Tom Chick's take on Civ 6

[heinous_hat]

Giving Civ6 a score of 40% is laughable and unprofessional. It says more about the reviewer (bitterness) than the game...

He didn't rate it at 40%... he gave it 2 out of 5 stars. Big difference.

Tom uses a strict 5 star rating system. You cannot compare or convert this "score" to the typical 10 or 100 point rating system that's employed by a majority of gaming journalists. It is not in any way similar to an academic scale. It gives away nothing... you don't get an automatic * just for showing up. Each star carries a lot of weight, and you lose them when your work contains blemishes. Not being able to navigate the map due to an overly strict 1upt rule is a serious blemish. Designing the tech tree in such a way that a hapless AI will always bypass critical unit upgrades is a serious blemish. A UI that omits important information and fails to demonstrate intended behavior is a serious blemish. The 2 stars he did grant are representative of what's good in the game (presentation, innovative approach to an old formula, etc). As a whole though, he felt that the bad outweighs the good. Thus, 2 out of 5 (for now).

What's laughable here is that a service like Metacritic aggregates qualitatively dissimilar "scores" through some blind algorithm and people take them seriously

 

[MaximusPlatypus]

He raises a lot of valid points but I can't take his rating seriously. 2/5 says to me "mediocre game" but I've had a lot of fun playing despite the known bugs, more fun than some games that are highly rated, and "smooth" and clean in the execution but boring.

 

[heinous_hat]

I genuinely like it and I'm having fun playing/modding. But I agree with his score, nonetheless.

Relatively high cost, AAA games shouldn't get a reprieve when there are fundamental flaws. They do deserve to be reevaluated later though.

 

[Haggbart]

He didn't rate it at 40%... he gave it 2 out of 5 stars. Big difference.

Tom uses a strict 5 star rating system. You cannot compare or convert this "score" to the typical 10 or 100 point rating system that's employed by a majority of gaming journalists. It is not in any way similar to an academic scale. It gives away nothing... you don't get an automatic * just for showing up. Each star carries a lot of weight, and you lose them when your work contains blemishes. Not being able to navigate the map due to an overly strict 1upt rule is a serious blemish. Designing the tech tree in such a way that a hapless AI will always bypass critical unit upgrades is a serious blemish. A UI that omits important information and fails to demonstrate intended behavior is a serious blemish. The 2 stars he did grant are representative of what's good in the game (presentation, innovative approach to an old formula, etc). As a whole though, he felt that the bad outweighs the good. Thus, 2 out of 5 (for now).

What's laughable here is that a service like Metacritic aggregates qualitatively dissimilar "scores" through some blind algorithm and people take them seriously

"Carries a lot of weight", I don't think that's a valid way to put it. Let's just say he has some strange ideas on game design. I'll never forget how he gave MGS 4 a 1 star rating. Also The last of us got a 3 star but ZombiU and Assasins Creed 3 both got a 4 star.

To get a 5 star from Tom Chick you'd better be an indie title, preferably with some quirky twist and slightly underrated by other reviewers. Can be unpolished and very short but have some undeniable charm. Or you can be any new game by Soren Johnson.

 

[heinous_hat]

"Carries a lot of weight", I don't think that's a valid way to put it. Let's just say he has some strange ideas on game design. I'll never forget how he gave MGS 4 a 1 star rating. Also The last of us got a 3 star but ZombiU and Assasins Creed 3 both got a 4 star.

To get a 5 star from Tom Chick you'd better be an indie title, preferably with some quirky twist and slightly underrated by other reviewers. Can be unpolished and very short but have some undeniable charm. Or you can be any new game by Soren Johnson.

Tom may be inconsistent and he may play favorites... I don't really know. I do know that I agree with his judgement here. I also agreed with his (even harsher) take on Stellaris. These are clearly "works in progress" that aren't being distributed with the WIP label. Even if you've come to expect this sort of thing on release, one can only judge what they see at present.

But the point with the star rating system is that it's non-linear, doesn't translate to a numeric score and requires some interpretation on the part of the reader. Familiarity with the critic is also essential. A star is qualitatively different from a point, or 20 points, or whatever.

 

[Acken]

Well its his website. He rates as he wishes. Im not sure what there is to discuss.

I dont agree with all his ratings, I agree with some whatever. Its a subjective review like any other.

In this day and age players already have an opinion of a game before reading a review due to streams and forums or even buying the game themselves !
Reviews are now mostly used as echo chambers as if to seek some sort of external validation on one's own opinion or at best a confirmation.
The people that truly base their decision on a review are few.

With that in mind there is no point for someone to try to make the most objective (if it were even possible) review possible when 90% of readers will look it subjectively or most likely not even read at all and jump straight to the score.

 

[dirtrobot]

To put it simply and briefly, Civilization is a large-scale empire-building strategy game. Not a tactical war-game. One-unit-per-tile is actually the system that's closer to wargames as it places a huge amount of emphasis on the positioning and movement of your individual units. Stack combat (stack-of-doom is almost a meaningless term nowadays as people seem to use it as a negative term without being able to explain why it's so bad) is an imperfect system, but I don't think the areas of improvement from V's are innate to one-unit-per-tile, as I like the hex grid for movement and "unit combat does not necessarily destroy the opposition in one shot" is also an improvement. But those systems could coexist with stack combat. Other things that bothered people such as suicide catapults are hardly necessary to stack combat, the ranged unit/bombard mechanic from V/VI could still work along with collateral damage (though the range should be reduced to 1 in this case).

Stack combat places the emphasis primarily on the economic and overall strategic management of you empire, which is how I (and some others) feel it should be. There are certainly still tactical considerations, as anyone who played even mid-level competitive Civ IV multiplayer could tell you. Terrain was still quite important in IV, as a hill near your city could provide defensive cover for invaders while a nice flatland was an ideal "killing ground". 1UPT as a system adds a lot of small-scale tactical considerations, but with them comes tedium; having to move 20 units around a map is a much more involved process in V/VI than moving 100 units in Civ IV (you could double click a stack of any size to instantly select every unit in the stack, and tell it where to move with one more click).

Honestly, the latter is the biggest factor for me. Along with stacking issues from not being able to stack multiple civilian/religious/etc units together, and not being able to stack with neutral/allied units, the increased tedium and involvement in moving a bunch of individual units on a map is not really what I'm looking for when I play Civ. I want to build an empire, not have a series of involved tactical battles. Granted it's more of a curb-stomp in the AI's current state. But consider that improving the AI could actually be one of the worst things they could do: imagine how much more tedious the gameplay would be if we had to slog it out in back-and-forth battles and wars of attrition with the AI using the 1UPT system. Ugh. Just abstract it more and be done with it, I say. These things were fine with stack combat because the unit management didn't take up so much time and space. It's awful thanks to 1UPT.

Totally agree:
"No one considered the ridiculous traffic jams and chokepoints and tactical puzzles involving the simple act of getting a swordsman next to the thing it wants to attack. No one realized how baldly it would highlight wretched AI. No one anticipated all the cheese tactics based on clogging up the map and exploiting transparently bad AI. No one appreciated how much it would undermine the design."

I'm not sure why it's always either SoD or 1UPT as the ONLY possible unit distribution methods. The point is, civ is a game about resource management and exploitation, the idea that we have to manage unit movement TACTICS on what appears to be a massive world scale terrain seems ridiculous. It's economy and efficiency vs. economy and efficiency. Impose a SoD limit if one must, but don't make my assault on a country 5 turns longer because I have to circumvent an archer my ally won't move that he placed at a chokepoint. This is just ridiculous.

 

[dirtrobot]

...I will strongly disagree that there is somehow more strategic depth in 1UPT combat than stack combat...
The AI right now parades its units around cities and doesn't attack them. The AI is a total and complete joke in terms of combat. It may occasionally win by weight of numbers, but most of the time it even fails with that advantage. Using stack combat, an AI could at least present a threat using weight of numbers (and presenting a threat in and of itself presents additional strategic challenges).

Not only is there less strategic depth, it's not even FUN. I hate how long it takes to position units for a city siege. I don't even gain any advantage strategically either - I have to do it because it's the ONLY way to siege the city with that many units! Why didn't they realize this made large armies no better off at sieging? At least give me a proximity bonus for my units that are within X hexes of each other so it doesn't just turn into a hamburger hill orderly queue. If you were to tell someone "I'm going to assault this city with 3 catapults, 3 archers and 3 swordsman, how many units do you expect me to lose?" It sounds like a mighty army, but thanks to the hex madness I always lose at least 2 units in the positioning dance. And I'm GOOD as positioning. The AI has no clue how to make this work.

 

[Roxlimn]

I agree that the tactical depth in V/VI is fairly shallow. But the only advantage they have over stack combat is in the importance of maneuvering and positioning units in combat, which is more involved. Those are tactical concerns.

I will strongly disagree that there is somehow more strategic depth in 1UPT combat than stack combat. Your example isn't even a decision since you say "have to", but assuming you meant the decision as to whether or not to attack someone at a strong point, is relevant either way in both systems. As for "disposition before battle, movement, selection of units, where to defend, where to attack", well, I'll offer as much support for these points as you have: no, these were at least just as relevant in stack combat (except in the specific instance of individual unit maneuvering, which is, again, tactics). If only because these are informed by how you build your empire, which was a more involved and intricate process previously. But really, this

The idea that the AI is progressing in any way, shape, or form, is also fairly laughable. The AI right now parades its units around cities and doesn't attack them. The AI is a total and complete joke in terms of combat. It may occasionally win by weight of numbers, but most of the time it even fails with that advantage. Using stack combat, an AI could at least present a threat using weight of numbers (and presenting a threat in and of itself presents additional strategic challenges).

The AI was always a complete and total joke in combat. That has not changed. If you're threatened by numbers from the AI, you're not playing the game right.

There is no logistical game in Civ 4. You're rarely constrained by the terrain. There is no disposition before battle. You right click on a tile. That was it. One of the "strengths" oft-cited by fanatics of stacks is that you right click on something and your stack gets there. That's it. There is no game. There is no depth. That's better now. Some of you don't like the logistics. That's understandable. Strategy isn't for everyone.

 

[orasis]

The AI guy for Gal Civ 2 was primarily Wardell, who is CEO and owner of Stardock which made Gal Civ 2. I figure he's not too keen on improving the AI of his competitors for an employees' payslip.

I did not know that. Well that's too bad. GC2 was the first 4X game that gave me the feeling that I was playing against other people.

 

[Drakarska]

Don't mind TMIT. He's always grumpy.

Maybe. But ironically, grumpy non-withstanding, he's is usually correct in his assessments.

 

[Biz_]

tom knows what's up

if you've ever played any good RTS games, civ6 is laughably bad at being anywhere close to a good strategy experience

 

[Zuizgond]

Giving Civ6 a score of 40% is laughable and unprofessional.

Looking at the current state of the game, giving a 9/10 is also laughable and unprofessional. Yet a lot of "professional" reviewers did it.

 

[Oleary]

Looking at the current state of the game, giving a 9/10 is also laughable and unprofessional. Yet a lot of "professional" reviewers did it.

Aren't they both valid scores? Some folks like it, some don't. The problem seems to be that we think the reviewers are stating fact rather than opinion. I don't read Tom's stuff anymore but he's as entitled to an opinion as the folks rating it higher. As others have stated, we tend to agree with those that see it as we do and disagree with those that don't...

 

[Zuizgond]

Aren't they both valid scores? Some folks like it, some don't. The problem seems to be that we think the reviewers are stating fact rather than opinion. I don't read Tom's stuff anymore but he's as entitled to an opinion as the folks rating it higher. As others have stated, we tend to agree with those that see it as we do and disagree with those that don't...

That's right, every score is valid as it reflects an opinion.

I usually skip professional reviews, especially the early ones based on 4-5 hours of gameplay, and look at user's opinion (after sorting out the emotional posts).

 

[skyclad]

The AI was always a complete and total joke in combat. That has not changed. If you're threatened by numbers from the AI, you're not playing the game right.

There is no logistical game in Civ 4. You're rarely constrained by the terrain. There is no disposition before battle. You right click on a tile. That was it. One of the "strengths" oft-cited by fanatics of stacks is that you right click on something and your stack gets there. That's it. There is no game. There is no depth. That's better now. Some of you don't like the logistics. That's understandable. Strategy isn't for everyone.

"Strategy isnt for everyone", you are very funny!
I guess you must love how smart you feel when you beat the AI in battle like a strategic and tactical genious! But beating five year olds with their hands tied behind their backs isnt for everyone either.

 

[MyOtherName]

The AI was always a complete and total joke in combat. That has not changed. If you're threatened by numbers from the AI, you're not playing the game right.

There is no logistical game in Civ 4. You're rarely constrained by the terrain. There is no disposition before battle. You right click on a tile. That was it. One of the "strengths" oft-cited by fanatics of stacks is that you right click on something and your stack gets there. That's it. There is no game. There is no depth. That's better now. Some of you don't like the logistics. That's understandable. Strategy isn't for everyone.

The word "logistics" doesn't mean what you think it means.

 

[Ryika]

You people are arguing about whether it's more impressive to beat up a 5yo with karate moves, or if it's more impressive to win a match of headbutting against an opponent that has a skull equally thick as yours.

Somehow both sides feel like their system is great, which I just cannot understand. Both systems are, in their own way, terrible if you really want to be negative.

What makes me prefer 1UPT however is the potential that it has. Switch the 5yo against a better opponent and you actually have a fun system. Headbutting will always be boring.

 

[kornelm1978]

That's right, every score is valid as it reflects an opinion.

I usually skip professional reviews, especially the early ones based on 4-5 hours of gameplay, and look at user's opinion (after sorting out the emotional posts).

Agree with you. You can judge a game after playing few hours, but only those where the life of the game is 10 or 15 hours to finish. It's good or bad, you went through it, there is not more to dig in, maybe change the difficulty. To judge a game like CIv you need much, much more, as the game has the mechanics which take more time to assess, or at least huge experience in strategy games . And the life of the game for many players is measured in hundreds or thousand hours, thus the review for some would require long gameplay. The other thing is that very often strategy games are reviewed by those which are not experienced hardcore strategy players (I am taking in general, obviously there are exceptions, but reading proffesional reviews you can see it they are casuals in strategies). They do not have time to play thousands of hours in other strategy games to have deep knowlegde, as they are playing shooters, rpgs, racing, good ones and bad ones. Thus the reviews of strategy games are very often helpful to general public, which will not notice the depth of the game anywhay, but not helpful for civfanatics.

I have got a point also on youtubers - hardcore strategy players which are playing the game before the realese. They have given very good opinions of the game. But the problem is that their objectivity is not assured. I can not say that any of them is dishonest, but you cannot say they must be objective. The objectivity should come from the fact, that whatever the review is, youtuber position will not change. And they would probably suffer if they would rate the game badly, they may just not be invited for next pre-releases. And that's where many views of their channel comes from - pre-release let's plays (pretty obvious that pre-release gameplays have much more views that after release). Thus my point is - giving bad review to game of studio like Firaxis, would hurt them badly. That's why in their interest is to not criticize strongly (whatever their real opinion is). To underline once again - I cannot say that their opinion is not honest, but we must think of the issues which may influence their objectivity.

 

[ElGuapoCiv]

Looking at the current state of the game, giving a 9/10 is also laughable and unprofessional. Yet a lot of "professional" reviewers did it.

Totally agree with that! I didn't say the professional critics are right. The steam reviews at ~74% are more indicative of the game's current state.