Negative review from write at Uni Of Chicago
- Thread starter IkimashoZ
- Start date
Jecrell
Ruled: Civ3 - Civ5
[EDIT] - "No one said moron until you posted" remarks removed thanks to microbe pointing out the thread title change.
I'm glad this kind of review was released for once -- rather than reviewing the actual game alone, we can gain some perspective on the released product. This would make a good counter-arguement for buying Civilization IV. Although, I would wholeheartedly recommend anyone I know to take the risk.
I'm glad this kind of review was released for once -- rather than reviewing the actual game alone, we can gain some perspective on the released product. This would make a good counter-arguement for buying Civilization IV. Although, I would wholeheartedly recommend anyone I know to take the risk.
Okay and lastly, from my point of view, this makes you a tape recorder on playback to agree 100% with something. Although that might make me a hypocrite because I too have stated that before -- I stand by what I say.xguild said:
Jecrell
Ruled: Civ3 - Civ5
Thanks for pointing that out. I just got on so I didn't get to see it. But I must say that calling the person a moron outright really makes things into a flame fest. Did any fights break out and posts deleted?microbe said:
Hozchelaga
Chieftain
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2005
- Messages
- 69
I think the reviewer had a typical Civ IV experience. I understand the frustration of not being able to play a game out-of-the-box. Many people got past it (or never had it with Civ IV). But it is a common experience, and it probably does reduce enjoyment of the game.
The reviewer is entitled not to like the game, or not like it much more than Civ III. That's up to him. But it's not a negative review, per se. It's just an honest one, based on one person's encounter with some negative aspects of the Civ IV release. I mean, he's not making it up: Civ IV has major release problems which will probably be fixed very shortly.
Why is it so many people here think every negative comment about the game is unjustified? It's a sad condition that every second thread in the forum begins, "Don't get me wrong. I LOVE Civ IV but..."
You're bullies, you hardcore CIVers, you. Why dontcha Enact some Universal Sufferage and let's get down with some Freedom of Religion, y'all.
The reviewer is entitled not to like the game, or not like it much more than Civ III. That's up to him. But it's not a negative review, per se. It's just an honest one, based on one person's encounter with some negative aspects of the Civ IV release. I mean, he's not making it up: Civ IV has major release problems which will probably be fixed very shortly.
Why is it so many people here think every negative comment about the game is unjustified? It's a sad condition that every second thread in the forum begins, "Don't get me wrong. I LOVE Civ IV but..."
You're bullies, you hardcore CIVers, you. Why dontcha Enact some Universal Sufferage and let's get down with some Freedom of Religion, y'all.
ThERat
Deity
I don't even think these people are harcore civvers. I have been to this forum for a long time and until Oct, it used to be a place where people come up with great idea, dicussions, worries etc.
Since then, this place has seen a very high influx of people who seem rather immature and think flaming and trolling is great fun.
We don't need all those people, and I mean both parties. the fanbois who tell everyone off who dares to say there are issues with Civ4. And the guys who says Civ4 su...without any proper statements.
However, Civ4 has been so highly praised by so many people, that frustration can be high at times, when people realise not everything is great about it.
It alienates me if people tell me I just don't know what's fun or something is wrong with me, because I got some serious concerns about the style of Civ4.
And if the person here starts the thread calling someone a moron, we all know what that tells us about the poster him/herself.
Wow, am I about ready to drop off this board.
Okay, so my first thread here got me accused of promoting piracy. Fair enough considering the context, I suppose, even if that's not the case. I've taken worse. I also discovered that even words that most kids are hearing on the playground at ten years old are not allowed here. Alright, whatever, it's your guys' forum, and that's cool. I can play by those rules.
What I don't like is having the title of my post changed when I didn't break any rules that I can see (the title of this thread should be 'Wow, what a moron'). Calling someone a moron in public may be offensive, but it's not bigotted (unless he has somehow managed to be both mentally handicapped and attending UC, which I find highly unlikely). Hell, it's not even slander, legally. If I really was a 'fanboy', I would find a much more descriptive way of describing his idiocy and I would probably deserve to have my words altered.
Mods, if you want to censor my words, so be it. It's your board. But, in the future, I would appreciate your not changing my words to something different. Either warn or delete. By the way, he's a "writer" not a "write".
You misunderstand me. He's entitled to his opinion. And the technical flaws he mentions exist. The gameplay ones he mentions simply don't. Therefore, I think he's a moron... mostly for not waiting at least 24 hours before writing his review. That and he obviously doesn't understand the concept of a 'strategy game'.
Okay, so my first thread here got me accused of promoting piracy. Fair enough considering the context, I suppose, even if that's not the case. I've taken worse. I also discovered that even words that most kids are hearing on the playground at ten years old are not allowed here. Alright, whatever, it's your guys' forum, and that's cool. I can play by those rules.
What I don't like is having the title of my post changed when I didn't break any rules that I can see (the title of this thread should be 'Wow, what a moron'). Calling someone a moron in public may be offensive, but it's not bigotted (unless he has somehow managed to be both mentally handicapped and attending UC, which I find highly unlikely). Hell, it's not even slander, legally. If I really was a 'fanboy', I would find a much more descriptive way of describing his idiocy and I would probably deserve to have my words altered.
Mods, if you want to censor my words, so be it. It's your board. But, in the future, I would appreciate your not changing my words to something different. Either warn or delete. By the way, he's a "writer" not a "write".
Hozchelaga said:
You misunderstand me. He's entitled to his opinion. And the technical flaws he mentions exist. The gameplay ones he mentions simply don't. Therefore, I think he's a moron... mostly for not waiting at least 24 hours before writing his review. That and he obviously doesn't understand the concept of a 'strategy game'.
I agree with that sentiment THeRat, I used to lurk on this forum around a year or two ago and it was so much friendlier, suddenly a lot of people are trolling and dealing in absolutes.
It's the same with RTS forums I visit though, balance discussion turns every discussion into a blood fued and petty quaralling over what isn't "realistic" (hel-low! they have frickin laser guns!) or quibbling about what isn't canon.
It took me a day of my conscious life to get this game working through all the bugs. In future I will not buy Firaxis games without letting some other victims find out what the bugs are first, but I guess I'm doing to do that with any developer nowadays.
It's the same with RTS forums I visit though, balance discussion turns every discussion into a blood fued and petty quaralling over what isn't "realistic" (hel-low! they have frickin laser guns!) or quibbling about what isn't canon.
It took me a day of my conscious life to get this game working through all the bugs. In future I will not buy Firaxis games without letting some other victims find out what the bugs are first
, but I guess I'm doing to do that with any developer nowadays.
King Flevance
Deity
I don't know how the boards were pre Oct 24th. I discovered the boards here when my copy of Civ didn't work and I found the link here and Apolyton on CivIV.com. As there was nothing on that site I could investigate my problems yet, I came here and whammo! All kinds of buzzing going on the tech support boards. After a couple days, I (like others) wandered into the Gen Discussion board as no one had any fixes for my computer, though many suggestions I tried.
If the community was strong and friendly pre-release, it will work its way back veterans. Most message boards do. The board has just went off the paved road on to the bumpy gravel is all. But on its way to another smooth road surely enough. I love this board now. Other Civ'ers
.
I know I will be coming back for the rest of my life. Or until the servers go down, as I am a Civ junkie and a message board junkie. I already kind of figured this was a more bumpy road for these boards even though I have no idea the environment before I showed up. Right now, our satisfaction with the game is a variable rather than a constant. And that is what this board is based off of is player satisfaction. People come here that like the game.
Eventually, probably a month or two, the unsatisfied will get involved in something else and the constant will come back. Hang in their.
Ikima, the state of the boards probably have the moderators in a high caution state right now no doubt. If you haven't seen the stuff on here in the last 3 weeks, trust me it has got nasty in more than enough threads in my small experience here. Just try to do what you can to not start trouble and you should do fine I would think.
If the community was strong and friendly pre-release, it will work its way back veterans. Most message boards do. The board has just went off the paved road on to the bumpy gravel is all. But on its way to another smooth road surely enough. I love this board now. Other Civ'ers
.I know I will be coming back for the rest of my life. Or until the servers go down, as I am a Civ junkie and a message board junkie. I already kind of figured this was a more bumpy road for these boards even though I have no idea the environment before I showed up. Right now, our satisfaction with the game is a variable rather than a constant. And that is what this board is based off of is player satisfaction. People come here that like the game.
Eventually, probably a month or two, the unsatisfied will get involved in something else and the constant will come back. Hang in their.
Ikima, the state of the boards probably have the moderators in a high caution state right now no doubt. If you haven't seen the stuff on here in the last 3 weeks, trust me it has got nasty in more than enough threads in my small experience here. Just try to do what you can to not start trouble and you should do fine I would think.
Yeah sure Civilization IV has its little hiccups and flaws; but its a great game with some superb additions. I agree that the Religion is a great idea; as well as the civic options. The way your city gets bigger and looks cooler on teh map main reflecting the buildings you have built is wonderful too. Ok the graphics arent top notch but I think the new 3d world looks great as well as the sound.
cleverhandle
King
Sorry, but that's just an asinine review. I can accept that someone might not like the game for various reasons, though I tend to disagree with those reasons. But to say that the game is not worth the money because the changes from Civ3 to Civ4 had "only slight implications upon gameplay" belies a total lack of understanding of either Civ3, Civ4, or both. Civ4 may be a great game or may be a terrible game, but one thing it absolutely is *not* is just another Civ3 with new graphics.
Ah, the game that could wipe Windows.DBear said:
Spending one day getting a game to work is an unfortunately pretty normal occurence. I'd say I've done that with about 1/4 of the PC games I've ever bought. Things have gotten better in the past few years, it used to be basically every game. I still have about 12 boot disks for old games from 10-15 years ago lying around.
Just because you are having problems, that doesn't mean the majority of users are. I've got some crashes on huge maps if I play for a long time. NOT a big deal, especially pre-patch. This is PC gaming. If you really can't handle it, stick to consoles.
As for saying Civ 4 is just like Civ 3, that makes me doubt whether he actually bothered to play either game. It's hugely different -- and much better imo.
balance in all things, folks. It's good to see reviews come from both fans of the game and folks who are ambivalent. It gives people a broader spectrum of opinion to base their buying decisions on. I swear, you guys are acting like this reviewer drove over your cat or something.
The review sounds like he played one game, didn't like it, formed rationalizations for not liking it, and wrote the review. Don't know if it's actually the case, though. Of course, the poor fellow shouldn't be forced to play a game he doesn't like, but this review doesn't strike me as very deep. It also suffers a bit from "I opened the package with shaking hands" phenomenon. Negative reviews can be more useful than positive ones, but need to be more coherent.
snepp
King
Kissamies said:
Sounds alot like many positive reviews (any game)....
The review sounds like he played one game, liked it, formed rationalizations for liking it, and wrote the review.
Of course, the poor fellow shouldn't be forced to be objective towards a game he likes, but this review doesn't strike me as very deep.
It also suffers a bit from "I opened the package with my mind made up" phenomenon.
Heh, of course. Positive ones have bigger chance of being non-critical and bad. If a review doesn't have any negative points at all, I'll be hugely sceptical. Reviews are just opinions, but good ones contain enough basis for me to guess that I might like or dislike the game even if reviewer feels otherwise.
Dairuka
Prince
If you are interested in a game, you want to find a review that goes into detail of all the things that make the game different and unique. Right?
Still. People only like reviews that they agree with.
If you dislike a game, and agree with a negative review - based on your own pre-dispositions, the review's entire purpose is lost. You are no longer reading the review to learn about new and unique things, you are merely reading the review to find reassurance in your complaints.
Which brings me back to my original statement.
Only negative people search for negative reviews.
This is why 100% of, "real" reviews open positive, dabble on the bad part of the game in the bulky middle, then conclude with a positive note.
I guess thats why not many people read the University of Chicago Website to find game reviews. Real credible. We should all instead put on tin foil hats and scream about the conspiracy that Sid Meier paid off 50+ game reviewing companies.
Still. People only like reviews that they agree with.
If you dislike a game, and agree with a negative review - based on your own pre-dispositions, the review's entire purpose is lost. You are no longer reading the review to learn about new and unique things, you are merely reading the review to find reassurance in your complaints.
Which brings me back to my original statement.
Only negative people search for negative reviews.
This is why 100% of, "real" reviews open positive, dabble on the bad part of the game in the bulky middle, then conclude with a positive note.
I guess thats why not many people read the University of Chicago Website to find game reviews. Real credible. We should all instead put on tin foil hats and scream about the conspiracy that Sid Meier paid off 50+ game reviewing companies.
MrCynical
Deity
I'm quite surprised it took this long for a negative review to appear, especially given the vast array of obscure review sites links have been posted to. I read this one with some interest, since even for a game I like, I want to see both sides of the story. My expectation when I went to the site was to find a reviewer who'd hit one of the major technical problems which a small minority of people have experienced.
I have to say I was rather disappointed with the quality of the review. He refers to the install as 'botched' when as far as I can tell the only problem was that the shortcut icon wasn't being displayed properly. Wow, what a gamebreaking problem. This happened to me too, the icon didn't appear properly till I restarted my computer, but I hardly feel it counts as a botched install. His complaint about the mislabelled CD's is legitimate, and this certainly creates a bad impression for the game.
He then seems to have had the game lock up in diplomacy screen, which is a problem I know some people have been having. However the fact he then seems to have managed to play a sizeable chunk of the game suggests this wasn't occurring every time (or even again, since surely he'd say if this was repeated). He complains about the uselessness of religion and civics, but any glance round the strategy forum will show you how powerful they can be, and many people find these to be good additions to the game.
To sum up, he has had the reversed CD's problem, an icon that doesn't appear the first time and by the sounds of it one case of the game freezing. There are plenty of people in the tech support forum who wished their game worked that well. By far the worst point against Civ 4 is barely mentioned in passing, the multiplayer problems.
I get the impression this guy was looking to give Civ 4 a bad review from the start, mainly from his continual negative jabs at Civ 3 (which he then curiously reccomends at the end). It is not that the review is negative that bothers me, but the strange reasons he has chosen to make it so. There are far greater problems in Civ 4 than the relatively minor ones he experienced.
I have to say I was rather disappointed with the quality of the review. He refers to the install as 'botched' when as far as I can tell the only problem was that the shortcut icon wasn't being displayed properly. Wow, what a gamebreaking problem. This happened to me too, the icon didn't appear properly till I restarted my computer, but I hardly feel it counts as a botched install. His complaint about the mislabelled CD's is legitimate, and this certainly creates a bad impression for the game.
He then seems to have had the game lock up in diplomacy screen, which is a problem I know some people have been having. However the fact he then seems to have managed to play a sizeable chunk of the game suggests this wasn't occurring every time (or even again, since surely he'd say if this was repeated). He complains about the uselessness of religion and civics, but any glance round the strategy forum will show you how powerful they can be, and many people find these to be good additions to the game.
To sum up, he has had the reversed CD's problem, an icon that doesn't appear the first time and by the sounds of it one case of the game freezing. There are plenty of people in the tech support forum who wished their game worked that well. By far the worst point against Civ 4 is barely mentioned in passing, the multiplayer problems.
I get the impression this guy was looking to give Civ 4 a bad review from the start, mainly from his continual negative jabs at Civ 3 (which he then curiously reccomends at the end). It is not that the review is negative that bothers me, but the strange reasons he has chosen to make it so. There are far greater problems in Civ 4 than the relatively minor ones he experienced.
