Rate this game (please don't vote before reading the first post)

[RGBVideo]

Don't vote before you've read this post.

I create this thread for the OTF regulars who still haven't bought cIV and are wondering whether they should spend any money on this game. Now that we've all had our chance to play Civilization IV for a while and the initial feelings caused by hype have passed, what kind of rating would you give this game? Imagine you're a reviewer who has to give his subjective opinion for a gaming magazine.

Please do NOT vote yet if:
- The game does not work on your PC properly (you don't have the minimum requirements, you suffer from a hardware bug which causes serious graphic problems making the game unplayable, etc.)
- You have not played the game for over 7 days.
- You haven't tried the multiplayer aspect of the game yet, but intend to do so later on.

Rating guidelines:
- Rating of under 50 means that the game is so bad to play it's funny: it's filled with gameplay bugs and errors which make it practically unplayable, you feel pity for the cluelessness of the programmers and/or the design team.
- Rating of under 60 means that altough the code might not even have any serious errors, the game is pain to play from the very start, and you'd rather stare at a brick wall than play it.
- Rating of 60 and over 60 means that the game is fun to play at least for an half an hour or so
- Rating of over 70 means that the game is fun to play at least for 24 hours (game playing time)
- Rating of over 80 means that the game is very good, fun to play and you predict it'll be fun to play for at least a month
- Rating of over 90 means that the game is one of the bests of it's own genre, and you'll predict it'll be a classic which will be addictive for years to come: 91 would mean you think it'll still be addictive after a year, 92 addictive after 2 years, 93 addictive after 3 years et cetera.
- Rating of 100 is the theoretical maximum, 40 the theoretical minimum.

(end of first post)

[RGBVideo]

I hope I didn't make a biased poll

Rating guideline change after the first 54 minutes (I won't edit them at all anymore) :

- Rating of over 90 means that the game is one of the bests of it's own genre, and you'll predict it'll be a classic which will be addictive for years to come: 91 would mean you think it'll be still very fun to play after a year, 92 very fun after 2 years, 93 very fun after 3 years et cetera.

was changed to:

- Rating of over 90 means that the game is one of the bests of it's own genre, and you'll predict it'll be a classic which will be addictive for years to come: 91 would mean you think it'll still be addictive after a year, 92 addictive after 2 years, 93 addictive after 3 years et cetera.

Before this edit, there were a total of 13 poll answers: 1 for "85-89 points", 9 for "90-94 points" and 3 for "95-100 points (best score)".


Any further comments or opinions? You can give your exact point rating if you want to and compare it to previous Civ-games on the same rating scale.

[alva]

- You haven't tried the multiplayer aspect of the game yet, but intend to do so later on.

Does that mean that I can vote if I haven't tried MP but don't intend ever to do so?

[RGBVideo]

Does that mean that I can vote if I haven't tried MP but don't intend ever to do so?

Don't vote if you have not tried the multiplayer aspect of the game yet, but intend to try it later on -- to answer your question, yes, you should.

[SpencerH]

I gave it a 90-94. Then I read the previous post and then the part in the first post that I skimmed over. I plan to play MP but havent yet, so you'll have to scrap the whole poll. C'est la vie.

[Aro]

95-100
What can I do? I'm a fanboy.

Besides that, it's the best Civ game ever!

[Shogun Gunner]

93/94 It's hard to say how many years I will be playing this, but I liked both civ2 and civ3 for several years each...and I predict at least an equal run to those games.

I have played multiplayer...with not a lot of success, but I assume the minor technical problems will be resolved. And no one has seen Pitboss yet, so the score could go up!

[Urban Ranger]

Great game, plagued by technical difficulties for some players.

I don't think it will be addictive for me for more than a year though.

[VetLegion]

If I really were a magazine reviewer, I would rate the game 95%. Statistical evidence suggests this

[alva]

I don't think it will be addictive for me for more than a year though.

That's not too bad, is it? How many games have done better?

EDIT: héhé, this was post 9999.

[Bill3000]

The title of this thread just begs for unqualified people to vote.

[Proteus_MST]

Hm, I´d give it a 93.

As we´re given lots of possibilities to mod every aspect of the game, there will be enough mods/alterations to keep the players interested for several years.
Could´ve also voted 94 or higher, but you don´t know what civ-like games get released during 2009/2010.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by alva

I don't think it will be addictive for me for more than a year though.

That's not too bad, is it? How many games have done better?

Not many. M.U.L.E., UFO: Enemy Unknown, Railroad Tycoon, Civ I, SimCity (the original). Maybe one or two more.

I was just explaining why I didn't give it 90+

[Adagio]

Why can't you vote less than 45 points?


Anyway, I gave it 96... After a year when I get tired of the normal game, I'll try one of the many mods avaliable for the game
I'm looking forward to the SMAC mod, even though I'm not the greatest SMAC fan... also has anybody started on a Colonization mod yet?



Btw, I haven't tried MP, and I'm not sure I ever will...

[Harovan]

I give it a solid 85. It has the potential to easily get into the 90's after more balancing, polishing and bug squashing.