Article: Civilization 4 Review by "Yin26" (Part 1/3)

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by LaRusso
the problem with 'do it yourself tests', referendum questions and the like is that the person posing questions has the ultimate control. i simply do not feel that the questions posed reflect topics that i value the most and i am there with cybershy and solver. gameplay is the key.

Exactly what I felt about the questions, except that I wasn't able to express it so neatly as LaRusso here.

[Shogun Gunner]

Any review or survey is going to based in some criteria -- and there is always going to be argument about the criteria. Its inevitable that the underlying criteria will not address everyone's thoughts. You could take it a step further and say the provided criteria isn't even weighted appropriately. My contention is that a qualitative assessment with quantitative factors is very difficult to achieve.

However, for the type of information being discussed (a person's feelings about a game) and what the questions are based on (things you do during a game), the survey works pretty well. The survey does a fair job in assessing someone's "gut feel" of the game. The "gameplay", or any other concept that is deemed missing, could be factored into other responses of questions depending on the interpertation of the reader.

This is what I did -- rather unconsciously when answering the questions. I factored in "gameplay" (i always think if civ2 here) into some of my responses to questions that touched near the issue. So, it could be said, for me, that I don't need a seperate category of "gameplay" as I factored it into my responses. Again, the "weighting" issue could give someone trouble here (did I over represent thoughts of gameplay in my responses). This is an inherent difficutly with qualitative studies.

[Cort Haus]

Let me give a example or two of how the 'map doesn't fit the territory'.

7) ARITIFICAL INTELLIGENCE (AI)

1. [-1] I like an AI that, if it has an advantage, always presses it.
2. [0] I like an AI that presses its advantage only when its chances of success are high.
3. [+1] I like an AI that abides by friendships earned over the course of the game in understandable ways, even if this means games can end up being very friendly. The reverse should also be true: enemies should stay enemies.
4. [+2] As long as there is MP and varying levels of difficulty in SP, I'll find the challenge I need anyway.

{typo in original}

How mutually exclusive are these four options and how meaningful are they?

I would tick both #2 and #3, as they are addressing different aspects of AI behaviour, and I agree with both aims. Yet they give different scores, one apparantly meaning you like the game more than the other.

Civ 4 definitely exhibits #3-type behaviour, but it also exhibits both #1 and #2 behaviour at times.

#4 seems to imply either (1) "it doesn't matter how the AI works at all" or (2) "I play MP". So the review score can get a +2 for AI from people who either don't care, or don't even use it. Surely the score should only get a +2 from people who really rate the AI highly.

I expect a users impression of the AI is more multi-dimensional than this, and would require maybe 5-10 questions to start mapping.

Now I want to look at all the #4 options in the survey. What kind of a person would tick many of these?

4. [+2] I just want CivIV.
4. [+2] I don't ever read manuals.
4. [+2] There's a tutorial!?
4. [+2] I used keyboard shortcuts and/or have a high tolerance for these issues anyway.
4. [+2] I only need some basic idea of what's going on and will simply just ignore things that I don't like or don't readily understand.
4. [+2] As long as there is MP and varying levels of difficulty in SP, I'll find the challenge I need anyway.
4. [+2] I am used to bugs and don't really care if a patch is released as long as it's playable.
4. [+2] I will only play single player, so with MP/Editor or without, I will simply play.
4. [+2] It's Civ. I'll take any version. Any time.

All these highest scoring responses have something in common. "It doesn't matter what the game is like, I'll love it anyway."

So by this measuring device (unused on any other game, I gather) it seems only dumb fanboys will really rate the game highly, and for all the wrong reasons. Hence my feeling that this survey tells us as much about the one asking the questions as it does about the game.

[MarkG]

Originally posted by MarkG
when can we have a photo of your daughters feeding you the box?

no answer

[yin26]

Cort Haus:

I was up front in saying it was a "crude" system. Any idea how long it takes to write an 11,000 word review that reviews the game 3 different ways (you have only seen one of the ways so far, mind you)? Of course I could have had 30 items for each question, but that becomes unwieldy. These are general thoughts and trends to respond to.

On the specific AI issue, it's my point that if you want an AI that asserts itself, you will generally be non-plussed by the Civ 4 AI because the AI seems to wait too long to press its advantage, even on the Aggressive setting. But if you want an AI that abides by fairly strict relationship guidelines, Civ 4 would get a +1. I stand by this view, and Part 3 of my review addresses this point in detail.

As for the "fanbody" point, that would be true if the person answered that way across the board, but I can promise you that many gamers here will answer +2 to at least one of those items, and I would never consider them fanboys. Are you saying somebody who doesn't care about the manual or the tutorial is a fanboy?

You'll also notice that of the 9 scoring blocks somebody could land in, only 2 suggest giving up on the game completely (and 1 of those would be for somebody who went -1 across the board -- the opposite of the fanboy). The other 7 describe everything from reasonable hope that a patch will do a lot of good to Civ 4 is a dream come true. Thus, I purposely weighted this system to allow for the most positive spin possible, making sure that only those who are consistently negative or occasionally neutral across the board will be told to stay away or to use great caution. That seems quite fair to me.

Thus, the message you should get about me as designer of this system is that only if you are very hard to please should you not at least give Civ 4 a good try and the benefit of at least another patch. If that's not fair, I don't know what is.

Markos:

Patience, friend. Patience.

[SpencerH]

I ended up with -2 which appears a little more negative than my actual "gut" feelings about the game.

[Jeje2]

Someone who hasn't played Civ4 yet

First off - THX Yin, I've been waiting eagerly for your review


Here comes my score – and why
(Before reading Yin's srcore)

1. OVERALL EXPECTATIONS
[+1] I want Civ 4 to improve some old stuff, add some good new stuff and get rid of some bad old stuff.
Civ is a good invention with many good aspects in it. I’m hoping for the 1/3 old 1/3 improved 1/3 new

2. THE MANUAL
[0] I think a manual should be thorough, accurate and stuffed with vital information about the main aspects of game play. An index or PDF is great but makes no difference to me.
Yes I want a manual with all the “basic” tables one could need and want.

3. TUTORIAL
[0] It’s a tutorial. Who cares?
After “onemoreturn” way way too many times something is wrong if I use the tutorial. (Never again a EUROPA UNIVERSALIS) I can read the manual and in play help files a lot, but I’m not interested in the tutorial.

4. GRAPHICS and SOUNDS
[-1] Good graphics and sounds in a strategy game should never come at the expense of computer performance from beginning to end.
I’m willing to offer many things for a good AI. (As I only play SP a good AI that I can trust is veryvery important to me)

(I don’t play MP – as I’m the permanent holder of the titles “Worst looser in the universe” and “what’s taking you so long? – Please try reaching second turn this century”)

5 THE INTERFACE
(Obviously I’m having some problems with the language barrier here – but here goes)
I use a lot shortcut keys. Give me an easy way to learn them by making them very logical. Also good popup from right mouse button is what I want. (So what should my vote be?)
[0] I think an interface can be greatly improved with player feedback and know that a patch will likely make things better.

6 UNDERSTANDING GAME CONCEPTS
[+1] I don't mind having a bit of mystery behind some game elements and even enjoy coming up with odd or counter-intuitive solutions on my own if need be.
I don’t need a holy bible, but with some logical reasoning I should be able to understand why. To me it’s more important that the same rules apply to me and the AI. (No free units an the even level etc.)

7 AI
[+1] I like an AI that abides by friendships earned over the course of the game in understandable ways, even if this means games can end up being very friendly. The reverse should also be true: enemies should stay enemies.
OK, could have been a zero (0) too.
The idea of long-term pacts (were one respects the partner) is important. In Civ3 I hated how an ally could (and in 9 cases out of 10 would) a couple of turns later make peace and next turn, declare war on me with the original enemy.

Sure this risk must exist, but it should be there just to keep me on my toes. Basically one should be able to trust ones ally (for the period of the pact, in Civ3 it was 20 turns)

Also as enemy the AI should try to think better. So far in the Civ genre the AI just always has a number of unit’s in every city. Make this better. Move units to where the enemy is coming from – make concentrated attacks (many units attack on the main-front in one turn). Also a test attack somewhere else or something…

8 BUGS
[0] While I’m patient, I don’t tolerate broken games, either. The game needs to be very playable with only the occasional issue.
A patch or two to fix minor things is OK, but the core is to work

9 MULTIPLAYER and EDITOR
[+2] I will only play single player, so with MP/Editor or without, I will simply play.
As stated before – I only play SP.
But I do believe that if Civ4 wants to be taken seriously it needs to have also MP.

10 SERIES INNOVATION
Difficult – would like to select 0,5 here
[0] I don’t expect Firaxis to reinvent the wheel, but I expect a few radical departures from the formula by now.
As stated 1/3 old, 1/3 improved and 1/3 new. For the new part something semi-radical would be good, but only if it can make the game “more” fun.


MY SCORE +4 - +5
[+1 to +5]: Civ 4 has hints of brilliance and overall solid gameplay that will really intrigue you. A few patches will almost certainly make the game much better --even great-- for you.

Sounds promicing.

About scoring system:
I'm unhappa that in MP cathegory my result is worth +2, but who am I to now it's affect as haven't played Civ4



Couple more thing after reading Yin's score

1. OVERALL EXPECTATIONS
To me ICS in itself isn’t a very bad thing. What I would like to see is a system where in the beginning the distances between cities should be huge. (as it was in history too) Then as you progress in the steps of evolution you could be allowed to build cities between your old cities.

Ex. I early game one would have to keep nine empty squares between cities then during industrialisation one could build with four empty and finally in modern time as close as one likes.

Or increase the amount of cities one can “support” as evolution goes forth.

3. TUTORIAL
Auts. Europa Universalis again – NOT for me






Now back to the shadows waiting lurking preparing for more...

[Arrian]

Incidently, I hope others are appreciating the irony of Yin creating something (his review in general and the scoring system in the specific), and pretty much immediately being criticized.

I like Yin, so there is nothing malicious in my enjoyment of this irony... but I am enjoying it.

-Arrian

[yin26]

Arrian: At least there is innovation!

[LDiCesare]

Hi Yin. I had loved your scoring system for Galciv and found it great. I feel this one is less of a success. I'll print my scores and thoughts so I can explain it better:

1) OVERALL EXPECTATIONS
3. [+1] I want CivIV to improve some old stuff, add some good new stuff and get rid of some bad old stuff.
I'm not sure whether this is the right pick, since I probably consider improving is over CtP2 rather than over Civ3, and the lack of Public Works or Stacked Combat (even though combat is fun in the early game) lack in either improving or getting rid of stuff known ages since. I'd rather give it a 0 here.

2) THE MANUAL
1. [-1] The manual should explain all important concepts in detail. Also, I need an index (or searchable PDF version).
No index .Also, it's printed way to small for my poor eyes. I wouldn't rate the manual as high as other points, though.

3) TUTORIAL
3. [+1] A tutorial that covers some basic concepts so I can at least start the game with some momentum is good enough.
I didn't find it particularly inspiring, but I've seen worse.

4) GRAPHICS and SOUNDS
1. [-1] Good graphics and sounds in a strategy game should never come at the expense of computer performance from beginning to end.
I actually have a below specs computer and can play the game, so it's not too bad. Better than galciv2 from this point of view I believe. Still, I would like to be able to play bigger maps.

5) THE INTERFACE
4. [+2] I used keyboard shortcuts and/or have a high tolerance for these issues anyway.
But then I play NetHack, too...
But then a real Exit game button would be nice (my end game button is called Task Manager - kill process).

6) UNDERSTANDING GAME CONCEPTS
2. [0] I do not expect to understand everything all at once, but between the manual, forum discussions, and feedback from Firaxis, I hope eventually to understand everything in detail.
The encyclozation lacks hyperlinks and is useless, so there's no civilopedia in the game and this utterly stinks. This is the one of the worst flaws. I'd put civliopedia in a topic unto itself. In particular when you want to let your kids play the game, the civilopedia was a way to teach tehm some stuff. Now, nope.

7) ARITIFICAL INTELLIGENCE (AI)
3. [+1] I like an AI that abides by friendships earned over the course of the game in understandable ways, even if this means games can end up being very friendly. The reverse should also be true: enemies should stay enemies.
I like an ai that is consistent. Civ4 is, but it is also pretty inept without big bonuses (I can beat monarch without facing that much of a challenge). Consistency is mostly important for me, but the ai has several aspects and you only hint a few here. Let me point out my views:
-Warfare: There's deciding to go to war and handling it. The ai doesn't do a very good jobs with thte units it has.
-Diplomacy: There is little you can do in terms of diplomacy. Compare to galciv. In galciv, friends are friends, too, and trade helps, and you can get friendly endings too, yet there is little point comparing GC and cIV ai's in terms of diplomacy.
-Trading: Not enough options and weird choice restrictions.
-Cheating: AI's never cheat. They play by the rules, but the rules may be different for them. How much different they feel is what matters. In cIV on monarch, I feel hte ai gets a lot os bonuses in terms of starting units and research and or production. I may be wrong, but the feeling is bad. Again, comparing to GC, even a maso game in Galciv, I don't feel the ai has such an undue advantage (maybe because you start with the same resources, even though the ai gets big bonuses everywhere). So somehow, I don't feel the score here is correct. The most important for me is consistency, and consistency is +1 here, but the -1 and 0 options are worth checking too, at the same time...

8) BUGS
2. [0] While I'm patient, I don't tolerate broken games either. The game needs to be very playable with only the occasional issue.
Note that I tolerate graphics bugs but not gameplay ones. I played with black screen before the patch fixed it and didn't care, but was quite furious about the Ironworks.

9) MULTIPLAYER and EDITOR
1. [-1] I think full and stable Multiplayer/Editor ability out of the box is very important, particularly if we have been promised it!
4. [+2] I will only play single player, so with MP/Editor or without, I will simply play.
I only play SP, and I want an editor. I realized python wouldn't let me touch the parts of the ai I want to change. So what can I answer here? I can live with an editor that comes later. Make it a +1?

10) SERIES INNOVATION
2. [0] I don't expect Firaxis to reinvent the wheel, but I expect a few radical departures from the formula by now.
They have made a few innovations, religion is much more interesting than culture was in civ3.

Overall: +4 but the ai option could make it +2 only. Overall I think it's a good game, but I don't think it's better than civ2 and it doesn't feel as innovative as Ages of Man in certain areas (though ages of man is a warfare only games from my point of view, which makes it less interesting than cIV -that and AoM manages to be slow to the point of unplayability).

Lookign forward to the next parts of your review.

[yin26]

LDiCesare: Thanks for taking the time to answer it all. It's quite fun to see how people answer. Any tips for how I could do this better in the future?

[LDiCesare]

It's hard to give ideas for future reviews of this kind as it depends on each game.
I'd separate MP and editor because to me the editor is mostly useful for SP (scenarios). Modding is useful for mp too, but much less and can even be harmful when no 2 persons want to use the same mod.
As for ai, I'd separate competition and role-playing. It's possible to be bad at competition (CtP2 not aggressive ai) even though it's easy to have competition (all ai's gang against the player, a la civ2) but it's hard to have both a challenge and suspend disbelief. So I'd have 2 entries here:
Do you want strong opposition (various shades) and Do you want the ai to behave as humans would. The latter, behaving as humans is important to understand 2-ways too: Role playing and trying to win.
You could also put an history axis (Paradox games - Civ - Alpha Centauri) though it may or may not be valid depending on the game.

[Tiberius]

Yin, great review!

Making your test I ended up with a -1, which accidentally or not, reflects perfectly my feelings about the game. Since I am at the borders of two scores, it is no surprise that I feel truth in both:

[-5 to -1]: The negatives currently outweigh the positives, and while you'll find the game pretty fun in the first several weeks, you know only some solid patching will keep you playing in the future. You'll have to be patient but have reasonable hope for something much better thanks to patching. CivIV might have to cool off a while on your shelf, though, until things get sorted out.

[0]: In general, you'll find some good stuff and nothing really to complain too hard about. At other points, though, you'll find yourself a bit bored or bothered. But patching will likely really turn things around for the better.

This is exactly how I feel. While I love some new features or the great work that has been done to streamline old ones (culture for example), I definitely feel that the game is not finished. Not only that but I think in some cases unfortunate decisions were taken (the interface, for one; or the civilopedia). Indeed I enjoy the early ages but then surprisingly fast I start feeling bored. It is extremly troubling for myself the fact that I started so early to install mods and look for fun in what the community creates. Sure thing, it is fantastic that the community can fructify its creativity, but as a comparison, in the 5 years or more that I played with Civ2, I never installed a single mod. Or maybe I installed one or two and then I quickly unistalled them. I simply enjoyed the original game that much.

I think you are absolutely right about most of the things you've said. Not that I care that much about the manual or the tutorial, but overall you hit the nail on the head. If you asked me, your reputation on Apolyton saves you now from a good amount of flaming that others would get for saying less Not letting people say what bothers them is a shame, because a promising game can become a great one only through fair critisism, not through blindly glorifying every aspect of it. Comments like "learn to play it" or "go back to civ2/3 if you don't like it", not to mention the famous "you make a better one" will only discourage people to "put their shoulder to the wheel". Glad to see that you are still on the boat!

Once again, great review I can't wait to read part II and III ... that and to see you eating the box

[Chronus9]

Incidently, I hope others are appreciating the irony of Yin creating something (his review in general and the scoring system in the specific), and pretty much immediately being criticized.

I never thought that anyone would/could put in so much "deep" criticism over somebody else's rating system.

Somebody mentioned "GalCiv". Yin, any plans to do a review on GalCiv 2?

[Peter Triggs]

Originally posted by MarkG:
when can we have a photo of your daughters feeding you the box?

Originally posted by yin26:
Patience, friend. Patience.

It could be worse, yin. A few years back there was a games developer who said "If the patch isn't out by Thursday, I'll eat dirt."

The patch wasn't out by Thursday and someone here (I think it may have been you) posted a link to the site which showed him doing the dirty.