Why were the reviews so wrong?
- Thread starter expuddle
- Start date
So give Civ 5 'a few weeks' before you make your comparison then
If it gets fixed, I won't have any problem about recognizing it. As I do with Elemental.
However, the problem is that both companies patches policies are very different. For Stardock is normal to fix features and even add new ones in a patch. I am not talking about balance changes. I am talking about completely new features. They did it with GalCiv2 and are doing the same with Elemental. I wish it was the same with Civ. Then I wouldn't care about paying for a game "in development". I would consider it something like a preorder with access to the public beta ;-)
However, there are many core choices difficult to "fix". Like the global happiness. I am afraid that the may problem is that they made a conscious choice to "simplify" the game. Some people like it, some people doesn't. Personally I would have prefered they released a CivRev for PC instead of striping so many options from the game. They will be able to fix the UPT problems for example, like adding a troop support system a la Europa Universalis. But they will never be able to fix those design choices.
Hasn't Civ 5 been patched twice already?
Personally, I love it. I expect there are things coming down the pipe for it which will only improve it, and my biggest complaint is the subpar AI, but even that improves at higher difficulties.
Also, I don't find global measurements for empire management to be "simplifying" the game at all, whatsoever. In fact, I find it to be more complex in regards to decision making and planning for future turns.
Coming from a system where I could endlessly spam cities and build everything in every city, I fail to see how people can continue to make this claim.
Personally, I love it. I expect there are things coming down the pipe for it which will only improve it, and my biggest complaint is the subpar AI, but even that improves at higher difficulties.
Also, I don't find global measurements for empire management to be "simplifying" the game at all, whatsoever. In fact, I find it to be more complex in regards to decision making and planning for future turns.
Coming from a system where I could endlessly spam cities and build everything in every city, I fail to see how people can continue to make this claim.
Personally I believe the reviews at amazon give you a much better idea about the quality of a game than any of the paid for reviews in some gaming mag.
And Civ5 is definitely getting some serious flak on all three amazon sites I checked (.com, .co.uk and .de). 2.5 stars for this kind of game is really amazingly bad. I wonder if that might have some impact on sales...
Even though some of the 1-star reviews are by people biased against steam or too mentally challenged to use it (the number of people I read about that download the entire game from steam even though they got the DVD is terrifying), most of them DO point out real issues.
And Civ5 is definitely getting some serious flak on all three amazon sites I checked (.com, .co.uk and .de). 2.5 stars for this kind of game is really amazingly bad. I wonder if that might have some impact on sales...
Even though some of the 1-star reviews are by people biased against steam or too mentally challenged to use it (the number of people I read about that download the entire game from steam even though they got the DVD is terrifying), most of them DO point out real issues.
Reviewers don't play games very long. Civ 5 starts off great. I didn't start disliking it until my third game really, when I knew the game better and started seeing just how easy it really is.
A reviewer has to get a review done and move to the next game. Most of them won't play enough to see stuff like that.
A reviewer has to get a review done and move to the next game. Most of them won't play enough to see stuff like that.
Gre_Magus
Manet
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2005
- Messages
- 273
Civ 5 is a pretty different game than Civ 4. Some people who loved Civ 4 will instinctively dislike Civ 5 just because it's different. Others - and I think this is the majority of people who are really expressing distaste for Civ 5 on these boards - genuinely like some aspect of Civ 4 that is not in Civ 4 or is different: religion, stacks, pacing (a *huge* issue, in my opinion), economy, transparent diplomacy, difficulty and are disappointed that those aspects are either absent or handled differently in Civ 5. This is *totally* legitimate, and no one should question their preferences on this.
Now, game reviewers are in a tough position. They can't score Civ 5 lower just because it's "different" than Civ 5. But if they just don't like the feel of the game, the pacing, the challenge, or whatever, they can score it low, even if the production values are high and there's a lot of marketing behind it. That's what Tom Chick did.
But it is not impossible that a large number of reviewers actually enjoyed the feature set and the pacing of Civ 5. The guy who reviewed the game on Giant Bomb liked it - he's still playing it, and he's gotten some of the other guys on the site into it. Sure he's not a Civ veteran, but that doesn't mean he's been bought out by 2k or anything. You don't have to agree with him, either.
A hypothesis - any time a sequel to a game makes any serious changes, it will annoy a large portion of the people who really liked the previous game.
Let's take notions of independent "quality" out of the equation - it's all a matter of taste in this thought experiment.
Let's say there are 10 features or aspects to Civ 4. There are some rapid fans who like 8/10 9/10 or even 10/10 of Civ 4's aspects. But there are lots of folks who play the game who like 7/10, 6/10, or even 5/10 of the aspects, and there are those who don't play the game who maybe only like 3/10, 2/10, 1/10 or even none of Civ 4.
Then a hypothetical Civ 5 comes around. If the developers only changed 1 or 2 of the ten aspects, you're not going to get a lot of movement in the group - some of the rabid fans may drop down a bit, some "casual" fans may move up or down, and some of the folks who don't play the game at all may decide to try it. In the end, your fan base is going to stay the same. Some small companies/franchises (Paradox Interactive comes to mind) and some large ones (Madden, Halo, Call of Duty) do this. Either you've got a small, dedicated fan base that you just rely on to keep buying your games or you have such a massive fan base / wide appeal that you can just make the same game again and rely on marketing to sell it to more people.
If you make more changes, say, 3, 4, or even 5 out of ten aspects, you are going to get way more movement. Rabid fans, who can't move up, are more likely to move down - if you change an aspect they liked, there's chance they won't like it, whereas there's less of a chance they'd like it more. People in the middle might move up, and people who didn't like the game might decide to get it and then enjoy and tell their friends (who also didn't like the previous version) to get it.
If a company is trying to increase sales they almost have to mix things up, but they risk alienating the very people who liked the previous version so much.
For example, if you really liked the slider in Civ 1-4, then you are less likely to like its removal, if you were somewhat indifferent about the slider taking away might leave you indifferent as well or make you happy, and if you thought the slider was annoying/gamey, you might be very happy with its removal.
Now, in terms of complaints about the AI in Civ 5, I don't recall the AI being very good, it just got a lot of bonuses at higher levels and traded techs among itself. Plus, the tactical combat disadvantages the AI - if the AI has a tech lead and can out produce you (because of fixed bonuses, not because it's "better) in Civ 4, it can send a bigger stack and defeat you or fill its cities with defenders and prevent you from conquering it. In Civ 5, it has to use sound tactics to defeat you even if it has a bigger, more advanced army, and that favors the player.
Now, game reviewers are in a tough position. They can't score Civ 5 lower just because it's "different" than Civ 5. But if they just don't like the feel of the game, the pacing, the challenge, or whatever, they can score it low, even if the production values are high and there's a lot of marketing behind it. That's what Tom Chick did.
But it is not impossible that a large number of reviewers actually enjoyed the feature set and the pacing of Civ 5. The guy who reviewed the game on Giant Bomb liked it - he's still playing it, and he's gotten some of the other guys on the site into it. Sure he's not a Civ veteran, but that doesn't mean he's been bought out by 2k or anything. You don't have to agree with him, either.
A hypothesis - any time a sequel to a game makes any serious changes, it will annoy a large portion of the people who really liked the previous game.
Let's take notions of independent "quality" out of the equation - it's all a matter of taste in this thought experiment.
Let's say there are 10 features or aspects to Civ 4. There are some rapid fans who like 8/10 9/10 or even 10/10 of Civ 4's aspects. But there are lots of folks who play the game who like 7/10, 6/10, or even 5/10 of the aspects, and there are those who don't play the game who maybe only like 3/10, 2/10, 1/10 or even none of Civ 4.
Then a hypothetical Civ 5 comes around. If the developers only changed 1 or 2 of the ten aspects, you're not going to get a lot of movement in the group - some of the rabid fans may drop down a bit, some "casual" fans may move up or down, and some of the folks who don't play the game at all may decide to try it. In the end, your fan base is going to stay the same. Some small companies/franchises (Paradox Interactive comes to mind) and some large ones (Madden, Halo, Call of Duty) do this. Either you've got a small, dedicated fan base that you just rely on to keep buying your games or you have such a massive fan base / wide appeal that you can just make the same game again and rely on marketing to sell it to more people.
If you make more changes, say, 3, 4, or even 5 out of ten aspects, you are going to get way more movement. Rabid fans, who can't move up, are more likely to move down - if you change an aspect they liked, there's chance they won't like it, whereas there's less of a chance they'd like it more. People in the middle might move up, and people who didn't like the game might decide to get it and then enjoy and tell their friends (who also didn't like the previous version) to get it.
If a company is trying to increase sales they almost have to mix things up, but they risk alienating the very people who liked the previous version so much.
For example, if you really liked the slider in Civ 1-4, then you are less likely to like its removal, if you were somewhat indifferent about the slider taking away might leave you indifferent as well or make you happy, and if you thought the slider was annoying/gamey, you might be very happy with its removal.
Now, in terms of complaints about the AI in Civ 5, I don't recall the AI being very good, it just got a lot of bonuses at higher levels and traded techs among itself. Plus, the tactical combat disadvantages the AI - if the AI has a tech lead and can out produce you (because of fixed bonuses, not because it's "better) in Civ 4, it can send a bigger stack and defeat you or fill its cities with defenders and prevent you from conquering it. In Civ 5, it has to use sound tactics to defeat you even if it has a bigger, more advanced army, and that favors the player.
Gre_Magus
Manet
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2005
- Messages
- 273
That's funny, Civ 4 complete has three stars on .com, Elemental has 2.5, StarCraft II has 3, Modern Warfare 2 has 2, Civ 4 Col has 2.5...
Granted, Civ 4 Gold (instead of complete...) has 4, and Civ Rev has 4...
But I wouldn't take those ratings too seriously.
I agree that an individual review can point out things you may like or dislike, but overall... I don't know.
Take the real world as an example. The Eropean Central Bank has an interest rate which is the same for all the Euro zone. The rate is the same for all the countries. But because each countrie has its own economy in a different state, raising the interest helps some countries and damages others. And the opposite goes for lowering the rate.
In Civ5, raising or lowering the interest rate would have the same effect for all countries. I think this is simplification.
In previous games, you could raise the luxury salider, and that would help some cities, but would be a waste for other cities. That was a more deep game.
In previous games each tile had a culture value for each civ. The civ with higher culture got the tile. But now this is a lot more simplified.
Even military has been simplified. Despite limiting units per tile is a good idea, it should have been made with a military support rate, not with an oversimplified rule of only one unit per tile.
Because in Civ 5 you're not managing several countries with different economies. Maybe i'm not understanding your point here.
I don't see how moving a slider brought any depth to the game at all.
There's more options for tile acquisition now. While I suppose you could argue for simplification there, I'd have to disagree.
I can agree with this to a point, as far as non combat units are concerned.
Anyway, like I said before, I could endlessly spam cities and build everything in every city in Civ 4, while at the same time pumping out massive stacks of doom, and I simply can't do that in Civ 5. In Civ 5 I have to make choices that actually have impacts and ramifications on the management of my empire that require me to put more thought into what I'm actually doing, and, for me at least, that's the opposite of 'dumbing down' or simplifying. For me, adjusting a slider for everything I needed was simplistic.
How exactly is that oversimplified when what you suggest amounts to "ok, you can't have AS MANY units in a stack, but feel free to ignore tactics and strategy and just throw your stack at the enemies", considering stacking is probably one of the most simplistic, dumbed-down, and apparently, loved features of older Civs?
Because you moved a global slider and each city had a different situation. Then, what was good for one city was not good for another.
So... we hace superpowerful computers with Gigabytes of memory, capable of modelating very complex environments. And all they are used for is... creating a 3D model of this world... In my opinion this is wasting computer power.
It's ok to buy tiles if they are unowned. But tiles now have only one owner. Either you own it or you don't own it. Buying tiles is not related to the strip of the culture model, in which each tile could have culture points acumulated from several civs. That was more complete, but not complicated in any way. The mechanics were very easy to understand, and it gave a lot more depth. Game depth does not equals complexity, neither needs a genious player to enjoy or understand it.
And also for combat units. After all this is a civ game. Is logical to think that as tech progresses, civilizations are able to maintain bigger armies. Also, supply lines would also play a role. Plus the current system looks weird. It is a tactical system in an strategic game.
As I said in the previous post, it has been oversimplified because it is just one unit per tile. The right way to do it (as in Europa Universalis or Hearts of Iron for example) is providing a support limit for each tile that depends on several factors (terrain, distance to your cities, if you are in enemy territory...) and also increased slowly by tech advancement.
lemmy101
Emperor
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2006
- Messages
- 1,064
This is total BS and a complete myth, basically. Sorry to burst your cynicism bubble.
That still applies, does it not?
yes and no on this..I always thought city flipping was absolutely ********, as well as a city losing ownership of its adjacent tiles due to culture. So I'm more in favor of the new system.
I completely disagree here, I much, much, MUCH prefer the one unit per tile approach with military units here. Adds so much more strategy and depth to the military game in my opinion.
MadRat
Cheese Raider
I think 75% of the complaints are basically about the AI in general (poor war strategy, self bankrupting economics, shizz-ay diplomacy). The rest of the game is pretty solid in terms of quality with the rest being aesthetic bugs and game tweaks like ugly rivers and functional needing some love issues (bland wonders, bland buildings, unit tweaking).
Overall it is solid game in terms of production values - but my god does the AI ever do goat hummer. It is not even close to being as bad as that trainwreck Elemental from stardock.
Rat
Overall it is solid game in terms of production values - but my god does the AI ever do goat hummer. It is not even close to being as bad as that trainwreck Elemental from stardock.
Rat
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
Fallout 3 was fine and I love Fallout. It wasn't the best entry but with New Vegas coming out, Fallout 3 pushed the franchise in what I believe is the right direction.
Liquidated
Goofed Up on Cough Syrup!
Oh no, another nyquil invoked opinion piece.
I remember when Civ4 came out, I so wanted to play it despite the memory leaks and crashing that plagued vanilla's release. Civ4 Vanilla possessed remarkably balanced gameplay that was amazingly open ended in how you went about it. Once the crashing and leaks stopped, Civ4 Vanilla was an amazing game to keep many of us going til a yearish later....
when warlords came out.
Warlords brought the specter of seriously broken gameplay to civ4. I literally stopped playing civ4 because all one needed to do was..
Then, a shining ray of light came to Civ4, Beyond the Sword arrived a yearish after Warlords.
BTS was really the official answer to the can of worms Warlords opened, not a direct expansion to Civ4 Vanilla as many seem to remember. Though not perfect by a longshot (best way to deal with corps is not let players use em), Civ4 BTS 3.15 (3.17-19 were just icing) was about as good as the series was going to get without some major reworking of core game design.
I truly feel sad for the Luminaries of Civ4 who have reduced the game to a 95%ish immortal win rate. Innocence lost
Civ5 is so promising in that it is indeed a major reworking of the Civ concept. The core change to a proper war gaming setup (those hexes, zoc's and single unit per tile mechanics for example) needed to happen without a doubt in my mind. The main problem though is that CIV5's AI never adapted, leading to insipid gameplay.
The rest of the gameplay issues with civ5 imo, are the hallmark of dishonest QA process that, if given another 6 months the game, would have the game play much different than it currently does for certain. There's some major holes that will probably entail expansions to fill, but a bug free Civ5 as it currently plays isn't enough to get it on par with civ4 vanilla at the same state. I personally crave new concepts and am not looking for bts 4.5 , but if the new toy isn't balanced gameplaywise, what's the point?
Seeing as I never bothered with civ3...To put civ5 into civ4 terms, I would say the gameplay of Civ5 is equivalent of Civ4 Warlords; too many gameplay exploits one has to avoid to stomach.
I really feel CIV5's best single feature is the proposed openness to modding. This goes a long way in my mind to, once civ5 is out of the crashing/bugged state, keep the gameplay honest if Firaxis just doesn't try and fix what the game needs.
I look forward to CIV5 BTBS in roughly 2 years time for sure. Until then, perhaps a Liq can corral the hammer for an eventual Boff-07
Cheers!
-Liq
I remember when Civ4 came out, I so wanted to play it despite the memory leaks and crashing that plagued vanilla's release. Civ4 Vanilla possessed remarkably balanced gameplay that was amazingly open ended in how you went about it. Once the crashing and leaks stopped, Civ4 Vanilla was an amazing game to keep many of us going til a yearish later....
when warlords came out.
Warlords brought the specter of seriously broken gameplay to civ4. I literally stopped playing civ4 because all one needed to do was..
Spoiler :
Then, a shining ray of light came to Civ4, Beyond the Sword arrived a yearish after Warlords.
BTS was really the official answer to the can of worms Warlords opened, not a direct expansion to Civ4 Vanilla as many seem to remember. Though not perfect by a longshot (best way to deal with corps is not let players use em), Civ4 BTS 3.15 (3.17-19 were just icing) was about as good as the series was going to get without some major reworking of core game design.
I truly feel sad for the Luminaries of Civ4 who have reduced the game to a 95%ish immortal win rate. Innocence lost
Civ5 is so promising in that it is indeed a major reworking of the Civ concept. The core change to a proper war gaming setup (those hexes, zoc's and single unit per tile mechanics for example) needed to happen without a doubt in my mind. The main problem though is that CIV5's AI never adapted, leading to insipid gameplay.
The rest of the gameplay issues with civ5 imo, are the hallmark of dishonest QA process that, if given another 6 months the game, would have the game play much different than it currently does for certain. There's some major holes that will probably entail expansions to fill, but a bug free Civ5 as it currently plays isn't enough to get it on par with civ4 vanilla at the same state. I personally crave new concepts and am not looking for bts 4.5 , but if the new toy isn't balanced gameplaywise, what's the point?
Seeing as I never bothered with civ3...To put civ5 into civ4 terms, I would say the gameplay of Civ5 is equivalent of Civ4 Warlords; too many gameplay exploits one has to avoid to stomach.
I really feel CIV5's best single feature is the proposed openness to modding. This goes a long way in my mind to, once civ5 is out of the crashing/bugged state, keep the gameplay honest if Firaxis just doesn't try and fix what the game needs.
I look forward to CIV5 BTBS in roughly 2 years time for sure. Until then, perhaps a Liq can corral the hammer for an eventual Boff-07
Cheers!
-Liq
MadRat
Cheese Raider
MY only worry is that it is done by Obsidian which has become a less-than stellar sequel farm company. I pretty much cant fully forgive them for effing up KOTOR 2 and NWN 2. yeah i'll buy the game, as i'm a Fallout nut .. but I wont be happy about it!
Yeah!
Rat
globalempire
Chieftain
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2009
- Messages
- 70
if you have problems with the latest installment in the Civilization series, just go play the old game. when the issues you have aproblem with get fixed come back adn play, if your issues are the fact that it is not the same as Civilization 4 then dont play Civilization 5
Take a moment to consider this from IGN's perspective. With sequels, they take the stance that reviews are not aimed at veterans of the series, but at people that are new to it. They know you are buying the game anyway, we know we are buying the game anyway... how many people here can honestly say they would have passed on it if the score was lower?
Having played Civ4 extensively, I went through growing pains with Civ5, and aside from the AI I am pretty happy with the game. I would absolutely recommend this game very highly to people new to the series; its helpful interface makes the game easily the most "newb-friendly" of them. That's not to say I think the game has dumbed down, in fact, quite the opposite. I think many people on these forums are being unfair comparing Civ5 to Civ4 + two expansion packs. As in Civ4, give them time to add content and release patches.
Having played Civ4 extensively, I went through growing pains with Civ5, and aside from the AI I am pretty happy with the game. I would absolutely recommend this game very highly to people new to the series; its helpful interface makes the game easily the most "newb-friendly" of them. That's not to say I think the game has dumbed down, in fact, quite the opposite. I think many people on these forums are being unfair comparing Civ5 to Civ4 + two expansion packs. As in Civ4, give them time to add content and release patches.
Similar threads
