Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by pepe26, Jun 21, 2012.
I would agree with these scores. Civ4 BTS would possibly get 90% from me, though )
Actually yea, BTS would bump Civ IV up to 90%, and maybe G+K will bump Civ V up to 80%.
He never said criticizing Civ V at launch is irrational, rather that a lot of people were just making up reasons to hate the game. Same thing with IV, although to a much lesser extent.
I was also very disappointed with 5. A good game, no doubt about it, a 7.5, definitely more fun then the that was Civ III IMO, but a step back. Still, the patches did it good, and the new systems in the expansion are much better than their counterparts in 4. Well, religion at least is. It always bugged me that all religions in IV were interchangeable, that is no longer the case, so I am content with the expansion. Like MadDjinn said, it might just be good enough to finally make the switch. And unlike in vanilla, there were beta testers from CFC
I was dissapointed with both 3 + 5. I never complained about them being terrible though because I still liked them, I just didnt enjoy them anywhere near as much as 2 + 4. I do really hope that Firaxis can make another game as awesome as Civ II / SMAC were, I've been craving for a genuine replacement to those for too long.
I actually liked Call to Power 2 a lot more than Civ 3, but not as much as 4 + 5.
I updated my list.
Honestly I find G&K kind of lacking. Too much of it is just more stuff, and the game didn't need more stuff. It needed better balanced stuff and a better AI. I find both the religious and espionage systems just needless added complication. It would be one thing if they were interesting mechanics, or modeling something interesting.
But they fail to model religion except with another collect resources select bonuses mechanic, and the espionage system is just plain superfluous.
A significantly revamped and much improved tech tree (yeeeey!), better diplo (definitely noticeable) and tactical (less so, but it it has been beefed up) AI and the positive changes to combat that the new HP system brings are indeed better balanced stuff IMO.
I agree with regards to professional reviewers. Most of them are whores now who correlate their review scores with the amount of ad revenue the game developers have given ahead of time.
Here is a great parody of this phenomenon:
EA significantly changed their corporate strategy 4 years ago. Unlike Activision, Rockstar or Team Bondi, they haven't been accused of long crunch-modes for 8 years now. They even set up a semi-autonomous internal dev system, where they just tell a studio how much money they need to make for a certain amount of time, and let the studio come up with a product that sells well. I know for certain Criterion and BioWare work that way.
Day 1 DLCs were not invented by EA. Neither were On Disc DLCs, in fact the first game to have that came from Namco, but I don't see anyone hating on them. It's a dreadful practice, but making it look as if only EA it is doing is just trolling.
So overall I don't get the hate hate towards EA. Not when you see how Activision treated Infinity Ward, wiped out half of its studios, milked a whole freaking genre to death and has in fact been bribing members of the press.
I also don't get why IGN were the ones getting bribed. Last time I checked whenever a bribed review turns up it always comes from GameSpot.
Good points. I have 5 games on Origin / EA and to be fair it works like its supposed to. If anything, Steam needed some competition.
I can't speak for the author of the video as to why he picked IGN. My only complaint with IGN is that they must host their server on a 1999 Dell Aptiva because its ridiculously slow to load on any computer I've loaded on it. But that's besides the point.
But I am under no illusion that virtually all big name game reviewers follow the 'high sales = high rating' scoring system. There is no way, no how a game like Halo ODST gets a 9 and stupendously better and more awesome shooter like Painkiller gets a 7 from a reputable game reviewer without a +sales bias.
IMHO, below is the best game reviewer on the web because he is not afraid to criticize big game makers and acknowledge good games from small developers. Sometimes I feel he is a little too hyper-critical, but I've never watched a video game reviewer with more passion:
I'm not saying that giving a game a low score on a site like Metacritic is a horrible thing to do, but if you want your score to be taken seriously, you have to justify why you're trashing a game. A lot of people don't know how to properly review a game, get too emotional/upset about something, or simply like trashing a game because they heard about how awful it was from the internetz. As a result, some Metacritic scores are a joke (i.e., D3's) I could go into more detail, but it'd be a bit off topic.
Anyway, I never commented on Civ V in my first post, but I agree that Civ V wasn't perfect at launch. I wouldn't say it was a "children's" version of Civ V, and you could argue about complexity, but yeah, Civ V certainly deserved some of the criticism it took. For example, there's a reason they radically changed diplomacy after launch, getting rid of all the lame pacts of cooperation/secrecy, changing modifiers, revealing modifiers, etc. Same with all the combat AI changes. I still liked the game regardless, and the way I see these G&K reviews unfolding is that if you liked Civ V, you'll probably like G&K (on a side note, I'd agree with the game having an average score of ~80%, which is a decent score: espionage is really lacking, so the game isn't perfect). If you didn't like Civ V, then it probably won't do much to change your mind. Obviously, some reviewers of G&K loved Civ V and as such gave it a 9/10, 90/100, whatever. Others didn't (like Tom Chick, although we don't need another discussion about that: the current thread on his review is already a disaster). So far, I'd still say G&K is being well received.
8 for a bloody expansion pack is a great score.
Yahtzee isn't a reviewer, he's just a guy voicing his opinion. I can give a huuuuge list of inaccuracies in his reviews, he actually mocks himself about it occasionally. I can also assure you he hates 4X games, he also dislikes most of the games I love (since I am a RPG geek), but that's not really the point of his videos.
He isn't just a bit hyper-critical, he is PAID to be hyper-critical. Watch the first 30 seconds of his BioShock video and you'll see why I say that.
And stop blaming the reviewers. Someone already posted this I think, giving out the link again: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/4966-Hate-Out-Of-Ten
THIS is the real problem. It isn't the reviewers and it isn't the publishers buying out reviews, I can assure you. It's because of the consumers. It's because Kevin VanOrd received numerous complaints and was hated for quite a while because he gave TOR 8/10 (?!?!?) So for as long as people get upset about 8s stuff like this will happen. Stop blaming the publishers for everything.
Man, I'm super spoiled. Civ III was my first civ game and I liked it (although it gave me headaches...) and every game afterward has just gotten better.
I prefer V to IV (dodges tomatoes) but that's only because I'm not good enough yet to notice how bad the AI's playing ruins the challenge. Well, also I play MP, so that's moot.
No complaints for a 8/10 rating. Getting above that is pretty hard - assuming you average out all reviews over time, waiting for enough reviews to get a good sampling to get past the obvious 'love'/'hate' or 'paid'/'hate the company'.
It's the 'good' level for the gaming industry. Below that, to 65, and it's 'ok'. Below 60 and you have to worry (though I've seen 60+ rated games still be good).
Below 50 -- run away.
An average rating of 80% or 8 out of 10 seems right. And to be honest, I rate it higher than I rated Civ V at release, which was [to me] about 72% or 7 out of 10. I think all the reviews [on G&k] were prettyright on, and after playing it for several days, I have to say an 80% is about right. Very good, but not exceptional.
I hate EA because they ruined Bioware (dragon age 2), and you could clearly tell that reviewers were being bribed for that game - best RPG of the decade from PC gamer, 10/10 from escapist, 90%+ scores everywhere else, but only 30% on metacritic and the game itself was purely attrocious compared to DAO. The ruined Westwood, turned Maxis into churning out nothing but Sims expansions (bye bye sim city), and also acquired the rights to SMAC meaning that firaxis cannot legally make a sequel unless EA acquire 2k games which they are trying to do.
Anyway, we will never see a game in this series as good as Civ II and Smac ever again, which is a huge dissapointment.
Read my post. It's not that much that EA paid the reviewers as it was that any lower score would have unleashed a flaming war of unimaginable size. And saying BioWare is "ruined" is trolling in its purest form. They made ONE BAD GAME, big deal, get over it! It's hardly their first one, I still consider vanilla Neverwinter Nights to be by far their worst game ever, and Jade Empire is not worthy to be called a RPG by any stretch. DA2 was just OK. You also ignore the fact that for the last two years of the development of DA: Origins BioWare were already part of EA. As well as during the entirety of the development of ME2. Yet nobody complained about those games, even though EA's name is on the box.
The truth is, Bioware have absolute and total control over their games. THEY made a concious decision to streamline and dumb down DA2. It wasn't EA, it was BioWare and BioWare alone. Deal with it. At least they learn from their mistakes and are taking their time with DA3.
Moderator Action: Please do not accuse other users of trolling, as it is regarded trolling in itself. If you feel someone is breaking the forum rules, please report them. If not, please don't antagonise by levelling accusations.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Perhaps Civ is like the Star Trek movies... odd numbered ones suck, and even numbered ones are great.
well I think with civ 5 gods and kings they managed (finally) to build a succeeding model of civ IV bts.
1. its a new game / new feeling with new game elements (of which not all can have at least the quality of civ 4's ideas)
2. of course i'm missing some stuff from civ 4, but if I want them more, then I can still play civ 4...
I didnt play the game for a very long time now, but with gods and kings it is soooo much better and finally rounded down to a civ we can enjoy (and improve with mods)
I gave it a 3.5/5 (http://www.gamerevolution.com/review/civilization-v-gods-and-kings) and the reason I gave it a score of "good" is because it's just that, good. It's not great, oustanding, or bad. It's just good.
Why? Because it doesn't feel significant. The content feels light and nearly all of the core issues that the game has possessed since launch are still here post-expansion.
If you love Civilization V then Gods & Kings is a good pick-up because it adds content, no matter how small or large. I don't think it's a good investment of $29.99, but if you played Civilization V a lot then Gods & Kings will give you a reason to go back and play a few more games, which may be worth it to you.
Separate names with a comma.