Ign Reviews Civilization Iv - 9.4/10

[Tyranthraxus]

9.4 Out of ten.

They are calling it the best Civ ever.

http://pc.ign.com/articles/660/660495p1.html

"After having spent a lot of time playing through the final version, we can safely say that Civilization IV is the best version of Civilization yet." - IGN

[Strollen]

Actually the rating is even better than that, 2nd best turn based game ever.. Behind Alpha Centuri.

[LordShiva]

But I didn't like SMAC... and this is worse?

[Verenti]

What a poor writer that reviewer is. It's like he's completely without sense of flow.

[alva]

It's not SMAC, don't worry.

Good review

[alva]

Putting the score into perspective...

It's only .3 points off the highest score IGN have given a PC game.

It's the 4th highest rated strategy game behind Alpha Centauri, Homeworld, and Starcraft. The 2nd highest TBS game behind Alpha Centauri.

It's the 2nd highest score given out this year. Second to Splinter Cell:Chaos Theory's 9.6

Not bad.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=3191782#post3191782

[Imran Siddiqui]

Oh, and simply because it has a lower rating than SMAC doesn't mean that the writers don't consider CivIV to be a better overall game than SMAC. Ratings have contexts. CivIV has been released in a different time (basically) and that affects final ratings, especially since it seems that IGN isn't giving everything super high scores anymore.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Don't know if anyone (beta tester, preview, etc) said the following, but that's very interesting:

The changes to happiness are among the most welcome changes in the game. Rather than sending your cities into disorder, excess unhappy people simply refuse to work. This means that your cities will definitely feel the burden of unhappiness but they won't be completely shut down like they have been in previous versions of the game.

And something that our beta testers said didn't happen anymore, IGN says DOES!

While we're on the subject of combat, I have to admit that the game still suffers from the spearman-defeats-tank combats. I honestly don't have as big a problem with this as most other players, but it's been a controversial design decision since day one. Admittedly, the disparity between primitive and advanced units isn't quite as wide as it would be in the "real word," but I'm willing to accept the abstractions used in the game. I mean, even the Ewoks were able to take out an AT-AT every once in a while. But even if you accept that a substantially weaker unit could win these combats, it just seems wrong that knights can defeat helicopters.

[MrFun]

Re: Ign Reviews Civilization Iv - 9.4/10

Originally posted by Tyranthraxus

"After having spent a lot of time playing through the final version, we can safely say that Civilization IV is the best version of Civilization yet." - IGN

Either IGN, or other reviewers said the same thing for the other sequels! Are we surprised with this generic statement?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Great stuff!

[alva]

And something that our beta testers said didn't happen anymore, IGN says DOES!

Maybe they never experienced it themselves. I think Solver said someting about it being possible but very very rare with heavy odds stacked against it

[Sub263]

Ah, a 9.4. Good stuff... Not that I didn't expect it.

[Sava]

wow...

now I am psyched about Civ 4

[asleepathewheel]

I don't believe this, because Oerdin stated that Firaxis wasn't giving the game to reviewers before the release.

[MarkG]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
And something that our beta testers said didn't happen anymore, IGN says DOES!

While we're on the subject of combat, I have to admit that the game still suffers from the spearman-defeats-tank combats. I honestly don't have as big a problem with this as most other players, but it's been a controversial design decision since day one. Admittedly, the disparity between primitive and advanced units isn't quite as wide as it would be in the "real word," but I'm willing to accept the abstractions used in the game. I mean, even the Ewoks were able to take out an AT-AT every once in a while. But even if you accept that a substantially weaker unit could win these combats, it just seems wrong that knights can defeat helicopters.

as usual a major media reviewer who is at least not clear and most probably dont know what he's writing about

Knights vs Helicopters have nothing to do with Phalanx vs Tank
To use Civ4 numbers, these are the combat values
Phalanx 5
Tank 28
Knight 10
Helicopter 20

With promotions and terrain bonus of course unit A might be able to defeat a unit B with double it's combat value. But NOT 6 times it's value.....