Reveiw Quality....

[Renegade X]

Sid Meier's Civilization IV Awards:

Best Reviewed Game
2005, GameStar Magazine

Top Ten PC Games of the Year
2005, GameInformer

Best PC Game Nomination
2005, Spike Awards

Game of the Month, October
2005, GameSpy

Editors' Choice
2005, GameSpot


Right, according to firaxis.com, civ 4 got all these awards, most of which were posted within like a week of the games release. Now it took most of us about an hour to realise the extent of the Bugs in this game (if it even ran at all). So heres my question, how in the name of christs underpants did a game which has more bugs than a thai hookers pubic hair get all these awards and nominations? Methinks money be changing hands behind closed doors and under boardroom tables.....

 

[Chieftess]

Or reviewers just have very good computers.

 

[Jecrell]

Generally when making a speech it's always a good idea to present the facts rather than twisting the information. Naturally Civilization IV got absolutely wonderful fantastic reviews, and there were a number of people with problems running the game. You don't need to come to the conclusion that everyone is getting paid off -- I don't even think Firaxis has that kind of cash since Civ IV isn't particularly cool (last I checked it was a geek thing -- it'll never be as overrated as Halo and sell as much).

Personally I expected Civ IV to slip away with 70's and 80's, but I suppose now people are seeing the true value in the game. And, most of the reviewers got the game to work on their systems. What does that say about the people on these forums experiencing all these problems?

[EDIT]
Woops, Chieftess beat me to it =P

 

[Sorceresss]

So heres my question, how in the name of christs underpants did a game which has more bugs than a thai hookers pubic hair get all these awards and nominations?

 

[Psyringe]

So heres my question, how in the name of christs underpants did a game which has more bugs than a thai hookers pubic hair get all these awards and nominations? Methinks money be changing hands behind closed doors and under boardroom tables.....

Ahem. My personal experience with bugs in pubic hair has been zero so far, so I cannot really debate this part of your argument. I'll just assume that you know what you're talking about and that your experience in this area must be far greater than mine.

About the game: It's a matter of perspective. Civ4 has far less bugs than I expected. Civ3 definitely had more showstopping gameplay bugs on release, although it ran more stable. (However, Civ4 also runs very stable on my system, despite my just-about-minimal specs, but IIRC there are more people having technical problems than there were with Civ3.)

When you don't have these technical problems (and most people don't have them, the reviewers also apparently didn't run into them), then I think a high score for Civ4 is very reasonable. Although a good review *should* mention the importance of meeting the specs, and some AI issues as well.

 

[vodkamattvt]

Aside from bugs related to older hardware, most of the bugs are transparent for the average user.

A person who reviews video games would have to be a masochist to review the game with a crappy laptop, or a computer with a low end graphics card, or a computer that is 5 years old. They review their games on new stuff, or almost new stuff.

As cynical as I am, I seriously doubt there is payment between companies for reviews of games (at least from big review sources). Yes, reviews are scewed because the reviewer (at least for games like Civ) is usually a fan of the series. You wouldnt want your resident FPS reviewer letting loose on Civ4, he might not get it. Hell, giving Civ4 a bad score might score you some nice publicity. Of course if I was a reviewer now, and had a review to write, even if the game worked perfectly, I would be inclined to mention that many people are having trouble running it with the latest drivers and non-top of the line cards.

 

[Garwoofoo]

As someone who's reviewed a lot of games for various sites and other places, I have to comment here.

It's a very difficult situation. The problem you have as a reviewer is that, even when you are reviewing final release code, you know that you have to write for posterity. When you're principally a reviewer for websites, that's an even greater consideration.

Think about it. How often have you bought a new game, or considered buying a game, and checked out a few sites to see if it's any good or not?

So what that means is you often have to ignore bugs in the initial release of PC titles... on the assumption that they will be quickly patched. Otherwise your review will look ridiculous two weeks after the game has been released, because everything you've written about is no longer the case. Besides, in a review with a strict word limit, there are more important things to talk about than whether or not the initial release has a few teething problems. You need to get a flavour of the game across and realise that people may be reading your review up to five years after you wrote it in order to get an idea of whether the game is worth buying or not.

For what it's worth, when Civ III was released, I did indeed write a review in which I criticised it heavily for the state in which it was released. And, in due course, the game was comprehensively patched and my review looked slightly silly. I've not done that since, though of course my original criticisms were valid. Civ III was released in a MUCH worse state than Civ IV... maybe people here have short memories.

 

[Multiplicity]

Right, according to firaxis.com, civ 4 got all these awards, most of which were posted within like a week of the games release. Now it took most of us about an hour to realise the extent of the Bugs in this game (if it even ran at all). So heres my question, how in the name of christs underpants did a game which has more bugs than a thai hookers pubic hair get all these awards and nominations? Methinks money be changing hands behind closed doors and under boardroom tables.....

Many other reviews have came out since then, as you can see by looking at GameSpot's review page for Civ IV and the news updates on this site. All of them gave them good scores and I have yet to see a review give anything less than an 8 (or equivalent). On GameSpot, they let users give a rating, and even a small review if they wished. Well over 2500 users gave an average rating of 9.2. Now I don't know about you, but that is strong evidence that all these reviews have merit.

 

[Mujadaddy]

Renegade X -- It's a good game.

 

[Atomike]

So what that means is you often have to ignore bugs in the initial release of PC titles... on the assumption that they will be quickly patched.

This quote reeks of amateur writing. Look at PC Gamer magaine. They always give buggy games a low score (Although I have no idea how they rated Civ4 yet). The reason? Their philosophy is that they review the game they have. Not the game they WISH they had. To review a game assuming a patch will come is utter nonsense - and foolish. Do you honestly think that 100% of consumers bother to download patches?

To be an honest reviewer, you MUST review the game ITSELF.

Some credible magazines and sites did give Civ4 good reviews. I think that speaks to the quality of computers they use. If you have a high-end machine, then their praise is valid.

 

[neriana]

As a reviewer, you're expected to get your review out FAST. That means you play the game once through, maybe twice if it's a game like Civ 4 -- if you're lucky. Reviewers tend not to run into that many bugs because their systems are set up nicely; and if they do, they can contact the developer of the game and get a quick fix very fast. Also, Civ 4's bugs affect a minority of its purchasers. I doubt any reviewers played Civ 4 on a huge map, and I'm nearly positive none of them tried it with 18 civs. I get no bugs except wonder movies skipping on a normal map, no slowdowns, no crashes, nothing, and my computer isn't as good as one in a Gamestop office. (Besides the ironworks not working, which I wouldn't have known about if not for this forum.)

I give the game a 9, at least. I'd give it a 9.5 if I didn't know about the bugs I only know about from reading forums. Firaxis didn't pay me to say that. Relative to other PC games, though, Civ 4 is simply not that buggy at all.

I've been a reviewer in the past. Trust me -- they wish they were getting paid under the table, it is not a lucrative job.

 

[blindside]

I really haven't had any bugs or problems with Civ 4. The only complaints are some gameplay features (civlopedia) or lack there off (zone of control).

 

[Atomike]

As a reviewer, you're expected to get your review out FAST. That means you play the game once through, maybe twice if it's a game like Civ 4 -- if you're lucky.

Yes - this is what I'm talking about. Low-quality publications can sometimes skew a game's score too high if it's buggy. I'd try to avoid hack publications that don't bother actually reviewing the game, but merely reviewing a 3 hour play-test. These amateur publications do not serve the public well.

 

[Grognard7431]

I've had very few problems, only the stuttering wonder movies. I have played
9 games to completion and about 10 games where I quit and started again due to an obvious win or loss playing with different maps and options.

The game reviewers probably have state of the art machines and not 386s with VGA cards that some people try to play with. This is Game of the year for me hands down.

 

[player1 fanatic]

What's the point of giving low score to a game becuase of compatibility bugs?

Actual gameplay bugs are worse (which original Civ3 was full of at release), since they affect all players, compared to compatibiliy bugs that affect only one minority.

Also, most publishers, even those stingy with patches, try to fix compatibiliy bugs as soon as possible, since those can actually affect sales.

Scores should affect gameplay in my oppionion.
And not be obsolete right after game gets one patch.

 

[DBear]

I distinctly remember PTW getting low ratings because the advertised multiplayer was buggy without the patches.

 

[Thunderfall]

I distinctly remember PTW getting low ratings because the advertised multiplayer was buggy without the patches.

Yeah, PTW was a disaster. Both GameSpot and GameSpy gave the expansion under 55% rating. IGN rated it in the 80s but they didn't try multiplayer, the main feature of the expansion.

 

[snepp]

Aside from bugs related to older hardware, most of the bugs are transparent for the average user.

*speechless*

....

Must...resist...flame...

 

[CorruptAssassin]

No bugs in the game whatsoever here, the game is running flawlessly.

It really does deserve those awards, for the game is perfect :thumbs:

 

[Renegade X]

Dont be getting me wrong ya'll, I think this game is just the tits **WHEN IT BLOODY WORKS**.
I just got really pissed off when I read about all the problems people were having yet it got rave reviews left right and centre. Whats so wrong with a bit of bloody honesty?? Why cant firaxis stick a big sign on the bloody website saying something like "Yes there are major issues for a lot of people, we're working on it!!" or some sh*t. As usual its all money money money.
Bastar*s.

How often have you bought a new game

If I told you how I got my games I would have to kill you