpicky or anything.

You've actually had a Civ V game last that long? Noob.

Kidding!

Hey, maybe that's why leaders/advisors don't change dress as they advance to the more modern ages. So many of you all beat the game so easily, maybe the developers figured it wasn't worth the time and effort.