Metacritic - average player's rating. Civ4, COL, Civ5, BNW, BE

[Haggbart]

I disagree. Defending supply crawlers is worse.

Agreed. The whole "SMAC is best and Civ:BE sucks ass because it's different" is hard to understand. Not because SMAC is bad (it's great), but because a lot of the things people seem to dislike with BE were a lot worse in SMAC. Namely ICS, random diplomacy (200 DOWS each game), micromanagment and victories being too tightly tied to tech'ing.

 

[GAGA Extrem]

Yes, by today's standards the SMAC balance is FUBAR, but 15 years ago people could still live with that - and at the very least SMAC gives you enough immersion in return. I don't use crawlers, I don't found more than 8 cities and I don't play on max difficulty. I guess it helps that some of these mechanics are a bit fiddly compared to BE.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Yes, by today's standards the SMAC balance is FUBAR, but 15 years ago people could still live with that - and at the very least SMAC gives you enough immersion in return. I don't use crawlers, I don't found more than 8 cities and I don't play on max difficulty. I guess it helps that some of these mechanics are a bit fiddly compared to BE.

Yes, I agree with that. I loved SMAC and was willing to overlook the deficiencies. I like (not love quite yet) the newer games despite problems. I just don't think it's productive or fair to turn a blind eye to issues with old "childhood" favorites while absolutely trashing a brand new release that's not even two weeks old yet for the same things.

 

[Chaos Blade]

Yes, by today's standards the SMAC balance is FUBAR, but 15 years ago people could still live with that - and at the very least SMAC gives you enough immersion in return. I don't use crawlers, I don't found more than 8 cities and I don't play on max difficulty. I guess it helps that some of these mechanics are a bit fiddly compared to BE.

Going to second this.
With one caveat: balance depends in large part what is the objective of the game. take MOM for instance, can't call that game balanced, there are better paths than others, some schools are so damn good it is overkill and the palandins? anti magic death machines.
But that is the point of the game, it is a magic lord simulator, and not all paths to power are crafted equally and it is a lot of fun (with the insecticide patch)

The point I am trying to make is that with the proper framing, backstory and/or immersion, balance becomes more relative -not all paths are equal, and not all should be equivalent- you still need some balance to maintain a certain structure and competitiveness, but beyond that? it is ok for the game to be somewhat asymmetric actually I'd go as far as saying that a certain asymmetry is a good thing. it helps make factions distinct and unique and adds to replayability.
If I want a fully balanced game of strategy, I would, otherwise, pick chess.

 

[Drowsy Emperor]

Frankly that's nonsense. SMAC was a feature complete game upon release. The diplomacy is more or less the same but has far more features, like allowing capitulation, tech trading, map trading, planetary council decisions etc and is more dependable based on social engineering preferences of faction leaders.

Civ BE doesn't suck because its different, its sucks because its a half arsed product lacking in presentation, full of poorly thought out sub-systems and ideas transplanted directly from Civ V with no effort to fix them or improve upon them.

If I was to list every feature SMAC had upon release that Civ BE doesn't have, it'd be as long as my leg.

But that's besides the point. The most damning thing about Civ BE is not the SMAC comparison, its the Civ V comparison and that's why its getting abysmal user scores all around Steam/Metacritic. Its the Civ V fan base that's thrashing the game, for not adding anything new to the Civ V experience - the SMAC crowd is the minority.

 

[Algeroth]

But that's besides the point. The most damning thing about Civ BE is not the SMAC comparison, its the Civ V comparison and that's why its getting abysmal user scores all around Steam/Metacritic. Its the Civ V fan base that's thrashing the game, for not adding anything new to the Civ V experience - the SMAC crowd is the minority.

Meh, comparable, if not more positive reaction than when Civ V was released. Boy, vanilla was such a dull game.

 

[Drowsy Emperor]

Civ V vanilla has significantly better user scores and critic scores. It has 42000 user reviews on Steam at "overwhelmingly positive", while BE has "mixed" at 3500. Same thing on metacritic.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Civ V vanilla has significantly better user scores and critic scores. It has 42000 user reviews on Steam at "overwhelmingly positive", while BE has "mixed" at 3500. Same thing on metacritic.

Those people must not have been around on Civ5 release day then.

 

[Algeroth]

Civ V vanilla has significantly better user scores and critic scores. It has 42000 user reviews on Steam at "overwhelmingly positive", while BE has "mixed" at 3500. Same thing on metacritic.

And all these reviews are from the first week, I hope.

 

[Karmah]

Oh nice you managed to find the dumbest review on the internet . Bnw worst than vanilia. OP seems to spend quite some energy into destroying civBE. I m gonna say it , we got it Krajzen , you don't like the game. What are you trying to achieve , convice people that the fun they have with the game is illusion ? well good luck with that... or rather could you please stop trying ?

 

[GenEngineer1]

Oh nice you managed to find the dumbest review on the internet . Bnw worst than vanilia. OP seems to spend quite some energy into destroying civBE. I m gonna say it , we got it Krajzen , you don't like the game. What are you trying to achieve , convice people that the fun they have with the game is illusion ? well good luck with that... or rather could you please stop trying ?

He already said he was leaving the Civ:BE forum in this post...

 

[Wodan]

And anyone who thinks BE is worse on release than vanilla Civ 5 has a really short memory.

This

 

[subanark]

I think they had an unrealistic release date. They said date X to the public, and they stuck to it, bugs and all.

 

[Haggbart]

Civ V vanilla has significantly better user scores and critic scores. It has 42000 user reviews on Steam at "overwhelmingly positive", while BE has "mixed" at 3500. Same thing on metacritic.

When CiV came it was all new with a whole lot of new mechanics and the glorious art deco style and a great soundtrack. I think the presentation and easy-to-learn mechanics sold the reviewers, as well as gave a generelly good first impression. I remember I quite liked the game - until I found out how to exploit the hell out of it.

With BE they got the people who were unhappy with bugs and unbalanced mechanics at launch, because one would expect (maybe rightly so) the same level of polish and features as CiV:BNW directly. Also people were already used to CiV mechanics, so the sense of a whole new game wasn't really there.

For me it was a bit the same with Fallout 3 compared to New Vegas. I loved both, but no doubt in my mind that New Vegas was the better game despite the bugs. But afaik the critic's Metacritic score were almost a full point apart. One expected NW to be above FO3 in polish, but it wasn't. So it was heavily punished for its flaws (while the flaws of FO3 were ignored because there were so much new graphics, sound, lore and gameplay mechanics to marvel at). I'm not saying BE is to CiV what NW was to FO3, but you get the generel idea that a sequal that is really an overhaul of the previous game seldom gets the same credit as the original.