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

[Bobby Chicken]

Whats all this deal with bugs and patches. I buy the game and play as it was designed to be played; iv'e never had problems with software. I guess I just don't play enoough games to know about bugs and patches. I love Civ 4 though. I scored a +7 on the chart bu Civ 4 is the best game I've ever played, well, the best computer game; Axis and Allies (Avalon Hill) might be better but I guess theyr'e not really comparable anyway.

[Nacht]

Originally posted by Bobby Chicken
Whats all this deal with bugs and patches. I buy the game and play as it was designed to be played

If you didn't patch the game and built the Ironworks you're actually not playing the game as it was designed to be played.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by 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.

Having just posted a 6,000 word DAR (During Action Report) for AU101 - the first Apolyton University Civ 4 course, I can certainly appreciate how long this kind of thing can take, Yin. What is your point, though?

Is it that there wasn't time to design a less-crude survey? Or did you think it unfair of me to criticise someone who has worked so hard. You seem to like criticising other people's work - even before you've seen it, and I gather that this has presented you with an interesting gastronomic challenge. Anyway I'm not knocking your review - it hasn't been posted yet. I'm sure it'll be very thoughtful and well written.

Who said anything about 30 items for each question, btw? Not me. The AI is a special case for civvers - and a large subject.

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 my AU game documents, the moment my military slipped from #1 to #2, the AI jumped up and started making demands. ie - pressing it's advantage.

In my current game, the moment my military slipped from #1 to #2, Montezuma attacked me. Again, immediately pressing its advantage.

Yet you claim the AI doesn't press it's advantage, and you went as far as basing your scoring system on this assumption. You seem unwilling to yield on this point, but I'll wait for part 3 of your analysis.

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?

Of course I'm not saying that. I said "What kind of a person would tick many of these?". The manual is an exception - most of the others would only be heavily ticked by very uncritical players.

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.

I'm not saying your system was skewed either for or against the game, but that the high points were awarded for all the wrong reasons, that the AI section was 'teh br0ken', that the documentation was over-emphasised, and the gameplay underemphasised / ignored.


I'm not knocking you personally, Yin. I've enyoyed reading the discussions involving you over the last couple of months, and am sure you're a good bloke. As Arrian observed, I couldn't resist the sheer irony of putting your system under a bit of critical pressure - to see how you'd like it. I certainly think you should not eat your box - that's a bloody stupid thing for anyone to do and no-one should be pressuring you to eat anything but humble pie.

'Looking forward to your full review.

[yin26]

Tiberius: Glad the scoring seems to work for you! Perhaps that just means you and I have similar tastes, but I really did try to make the scoring system as fair as possible. Obviously I can improve on it. Remaining critical even of a game one general likes is harder than it might seem, and when writing a review, I feel the reviewer should be sure to highlight the things that could have been better. Why else write a review!?

Chronus9: Wow, haven't even thought that far regarding GalCiv2. I believe, in fact, this scoring system thing started with GalCiv, so it only makes sense! So little time. So many great games. Why don't YOU do the review, Chronus?

Peter: I had COMPLETELY forgotten about that. I remember this now. Man, I guess it's just karma that I'm not in a similar position!

[yin26]

Is it that there wasn't time to design a less-crude survey? Or did you think it unfair of me to criticise someone who has worked so hard.

I am certainly open to criticism. I would be completely hypocritical not to! I'm saying that the review takes 3 different approaches because I realize that no one approach will capture the situation well enough on its own. This scoring device is just an appetizer to start discussion. Works for some. Doesn't for others.

Yet you claim the AI doesn't press it's advantage, and you went as far as basing your scoring system on this assumption. You seem unwilling to yield on this point, but I'll wait for part 3 of your analysis.

I should be more clear: I tend to think of AI as *all* the AI teams put together. Indeed, as you wrote, a single AI will attack at often the right moment, but it's usually just an annoyance -- until you play at higher diff levels, which I explain later in the review. For the "AI" to win, it needs to ban together and press the advantage. This is why I put the item about AI's abiding by relationships. If that's your preference, then I scored that higher.

I certainly think you should not eat your box - that's a bloody stupid thing for anyone to do and no-one should be pressuring you to eat anything but humble pie.

Well, that's nice! But I am a man of my word. More later.

'Looking forward to your full review.

Thanks. My sources say Part 2 might be the best. I still say Part 3 is necessary if, perhaps, somewhat academic. Looking forward to what you and others have to say.

[ugignadl]

Yin, you've constructed a well-written review that I respectfully disagree with most of .

Rather than writing a large chunk of points with backings and rebuttals, I'd prefer to ask one question: how have your experiences with the game been on higher AI settings? The game is unplayable for me unless the AI has some kind of advantage (prince, monarch, emperor, immortal, deity) and I so far have found emperor to be my preferred difficulty. I particularly love playing on deity with teams of AI---have you tried that yet?

I know that the other difficulty levels do exist, in particular noble which evens the playing field, but personally I have always regarded those as learning levels (as opposed to levels used for enjoyment). It's the same in almost all strategy games.

Quickly, an example. IAS is basically impossible on the higher difficulties. You can play warmonger, sure (and it's fun too). But it's not IAS. The computer will attack your weak cities (most commonly by sending a sea force) and while not capable of outmaneouvreing (sp?) you, it will present sizeable armies in resistance.

I look forward to the other parts.

[yin26]

Originally posted by ugignadl
how have your experiences with the game been on higher AI settings? The game is unplayable for me unless the AI has some kind of advantage (prince, monarch, emperor, immortal, deity) and I so far have found emperor to be my preferred difficulty.

You'll enjoy Part 3 a lot, I think! Thanks for taking the time to reply, and I look forward to your thoughts once more gets posted.

[Martinus]

I must say, I don't find the rating system to be a good one.

First of all, it purports to be a rating system, but in fact already pronounces the judgement, before even the score is applied. For example, in the interface section, the rating system applies -1 not for "Interface is not intuitive", but for "I want the interface to be inuitive", thus completely ignoring people who want the interface to be intuitive, and find the interface to meet their expectations. The same logical fallacy is repeated through most of the questions.

Also, one could question the weight given to specific elements of the rating - for example, the quality of the tutorial and the manual count for 1/5 of the game score, which is quite unreasonable.

[yin26]

It's not a logical fallacy. These are my judgements put in different form. It's my review in numbers as objectively put as I can make them, but at least you can see clearly how I am weighing things. By definition, any system doing this would reflect the creator's judgement, as we've already covered here. Thus, if you tend to think the way I do about games, this system will be very helpful. The opposite would also be true, so I am taking totally different approaches in Part 2 and 3.

And for me, the tutorial and manual speak to an important part of the game experience, not only for what they are in themselves but also for what they represent as markers of explaining gameplay elements (thus, they might predict what kind of Civilopedia to expect, for example). As tools for explaining gameplay, the tutorial and manual fail to impress, and this is worth 1/5th of the score in my view. By the way, this works both ways -- if you are neutral or positive (don't really care) about tutorials and manuals, your score will be higher in my system, which is to say I acknowledge that for many gamers, these things will NOT take away from their enjoyment of the game.

As for the interface, I don't think it's intutive at all -- but it's improving (perhaps a better tutorial/manual would have helped!). Thus my scores.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by yin26
These are my judgements put in different form.

Your judgements dressed as other people's judgements?

[yin26]

No. Just my judgements categorizing where I would place other peoples' judgements if they are willing to share their scores. This scoring system is as much a way for ME to see how other people think about certain categories as it is for other people to see how I think. And how many reviewing systems allow any kind of interactivity? Please.

If you disagree with my thinking, that's fine. Some of you guys act like this is trying to be an SAT test or something! It's just fun, you know? As in computer game fun. The outcome of your score doesn't determine your home mortgage rate, either. *

(*Note: This was humor.)