PC Gamer UK Review

[Schuesseled]

I love Portal, but you're comparing apples with oranges.

Those are both fruits.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

Can you blame them? Wouldn't you write some nice stuff about Civ if they gave you a copy now?

Depends on the state of the game. If it radically slows down during the late renaissance era like Civ4 did I'd mention that. I have noticed that the bigger the name of a game is, the less likely reviewers will mention bugs or flaws like imbecilic AI, broken balance, poor performance etc.
I'm not trying to badmouth Civ5, I'm almost certain it's a great game.
I just don't trust reviewers and Firaxis and 2K will have to earn my trust before I assume their games are bug-free and enjoyable without at least three months of patching

 

[bloodfin]

Well I read PC Gamer UK and I personally think that it is probably one of the better, if not the best, gaming magazines out there. I can't speak for different prints but they really are up there, quite a lot of games don't make 70+, but then you have to question how good they are lol.

I recall Civ IV getting 92%, but I might be wrong. But the highest rated game in Pc Gamer UK history was Half Life 2 (I believe), which again might be the greatest shooter of all time, with a score of 95%. Although the review (form quote) seems to down play Civ V a bit, its still an honour. Might also be down to the reviewer, turn based strategy like Civ is quite a change from other strategies.

 

[Boris Godunov]

The more I think about it, the more it seems that Civ IV was a rehash of Civ III with better graphics and some really minor or downright annoying gameplay changes

Gah, no way. CivIII is easily the worst installment of the Civ franchise, while Civ IV might be the best to date. I recently played CivIII because I got it free as part of the D2D pre-order, and I can honestly say I was missing Civ IV by the tenth turn.

 

[Schuesseled]

Every civ has been a rehash of previous civs. Thats the entire point of a sequel. Take the good elements of previous games, add some new ones, and see what you've got.

 

[sdlufkin]

Oy, more focus on combat. Not good.

Not necessarly bad though, if the reviewers perferred style of play was conquest then that's what he's more likely to focus on during the review. I've read constant re-assurances from the devs that you can still play the same way you did in any other Civ, I have no reason to doubt this will be anything different (though it's nice that when war does break out, as it is wont to do, the combat is fun and more interesting than in past games, I think we can all agree*).

*Sorry internet, I know we can't all agree on anything, but we can still be friends.

 

[ZimbuTheMonkey]

"Review inside: 93/100. That's qualifies for Editor's Choice, but Civ IV scored 94. Another Hmmmm."

Does this really make you go "Hmmm"? It's a difference of 1%. Most gaming "journalists" aren't even skilled enough at the English language to be able to explain what kind of difference would constitute a 1% change in review scores.

It's all guesswork, there's no science behind it, so it shouldn't elicit any response.

People take review scores too seriously. Wait for the demo, see how you like it.

 

[Ahriman]

though it's nice that when war does break out, as it is wont to do, the combat is fun and more interesting than in past games

Nyet! Ze combat, it must ve weak unt borink! Interestink combat, it vill not stand!

 

[Churchdown Yank]

"Review inside: 93/100. That's qualifies for Editor's Choice, but Civ IV scored 94. Another Hmmmm."

Does this really make you go "Hmmm"? It's a difference of 1%. Most gaming "journalists" aren't even skilled enough at the English language to be able to explain what kind of difference would constitute a 1% change in review scores.

It's all guesswork, there's no science behind it, so it shouldn't elicit any response.

People take review scores too seriously. Wait for the demo, see how you like it.

Yes it does because it's not a completely objective system. They calibrate the scores against each other - especially those in the 90+ % category where you're essentially on another 0-10 scale. (or perhaps 0-5 scale with 6-10 being reserved for the best games ever that we haven't seen yet)

And note that at the front of the Civ V review there is (in the box with other info) "Alternatively: Civ IV: 94%" (albeit in small print )

I don't take the scores too seriously. Although I do think there's a particular message in this one. Cover and a 94 or 95 would have been one signal. No cover and a 93 says to me: great game - beginning of a new Civ series, but will probably take an expansion or two to reach the level of BtS due to radical changes.

 

[Ahriman]

Another way of reading it: Civ5 is almost, but not quite, as much better than Civ4 as Civ4 was better than Civ3.

 

[ZimbuTheMonkey]

I don't take the scores too seriously. Although I do think there's a particular message in this one. Cover and a 94 or 95 would have been one signal. No cover and a 93 says to me: great game - beginning of a new Civ series, but will probably take an expansion or two to reach the level of BtS due to radical changes.

Reading way too much into it, I think.

Why would you need to extrapolate all this information from a 1% difference in review scores when the reviewer clearly states his opinion:

"As for where this game fits into the series, Civ V isn't necessarily a definitively better empire-building game than Civ IV - as that would be almost impossible. This is more of an equal that exists in parallel, offering a fresh and invigorating style of play with more of an emphasis on combat"

"Civ V isn't simply a rehash of what came before with better graphics: it's a whole new world with a whole new set of rich, intricate rules to master. It's also impossible for a strategy fan to resist picking up... or to quit."

"Summary: Gorgeous graphics and deep combat make this a great place to start or renew your interest in global domination."

 

[Churchdown Yank]

Another way of reading it: Civ5 is almost, but not quite, as much better than Civ4 as Civ4 was better than Civ3.

Yes - I agree with this sentiment. I believe the reviewer is scoring it against the expectation of where we would think the next iteration in the series would be at this point, not as a direct comparison against IV necessarily.

The 1% is not significant when comparing against a completely different game, but I'm sure the score for V was discussed relative to IV.

More info (from little graphics side boxes):

Battle Tactics: Civ V combat has a few new tricks you'll need to win the day
1) Flanking - Painstakingly positioning two of your units next to an enemy gives you an added advantage in battle as well as flanking bonuses.
2) Cover - Ranged units such as archers are unable to fire over forests or hills...
3) Elevation - ... unless of course you cleverly place said units on a patch of higher ground (or earn yourself an upgrade)
4) Great Generals - all of the units surrounding the general receive a major buff

Conquered Cities (what to do?)
Do you want to keep it? No -> Raze it to the ground
Yes -> Do you care what it builds? No -> Puppet state - take the gold
Yes -> Does your nation have a happines surplus -> No -> Puppet now, annex later
Yes-> Annex now and build a courthouse

 

[12agnar0k]

I believe the game score is based on its own merits they won't be comparing it to previous titles or different games, but rather deciding whether or not the game is enjoyable.

 

[Guardian_PL]

I'm sorry, but I'm one of these people who hadn't heard about Portal either. I mean, it rings a bell somewhere, but it's yet another title I'll never play, like Mercenaries or, dunno, Kane&Lynch - one can see that name at some point while browsing the Web, but that's it. But Civilization?

Seriously, I get that casual folks whose only other game they've played is Sims or WoW couldn't care less about Civ but if you're a gamer (or a game magazine redactor) you simply couldn't miss Civilization title over the last two decades.

But anyway, silly people are silly people and will never change

 

[ZimbuTheMonkey]

Seriously, I get that casual folks whose only other game they've played is Sims or WoW couldn't care less about Civ but if you're a gamer (or a game magazine redactor) you simply couldn't miss Civilization title over the last two decades.

Portal is a game like this.

If you are gamer and you haven't played Portal, then I feel sorry for you. It's an almost perfect game.

EDIT: imo

 

[Boris Godunov]

I for one think it's rather silly to get worked up one way or another about one review when we're not even positive what build they were using. Even so, a 93% is undoubtedly an excellent score and I can't see why it would disappoint anyone. My general rule of thumb is that if the average rating for a game across multiple major review sites is 85% or higher, it's a great game and will be well worth purchasing.

 

[Lyoncet]

The 1% is not significant when comparing against a completely different game, but I'm sure the score for V was discussed relative to IV.

Also, you have to adjust scores for when the game was released. If CIV were released today, it wouldn't score a 94%. Just like Ocarina of Time wouldn't score a 98 meta score. Of course CIV is way more recent than OoT, so it's not a 1:1 comparison, but the interceding years is certainly more than enough to nullify any "They gave it 1% lower than 4 that means it's a step backwards!" arguments, and even turn them on their head.

 

[Tylerryan79]

I actually played/beat portal 3 days ago, and it was a fun and original game for sure. Just wayyy too short, I was sad when it was over . Civ is definetly a better game for replay value, and getting your moneys worth etc, but if you could only play one game for one hour before you died, and it was between the two, Id pick Portal because it's that fun.

That being said Civ should have got the cover, seeing as Portal is coming out next year, but maybe the next issue will, I dunno? I guess 2k didn't grease the wheels over there enough? If a game that goes gold means it's the final version that will be shipped(does it I dunno?) would that be the one they reviewed? Civ iv didn't go gold until a week before it was released, that would mean V is doing good in that department, so that's good. But the. That means there will probably be a big patch on release, seeing as they must still be tweeking the game, with all this extra time inbetween.

 

[Schuesseled]

Portal is a game like this.

If you are gamer and you haven't played Portal, then I feel sorry for you. It's an almost perfect game.

EDIT: imo

I'd probably go a bit further and say it is a perfect game, it gives you exactly what you expect and want from it. It's a nice and fun puzzle game, with elements of drama and humour. It is perfect.

It doesn't have replayability, but that just enhances its perfection as it takes just the right amount of time to complete, it doesn't get boring or leave you feeling stumped at the lack of game time. Perfect.

(obviously after you've completed you have that one-more-turn desire being a hopeless addict to gaming, but portal isn't really a game that offers you replayability, and if it did, it would literaly be a worse game.)

 

[Grey2ham]

Ah cool, I'll go see if mine has arrived and maybe add some comments tomorrow.

PC Gamer is the best PC review magazine in the UK. They're not afraid to get into arguments with publishers/developers... (look at stardock at the moment, and ubisoft, favourite quote: "splinter cell is a great game, but don't buy it... DRM").
I think they're more honest than IGN imo.
but Rock Paper Shotgun is the best.
Oh and I've met them in reals life and played TF2 with them and everythings.