When I get Civ4, the first thing I'll do is...

[Dis]

Originally posted by Adm.Naismith


Lord, most of magazine and internet site reviews are written on thinner base, AFAIK. From only a few turns to a couple of full games is sadly common, added to a rework of marketing statements. Heck, quite often the reviewer keep mentioning feature not published in gold version of the game or seems unaware of serius bugs only because they show at late game.

A honest review must be done on a clear description of game test setup, as Yin already explained.

If Yin will say he didn't tested the MP part of the game, he can still rate the SP and we'll know his rating is not about the game in full. Fair enough, IMO.

Reviewers are not gods, shouting rating from heavens for any weak mind of gamers' believers, but more advisors we are free to ignore or wholehearty thanks.

I like Computer Gaming World's reviews.

They appropiately gave Play the World a very bad rating. They only play unpatched games (with the exception of mmorpg's which patch automatically when you play). simply put, multiplayer did not work with Play the World.

Though they did miss the things in Conquests that broke (from the latest play the world patch), but I missed them too. Only you hardcore Civ gamers catch that stuff. Actually I did catch the barbarians not moving in certain directions. But I didn't notice any difference in AI or city spacing.

[Solver]

A casual gamer's review of Civ4 is not going to be very accurate from the perspective of Apolytoners. A casual gamer would not notice many problems that can arise in a Civ game, probably having less understanding of the game and not going quite so in-depth. I still believe Gamespot's review of Call to Power II (which is a Civ game after all) to be one of the most moronic reviews I have read.

And it's quite likely that most Civ4 reviews will be coming from casual Civvers at best, not hardcore fans. That's why I'm more interested in what Apolytoners have to say.

[Flubber]

I'll come to poly to readup on what is in or out and then play

[Adm.Naismith]

Originally posted by Solver
A casual gamer's review of Civ4 is not going to be very accurate from the perspective of Apolytoners. A casual gamer would not notice many problems that can arise in a Civ game, probably having less understanding of the game and not going quite so in-depth.

And it's quite likely that most Civ4 reviews will be coming from casual Civvers at best, not hardcore fans. That's why I'm more interested in what Apolytoners have to say.

Solver, to be fair I'm sure if I'd write a review of a Civ game I'd miss many point, too.

I've not exactly a "Kathy Reichs" ability to examine every game detail of a (game) skeleton.
I'm sure I can see main errors and get a general feeling about gameplay and AI ability to manage the game with serious cheating.

I'm also sure I'd miss any check on barbarian pattern, erroneus computation resolving combats and so on. To a point, I try to immerse myself into the game, and I'm ready to forgive many points to save that "suspension of disbelieves".

So, don't trust on me: I'm not ready to use a magnifier every turn, playing the game, as far as my tanks can rush over a pikeman every day...

[Sirian]

1. Make my banana milkshake.
2. Drink while installing.
3. Probably go back for seconds.

When I fire up Civ4 out of the box for the first time, I wonder if I will recognize it. Seriously. Will it still be, at its core, the civ I know, or will it have been changed more than it should be?

One thing's for sure. I'm too cocky to play the "fair" setting. My first game of Civ3 was on Monarch. I lost! If Civ4 can beat me on Monarch again on my first game, that would be so cool.


- Sirian

[Addled Platypus]

Originally posted by Lord Nuclear


This is exactly why I don't trust game reviews.

same goes for movie reviews

[Darkstar]

I'll install it, fire it up, and give it a good spin. And hope for the best!