The most hatred-filled review you'll come across

[Lyoncet]

No, it's not fine. I used to work for the biggest gaming portal in my home country for close to two years, and distancing yourself from your own opinion was key to writing a good review.

Exactly. Everyone has an opinion. As a reviewer, your job is to give me the facts about the game so I can decide whether it sounds like it's for me or not. That doesn't mean not having your own thoughts about it; it means divorcing your opinion and preferences from the game itself. If you want to talk about your opinion, do it on a web forum, or even in the comments section. Don't take a magazine/website's money so you can deliver a fundamentally flawed product to an audience that is trying to form an opinion on something.

 

[Maktaka]

G&K is not the Beyond the Sword of Civ V.

Perhaps someone can explain this to me, because when I played BtS after playing CIV vanilla prior, I recall being annoyed at the clumsily implemented espionage, never seeing the way-too-late corporations, and never saw a random event worth worrying about. Compared to GalCivII's careful assignment of spies and buildup of a massive spy network in espionage and game changing random events (speed caps of 3 tiles in a game where 8 is common, automatic declarations of war, surprise super planets that can make a faction unbeatable if left alone) BtS just seemed like a halfhearted attempt to follow suit, and did poorly at it.

 

[mitsho]

Even if he's a bit negative in his review and he does put too much of his own opinion in, it's a refreshing read since many reviews either show a distinct lack of knowledge on Civ V (mentioning features that are in the base game already), stay too much on the superficial side (reiterating the basic elements of e.g. the religion system) or concentrate on positivity or non-substantial additions (like the civilizations). Now the question would be, if it's really possible to judge the AI from a few games...

I doubt it, nevertheless, his opinion is interesting and shows us some problematic elements (which many guessed already). Thus I wouldn't call it the most hatred-filled review. And something to dampen the hype may be a good thing. Just look at how many pages this thread already has in comparison to the other review threads...

 

[Andulias]

Exactly. Everyone has an opinion. As a reviewer, your job is to give me the facts about the game so I can decide whether it sounds like it's for me or not. That doesn't mean not having your own thoughts about it; it means divorcing your opinion and preferences from the game itself. If you want to talk about your opinion, do it on a web forum, or even in the comments section. Don't take a magazine/website's money so you can deliver a fundamentally flawed product to an audience that is trying to form an opinion on something.

Exactly my point. I always looked at the game as objectively as possible and tried to figure out what kind of a person t would appeal to, what the target audience is, and then evaluated how well the game would satisfy that audience's taste. Did I like Crysis? No. Did I think Crysis can satisfy the needs of a gamer looking for a FPS that isn't your typical linear corridor roller coaster? Yes.

Oh, and even though I have defended Civ V on countless occasions, on launch for me it was 7.5. It wasn't a good game, but there was definitely a lot of potential. And after the patches a lot of that potential has already been realized, yet another thing this Chick guy ignores. Go figure.

Perhaps someone can explain this to me, because when I played BtS after playing CIV vanilla prior, I recall being annoyed at the clumsily implemented espionage, never seeing the way-too-late corporations, and never saw a random event worth worrying about. Compared to GalCivII's careful assignment of spies and buildup of a massive spy network in espionage and game changing random events (speed caps of 3 tiles in a game where 8 is common, automatic declarations of war, surprise super planets that can make a faction unbeatable if left alone) BtS just seemed like a halfhearted attempt to follow suit, and did poorly at it.

It wasn't so much what was added, as it was what was fixed. A surprisingly big revamp of the AI (I can even argue in vanilla it was just as bad as the one in V, and extremely predictable to boot), fleshing out to the units and adding new ones, making subtle, but well executed changes to many existing features (religion, the tech tree, vassal states and how they work) and some good old bug fixing. The thing is, what it did add felt superfluous to me as well. I mean, did Firaxis really think the religion system is so jaw-droppingly good that they had to rebrand it under a different name? Corporations were just plain stupid, and espionage, while better than vanilla, could have been taken a step further.

Shame espionage in G and K seems pretty bare-bones to me. I was looking forward to a more complex system...

 

[AriochIV]

Perhaps someone can explain this to me, because when I played BtS after playing CIV vanilla prior, I recall being annoyed at the clumsily implemented espionage, never seeing the way-too-late corporations, and never saw a random event worth worrying about.

It was not the feature list that made BtS great -- espionage and coporations were nothing to write home about (though I personally liked the event system) -- it was the changes to the AI and game balance that finally made Civ IV "more than the sum of its parts" as someone else here said... a game you could play over and over and over again.

 

[Steamwerks]

Yeah, I stopped reading when he admitted that although there were new features he 'couldn't care less' about them.

He actually said this in reference to the new units, as he felt they were superfluous in light of the still inept battle AI.

I mean, did Firaxis really think the religion system is so jaw-droppingly good that they had to rebrand it under a different name? Corporations were just plain stupid, and espionage, while better than vanilla, could have been taken a step further.

The two systems are only similar in the most purely superficial sense. I actually like corporations a great deal, it's the only system in the game that incentivizes multiples of resources, and the effect is a perfect fit for the industrial boom phase when you're getting access to factories and rail, and the overall productive capacity of your empire is rapidly expanding. Furthermore, it requires a bit of analysis to determine which, if any, corporations are worthwhile in a given game, and this is something I like to see in a 4x title!

 

[ButSam]

I think my "favorite" line of the review is:

It’s like improved shaving technology that just keeps adding blades.

Uhmmm -- does he realize that shaving technology IS actually improved by adding blades?

I also find it pretty unfair that he thinks Faith is the same mechanic as Espionage. This was more true in BtS than it is in G&K, from my understanding of the systems. In BtS, you gain Espionage Points. Not so in G&K from my understanding. (It also isn't true from his description later on, so the review isn't even self-consistent.)

I also don't like how he says Espionage is just a City State buying capability...but then also says you can use it to steal rival techs. You don't get that from putting the spy in a City State -- you have to pick one or the other!

 

[Buccaneer]

Tom Chick was the only reviewer to say that the "Emperor had no clothes!" of the first Civ5 release, when all other reviewers were gushing all over themselves. However, I will discount any review (or comparison to Civ5) if the reviewer has not played with at least some of the big patches in the past 18 months.

 

[Andulias]

Tom Chick was the only reviewer to say that the "Emperor had no clothes!" of the first Civ5 release, when all other reviewers were gushing all over themselves. However, I will discount any review (or comparison to Civ5) if the reviewer has not played with at least some of the big patches in the past 18 months.

And that's one of the reasons I discarded him

 

[OrsonM]

I'm surprised how few have come to Tom's defense, considering how many kept him on a pedestal after his lukewarm review of Civ V (which was pretty reasonable despite his usually... erm... let's go with contrarian here).

Orson predicts!, that on the third day... when everyone is whining about the game not living up to their expectations, that this review will be revisited.

EDIT: Ok, scrap that, I just listened a podcast by Tom Chick and he's just an insufferable hipster (the type that giggles to himself after every "witty" comment he makes, don't believe me?, try one yourself). The guy just hates on things to be cool, he tries to add substance to his observations, but they are usually too damn shallow to be taken seriously.

 

[NotSure]

If you want to play a game about civilizations shuffling their armies around ineffectually, Civilization V remains the game for you, and now it has new units to shuffle around ineffectually.

I thought this was a funny shot. I can't understand why someone would get so worked up over another persons opinion. I think there's probably some truth in every rave and rant you can find about this game or any other but, at the end of the day, it's just an opinion. At least he made me laugh.

The combat AI isn't that horrible anymore to be fair. They've added a few fairly effective tactics, apparently made them better defenders, ramped up the amount of units they produce (sometimes way too many), piled on the bonuses and penalized the player (mainly with happiness, but also with gold and production) enough that now the AI presents a real threat on harder difficulties. But again, that was a funny line. +1 for witty sarcasm.

Sure, religions can spread — and here is one of the many examples of Firaxis’ inability to do a good interface — but who cares? If it has any effect on diplomacy, you’d never know, thanks to the game’s wretched diplomacy, which remains as inscrutably bipolar as ever.

I won't know if this is true for a few more hours, but based on what I've seen from the latest patch, I'm a little worried. Every game plays differently, but I've knocked out two games with the new patch and diplomacy was still pretty rough. AI repeatedly declaring war on AI with little or no consequence while at the same time continually denouncing and insulting me because I defeated an AI when I was attacked thousands of years earlier. This stuff doesn't really ruin the game for me like it does for some, but I was hoping for something different.

 

[pspboy7]

He doesn't like:
that religion spreads itself
that it's importance fades
that beliefs are first-come-first-served
that espionage is pretty passive

He claims that religion doesn't effect diplomacy very much. That the AI is still bipolar, and that it's tactically dumb.

Interesting, here's how I see it...
1. Religion: Has always spread itself, by word of mouth, writing, or a gathering or pilgrimage of followers.
2. Importance of Religion: Faith is faith, you believe or disbelieve. It's significance in society is determined by it's observers (everyone else). USA, Canada, most of Europe were predominately Christian, but since the influx of other people, cultures, and faiths, it's taken a severe hit in how significant it is in the societies world-view. Religion is important on a personal level perhaps, but seems to mean less in a larger sense IMO.
3. Espionage: Espionage has always been passive, it has to be, otherwise the people doing it would be easy to find! Kind of a silly thing to be mad about IMO. I take it he means passive in the sense that you can't really sabotage or start wars directly with spys. Still it may be interesting.

 

[AlpsStranger]

EDIT: Ok, scrap that, I just listened a podcast by Tom Chick and he's just an insufferable hipster (the type that giggles to himself after every "witty" comment he makes, don't believe me?, try one yourself). The guy just hates on things to be cool, he tries to add substance to his observations, but they are usually too damn shallow to be taken seriously.

Barf

I live just to piss those types off at this point.

 

[King Kalmah]

Tom Chick was the only reviewer to say that the "Emperor had no clothes!" of the first Civ5 release, when all other reviewers were gushing all over themselves. However, I will discount any review (or comparison to Civ5) if the reviewer has not played with at least some of the big patches in the past 18 months.

That may be,but if you bought a flat tire and keep patching it eventually it will go flat no matter how much you fix it.

Its up to the corporation making the game/tire to improve its design not hope you and me can fix what they screwed up...

 

[thadian]

Err, he's Tom Chick, the guy who hated Deus Ex; I don't think you guys should take it too seriously.

a preference like this does not have much to do with credibility.

Arguments do not stand on the weight of a personal stance of "i like or dislike game a". However, when giving positive reviews, it's hard not to sound like a company line.

When giving a bad review or attempting to pronounce a game as bad, you "are trying to demonstrate something", which in this case, is his opinion. He has to explain why the content is "bad" or fails to live up.

There are some games Tom Chick has taken stances against for various reasons, and personally i would rather read something from someone who doesn't "buy in" to everything and is willing to distance oneself from the bandwagons. In a few hours, we can all write our own opinions but for me - i will just take the time to step down from emperor to king and try to take it from scratch. I have a feeling my old strategies won't work anymore and i will try to test the new avenues.

I would rather wait until at least the first patch to criticize too much, and the biggest thing for me is going to be the stability level of diplomatic actions. I personally hope for the better.

 

[Dearmad]

It's quite the read.. It seems the guy just hates Civ V with incredible passion, and the review reads more like a rant than anything else. Still fun to read though.

I might not agree with his rating, but he makes a lot of good points. Hate filled? Rant? Nope, I don't see it.

 

[NBAfan]

I like Tom Chick. I don't always agree with him, but he's the one of the few major reviewers that will give AAA studio games fair review instead of an automatic 9.

 

[AfterShafter]

I like Tom Chick, I don't always agree with him, but he's the only major reviewer that will give AAA studio games fair review instead of an automatic 9.

Actually, not the *only* one...

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation

 

[thadian]

In regards to an earlier post i made, i am NOT implying that those who do not share my stance on ANY issue are "Sheeple".

I am stating a belief about the Amalgamation Entity of Society, a combined entity (made of individuals) - which if looked at as a "person", (and indeed it is a person) is the "sheep". This is inherent and not meant to insult anyone or anything.

Many "Societies" have done things that the majority of it's individuals disapprove of. Sometimes individuals do things the society holds views against.

Societies and Individuals are both entities, and societies are able to be "puppeted" because while individuals are often wiser, the social entity comprised of those individuals can often be foolish. The best example is how modern media ALWAYS appeals to the "lowest common denominator" or the "dumbest person in the crowd" expecting the rest of the people in the crowd to automatically understand. Often, the illustrator of the view determines what characteristics are inherent in this person (the lowest), so this person is subjective and one persons lowest denominator might be another persons highest.

Individuals are often hard to fool because they can think about things, while societies often don't think. Individuals normally have stable and consistent views, societies have a lot of mixed views and contradictory beliefs. (again, they are made up of people who think differently).

NOBODY in my opinion is a "sheeple" - I recently read a good work called "For the good of others" which talks about how people create this label to "protect others" from things "that i myself won't fall for but others might". I am working hard to believe that individuals are competent, which is a tough thing to force myself to try to think after all ive seen. So please do not be offended by my previous post or this one.

I apologize to anyone who feels insulted, or patronized.

 

[AriochIV]

I was impressed that several sites gave very serious reviews this time around (Rock Paper Shotgun was the best, I think). The best recommend G&K as a legitimate upgrade worth purchasing, while acknowledging that it doesn't solve all of Civ V's many problems.

The initial flush of 9/10 reviews for Civ V as released was embarrassing, considering how flawed the initial release was. However entrenched his negative view of Civ V now is, I give Chick credit for at least not cowing to this initial campaign of misinformation.