Why were the reviews so wrong?

[expuddle]

What I don't understand is how virtually none of the multitude of valid complaints raised by the playing community made it into the major reviews of Civ V. For those of us who loved Civ IV and who have been waiting for this game for ages, Civ V is just a huge disappointment. The only ones who are overtly positive about it seem to be newbies to the series, but I am sure that the fun will wear off very soon for them, and if they like Civ V they'll be blown away by Civ IV. The Civ series is so ubiquitous you'd think the major reviewers could at least let it be reviewed by a fan? How could they get it so wrong? That fat smug bald guy from IGN video reviews keeps popping into my head. He assured me this was what I'd been waiting for. I trusted you fat bald guy. Not only you but most of you reviewers. Are you that much in the pocket of the games industry? This is such a bad error of judgement (if you can call it that) that I think we all deserve a public apology, and they should retract their reviews. I really hope there is a public backlash on these idiots.

 

[Saint Rising]

Videogame reviews are bought, my friend. There are very few review sites that offer real, unbiased reviews. IGN is a very big offender in this. Sorry to break your faith.

 

[turingmachine]

What I don't understand is how virtually none of the multitude of valid complaints raised by the playing community made it into the major reviews of Civ V... The only ones who are overtly positive about it seem to be newbies to the series, but I am sure that the fun will wear off very soon for them

That's just it. The majority of reviewers either never played Civ IV (extensively) or only spent the bare minimum amount of time playing the game in order to make deadline. Civ V isn't a bad game, it's just a disappointment when compared to Civ IV. You don't notice its flaws till after you've played it for a while or had something to compare it to that you played all the time and know inside and out.

 

[r_rolo1]

Reviews made by people that actually know how to play civ games highlighted serious issues ...

The issue is that none of those big reviews was made by someone with enough civ baggage. Oh, and reviews are normally made to hype the things up, so you should always expect that negative stuff gets atleast some pink shading .

 

[mattavich]

Simple, a lot more people like the game than people that do not. You just see more of the complaint threads.

 

[bitparity]

It's because they play the game as they experience the game for the first time. As MOST buyers are apt to be. Rather than playing through the accumulation of all Civ experiences from Civ 1.

The grognard and the casual market are very different. Guess which one is bigger?

 

[Tavenier]

Well, not only newbees like Civ5. I have been playing it since I was 14 (I am now 33), so I am far from a newbie and I love Civ5. I was not waiting for nor expecting a Civ4+.

I do feel that the game is not complete and they left a lot out of it which can be sold later as DLC. A company wanting to make money from its customers is nothing new however.

And I do agree that reviews are bought a lot of the times. I once read the PCZone review of Highland Warriors. It got an 8, while everybody knew the game was bad. There was nothing new in it and was very boring and plain. But the very large advertisement in the magazine had something to do with it for sure...

 

[Tavenier]

Simple, a lot more people like the game than people that do not. You just see more of the complaint threads.

And the ones liking Civ5 are playing it over and over again. I am now at work, so I can't. But guess what I will do the moment I get home?

 

[SammyKhalifa]

That's just it. The majority of reviewers either never played Civ IV (extensively) or only spent the bare minimum amount of time playing the game in order to make deadline. Civ V isn't a bad game, it's just a disappointment when compared to Civ IV. You don't notice its flaws till after you've played it for a while or had something to compare it to that you played all the time and know inside and out.

It swings both ways, too. Most of us have been playing IV for so long that we've stopped noticing the parts that aren't that great or make no sense (even after patching). Nobody can convince me that, for example, corporations (while a neat idea) works that well or is even very fun. I'm hoping most people can agree that "Stack of Doom" makes war in IV really really stupid, even if they don't like the new way.

While it's not the game I was hoping out of the box, I think the "bones" are there for V; and I think that by the time it's gone through its life cycle and CivVI release is upon us, we'll be seeing this same thing over again.

 

[Womf]

"The only ones who are overtly positive about it seem to be newbies to the series, but I am sure that the fun will wear off very soon for them, and if they like Civ V they'll be blown away by Civ IV. "

Do you have any evidence for this rather juvenile sweeping statement ?

I have been playing Civ since Civ 1 ; I am very happy with Civ 5.

Am I somehow unique ?

 

[CornPlanter]

I can't believe someone takes IGN reviews seriously. Even Eurogamer is better than IGN. I still laugh every time when I remember IGN Civ4 review and especially their sample game

By the way, I play Civ since Civ 1 and I do like Civ 5. It's not a huge disappointment for me, it's basically what I expected to get. Maybe thats because I was never hyped about it. Civ4 wasn't that good before BtS either. Thats how game industry works, nothing new here.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

"The only ones who are overtly positive about it seem to be newbies to the series, but I am sure that the fun will wear off very soon for them, and if they like Civ V they'll be blown away by Civ IV. "

Do you have any evidence for this rather juvenile sweeping statement ?

I have been playing Civ since Civ 1 ; I am very happy with Civ 5.

Am I somehow unique ?

No. And yeah, that bit from the OP was a tad insulting.

 

[Gnollen]

You can either look at it as some vast conspiracy or simply apply Occam's razor: Maybe they just liked the game? Even the most glowing reviews do in fact say the game has problems. It's just that the problems aren't so great as to get in the way of their fun.

Yes there is some newbie-effect, but so what? Shouldn't a game be able to stand on it's own? A reviewer's job is to look at the game for what it is, not what it isn't. You should acknowledge the legacy but with the understanding that each iteration is a reinvention.

 

[brades]

It's actually pretty simple why the civ 4 lovers (me being one of them) are mad at civ 5. It's because civ 4 is still an awesome game, super in depth, multiple strategies to win, endless options, etc. I still play civ 4, I just played through an emperor/standard game with genghis khan a week ago. The game is still a blast. A perfect civ 5 for me would've been basically civ 4 BTS but with 1 UPT and hexes. The combat is the only thing lacking in Civ4, in Civ5 it's the only thing that is done better than civ4. I'm playing through my third game in civ 5 right now, I've bought all the city states, I have 9 allies, when I find the remaining ones I'm going to vote myself to diplomatic victory. So, with 4 cities, a pitiful military, but enough gold to pay off the city states I'm going to win the game, it just seems too easy and not very deep.

I understand that this is civ5, not civ4, and please don't start flaming me for an opinion, but my very first feelings of civ 5 were that this feels like a beta. I know that given a few expansions and patches we may be very well have civ 5 BTS, but I can understand why people are upset that we may have to wait another 2 years to actually have a replacement for BTS. Civ 4 vanilla was OK, I bought it early on, played it a fair amount, but BTS made me an absolute fanatic

 

[mattavich]

Brades, that is an example of a great opinion. I wish everyone on this board was like you.

PS* I love civ5 and prefer it.

 

[dannythefool]

"Beta" is spot on. But there are still ways to have fun with the game and user reviews on sites such as metacritic mostly being in favour of Civ V seem to indicate that most players are actually having fun.

For example, I'm not having a lot of fun going to war against the AI because it's a bit like beating up a puppy, but I still enjoy the game and figuring out other stuff you can do.

 

[cephalo]

I think the problems are minor and fixable with patches and expansions. I think it's a very sound design and I'm still having fun with it after two weeks. Not very many games at all can do that for me.

I love the new combat system, and if Firaxis doesn't fix the battle AI, somebody here will. I find it very refreshing that the combat game was designed without regard to whether the AI could handle it. A good game is a good game, and when the AI does come around, the risk will have been worth it.

 

[DaveGold]

The review industry works as follows.

You give a good review and the producer sends you promo material, prizes for competitions, gives you interviews, and generally helps your shows/articles.

You give a bad review and the producer prevents interviews, never gives you stories, so you have nothing to put in your future shows/articles.

This is how the promotional industry and the media work. It is up to the public to support independent reviewers who are not supported by the industry.

 

[Thrallia]

What I don't understand is how virtually none of the multitude of valid complaints raised by the playing community made it into the major reviews of Civ V. For those of us who loved Civ IV and who have been waiting for this game for ages, Civ V is just a huge disappointment. The only ones who are overtly positive about it seem to be newbies to the series, but I am sure that the fun will wear off very soon for them, and if they like Civ V they'll be blown away by Civ IV. The Civ series is so ubiquitous you'd think the major reviewers could at least let it be reviewed by a fan? How could they get it so wrong? That fat smug bald guy from IGN video reviews keeps popping into my head. He assured me this was what I'd been waiting for. I trusted you fat bald guy. Not only you but most of you reviewers. Are you that much in the pocket of the games industry? This is such a bad error of judgement (if you can call it that) that I think we all deserve a public apology, and they should retract their reviews. I really hope there is a public backlash on these idiots.

Videogame reviews are bought, my friend. There are very few review sites that offer real, unbiased reviews. IGN is a very big offender in this. Sorry to break your faith.

Snackbar Games wrote a pretty nice review about it, and we were neither newbies to the series or bought off by 2K...if anything, we're one of those few small sites left that are considered 'too small' to even attempt to buy off.(heck, we're apparently small enough that we pretty much get ignored by a few publishers, or maybe it is because we consider ourselves above the normal review fray...we don't shy away from stating our opinion on a game, good or bad)

We felt that there were a few problems with the game, but that overall it was a great addition to the series, and that the few problems we did experience will go away with time, just as happened with Civ 4.

 

[Guardian_PL]

"The only ones who are overtly positive about it seem to be newbies to the series, but I am sure that the fun will wear off very soon for them, and if they like Civ V they'll be blown away by Civ IV. "

Do you have any evidence for this rather juvenile sweeping statement ?

I have been playing Civ since Civ 1 ; I am very happy with Civ 5.

Am I somehow unique ?

Of course not. Most of people nowadays enjoy effortless winning on highest difficulty level - it makes them feel that they are awesome and they'll never question if their awesomeness is true, or whether it exists only inside of their heads - it's the same for them.