Only 80%ish in Reviews?

[pepe26]

the tech tree is so much more shallow and boring in ciV! the only thing that i absolutely lov about the game is the hexagons. not to be able to stack units sucks! makes it soooo easy to defend...

 

[theemaster]

When civ5 came out.. (was it october of 2010?) I couldn't stomach playing more than a hour of it.. I'm not sure what irked me.. but I haven't looked at it since then..

Then when I heard the expansion was coming.. I was wondering if they fixed what was wrong.. so far.. I think so..

I've logged about 2 games/20 hours so far.. my biggest problem is the battles have been to easy so moving up from "emperor" to deity/immortal

I also have to say that the music is much better in this version.. it stands out like the music did in civ4.. I honestly, liked the CDDA music in civ2 too.. And sometimes I liked the videotronic elvis lol

You guys talk about civ4 bts with a lot of reverence but honestly I didn't notice it coming out or it's "passage" into the world.. I remember playing civ4 vanilla and the challenge and the game was good.. until I found out.. you could use a simple exploit to steal all the enemy civ's technologies.. well, that pissed me off at firaxis!

They totally failed the challenge of gamer vs. them! (I guess, the fact is almost all programmers these days do.. they all have a patch it/f$^@ it philosophy these days.. which is okay)

But eventually I chilled about it and played future patched versions.. and still found the game fun, entertaining, exciting etc. anyway hoping gods and kings still has some challenge into it.. I have found the strategy of building catapults/archers and destroying foes with them good so far

Edit: I don't post here much as my post count shows.. but apparently it was october of 2010

I found one of my rant posts about civ 5.. here http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=9782193&postcount=23

 

[Zednaught]

I could never get into Civ 4. Civ 5's hexes and lack of unit stacking were big for me. Culture was handled better, though I think Civ 4's government system was more appealing. I have about 140 hours of Civ 5, and may 10 of Civ 4.

In any case, relying on any kind of numerical score to evaluate a game is a bad idea, especially as it often comes at the expense of a better analysis of the game. I think we could all list tons of personal exceptions where games we liked or hated got scores wildly different from what we'd give them.

 

[NBAfan]

Civ 5 would be great, if the AI was at least competent. Fixing the AI so it can do basic unit movement and not always do a DoW backstab every single game will go a long way. And release the source code access like for Civ4 already Fraxis!

 

[pepe26]

ive played quite a bit of g&k now and... i went back to cIV:bts since i find it that much more enjoyable. i agree, g&k is not worth more than a low 80% rating

 

[Ikael]

The thing got something like that:

Civ V, as it was released, that is, on its vainilla and pre - patch form was a horrible, broken steaming pile of crap. Sorry, let's be honest with ourselves here. Thanks God, it was latter patched, and on that process lots of its defects were solved, some areas like diplomacy were completely scrapped altogether and replaced by wholly new systems. In short, the game got good and vastly different from what it was.

Civilization Gods & Kids made elevated the game from good to greatness, really. But by the time it came out, most critics already made up their mind and simply did not gave it a second chance. Which is a pity, but 2K completely brought this upon theirselves, really. Next time, give a little more of betatesting and development time to Firaxis, guys, instead of releasing an unfinished and unpolished product. Consumer loyalty and trust are built in years, but you can lost them all in an instant.

 

[pensivepeppers]

Yeah, but in Game Review scores, people think 80% means "mediocre". Getting a 70% might as well be a 0% because gamers would rather pirate those than buy them -- anything below 50% means "don't even bother pirating." Is that wrong? Of course it is. It's ridiculous. Unfortunately, that's how the current market thinks. If you aren't considered the best damn game in the world by at least someone, gamers won't spend their money on your product, one because it's usually expensive, and two because they already have other games that they could play instead.

good thing there are plenty of people who think CiV is the "best damn game in the world"

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I agree with Ikael. I'm burnt by this new trend in the video game industry of releasing unfinished games. But CiV is now certified awesomesauce.

 

[wpfossil]

How did this get bumped?

Anyhow, I was addicted to Civ5 when it first came out but slowly overcame its magic spell.

But since G&K I play it almost every day, so much that wife tells me I play too much Worlds of Warcraft (which I never play but her gamer friends at work all do so she assumes).

Um, anyway I guess I have a point

95%

100 if it fixes the bugs

 

[Ikael]

That being said, Civ V became a great game not only because they finished it (as in, it was released more in a beta state than golden), but also because it became a game quite different from what it was originally intended, thanks God.

Sorry, but I - hated - a lot of the philosophy behind it, and some of the patches vindicated my position. Some of Civ V original flaws had to do with the rushed state of the game, yes (unstability, SP balance, etc), but some of them were structural, concept flaws, and lot of the interviews pointed out that they were features rather than bugs.

The utterly ******ed building times "so you cannot build everything in every city" (meaning some buildings were never going to be built for you needed more turns to recover your hammer investment than turns left to end the game), the whole diplomacy fiasco came from the stupid approach of "every AI has to play in order to win as if they would be humans and every modifier should be hidden just like real life" which is all kinds of wrong and leaded to a sociopathic AI, and generally because they tried to turn a mainly single player experience ("can you build a civilization that pass the test of time?") into a competitive online board (war)game in the vein of Settlers of Catan ("can beat your opponents and lead the scoreboards?") and thus breaking the whole "simulator VS board game" equilibirium that the saga was known for.

It seems that they learnt from the experience, for the sucessive patches changed integral parts of the game, showing a lot of humility and wisdom in the process, and G&K added the much needed flavour to the experience, but by God, I do hope that next time they take an entirely different approach to it.

 

[GAGA Extrem]

[...]Gamers can be pretty sensitive when it comes to certain issues, D3 is basically the same gameplay wise as the first two.

No it is not.
Certain core mechanics were changed in D3, and the actual game experience is VASTLY different from the previous games. But it seems Blizzard has finally noticed that their game has HUGE problems - and the latest patches are a step in the right direction. So the low score for D3 is justified, even without considering DRM (which is, imho, an integral part of the game - but thats for another topic).

Anyway, 80% for G&K seems quite fair. (Finally) a good game, but still lacking in several important areas (AI, diplomacy), with some technical problems (turn times) and missing comfort functions (UI).

 

[God of Kings]

Of course Blizzard had to fix up their games, because of many factors, as well as GW2 being major competition for them (and I am looking forward to GW2, especially since it is released today).

At least G&K significantly improved over vanilla in terms of core mechanics.