Why were the reviews so wrong?

[expuddle]

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 .

I'm not what you'd call a hardcore gamer, I don't buy many games and most games bore me pretty quickly so I trust reviews served by a google search - foolishly it seems. However, I'm a hardcore Civ IV player, I played it so much it got to the point where I'd open it in window'd mode while surfing the net and conquer the world while multitasking online for hours. Civ V's requirements mean I have to go fullscreen, so at least if you make me go fullscreen I want to feel like it's worth it. But all I do in Civ V is wait for the turns to end, try to start some wars to make things entertaining, but nothing happens and I just feel like I've wasted time I'll never get back. They upped the graphics and sucked out most of the gameplay, you'd think some reviewers would at least make note of that, but no, instead they were almost unanimously lyrical about this game - not just positive. I know that their job is not to review only with fans of Civ IV in mind but equally it's insane to think they should completely ignore them? Sure, patches and expansions might make this game playable and mildly entertaining but why didn't any reviewers mention this? My fault for not being clued in enough about the review industry and they sucker punched me, I wouldn't mind so much if Civ V wasn't the one game I've been waiting to buy for well, years. Fooled me once, never again.

 

[Pantastic]

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... 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.

I remember buying the highly reviewed game Outpost back in 1994 or so, and expecting an interesting simulation of running a colony on another world because of the reviews, PC Gamer at 93% was notable. I got it, and tried to follow the manual, but things just didn't work at all. I thought I was doing something wrong, but after digging into it more, it turns out that they simply didn't incorporate around 75% of the functions listed in the manual - things like roads, recycling buildings, diplomacy with the rebel colony, and much more. The reviewers had been handed a beta copy and were told that features would be added in by release, so they wrote their review as if all the features were in!

Video game reviews have been overly positive for at least 15 years now, that's what you should expect. Game review sites make their money from game company ads and rely on game companies for interviews, pre-release information, and review copies. If they don't give at least decent reviews, then they're not going to get freebies, going to be turned down for interviews, lose ad revenue, and in general put themselves out of business. You can hope for a public backlash all you want, but if you search around you can find archived rants similar to yours from the mid-90s, so don't hold your breath.

You can either look at it as some vast conspiracy or simply apply Occam's razor: Maybe they just liked the game?

Game sites and mags are covered with game ads, it's pretty obvious where their money is coming from. They also tend to want to not miss the scoop, so if one site says X is really good, they'll all agree even if X is nothing impressive. Galactic Civilizations 1 & 2's AI is like that - the AI is the same thing any other 4X game has with all of the usual goofiness, but no one wants to be left out so reviews would keep hyping up the amazing AI.

A conspiracy implies a secret agreement, people working together behind closed doors. The relationship between game reviewers and game publishers is completely open, discussing it is not implying a conspiracy. The "Emperor's new clothes" phenomenon, where no one wants to admit that they're the non-special person who can't see the beautiful outfit, is similarly not a conspiracy, it's just the way people have acted for a long time.

 

[Blackadar]

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.

Hubris and arrogance...don't speak for all Civ IV lovers. Don't even presume to do so.

Many of us like the new game, even those of us who were actually old enough to play Civ I. Things like diplomacy and tactical AI have been brought up as negatives in many reviews. Many of the other points - wonder movies, religion, etc. - aren't all that important in terms of game play and/or aren't necessarily being missed.

The interesting thing is that there aren't many outlier reviews - they're all mostly positive - so it's not like everyone got bought off or is a Firaxis fanboy. Sorry you don't like it, but that doesn't mean that the reviews are wrong. It very likely means that you're in the minority.

 

[Buccaneer]

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.

Having experienced this first-hand, your summary is correct. You do not bite the hands that feeds you.

 

[CornPlanter]

I wouldn't mind so much if Civ V wasn't the one game I've been waiting to buy for well, years.

The problem lies precisely here. Your were waiting for it for years, you heard it's in development, your hopes and expectations skyrocketed, reviews raised the hype even more, and then... the cold shower. It turned out that Firaxis & 2k are business companies doing business, their employers are just people who do mistakes and have their own agendas, game turned out to be quite buggy, unfinished, imbalanced, like every other game at its release day. Welcome to real world

I, on the other hand, consider myself to be hardcore gamer. I do know how things work in this world, I don't even bother to read reviews leave alone taking them seriously (with the exception of some trusted sites), I was never hyped about civ5, I even planned to buy it only a month or two after release, but couldn't help myself Anyhow I got exactly what I expected to get. Still, the game is already playable and enjoyable, as for those issues I believe they will get fixed.

And, by the way... some of us are Fallout fans too. Probably this name rings the bell even if you haven't played it. Believe me... nothing can match the abomination Bethesda released under the name of Fallout 3. Judging by your reaction to Civ 5, you would have committed suicide already due to Fallout 3 if you were Fallout fan

 

[Venger]

The last time the reviewer played a Civ game was the time they played Civ4 for the review...

 

[snoochems]

Civ 5 is great. I was a skeptic to in the first few days, but its grown on me.

It'll be fantastic with a decent patch or three, and some of the mods out are already making it more interesting.

 

[Collic]

This game didn't have any fair, balanced reviews that highlight the games problems? I'm sorry, but that's simply not true.

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2010/09/21/wot-i-think-civilization-v/
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2010-09-21-sid-meiers-civilization-v-review
http://www.1up.com/do/reviewPage?cId=3181540&p=1

The OP needs to actually read some decent pc gaming and review sites. IGN, Gamespot and sites like it are glorified advertisements- I'm pretty shocked to see not everyone knows that.

Now, If you would like an example where the mainstream gaming press dropped the ball, look at Empire:Total War. That game was horribly unstable, had braindead ai (worse than civ v's, far, far worse) and most reviewers simply didn't notice.

 

[Palfouri]

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.

Many people also seem to have superiority complexes and seem to think being able to win at higher levels with a lot of effort gives them the right to decide what Firaxis should do with the series.

 

[dcace1983]

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.

Get your facts strait. The IGN reviewer said it (Civ 5) was good not great which he would say about 4.

He also stated another very good point. He said that the thing he misses from Civ 4 are a non issue to people new to the game because they would never know otherwise.

I personally think the IGN review was dead on. He pointed out that CS are pretty much boring. He pointed out he missed several aspects of 4.

After reading his review and then playing the game I feel his review was very accurate.

-1 to you. +1 to Bald guy.

 

[Guardian_PL]

Originally Posted by Guardian_PL
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.

Many people also seem to have superiority complexes and seem to think being able to win at higher levels with a lot of effort gives them the right to decide what Firaxis should do with the series.

Yeah, what a shame that that superiority complex you mention will have to wait till the time when winning on higher level will be challenging...

 

[mattavich]

Many people also seem to have superiority complexes and seem to think being able to win at higher levels with a lot of effort gives them the right to decide what Firaxis should do with the series.

I agree

 

[expuddle]

Get your facts strait. The IGN reviewer said it (Civ 5) was good not great which he would say about 4.

He also stated another very good point. He said that the thing he misses from Civ 4 are a non issue to people new to the game because they would never know otherwise.

I personally think the IGN review was dead on. He pointed out that CS are pretty much boring. He pointed out he missed several aspects of 4.

After reading his review and then playing the game I feel his review was very accurate.

-1 to you. +1 to Bald guy.

yeah except then he gave Civ V a 9.0 (OUTSTANDING). BTS got 8.9 in IGN so he's basically saying it was better than BTS. Is that objective?

 

[Venereus]

King Theoden's review of Civilization V

"How did it come to this?"

 

[Romtos]

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.

This is true. That doesn't mean reviews are never useful, because they do give a good feature and genre overview and I use them to give me an indication whether I'll like a game. However, the actual grade and final opinion I learned to ignore. So many games got 6 which I enjoyed immensely and visa versa.

Forums I find much more useful. Before buying Civ V I also took a good look around at the criticism. In the end I found I probably wouldn't feel the same and bought it.

 

[Alsark]

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.

This made the entire thread worth reading.

 

[SomethingWitty]

Reviewers aren't trolls.

 

[dcace1983]

yeah except then he gave Civ V a 9.0 (OUTSTANDING). BTS got 8.9 in IGN so he's basically saying it was better than BTS. Is that objective?

This comment alone pretty much shows your knowledge on the subject. Or lack thereof.

They (any person, site, entity) can't possibly review anything (games, cars, insurance companies) based on well I gave the earlier model a 5 and this one is better or worse so I have to give it a 4/6.

Just doesn't work that way. Sorry.

 

[automator]

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.

Probably because most of the complaints are either trivial or not very good critique. Most of the complaints were from people wanting a re-hash of Civ 4, but with better graphics and more Civs to choose from. What they got was something very different.

 

[Brawndo]

Even big time Civ 5 defenders on this forum acknowledge the AI is largely terrible, and yet pretty much every review glossed over this.


I don't trust any mainstream reviews anymore - I can't think of a single big-hype title that was released in the past 5 years that got less than a 8.5/10