Need more reviews like this...

[AriochIV]

Well, if all his criticisms are right on the nose then a 2 out of 5 is accurate.

Naturally this is subjective, but I think a 40% score is generally considered to be a failing grade, meaning the game is unplayable. I recognize it has shortcomings, and perhaps it doesn't live up to some expectations or its true potential... but I don't think you can really say it's unplayable. I find it quite playable.

The opposite of love is not hate but indifference. I do honestly feel that Tom Chick wants a better game. Sugar coating a review is not going to prompt Firaxis to make the necessary changes. Hopefully, Firaxis takes the review to heart as Victory Point Games did for their quite tepid review. (They got three out of five stars.)

Surely there's some middle ground between "sugar coating" a review and what Tom Chick does.

 

[graspee]

BTW, Legendary Heroes is quite a good game. Because Elemental bombed, I got it for free. I respect Stardock's integrity to make things right. They are trending up.

A lot of people who bought Elemental and therefore got Fallen Enchantress and Legendary Heroes for free are very happy with Stardock, and you can see why. Less happy are the people who bought Fallen Enchantress and saw it get replaced by Legendary Heroes and have to pay for that game.

 

[screamingpalm]

Speaking of Stardock, I remember how the dev was making fun of people who were claiming that BE would just be a "reskin" lol. Wish I could find the quotes now...

 

[Thormodr]

Naturally this is subjective, but I think a 40% score is generally considered to be a failing grade, meaning the game is unplayable. I recognize it has shortcomings, and perhaps it doesn't live up to some expectations or its true potential... but I don't think you can really say it's unplayable. I find it quite playable.


Surely there's some middle ground between "sugar coating" a review and what Tom Chick does.

Tom Chick is honest and doesn't mince words. He is tough but fair and the gaming industry would be a lot better off with more Tom Chicks out there.

Anyway, here is his rating system:

http://www.quartertothree.com/fp/our-ratings-system/

Here is his FAQ that kind of deals with his rating system:

http://www.quartertothree.com/fp/2012/03/24/the-official-journey-review-faq/

 

[Thormodr]

Speaking of Stardock, I remember how the dev was making fun of people who were claiming that BE would just be a "reskin" lol. Wish I could find the quotes now...

Someone for Stardock was claiming that???

If anything, the owner and his employees have had nothing but praise for Civilization 5.

As to Civilization 5: Beyond Earth, it is more of a mod for Civilization 5 than it is a reskin.

 

[screamingpalm]

Yeah I know he did, was just pointing out that he was adamantly giving people a hard time that were saying BE would be a reskin. Then again, he almost implemented a Real ID system upon having a bad day one time...

 

[Thormodr]

Yeah I know he did, was just pointing out that he was adamantly giving people a hard time that were saying BE would be a reskin. Then again, he almost implemented a Real ID system upon having a bad day one time...

Ah, ok. I understand.

 

[Acken]

1 star, 2 stars, 3 stars, 60%, 90%, 8.65/10 whatever. All rating system and reviews are subjective, none is "honest". The only thing that matters is if someone judges a game on the same points that you are.

Read the review and if what someone doesn't like matches your tastes then follow the conclusion.

People should spend less time arguing single digits (or stars) in a rating and more on the arguments provided for it.

 

[prideaux]

the problem is that people look at anything to do with Civilization a little too close and a lot pedantic, even more than most games these days.

Though in some senses it is well written, he is looking at it so closely it is hard for him to be fair. Dont get me wrong I love BE but there is so many things I hate about, like CiV before it. But never once did I expect these games to make all the most perfect choices, if I wanted to be like that I would learn to mod and change it myself.

Some things he is very right on but the two star score seems based on the game he WANTS not the game we GOT. Big difference.

 

[Thormodr]

1 star, 2 stars, 3 stars, 60%, 90%, 8.65/10 whatever. All rating system and reviews are subjective, none is "honest". The only thing that matters is if someone judges a game on the same points that you are.

Read the review and if what someone doesn't like matches your tastes then follow the conclusion.

People should spend less time arguing single digits (or stars) in a rating and more on the arguments provided for it.

Agreed. I do hope Firaxis busts their butts to address the criticisms and problems brought up in the review. I think everyone can agree with that.

 

[Big J Money]

I didn't really know about Quarter To Three, but I'm glad to find a reviewer I can disagree with and still respect. Not about this game, mind you, but some of the other reviews you guys mentioned.

Anyway, I think his 2/5 requires no justification. Why? Because apparently he's the only d*mn reviewer out there who uses free-thinking to come up with his own scoring system. His stars are like Netflix's or Amazon's stars; they don't try to be objective (which is completely impossible unless you want to let other people make your buying decisions for you).

I would've given this game a 2.5/5, but that's when I'm doing the review. He's perfectly justified to make his review 2/5, which basically means a half step below sub-par; which means he just doesn't really like it.

That 2/5 isn't supposed to be a 40% "grade", which implies a total bomb of a failure. I guess if we were to convert his 2/5 to a typical mass-media percentage system it would probably be somewhere between a 60% and 75%? Why do I even care?

So I agree; good review.

 

[Biz_]

a reviewer's job isn't to guess whether the average gamer will enjoy a game or not

he can write a review for any target audience of his choice - even if it's only 1 person (himself)


if that target audience includes people who know how to play strategy games, then the reality is the game has huge weaknesses. how that translates to numbers is pretty subjective...
but if you look at how polished games in other genres are and if your global reviewing scale has some number that translates to "good and without game-breaking flaws", then civ5/BE is nowhere near that number for the target audience I mentioned

 

[jokii]

I agree with reviewer. 2/5 for broken game ( ...and for the third time in a row from Firaxis )
Civ 5 and Civ BNW are not competitive games. They are builder games, like SimCity. They are broken by a bad AI. And after 4 years we got another game, broken, like those two. In Civilization Beyond Earth AI is not opponent but just a decoration. And I think only noobs would disagree.
You may distract yourself in a economic game, making decisions, and love the game for it.
But you will find that your all decisions are pointless, and you are playing " against yourself " just if you try war part of the game.

 

[Mckertis]

Tom Chick is honest and doesn't mince words. He is tough but fair

Right. We're talking about a guy who said Deus Ex was <snip>.

Anyway, i do enjoy reading Tom Hack's articles because he certainly does have a way with words, but his evaluations are generally complete bollocks and i dont care about those in the least. I almost always find myself to hold the opposite view to his.

Moderator Action: I doubt that is a direct quote. Please do not try to avoid the autocensor.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Stardock is on the right track with their games. Their company philosophy is much better as well. No longer the hire up to make a game when fire them all when the game is finished. They now have a permanent staff and are treated humanely which is quite unusual for the industry.

They are now working with and consulting with people that have worked on Civs 1 through 5, including Soren Johnson as well as an ex-Battle Net engineer and the makers of Age of Empires 3. They are also teaming up Oxide Games, the producers of an upcoming awe inspiring 64 bit engine.

All of that's well and good and positive, but does any of that mean that Elemental was a good game and deserved good reviews?

 

[Fabien]

Given Stardocks track record and the fact that the Person in Question gave Elemental a good Rating and Civ 5/BA a bad one makes me wonder the Person in question is even able to tell a working game from a not working one.

Elemental at the time of ist release was in a completely broken state far, far worse compared to where BA is right now.

 

[Kissamies]

Heh, "Katamari ball of inconsequential decisions". I love that metaphor.

 

[leandrobraz]

The AI’s ineptitude at managing one unit per tile was a game-killer in Civilization V, so naturally you’d hope Firaxis addressed the issue in Beyond Earth.

I disagree with this. I naturally recognized that BE isn't Civ VI and that they wouldn't be able to make a complete overhaul on the AI. There's some improvements but off course they wouldn't be able to actually address the issue.

I naturally hope that in Civ VI they will rethink the whole one unit per tile system, maybe use a limited stack (2 or 3 per tile). They will be able to improve the AI in a significant way only if they redesigned the whole thing, which clearly isn't what BE is trying to do, after all, it's a Civ V spin-off, not the actual next entry in the franchise.

Aside from that, it's a pretty fair review. He recognize what is good about the game but criticize what is problematic. It's good to see a negative review that do it, in the middle of so many user reviews that are just childish whine.

 

[Jimbo30]

2/5? Get real. I'd never sink 25 hrs into a game (over 4 days) that only deserved 2/5.

 

[Big J Money]

2/5? Get real. I'd never sink 25 hrs into a game (over 4 days) that only deserved 2/5.

I'm going to defend Tom's philosophy a little here, even I hold some games in high regard that he didn't like.

You use the term "deserved". Reviews shouldn't be there to tell you what a game objectively deserves. It's up to you to make that call. Tom doesn't very much like the game. That comes out to about a 2 out of 5 (if you read the way he rates his game).

Tom isn't attempting to tell other people what the game "deserves", he's only sharing his opinion on his own personal enjoyment. And if you read his entire article, he explains all of the reasons rather eruditely. I defend this way of reviewing because I think it's the only honest way to do a review, personally.