RPS "Wot I Think" review

[CivCube]

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/06/18/wot-i-think-civ-v-gods-and-kings/

Gods and Kings has required me to spend a great deal of time playing Civ V in the past few days. It’s also made me remember how much I enjoy the game, although not without also drawing my mind more to its differences from previous entries and its flaws. As an expansion it delivers lots of content but doesn’t have the killer addition that elevates the game beyond its base. It also suggests that Firaxis are well aware that their game is not and never will be equivalent to Civ IV because they’ve made it a moderately better version of what it already was rather than what so many people hoped it could become.

 

[smallfish]

I think, of all the reviews shown thus far, this has to be the most balanced among them all.

The reviewer likes the game, but isn't hesitant to point out the flaws and does acknowledge that you can't simply breeze through the game in a day or two and call it a horse.

RPS never fails to disappoint, eh.

 

[The QC]

Yes, it's good to see a reviewer that acknowledges it's very hard to form an opinion on this type of game so fast.

It's also refreshing to read the opinion of someone who doesn't hate Civ V .

 

[nokmirt]

At least he did not piledrive the damn thing into the ground. Again though, it is hard to believe without trying it.

 

[Sleepless CiVr]

Not so flattering, but not so bad either...

 

[smallfish]

Yeah we had that

 

[RealHuhn]

Do we really need a new thread for every review on the internet

 

[Sleepless CiVr]

*slinking back in the shadows from just trying to be helpful*

 

[RealHuhn]

*slinking back in the shadows from just trying to be helpful*

Yeah, nothing against you, of course. ^^

But I'd prefer to have one general "review-thread". I don't see the forest for the trees anymore.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Yeah, nothing against you, of course. ^^

But I'd prefer to have one general "review-thread". I don't see the forest for the trees anymore.

Actually, I'd rather them be separate.

 

[ezysquire]

Do we really need a new thread for every review on the internet

yes. love reading the reviews, and yes, i have pre-ordered.

 

[Andulias]

RPS stellar as ever. This is definitely the first review I can take seriously and one that really seems to evaluate the expansion on its own merit, instead of whining about what Civ V isn't (VentureBeat), praising it to high heavens (The Verge, as always) or never really writing a review and opting for cheap and stupid jokes with a thrown in remark here and there not backed up by any substantial argument (Eurogamer).

So basically it seems to be Civ 5.5, a good expansion, but not quite the BTS of CiV. Still, I'll definitely pick it up.

 

[Camikaze]

Moderator Action: Merged with existing thread.

 

[Cicero63]

It does seem like a balanced review, but still it seems like people are trying to see it as a Civ 4.5 rather than a different game

 

[Zhahz]

It seems to me that although this reviewer said they were "forced to spend several days with Civ V" that he played thru one game. I'd imagine most reviewers do similarly or play even less.

Civ takes quite a bit of time to play and it seems kind of silly for people to do definitive reviews of a game like Civ based on essentially a tiny amount of playing it.