Civilization 5 Announced

[fluffyflyingpig]

Eh? Normally I'd expect to gage the critical reception of a book, movie, or video game from the supposedly profesional reviewers (ie critics), who hand out those silly awards and write those review blurbs that later editions love to print on the back cover. I thought that was the general understanding?


I'm not saying the systems perfect or that what the critics have to say means a whole lot, but I can look up an agragate of those reviews with something like metacritic or what have you and get a pretty good sense of what the pubished critics had to say pretty easily. And so can the executive reviewing Jon's resume a few years down the line. I'm not really sure how I'd get the opinion of everyone who played Civ5 right now, much less years from now. And I'm pretty sure that the average person who played Civ5 did not think it was a bad game.

[Krill]

Just because it is easier doesn't make it worthwhile.

Normally I'd expect to gage the critical reception of a book, movie, or video game from the supposedly profesional reviewers (ie critics), who hand out those silly awards and write those review blurbs that later editions love to print on the back cover. I thought that was the general understanding?

That isn't the dictionary definition, and as we all know they're completely worthless. And I tend to give interviewers for important jobs such as game developers of AAA titles the benefit of doubt when it comes to doing research into possible new hires, because there is so much at stake. For instance, getting to the C5 main fora on CFC isn't the most difficult thing in the world, as it is the number one website on Google for Civ, and all you see there is negatives, and that is the beauty of internet fora, they get archived so you can find them in the future.

[luddite]

Unless luddite can magically filter out the real hardcore fans with valid opinion from the mob at CFC or gaming public at large, that's what we've got.

Nothing magic about it. You can read the reviews, and judge whether the review makes sense, and mentions more than superficial things like graphics, and whether that person seems to know what he/she is talking about. Also I've been on CFC long enough that I know who a lot of the veteran poster/players are, and there's not many of them that seem to like the game as much as civ 4.

Eh? Normally I'd expect to gage the critical reception of a book, movie, or video game from the supposedly profesional reviewers (ie critics), who hand out those silly awards and write those review blurbs that later editions love to print on the back cover. I thought that was the general understanding?

Well the difference is that people who review books and movies usuallydo that as their full time job at a newspaper or magazine. Also, they usually have a degree in the subject, or some sort of professional qualification. Whereas people that review video games are just random voices on a website- no different than forum posters really, except that the game review websites also have a vested interested in convincing people to buy the game. That's why they usually give glowing reviews to just about everything.

And I don't even think it's that bad of a game, anyway. It's just bad compared to the previous civ games. If it was called something else, I'd probably think much more positively about it.

[fluffyflyingpig]

I really don't know how else you would judge if something was a critical success or not other than by looking at the critical reception from pubished critics. What is the dictionary definition, Krill? Looking at the wikipedia or gamasutra bits on critical reception for civ5, all I see quotes from video game publications, not random forumgoers.


Sure, the process may not work as well as it does for books or movies. Even for books and movies it doesn't work all that well. But it is the process that exists at the moment, and I don't really see a better solution on the horizon. Last I checked CFC, they seemed pretty evenly devided over the game, and the official forum as well as weplayciv were pretty positive. You'd need someone like luddite to pick out the 'hardcore fans' to poll....


Luddite, true, there's nothing magic about it for you for civ4/5. And I agree completely with your overall assessment. Now tell me what the real critics/hardcore fans thought of oh, C&C tiberium sun, Pro Evolution Soccer 4, ZooTycoon 2 and Morrowind?


Gaspar, reviews aren't great at identifying good games, but they are good at picking out the REALLY REALLY bad games. That's pretty much what I use them for. And reviews still have more influence than random forumgoers here, save perhaps Sulla in the very specific case of Civ.

[Adlain]

Luddite, true, there's nothing magic about it for you for civ4/5. And I agree completely with your overall assessment. Now tell me what the real critics/hardcore fans thought of oh, C&C tiberium sun, Pro Evolution Soccer 4, ZooTycoon 2 and Morrowind?

I cannot speak for luddite or for the other games but I liked morrowind.

[Amelia]

Hey I love Zoo Tycoon 2 :P Some people are really satisfied seeing their zoo take shape and watch as the visitors and animals do their stuff (Oh and feed animals to their polar bears).

Although Morrowind really made me bored out of my mind, half of the times i was just walking around stupidly, the other half moving my mouse to the exit button.

[luddite]

Luddite, true, there's nothing magic about it for you for civ4/5. And I agree completely with your overall assessment. Now tell me what the real critics/hardcore fans thought of oh, C&C tiberium sun, Pro Evolution Soccer 4, ZooTycoon 2 and Morrowind?

Um I have absolutely no idea. Two of those games (Pro Evolution Soccer and ZooTycoon) I've never even heard of before.

[Gaspar]

I really don't know how else you would judge if something was a critical success or not other than by looking at the critical reception from pubished critics. What is the dictionary definition, Krill? Looking at the wikipedia or gamasutra bits on critical reception for civ5, all I see quotes from video game publications, not random forumgoers.


Sure, the process may not work as well as it does for books or movies. Even for books and movies it doesn't work all that well. But it is the process that exists at the moment, and I don't really see a better solution on the horizon. Last I checked CFC, they seemed pretty evenly devided over the game, and the official forum as well as weplayciv were pretty positive. You'd need someone like luddite to pick out the 'hardcore fans' to poll....


Luddite, true, there's nothing magic about it for you for civ4/5. And I agree completely with your overall assessment. Now tell me what the real critics/hardcore fans thought of oh, C&C tiberium sun, Pro Evolution Soccer 4, ZooTycoon 2 and Morrowind?


Gaspar, reviews aren't great at identifying good games, but they are good at picking out the REALLY REALLY bad games. That's pretty much what I use them for. And reviews still have more influence than random forumgoers here, save perhaps Sulla in the very specific case of Civ.

I haven't checked CFC recently, but when I was checking it, I wouldn't call it especially 50/50. I'd guess they're closer to that now, simply based on someone like me who punted the game already has moved on. There's no reason for me the check the Civ5 forum because I have no interest in the game any longer. When I was checking it, I'd say a clear majority of posters disliked the game, even more so if you narrowed only to posters who had been on the forum, say, more than 2 months before release, which meant posters far less likely to exist solely to troll.

And yeah, Sullla in the specific case of Civ is probably an anomaly, but its an anomaly that exists. And it exists in such a way that any idiot who types Civ into google is very likely to be reading something written by Sullla in short order. There are other players like that for other games as well, and if I were looking to see what was the what about a game, I'd be far more likely to figure it out that way, because the video game review industry is very obviously fraudulent.

I guess that's my real point about the critical review nonsense. I know video game reviews are a fraud. Virtually everyone on this forum who has posted in this thread on the topic has mentioned that they know video game reviews are a fraud. So why on Earth would anyone put any weight in them? Critics in general are a relic. In the internet age, I don't to see what someone who has an obvious vested interest in the success of a game has to say. I can see what people like me have to say. And that's a lot more valuable as a decision tool.

As far as what Mr. Shafer's future employers will say, or what his future employment prospects are, I really couldn't care less. If I were his boss, I'd fire him from Civ5, not just because Civ5 isn't fun, but because he literally failed to make the game he tried to make. When the game was released to the public, exactly the opposite of what he stated he intended was the best strategy to win. If that isn't a failure by a game designer, then I don't know what is. But I don't know him, I don't personally wish him ill. I wish for him to get his hands off of Civ5 and for someone who knows what they're doing to take it, but to be completely honest, I don't have any confidence in Firaxis to get that decision right.

Meh, I'm just rambling right now.

[antisocialmunky]

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/vie...-PCs-Today

Looks like there's a not insignificant amount of changes targeted at nerfing ICS and other stuff? Anyone think this big patch will help salvage this game?

[SevenSpirits]

Read the last few dozen posts in this thread.