Will I regret installing steam and buying civ IV complete through it?

[Al B. Sure!]

Are you saying it's the perfect game?

No. I'm saying it's Starcraft II.

You expect Civ to get Game of the Year above Starcraft II?

[gribbler]

Yes, since I've expressed a dislike of ONE game it must be my natural inclination to complain about every game that comes out.

[gribbler]

No. I'm saying it's Starcraft II.

You expect Civ to get Game of the Year above Starcraft II?

There are a lot of magazines and such coming up with these lists so it's not so unreasonable that civ could reach the top of at least one if it's put together really well.

[Al B. Sure!]

Go through that list you helpfully linked and you will see that in 2010, no PC game beat out SC2 and ME2. They won PC game of the year everywhere.

So it IS unreasonable! No other PC release could do it!

[Wiglaf]

Again, why are they calling it Game of the Year if no one thought it was? Do they mean to imply they think it's game of the year, and god dammit, that's good enough?

[Wiglaf]

You're all whiners. Civ 5 is a solid game. If you never played any other Civ game to get used to certain things and Civ 5 was your first, you would absolutely love it. You're ****ing lying to yourself if you think otherwise. There is nothing wrong with the game, only things wrong with it in relation to Civ 4 expectations.

Which is why reviewers love the game because they're looking at the game stand-alone and from the perspective of a general gamer, not a Civ nut comparing it to fully patched with all expansions and mods Civ 4.

And you *****es do know the Steam workshop makes getting mods easy... mods such as ones that return the game back to the old multiple units in one square system, right?

I think there are a few parts to this reply, all of them really stupid and make it clear you should stick to rapping and being chased by black people around the streets of philadelphia until you die from it. Reviewers liked the game because reviewers are stupid (they devoted their life to reviewing videogames) and have about a million incentives to buddy w/ developers. IGN's gods and kings review had the balls to praise the expansion for "adding declarations of friendship" even though they'd been in the game for over a year and a half through patches. At least they didn't stick completely to 2K's talking points

Steam workshop, more useless than Stephen hawking's kinect. 95% of the mods are things like new flags and civics like gay marriage. One removes AI bonuses on prince difficulty, which is hilariously stupid because A) the AI needs the bonuses and B) you can just go down a difficulty level and get the same result. There's I think one mod that adds a ton of units but doesn't fix 1UPT or add any depth, mainly because fixing or removing 1UPT requires recoding the entire ****ing AI and changing all the production bonuses. Not that I played the mods for Civ 4 (i have a life) but they were at least popular.

Your other bright idea seems to be that Civ 5 shouldn't have to meet the bar Civ 4 set because Civ 4 had years of development post-release, ignoring that firaxis completely forgot the lessons learned over Civ 4's 6+ year development only to make Civ 3 mistakes all over again... things like muddled and exploitable diplomacy, unbalanced Civ traits, units like horsemen that allow you to conquer the map by turn 50, ICS, incompetent AI? The only thing they improved from Civ 4 was espionage, and they did that by eliminating it.

I guess you are right that, in a universe without any strategy games or computer games of any kind, behind some kind of veil of ignorance, Civ 5 would be enjoyable. It does offer some strategic choices. But in the world we live in, with dozens of better games, you are a retard for spending any time on this piece of crap.

[Al B. Sure!]

Well a 90 average critic score at Metacritic is normally 'game of the year' material.

[Wiglaf]

Evidently not, since paid reviewers give out high scores like that so often.

Has an AAA funded game ever not scored above a 75/80 or whatever the "favorable" cutoff is?

[Al B. Sure!]

AAA funded games tend to be good almost by rule.


We would have been able to test your hypothesis had EA's NBA Elite not been cancelled 2 weeks before release.

[Elok]

Starcraft II

You know I said Starcraft II, right?

I haven't played SCII, but I hear a lot of "it's just the first SC with a facelift and a few tweaks." I've never heard anyone say it's a revolutionary achievement.

[Al B. Sure!]

I haven't played SCII, but I hear a lot of "it's just the first SC with a facelift and a few tweaks." I've never heard anyone say it's a revolutionary achievement.

Scenario editor.

Until you've played 3rd person shooters, zombie survival RPG's, the old party game of mafia, tower defense, tug of war, phantom (like the regular game but with two secret phantoms who win by killing everyone else), a typing speed competition game, etc. etc. you haven't played SC2.

The editor provides limitless potential you can't get from any other game and an insanely large online community.

Still waiting on the freeze tag games I used to love in the original Starcraft.

[Al B. Sure!]

dp

[notyoueither]

If these reviewers are people who have never played any previous version of civ maybe they shouldn't be reviewing a strategy game. If you're claiming that people who have played previous versions of civ can imagine how they would like it if this was their first, well, I imagine that I would think civ5 is a pile of crap.

No. They should review what is in front of them. Not what they would have made, or what they expected.

[Wiglaf]

AAA funded games tend to be good almost by rule.

Is this a joke?

The number of Xbox 360 games with over an 82 metacritic "favorable" on metacritic is staggering:

http://www.metacritic.com/browse/gam...nsed&sort=desc

[SlowwHand]

Civilization II
User: 8.9

Sid Meier's Civilization IV
User: 7.8

Sid Meier's Civilization V
User: 6.8

Civ III? I stopped looking after 7 pages.

[gribbler]

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/si...vilization-iii

Sid Meier's Civilization III
User: 8.1

[Dinner]

No. They should review what is in front of them. Not what they would have made, or what they expected.

I agree they should review what is in front of them but to put it in context they have to know what other games of the type have accomplished. You can't say so and so if the best X (name sports position or anything requiring talent) ever if they have no idea who else has played the position nor what those other players accomplished.

[Al B. Sure!]

I agree they should review what is in front of them but to put it in context they have to know what other games of the type have accomplished. You can't say so and so if the best X (name sports position or anything requiring talent) ever if they have no idea who else has played the position nor what those other players accomplished.

But they're not saying so and so is the best QB... to use your analogy, they're simply rating him as a good QB. Do you need perspective to determine what is good? Sure, it helps, but you can go off of what would constitute good (winning games, scoring tds, etc.) without needing to know what numbers Jim Kelly put up.

Similarly, they don't need to put Civ 5 in the perspective of Civ 4 to know it's good on its own merits.

[Wiglaf]

But they're not saying so and so is the best QB... to use your analogy, they're simply rating him as a good QB. Do you need perspective to determine what is good? Sure, it helps, but you can go off of what would constitute good (winning games, scoring tds, etc.) without needing to know what numbers Jim Kelly put up.

Similarly, they don't need to put Civ 5 in the perspective of Civ 4 to know it's good on its own merits.

Any game with no AI and one winning strategy isn't good on the merits, retard.

[gribbler]

They do need to keep Civ 4 in mind in order to judge whether Civ 5 is worth spending $50 on. "Good on its own merits" means nothing. If the original Civ came out after Civ 4 it would be considered garbage.

[Barnabas]

Civ III is fun. I meant the last final version. I still like the civ III maps better.

[notyoueither]

They do need to keep Civ 4 in mind in order to judge whether Civ 5 is worth spending $50 on. "Good on its own merits" means nothing. If the original Civ came out after Civ 4 it would be considered garbage.

If a critic is a fan of mid-sixties pop-rock, should they judge the late-sixites and early-seventies Beatles by that?

No.

What the artist did earlier is not relevant to whether the new work is good or not. Valid criticism needs to be based on what is in front of the critic.

[gribbler]

It's a stretch to call a videogame like Civilization a "work of art".

[notyoueither]

Good thing I didn't, then. I used music for an example of what would be blindingly invalid criticism.

That CiV does not allow stacks of doom = invalid criticism.

That CiV 1UPT breaks immersion when playing what is supposed to be a game of global strategy = valid criticism.

Wah! CiV is not like earlier Civs in ways that I liked! = invalid criticism.

CiV failed to create an immersive game that I would come back to time and time again = valid criticism.

[gribbler]

That CIV is a much better game and a better value for your money = valid criticism. Your post is a strawman. No one suggested that any deviation from CIV is inherently bad.

[notyoueither]

No, that's not valid.

[Elok]

Since Al brought up SCII, I looked at the electronics section at Walmart when I went to pick up a prescription today. Two major games, released the same year...one is selling for $50, the other's twenty bucks cheaper. I think Spore still cost about $30 too...

Since Civ is a series, it's fair and sensible to compare the games to each other. To use NYE's analogy, it might not make sense to compare "Wild Honey Pie" to "Satisfaction," but it's fine to compare it to "A Hard Day's Night." It's the same group, it's fine to say you like, or dislike, the way they're headed. It makes even more sense to do this with game series, where each is supposed to build on the last. They had several years to look at the series and see what worked and what didn't. What did they do? Not much to their credit, it seems. Certainly not to compare with the way II built on the original, or IV finally implemented III's bold ideas properly.

[Wiglaf]

What the artist did earlier is not relevant to whether the new work is good or not. Valid criticism needs to be based on what is in front of the critic.

This is completely ridiculous. Read it back to yourself.

[Wiglaf]

"Boeing really messed up with this new design, steve, it requires 20x more fuel to fly than previous models." INVALID CRISTISM!!!!1 11

"Christina was teh worst lay ive ever had" INVALID CRISITM GET OUT OF MY BAR DOUUUUUCCCHE

Get real.

[Dinner]

But they're not saying so and so is the best QB... to use your analogy

Yes, in effect they're ranking them against the competition. If you don't know how good the competition is then your ratings/rankings are rather useless.