Raving reviews but poor feedback on Civfanatics?

[SuperJay]

I never claimed that the naysayers couldn't share their opinions. I've never claimed that their opinions were irrelevant (though you just seemed to do so). Opinions are like buttholes - everyone has one. Simply put, no one has claimed that you shouldn't be allowed to express your opinion. So...are you that insecure about your opinion or are you having a reading comprehension problem?

I was actually responding to the post above yours from Officerjackboot. But hey, nice insult anyway. That definitely strengthens your "argument."

So why ARE you guys harping on this "majority versus minority" stuff, if not to validate your own perspective and invalidate your "opponents?"

I mean yes, more people voted Thumbs Up than Thumbs Down. So what?

 

[Blackadar]

And game reviewers generally (A) don't play a game for more than 10 hours before reviewing it, and (B) often are reviewing the studio behind the game rather than the game itself. If you're Epic, Valve, BioShock, Blizzard, or another major developer with a good track record, your product will generally get a positive review.

Have you ever been a paid game reviewer? Because when I was, it wasn't the studio that got the game a positive impression. It was the game that got the studio the positive reputation. There are rare exceptions, of course, but that's not the way most reviewers I personally know/knew approached it.

 

[ohioastronomy]

You're right. One game has two expansions and 4 years of balancing. One doesn't. Next!

Christ. Did you notice the version that I picked and look at the review dates? Those reviews date from the time the game was released.

You really aren't interested in anything but boosterism, are you?

Edit: to make it perfectly clear, Blackadr ignored the fact that the Amazon user views i was using as a comparison sample were from Civ 4 vanilla, not from Civ 4 expansions (which had extremely positive user reviews, much better than Civ 4 or Civ 5.) The difference in the initial reception is extremely obvious.

 

[lschnarch]

You're right. One game has two expansions and 4 years of balancing. One doesn't. Next!

Lessons learned?

 

[Ayt]

So it is okay to release a game that is inferior to what came previously in the series? What gave you that idea?

 

[Officerjackboot]

You're right. One game has two expansions and 4 years of balancing. One doesn't. Next!

This.

 

[lschnarch]

This.

Originally Posted by Blackadar
You're right. One game has two expansions and 4 years of balancing. One doesn't. Next!

Lessons learned?

This.

 

[HeavyTwenty]

Paid reviewers have been garbage for the last 2 years at least.

Empire Total War
http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/empire-total-war
Critic rating: 90%, User rating: 67%
The worst game in the series. It was nearly unplayable, but fixed after 6 months of patches.

Grand Theft Auto 4 PC
http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/grand-theft-auto-iv
Critic rating: 90%, User rating: 48%
Once again, a buggy mess.

I spent some time browsing through the Steam forums and GTAforums, and it’s very apparent that many people have issues with this game; some can’t even play! Shame on the reviewers that gave this game a 9+ overall score – the ignorance is almost humorous. With problems this widespread, a game must be scored lower.
http://www.cpugamer.com/reviews/4792/Grand-Theft-Auto-IV-Review

Far Cry 2
http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/far-cry-2
Critic rating: 85%, user rating: 55%
I never played this game, but still found the difference between user and critic rating too large.

It seems to me that reviewers are afraid of giving critical reviews on games. I wonder why.

 

[Blackadar]

I was actually responding to the post above yours from Officerjackboot. But hey, nice insult anyway. That definitely strengthens your "argument."

So why ARE you guys harping on this "majority versus minority" stuff, if not to validate your own perspective and invalidate your "opponents?"

I mean yes, more people voted Thumbs Up than Thumbs Down. So what?

Yet he didn't claim that either. Again, you're reading something that's not there.

It's not that your opinion is invalid. (again, where are you getting that?!?) It's that it's a minority opinion to the point that support can't be considered lukewarm as posted by the OP. Unless you consider 3 to 1 lukewarm (or 3-1-1 lukewarm).

 

[Ayt]

56% thumbs up on a "fanatics" forum isn't really a positive. Most websites like this are overwhelmingly pro whatever game they were created for.

 

[Officerjackboot]

56% thumbs up on a "fanatics" forum isn't really a positive. Most websites like this are overwhelmingly pro whatever game they were created for.

No way. Hardcores are the most critical and negative when a game is changed see Fallout 3.

As for the Amazon reviews I would say that easily half of the negative reviews are mostly about hating steam and DRM there are a few about poor service by amazon and the rest about the game running slowly. There are of course many who don't like the game also but DRM and Steam is the biggest gripe on Amazon. DRM always draws a ton of hate because it is more difficult for rabid torrenters to steal the game.

 

[Nortrom]

So it is okay to release a game that is inferior to what came previously in the series? What gave you that idea?

When you change alot of core features so it becomes quite different, yes. And since when was it the standard that a sequel should live up to the hype people got from the game before it anyway? Those occasions are rare at best.

I would say they released Civ5 a little early, made some mistakes and it lacks alot of polish and testing to be a acceptable game release. At the same time I understand that they had a release date that was set far to early to be sure that they would have everything fixed. If they fix alot of the major issues (the save bugs, graphical glitches, horsemen op, etc.) I think this games release was not as good as I had hoped for, but still acceptable.

And I have no idea why people try to convince everyone else that they are in the majority. Your opinion isn't more valid just because you are in majority. Your opinion is valid if you present well-thought out and well formulated explanations about what is bothering you, and especially if you use some common sense.

 

[Blackadar]

Paid reviewers have been garbage for the last 2 years at least.

It seems to me that reviewers are afraid of giving critical reviews on games. I wonder why.

1. People who have a negative impression of a product (ANY product) are far more likely to post a review about it than those with a positive impression. That's statistically proven many times over in many industries over. That's why with most any release the aggregate user score is less than the critic's score.

Heck, my review is one that's dragging down that 67% on E:TW. Yeah, I believe the reviewers got that one wrong.

2. You can cherry pick examples where reviewers seemingly got it wrong (gaming or elsewhere). Lionhead's Black and White would be the prime example of a game where reviewers simply got it wrong. A lot of reviewers praised Ultima IX initially - my review was one of the first that was very critical of the game. Those are examples from 10 years ago. But generally they get it right as an aggregate. In this particular case, the general sentiment of the reviewers is echoed in polls here and on other gaming sites.


EDIT: I actually do want people to continue to point out flaws with the game. Some, like those calling for the SOD to come back, I'll vehemently disagree with. But Civ V is a flawed jewel and there's no doubt it needs some work. Polished up correctly - the way Civ IV was - and it has the potential to be a classic. I think ultimately that's what we all want. So I hope people go right on constructively pointing out issues because it'll make a better game for everyone in the long run.

 

[ohioastronomy]

1. People who have a negative impression of a product (ANY product) are far more likely to post a review about it than those with a positive impression. That's statistically proven many times over in many industries over. That's why with most any release the aggregate user score is less than the critic's score.

Heck, my review is one that's dragging down that 67% on E:TW. Yeah, I believe the reviewers got that one wrong.

2. You can cherry pick examples where reviewers seemingly got it wrong (gaming or elsewhere). Lionhead's Black and White would be the prime example of a game where reviewers simply got it wrong. A lot of reviewers praised Ultima IX initially - my review was one of the first that was very critical of the game. Those are examples from 10 years ago. But generally they get it right as an aggregate. In this particular case, the general sentiment of the reviewers is echoed in polls here and on other gaming sites.

Except that I gave you an apples and apples comparison of how much worse the reception of Civ 5 among users is than the reception of Civ 4...which you utterly mis-characterized. Step back from the keyboard and try to listen to what others are saying; it helps sometimes.

 

[Pratputajao]

You know what's funny? I just got my new issue of PC Gamer, and all the stuff they slammed Elemental: WoM about in their review, they could have and should have said the same exact thing about Civ5. Here's a few notable phrases:


They also went on to say the game shouldn't have been released the way it was. Yet, Civ5 scores a 93, and Elemental scores a 70.

C'mon, Elemental got the review it deserves; Civ V is nowhere near the mess that game was upon release. Elemental was (is) a mess and not a very good game. (though may become a good game....maybe) Civ is a good game with some bugs. For me Civ IV was unplayable (esp because the CDs were mislabled). It was way too slow to be enjoyable and took almost one minute to close back to desktop along with various memory problems. Should that have been given a similar score to Elemental? I dont think so.

 

[protocol7]

No way. Hardcores are the most critical and negative when a game is changed see Fallout 3.

Fallout 3 was a case where they also screwed up a beloved franchise. There are plenty of examples where games progress and not everyone who played the last version hates it.

 

[Blackadar]

Except that I gave you an apples and apples comparison of how much worse the reception of Civ 5 among users is than the reception of Civ 4...which you utterly mis-characterized. Step back from the keyboard and try to listen to what others are saying; it helps sometimes.

You're right - I was incorrect that your version of Civ 4 did NOT have the expansions. My apologies for mis-characterizing it. My bad.

However, the reviews/ratings for that version have taken place over time - long after the patches and expansions have been released. Go look at those reviews in reverse date order - the original ones aren't pretty. Just for giggles, I compiled all the reviews between December 1 and December 31 of 2005. Note that this is after the game was initially patched and over a month after release...

5 Star - 15
4 Star - 9
3 Star - 6
2 Star - 13
1 Star - 23

That distribution grid is starting to look awfully familiar. And those ratings don't get better as you get closer to the October, 2005 release date. So it's the ratings that took place months after release that bumped up the score. Time will see if something similar happens to Civ V.

 

[r_rolo1]

Fallout 3 was a case where they also screwed up a beloved franchise. There are plenty of examples where games progress and not everyone who played the last version hates it.

Like civ II and IV

 

[Adam7Eight]

C'mon, Elemental got the review it deserves; Civ V is nowhere near the mess that game was upon release. Elemental was (is) a mess and not a very good game. (though may become a good game....maybe) Civ is a good game with some bugs. For me Civ IV was unplayable (esp because the CDs were mislabled). It was way too slow to be enjoyable and took almost one minute to close back to desktop along with various memory problems. Should that have been given a similar score to Elemental? I dont think so.

My main point was the fact that the review of Civ5 never even hinted at those kind of problems - the exact same problems that both games share. Why is that? Why was the review of Elemental slammed throughout it's entirety for those shortcomings, yet those same problems were never mentioned in the Civ5 review?

While I don't care much about the overall score, if they had mentioned those flaws, Civ5 would not have scored a 93. No way.

 

[Blackadar]

My main point was the fact that the review of Civ5 never even hinted at those kind of problems - the exact same problems that both games share. Why is that? Why was the review of Elemental slammed throughout it's entirety for those shortcomings, yet those same problems were never mentioned in the Civ5 review?

While I don't care much about the overall score, if they had mentioned those flaws, Civ5 would not have scored a 93. No way.

Which shortcomings exactly? Because you're going to have a mighty tough time convincing anyone that the shortcomings in Elemental were the same and of the same degree (i.e., "the exact same problems") as were in Elemental considering that was one of the messiest releases in recent gaming history and ranks up there with MOO3.