Only 80%ish in Reviews?

In October 2010 I made a CFC opinion survey on Civ 5 (as it was then)

Result:

100 is "total like",
0 is "total dislike".
Here is a score for the features:

VICTORY CONDITIONS - 64 %

CITY STATES - 86 %

SOCIAL POLICY - 70 %

DIPLOMACY - 20 %

HEX TILES - 98 %

COMBAT - 76 %

GAME "CURRENCIES" - 65 %

CITIES - 57 %

AI - 23 %

and the average of the 9 factors give the final rating for the game, so

GAME: 62%

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=392379
 
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.

IMO Every Bioware game after BG2 other that DAO was terrible. DA2 was subsequently ruined by EA placing far too short a deadline on the title. EA control everything about the studios under them. I dont agree at all that awarding DA2 anything less than a perfect 10/10 or 9/10 would have led to a 'flaming war', we ended up with a 'flaming war of unimaginable size' simply due to how blatantly rigged every review on DA2 was. Bioware employees were also found giving 0 score reviews to Witcher 2 on Metacritic, and 10 score reviews to DA2.

A significant of Biowares best developers left the company after the EA takeover. EA are actually responsible for staffing the studios they own, issuing deadlines, and marketting their games. It was also a requirement from EA that the games their studios make be multi platform compatible, and I would therefore imagine easy enough for the average console gamer to be able to play with a gamepad.
 
It's really easy to understand. If you like Civ 5 there is absolutely no reason to not get the expansion. If you didn't like Civ 5 even after being patched, it is highly doubtful you will like it now.
 
80% it basicly a must buy expansion, i think the best ( as in unbiast) review ive seen so far is RPS. to sum it up, if u liked civ v u will love the expansion


most the sites like ign/1up/gamespot are totaly clueless at there job. they take bribes from publisher, usualy in the form of adds and dont even get started on how useless metacritic is. the actual places out there that will give u a fair un biast review are few and far between.
 
80% it basicly a must buy expansion, i think the best ( as in unbiast) review ive seen so far is RPS. to sum it up, if u liked civ v u will love the expansion


most the sites like ign/1up/gamespot are totaly clueless at there job. they take bribes from publisher, usualy in the form of adds and dont even get started on how useless metacritic is. the actual places out there that will give u a fair un biast review are few and far between.

well what do you think is a good place for a decent review?
 
My take on the civ series...

Civ 1 - 75%
Civ II - 80%
Alpha Centauri - 85%
Civ III - 60%
Call to Power 2 - 65%
Civ IV vanilla - 95%
Civ IV BTS - 100%
Colonization - 70%
Civ V vanilla - 75%
Civ V G+K - 85%? (Only played one game up to modern era so far).
 
Ewww, no way is this game as good as SMAC :p
 
well what do you think is a good place for a decent review?

tbh ive had a hard time finding sites. one place that is pretty good imo is rock paper shotgun. also i may have been a bit harsh on ign etc, they have cool stuff like cheap,cool,crazy vids. but as far as reviews i take them wit a big grain of salt.
 
Civ 1 - never played :shifty:
Civ II - 85% My first civ. Bring back trade caravans!
Alpha Centauri - 85% Very good though I never explored it that in depth.
Civ III - 50% Played it lots but never really got in to it. As a plus its the reason I found CFC!
Civ IV vanilla - 80% ....
Civ IV BTS - 95% .... Only played a little vanilla as I got the complete pack. BTS has accounted for many happy hours of my life ;)

I'll rate Civ V as at release and now pre G&K.

Civ V vanilla (release) - 65% Some changes I loved like the hexs and eliminating SoDs (even though I think the 1upt doesn't work very well either) and some I hated like the siplification of the economies. Civ IV had so many distinct ways to run your empire, e.g. CE, SE, RE, EE, Trade Route, Wonder Spam and of course the good old hybrid of all of the before. Civ V lacks this depth IMO. Other problems were Diplo, AI and balance.
Civ V vanilla (now) - 75% Much better that at release. Constant patching has made the game in to something I genuinly enjoy playing. It still lacks some of the depth I crave but I have Paradox for that :p I've played nearly 400 hours so It must be doing something right.

I'm waiting for my G&K to arrive today (I live in the UK) so I'm reserving any judgement on it till I've played a couple of games. If however it bring my overall opinion of Civ V up by 5% or 10% then I would be happy to call Civ V a great game. After all there are mods to fix the broken UI :cry:
 
As others have said, Metacritic is a total joke. Same with Amazon reviews. People complain about critic reviews, but they're still generally the best reviews, because critics won't do something like give ME3 (an excellent game) a 1 out of 10 just because the ending upset them. That's something that dumb, overly emotional fans do, which simply ruins all these user review systems in the first place.
Anyway, if you want a feeling for how a Civ game is, you're best off looking here. Not like this place is perfect, but most people discussing the game here are usually rational (although most certainly not always, especially with V's launch).

Super negative 1 voters counteract the super positive 9.9/10 votes paid by corporations. That's how the system works. Without the "terrible" 1 vote users, corporations can get away with performing game ruining stunts more often while keeping the trust of the consumer better.
 
I go with:
Civ 1 - 90% (it got me into TBS)
Civ II - 80% (not sure, I can for some reason not remember it well)
Alpha Centauri - 100% (if only someone would make a modernized - not dumbed down - version)
Civ III - 90% (I had lots of fun with it)
Call to Power 2 - --% (did not play it)
Civ IV vanilla - 80% (disppointed me a bit compared to III)
Civ IV BTS - 95% (that was The Expansion for me :) and all mods based on it)
Colonization - 50% (not my kind of game, reflects merely my taste)
Civ V vanilla - 70% (no stacks, are you serious?, and the diplomacy AI is like a drunk barbarian...)

I got used to the hexes meanwhile a bit, and I hope the expansion fixes the AI in regard with diplomacy and gives it something like rationality and purpose.
There is also the slight problem of Civ IV, as I haven't tried so many things/mods yet, and there is so little time...;)
 
civ v is my first civ game.....dont hate me, i was playing moo1/2 and homm growing up intead.
 
IMO Every Bioware game after BG2 other that DAO was terrible. DA2 was subsequently ruined by EA placing far too short a deadline on the title. EA control everything about the studios under them. I dont agree at all that awarding DA2 anything less than a perfect 10/10 or 9/10 would have led to a 'flaming war', we ended up with a 'flaming war of unimaginable size' simply due to how blatantly rigged every review on DA2 was. Bioware employees were also found giving 0 score reviews to Witcher 2 on Metacritic, and 10 score reviews to DA2.

A significant of Biowares best developers left the company after the EA takeover. EA are actually responsible for staffing the studios they own, issuing deadlines, and marketting their games. It was also a requirement from EA that the games their studios make be multi platform compatible, and I would therefore imagine easy enough for the average console gamer to be able to play with a gamepad.
Mate, I personally know people who work at BioWare. I know for a fact that you are wrong. EA is not responsible for staffing them, and it's not responsible for for rushing out a product. DA2 was just a dumb idea on their side. BioWare are left completely at their whim, the only thing EA does is set them a target ("make this much money until this date")
 
I feel like Gods and Kings is to CiV what Warlords was to CIV. It's really great and balances out a lot of needed areas, but it still needs address some of the core issues. Maybe they'll come out with one more expansion that will be as amazing as BTS.
 
I feel like Gods and Kings is to CiV what Warlords was to CIV. It's really great and balances out a lot of needed areas, but it still needs address some of the core issues. Maybe they'll come out with one more expansion that will be as amazing as BTS.
I completely disagree. IMO Bts balanced a lot of stuff & adding some stuff here & there but among new features corporations & espionage were fairly broken. While in G&K we have an excellent religion system & a good espionage system (apart from some coup & rigging elections annoyance). The only thing I want from ciV now is performance optimization, some further balancing & finally release DLL for the modders.
 
I do think G+K is a better expansion than Warlords, but it will take more time to see how it measures up to BTS.
 
Top Bottom