text:
Civilization V Review
The rise and fall of Civilization V.
It's a classic example of a phenomenon I call the Chick Parabola (not because it's my fault, but because I keep noticing it!). This is a curve that charts how much you like a game. As you're climbing that curve, you're learning the game and all the cool stuff in it, liking it better all the time. As you work your way up that parabola in Civilization V, you'll discover the new city-states are the bee's knees, allowing limited wars, and even wars by proxy, as well as some gratifying sideline diplomacy. You'll find that having to "use" resources does a great job of modeling historical realities, such as Europe lording its horses over indigenous populations or oil putting geopolitical focus on the Middle East. You'll breathe a sigh of relief at how city defenses mean armies don't have to play stay-at-home babysitters any more. You'll see that a lot of the series' messy modern warfare is tidied up, and you might even be won over by the goofy endgame Giant Death Robots. You'll come to appreciate how technology advances of its own accord rather than serving as a gold sink. And you'll see that, just like in real life, gold is now useful for pretty much everything.
At the apex of the curve, you've discovered these things and you're in love. You have pink hearts where your eyes should be. Ideally, this is where any game should stay.
But here's the rub: once you've learned a game, you know enough to see how good the A.I. is. Or isn't, in the case of Civilization V. The design revolves around a new tactical combat system where units have to carefully move around the terrain and protect each other. You note France marching towards you with a cannon and a terrible array of musketeers, only to squander them by not realizing that it should set up the cannons behind a screen of musketeers and advance on your position. Enemy archers stand toe-to-toe with the swordsmen who will kill them. Cavalry fling themselves into pikemen. Frigates don't seem to understand that your ironclads have them outgunned. Armies just stay home while you pillage merrily. Cities fall obligingly.
The previous Civilizations managed middling combat A.I. because armies could brute force their way around bad tactics. But Civilization V counts on you using fewer units more intelligently. Battles are determined by concepts like terrain, combined arms, ranged combat, mobility, and flanking. Wars that you should lose turn into tactical puzzles posed by simpletons. Civilization V's wonderful new combat system, which should be a lovely centerpiece for the design, turns into a gaping hole that all but pulls the rest of the game in after it. You begin to like the game less and less, watching it fall apart as any sort of challenge. Now you're skiing down the plummeting far slope of the Chick Parabola.
At least the idea of the combat system fits the design perfectly. I can't say the same about the new approach to Civics and Religion. In Civilization IV, Civics was the name for a system of configuring your civilization on the fly, inspired by Brian Reynolds' spectacular Alpha Centauri. Religion was presented as an out-of-control viral force, spreading without regard for silly things like national borders and armies. Civilization V takes these two concepts and puts them into an alternative tech tree called Social Policy, where you buy upgrades by spending accumulated Culture Points.
There's nothing inherently wrong with doing it this way, and I don't mean to be the annoying guy whining about how Civilization IV did it better. But this new approach misses a couple of important points. The first is that the game already has a tech tree. Now it has two, each with its own resource. If you want to streamline out Civics and Religion, duplicating a concept that's already in the game is a strange choice.
The second missed point is that Social Policies cannot change. They are one-time fire-and-forget decisions that ignore the concept of civilizations adapting to changing times. Once you pick something from the Social Policy menu, it will always apply to your civilization. It will never change. You will never adjust your economy, change governments, convert religions, or dally with fascism. Instead, you're just buying a permanent improvement. Some of these are great, and they mostly do a good job of forcing hard choices and sometimes introducing new gameplay. But they're a disappointing alternative to that old time Civics and Religion.
See all Sid Meier's Civilization V Reviews >
Comments (237)
Thanks for being the one brave reviewer to speak the truthPosted: Mar 18, 2011 12:00AM PST by Migol
I never heard about this site till today. I read about Civ 5 on sites like IGN and Gamespot, and everywhere I looked at said sites, the reviews were all 9/10, A+, etc etc. So I bought into the hype, and my love of the series (been playing since Civ 2), and got the game.
This is the first Civ game I've ever been disappointed in. The reviewer got it exactly right, and I applaud him for not giving it an automatic "PERFECT" like every other reviewer out there did. I was so ticked off about this after trying to play through the game for the last week I went looking at an overall reviews site, and saw this one "C" grade in the forest of acclamations.
How on earth a game with an unplayable multiplayer, worthless AI, etc etc can garner so many stellar reviews...I'll just shake my head and assume the other reviewers were blinded by the proud and quality history of the civ series. This definitely breaks that trend. I'll note one thing the reviewer missed too that I've seen now in other player reviews: This game plays SLOWLY. There's something wrong in there, the game seems to pause before allowing turns to end, while deciding the AI moves, etc; this happens regardless of computer quality.
Civ V = great!Posted: Mar 12, 2011 12:00AM PST by Murk_Masala
Played it and loved it. Every single bit. Even got a little review up. Nothing too deep, but i was high with enjoyment of my Civ V victory when i wrote it. Find it via my profile. Or just play the game! Safe investment!
(if this seems short: i haven't been to bed before 4 am this whole week... Just... one... more ... turn...)
my two centsPosted: Dec 27, 2010 12:00AM PST by Jabbs
i'm veteran civ player and have been playing civ v for few weeks now. In my OPINION the reviewer hit the mark exactly, the AI is weak (especially for archipelago maps), many gameplay elements seem nonsensical (social policies, city states), the game crashes frequently and there are a lot of bugs, i've basically been sold a half finished product for the price of a fully finished game.
Where is the idea that this is ok because the bugs will be ironed out over time with user feedback coming from? I work as software tester, i charge £200+ per day excluding expenses, who do i send the bill to? For those who disagree i have a car for sale with no brakes or steering, full market price ofc, i'll get the missing parts to you later.
Having said that i won't be taking it back to the shops just yet... the changes to the combat system are a great improvement (except exactly how did that barbarian archer destroy my battleship?) if only the AI had been told. There are also some other improvements which give me optimism that this beta version i've been conned into buying will shape up to the life destroying potential of it's predecessors...
overall i'd give it a 50% i wonder how much extra firaxis will expect me to pay before i get the 90% game?
truePosted: Dec 29, 2010 12:00AM PST by whowroteit
true, but it's still great CIV and i'll play it - same as you :)
my two centsPosted: Dec 27, 2010 12:00AM PST by Jabbs
i'm veteran civ player and have been playing civ v for few weeks now. In my OPINION the reviewer hit the mark exactly, the AI is weak (especially for archipelago maps), many gameplay elements seem nonsensical (social policies, city states), the game crashes frequently and there are a lot of bugs, i've basically been sold a half finished product for the price of a fully finished game.
Where is the idea that this is ok because the bugs will be ironed out over time with user feedback coming from? I work as software tester, i charge £200+ per day excluding expenses, who do i send the bill to? For those who disagree i have a car for sale with no brakes or steering, full market price ofc, i'll get the missing parts to you later.
Having said that i won't be taking it back to the shops just yet... the changes to the combat system are a great improvement (except exactly how did that barbarian archer destroy my battleship?) if only the AI had been told. There are also some other improvements which give me optimism that this beta version i've been conned into buying will shape up to the life destroying potential of it's predecessors...
overall i'd give it a 50% i wonder how much extra firaxis will expect me to pay before i get the 90% game?
I've been playing Civ V for awhile now...Posted: Nov 06, 2010 12:00AM PST by geminiomega
The combat is so much more satisfying that it is hard to go back to Civ IV's style.
I do miss how religion was used to create a way for civilizations to be friends/enemies and hope that it is brought back in some way that doesn't simply founds a religion based upon being first to learn a technology. Imagine if each civilization could create its own religion...would Americans found Mormonism?...Sorry, I drifted into what-if game design theory.
As a player who doesn't go too deep into difficulty levels, I do have quite a bit of fun with this newest version of the series and perhaps that is enough for me. Civ IV is such a great game that maybe something so different as Civ V just has a hard time in comparison.
Sorry for the disoriented post, but I am an ADD type of guy.
Review is right, but the game is still the best strategy game out therePosted: Oct 23, 2010 12:00AM PST by UknowsI
I am a big Civ fan but I have to agree with the review. The only problem is that the game is still the best turned based strategy game out there. There is basically no competition, and the changed to the combat system is such an improvement that it's hard to go back to Civ 4. But it's a shame that even deity is easy. Hopefully it will be fixed with patches and expansions.
I guess I would have given the game a B- instead. It's hard to give the best strategy game out there a C, but the game has so many flaws that I understand very well why he gave it a C.
Wow...Posted: Oct 13, 2010 12:00AM PST by Rowain
this is the first time in about FOREVER that I've seen the 1UP review comments actually respectful and agreeable to the original review. Normally 1UP posts a review and I check the comments only to find 50 posts all essentially saying DIS REVIEW SUX BALLS!!!
Unfortunately, this means I have a lot of faith in what the reviewer has said and I was really excited for Civ 5. I'll still have to try it, but I'm sad it isn't the next great leap for the series.
The new Civics system DOES sound especially bad, the idea of civics being unchangeable once researched is TERRIBLE and totally eschews the traditional civilization simulator that Civ has always been! You nailed it when you said it gets rid of the idea of your civilization changing and adapting over time. What were they thinking?
dis comment sux balls!!! ; )Posted: Dec 05, 2010 12:00AM PST by Secret_Agent_X9
These "1UP review comments [that are] actually respectful and agreeable to the original review" ARE coming from people that play Civ... I'm not really surprised that the comments are mostly respectful. Educated gamers - and the Civ crowd is certainly that, especially in a sub-culture where shooting kids on the internet whilst claiming that they're homosexuals reigns supreme - are more likely to act like decent human beings.
Kudos on your reviewPosted: Oct 12, 2010 12:00AM PST by hitnrun
The rule for reviews in all media is: always respect a hit. It takes a lot of stones to break that rule, and not with some pageview-grabbing 3/10 trashing like those blasted out occasionally by Eurogamer and Edge. You deserve credit for it.
Varied reviews for this gamePosted: Oct 12, 2010 12:00AM PST by nastyn800
There's some very positive reviews out for this game right now in addition to many, such as this one, that frame it as a mediocre experience. I can't give my 2 cents, as I haven't had time to play it, but I have noticed one thing in each review. Much of what many reviewers have to say about it has been largely dependant on whether they are reviewing the game as it stands now, or the game it will become in a few months. Journalists seem to agree that a few patches will have this game up to the CIV standard, but I am of the mind that this product should be rated as it exists right now, a shell of the great game it should be. Yes, I'm sure it will be just another great step in the series after a few patches, but I'm getting tired of developers releasing half-baked games. I don't mind waiting for some patches anyway, it isn't as though I'm not still playing the hell out of Starcraft 2 :)
Oh, also good review Tom.
A Problem of ParadigmsPosted: Oct 12, 2010 12:00AM PST by Agam_Bellum
If this point has already been covered in the comments, then I apologize for missing it when I skimmed through them. Tom Chick's review suffers from a rather serious flaw in how it brings its points together. As the concluding paragraph indicates, the review compares Civilization V to two standards: the average turn based strategy game and Civilization IV.
For the most part the review looks at Civilization V's good side in comparison to a generic and ill defined "average strategy game." On the other hand, the review criticizes Civilization V in light of Civilization IV. To Tom Chick's credit, he does qualify the above. Nonetheless, the use of two standards makes it difficult to reconcile individual comments and insights about the game.
For example, how bad is the AI? When compared to Civilization IV, the AI certainly seems worse since it can no longer stack. Is it worse though than your typical dumb as a rock computer AI? Now, anyone who claims that Civilization V's AI is smart needs to have his head examined. Nonetheless, my impression is that the AI is average when compared to other strategy games because most AI's are dumb. Agree or disagree with my assessment, one must acknowledge that it would be helpful to have the review compare the AI to other Civilizations' AI and to average strategy games.
the reviewPosted: Oct 11, 2010 12:00AM PST by smile_kill
well not much into this type of game review tells it like it see it
Was hoping this review was a farce...Posted: Oct 11, 2010 12:00AM PST by jeremyc9
but unfortunately, it wasn't. I was thinking there's no way a real Civ game (not Revolution) could get a C grade, but it definitely deserves one. An extremely disappointing game overall. I tried to like it, but just couldn't.
Sulla's gamesPosted: Oct 08, 2010 12:00AM PST by deyan
This guy, Sulla, is a Civ expert. He points much of the same faults, as this review - stupid AI, deficient information screens, painfully slow early development. After reading his test Civ V games, I decided not to buy the game yet. I'll wait for patches/modes that will make it enjoyable. If it was possible to backport the hex map and strategic fight to Civ 4, that would have been awesome! :)
Good reviewPosted: Oct 07, 2010 12:00AM PST by Mr_sickVisionz
i think the C is a bit harsh, but this is a good review that sums up a lot of my issues and joys with the game. It feels like it came out a few months too soon and needed a little more polish.
Great reviewPosted: Oct 05, 2010 12:00AM PST by polkunus
This is a nice, analytical, respectful review. You single-handedly laid out every single problem in detail that I've been hearing from the community. However, I think the grading is a little too harsh, Civ in general is a great game, I would still give it a 'B'
Review is spot onPosted: Oct 03, 2010 12:00AM PST by mattah
Review is spot on, score is spot on. After playing it for a while I've had enough of the game and can't wait to get back to Civ IV: Fall from Heaven 2.
The GUI is horrible, the AI is ludicrously stupid (and abusable). Diplomacy is vague to put it lightly: I have no idea how my neighbours feel about me or why! Even the help seems unfinished (read the Great People help). Don't get me started on how many times it has crashed to desktop on me.
On top of that it just *feels* dumbed down; big fonts used everywhere, windows taking up half the screen.
I'm sure some people will like it, just not me.
My wife and I agree with the CPosted: Sep 30, 2010 12:00AM PST by seawolven
We've both been playing Civ IV most days up until the Civ V launch. We thought it would be good practice for the awesomeness we were expecting from Civ V.
I preordered one copy on Steam and picked up another on my way home from work for my wife and we jumped in.
We first noticed how pretty the game was and then how slow it ran on our high end machines (the AI thinks longer than in previous versions). Its hex system seemed interesting but then 1 unit per square seemed less historical and more of a chess variant. It also made the world feel "smaller" somehow, even on the largest map setting. The removal of religion and political systems also made it feel less "real" as well as Tom pointed out.
I've read through several reviews and Tom's was the first one that fit for us. I'm glad many folks are enjoying this game as I hope it enourage more patches and expansions but after games that have taken 3 times as long as they did in Civ IV (I recommend lowering the number of AI and city states or the constant chatter will drive you mad) and a smaller number of useful choices being offered each turn (AI trades sporadically, pacts seem irrelevent, are there less tech options offered each time?) we have set Civ V aside and are looking forward to Fable 3 and Fallout: Las Vegas.
Somehow Civ V just ended up feeling less "epic" than all of the previous versions. We felt less in control of a civilization's destiny and more like its figurehead making rather obvious choices. And it doesn't help that you HAVE to watch the opening movie every time you start the game ;)
We just felt disappointed but perhaps our expectations were too high.
I've been working in the gaming industry for 12+ years now and a few of my colleagues have shared similar opinions BUT please take every opinion and review with a grain of salt. We all see the world (and its games) from our own unique perspectives.
Civilization 5 DOES NOT WORK in Spanish XP SystemsPosted: Sep 29, 2010 12:00AM PST by reynanuy
Sad but true, the game doesn't work in any Spanish XP system; as it should according to specifications. This issue was identified last Thursday, a lot of things were suggested by tech support since then but none have worked so far. The difference between our issue and the MANY many many more that plague the support forums, is that ours prevent us from even LAUNCHING THE GAME; not even the intro plays.
Furthermore we only received an acknowledge of the error on Sunday afternoon, almost 4 days after the issue had been discovered; but then has been no declaration, apology or whatever from Firaxis/2K on the issue AT ALL. What is worse they refuse to put up a warning in their site stating correctly, that the game does not work in Spanish XPs; and thus continue this scam they call Civilization 5.
Before anyone points out that we can't expect a game to work at launch, because you wouldn't be the first to point that out, that's beyond acceptable for us and for everyone. If we let a developer launch a game that DOESN'T WORK AT ALL in AN ENTIRE PLATFORM, then we are letting them use us as beta testers for a full game; so in fact WE ARE PAYING TO BETA TEST and not to play.
Just in case, none of this is trolling in any shape or form; we have followed every channel available to us to resolve this issue and this is the sad outcome we have come to. If any of you would like more information on this, you can go to the support sufborum on 2K's forum for Civilization V. Or better yet, directly to the thread discussing this particular issue: [URL="http://forums.2kgames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=88969"]Spanish XP CiV Crash[/URL]
Thanks for your time.
Need RecommendationsPosted: Sep 27, 2010 12:00AM PST by disenfranchised89
I have only played Civ 3 and completely love it. Should I just buy the Gold Edition of Civ 4 or get Civ 5? I got Civ Revolution for the Xbox, very disappointing compared to Civ 3. Please I need recommendations.
CIV5 rocks.Posted: Sep 29, 2010 12:00AM PST by Hillomies
Civ 3 is good. Civ 4 is better. Civ 5 is the best yet. It's amazing how they can improve the game so much still keeping the idea very same.
Simply said, the only bad thing about the newer versions is that they need a lot more from your pc, i.e. work much more slowly - talking about the wait between turns. But then, Civ 4 has many new features which make the game more complicated (read: awesome) and Civ 5 has even more.The graphics are great and different game strategies are multiplied. Also from Civ 4 on, it has multiplayer, working in the internet or in LAN. I've heard that Civ 5 multiplayer would be easier as it is via Steam.
The biggest difference between Civ 5 and previous versions is that only one military unit can be on one tile at a time. This makes battles more tactical and the winner might not be the one with thousands of troops. Also the battles are taken out to the fields, not just in the city (because the city can garrison only one unit). Ranged attack now plays a big role as also archers can fire from 2 tiles away and cities can bombard enemies.
The hex grid is a major improvement, too. It affects both battles and exploring, where straight is straight... Civ 4 has these similar to Civ 3, but still it is more balanced and, uh, awesome.
When talking about cultural victory, it is much better than in Civ 4 as now all cities count (in Civ 4 you need 3 cities with 'legendary' culture). I can't remember how that was in Civ 3. Domination victory is a bit simpler and space race seems to be the same in 4 and 5. It works well in both.
Mods are nice. I haven't tried them yet in Civ 5, but i expect no less than from Civ 4. Civ 4 has a wide selection of mods available in the internet, In Civ 5 they are accessible straight from the game and thus should be easier to use. Mods like WWII do give the game soo much more.
So yes, I suggest upgrading your Civ. Civ 5 is the best yet, but be aware of expansions and such. This means you pay $12 for Civ 4 complete (amazon) and $40 for Civ 5, plus future expansions. Anyway, Civ 5 is much better than Civ 4, but you ought to try them both, buy civ 4 first :D. Swapping from Civ 4 to 5 would be easier than from 3 to 5.
- Civ fan since Civilization 2 (tried 1 too, but after that.)
After 4 games of VPosted: Sep 27, 2010 12:00AM PST by Troymk1
I'm with you Tom.
It seems the game has been consoled. (and by using the team that did the console version to do this one is any one really surprised?)
By taking the game away from those that understand the genre they have opened themselves to all this criticism and more. But ironically it still may be acommercial success.
Perhaps this is Civ for my son's generation (he is 18) not mine.
I Would Love The Game More, But...Posted: Sep 26, 2010 12:00AM PST by metaltoiletry
I can't finish a god damn game without it crashing my video drivers and restarting my computer! ARG! I've been trying to play since it came out and it feels more like I'm rushing to beat the crash rather than actually playing the game.
I really like Civ V, but it's lacking in the stability department right now...
Unfortunate Choice in PostulationPosted: Sep 26, 2010 12:00AM PST by k41
Tom, I'd first like to say that your review was very helpful in my decision on whether or not to buy Civ V. Your views are, as always, well-developed and articulate. However, I was left with a bad taste in my mouth after your discussion of the Chick Parabola.
I think it's terribly self-reverential to slap your name on what could have easily been an explanation to the reader that one's appreciation mirrors the plot of a parabola. Besides, it's an Inverted Parabola. Google Image Search your theory before you write it up if you really must do so!
In spite of what I perceive to me a not-so-unusual streak of grandeur in your writing, your dissenting voice is always welcome. Let it not be said that I ever fail to read a Tom Chick review through.
That's a fair point, Mr. 41...Posted: Sep 27, 2010 12:00AM PST by tomchick
...about the whole Chick Parabola thing, but it's been around for a while and it's sort of taken on a life of its own. It was actually started with an off-handed comment I made on a podcast about the Total War series a while ago, but since then, it's come up in a few different places. In fact, it's even the subject of an article by Civ IV developer Soren Johnson in the latest issue of Game Developer Magazine. But, yeah, it's a bit in-jokey and maybe not appropriate for the review. Point taken.
disagree with CPosted: Sep 26, 2010 12:00AM PST by pragmatist
Don't agree with the C, I feel much of that grade is based on edition change QQing (OR it's some ploy to increase #hits to this review). It's a new game and much of the writers compaints are comparing apples and oranges and just deciding that he likes one better over the other.
It's also unfair to compare Civ 4 WITH all the extra expansions, over Civ 5 that JUST came out and haven't even had one patch in yet. Civ 4 vanilla was really rough around the edges too.
I enjoy the new talent-tree based civics system. refreshing and sufficiently personalizable.
I enjoy gold, happiness, culture etc consolidation. It seems at first like it's a simpler system but it actually ends up being quite a challenge to manage in end game.
I enjoy not having the ability to walk inside the AI's brain and knowing exactly what and why do they think of me.
I don't like glitches, but they'll patch most of it soon enough.
THAT SAID, it's certainly not an A+ game yet.
Agrees with the writer about AI combat. It's great that the combat is robust, but the AI can't handle it yet, you can route enemy armies with a fraction of the troops. This is where the game loses most of it's marks with me.
I don't really mind that religion, pollution and spy networks have been removed as a core mechanic, but would like to see them all returned to future games perhaps in a more passive form.
I've been playing the game for a bit now...Posted: Sep 26, 2010 12:00AM PST by AngoraFish
and I couldn't quite put my finger yet on why it's dragging on me. The UI issues had been starting to bug, but I hadn't yet worked out how this great package just didn't fit together right.
This review absolutely nails it.
The score is fair. #5 in a series and it's legitimate to compare whether this is an improvement. It's not. All the innovations do is serve to illustrate how good the game could have been, but isn't due to crappy AI and a worthless interface.
Eager to listen TMA podcatsPosted: Sep 25, 2010 12:00AM PST by Ruskov
I agree with your review Tom and i'm glad that there is people that felt the same like me with the game.The "C" score is still high ,this Civ is "F" !!! or "M" for milking the fans.Good job 2k ,you are on streak,first Mafia,now Civ.....But when in Mafia II it was clearly a rush for DLS's money ,here the game fall apart from design point of view.I didnt liked SoD,but I miss stacking and that speaks for itself for the whole CiV experience.
Only 2% fan milkPosted: Sep 26, 2010 12:00AM PST by velliacrum
While i do agree with your review tom, I actually like this new civilization more than iv, and despite its problems, I hope to see them resolved in the near future.
I really tried to hate this iteration of the franchise, but i cannot because it squashed the one complaint i was going to have with the game. It was different.
I am grateful to Sid Meier for actually trying to take civ in a new direction. I personally (i use this word to designate this as my opinion, thus are you free to disregard) did not like Civ IV because it was essentially a tweaked Civilization III (which was a tweaked civii) with a helping of SMAC (still favorite civ game) added in.
Because of changes in gameplay and style, bugs and balence issues will naturally follow. In fact, it represents that bold new changes were made to the system, but will need to be refined over the next few patches and xpacks. Civ IV represented Civ II polished to a transparent gleam, and was not very innovative because of that. Any game as large and vast as civilization is bound to have bugs and hiccups (remember the best way to counter a tank in civ i?). To conclude, thank you firaxis for trying to reinvigorate the series, rather than another lazy sequel that WOULD have been a fan service.
Still a good gamePosted: Sep 25, 2010 12:00AM PST by Monkey-King
It is still a good game and like all good PC games I'm sure there will be a mod that you can add to change the way the military AI works or changes come of the annoying civics issues. The review is good, but having read it I'm not worried about the game or my ability to enjoy it.
To be honest the last Civ I played was Civ 2, I am actually rather relieved that the game is a bit simple minded. It sounds like I might be able to play this without getting worked up.
Civ DisappointmentPosted: Sep 25, 2010 12:00AM PST by skshrews
Tom, as usual, is spot on with his review.
The AI's military incompetence is made evident by the new, more subtle, tactical military system. The diplomatic system is a disappointment, and seems to have been lifted from Civ I. Either the other guys are at war with you or about to go to war with you. Civ IV offered many more opportunities for interacting with AI oppnents, who would, at times, actually trade with you. The social policy tree in itself is not a problem, but Tom is correct that being locked into social policies is ahistorical. Removing historical religions is another subtraction from the system, as I thought Civ IV handled the issue well, and not having religions in the game is like ignoring war, industry, etc...
I haven't had any issues with Steam, and it's quite convenient to use their "Steam Cloud" for saving games (and easier to use than the registration for this website).
If anything, Tom's reviews should make readers question other reviewer's ratings. It's safer not to criticize highly anticipated, big project games-after all, it's the gaming economy that pays the advertising for game sites. But ignoring obvious issues in reviews only sets up gamers for disappointment.
The games AI is hell bent on warPosted: Sep 25, 2010 12:00AM PST by mistertime
That fact alone ruins the experience of the game for me. I want to play a game where diplomacy actually comes into play - it really doesn't in this game. Sure, war has been apart of humanity for pretty much ever. However, if you are friendly to the nation and you both have no real reason to go to war, I don't get why they just decide to go to war with you. It would be like the US invading Canada because they can with no reason.
I absolutely love the fact the stack of doom is gone, I can't say how happy that makes me. If I could move that one feature into Civ 4, it would make it one of the best games of all time. As for all the complaining about the grade, I think it's a pretty fair score. He is basing this review not just on this game but also comparing it to it's predecessors. If this was the first Civilization game that came out, i'm sure it would be rated at a B or higher. However it isn't, and I don't think it's as good as Civ 4. It's not a B, but it's not a D, so he put it as a C. Maybe leans more towards a C+.
VERY accurate review sadly =(Posted: Sep 25, 2010 12:00AM PST by ZenFury
After reading a few reviews and being an avid civ player since Civ I I felt I had to say something. This review is sadly spot on! Civ5 has some great improvements, but sadly has dumbed down certain aspects of the game that made Civ4 so great and the Civ series in general. This newer dumbed down approach becomes more and more evident as you put the hours into game time. Just an FYI i've only put in about 21 hours according to steam so, not as many hours as some, but enough to get the feel of the game accurately.
Also the achievements are a poor attempt to copy Blizzards much better acheivement system. I suppose Civ5's goal was to try and appeal to MORE people out there, hence the dumbed down version, (sorta like the consul version Civ. Revolution) and trying to emplement achievements that although are cool, but pretty weak attempt when compared to Blizzards system.
I'll still play the game, hope for some GOOD patches cuz the game has some noticeable bugs, I'll hope for new mods that maybe can make more out of this game, I'll hope for a new expansion that helps make this game a deeper one.
So in closing by trying to appeal to MORE people and a broader range of gamers so they can SELL more copies, I feel like Civ5 lacks the depth that kept it's loyal players over the years. Time will tell of course how the loyal Civ fans will feel about Civ5, I however feel let down overall, but that's my opinion. Civ4 set the bar high, and Civ5 may look prettier, but not as much substance =(
FinallyPosted: Sep 25, 2010 12:00AM PST by Vatica40
I found myself agreeing wih almost every the review said. In addition, to me it seems like all the options I -wanted- were there, but were simply not added to the UI in any way. In a way, I wish they would've just made Civ 4 prettier.
Because of the way the AI is, and the lack of flexibility in the policies, I find myself doing the same thing every game.
I apologize if I'm wrong...Posted: Sep 24, 2010 12:00AM PST by KIttenKabob
but I find, mostly through listening to podcasts, that game journalists tend to brush over PC gaming outside of Starcraft and WoW, and make a good number of mistakes as a result. It's a bad gut reaction I have. If what I've glaced over in the comments is right, it seems like you may be one of the more in tune journalists.
wellPosted: Sep 24, 2010 12:00AM PST by apb_master
I was worried when I saw this review initially, but then I realized you're the guy who did not like Deus Ex, the best fucking game ever made. I should enjoy this thoroughly.
Big numbers aren't new to CivPosted: Sep 24, 2010 12:00AM PST by nullspace
There's some great criticism in this review that many other writers are missing. Expecially the part about Social Policies, which are completely inflexible compared to the civics or governments in previous Civs. One of the best parts of Civ 4 is doing something like setting up your small civ to maximize research, getting to rifling early, then having a massive revolution so you can draft an army and actually put those rifles to use. Civics and the research/gold sliders were the main ways to make quick changes in strategy and Civ 5 removes them both. I'd rather have kept the civics.
But I don't understand the citicism about the "big messy numbers." I think this complaint could be aimed at Civ 4 compared to the previous games, but I don't see 5 being any worse than 4. The city screen in Civ 1-3 showed production per turn as a stack of icons, and the icons filled up a box until the current build project completed. Food and commerce also used icons like this. Then Civ 4 switched to written numbers and progress bars, though you still see icons for the tiles your citizens are working. Civ 5's progress bars are different styles, but it is otherwise pretty much the same as in 4. I can't think of any other big changes besides the trend of showing more information on the main screen, which is a good thing.
I hope Tom Chick will edit his review for the factual mistakes...Posted: Sep 24, 2010 12:00AM PST by KIttenKabob
...he made later in the review that commenters identified. Most notably the "bugs" related to resources he mentions later on.
In addition, I think bad AI might be misinturrpreted as AI that is given the same constraints as the player. All games at higher difficulty levels have their bots "cheat." It's reasonable to expect that at lower levels, if an AI is working with the same fog of war that a human has, that mistakes will be made.
Diplomacy too... are the stats neccesary? Are you really unable to judge on how you stand with an empire based on how they are interacting with you? Aside from the game notifying you when two states have a research agreement, I find the statless diplomacy appropriate. It isn't hard to tell when a player is pushing their luck in going to war. The only feature I wish for is the ability to ask a Civ how they feel about another Civ in the Discuss options.
its officialPosted: Sep 24, 2010 12:00AM PST by sicmofo
1up loves riling up its readers. its one of the reasons i visit this site; to read dissenting reviews and bask in the incredulity of other readers is priceless :)
the reviewer makes his points throughout the review. and depending on what we are looking for in the game, we either make the purchase...or dont. the final score just reflects on which qualities of a game that he/she prioritizes. a game getting an "A" shouldnt mean a sure buy, same as when a game which is rated "C" , doesnt mean i wont give the game the benefit of the doubt.
if you disagree that much with the review, up to the point of telling the reviewer (who already has a history of dissenting reviews)that the it should have been given a B+ instead of a C, then why bother reading it in the 1st place?
Great reviewPosted: Sep 24, 2010 12:00AM PST by tarquin1234
What a great review. Thank god I read this or I may have spent £100 on a new gfx card and £25 on the game. How great it is to read a review from somebody with intelligence and analitical capability, rather than the usual superficial quick glance at the game so I can get back to the xbox. How can you be criticising this review? This is the only informative review I think I have ever read. What's the point in a review which just paraphrases what the game designer says? The point of games reviewers is to give unbiased expert opinion, which you almost NEVER get. I don't understand why some of you would prefer to read an untruthful 5/5 review. This seems to be a deep and thorough review, demonstrating considerable play time, which is what I suggest some of you guys have before you start saying "This game is amazing!!!! Buy it now!!111".
Thanks for the Review, Tom!Posted: Sep 23, 2010 12:00AM PST by EmersonPF
I've been on the fence about buying Civilization V right away, especially because I'll probably need to be getting a new computer in order to run it. This review, unlike many others I've read, addresses the exact issue I was most concerned about: how the AI handles tactical warfare. It seems I'll be waiting to pick up Civ V until the price drops, some good mods are made, and they generally fix it up a bit. And maybe they'll even get rid of the stupid Steam stuff, but I'm not holding my breath on that front.
Thanks, Tom, for saving me some dough and frustration!
Tom ChickPosted: Sep 23, 2010 12:00AM PST by all_systems_good
He obviously realizes he was being a little too harsh otherwise he wouldn't be in here trying to justify himself.
After a few play throughsPosted: Sep 23, 2010 12:00AM PST by YaMissed2
something I am noticing is how much easier to be an attack based society it has become, as someone that prefers to win by culture or tech, attack is all I seem to do so far in this game. and to say the least bribing city states is getting annoying. there is something off though i do agree, but I don't think it is so bad as to deserve a C, then again we will see how much it improves after an expansion or 2
hahahaPosted: Sep 23, 2010 12:00AM PST by ...siCkpRIME...
fack you nerds, i love Civ so firaxis already has me money.
I was bitchin about features from Civ2 missing from 3 and 4, but thats just the nature of the beast. Civ is alway changin it up, just enough to keep me in for the long haul every time.
I...Posted: Sep 23, 2010 12:00AM PST by Sinfullyvannila
Disagree with the score, but i can see where he's coming from. The problems he talks about exist, most of them are likely to be addressed with the patches. I like the changes in social policy because it make Culture a lot more interesting, but I can see someone thinking differently. Personally I think that even though the AI is exploitable, exploiting it is still a lot more fun than just widdling down stacks of enemies, but to each their own.
My only real problem with the review is the complete omission of any multiplayer. Now personally, I've never played an online Civ match, but now i am really interested in it because of the new non-stacking units. Also, most of the complaints (Unit AI, Diplomacy) would be a non-issue in multiplayer. That's a pretty glaring oversite IMO.
MultiplayerPosted: Sep 23, 2010 12:00AM PST by DarkGryphon
It depends on whether or not he got a copy of the game before or after the release of the game. Usually if its before, they don't have much in the way of multiplayer, as its not in the mass market yet. Also, Tom got the game after the game came out, there is usually a deadline they have to play a game, and he probably had other games he had to review. That being said, he might have not felt he had a long enough experience with CIV 5 Multiplayer to be able to comfortably comment on it.
Dude...Posted: Sep 23, 2010 12:00AM PST by Sinfullyvannila
This game came out on Tuesday and the review was up on Wednesday. I'm guessing he had a prerelease copy. None of the things you mentioned are good reasons to refrain from touching on multiplayer. It would be like review Halo or Starcraft 2 based solely on the single player.
MultiplayerPosted: Sep 23, 2010 12:00AM PST by tomchick
That's a fair point about multiplayer, Mr. Sinful. But I intentionally didn't bring it up for a couple of reasons:
1) Multiplayer is such a niche feature for the vast majority of Civ players. I know it matters to some of you -- I've certainly gotten my share of mileage from Civ IV multiplayer -- but it's really not a major bullet point for Civ V.
2) My initial impression from just testing the set up and dinking around for a couple of turns is that it doesn't seem like a very multiplayer friendly design (simultaneous moves, players playing at different paces at different times, no way to save the game manually). However, I feel like I'd need to spend more time with it to comment with any sort of authority. As it is, I had already asked 1up for more time so I could verify that problems I was experiencing with the pre-release press version were present in the final version. I suppose I could have added a sort of non-commital "oh, and it has multiplayer" line, but I'd rather stick to talking about the stuff I know.
3) I keep hearing people say that the multiplayer will be a way around problems like the bad tactical AI and opaque diplomacy, but I have to wonder how you guys who say that are playing multiplayer Civ. My experience is that multiplayer Civ doesn't mean, say, 16 players filling in for all the AI civilizations. Instead, it's more likely to be two or three friends taking slots in a world that's still populated by AI civilizations. Therefore, the problems with AI and diplomacy will still be a factor.
MultiplayerPosted: Oct 05, 2010 12:00AM PST by polkunus
Exactly as Tom said, Multiplayer isn't the definite Aim for Civilization V. In fact, Multiplayer was introduced recently in the Civ franchise. The real game is in the single player mode.
Imagine standard, 20 hour games on multiplayer... Playing quick games in multiplayer does not give the full experience.
You gotta find a reviewer that thinks like you doPosted: Sep 23, 2010 12:00AM PST by Zerothe
For me it was Greg Kasavin who used be at Gamespot. Everyone of his reviews being good or bad for a game I could depend on. Now it is Kevin Van Ord at the same place. I read all the reviews that I want but Van Ords' is what I go buy. ( I meant to spell it like that) That's what I mean. You can read them all but you have to find one who looks for what you look for in a game.
How to interpret review scores, and what review sites are for.Posted: Sep 23, 2010 12:00AM PST by pavelr
Some people here seem to think that the quality of a review should be determined by it's deviation from the mainstream opinion: "unorthodox" review being "quality" and "honest", while mainstream ones are "biased" and "shallow". Frankly - considering social trends like hipsterism, that's hardly surprising, and is probably even linked to the same type of phenomenon: namely, the willingness to feel more "special", "genuine", "authentic" or "cool" by being allegedly "different" from everyone else. Some of those people probably also don't like Apple products, didn't enjoy Avatar, and spend their spair time drinking expensive single-malt whiskeys, which they don't even like.
The facts, however, are pretty simple: Civ's 5 average score on gamerankings, based on 15 reviews, is around 88.6. This means that, assuming we don't take seriously the conspiracy theories regarding the "hidden agenda" of review sites - Tom's opinion, while perhaps being well expressed, represents a very narrow spectrum of the population. AND THAT'S THE ONLY THING IT MEANS.
While it is of course entirely possible that other players will have similar feelings about the game, the only rational conclusion is that - for the random gamer - this is a very unlikely scenario.
As with any other product - review scores tend to follow a normal distribution. This means that unless you are, for some reason, absolutely sure you have similar tastes to Tom's, or to any other "extremist" reviewer (be it on the low side or on the high side of the scores), this, and similar reviews, shouldn't be taken too seriously.
As for a previous argument here taking note of the fact Elemental got C+, and the swarm of negative comments it received: the original poster was exactly on point. The single most important job of a review site is to help individuals make the right decision. If it fails to do so, or leads in the majority of cases to the wrong decision - then it is a bad review site, and there is no other way to look at it.
According to 1UP, an average gamer who is deliberating on whether to purchase CIV 5 or Elemental, should purchase Elemental. If this is the position of this site - then, in review-quality terms, it is a very unprofessional and even irresponsible position to take. If this is some sort of an anomaly created due to the alleged differences between the reviewers - then it is the editor's job to make sure those anomalies do not happen - either by not publishing eccentric reviews, or - more drastically - by not hiring the kind of reviewers that write them in the first place.
The truth is, no one is interested in the personal opinion of the reviewer: be it Tom Chick, or anybody else. If reviewers wish to present their personal opinions just for the sake of presenting their personal opinions - they are welcome to open personal blogs, targeted at a very specific audience. But 1UP is a popular review site, made for the masses. People visit this site because they want to know what they should buy - they want to make the right decision. If the average-person's "right decision", in the majority of cases, is inconsistent with the reviewer's opinion, then the reviewer - by all standards - simply shouldn't review.
Watch out for poorly conceived If-then clausesPosted: Sep 23, 2010 12:00AM PST by Aesir
I visited this site just to see why this one review score in metacritic's table was so low. I suppose that will feed one of conspiracy theories. But I didn't come here to make a purchase decision or be informed about what to buy. So maybe I"m not the 'average person'.
You wrote, "If the average-person's "right decision", in the majority of cases, is inconsistent with the reviewer's opinion, then the reviewer - by all standards - simply shouldn't review."
There is no "average person" and to burst another myth, American families do not have 2.2 children. Not a single one! 's'truth! The real question is whether everyone agrees with your opinion about the purpose of a review and the function of the site.
I read the review and found it was well-written, with clear points all supported by in-game evidence or examples. Did you disagree with the review in any significant (score-changing) way? This question isn't the same as "Do you want Civ V's "C" to be a "B" or an "A"). Have you read the review and if so, do you disagree with the points raised?
If you really just don't like the "C" part, why not just bookmark metacritic and go there? As they tally and consolidate scores for more games, from more reviewers, you'd expect the low and high anomalous scores to have less weight carried for the overall review scoring.
I'd like to continue reading reviews like this one though, if that is alright with you and the other average people.
What?Posted: Sep 23, 2010 12:00AM PST by pavelr
I didn't quite understand where you were going with that reply.
You can read whatever you like. My comments aren't addressed to you, nor to the other readers of this site, but rather to the notion that a review which currently hits about 7% of the population (100/15) - and probably much much less than that as more reviews start showing up - can be considered a good one.
It can be said that it raises interesting points, that it is well written. I'll even agree to some of those claims. Hell - perhaps it's even such a good read that it should be printed and placed in a museum. But a review site is not a museum, nor an arena for artistic presentations. The heart of the review doesn't lie in it's choice of words, nor in it's presentation of facts, but in it's ability to successfully translate those facts into an accurate recommendation, one that will help, other than mislead, others.
In that - this review fails.
Since When Have Differences of Opinion Been a Bad Thing?Posted: Sep 23, 2010 12:00AM PST by Cloudberry
Forcing review scores to mirror the purchasing patterns of its readers, or the scores of other reviews, is the absolute worst idea I've ever heard since the Trojans' decision to bring a giant wooden horse into their city.
The claim that review scores that don't sit right in the middle of their normal distribution (This is something of a paradox. If all review scores of a game were exactly the same, would there be a distribution?) should be disregarded is poorly conceived. What makes a review isn't its score, nor if it makes a recommendation to buy or otherwise that will mirror the overall sales of the game in question. It's the content of the review, which itself is presented very well. Any college essay tutor would look at it and say, "I see a set of claims and a body of supporting evidence that lends some credibility to itself thanks to good reasoning and actual evidence. Solid!"
The job of the reader is to pore through the arguments presented and see how well they're crafted, think on which of those arguments he or she may find agreement, see what doesn't affect his or her personal assessment of the game, disregard the score after reading, and then decide whether or not the game is worth his or her money. Anyone who can't, or won't, do that is better off looking only at the reviews' scores and ranting about bell curves and how much they hate outliers.
Metacritic is over there, by the way.
AlsoPosted: Sep 23, 2010 12:00AM PST by DarkGryphon
How can you say that he didn't give it an accurate reccomendation? You need to explain how he is misleading. A common misconception is that a review is nothing more than someone giving facts about what is good about a game and what is bad. That's not it. A review is a reviewers experience with the game, and what they found works and doesn't work for them. There is no way to remove an opinion from a review i nthis regard, no way to be objective. That saying, you can't review saying this sucks or this rocks. you do have to explain why you felt that way, and provide evidence of why.And Chick does that. He gives evidence of why he felt things didn't work about certain parts of the game.
In this- this review succeeds.
Its the other way aroundPosted: Sep 23, 2010 12:00AM PST by pavelr
Products have some sort of an intristic value to the constumers. But the actuall purchasing pattern - of books, cinema tickets and video games - are mirroring the review scores, not the the other way around, and not the intristic value of the product.
The trick, in writing a good review, is to create the right notion in the subject's mind of what the instristic value of the product will be, prior to actually using it - whether he will like the book, enjoy the movie, or enjoy the video game.
Some reviews manage to do this well. Others, while sometimes being well written, completely miss their reader's minds - offering bad advice, often leading people either to do something they won't like, or not to do something they would like.
Some of those reviews are aimed at a specific (minority) audiance for whom the recommendations might fit - and thats great. But when such a review is placed at a popular web site which is aimed at everyone and read by many - the effect is often a negative one, hurting no one else but the site's readers.
Sigh...Posted: Sep 23, 2010 12:00AM PST by Cloudberry
You're saying that reviews should mirror sales figures and popular opinion, and that the current state of affairs is the opposite, but sales figures of a game rarely mirror the review scores they get. This is especially true if you look at it according to review aggregate sites, or rank games according to score and sales figures and see if the two lists match. I'd also like to complain now about all those folks who didn't buy Grim Fandango despite all the rave reviews it got.
One very large assumption you're making is the idea that video games have some sort of "intrinsic value" that makes them inherently good or bad and thus worthy of general recommendation or rebuke. You're confusing the idea of one's personal, sentimental value in something and the never-has-been-aptly-argued idea that I've just described.
If there is some sort of intrinsic value in a game that makes it good or bad, then a reviewer's job is to find out what that is and report it to the public. Those who accurately portray that intrinsic "goodness" or "badness" would then be good reviewers.
But it's not like that. Such intrinsic value is a fallacy. If it existed, opinions wouldn't exist since dissenting thoughts would actually be going against the actual fact, which lies in the game's "intrinsic value."
In reality, people differ in their opinions, and it's not always in a neat little bell curve like your Statistics 101 professor unwittingly led you into believing -- probably because opinions aren't so black and white.
Let's go back to my short Grim Fandango rant and apply this idea to that game's anemic sales numbers. If your argument is correct, then the average reviewer was completely wrong and the game isn't good at all, since apparently everyone wanted to do something they didn't like. Its sales record doesn't even get close to that of Myst, another adventure game that was wildly popular back in the day. But is it because the game is inherently bad? Were the reviewers wrong? I'm more willing to argue that it's because it's an adventure game in an era where other genres have taken the forefront.
No.Posted: Sep 24, 2010 12:00AM PST by pavelr
No, Cloudberry, that's exactly what I'm NOT saying.
I do claim, however, that reviews targeted at a certain public should aim to reach the same conclusions as that certain public would. In fact, I don't claim it - it follows directly from what reviews are for in the first place, which is not, by the way, to "present the facts and let the user decide" - we can read the technical specifications for that.
Do people differ in their opinion? of course they do! Do video game opinions always follow a normal distribution? well, actually they do. Is Grim Fandango a relevant example? No, because naturally some genres are more popular than others. Does a review that gives HL2 a score of 70 is helping people to make the right decision? No - It might help some, and mislead the majority. Can a review be likened to a scientific paper, which readers can analyze and decide "whats right"? Rarely. A review describes the emotional impact of the game, the "reasons" are tailored to explain the emotion, and the "weight" of each such reason is subjective - that's why exactly the same "facts" are mentioned both in low and high score reviews, with vastly different conclusions.
In any way - there is no reason to be angry. I would advice to step aside, for a moment, from viewing this argument as some personal ego-battle, and look at the facts: A review that misleads more than it helps, cannot be considered a good review. Which is, by they way, not to say that it doesn't constitute a legitimate opinion: every opinion is, in a way, legitimate, but not every opinion is worthy of being called a review, much less a good one.
You're Alone If You See This As Some Sort of Anger Fueled"Ego-Battle"Posted: Sep 24, 2010 12:00AM PST by Cloudberry
"You're saying that reviews should mirror sales figures and popular opinion"
"I do claim, however, that reviews targeted at a certain public should aim to reach the same conclusions as that certain public would."
But wait, they're the same. Mine just happens to be slightly more specific, while yours maintains a sense of vagueness with the word "conclusions."
I argue that a review misleads only if these two ill-conceived notions are true: 1) that a video game is inherently good or bad, and 2) that one's opinions are formed not by the individual who owns it, but by someone or something else. Half-Life 2 -- your example -- is only a good game by popular opinion. There is no intrinsic value within the game that makes it good, which is why opinions are formed in the first place. You've even mentioned it yourself, and yet you still hold steadfast to the idea that a review can somehow mislead people. One's assessment of a game is one's personal opinion, and not some appraisal of a game's "true value." Has one been misled into forming an opinion that sits on the end of the bell curve? No. You're completely justified in disliking Half-Life and liking Tony Hawk's Ride as long as you understand the features that those games offers. Half-Life isn't inherently good because of its narrative structure; it is one's opinion as to whether or not he or she likes or dislikes that feature. Tony Hawk's Ride isn't inherently bad because of its cumbersome skateboard peripheral; it's one's opinion as to whether or not he or she dislikes that feature.
This other idea that people are fed opinions is nonsense, to be frank. Reviews don't herd people into certain opinions. It's plainly evident by the number of folks reviling this very review. People form their own opinions (and love doing it), and the fact that one agrees with a review does not mean one has been led into agreement -- the reader has made a personal assessment of the game which happens to be in accordance with the review. Is a reviewer wrong if his scathing review is met with the fact that every single person who read the review bought and enjoyed the game? No, since the reviewer's opinion isn't wrong. There's no inherent truth about a game that makes it something most people will like or dislike. As I've already mentioned, an aspect of a video game (genre, something about its AI, difficulty, graphics, whatever) isn't inherently good or bad. You simply like or dislike it, and even if everyone thinks the ending of KOTOR was awesome, it doesn't mean that it's an inherently good ending; it's just an ending that everyone likes. If an otherwise solidly written review (makes claims, cites clear examples, makes good use of reasoning skills) actually happens to stand against the opinions of its target audience's bell curve, and someone actually agrees with that review, does that mean the review has misled the person? No, because that person has formed that opinion on his own with the review as nothing but a minor aid, and because the opinion of the review and the reader isn't wrong in any way.
This "tell people only the things they want to hear" mentality has got to go. People form their thoughts of their own volition. The fact that certain people only focus on a review's score does not mean they're led into an opinion by the score, but that they form their own opinions based on the score (what I would call poor reasoning, which is essentially their own fault). A hallmark of a good review is not in the percentage of its target audience who agrees with the review, but in how well it describes and analyzes the features of the game it's reviewing. Doing so is the only good way of justifying why one likes or dislikes a certain feature, since there is no intrinsic value in a video game. It's merely a self-informed opinion.
Also, I'd like to see you try and reason how a review can mislead people assuming the first two clauses I mentioned were not true.
HehPosted: Sep 24, 2010 12:00AM PST by pavelr
1. A review is not an opinion per se. An opinion cannot mislead, because it has no utility. A review is about helping others. An opinion is about expressing thoughts. Also - what argument were you referring to with that comment anyway?
2. "Intrinsic value" - I'm assuming that what you meant to say is that the perceived value of a video games isn't constant across the entire population. This is obvious, was mentioned before, and has little to do with intrinsic values. The other possibilities of what you might have meant are:
a. Opinions of a certain group can influence the opinions of other groups.
b. There is no "normal distribution" when it comes to what video games people like.
Both of those option are either irrelevant (a) or wrong (b). I'll explain if you wish.
3. "Misleading" - of course it is misleading. Avatar's plot was crap. Is there anybody who likes bad plots? A review of Avatar can go along the lines of: "A movie filled with great effects yet also contains dull characters and a bad story - which ruins the whole thing". According to your bizarre conception of how a review should work:
a. The "ruins the whole story" part is something a reader should for some reason simply ignore, just like the score (huh?).
b. A reader is expected to ask himself: "What do I care more about - great effects, or great characters?", answer the question, and decide whether to see the movie or not.
Nonsense. In most real life situations - those questions are impossible to answer, nor is it is the reader's job to do so. The emotional experience of the "effects" cannot be described in a review, neither is the emotional disappointment with the characters. And that's exactly why reviewers exist in the first place: to make us know what it will feel like, at least on a superficial good-to-bad scale, without having to actually feel it ourselves.Of course, in order for us to believe in the conclusions and feel more secure about the product - details about the game/book/film and their emotional impact should be included.
Those who manage to do this for their audience are good reviews. Those who do not - are by definition misleading. You can value their literary value, but in terms of utility - they are useless at best (for those smart enough to visit metacritic), and misleading at worst (for those who are not).
If Tom Chick wants readers to decide for themselves, the best way to do so is by posting a "dumb" list of features and bugs. That will be boring to read, mostly useless, and certainly not a review.
4. Back to the start: "But wait, they're the same" - no they are not, and I'll advice you to stop putting words in my mouth.
5. Just noticed you edited your entire review. At any rate - since most of the new arguments are some form of a misinterpretation of my words (reviews "herding" opinions? huh?), the core reasoning seems to be unchanged.
That's Not What Intrinsic MeansPosted: Sep 24, 2010 12:00AM PST by Cloudberry
"Intrinsic value" is the idea that something has some sort of true atttribute before people ascribe it to them. The difference between the notion of "intrinsic value" in a game and the abandonment of such an idea is: a) thinking that Starcraft's gameplay is fundamentally good, and b) thinking that Starcraft's gameplay is good, and realizing that it's not true that it is good, but merely one's own opinion. You're still caught in that trap (without realizing it, most likely) of thinking that "intrinsic value" in terms of "good" and "bad" exists in video games and other forms of entertainment. Just look at the Avatar example you listed (I'll even go so far as to note your insistence that there is some objective set of criteria which makes a good or bad review). There is no inherent truth that its plot was bad. It's merely an opinion, and one which I coincidentally share. If it was true that the plot was inherently bad, then people who like it, or thought it was good, would essentially be wrong. "Opinion" as an idea would evaporate overnight, since it's entirely unfounded. But coming back to reality, there is no true emotional experience of a game or a movie, nor is it possible to know what a game will feel like, even for a reviewer's target audience, since there is no inherent truth about it -- it's all opinion. And just because the reviewer's assessment of the feel of a game doesn't agree with most of its reviewers does not mean that review, "by definition," is misleading. How does a review mislead its readers into some incorrect assessment of a game if there is no true assessment of a game?
Reviews are a laundry list of arguments supporting a claim, which itself is the reviewer's opinion, or assessment, of the game. Reviews can help readers form their own opinions. Reviews can consistently have readers who agree with its contents, but it's not misleading if it doesn't do that. Readers aren't being duped into some falsehood about the game. If anything, they'll only realize that they disagree with what the review was arguing. But the essential point lies in the fact that it's not the review that ultimately forms the reader's opinion, but that the reader is using it as a guide to which the reader can form one's own opinion. Reviews do inlfuence the reader, but only in the sense that the reader is using it as a launchpad for forming one's own opinion. (You'll notice, especially here, that opinions will diverge despite everyone having read the same thing. This begs the question, "So how is the review misleading folks, exactly?") The key difference lies in the fact that it's inevitably in the reader's power to form an opinion, and thus one cannot be misled.
Believing in these two ideas (1. that a video game is inherently good or bad, and 2. that one's opinions are formed not by the individual who owns it, but by someone or something else) would make it seem as though reviews can mislead folks. But they're not true. The very idea that reviews can somehow mislead readers hinges on these two premises, and, without them, it's highly improbable to build a proper argument in defense of that claim.
Those ideas have nothing to do with the conclusionPosted: Sep 24, 2010 12:00AM PST by pavelr
The choice to use the word "instristic" was made in order to differentiate between reality, and an imaginary situation in which the percived value of the game in randomly distributed across the population. Either way - since this is hardly relevant to any of my arguments, you can switch the words "intristic value" to "a value expressed by a normal distribution".
That said, it seems I have already previously addressed the points mentioned in this reply, but here is a brief recap:
As long as the majority of readers of this CIV 5 review will enjoy CIV 5 more than the reviewer (and by a large margin), the review is helping a minority, and misleading the majority. It is therfore bad.
The argument that poeple should skim through the revview, circle the game properties mentioned, mark "like/dislike" next to each, and decide whether the game is worth buying by making some sort of a "likes minus dislikes" calculation, is:
1. Not how people approach reviews.
2. Has nothing do with what reviews are for.
3. Makes about half of the review irrelevent.
4. For reasons mentioned ealier - isn't even possible.
What you are reffering to is a list of properties, not a review, and there is very little a list of properties can tell you about a game.
Actually, They DoPosted: Sep 24, 2010 12:00AM PST by Cloudberry
A review cannot be misleading if there is no inherent truth in abstract qualities (i.e. a video game is objectively good or bad) from which the review can deceive its readers. A review cannot be misleading in the sense that it's deceiving the reader about how he or she truly feels about a game if those opinions ultimately come from the reader. However, if the first premise is true, then there is no true personal opinion either, and this can be seen from the fact that we do change our minds from time to time (i.e. I used to like Final Fantasy VII as a kid, but now I hate it; I initially grimaced at the art of Paper Mario, but it grew on me after a few hours of playtime). They do, in fact, have everything to do with your argument:
"As long as the majority of readers of this CIV 5 review will enjoy CIV 5 more than the reviewer (and by a large margin), the review is helping a minority, and misleading the majority. It is therfore bad."
Looking at this statement, a contradiction would occur if we abandon the two premises I put forward. If we were to assume for a moment that this statement is true, and assume that reviews do influence opinions to the point that they would be cause for blame should an audience be "misled" (pretty much the focal point of your first post), wouldn't it be possible for a reviewer to consistently (or even always) have a majority of readers who agrees with him? But if this were possible, couldn't writers be inluencing (either intentionally or unintentionally) opinions away from some true opinion that many of its readers might normally have? Reviews would be misleading, regardless of whether or not the majority of folks agree with them. Any number of people -- majority or minority -- could have been influenced away from whatever possible true opinion of a game they might have had. According to this argument, one could conclude that reviews in their entirety are inherently misleading, and therefore, all "bad."
I'll say it again: the claim about reviews misleading readers doesn't hold well if you cannot uphold the premises: 1) that a video game has certain innate truths regarding abstract concepts such as the notion that it is good or bad, and 2) that one's opinions are formed not by the individual who owns it, but by someone or something else.
Also, don't turn my explanation of what makes a good review into a straw man.
Absolutely not.Posted: Sep 25, 2010 12:00AM PST by pavelr
When we say that a "review influences opinion", we do not mean that person X reads a bad review of game A, plays A, and thinks A is bad because of the review.
What is meant, rather, is that in the above situation, person X won't buy a game in the first place simply because of a bad review, while in reality he would have enjoyed it had he bought it. In the same but an opposite scenario - person Y might buy game A because of a good review, only to find out that he doesn't enjoy it at all. I'll say it again - a review of this type, when not directed at the right audience, is worthless at best, misleading at worst.
This isn't a situation hard to image, as this is what reviews DO. All we need to do is to think of a game we bought and really liked, and imagine what would've happened if the majority of the reviews were negative prior to our purchase. Would we still buy it? For the average review-reading person, the answer is no. Same applies to books, films and many other products.
A review is an piece of text which tells people what is good and what is bad, what they will enjoy, and what they won't. Reviewers do this by mentioning certain elements of the game/other product, and describing their emotional conclusion or reaction to those elements. In this fashion, a review tells us that certain game mechanics are "annoying", "confusing", "bad", and other's are "good", "original" and "depth adding".
When readers read that something is "bad" - they obviously don't like it. No one likes bad. Very rarely, and only in certain occasions, can a reader say "well, its bad for the reviewer, but its good for me!". There is always a major gap between learning from a review, and learning from the experience itself.
A reviewer might say the graphics ruin a game - and how would we know this isn't so if we didn't buy the game and played it orself? Perhaps we would find that the story structure, or some other element, or the combination of some other elements, more than makes up for the not-so-good graphics. Those types of impressions have very few prior indicators - very rarely we can say, in a meaningful way - "the review says the graphics ruin the game? who cares, I like stories, not graphics". Because we like stories only to a certain extent, and only certain stories, and we don't care about graphics only when they don't feel this ugly. Usually - there are many more interlacing elements that we aren't aware of, not to mention those impressions aren't scalable to begin with.
THAT'S what review are for, and that's why reviewers tell us whats good and bad, and give a score, rather than simply write lists of properties to "let us decide". They idea that reviews are just "lists" to be used as information for comparing the game properties with "what we like", simply isn't true, and at best is far from being a complete description of what reviews are for, and how they are used.
The way we make review-based purchasing decisions, is by trusting what reviewers say. We trust them to make the same kind of judgment that we ourselves would ultimately make after playing the game, watching the movie, and reading the book. Reviews that fail to do so are misleading, and there is no other way to look at it.
Refer Back to Premises 1 and 2Posted: Sep 25, 2010 12:00AM PST by Cloudberry
"A review is an piece of text which tells people what is good and what is bad, what they will enjoy, and what they won't. Reviewers do this by mentioning certain elements of the game/other product, and describing their emotional conclusion or reaction to those elements. In this fashion, a review tells us that certain game mechanics are "annoying", "confusing", "bad", and other's are "good", "original" and "depth adding"."
"THAT'S what review are for, and that's why reviewers tell us whats good and bad, and give a score, rather than simply write lists of properties to "let us decide". They idea that reviews are just "lists" to be used as information for comparing the game properties with "what we like", simply isn't true, and at best is far from being a complete description of what reviews are for, and how they are used."
You are far too hung up on the fact that I used the word "list" as part of my description of what a review is. If you subscribe to a principle of charity, you would've noticed that my definition of a review essentially states that it is the writer's opinions of a game and its properties; at its fundamentals, a review can be boiled down into a list of the reviewer's various opinions, both broad and specific, about different aspects of a video game.
"1. A review is not an opinion per se. An opinion cannot mislead, because it has no utility. A review is about helping others. An opinion is about expressing thoughts."
Your claim that reviews aren't opinions because opinions aren't about "helping others" makes one grandiose assumption, in that second clause without ever having explained why opinions aren't about helping others. If reviews are opinions, which they are, wouldn't opinions be capable of helping others? (Tell someone they look handsome/pretty and it might boost their self-esteem at a moment where they needed it. There, opinions can be helpful.) And if reviews are opinions, and because opinions cannot mislead as you yourself have said and I have argued, reviews can't be misleading.
I've already touched up on this in greater detail in my earlier posts where I established the two premises (which have not met any rebuttal) behind my argument, and where you decided to point your guns at a warped interpretation of my definition of a video game review. I would be gratified if you actually paid more attention to them, since it's really the focal point (they're essentially the opposite of the foundation on which your claim sits) of the argument.
reviewPosted: Sep 26, 2010 12:00AM PST by Googoo24
I agree that reviews must be opinionated. The reviewer relies on their experience and knowledge in their field of review. Here's a good article:
Here's a quote:
"Rule: A review is a critical analysis of a work of art. "Critical" in the sense that you're using criteria to judge it. "Analysis" in the sense that you're breaking the experience into its pieces and examining each to consider how the pieces fit together to gain a better sense of the whole. A review is not simply your opinion, although there is a place for personal opinions. There's a huge difference between "I liked Killer Ants Devouring Lithuania," and "Killer Ants Devouring Lithuania was a good movie."
Remember that people read reviews to figure out if they should buy the album, go to the movie, watch the TV show, etc. They want to know if it's good or bad and why. If all you give them is your personal opinion, and they don't know you from your cable repairman, all you're doing is telling them about you - not the art.
Suggestion: When and how to put your personal opinion into a review is a matter of skill and experience, trial and error. Particularly when you're just starting out, my suggestion is to hold your opinions to the end. As you get more skilled, you can integrate opinions (like) with your critical analysis (good.)
Some people think that a critical analysis has to be academic, dry, and boring. Nothing could be further from the truth. Reviews should be fun to read, so let your sense of humor and sarcasm run wild, tell stories, and come up with bizarre analogies. Have fun with the review."
Decent Article, But...Posted: Sep 26, 2010 12:00AM PST by Cloudberry
One flaw I'd point out in the article is that "I liked Killer Ants Devouring Lithuania" and "Killer Ants Devouring Lithuania was a good movie" are both personal opinions, although the latter may be (but doesn't have to be) the reviewer's way of saying what he or she thinks most people would think of that movie (this is where that "huge difference" lies). But to declare it to be so -- independent of empirical evidence -- is in itself a subjective assessment, and thus a personal opinion. If we can uphold that 1) there is no objective truth to asbtract qualities such as something being good or bad, and 2) uphold that opinions by nature are not misleading, and if we understand that reviews in any case are opinions, even if it is an opinion of how many of its readers the reviewer thinks will like or dislike what the reviewer is writing about, then we can conclude that reviews by nature cannot be misleading. Thus, a review cannot be rationally opined as being good or bad based on how misleading it is, as it is a non-factor.
Enough of thisPosted: Sep 27, 2010 12:00AM PST by pavelr
I wrote: "reviews aren't opinion per se". OF COURSE reviews include expressions of opinion, but reviews are never "just" an opinion - they are much more: they advice us what to do.
You did not originally use the word "list". I did. Neither is it a straw man, because it is the only coherent description of what can be meant by the sentence "Reviews do inlfuence the reader, but only in the sense that the reader is using it as a launchpad for forming one's own opinion", without making some half-tautological unrelated claim about the "free will" of the reader.
Either you meant:
a. Reviews are meant to be used only as "lists" of properties, to be compared with the readers' tastes.
b. Reviews are "launchpads" in the sense that the ultimate decision still depends upon the free will of the reader.
A is false, B is irrelevant.
You premises were rebutted in every single reply, only to be met with either misunderstanding, distortion of my arguments, or both. I'll say it again - the premises are irrelevant because:
Premise 1: Isn't necessary and claimed nowhere. The necessary condition is a normal distribution, or some sort of a clear majority in the intended audience of the review.
Premise 2: Not true. Reviews only need to effect purchasing decisions, which they obviously do.
At any rate - what you are arguing about, anyway? Do you honestly disagree with the claim that in a scenario in which HL2 receives a majority of bad reviews, many review-readers won't buy the game, even though they would otherwise enjoy it?
We sure do not need 10 replies with "premises", "arguments" and "propositions" to understand that the above "disagreement" makes no sense.
Very Poor, See Me After ClassPosted: Sep 27, 2010 12:00AM PST by Cloudberry
You haven't refuted my premises at all other than to declare that they're wrong in some way without providing any substantial explanation.
"I wrote: "reviews aren't opinion per se". OF COURSE reviews include expressions of opinion, but reviews are never "just" an opinion - they are much more: they advice us what to do."
It is up to debate as to whether or not reviews are meant to advise it readers about what to do, but have you ever stopped to think that advice is also rooted in opinion? What else would an aide's advice to JFK against going to Dallas be other than the aide's opinion of what would be the best idea?
There is no objective truth as to whether or not a review is something more than an opinion. But it can be seen quite evidently that opinions are what reviews are, and what is being argued is that opinions cannot mislead by their very nature.
"At any rate - what you are arguing about, anyway?"
Seriously. I've never veered off my argument once. Here are two quotations, premises included:
"A review cannot be misleading if there is no inherent truth in abstract qualities (i.e. a video game is objectively good or bad) from which the review can deceive its readers. A review cannot be misleading in the sense that it's deceiving the reader about how he or she truly feels about a game if those opinions ultimately come from the reader."
"Thus, a review cannot be rationally opined as being good or bad based on how misleading it is, as it is a non-factor."
"Do you honestly disagree with the claim that in a scenario in which HL2 receives a majority of bad reviews, many review-readers won't buy the game, even though they would otherwise enjoy it?"
No, I do not disagree. In fact, the line where you took the word "launchpad" reads:
"Reviews do inlfuence the reader, but only in the sense that the reader is using it as a launchpad for forming one's own opinion."
If most HL2 reviews panned the game, it would not sell well. I do not recall ever denying that reviews play an influence in decision-making and opinion-forming, but this question highlights a very key, forceful misinterpretation of my argument with which you've really taken off for the past several posts.
Sticking to the HL2 example, we can see that reviews do have a correlation to its readers' decision-making. It's plain as daylight to the objective eye. Kane and Lynch had some loud, die-hard fans, but a bunch of scathing reviews pretty much made sure it wouldn't sell a lot of copies. Even the most pedantic rationalist might grudgingly accept that reviews do have such influence. However, the fact that a scenario where a severe HL2 of panning kills its sales records does not mean the reviews are misleading and therefore bad since the two aformentioned premises need to be taken into consideration.
If there is no objective truth to whether a game is good or bad, or whether someone will like or dislike a game, how is the review misleading? If it's neither good nor bad, any review opining about how good or bad the game is cannot be deceiving the reader from some actual truth. How can the review be blamed for the opinions of its readers if they're ultimately formed by the readers themselves? Isn't the readers' control over their opinions the very reason for their diversity, regardless of what the reviewer's opinion is? I hate to go into idioms, but your particular notion of reviews influencing readers is a misled scenario of the tail wagging the dog.
I'm getting really tired of thisPosted: Sep 28, 2010 12:00AM PST by pavelr
From wiki-dictionary: "Mislead = To lead astray, in a false direction; To deceive by telling lies or otherwise giving a false impression; To deceptively trick into something wrong".
Your recent replies boil down to some sort of a fallacious attempt of stripping the word "misleading" from its accepted meaning in the first place, by appealing to all kinds of unrelated tautologies about opinions and free will.
What a great world would that be! According to your reasoning, for example, nothing is ever misleading. How convinient! When a friend comes to us after being hurt by an advice we gave him, we will just sit back say: "what?? it wasn't an advice at all! It was simply an 'opinion'! Not only that, but the very decision to follow that "opinion" wasn't even ours, it was yours!!" OMFG!! WE CAN NEVER BE BLAIMED FOR ALMOST ANYTHING OTHER THAN PHYSICALLY HURTING PEOPLE LOL!!!!111ONE :-/
When we say that someone gave us "misleading" directions, we do not mean that the directions are not an opinion - as they always are ("I believe that my directions are true"), nor do we doubt that the choice of whether to follow those directions ultimately lies upon the free will of the chooser - as, again, it always does ("Its was my choice of whether to believe those directions and follow them"). What is meant, rather, is exactly what is written in the definition: To lead astray.
Reviews effect purchasing decisions. There is nothing "debatable" or "subjective" about that. A bad book review causes less people to buy that book, a bad film review causes less people to see that film, and a bad game review causes much less people to buy that game. And yes, that's what reviews are meant to do, as this is what makes the review industry so successfull in the first place.
When a product comes out which is great for the majority of people, and some piece of text causes them not to buy it - then, for those people, and by every coherent and accepted definition of the word "misleading" - that piece of text is, indeed, misleading.
If I Only Had a BrainPosted: Sep 28, 2010 12:00AM PST by Cloudberry
"From wiki-dictionary: "Mislead = To lead astray, in a false direction; To deceive by telling lies or otherwise giving a false impression; To deceptively trick into something wrong"."
An opinion cannot be misleading if there is no objective truth regarding the topic of that opinion. If that is the case, from what "true direction" is an opinion, review, advice or any similar device leading a person? The fact that a reader of a review might have actually enjoyed a video game that a review pans, or vice versa? But one's impressions of a game before, during and after trying it out are very malleable and subject to change, regardless of whether or not new influences affect them. If so, how can the reader's gameplay-informed opinion be considered the reader's true impression?
Also, If one holds an opinion regarding something where an objective truth exists, it's not really an opinon. It's simply a misconception of the one who believe he is justified in his opinion (i.e., one who maintains that 2 + 2 = 5 being his opinon). We've already established that games do not have any sort of objective, inherent truth as to whether or not it is good or bad, or whether someone will like or dislike it. So reviews, which are opinions of a game, structured in a way as to try and be informative, cannot be misleading based on these notions.
You can't be lying or giving a false impression if you're not leading someone away from the truth or if there is no "true impression" to begin with. I never said that nothing was misleading. There you go with that straw man of yours again.
Reviews effect purchasing decisions. There is nothing "debatable" or "subjective" about that. A bad book review causes less people to buy that book, a bad film review causes less people to see that film, and a bad game review causes much less people to buy that game. And yes, that's what reviews are meant to do, as this is what makes the review industry so successfull in the first place.
No one's denied that first sentence. However, the degree to which it does so is what is both "debatable" and "subjective." Have you been reading my posts at all?
Exactly what I expected to hearPosted: Sep 28, 2010 12:00AM PST by pavelr
"Being Mislead" is observer-dependent and subjective by definition. If 1000 people will like HL2, a review that leads them not to buy it is - for them - misleading by definition. More specifically - it decieves by giving a false impression, where nowhere "false" is meant to be "objectivly false", "universally false", "false for the whole of humanity" or something similar, nor is this how we use the word "misleading" in ordinary language.
Advices mislead all the time, yet the value of an edvise is almost always subjective: what's good for one, is not always good for another.
As for the "ture direction" - really, cloudberry, is that the last thing you have to grasp on? Do you really think that argument is worth a reply?
Capital Letters Are Paragons of AuthorityPosted: Sep 28, 2010 12:00AM PST by Cloudberry
The feeling of having been misled is dependent on the observer, but whether that feeling is incontrovertibly justified is objective -- and probably nonexistent. Subjective truth cannot exist, since if each person's individual opinion of a game was true, there would be countless contradictions. Even if one were to declare that "The notion that I like this game only applies to me," it still can't be considered a truth since we've already established the malleability of such opinions. (As a somewhat related aside, there's no way to know if 1000 people "will like" HL2, especially since it is not known if they will continue to like it. How is the impression that a person has of first trying a game truer than the impression that person has after five minutes? After one day? After three years? And it's not just as simple as "liking" or "disliking." That same feeling of having liked something is still different on some nuanced level. But which feeling is true? Can such feelings be applicable to the notion of truth and falsehood?) If there is no truth regarding such opinions, where exactly is the deception occurring?
How can feelings be "incontrovertible" justified?Posted: Sep 28, 2010 12:00AM PST by pavelr
They are FEELINGS - something personal and subjective.
I wrote, in about every single reply, that a review can be misleading to the majority of readers. THAT'S where the "deception" is occurring - in deceiving the majority of the intended audience away from doing something they would otherwise enjoy.
If you do not deny that fact, then I think the argument is over.
As for the "what liking really means" comment - it amounts to adding a layer of complexity when none is needed. If HL2 recieved 2/10 scores, it would be opposite to what the majority thought of the game, and we do not need to discover the "psychological essense of liking" to deduce this truth.
You're Still Not ReadingPosted: Sep 28, 2010 12:00AM PST by Cloudberry
"They are FEELINGS - something personal and subjective."
The title of your last post and this line are just echoing what I've been using to build my argument. Because they're personal and subjective, there can't be any objective, authentic truth to them. This includes such feelings as the notion of having felt "deceived" by a review when a reader plays a game that got a poor review, and that person realizes that he's currently enjoying the game. It's been discussed how one's opinion of a game does not apply to any sort of objective truth -- it is only a subjective assessment. If a subjective assessment is both personal and malleable, it cannot be applicable to the idea of truth (the paradoxes that occur if subjective notions are assumed as true have been discussed in previous posts and in the reasoning lectures of your college/alma mater). And since the notion of being misleading -- objectively -- is that of goading someone away from something that is true, a review, which (in a nutshell) is an opinion that can influence other opinions, cannot be misleading.
The matter of a majority opinion is irrelevant here if the feelings of each individual reader is entirely subjective and not subject to the notions of truth or falsehood. If there is neither truth nor falsehood to one's opinions of a game, to one's opinion of a review, or one's opinion of having felt deceived by a review, there is no instance of misinformation, misguidance, misdirection, deception or duplicity occurring.
Also, what is this "what liking really means" quote referring to? And how can some notion of complexity -- whatever it may be in reference to -- be unnecessary if it just so happens to be that complex?
Not againPosted: Sep 28, 2010 12:00AM PST by pavelr
If a friend tells us that a certain person is annoying and is worth keeping away from, and as a result we avoid him until somehow we find out that we actually kind of like him, and that - for us - he isn't annoying at all, then we say, in language, that the friend gave us a false impression of that person, that the friend's advice was misleading.
If "The Godfather" received crappy reviews - we (minus a thin minority) would say that the reviews gave us a false impression of the film, and that the reviews were misleading.
That's what misleading means. That's why we have phrases such as "first impressions can be misleading" - referring almost always to subjective qualities. The condition of referring only to objective truths in order to be called "misleading" is wrong, and stems neither from any definition nor from the way we use the word in ordinary language.
There is a certain confusion in your arguments about subjectivity, evident in comments such as: "Because they're personal and subjective, there can't be any objective, authentic truth to them.". The fact that something misleads, that certain impressions are true for someone, while others are not - is objectively, not subjectively, true. The expression "apples taste good" can only be subjectively true, yet if apples taste good to me, then the expression "apples taste good to me" is objectively true, and the expression "I hate apples" is objectively false, and the question of whether I, or anybody else, likes apples or not is applicable to the idea of truth just like statements about the height of certain buildings are. The expression "the review is misleading" and "He was misled by the review" (or: "The review had misled me") are two different statements. The first can only be subjectively true, while the second is completely objective, and is either true or false, not true for some and false for others. There is no malleability and there are no paradoxes.
If I'm led to believe that apples taste awful (and I like apples), then I am being misled. Taste is subjective, the fact I'm being misled is objective. I cannot be "wrong" about being mislead about apples anymore than I can be wrong about liking their taste.
The claim that "to like" something is time dependent, and therefore we cannot truly say anything about products in terms of "good" or "bad", is nonsense, as we obviously can and do it all the time. In fact - thats what reviews do as well. Of course - first impressions can be misleading, and therefore our true opinions about products are rarely based solely on those. On the other hand - we all know what good movies we saw, what bad movies we saw, what good games we played, what bad games we played, and it isn't going to change tomorrow. We aren't going to wake up one day, only to find out that suddenly in our opinion HL2 deserves the score of 2/10.
"And how can some notion of complexity -- whatever it may be in reference to -- be unnecessary if it just so happens to be that complex?" - What?
Read Carefully This TimePosted: Sep 28, 2010 12:00AM PST by Cloudberry
If a friend tells us that a certain person is annoying and is worth keeping away from, and as a result we avoid him until somehow we find out that we actually kind of like him, and that - for us - he isn't annoying at all, then we say, in language, that the friend gave us a false impression of that person, that the friend's advice was misleading.
If "The Godfather" received crappy reviews - we (minus a thin minority) would say that the reviews gave us a false impression of the film, and that the reviews were misleading.
That's just the way our language is used. It doesn't really stop to consider what is meant when one says that the action described in the example is "misleading." If anything, the statement "the friend's advice was misleading" really just means that his advice was unnecessary, as the listeners found out that they don't think that person is annoying.
To be misleading means that it is leading you away from some truth. A friend's comment that "a certain person is annoying and is worth keeping away from" is neither true nor false, as it is an opinion. The same goes true for the opposite statement, which is the eventual conclusion of those who heard that friend's comment. The notion of something being "true for me" -- otherwise known as a subjective truth -- is not real (more on this later). And thus, it can't be that the listeners have been misled by their friend, nor can their friend's comment be seen as misleading.
Also, have you ever stopped to think that telling someone that "this person worth keeping away from" and telling someone that "you will dislike this person" are fundamentally different? Think back on video games, and to the notion that a review proclaiming that a game is good or bad, and the notion that "I like this video game" or "I dislike this video game." If a review says that a video game is good, then it isn't a statement contradicting a reader who dislikes that game. Let's look at your past definition of a review for some perspective:
"A review is an piece of text which tells people what is good and what is bad, what they will enjoy, and what they won't. Reviewers do this by mentioning certain elements of the game/other product, and describing their emotional conclusion or reaction to those elements. In this fashion, a review tells us that certain game mechanics are "annoying", "confusing", "bad", and other's are "good", "original" and "depth adding"."
I argue again that a review is not something that tries to gauge if people will like a video game or not. Objectively, it's just a reviewer's opinions of a game. To see a review's role as telling people what they will like or dislike is your subjective assessment -- an opinion itself.
There is a certain confusion in your arguments about subjectivity, evident in comments such as: "Because they're personal and subjective, there can't be any objective, authentic truth to them.". The fact that something misleads, that certain impressions are true for someone, while others are not - is objectively, not subjectively, true. The expression "apples taste good" can only be subjectively true, yet if apples taste good to me, then the expression "apples taste good to me" is objectively true, and the expression "I hate apples" is objectively false, and the question of whether I, or anybody else, likes apples or not is applicable to the idea of truth just like statements about the height of certain buildings are. The expression "the review is misleading" and "He was misled by the review" (or: "The review had misled me") are two different statements. The first can only be subjectively true, while the second is completely objective, and is either true or false, not true for some and false for others. There is no malleability and there are no paradoxes.
Big mistake here. The problem with subjective truths is twofold. First, it leads to paradoxes. If we accept that subjective truths are real, then a person who says "apples taste good" and a person who says "apples taste bad" must both be correct. But it can't be that way, since that's a contradiction -- a paradox. Subjective truths are a sticky concept because of this. Objective truths, not so much.
Being "objective" means it's independent of an observer and the feelings and biases of that observer. In your particular analogy, the observer is the person who tastes the apple. It's clearly seen because of this that an observer A who tastes an apple and says, "This apple tastes good to me" is still making a subjective assessment about the taste of the apple. An outside Observer B who looks at observer A and says, "Observer A thinks the apple tastes good to him," is making an objective assessment, and one that is true, but it's Observer B's observation of Observer A's subjective assessment that is an objective truth. Observer A's thoughts on the apple's taste are still an opinion.
The second problem with the idea of subjective truth lies in time. If person A says "I hate wine" as a young adult, but says "I love wine" as an older person (they do say alcohol is an acquired taste), which opinion is true? If subjective truths are accepted as real, both opinions, even from the same person, must also be accepted as true. It would not be the case that the newer opinion has superseded the older opinion, because that would render the first opinion -- "I hate wine" -- false. An objective observation would see that person A used to hate wine and likes it now, but that doesn't render the wine-drinker's opinions as objective truths. Objectivity means it's independent of an observer's feelings. Liking or disliking something is inevitably tied to subjectivity. It's because of these problems that it is difficult to say that subjective truths are real.
Opinions -- subjective notions -- can neither be true nor false; it simply doesn't fall under the scope of that concept. Subjective truths, because of the contradictions it falls into, cannot be real. You may like a game, but it doesn't mean that feeling is true, and nor is that feeling false. If the feeling of liking a game is neither true nor false, and if opinion doesn't fall within the notions of truth and falsehood, then you cannot have been misled by someone who told you that you will like a video game (his opinion) if you ended up disliking the video game (your opinion).
Here we go againPosted: Sep 29, 2010 12:00AM PST by pavelr
"That's just the way our language is used" - What? The way words function in language, the way they are used, is the way they get their meaning, a philosophical observation made by Ludwig WIttgenstein in the first half of the 20th century.
"To be misleading means that it is leading you away from some truth. A friend's comment that "a certain person is annoying and is worth keeping away from" is neither true nor false, as it is an opinion." - The two parts of the argument have nothing to do with one and other. A friend's comment doesn't need to be something other than an opinion in order to mislead me from my truth, and there is nothing incoherent about the existence of personal truths, as we express those kinds of truths all the time: I think The Godfather is a good movie, for example. This "opinion" is true for me (as it is for the majority of the people who saw the film), and isn't likely to change today, tomorrow, or anytime in the foreseeable future.
Your definition of what "misleading" means is private and false, regardless of how many times you'll repeat the same thing. Misleading refers - as defined - to deceiving by giving a false impression. Because misleading is always misleading for someone - "true impressions" can be both "true" in a subjective sense, and in an objective sense. "To be misleading means that it is leading you away from some truth" - that's right: they can lead you away from both an objective truth, and from a personal subjective truth (truth here meaning "true for the observer"), regardless of whether the subjective truth is time dependent or not, as objective truths can also be time dependent (the truth of the claim that a certain road leads to a certain place, can change throughout time) . There is nothing incoherent/false/unreal/vague/wrong about the statement "he misled me about the taste of apples", the definitions allows it, we use those kinds of statements all the time, and your insistence on claiming otherwise is absurd.
If you still disagree, then you are welcome to either send letters to dictionary authors asking for a revision, or to conduct some sort of a poll about what is meant by the verb "to mislead". Either way - I'm through with arguing that point.
The second part of your reply highlights the exact same conceptual confusion, I'll make it brief, as I already addressed some of it above (+ previous reply), and here too I'm tired of arguing the same point reply after reply:
The claim "apples taste good to me" is subjective in the sense that they might not taste good for everyone. It is objective in the sense that it is either true or false regardless of observers. If apples taste good to me - then they taste good to me from everyone's point of view - this statement has a single truth value for the whole universe. There is nothing debatable here.
Also, you wrote: "Big mistake here" - please point me to the exact "big mistake" I made.
The "time" part is nonsense, already explained in the previews reply (+above).
" You may like a game, but it doesn't mean that feeling is true, and nor is that feeling false" - What? What do you mean by "true" here?
If "true" is meant to be "... but it doesn't mean that everyone else likes the game" - then it is irrelevant, as I don't need everyone else to like the game in order to be personally misled. If it means "my feeling's about the game aren't true for me" - then that's contradicts the condition, and therefore makes no sense.
If I like a game, I cannot not like it at the same time (and so you won't get too excited: "time" here having nothing to do with the validity of your "time" argument, which was already addressed elsewhere). If cars are big, it makes no sense to say that they might be small. If I'm happy, it makes no sense to say "maybe I'm sad", as in that occasion I wouldn't be happy. Also, your usage of the word "real" is rather vague and unclear.
"If the feeling of liking a game is neither true nor false, and if opinion doesn't fall within the notions of truth and falsehood, then you cannot have been misled by someone who told you that you will like a video game (his opinion) if you ended up disliking the video game (your opinion)."
Again - more of the same confusion: what "true or false" is supposed to mean here?
If it means "not everyone feels like you about the game" - then it is irrelevant. If it means "you cannot know if you like or dislike a game", then it is false (see 2 paragraphs above).
Would you also claim that:
1. If the feeling of sensing colors is neither true nor false (as some people are color blind, and others are completely blind), and if opinion doesn't fall within the notion of truth and falsehood, then you cannot have been misled by someone who told you that tomatoes have no color (his opinion), if you ended up seeing tomatoes as red (your opinion).
2. If the feeling of seeing the famous drawing "duckrabbit" (google it) as a rabbit is neither true nor false (as some people see it as a duck), and if opinion doesn't fall within the notion of truth and falsehood, then you cannot have been mislead by someone who told you it's a duck (his opinion), if you ended up seeing it both as a duck (sometimes) and as a rabbit (other times) - (your opinion).
I can also argue (and I will, if this argument doesn't move on), that the distinction between subjective and objective qualities is vague and only pragmatic to begin with, as there are coherent metaphysical conceptions of the universe based solely on subjective qualities. i.e. subjectivism.
Before you start looking for differences between the three example, thus leading to yet another lengthy reply with more of the same old arguments - I'll advice you to be careful and take it slowly, as there are no true differences.
Also, try to make your replies shorter, they waste too much time.
Good day.
You're Really, Really Not Even TryingPosted: Sep 29, 2010 12:00AM PST by Cloudberry
Your definition of what "misleading" means is private and false, regardless of how many times you'll repeat the same thing. Misleading refers - as defined - to deceiving by giving a false impression. Because misleading is always misleading for someone - "true impressions" can be both "true" in a subjective sense, and in an objective sense. "To be misleading means that it is leading you away from some truth" - that's right: they can lead you away from both an objective truth, and from a personal subjective truth (truth here meaning "true for the observer"), regardless of whether the subjective truth is time dependent or not, as objective truths can also be time dependent (the truth of the claim that a certain road leads to a certain place, can change throughout time) . There is nothing incoherent/false/unreal/vague/wrong about the statement "he misled me about the taste of apples", the definitions allows it, we use those kinds of statements all the time, and your insistence on claiming otherwise is absurd.
My definition of misleading isn't actually different from the one you describe. The reason it seems different is because you're implicitly accepting that "impressions," which are opinions, can be either true or false. I'm asserting that opinions are not applicable to the notion of truth and falsehood, and so it cannot be misleading. The definition for the word would then be tweaked to what is closer to what I am describing. It's essentially the same concept behind the word. It only seems different because you're assuming something that just isn't true (the fact that opinions can be true or false).
The "time" part is nonsense, already explained in the previews reply (+above).
If I like a game, I cannot not like it at the same time (and so you won't get too excited: "time" here having nothing to do with the validity of your "time" argument, which was already addressed elsewhere). If cars are big, it makes no sense to say that they might be small. If I'm happy, it makes no sense to say "maybe I'm sad", as in that occasion I wouldn't be happy. Also, your usage of the word "real" is rather vague and unclear.
The claim that "to like" something is time dependent, and therefore we cannot truly say anything about products in terms of "good" or "bad", is nonsense, as we obviously can and do it all the time.
You've never explained why it's nonsense. From your "explanations" it can actually be inferred that you really don't know what I'm talking about when I'm referring to "time." My explanation of "time" in relation to opinions has nothing to do with "doing it all the time," nor does it have anything to do with holding two conflicting opinions at the same time. What I was saying is that opinions can change over time. Someone who likes something now may not have liked it before, and simply acquired that taste later on. You can't really deny that this happens, since people change their opinions quite frequently. A lot of people who liked a politician and voted for him may not feel the same way after he is sworn into office.
However, if we hold that subjective truths are real, the opinion of the past is just as real as the opinion of the present, and because of this, they contradict. It's not because you're feeling two conflicting opinions at once. It's because of the very notion of subjectivity, and the idea that subjective assessments are true, that the opinion of then and the opinion of now are both true. (The idea that "the person held one opinion then and changed his mind now" is an objective observation, so this method of looking at it is inherently abandoning the notion that subjective truths are real. If subjective truths are real, all opinions formed at any point in time are rendered true. As such, it is possible to run into contradictions even from the same person.) It's because of this paradox that the idea of subjective truth cannot be accepted as real. Instead, it should be seen that subjective assessments, opinions and sensations do not fall within the realm of truth and falsehood.
(If you want to see how the idea that subjective truth is real is self-defeating, I can simply maintain that -- given that we're in this subjective truth world -- that the previous paragraph is true. Just by following the rules of the system, I can introduce a truth that upends the notion of its validity via a contradiction. It's not that hard.)
If person A says, "I like this coffee." That is an opinion -- a subjective assessment. It is not a truth. If person B says, "Person A likes coffee," his statement is true. It's an objective assessment affirming that person A holds a certain opinion regarding coffee. That in itself doesn't mean that the opinion "I like coffee" is true. Truth and falsehood are irrelevant to opinions.
I can also argue (and I will, if this argument doesn't move on), that the distinction between subjective and objective qualities is vague and only pragmatic to begin with, as there are coherent metaphysical conceptions of the universe based solely on subjective qualities. i.e. subjectivism.
The problem with this is that you're introducing a different notion of objectivism and subjectivism. Metaphysical subjectivism and objectivism are somewhat different from what we're discussing. They dictate how we experience reality. Subjectivism from this sense is simply thinking and experiencing. In reality, it may be that those are the only ways in which we can reality.
But regardless of how we experience reality, yet another form of objectivism and subjectivism exists over the broader metaphysical notion of how we perceive in general. They are objective observation, which simply sees things as we perceive them, and subjective observation, which sees things in terms of how we feel about them. This is the difference between tasting an apple and saying "It tastes like an apple," and tasting an apple and saying, "It tastes good," or "I like how this apple tastes." The former can be seen as true with regard to however we experience reality. The latter cannot, since those assessments aren't simply our experience of reality but also our own sentiments -- opinions, which do not fall within the concept of truth and falsehood. This is the scope of our argument. Whether the underpinnings of this thought process lies in metaphysical subjectivism or objectivism is irrelevant, as it's pretty clear that we can think along these two distinct lines.
BooooringPosted: Sep 29, 2010 12:00AM PST by pavelr
Really, why do I even bother?
1. If person A argues that word X can only be used in certain occasions, while person B argues that it can also be used in others too, then A and B have in mind slightly different definitions of the word X. There is nothing debatable here as well, and it would be better for you to address the main arguments. Your "definition" is made up because that's not how we use the word "misleading" in real life.
2. Time: nonsense. Who talked about having "conflicting opinions at once"?
There are two things to say about your self-proclaimed "paradox" of time, both of them I already said:
a. There is nothing exclusive to "subjectivity" here. Both subjective and objective truths change throughout time.
b. Many subjective truths almost never change, unless there is some neurological accident. As I already wrote (twice): we won't wake up one day only to find that suddenly in our mind HL2 deserves the score of 2/10, that The Godfather is a crappy movie, that the I-Pod's interface sucks, and that apples taste like crap. In fact, its much more likely that the average objective information about how to go from point A to point B will suddenly turn out to be wrong because of a meteor impact, rather than some of the above happening.
As a side note, just to show a false analogy: "A lot of people who liked a politician and voted for him may not feel the same way after he is sworn into office." - Of course. That's because they received new information they didn't previously have, not because opinions (such as those we have on video games) have some mysterious tendency to change on their own.
Also, enough with this "real" stuff. There is nothing "unreal" about feelings or subjective notions, they are just subjective, that's all.
3. "I like this coffee" - No:
a. The statement "I like this coffee" is not an opinion, as it makes no sense to say "in my opinion I like coffee". The statement "this coffee tastes good", on the other hand, is an opinion.
b. The statement "I like this coffee" can be seen as giving us imformation about cofee (=subjective information), or as giving us information about me (=objective information). It has nothing to do with who makes the statement. The same goes to "he/she/it likes coffee".
By the way, if Joe says "Tim likes coffee", and that statement is true, then Tim's statement "I like coffee" is most certainly true as well. What were you trying to say there anyway?
4. Subjectivism: No, that's not what subjectivism means. Subjectivism - as almost all of metaphysics - is not about "how we experience reality", but about "what reality is". In subjectivism, the average "objective" observation is treated as a subjective one. It makes no sense to say "Building B is higher than C regardless of observers", as there is no such thing as "regardless of observers". The impression that there are buildings, and that A is higher than C, is created by the subject - it has no independent "objective" existence, and therefore everything can - as a metaphysical possibility - be perceived differently.
I'm still waiting for:
A. Shorter replies.
B. To see my "big mistake".
C. The reply to my examples.
You Bother Because You Are a Caring IndividualPosted: Sep 29, 2010 12:00AM PST by Cloudberry
As a side note, just to show a false analogy: "A lot of people who liked a politician and voted for him may not feel the same way after he is sworn into office." - Of course. That's because they received new information they didn't previously have, not because opinions (such as those we have on video games) have some mysterious tendency to change on their own.
Just to show an example of a false refutation, I have not said that opinions have a "mysterious tendency to change on their own." I simply said they have the potential to change, as is shown quite well in this analogy. I made no implication that opinions change of their own volition. (However, the examples I gave may imply that there are influences that change opinion -- try the example you just quoted.) You've been using this kind of straw man tactic in many of the paragraphs you type. It's self-defeating.
2. Time: nonsense. Who talked about having "conflicting opinions at once"?
"If I like a game, I cannot not like it at the same time"
That would be you. Most likely after misinterpreting my notion of time with respect to opinions, which you're still not getting.
I'm still waiting for:
A. Shorter replies. This one should make you happy.
B. To see my "big mistake". It's there. You're still doing it, actually. Read carefully, or don't bother.
C. The reply to my examples. I've replied to examples that were actually coherent enough to get a substantially short response. Other missteps in reasoning are so fundamental that it'll end up being longer than the Meditations just trying to unfurl.
Thank god!!!!Posted: Sep 29, 2010 12:00AM PST by pavelr
1. Example: Right. Yet the conditions leading to "change in opinion" evident in your example are not those present in opinions about video games (nor in many other reviewed products), and therefore your example shows nothing about the subject at hand, i.e - its a false analogy (a common fallacy).
2: Time: Heh, funny you mentioned that quote, because it was followed by: "'time' here having nothing to do with the validity of your "time" argument". On the other hand, your "time" argument was addressed at the end of the reply I named "Not again", about 5 replies ago.
But yeah, everything else is straw-men, "big mistakes" that are just "there" (where?), and - let me see - "fundamental missteps in reasoning".
I'm going to do some stuff at home now. Bye for now :-)
Watch Out for Poorly Conceived If-Then ClausesPosted: Sep 29, 2010 12:00AM PST by Cloudberry
If I like a game, I cannot not like it at the same time (and so you won't get too excited: "time" here having nothing to do with the validity of your "time" argument, which was already addressed elsewhere).
In context, the phrase "having nothing to do" does not relate to what I said about your incorrect denial of having said nothing about "conflicting opinions at once." Look again:
2. Time: nonsense. Who talked about having "conflicting opinions at once"?
"If I like a game, I cannot not like it at the same time"
1. Example: Right. Yet the conditions leading to "change in opinion" evident in your example are not those present in opinions about video games (nor in many other reviewed products), and therefore your example shows nothing about the subject at hand, i.e - its a false analogy (a common fallacy).
The conditions for the change in opinion in the politician example do not need to be the same as the conditions that change one's opinion of video games. (And yet they can be the same. Experiencing that politician's exploits while in office is analogous to experiencing a video game first-hand.) However, what is the same for both examples is that opinions have the possibility of change, which is the only thing the analogy is trying to highlight (the notion of what causes the change is an implied device of your creation), and the only thing that it needs to highlight in order to corroborate the argument that it's accompanying. It's a consummate analogy.
The "big mistake" is the entire quote of yours that I bolded when I mentioned the phrase "big mistake." It's literally a big mistake, with reasons and examples as to why this is the case.
Yet another bunch of NEW things to argue aboutPosted: Sep 29, 2010 12:00AM PST by pavelr
Cloudberry, I have to interest in replying to your new comments. This new line of arguments follows the same fallacious reasoning, only this time completely departs from the topic at hand.
Your arguments were poorly conceived from the beginning, and while it was fun for a while - it comes to a point where the I cannot possibly imagine a single objective observer that will find your arguments at least somewhat convincing, and the continuation seems both childish as well as a major waste of time.
This discussion is over.
Thank you.Posted: Sep 30, 2010 12:00AM PST by Chubzdoomer
I do hope the discussion is over. If not, I feel sorry for others such as myself who happen to stumble along and enjoy seeing what fellow readers think about the review and game in question.
Here I was having a ball, thumbing through the comments others were posting about Civilization V, until suddenly half the page was swamped with an incredibly pointless argument waged by two zealous (to the point of being humorous) individuals doing a great job at proving nothing to one another.
Listen: If you're going to wage utterly pointless, multi-paragraph debates once more and accomplish zilch in the process, take it elsewhere. 1UP has a private messaging system, and I'm sure each of you could burn it up with your laughable attempts to out-write one another with fancy words and fish-flopping logic. Have at it. The best part is that when the dust has settled, we wouldn't have had to hear another word from either of you. Everyone would win.
Thank you for your time, and for wasting plenty of mine in the process of writing this response,
London CallingPosted: Sep 23, 2010 12:00AM PST by MrAngryOfPurley
Have played Civ for 20 years and my fave is Civ IV History in the Making. Got an email from Amazon today telling me that Civ V was in the post -woohoo - feels like Darius getting Iron Working three turns later than Ceaser. So I will be able to play it for myself - all weekend - when I rtb from Russia.
I have waited sooooo long for this I logged on to see what the "community" was saying about it; hoping to get a report from a mega geek who had actually won a Civ V on Deity Level (or whatever the hard one is in Civ V) and stumbled across Tom's review.
I thought it was an honest and very informative review from an experienced Civ player. We ALL hate stupid AI and if the game is a pushover it will be put down.
The great thing about the review was that it has lowered my expectations of Civ V back to realism (I think I had myself worked up to expecting pro-modded 3D Civ IX with nobs on). Let us not forget that Firaxis have to get money in so they have to launch something sometime. Also, they know that there is a dedicated community of clever bods who will, in time, make it better for all of us.
Some of the defensive comments posted in response are just plain silly and some of the attacks about Tom's credibility as a reviewer lead me to suspect Firaxis has its own mini-army of anti-troll/negative-reviewer bots hiding behind e-anonymity launching scathing unsupported disses on anyone who dare to criticise.
I rather suspect that my "grade" will be "B++ to A-- could do better"; I think Tom's C grade may have to be pre-fixed with "compared to Civ IV now..."
Dear Dark Gryphon, keep up the good work, someone needs to say it how it is.
An excellent review with a mean grade.
I will report next week when I have actually played the thing.
Roll on Civ VI !!
@Yellow KingPosted: Sep 23, 2010 12:00AM PST by tomchick
Mr. King, I'm aware how things like trade, resource consumption, trade networks, and city-state gifts work. But I can send you a saved game in which whales have mysteriously disappeared, extra dye has magically manifested itself, and the iron simply doesn't add up. I'm not being facetious. I have saved games that I've kept for the purpose of analyzing that stuff. I love poring over strategy games much the same way someone might pry the back off a watch and consider the gears. And in Civ 5, this reveals some unpleasant discrepancies.
Also, you're wrong about multiple units of dye being produced by one hex. You're confusing strategic resources with luxury resources, which are always one unit from a hex.
Finally, that's an interesting theory about the AI behaving the way it does because of fog of war. However, it can't explain all the instances of questionable decisions. I think anyone who's spent much time with the game will note that the AI doesn't handle tactics very well, which is too bad considering they're a now central feature of the way warfare works.
1up intergrityPosted: Sep 23, 2010 12:00AM PST by JoSsGroSs
I haven't played Civ 5 yet so I'm not gonna chime on the review, I did read to see why Tom did not like it and he gave his reasons, it seemed a little negative but thats not here or thier...
I think if 1up is really trying to break from large game sites norms were reviews are mostly marketing campings. And are really giving writers the freedom to critic a game with out fear of losing their job because of publisher blowback. Then they need to just go all the way and....REMOVE the letter SCORING SYSTEM let the strenght of the writing give the artical merit. That way people can't say that 1up is trying to be inflamatory to increse traffic, if that is the case well then okay do what you do it's ya'll show.... but untill you remove your letter system and not fall slave to METACRTIC people are always gonna question this sites and it writers journalist integrity.
fuk scores
Tom watch out for strategy nerds on them mean streets be quick like the fox
I Agree WholeheartedlyPosted: Sep 23, 2010 12:00AM PST by chopperdown
Hopefully someone in here likes Adam Corolla.
But anyways, yes! Thank you! Scores honestly ruin the review for me because all I do is think about that damn letter grade (especially if its' low) the whole time I am reading it. That being said, it would take a lot of balls to get rid of scores. Lets face it, everyone is used to it and you run the risk of losing a lot of followers if you take it away.
I never agree with Chick's reviews, but holy shit, it's not like Tom Chick is stamping a C on every game package that is in stores. It's his opinion, and if it wasn't for that fucking C everyone could easily take this review as, "okay so this sounds like a fun game and I really won't mind all the AI issues because I probably will never get that involved in the game."
If we got rid of the letters we could say, "Tom Chick, 1up contributor, thinks ... about this game." As opposed to, "ZOMG 1up gave Civ V a C, bullshat!!1!"
I've spent considerable time with this game so far...Posted: Sep 23, 2010 12:00AM PST by Soylentx
And I am a giant Civ fan who has played every iteration of the game, and I agree with the opinions in the review. I also agree with the grade. My experience with Civ V is meh. C is meh. If you disagree with the review, why don't you do a user review? This review is well-written and well thought out. Obviously he's not pulling ideas out of his butt. I don't see what the problem is.
Par for the course,Posted: Sep 23, 2010 12:00AM PST by all_systems_good
Tom Chick is woefully inconsistent in his writing and his reviews. Read some of his blog entries, I imagine one could describe him as a "hater". Seriously nothing to see here ignore him, maybe we'll get luck and he'll disappear.
I thought it would wear off at some point, but boy do I miss the old 1up staff.
Easy to Miss Things Tom Chick got WrongPosted: Sep 23, 2010 12:00AM PST by YellowKing
Tom makes several good points here and while I disagree with his score, the review was mostly accurate. I did, however, run into a few of the same issues Tom did, and they weren't bugs as he suggests, but rather new systems that aren't well explained and the AI thinking too much like a computer.
1. Getting Dye he didn't have.
City-States each specialize in one luxury item that's usually pretty rare in the surrounding area. As long as you are an ally of a City-State and have a trade route to them, you gain the use of that resource. You'd think it'd be easy to know if you became an ally or trading partner, but it can be easy to miss. You can get cred with a city-state by fulfilling requests, many of which are things you'd be doing already: eliminating barbarian camps, building certain wonders, finding natural wonders, etc. It's easy enough to miss later on in the game when about a million notifications pop up every turn (only about 4 can display at once).
It's also easy to miss establishing a trade route. Any allied city with a road to your capital or a dock (which effectively turns all ocean tiles into roads) creates a trade route which you need to reap the resource benefits of an alliance. One of the cities involved may have just built a dock or crucial road piece and started providing Dye from an existing alliance.
And why 2 Dye? Because each resource tile produces a variable amount of that resource, more on that next.
EDIT: Mr. Chick just corrected me here; only strategic resources stack. Still, some city-states do seem to have access to multiples of the same rare resource (they tend to specialize in just one).
2. Iron Disappearing.
It isn't enough just to have Iron in this more individual-unit focused Civ. Building a unit that requires Iron consumes one unit of Iron for the life of the unit. Ditto for Horses, Coal and Oil. That's why it's important that resources stack; a lucky iron deposit could provide enough Iron for upwards of 7 Iron-req units.
3. Enemy Civs "mindlessly" charging your army
This happened to me, and I've got to say that I didn't get it at first. Enemy civs seem to judge how much of a threat a series of units is based on the number that they can see. It seemed odd that Augustus Caesar charged the pointman of my army with 3 vastly inferior units until I realized that didn't have line of sight on the rest of my army (they were just out of range). Attacking what he perceived as a lone Rifleman with three Swordsmen still seems pretty stupid, but to his credit it would have worked had I not been playing as the Japanese (the bonus prevents strength from decreasing with health).
Now, a human player would assume that when I've got a military unit near his borders and just declared war that there's probably more than one, but the AI doesn't seem to extrapolate that. As soon as I moved a second unit in, Caesar retreated. Hopefully Firaxis will catch onto this. It was probably less noticeable before thanks to multiple unit stacking (seeing one tile would see multiple units).
That's still a problem thoughPosted: Sep 23, 2010 12:00AM PST by Daetrinnn
You're right that the discrepencies in resources he noticed were probably because of trades or usage, however it's a problem that there's no indication what stuff you're gaining and losing through trade and what you're using for units or buildings. (At least that's the impression i've gotten from several reviews, still waiting for my new computer so i can play the game myself.)
If there's no easy way to figure out the sources and sinks for all the resources passing through your control that's not a bug per se, but it definitely is a problem with the UI.
The ReviewPosted: Sep 23, 2010 12:00AM PST by DarkGryphon
No matter how you feel about the review, whether you like it, hate it, are find holes in it, or are defending it we have to understand that the review is how Tom feels about the game, and no amount of complaining about it is going to change his mind. Why don't we just leave it alone?
Personally, I have no intention of playing any of the Civ games mostly because I just have little interest in the RTS genre. But I do respect Tom as both a writer and a reviewer. And I can also see the confusion in Civ's fanbase over the confusion of his "low" score.
But if there is anything I learned it's that no matter the review, no matter how you disagree with the score, you can still buy the game. The only one buying the game for you is you ( gift giving aside), so you have the final say in what you do or do not play. So if you really like the game, or want the game, there is nothing wrong with that. Keep playing the game.
And, for Tom and the rest of the 1up staff, keep doing what you're doing. You've done a great job over the years, and I personally give a lot of trust to your integrity as journalists.
Game on.
P.S.: Since I am not an RTS fan, if I were to try and become interested, is Civ the series to go with first?
just a short note...Posted: Sep 23, 2010 12:00AM PST by wiivolutioner
Civ is turn based, not an RTS. Not that it will change your opinion of the series, but its a big difference when it comes to strategy games.
Oh.Posted: Sep 23, 2010 12:00AM PST by DarkGryphon
Not much of a turn base fan. Never could understand the point on giving your oppenent a turn. In my head it was a comical thing where two gentleman gave turns at shooting another.
Metaphor ShmetaphorPosted: Sep 23, 2010 12:00AM PST by Cloudberry
Turn-based games are conceptually similar to the classic board games, such as chess or shogi, in that each person has one move to make (artificially inflated in games like Civilization and Front Mission since each city or unit gets one "move"). The purpose of these games is to plan ahead and anticipate your opponent's reaction to your decisions.
I'd also like to point out that gunfights in real life generally play out in turns, since firing while the other person is firing inflates your chances of being turned into Swiss cheese. Consider taking cover to be analogous to ending your turn.
YouPosted: Sep 23, 2010 12:00AM PST by DarkGryphon
Do have a point there, at least in some respects.
Go, Tom!Posted: Sep 23, 2010 12:00AM PST by Tad1974
I totally agree with you, Tom - although you seem to be a bit more of a fan of city-states than I am (I find them a touch annoying in that they never, ever shut up). In particular, I must thank you for calling out that players never have any idea what is going in with other Civs. What happened to the info screen that detailed the 'top five cities', 'wonders of the world', graphs, etc. Given the way I play Civ, I find having that information critical. Also found myself nodding my head over your assessment over the lack of religion and civics - the replacement 'tech tree' is totally boring. Thank you - hope you are on the Civ episode of 'Three Moves Ahead'!
C unwarranted but good comments.Posted: Sep 23, 2010 12:00AM PST by beowulf011
Good comments but the awesomeness of the rest of the game overshadows the review's comments. I am along time civ fan and this did not disappoint. I did like the review's comment about how religion has changed. I will miss religion in the game. As for the AI, who can tell me with a straight face that there is a RTS or strategy war game with an AI capable of play as well as a human. Even the total war series is flawed badly in its own ways. Does that run the game, no. The total war games are amazing and Civ 5 is amazing. The AI is fun to play against and if you are not violent, there are more peaceful options than ever. I have formed bonds with leaders and preformed research, war, and trade with. If I try to go to war with a friend of theirs they get upset. I find this amazing.
As for enemies not attacking. I have found some barbarians don't not wanting to leave their camps. At first, I though this was silly as well but then I realized, if they attacked me while defending in the forest, they would wipe them selves out. Self preservation would then prevent them from attacking.
Bottom line is some of these issues are patch able and fix able and even if they weren't, this game is so amazing that a few issues can be over looked.
This game deserves an A not a C.
We're all idiots...Posted: Sep 23, 2010 12:00AM PST by Mitch722
...I'm going to go prepare a bottle for my son. This game got a C here and a lot of higher scores elsewhere. Mixed opinions, kind of like every other thing ever. Now I have opinions from both sides, and I'm leaning towards the general concencus that Civ 5 is pretty good. OK. I'll play it if I really want to know. Life calls, I gotta go. Let's get real
there is a demoPosted: Sep 23, 2010 12:00AM PST by beowulf011
It should be available for downloading on the company webpage by now.
Conspicuously UnfairPosted: Sep 23, 2010 12:00AM PST by whoisduley
Everyone do me a favor quickly.
Go to metacritic. Look up Civ 5. Look at the scores. One is much lower than all the others. You'll notice that your eye is drawn to it. You'll find yourself thinking, "Hmm, why is it rated so low compared to the others?" Then you'll click on it.
Because thats exactly what 1up wanted. Nothing more.
Have we just seen a case of reverse Gerstmangate? The site pays the reviewer to give a low score to get exposure and hits. I had never gone to this site before I saw this score, and now I'm posting here. Dammit it worked on me too!
This review is a very good read!Posted: Sep 23, 2010 12:00AM PST by MisterJedi
I have the game, I have been playing it for two straight nights. After reading this review, it just dawned on me that I have the same experience and I'm not even a massive Civ 4 fans. Tom pointed out valid flaws for this game and I wholeheartedly agree with the review. It renewed my faith in 1UP and this is definitely the best Civ5 review I read in a while.
However, I would think that pointing the good part probably will be beneficial to this review as well. The big part that I dont like about Civ 4 is the unit stacking and I was so glad this is gone in Civ 5. What I worry most and was actually mentioned here are some of the bugs and the performance issues that this game have, along with changes in interface and symbols that are (in my opinions) not necessary and instead of making it simple, ended up making it confusing and complex.
Please keep the awesome PC reviews coming in! :)
About 7 hours logged at this point...Posted: Sep 23, 2010 12:00AM PST by PapaMeltin
... and I can see where Tom is coming from. But "C" is too harsh, at least for the gaming crowd (buncha nerds, we are, and we likely get good grades).
So, Tom, I find it interesting that you pointed out exactly what I was feeling when I started beating Caesar in a war, and he gifted me two cities, a bunch of resources and open borders for a peace treaty. I was shocked. That said, it was on the "default," as in "level 2" as the display has it, so I'll be upping that soon.
My main thought about your review is that Civ IV is just such a good game (like, top 10 of all time good) that V, at this point, has trouble competing. This seems to really have disappointed your expectations, Tom, which is ok, but makes the score somewhat less reliable compared with new IPs (e.g. Elemental, as pointed out by some previous commenters). I was a bit perturbed that you didn't mention multiplayer at all, as I think that will negate the AI problem.
So, I'll add my two cents to the mix, and anyone willing to read all our comments can figure it out for themselves.
City-states are awesome, and add a lot to the game.
The combat is a lot more fun than previously, because you actually have to think about what you're doing.
AI is lacking.
It's weird to get used to the lack of information in some areas. Things like diplomacy, where it no longer says in parenthesis next to the leader's name "(Pleased)." Makes the game feel a bit less like we're a bunch of socially inept people and that you might actually have to read into things, but for a strategy type game, maybe leaves you lacking on the information side of things. Some kind of report about it would be a nice way to take the place of the attitudes from IV. They could even put the advisors to work doing that.
Social policies are an interesting rework. Different mechanic than IV, and I'm not sure how I feel about them. They're fun so far.
Finally, my grade: since it's Civilization, it starts at an automatic B, and gets adjusted from there (the core gameplay is still great). I wasn't as wowed by it off the bat as I was by IV, but like I said, IV has Hall of Fame status. In V, the combat is better, the graphics are amazing, music is good as always, and the game flows nicely. Downsides include lackluster AI, some information is lacking (but it's not game wrecking) and things feel maybe a little too much like using a Mac - I can't do absolutely everything and anything I want (yet).
Just some random thoughts...Posted: Sep 23, 2010 12:00AM PST by Coyote30
Could it be that Mr Chic gave Civ such a bad rating so that his review and the site 1up are displayed on metacritics the whole time (as his is the only average review the game has received from out of 30)...
Could it be that Mr Chic tries to stir up a controversy where there is no one really only to be talked about and to be the contrarian without a cause.
Could it be that Mr Chic made the fatal mistake of jugding/reviewing something against his own expectations when in reality he should try to judge it as objectively as possible? (real life example: you date that really hot chick (no pun intended ;-) and have high expectations so that the first night could be a letdown whereas with someone else where you don't expect anything it would be great?)
And the list could go on and on...
Good ReviewPosted: Sep 23, 2010 12:00AM PST by Floyd_
I liked the review. Unlike most others it is an actual review and not a sales pitch.
As a Civ 4 player I think the text higlighted some important points. Compared to Civ IV the game has some major flaws (and an even worse AI?).
put your money where your mouth isPosted: Sep 23, 2010 12:00AM PST by Coyote30
what are the MAJOR flaws? that religion is gone? bad for some, great for others...I think it was an unnecessary addition and I'm not sad it's gone. That one can't change government? That's a bit weird, but in no way a major flaw...
No one talks about the great new aspects: the remodeled combat system (great step in the right direction in my book), the city states (another great addition) etc.
Just... wow...Posted: Sep 23, 2010 12:00AM PST by beanburritos
Tom Chick stirred up a firestorm of controversey, although I'm just glad to see that PC gaming is far from dead on 1UP.
The fact is, Tom Chick is a PC veteran. He knows his stuff, and he especially knows his strategy games. I don't always see eye-to-eye with him (I doubt I will here, haven't had the chance to really dig into Civ 5 yet), but his opinion is a valid one.You may disagree, but leave it at that; this man knows his stuff. He played it, this was his honest opinion based on years of playing.
That said, I do want to point out that vanilla release Civ 4 was in fact unplayable due to a few bugs. Since Civ 3, you've always needed at least one patch. And let's face it, Civ 1 and 2 didn't have the brightest AI in the world and could've benefitted from a couple of patches themselves. And Civ 4's civics didn't hold a candle to Alpha Centauri's Social Engineering (for that matter, none of the Civ games have matched AC yet). Civ 4 got the closest, but AC's system was simplicity and elegance merged with interesting functionality and serious diplomatic consequences. Civ 5's approach is disheartening -- swinging wildly between government systems is a Civ staple.
I think the biggest issue with Civ 5 is that Civ 4 w/ Warlords and BTS comprised one of the finest strategy experiences around. They left huge shoes to fill, and I suspect that Civ 5 will fill them eventually. And hey, it can't be worse than CivNet, right guys?
I have played Civ since I was 9 years old.Posted: Sep 23, 2010 12:00AM PST by stevenjsharif
I am a die hard sid fan. I love Strat games, especially good ol fashioned board games.
I have played Civ since the first one came out, back when you had to pay by the hour to use AOL lol... My parents would freak out when I was playing Never Winter nights on AOL, and the bill went CRAZY
So I started playing a strategy game called Civilization. Little did I know that would be an amazing source of knowledge and fun!
Civ IV was amazing. I mean words cannot describe, if it was not for one fatal flaw of unit stacking ugh. It just made things a tug of war, especially in mutli player games.
Multiplayer games now have become my favorite way to play, dont get me wrong, I enjoy spending time in a large earth map on single player, but multi player is actually challenging at times.
Civ 5 is a beautiful game. The graphics are unmatched.
But, in it's current state the game has too many bugs, and Interface/AI issues.
I feel somewhat let down by fireaxis and Sid himself, allowing a game that should still be in serious beta testing, to enter the market.
The mutliplayer is almost unplayable, and the AI/game mechanics in single player are just boring for any seasoned CIV player.
Anyways, I am not a reviewer, and I just felt let down, so I was gonna vent :)
Nice review though Mr. Chick.
As for all you first timers, and even old timers, the game is worth buying simply for its asthetic value ;)
WellPosted: Sep 23, 2010 12:00AM PST by Chrystolis
The actual content of the review is rather accurate, from what I've experienced with the game. The majority of these comments are a good example of why I feel number/letter values on reviews can be rather obstructive. Too many people seem to get caught up on only that value, and don't even consider what the reviewer is saying. All his comments are well founded, and the info was well presented *shrug*. I've been enjoying the game a lot, but that doesn't mean I don't notice its flaws.
Does it deserve a C? Dunno. Don't really care. I wasn't here for a letter anyway.
Well..Posted: Sep 22, 2010 12:00AM PST by Cynical
The headline of his 1up page is "Yeah, I'm the guy who didn't like Deus Ex..."
So I wouldn't take too much stock in what this imbecile has to say about Civ 5. At least he was able to coherently explain why he didn't like it, unlike his AVP review.
lolwutPosted: Sep 23, 2010 12:00AM PST by fatindian
So, lemme get this straight. In your view, Tom Chick is forever discredited as a game reviewer because he gave Deus Ex a review you didn't agree with?
Deus Ex is one of my favorite games. But you know why that doesn't matter? Because Tom Chick is reviewing Civilization V, a game that is completely different in a completely different genre. Do you wanna tell us what you agree with or disagree with in the review? Because that would be a more reasonable approach to criticizing his review.
The Reviewer is Awful!Posted: Sep 22, 2010 12:00AM PST by Aesir
From what folks are posting in response to the review, I'm definitely not going to be inviting Tom Chick to any of my parties. Thanks for the head's up, folks!
While I'm here... what do people think about the content of the review itself? Are there any glaring errors? Any criticisms of the game that the very bad man, Tom Chick, wrote that folks think are completely wacky?
Oh, and just to be clear, I mean the review about Civ V, not Deus Ex. I see a lot of comments about a Deus Ex review. That's also good information to know... don't listen to the Deus Ex review. Thanks again!
Eye openingPosted: Sep 22, 2010 12:00AM PST by EverestMan
Honestly, i've sort of blindly respected Tom Chick as a reviewer for a while, and granted he made some excellent points with Civ 5, i still think Civ 4 is better as well currently, but after a few patches and the nit picks have been worked out with the ai I feel like it can be a worthy successor. However, its when I dig in to his back catalogue; again, a lot of stuff I agree with, ripping Halo 3 a new one, and a lot I dont, ripping Deus Ex (give me a break), and more recently Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2 (a few very valid points). I do still respect him immensly because he does speak his mind, sometimes though it just seems like hes trying to be the contrarian just for the sake of being the contrarian.
Graphics? Multiplayer?Posted: Sep 22, 2010 12:00AM PST by Lou_DAWG
I think it's hard to take this review seriously without a mention of these certain fundamental pieces of the game...this sounds like a Civ IV diehard review doing too much comparison, as stated in other comments here...
Read through the review and...Posted: Sep 22, 2010 12:00AM PST by himura_drew
I'm actually surprised at the score given by Tom after all the glowing reviews, but hey it's his opinion...
Anyways, as a guy who's never played any Civ games before and is looking to start - would you still recommend this game?
Good questionPosted: Sep 22, 2010 12:00AM PST by tomchick
Mr. Drew, that's a very good question. Would Civ 5 be a good entry point for someone who doesn't have the same expectations many of us have for a Civ game, and who might not know the basic system well enough to see the AI deficiencies?
Personally, I'd recommend Civ IV as a point of entry instead. It has a much more elegant basic design. It also has the advantage of a few years of polish, a fantastic add-on (Beyond the Sword), and enthusiastic support from an unparalleled modding community. But I can understand how some might argue that Civ 5 would work fine as a sort of low-stakes sexy city builder for new players to enjoy at the easier difficulty levels.
@TomPosted: Sep 22, 2010 12:00AM PST by xtendo_ninbox
That is exactly what I wanted to hear actually! I have a Mac and Civ IV is $20 on Steam which a better price for a starter's RTS for me.
Thanks Tom..Posted: Sep 22, 2010 12:00AM PST by himura_drew
I'll keep that in mind.
I've been hearing a lot of good things about the series in general. I'm seriously considering getting in to the series. Just not sure which one is a good entry point...
If your are looking for an entry pointPosted: Sep 23, 2010 12:00AM PST by Coyote30
into the series I would start with Civ 1 and then work my way to Civ 5. That way you can really appreciate the timeless concept and the overall development of PC games over the last 20 years.
And don't give anything about what Mr Chic (I hope that k is a spelling error...) has to say. He is the Obama of game reviewing - a lot of hot air and no substance...
So ironic.Posted: Sep 22, 2010 12:00AM PST by Googoo24
Funny how Tom Chick is the epitome of the red-blooded, honest reviewer-because he rated Civ 5 lowly-but the other review sites are (somehow) managed by God Awful hedonist who take bribes. It's "ironic" how people spew bland rhetoric about "honesty" and "opinion," yet at the same contradict themselves with unfounded accusations of unscrupulous behavior being conducted at other sites. It's especially amusing to read such comments presented on a mainstream publication such as 1up; a site owned by the Hearst Corporation.
Heck, you don't even have to play the game in question to verify if it's enjoyable. If Tom wrote it, it must be true! I really didn't enjoy Deus Ex! I just deluded myself into thinking I did!
Probably because . . .Posted: Sep 23, 2010 12:00AM PST by MrHibGIb
Probably because reviews, like a lot of things in American society, have been so dumbed down in recent years, that's it's truly amazing to find an honest to goodness review.
Here's a good analogy: some in the public school system want to do away with the "A-F" grading scale. At the very least, they want to do away with "F", because it denotes "failure". (Well duh!) Others want to reward children for "trying"; not necessarily for getting the answer right, but just because they put forth the effort of attempting to answer the question. "The Magna Carta was written in what year? Apple. Good Johnny, good."
See where am I going with this? We've gotten to the point where everyone has an opinion, but no one understands that opinions based on facts, education and experience have more weight and resonance than the average opinion. Someone says, "I hate apples". Well "why" do you hate apples? Back your statement up with facts. Is it based on a previously bad experience or some unknown scientific fact that no one knows? "No reason, but I'm going to rage and caps lock the loudest until I drown out everyone else." That's a perfect example of an opinion based on bias and ignorance. It's not thoughtful and it doesn't take time to explain itself. An exaggerated example would a high school student attempting to debate Steven Hawking on the finer details of astrophysics, using nothing more than his public education to do so. Ridiculous.
Personally, I'm tired of these gaming sites failing to give a game less than a B out of (I'm assuming) fear of being blacklisted by the developer/distributer and their advertising sponsers. It's all about money. They want my money and I'm tired of shelling it out to subpar, poorly developed games.
I'm glad Tom wrote the review that he did. I wish more sites did the same, because by doing so, when a game actually got a high score, I'd be more willing to purchase that game, even if it was a genre that I don't normally play.
Just my two cents.
Or it could be......Posted: Sep 23, 2010 12:00AM PST by Googoo24
Wait....What? I can name countless sites that have given popular games low reviews because of bad gameplay/bugs or other technical problems. And these weren't marginal releases either, but major AAA titles. Just this year there was Mafia II, Kane & Lynch II, HAWX 2, Splinter Cell Conviction, Metro 2033, Supreme Commander , etc.
I honestly don't see how scoring games lowly equates to good reviewing. Is it impossible to perceive that a reviewer actually loved a game, and didn't find any significant faults in said game? What happened to the concept of opinion? Why is a game receiving anything higher than a B untrustworthy, but being overly cynical honest and filled with integrity? Could it be possible that Tom give's games bad reviews for publicity/notoriety? Of course he, and his more fanatical followers, will deny this and claim it to be good "reviewing." However, these same people, who supposedly revere honesty, will in the same breath fillet any reviewer who doesn't score the same as Tom Chick, calling them "biased" (a reviewer, biased?) And, chances are, they'll do it on a mainstream site. Such contradictions are very amusing.
And I seriously doubt you'd buy a game rated a C or D, particularly if other sites regurgitated Chick's point of view. Hell, half the comments on here seem to have the opinion that this game now sucks; simply because of Chick's review. All the other reviews, even the ones from sites infinitely smaller and more independent than 1up, are now seemingly irrelevant. Odd don't you think?
Not Odd, Really . . .Posted: Sep 23, 2010 12:00AM PST by MrHibGIb
No, I don't think it's odd, for the reasons I stated above. Reviewing is about money. Review sites make their money from page hits and advertising, but they also get kickbacks from the developers themselves - exclusive interviews, early releases and beta access.
It's not in a site's best interest to critically pan a game, because the developer can simply refuse to do business with the site in the future.
Please don't reinterpret my words. I never said scoring a game lowly, in and of itself equated to "good reviewing". I simply said that it's nice to have an alternative voice to mediocre reviews. A perfect example is the Matrix trilogy. When the sequel was released, you couldn't find a negative review. Why? Because no one wanted to be "that guy/gal" that gave the Matrix a black eye. But when reality set in and the hype settled down, everyone realized how awful the sequel was. Unfortunately, when the third film was released, the exact opposite occured - all the reviewers went to the other extreme and panned the movie. Why? Because the sequel made them look stupid. But in reality, the reviewers were stupid. Now, whenever the Wachowskis release a movie, it's automatically panned.
No, it's not impossible to perceive that a reviewer, genuinely loved a game, but I can't count the number of times that I've read great, promising reviews only to be disappointed by a, supposedly, "stellar", "must have" title. I think anything that receives over-the-top acclaim is immediately suspect. Again, another movie example. Toy Story 3. Critics "loved" it. Was it innovative? No. Did it tell a different story from 1 or 2? No. They loved it because Pixar is the industry darling and, again, no one wants to be "that reviewer" that stands up to Pixar. They'll be blacklisted and removed from premieres, etc.
Again, please stop misrepresenting what I wrote. I never said that I'd purchase a C or D title. I said that I'd be more likely to purchase a title if there was less homogeny between reviews and if reviewers actually "reviewed" games instead of just placating to the developers.
Okay.Posted: Sep 23, 2010 12:00AM PST by Googoo24
But according to you a "homogeneity" exists because reviewers are dieing to appease AAA publishers left and right, when there is plenty of evidence to the contrary; and the only way to escape such "homogeneity" is, obviously, to score games lower, right? Furthermore, weren't you just saying that reviewers must take time to analyze a product thoroughly, who cares if they are, as you put it, "black listed" by a publisher? I thought the point was to avoid the first day review? Also, wouldn't these "black-listed" publications alert their readers of such a bias and move on? They've done it in the past.
And how did this discussion become one revolving around the film industry? What's your response to those games I listed, which were clearly bashed by publications who are generally labeled as "biased?"
Also, I can name quite a few sites who didn't get an exclusive interview with Firaxis, receive Beta access, or, as you put it, kiss ass to get exclusive material in regards to Civilization V; yet they still rated the game pretty good/decent. So, I'm not sure I understand the logic.
Oh, BTW, 1UP is a site that advertises for many game publishers and system developers, yet they had no qualms posting this review. So, in essence, doesn't that make your point moot? They also, typically, give 2k Game's titles glowing reviews.
Big Picture . . .Posted: Sep 23, 2010 12:00AM PST by MrHibGIb
Yes, there are examples of reviewers giving negative reviews to AAA titles, but those reviews are few and far between. I'm not saying that overly critical/negative reviews need to constantly be made. I'm just saying that there's a homogeneity between the majority of reviews today - meaning that most reviews lack substance and critical objectivity. It's like they're all taken from the same mold.
As for turning the conversation into a movie review - it's called an analogy. It's an attempt to draw parallels between the gaming industry and the movie industry. By doing so, I'm attempting to give substance to my argument, by providing real world examples that show that what I'm describing/taking-issue-with in the gaming industry is not without precedence in other, similiar industries.
By doing so, I'm lending credence to my argument.
Take a game like Red Dead Redemption. Great reviews, but months after the hype has died down, most are now acknowledging that it's repetitive, with little or no replayability.
Yes, 1UP posted the review, but how often do they actually post critical reviews?
Anyway, I've made my point. I doubt you'll agree.
Okay.Posted: Sep 23, 2010 12:00AM PST by Googoo24
I disagree with your assertion that a majority of reviews today lack substance, since, for one, there are variety of review sites of varying qualities. To lump all of them into one category, or homogeneity, is, IMHO, very near sighted; not to mention insulting. Only a select few titles actually receive accolades every year, with a majority of releases receiving mediocre review scores. A quick perusal of Metacritic should make this fact very evident.
And movies and video games are not similar industries, particularly in regards to reviews. In fact, according to Metacritic, games are generally scored higher than other forms of media; which is why they rate movies/music differently. In regards to your example about critics fearful of black lash from Pixar, the film Cars, which was released fairly recently, received an overall Meta score of 73% and a 74% on Rotten Tomatoes. I guess the reviewers weren't too scared that day, eh? But I digress.
In regards to your RDR example, what game doesn't become boring after a few months? That length of time is pretty substantive (particularly in this day and age) for a game wouldn't you say? So, I'm not sure how that represents a fault.
And of course 1up posts the occasional in depth review, I never denied this. But the point you made is that sites steeped in advertisement and promotions don't write objective reviews. In fact, this is what you stated.
"No, I don't think it's odd, for the reasons I stated above. Reviewing is about money. Review sites make their money from page hits and advertising, but they also get kickbacks from the developers themselves - exclusive interviews, early releases and beta access."
I just commented on the irony of this statement, particularly when one reflects on website we're posting on.
And, no, I don't agree with you. I doubt we would have had this lengthy discussion if I did.
Actually . . .Posted: Sep 23, 2010 12:00AM PST by MrHibGIb
. . . movies and video games are very similar, because of reviews. In both regards, the reviewer attempts to dissect a film/videogame and compare/constrast it against a wide spectrum of film/videogame history - both against the whole and genre-specific.
A review is just that - a review of the film's/videogame's effectiveness at telling a compelling story, conveying thoughts/ideas and creating a believeable environment in which all of those things exist.
In the case of games, they have an extra element - audience participation/interactivity. In this, the reviewer must gauge how well the game allows for interactivity. The reviewer must wear the hat of objectivity, while also attempting to place him/herself into the shoes of the average gamer - thereby providing a review that's based on experience, history and relateability.
So no, your assertion that movie and game reviews are dissimilar is erroneous.
And just like the games/movies they're critquing, a reviewer should attempt (in order to justify themselves and their critiques) to constantly (re)define themselves and break free of homogenized/lemming-like reviews. Again, that's accomplished by offering detailed reviews and comparingconstrasting a film/game against a wider spectrum of game and genre history.
This review succeeded.
Okay.Posted: Sep 23, 2010 12:00AM PST by Googoo24
"So no, your assertion that movie and game reviews are dissimilar is erroneous.."
Yet you just wrote a paragraph explaining their differences.
"And just like the games/movies they're critquing, a reviewer should attempt (in order to justify themselves and their critiques) to constantly (re)define themselves and break free of homogenized/lemming-like reviews. Again, that's accomplished by offering detailed reviews and comparingconstrasting a film/game against a wider spectrum of game and genre history."
Leeming like reviews? I don't understand, you say you don't want the reviewers to write scathing reviews, but at the same time you don't want them to parrot the same thing? I'm not sure I follow.......Outside of high scores, what, exactly, have the reviews done similar? Are you telling me you've read every single review in regards to this title, and have reached a conclusion that they are all lacking? No, offense, but that's ludicrous. Furthermore, according to one of your original posts, sites that are knee deep in advertising don't possess objective opinions. You seem to indicate that this is the only thorough review, which is, ironically, on a site that thrives on getting exclusive interviews and advertising. Furthermore, I've read several reviews that comment on the series, the history of the genre, etc. The Giant Bomb, Gamespot and IGN reviews are some fine examples.
Yeah..,,Posted: Sep 23, 2010 12:00AM PST by Googoo24
I need to reread them? You yourself just touched on some very key differences.
Experience: A man who sits and watches movies 24/7 isn't going to be able to start playing Halo suddenly and offer a comprehensive viewpoint on a genre/game that he has no experience with.
Story: Most video games, contrary to popular belief, don't even have a comprehensive narratives. Ever heard of Super Mario Galaxy 2? Civilization V? Medieval: Total War II, etc? Not to mention the countless games with thread bare storytelling? How many movies would survive without a well thought out narrative? Hmmmm........ I
Interactivity: Games actually involve interaction and input from its audience. This interactivity not only revolves the game itself, but the technology needed to play the game.
Longevity: Games typically last longer than a 2 hour movie, have new things added to them (DLC/mods) and are generally a longer investment. In fact, many games have improved due to patching and mods. Can you mod or patch a bad movie?
And the most significant similarity you can come up with is the subjective nature of reviews, connection to audience and believeablity? Really, this discussion is going no where. Is there anything else you'd like to touch on?
Seriously . . .Posted: Sep 24, 2010 12:00AM PST by MrHibGIb
Why is this so difficult? You just restated everything I said; expounded upon it in some cases; and, ultimately, reiterated my points, point-by-point.
You've essentially made my argument for me. So you're right, this conversation is now going no where, because we're apparently in agreement.
And while you may take issue with the core tenants of films/games - experience, story, interactivity and longevity - I would then expand those umbrella terms to include and help define music and literature too.
These are basic principles of content creation and a reviewer (again) needs to draw upon them in order to write a "fair and balanced" (ha) review.
And if you don't think that movies are interactive, then I'm afraid you've been watching the wrong movies. The best kind are the ones that foster dialogue (both external and internal) after we finish watching them. Granted, it's not quite as literal as game interactivity, but nonetheless, it's still there.
Seriously.....Posted: Sep 24, 2010 12:00AM PST by Googoo24
"You just restated everything I said; expounded upon it in some cases; and, ultimately, reiterated my points, point-by-point."
Precisely, because you can't seem tell when you're expressing differences between two methods of review. Here's what you originally stated:
''So no, your assertion that movie and game reviews are dissimilar is erroneous.'''
Interesting, since, as we have gone over, they are (in fact) dissimilar, different, unalike, opposite, etc. in certain aspects than each other.
''"You've essentially made my argument for me. So you're right, this conversation is now going no where, because we're apparently in agreement."''
So we're in agreement that movie reviews are different than video game reviews? Cuz that's what I originally stated. The only similarity is the ideal of relating an objective experience to an audience, but the reviewers of these two separate genres emphasize totally different concepts. You're basically saying movie reviews are similar, but different at the same time........ We may play on the same football team, both on offense; but you're the running back and I'm quarterback. We both have intents to score, but our methods for doing so are quite different. A thing can't be very similar and very different at the same time, sir. Unless you want to focus on the idea of them being similar in sharing some ideals, but being different in others. If you believe that, then my argument that they are different is true, right? The same being true of the claim that they share similarities. That's true too. It's the reason why reviewers stick to their field of expertise.
""""And if you don't think that movies are interactive, then I'm afraid you've been watching the wrong movies""""
Uh, it was you who said video games only possessed this extra element first. Did you forget? I'll quote you:
'"In the case of games, they have an extra element - audience participation/interactivity. In this, the reviewer must gauge how well the game allows for interactivity."'
But, yet you're deriding me for reinforcing the claim you made! LOL!
""""Granted, it's not quite as literal as game interactivity, but nonetheless, it's still there.""""
And here, you reveal another "literal" difference. A good game can be ruined by bad controls, difficulty, bugs, glitches etc. regardless of whether it possesses a good plot. And a reviewer has to take into account all these things. Most movies only have to worry about plot, camera work and acting.
Regardless, you win sir! There you go! I'll allow you to have the last word. And no insults please.
Reading Comprehension FTL . . .Posted: Sep 24, 2010 12:00AM PST by MrHibGIb
You said movies and games had no similar basis. I said they did and then made a list. You challenged that list, then I restated your challenge and used it to reinforce my original statement - that movies and games and, as a natural extension, movie/game reviews, share similar qualities.
You said they didn't. I said that was erroneous. Again, why is this so hard to follow?
Now you're saying that I'm agreeing with you. Seriously? I never once contradicted myself.
Games, movies, music, television and literature share, to one degree or another, the same basic tenants: experience, storytelling, interactivity and longevity (the latter being a result of the quality/depth of the initial three). A good reviewer (for any of the aforementioned media) must acknowledge these tenants and use them as a basis for their reviews. Otherwise, what are they basing their reviews upon, except personal subjectivity?
Curious . . . have you ever taken a course in descriptive critique? You may want too.
You simply refuse to acknowledge my points (which are, in fact, contrary to yours) - opting instead to twist my words, repurpose them and take them out of context.
Good day.
Reading Comprehension FTW...Posted: Sep 24, 2010 12:00AM PST by Googoo24
Seeing as how you were determined to upstage me in this debate (for whatever reason) regardless of me finding several faults in your argument, or refuting them out right; you decided to focus on trying to explain the differences between movie and game reviews. Ignoring all the fallacies presented in your original argument. Regardless, I find it amusing that you would choose to focus on the concept of "reading comprehension." None the less, I shall oblige your ridiculous focus on semantics/straw-man argument.
'"You said they didn't. I said that was erroneous. Again, why is this so hard to follow?"'
Here's the definition of similar, differentiate and dissimilar; provided by Princeton just for good folks like you:
Perusing the above evidence, you will learn that dissimilar and different are interchangeable. Thus, your assertion that they're not dissimilar or "different" is "erroneous." In fact, the thesaurus labels "dissimilar" and "different" as the antonym of "similar." An antonym, as we know, is a word opposed to another. Didn't we just acknowledge, whether you know it, that they are "very" different in many respects? So, in essence, you fail.
In other words, I find them to be more "different" than "similar," which is why we have a "disagreement." It's akin (LOL) to the example Princeton provided in regards to twins in the definition of dissimilar.. However, I do sooooo love it when people bring semantics into a debate.
Also, didn't I already tell you that some games, like Civilization V (from what I know), don't even have stories? Why do you keep trying to emphasize that games rely on storytelling the same as movies? A movie, usually, lives or dies on its story. A game doesn't necessarily need one, but it's a nice addition. That's a DIFFERENCE. Having experience in driving a boat isn't the same as having experience in flying a plane. That's another DIFFERENCE. You "YOURSELF" originally stated that video games were exclusive to interactivity (which I'll touch on again momentarily) . Finally, the audiences are "DIFFERENT."
'"'Now you're saying that I'm agreeing with you. Seriously? I never once contradicted myself. '"
Uhh, yeah, according to Princeton, you did agree with me. Also, sir, did you miss this in my previous post?:
""""And if you don't think that movies are interactive, then I'm afraid you've been watching the wrong movies""""
Uh, it was you who said video games only possessed this extra element first. Did you forget? I'll quote you:
'"In the case of games, they have an extra element - audience participation/interactivity. In this, the reviewer must gauge how well the game allows for interactivity''."'
Here's the definition of contradiction.
"Games, movies, music, television and literature share, to one degree or another, the same basic tenants"
Wait, I thought they were "very similar," which was the prerequisite to be overally similar and what you told me they were? According to this "one degree" logic, humans are similar to ducks because we both eat, shit and sleep.
"Curious . . . have you ever taken a course in descriptive critique? You may want too".
Curious......Have you ever taken a course that revolves around etymology? You may want to.
And you have a wonderful day too, sir!
:'(Posted: Sep 25, 2010 12:00AM PST by Googoo24
For others to peruse over:
"There's an important third factor, to which I owe thanks to Steve Carlson at BC. You don't use the same criteria to judge The Three Stooges In Orbit that you use to evaluate Hamlet, just as you don't compare a dinner at Joe's Diner with one at a three-star Michelin restaurant in Paris. You review something within its own context - another reason you have to know something about the art form in general."http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=criterionhttp://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=basis&sub=Search+WordNet&o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&h=00
Hmmm....Posted: Sep 26, 2010 12:00AM PST by cantsee19
I'll just sum up my oberservation withou the wall-o-text.
I view it in the context of shapes. You measure, count, and review shapes with the same tools and methods, but a triangle will always be different than a circle. As some one who reads movie and game reviews regularly, I don't find them the same. They may share some marginal similarities, but overall, they are different. They aren't interchangeable.
Not again.Posted: Sep 27, 2010 12:00AM PST by Googoo24
I got your PM.
(Sigh) Participating in this discussion has made me feel like an idiot. I say video games and movies aren't similar industries, and that this is shown in how they are reviewed. I'm told they're "very similar," because the format is the same. I explain how the "overall" formats aren't the same, since, as you also indicate, they can't be "interhcanged. "The argument then changes to they are similar in "one degree or another," which to me seems like back tracking. I thought they were very similar? I continue the debate, going so far as to define "similar" to the opposing party. According to the definition, which I wasted time in providing, something must be very similar or the same in order to be considered "similar."
I'm told I'm "twisting words," though this isn't elaborated on, and I provided quotes.
This discussion is over.
Respect +10Posted: Sep 22, 2010 12:00AM PST by MrHibGIb
1Up just picked up an extra life in my opinion. Been worried for a while now that they'd simply gone the route of other review sites - placating to the developers and apathetically serving as a mouthpiece of advertising.
But look at that . . . an honest, in-the-trenches review! Good on you. Please keep 'em coming.
My thoughts EXACTLYPosted: Sep 23, 2010 12:00AM PST by sputnikcl
For my love people, wake up.
This review at the very least is sincere, yet I believe it to be excellent. FURTHERMORE i cannot fathom how the general public has come to rely on these 100/100 reviews that are dumbed-down sensationalist promotions that add little to the understanding of these games.
Finally a reviewer who doesn't take kickbacksPosted: Sep 22, 2010 12:00AM PST by niftyc
Tom, I often wonder if IGN and the rest are taking kickbacks -- they always rate expensive franchise games highly, even though as a player I can't understand their enthusiasm. As a Civilization fanatic I can already tell I'll agree with you when I play this game. Thanks for being a voice I trust. And thank you as well for your excellent writing in this review. It shows a care and an eye for detail that I admire. --niftyc
Always has to be someone...Posted: Sep 23, 2010 12:00AM PST by slabtowner
"I often wonder if IGN and the rest are taking kickbacks"
I'll save you much wondering: No, they aren't. Grow up.
Tom Chick: One of the last honest reviewers left.Posted: Sep 22, 2010 12:00AM PST by nelly_k
If this reviewer cared about any of your opinions concerning his credibility, he would've stopped writing reviews a long time ago.
At least he's backing up his score with facts, not hyperbole like "In case you haven't guessed already, Grand Theft Auto IV is a game that you simply have to play." (Gamespot) or "Heavy Rain is a hell of an experience." (IGN) Umm... No, GTA IV was not a game I had to play and yes, Heavy Rain was a hell of an experience in the literal sense.
Good reviewers are like non-obese Americans. They're few and far between and they refuse to drink the Kool-aid. Learn from Tom Chick, future game writers! Learn, I say!
Argh...Posted: Sep 22, 2010 12:00AM PST by Mitch722
WTF? Why are there multiple 1Up staffers engaging in a war of words like this? This is a comments board... on the INTERNET... there is going to be negative stuff written, and I unfortunately lose respect for any website's brand when I see unprofessional behavior such as this. And that is the brand, 1Up.com. Not Chick or Tina. Am I the only one who doesn't chech the reviewers name before reading? When I read "Chick Parabola" I spent a moment trying to decipher a possible 'chicken or the egg' reference veiled somewhere within. This is 1Up.com writing this review. Who they hire is their business, I'll let them legislate that on their own, but their employees actions will represent their brand
My ThoughtsPosted: Sep 22, 2010 12:00AM PST by KnightFall
You spent your whole review trying to justify the low score, which is probably what you should do cause everyones gonna be like "wtf a C?"
It seems like your rating it compared to Civ 4. Like "Well its x% as good as IV so Ill give it x% of the score", but I think you should rate it as a standalone game.
And yes, a C does mean "its as good as other games that got C's", cause if it doesnt mean that, then the rating means nothing. I think review scores are important because they tell you how much the bad stuff hurts the enjoyment of the game.
I think I speak for the readership when I say that a C says that you probably wont play it again, if that's true then thats fine.
EDIT: I read your comments, seems like your thoughts about the game do actually line up with your score. So that's cool then.
Difficulty levels!Posted: Sep 22, 2010 12:00AM PST by tomchick
Oh, and just to clarify, because it's an important part of how people compare their experiences with the game: I've played through full games on the normal difficulty level, and on the one-notch-above-normal difficulty. And by normal, I don't mean default, since I think the default when you just hit "quick play" is two notches below normal. I messed around a bit with two notches above normal, but I just find it too frustrating to jockey for a good starting position when the AI is getting obvious economic advantages.
It's a Tom Chick review!Posted: Sep 22, 2010 12:00AM PST by Googoo24
Why are folks surprised by the score? If it's a popular new title, then Tom Chick will be sure to give it a D or C. If it's an excellent title, maybe a B-. Nothing to see here people. And, yes, I know it's his opinion......
Bush league reviewer is bush league.Posted: Sep 22, 2010 12:00AM PST by Point_And_Laugh
9/10 from IGN
93/100 from PC Gamer
5/5 from G4TV
5/5 from joystiq.com
9.2/10 from ausgamers.com
9.75/10 from Gameinformer
5/5 from The Escapist
"A" from Gaming Nexus
"Superb" from Destructoid
People need to stop paying any attention to what this guy writes, it's getting pretty ridiculous.
I stopped taking Tom Chick seriously as a reviewer ten years ago when he reviewed Deus Ex.
(I stopped taking him seriously as an actor a couple years later. *cough* *cough* *Joan of Arcadia* *cough* *cough*)
One question though Tom... did you even try playing at a higher difficulty setting than "Settler"?
Somehow I doubt it.
And "Chick Parabola"?! Really?! I can smell your arrogance through my broadband.
EDIT: @DarkGryphon
The only one coming off like a fanboy is you, pal. I'm just stating facts. You need to get off Tom's nuts.
His IS entitled to his opinion. So am I. That's the beauty of this whole freedom of expression thing on this here internets doohickey.
EDIT: @ KnightFall
"KnightFall" huh? Are you and "DarkGryphon" in the same WoW RP Guild?
Yes. I am that guy. The guy that tongue-punched your mom's fart box.
Yet again.Posted: Sep 22, 2010 12:00AM PST by DarkGryphon
So? You act as if this a big deal. It's his opinion. Not IGN's, not Game Informers. HIS. Stop comparing his work to others and get off his case you freaky little fanboy. And take your big font with you. No one cares. The man is entitled to making his review without you idiots constantly bitching about it.
Your a dickPosted: Sep 22, 2010 12:00AM PST by KnightFall
Your a dick man. I stopped taking you seriously when I read your subject line.
You act as if you "prove" a point, but you dont. All you prove is that there will always be "that guy", and today sir, you are "that guy".
Beware of Shiny Pre-viewsPosted: Sep 22, 2010 12:00AM PST by trischley
Sadly, this is the most accurate review of the game I have read so far. I am a self-described civ-addict. Even took the day off from work to grab this game early and have most of the day to play it. Yeah, I know, it's sad, but I bet everyone got's one game that will bring on a sudden case of ican'tpossiblygotoworkitis. Well, this mania was instigated by all of those insanely high review scores I kept seeing all over the place. So, now after having played hours upon hours of Civ 5 now, I can easily say that if someone had stripped it and Civ III of any distinguishing labeling and handed them to me years ago before C3, I would've had thought C5 was the precursor to C3. The fact that I'm not playing C5 right now, nor do I really want to,says alot. Everything Tom Chick points out as sinkers for C5 is very true and there's even more to be disgruntled about: Stripped down worker functions, along with so much more was changed that really shouldn't have been. Foreign relations, meh. If there's a screen to check who's your buddy and who wants to kill you, what you're trading and with whom, what pacts did you sign many many turns ago that are still active, I have yet to find it. The other countries are just rare pop-ups that I really just don't care about and it doesn't seem to matter how I treat them. So, beware of glowing pre-reviews of betas or of a rushed reviewer's first hour or so of gameplay or someone's review of a game they played one blissed-out day of E3. Sigh, so disappointed. Not because it's a bad game, it's just that I had my hopes up way too high. Not to mention the game crash today. Had to re-install. fun. So Mr. Chick, I will try to wait for your reviews in the future before calling in any more sick days.
For a review to be good, you don't necessarily have to agree with itPosted: Sep 22, 2010 12:00AM PST by joedgordon
I personally think that this was a great review (even though I haven't played the game yet, so may disagree with it). It gets right to the heart of the matter, instead of wasting space talking about how shiny and new the game looks. Bad AI absolutely floors a strategy game (I wouldn't really enjoy playing Chess against my baby sister). Civ Revolution was good fun but had no lasting appeal because the AI was always similar and this narrowed down your options. You invested yourself in the game to nowhere near the same extent as the PC versions and so it was an entirely different experience.
Statements here about how this review must be bad because it comes to different conclusions to other sources are absurd. It's just a modern version of the 'ad populum' fallacy. We should be especially wary of reviews from the gaming press because we all know (don't we?) that they get caught up in the hype and PR of big name franchises.
One thing which this review does not touch on - along with others I have read - is the multiplayer. I suppose that for early reviews there are practical reasons for this, but then that is a problem with early reviews. Good multiplayer may render the bad AI irrelevant, to a certain extent, but then again AI empires still play pivotal roles in multiplayer games.
Keep up the good work, Tom.
Just one review...Posted: Sep 22, 2010 12:00AM PST by Biowulf
Take the review for what it's worth, an educated opinion on the game seen through the reviewers eye. If you take any sort of review serious, you're letting another person dictate how you'll enjoy the game. To get a better understanding of whether or not this game warrants a purchase, I'd suggest looking at a collaboration site such as metacritic where it lists multiple reviews. Ironically, while I understand the shortcomings and the reviewer's distaste towards the game, the general consensus is overwhelmingly positive, and having played it myself, I find this game to be extremely entertaining regardless of the AI shortcomings, which can be a nuisance.
This game is definitely worth checking out, give the steam demo a try, you can play up to 100 turns as many times as you want ( as long as you start a new game ), it will give you a taste of how the game will end up turning out. I'd also suggest playing on the hardest difficulty in order to get a grasp on how the pace/AI will act when they're supposed to be really hard.
top review - respectPosted: Sep 22, 2010 12:00AM PST by iyun
Great review. It doesn't matter how polished, expensive or initially enjoyable a game is, it only takes one fatal flaw to ruin it and I think a C in that case is generous. I'll still be getting the game as I expect they will patch the AI down the track, but that is irrelevant at the time of your review, and anyway, you give a nod to patches as a good solution. To me, disgaea falls into the same boat and is a good illustration of a highly ranked game with a fatal flaw. It oozes character, the strategy is deep, and it's just downright fun. Until you realise.. it's just one massive grind. It takes no skill to complete.. if you're unmatched, just go grind until you win. There is no requirement for skill, therefore no challenge, and I lost interest immediately. I commend you for having the balls to write an honest review
I think were on the same pagePosted: Sep 22, 2010 12:00AM PST by Xegres
Both with this game and disgaea. Disgaea games have great artwork and voice acting and fun scripts but the game soon becomes just grinding and no strategy. The gameplay is relatively unchanged game to game and they even released Disgaea 3 on the ps3 despite its ps2 era graphics. Reviewers should take note of things like that and be much more critical than the casual gamer. I hate game reviewers that see a shinny game and give it a 10 while ignoring all of its problems. They are suppose to be game critics not game salesmen.
I might still get Civ5 but its good to know what im in for before i buy it. When i was planing on getting Empire Total War i looked at the IGN review and saw a 9.5 and little to no mention of bugs. When i bought the game i got a very rude awakening. This review is much better.
like a shooter with bad weapons.Posted: Sep 22, 2010 12:00AM PST by journeys1959
Turn base game will quickly not be fun when the AI is weak. That is a the heart of the game along with the control mechanisms. Displays are candy.
Imagine an FPS or third person shooter with terrible shooting and moving mechanisms? Or an outline fighting game that has latencies? How would you score that? Are those not the hearts of that genre of game?
Tom's opinion and the evidence he provides shows why the game should get a mediocre score. The problem we have is that there are very few games of this sort that come out frequently to compare this to. So Tom used the most popular one which would be IV. From that base it does appear that the changes made parts of the game less fun in Tom's view. Like someone said above is more of a disappointed since we had waited to play this game and we will because what are the choices? Sigh Ages of Empire is gone ghost.
I like how Tom wrote the review. I played one game of Civ V so far and was late for work. I noticed Tom's points myself. But I felt some of the new improvements would have given the game a bit higher of score but thats because I thought the controls were improved. Also some of those AI weakness are often what gets exploited over time as you figure it out.
I wonder if the technology/development cost can support all the things that Tom would like?
Really guys...really?Posted: Sep 22, 2010 12:00AM PST by jediassassin420
So Tom didn't like the game...boo whooo. Why do we have to chastise the reviewer for giving us his honest opinion? THIS IS HIS FUCKING JOB! Just because he didn't like the game, you don't like him and call his work "uncredible" and pretty much make him an outcast in your world? He got the job by applying for it and having to be interviewed or he knows somebody, either way there is a reason why he's a 1up reviewer and you just sit at home sending messages about how you can do a better job than everyone else. Besides, if you have the game and are currently playing it...why the fuck are you reading a review on it? Have a "selective" opinion? It's also not the first time I've seen this on 1up. All your doing is taking YOUR credability away when you blindly say this idiocracies. I could just as easily say the same about you. Do you know Tom personally? Thats what I thought. I don't know you and I can very easily say that you haven't read the review or played the game. See how easy that was? All I'm saying is that just because somebody gives the new CoD or Halo a D, shouldn't mean that you completely discredit his work. Deuche.
Review =/ OpinionPosted: Sep 22, 2010 12:00AM PST by assorted_quest
Opinions have no place in journalism, even in a not so credible field such as video game journalism.
There is a difference between an opinion and a review. A review is supposed to be a non-biased critique of a game's pros and cons, while giving the reader enough information to let him have the real final verdict, not the reviewer. An opinion is just that, your opinion, and belongs on a blog, not as a video game review. Learn the difference.
Oh my godPosted: Sep 22, 2010 12:00AM PST by DarkGryphon
I can't stop laughing. I'm sorry Assorted quest, but if you had taken a class in Journalism that isn't the case. What YOU said a review is is actually a Pro and Con list. There is no way in any shape or form that you can't have a review that isn't even a little opinionated BECAUSE ITS THE REVIEWERS EXPERINCE WITH THE GAME. THEIR EXPERIENCE.
Jesus people.
Your wrongPosted: Sep 22, 2010 12:00AM PST by KnightFall
This is a reply to the first replier, who claimed reviews have "rules".
A review isnt supposed to be anything except for what the reviewer wants. There is no goddamn rules.
I'm surprised with the surprisePosted: Sep 22, 2010 12:00AM PST by parklife444
Many positive Civ V reviews mention the AI shortcomings. Insofar as a single player experience is concerned, AI is EVERYTHING in a strategy game. I imagine the lousy AI is Chick's major justificaiton for the C review (the bugs don't help). The fact is, no amount of improvements are worht a hill of beans if the computer can't effectively play the game.
@SpaceGeekPosted: Sep 22, 2010 12:00AM PST by tomchick
I can assure you that I did, in fact, actually play Civilization V. I didn't submit any screens, however, so 1up just used some that I presume had been provided by 2K's PR folks.
Disagree, tfunk24Posted: Sep 22, 2010 12:00AM PST by Aelfric
The give-and-take ethos of 1UP is one of the things I like about it, and so long as the reviewer in question is not dragged down in to flame war sorts of histrionics, I like it when he or she engages in the comments. The idea that it is 'unprofessional' strikes me as somewhat old fashioned, which is odd, because I am a very old dude! We're all entitled to our opinions, of course.
@ Mr. TurboPubPosted: Sep 22, 2010 12:00AM PST by tomchick
"Now Tom, one question: do you really believe that Civ V is an average turn-based strategy game for the year 2010? Or is the score just a way to expres the sentiment, 'NOT THAT GOOD PEOPLE.'"
I hate how folks get fixated on the score to the exclusion of the couple of thousand words I actually wrote about the game. :) But this is the internet, so fair enough. My thinking with the C is that it's not as bad as a D, but worse than a B. I don't mean to flip, but it really is that simple.
As far as a turn-based strategy game goes, it gets credit for being ambitious. But it really does fall apart because of the AI, and I feel it doesn't live up to some important principles set by the previous games. I can completely understand the enthusiasm from some of you guys who are playing Civ V right now, and I was there as well. It's a heady game when you first start playing, and I honestly hope you never get past that.
But in the end, I think the game doesn't work very well and I don't recommend it in its current state. So I guess I'd agree with your NOT THAT GOOD PEOPLE comment, Mr. Turbo Pup.
Who will take this seriously?Posted: Sep 22, 2010 12:00AM PST by Jimlad
With this, Tom Chick has sealed his reputation as a reviewer that can't be taken seriously. The purpose of games reviews is to provide readers with a reasonable opinion of a game's merits and faults, but reading this one can only assume that the reviewer was playing a different game to everyone else.
I don't debate that this article is an honest critique of the game, but assuming it is, then Tom Chick's opinions in general must differ hugely compared to the vast majority of gamers. In other words, almost nobody will find anything relatable to them in his reviews, which makes him largely worthless as a reviewer for a major gaming site.
This isn't to say that any and all reviews that differ from the "general consensus" are to be ignored, but given Tom Chick's past reputation, along with the fact that this review differs so greatly from every other review and every opinion of the game I've heard so far (as well as my own since I've played the game and think it's great), it should be clear that Tom Chick has zero credibility as a games critic at this point, and this review's conclusions can be ignored safely.
This is way instead of reviews and scoresPosted: Sep 22, 2010 12:00AM PST by YJDO
The reviewer or whatever you'd call him if you'd change the title of the job being done should just talk about how the game works
The goods and bads but not giving it a score or anything
Pretty much the same thing you do as a review but without the score because in the end the reviewers opnion will most likely not match the opinion of other buyers
This is a really well written reviewPosted: Sep 22, 2010 12:00AM PST by Brick_Road
Tom Chick has a fantastic way with words. Even though I've been playing this non-stop, and cognitive dissonance would have me upset that something I payed for would get anything but excellent reviews, I couldn't help but really enjoy and appreciate the points made.
A bit overly criticalPosted: Sep 22, 2010 12:00AM PST by assorted_quest
While I do appreciate your honesty, and agree with you on several points, I do believe you're being overly critical of the game here. You seem to compare Civ 4 to Civ 5 far too often. A game that has had five years of patches and expansions compared to a game that literally came out about, what, 36 hours ago, is not exactly a fair comparison by any means. Take into account that Civ 4, at release, was pretty damn buggy and not at all balanced as well, but you don't seem to mention that. Diplomacy in the vanilla Civ 4 with no patches was pretty screwy, and it took two expansions and countless patches to get it working to the state its in now. If you'd be willing to review a copy of Civ 4 out of the box with zero patches and give it a similar review or lower, then I would stand corrected. But until then, you're comparing a finely aged wine to something that was just bottled the other day.
I also find it odd how you spent a paragraph listing great things about the game, then spent a page and a half ranting about how it's not Civ 4-2: Electric Boogaloo. Not exactly great video game reviewing there (not that I ever take video game reviewers seriously). Really, it seems like you're just trying to ride on your coattails about being "the guy who gives popular, hyped games low scores" and intentionally gave it a C for drama's sake. But that would be my opinion, not a fact.
I Agree as wellPosted: Sep 22, 2010 12:00AM PST by TornConflict
Though I also find it hard to relate to a reviewer that quotes a phenomenon he make makes up and names after himself. That whole part feels kinda of arrogant. He is entitled to his opinion but I feel I personally can not trust the judgement of some one who's review rubs me as badly as this one does. It's not about the score, scores are stupid. He make some interesting point but doesn't seem to understand the flaws that this series seems to have always had. All of them have exploits if you play them long enough.
Yes and noPosted: Sep 22, 2010 12:00AM PST by TurboPubx-16
Tom's ciriticisms are totally fair. However! These things just don't matter to me as much as they do to him, especially since the changes in gameplay are very refreshing.
Civics and religion were awesome mechanics last time around, but after hundreds of hours with them I'm ready for something different. Remember how great prophets were super useful in the early game but in the late game they would still show up despite being totally useless? Remember how fustrating religion could be due to its randomness? Civics were cool, except for the fact that certain combinations were so obviously powerful, and you couldn't really get clever by mixing and matching them.
It's true that there are big numbers, but the advantage is that happiness is now empire-wide instead of city-to-city. I really prefer one big number of red faces compared to a bunch of red faces all over the place.
Now Tom, one question: do you really believe that Civ V is an average turn-based strategy game for the year 2010? Or is the score just a way to expres the sentiment, 'NOT THAT GOOD PEOPLE.'
Sometimes it's in the games we love the most that we find the most to complain about.
Edit: I kind of like the mystery with the AI Civs. In Civ 3 and 4 it was weird to me that they would become your friends and help you out, since what they should be trying to do is fuck you over and win the game. In 3 and 4 your friends would declare on you anyway if you were getting too powerful, and they couldn't be relied on to vote for you in elections. Now I make cool little arrangments here and there's no lying about there being a long-term friendship. It's more like real history, or a reality-tv-show, with constant alliances and betrayal. I especially love the deal where you agree to wait ten turns and then declare war.
troll detected.Posted: Sep 22, 2010 12:00AM PST by SpaceGeek
Its his job to review the game based on its merits or failings, not to lean a review into the negative just to take steam out of fanboys. I believe thats the definition of being a hack.
I also find this review highly suspect as Tom advertises his tendency to negatively review universally-acclaimed franchises (and takes great joy in doing so) just to deflate fans.
This is a troll, folks.
=scans SpaceGeek=Posted: Sep 22, 2010 12:00AM PST by DarkGryphon
The Troll Radar does indeed sense a troll. Except the organism seems to be on your person!
=dramatic music insert here=
C'mon GeekPosted: Sep 22, 2010 12:00AM PST by ForeignFlight
Do you currently own Civ5 or manage to play it? It's hard to tell from your comments.
I love the Civ series, I had a blast with Civ4 plus expansions and some great mods like Fall from Heaven 2. I also own CivRev, which does an excellent job of maintaining the essence of the game while making huge (nearly all positive) changes for the port to console.
I also owned Elemental through the beta and still do.
Civ5 has a lot going for it. The graphics are vivid and entertaining to watch, especially the new leader animations. The pacing is fantastic, although I haven't reached the modern age yet. I've had the opportunity to play about 6 hours since it was released, mainly because I was on a plane all day yesterday.
That being said I have mixed feelings about the game. There's a lot about it that's a step in the right direction, and most of it won't come as a surprise if you've played CivRev. But I have the same misgivings that Tom does. I'm sad to see Civics and religions relegated to a shadowy corner, and the Social Policy tree is fun to navigate, but is a poor fit for Civ5. As Chick mentioned, adding to your policy instead of being able to change it is bewildering, because it neither makes the game more fun nor is it a more accurate abstraction than the system used in Civ4.
One of the other main reasons I play the Civ series is because I have the opportunity to grow a civilization and achieve victory without bloodshed. I'm not squeamish of virtual violence, I just have enough games where violence is a given. Even strategy games, like Creative Assembly's Total War series, Elemental, and Heroes of Might and Magic require bloodshed to succeed. It's refreshing to play a game where you can achieve dominance through diplomacy, culture, or technology. Unfortunately, thanks to Civ5's opaque diplomacy system, I have no idea what my friends and enemies think of me.
In response to your mention that since the U.S never used communism, it makes sense that you can't make changes in social policy. That's bogus, because what about other social policies like slavery, free markets, and such? Social policies are MEANT to change, and a sign of a countries resilience is its ability to adapt.
With the new Civ5 system, any policy choices you made in 3000BC you're stuck with 5,000 years later. That doesn't make sense.
I can't wait to get a chance to get home and get some real time in on my desktop, but from one Civ fan to another, I totally understand where Tom is coming from.
Like the reviewer I'm skeptical that this game has the same staying power as Civ4. I hope I'm proven wrong.
Did Tom even play Civ 5?Posted: Sep 22, 2010 12:00AM PST by SpaceGeek
Something Im noticing is that the screenshots tom has are very different from what Im seeing. The massive "V" circle in the upper right is not there. The minimap has a Civ V logo overlay, no blackness, like your map exploration is "filling in" a blank map. The city economy info he claims isnt there IS there and is very intuitive. He's even got a screenshot of it! You can get a very detailed window or get overlays on your cities. The "uberwindow" is no different than Civ IV, so whats the deal?
Also, the "locked in" civics make perfect sense. The USA didnt spend time being communist while it decided if it wants to be a dictator ship or a democracy. The USA was a democracy from the start, "locked in". The Policies feature takes the place of EVERY Civic from Civ IV. You choose what "kind" of nation you want to be at start and then you modify it from there. You can be the United States which was a Democracy from the start and continues to be in reality; using Policies you can lean more to the Republic side or the Democracy side or even to the Police State side if you want.
The new system lets you choose what type of country you are and the Policies fill in the fine details of how you function within that role.
What exactly about this system is so horribly wrong and broken? Tom Chick is looking like a total hack right now.
So 1UP officially recommends Elemental over Civ VPosted: Sep 22, 2010 12:00AM PST by Ashenkhar
Wow. I'm truly astounded at how ridiculous this review score is. So Elemental: War of Magic (almost universally panned) gets a C+ from 1up. http://www.1up.com/do/reviewPage?cId=3181116
Yet Civ V, gets a LOWER score at a C.
Let me sum this up. According to 1UP, Elemental is a better game than Civ V.
Credibility fail.
HmphPosted: Sep 22, 2010 12:00AM PST by DarkGryphon
These people seem to forget that each review is the reviewers opinion and experience with the game, and a grade from them doesnt mean the game could get the same grade from another reviewer. Wake up people. And like they said in 1UpYours, " A C is a passing grade. Its not the best game, but its a good game." How people are so hung up over numbers and letters just astounds me. Give a hyped game even a so so review and its like a pack of wolves has descended.
Celebrate Individuality!Posted: Sep 22, 2010 12:00AM PST by chopperdown
If it was the same reviewer you could make that argument. Reviews are meant to be interpreted by the reader based on their pre-conceived notions and excitement for the game.
Personally I think the actual scores are not needed but are put into to satisfy people like you, who will then just complain about the score instead of taking the time to read the review, and form your own opinion of the game based off of what the reviewer has said.
I mean come one dude, it doesn't take a genius to understand that different reviewers have different opinions. So according to 1up Tom Chick thinks Civ V is an alright game, and Eric Neigher thinks Elemental is a a tiny bit better than a an alright game. You honestly can't make any other comparisons besides that.
So if that's what you want then go sign up at a metascore site to get a better idea of which game is really "better" and then bitch at all the reviewers that make up that score.
No "umm" or "hmph" necessary.Posted: Sep 22, 2010 12:00AM PST by ursoward
That is exactly how it works. These are two similar games in the same genre, with many shared gameplay elements. Different games to be sure, at least to an extent, but directly comparable in tangible ways. A C+, in a broad but identifiable sense, indicates a better game than one that receives a lower score. That is the very purpose of a score: to indicate, in broad and comparable terms, how recommendable a game is. There is no wiggle room. Indeed, the texts make their cases, and I am not arguing the validity of this review, or of the Elemental review. But in a very real sense, 1up's stance is that Elemental is a marginally better strategy game than Civilization V.
To DarkGryphon, it shouldn't matter to the site who reviews it, because it doesn't matter to the reader. Regardless of the author of a review, that author represents 1up, not a single opinion floating in the ether. Furthermore, a "C" does not indicate a "good" game in most people's minds; if 1up wants to argue the point that it does, the site should publish a full explanation of its scoring guidelines, akin to the explanations you would find at GameSpot or IGN. If 1up does not have a full understanding of its own guidelines, it surely cannot expect a reader to immediately assume that a "C" means that the reviewed game is good. Failure to define your system means failure of that system.
People are "hung up over numbers" because publications attach meaning to them. Those letters and numbers communicate actual meaning, both comparatively speaking (a C is worse than an A) and literally (a C indicates a statement of quality, though 1up's lack of clear guidelines makes that statement of quality an ambiguous one). Regardless, there is statement made: Elemental and Civilization V are games of around the same level of quality, according to 1up. The fact that different authors wrote the reviews is irrelevant. We are not reading an individual's blog; we are reading a website of such stature that articles published represent the site as well as the author. I'm perfectly awake, thanks--and I have a very clear understanding of exactly what 1up is communicating, and what it should be but isn't.
Remember Grade School?Posted: Sep 22, 2010 12:00AM PST by chopperdown
Pretty sure 1up just assumes we all have at least graduated past the 1st grade and understand the C is a passing grade. It's a game worth buying but has plenty of faults.
I think 1up would just insult my intelligence if they posted a description on what grades mean.
And by ursoward's logic every game will receive a grade based on previous grades given in the same genre, and those grades will be received based on earlier generations in that genre, and so on and so on. You can't write reviews like that because then you do get into this endless loop of making sure every game you have ever reviewed in that genre can be ranked.
Well,Posted: Sep 22, 2010 12:00AM PST by DarkGryphon
You're actually wrong about that. If a review was meant to be taken as the opinion of a whole group like 1up, then why do they put the name of the reviewer as the one who wrote it? Why not just say from the 1up staff? A review is a critical analysis of a work based on one's experiences with the work. Yes, you have to explain whats the flaws are and not just say the game sucks, or it would be a blog. But with a review it is impossible to be objective as it is YOUR EXPERIENCE with the game. Not anyone elses.
As for explaining the status of "grades" which is a stupid concept altogether and one I wish never existed, its simple stuff you learned in school. They shouldn't have to take the time to babysit you and give you a chart of what each letter means. Just because a game does not get an A+, 95, or a 5/5 doesn't mean that its a bad game. He never says the game is bad. He says that there are problems he had with the game, and while these did effect his experience, it was still a DECENT game.
And if you can't except a C grade as flawed but good then that's your loss.
ExcellentPosted: Sep 22, 2010 12:00AM PST by Ashenkhar
I'm glad my comment has sparked such a reaction.
Here's the deal. The reviews are given a measurable score. Scores which apparently have some kind of meaning. As soon as you give something a score, it will inevitably be compared to other things scored using the same criteria. In this case, video games.
For goodness sake... you can sort by score when you look at reviews in list mode.
@Teanah, please explain to me how the system DOES work, since I'm wrong in your opinion. I'd be happy to listen.
The way I see it, Elemental got a C+ and Civ V got a C. A score is a score. How hard is that to figure out? Does the score mean anything or does it not? What would Tom Chick have given Elemental, out of curiosity?
I also NEVER ONCE said OR implied that reviewers will all have the same opinion. Obviously they do not. It's a video game, and enjoyment is based on personal preference. I know people who would give Civ V an F, because they hate the genre. Do you have those people reviewing strategy games? Of course not.
I'm also not implying that Tom Chick hates strategy games, for those that like to put words in my mouth.
All I'm saying is this. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either the scores MEAN something or they do not. If each review is supposed to exist in a bubble, why assign it a score!? If the score has no bearing, and is instead personal opinion, then I would suggest NOT having a score. Then you leave it up to the reader to score the game after reading the review and forming their own opinion.
Again I wonder... if scores don't mean anything, why can you sort reviews based on score, and why even have them?
Wut.Posted: Sep 22, 2010 12:00AM PST by aggrocrag
Whoa there. Video game journalists, critics and reviewers aren't some fucking hive mind. I don't know how anyone can't figure this out for themselves. Different people have different opinions about games.
But lets just assume that Tom wrote both the reviews for Elemental and Civilization 5, it still wouldn't mean that Elemental is better than Civilization 5. Whatever score if gave each game, that was what he thought was appropriate at the time.
The grading system on 1up isn't so hard, people play games and give the game the grade they think is right.
Learn to readPosted: Sep 22, 2010 12:00AM PST by Ashenkhar
@aggrocrag, maybe you have trouble reading... but what part of "I also NEVER ONCE said OR implied that reviewers will all have the same opinion." do you not understand?
So... how did you infer that I thought that reviews are part of a hive mind? Learn to read bub.
I assure you, I can read.Posted: Sep 23, 2010 12:00AM PST by chopperdown
Sure, you're not implying that reviews have the same opinions on games, which no one ever accused you of. But you are implying that they have the same opinions on what a score is. I'm sure they are given guidlines but you are never going to be able to perfect it.
You are getting this reaction from people because you were extremely flamboyant in your accusation. Instead of posting a bitchy comment that you know will get this reaction why don't you post something like, "So does this mean that Elemental is better than Civ V? Just wondering because this will help me make a purchasing decision.
Of course there are thousands of people like you on this website so I don't know why I'm conversating with you. I guess I am just trying to destroy bitches one by one.
...sighPosted: Sep 23, 2010 12:00AM PST by Ashenkhar
The reaction on this thread shows exactly why scores are a problem. THEY ARE INCONSISTENT! If you want to have a system by which you rate, and thereby rank, games it inevitably leads to comparison.
If 1Up's goal is for each review to stand alone, then rating them by a score/grade is completely meaningless. So why have a score? I think scores are useless, but as long as there are there, they will be used as a means to compare.
There are many people like you (read 1Up fanboi) on this website as well. However, I'm not quite ignorant enough to believe that I could "destroy bitches" via a comment on thread. My goal is far more benign, I assure you. Then again, maybe people like you take comments far more seriously than rational folks, in which case you should probably talk to a shrink.
Tom ChickPosted: Sep 22, 2010 12:00AM PST by secularsage
I'm thrilled to see that Tom Chick's still writing game reviews, and that he's still approaching them like an actual critic instead of an arm of the 2K/Firaxis marketing machine. Normally, you have to wait months for these sorts of reviews to show up, once the people who treat criticism seriously have had the time to really dig into the product. With all of the buzz around Civ V (which, let's be honest, everyone expects to be as good as its forbears), I'm glad that an established and credible reviewer is pointing out the many problems with the product.
Granted, I don't always agree with Tom Chick's reviews (such as his infamous dissenting opinion on Deus Ex), but you've got to admire it when a publication like 1UP gives him the free reign to say what he actually thinks instead of insisting that he fit in with the critical norm.
Still, as one of those folks who often disagrees with the critics (and who regularly finds gems in the games that get a 60-70% aggregate score), I'm glad to see that there are still mainstream critics who can stand up to one of the most revered game franchises in PC gaming history and say, "it's not good enough."
Jaw. Floor. W. T. F.Posted: Sep 22, 2010 12:00AM PST by Cutman2015
I haven't played the game so I can't and don't disagree with the score or the text of the review. HOWEVER, every single person I know that has played this game has said that it is the best RTS that they have ever played. That it does everything possible right. That Starcraft II is dead to them already. I am shocked at the C. SHOCKED.
I mean I can see why the review is 2 pages. I'm sure a lot of people saw the score and demanded justification.
Flagship Product Demands Flagship AIPosted: Sep 22, 2010 12:00AM PST by siberianheat
I've played Civ V for maybe six hours or so now and I have to agree with a lot of what Tom has written here. What was released to the public is not what I would describe as a grade A game, despite the fact that it is beautiful, fun, and full of new bells and whistles to explore.
I remember the old days in Civ I when your Battleship would run up against a spearman and every once in a while it would be destroyed. It was a WTF? moment and no matter how much fun the game was, that impression of stupid AI tricks never left my mind. I expected Civ V to blow my hair back in the AI department and I'm with Tom in agreeing that the AI is a C at best. This doesn't mean I don't recommend the game - we all know the people reading this review are going to buy the game no matter what is said - but this review means more to me than all the glowing reviews that gloss over these "Battleship vs. Spearman" caliber gaffes that are present in many routines of the AI in this game. I think this review is fair for what came out on release day and doesn't attribute a value based on an estimate of how good the game will be when it is patched to final-final.
Like almost every other game released, we are left waiting for the patches...no biggie really.
As someone who played Civilization II since 1996Posted: Sep 22, 2010 12:00AM PST by Kel_Lutz
This review is harsh because upon release Civilization II had as many annoying bugs. For instance, the AI wasn't terribly smart, any terrain could be terraformed into verdent grassland, etc. Subsequent add-ons corrected many of the short comings of the original release. Civ has always been a complex game and I can never remember a bug free first release of any Civ. That the AI sucks is usually a universal initial complaint. Multiplayer against other human players should still prove addictive and fun. This review is harsh but doesn't surprise me since 1up has always had a certain brand of arrogance about itself as a videogame website. With Retronauts (the podcast) gone I don't know why I'm here.
So true!Posted: Sep 22, 2010 12:00AM PST by heliostellar
Having now played Civ 5, it's so refreshing that there's a review that isn't just re-broadcasting the marketing hype for this game. I wholeheartedly agree with this review. The new game has serious design flaws that make little sense. I'm pretty disappointed overall in this game and I've been a diehard Civ fanatic for well over 10 years now. I think these two lines just about sum it up:
"Some of these problems are minor, but they're the sorts of things I'd expect from a rookie developer scrambling to meet a deadline. What are they doing in 2K's flagship strategy game, under the brand of one of the greatest game developers we've ever known?"
Sooooo...Posted: Sep 22, 2010 12:00AM PST by DannyLAFS
I read IGNs review a couple days ago. But this now throws me off!
Wo W WoPosted: Sep 22, 2010 12:00AM PST by stealth_king
Ok I havent played Civ 5 yet, but I read PCGamer and they gave a pretty approving review of the game, to the point of calling it as good as Civ 4 but not the same so it feels like a truly new game.
So Starcraft 2 gets an A- despite the fact the story outright sucked (out of 30 missions only about 3 or 4 of them have any actual relevance), but Civ 5 gets a C? I think I'm gonna need a second or third opinion.
Wow people...Posted: Sep 22, 2010 12:00AM PST by Pash
Fan boy much? This is his opinion of the game. If you disagree well thats good for you. Maybe this just wasn't what he thought/wanted it to be. Also It wasn't mentioned here but I seem to remember reading someone saying that is the multiplayer the nature of the game seems to just lend itself to rushing...
I'm StunnedPosted: Sep 22, 2010 12:00AM PST by Pacario
Not because I think this game deserves a better score (I'm not familiar enough with the franchise to determine this game's quality), but just because 1UP actually scored a game significantly lower than competing sites. Hardly ever happens, as 1UP is usually on the opposite end of the spectrum, granting scores parallel to or higher than most other publications. So I am indeed a little stunned.
really?Posted: Sep 22, 2010 12:00AM PST by Kholdstare101
Real journalism to you is a lower score in a review?
That makes me sad.
Oh yeah...Posted: Sep 22, 2010 12:00AM PST by Xcite79
...I am surprised too. I always thought 1up scored many games higher than they deserve and as you said, they did a reversal compared to other reviews.
If I was buying this game (I dont care for sims) there is no way I would take this review seriously. There is too many overwelming good reviews in the 90s. That goes for Game Informer, PC Gamer, Jostiq, IGN, Destructoid, and so on.
oh c'monPosted: Sep 22, 2010 12:00AM PST by luckynewman13
I miss the religion/government aspect as well...and perhaps the game as a whole is missing some of the charm of previous titles...
...but sorry, a C is not warranted. I mean, give this game to someone who has never any of the Civs before and they would be absolutely glued to the computer for hours/days. If that doesn't warrant at least a B then I don't know what does.
fantastic reviewPosted: Sep 22, 2010 12:00AM PST by talinthas
Thanks, Tom. As a long time diehard fan of the series since the earliest days, I've dutifully bought and played each game day 1. And Civ 5 wasn't clicking for me the way the others had, and you very eloquently explained exactly what i was feeling. Removing the chance to change your government/religion/civics; taking away the ability to see what the other nations think of me; needlessly collapsing all of the numbers into meaningless aggregates, and taking away the real time clock.
Hopefully future expansions and patches will fix these issues. I want to like this game. I want to so badly. But it just won't let me.
Here, herePosted: Sep 22, 2010 12:00AM PST by heliostellar
Me too! I want to like it, but it sucks right now
Someone's on Blizzard's payroll I seePosted: Sep 22, 2010 12:00AM PST by Agamemnon
All future writing on your part is now null after this strong-armed review.
You haven't read Tom's SC2 review, have you?Posted: Sep 22, 2010 12:00AM PST by Brad_Grenz
He wrote it for Gameshark and it is also one of the lower scores that game received.
Well wellPosted: Sep 22, 2010 12:00AM PST by DarkGryphon
You guys need to cut him some slack. It's a good review, and he has a record of being a good game reviewer. Just because you may not agree with him doesn't mean his review automatically sucks. He has every right to voice his opinion. and guess what? It's his JOB to talk about his experience with the game. That's what a review is. Not him pattling to what you want him to say.
Absolutely ridiculous reviewPosted: Sep 22, 2010 12:00AM PST by Coyote30
Basically you are saying that it's a great game but that the AI isn't as good as a real person would be. Guess what, it's not REAL AI. For that multiplayer games exist.
Moreover the info presentation on the main screen is great, exactly the right amount of info and if you move your cursor there, detailed info - exactly as one would expect.
Finally, I have to say that I played Civ 1 once again out of curiosity a couple of days ago and I found the basic game concept as mesmerizing as when I first played it. And the same is STILL true now with CIV 5. There are hardly any other computer games that take over one's thinking as easily and for such a long time.
In the end there are some minor technical glitches (which computer games doesn't have any at all at the beginning?), the info about the other civs is there (you just have to be able to interpret it, lazy rulers of the world) and the reviewer complains that the AI is not as good as a real opponent would be - surprise, surprise!
Horrible ReviewPosted: Sep 22, 2010 12:00AM PST by cloud7725
You know when 1up is desperate for traffic when they produce a turd of this caliber. Read any other review on any other site to see a fair assessment of Civ 5. Right now I have about as much respect for Tom Chick as I have for Armand White.
InterestingPosted: Sep 22, 2010 12:00AM PST by Aelfric
This is the first largely negative review of the game I've read, though many do note the A.I. deficiencies. I still am enthralled, but it will be interesting to see if those initial positive reviews come around to something more like Mr. Chick's thinking, if patches somehow fix up the problems, or perhaps Mr. Chick's own view changes a bit. I do know one thing--after firing up Civ V and playing for about 20 minutes last night, as I crawled in to bed, I turned on the lap top to start a game of Civ IV--just to get a few turns in before sleep. So, we'll see!
WowPosted: Sep 22, 2010 12:00AM PST by kWhittington
You got balls dude. *clap* *clap*
Are you sure none of the issues you were having were maybe due to your rig's setup?
More Strategy Games
- StarCraft 2: Heart of the Swarm
- Sid Meier's Civilization V
- Halo Wars
- (360)
- StarCraft 2: Wings of Liberty
- Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War 2
- Spore
- Star Wars: Empire At War
- Fire Emblem Awakening
- (Nintendo 3DS)
- League of Legends
- Final Fantasy Tactics: The War of the Lions
- Game:
- Sid Meier's Civilization V
- Platforms:
- Genre:
- Strategy
- Publisher:
- 2K Games
- Developer:
- Firaxis
- ESRB Rating:
- Release Date:
- 09/21/2010
- Also Known As:
1UP Editor Score: C
Average Community Score: A-
People Playing
Players: 473676 Hours: 242902255
Based on last 7 days of Raptr player activity.
Based on 1UP traffic, this game is:
#25 of 27,541 on 1UP
#7 of 10,377 in PC
#2 of 841 in Strategy
What are the names of the two robots that are featured in the coop campaign?
Created by: Brandon Grayson
Popular User Reviews
Gta V Review - Before release date. **No Spoilers** (Talks about gameplay)
0 0 9
TF2-Grass grows, birds chirp, and brother, I hurt people. DOINK! DOINK!
0 0 6
mean as
0 0 6
Popular on 1UPNo recent updates for this section.
Around the Network
The Most Ambitious Pokemon Ever? Early Thoughts on Pokemon X/Y
Metal Gear Rising Revengeance Connects the Series' Past With a Radical New Future
About 1UP
- Contact Us
- 1UP Staff
- Ad Gallery
- Contests
- Help
- Site Map
Popular Games
- Resident Evil 6
- Diablo III
- BioShock Infinite
- Call of Duty: Black Ops 2
- StarCraft II: Heart of the Swarm
- Grand Theft Auto V
- Assassin's Creed 3
- Tomb Raider
- Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance
- Halo 4
Popular Guides
- The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim
- Deus Ex: Human Revolution Walkthrough
- LEGO Harry Potter: Years 1-4
- The Witcher 2 Walkthrough
- Dark Souls Walkthrough
- Portal 2 Walkthrough
- Deus Ex: Human Revolution Walkthrough
- The Legend of Zelda Skyward Sword
Popular Content
- Best Free Games
- Mapping Uncharted 3: Drake's Deception
- Why Japanese Games are Breaking Up With the West
- The Nine Worst Video Game Themes
- I Played Skyrim Wrong, but It Felt So Right
- The Dark Souls Survival Guide
- The Top 10 Worst Consoles
- Why Quake Changed Games Forever
Big Events
- Tokyo Game Show
- Comic-Con
- GamesCom
© 2010 | Advertise | Terms and Conditions | Privacy Policy | Site Usage | Site Map | Browse Games: # A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
IGN Entertainment Games