On which areas should a civ game be rated?

[MarkG]

for example:

gamespy has two ratings: design & technical
gamespot has 5: gameplay, graphics, sound, value, tilt
ign also has 5 : presentation, graphics, sound, gameplay, lasting appeal

[*End Is Forever*]

Go with the gameplay. Anything else is merely peripheral.

Example - Sensible Soccer. Looked awful, but still the best football game ever.

[Sarxis]

Gameplay for sure

But for CivIII, the graphics and sound should probably be rated as well, but keeping in mind that this is a TBS game, and not a 3d RTS. From what samples I have seen and heard, CivIII is going to excel in these two areas. But I know that usually, TBS games seem to fall short of the glory of their RTS siblings.

Replayability. I think this is a good aspect to judge any TBS game on. Replay encompasses not only how long the game keeps its players interested, but what kind of modding, editing, scenario making can be done to the game.

design & technical? To the laymen, these two terms mean nothing. Or maybe they just don't mean anything to me

And that 'tilt' one that is at gamespot- never did quite get that myself

[drake]

I second anu's suggestion of replayability. (lasting appeal)

Its really all that matters to me. What good is a game if you beat it once and then never want to play it again? Thats called a huge waste of money.

Civ2 gets a ten on replayability and I imagine civ3 will too (once it gets MP)

Woops, let that one slip

[Chris 62]

Well, I would say these:

Playability: Is it fun? Easy to use?
Graphics: Does it look good?
Sound: I find, that years later, sounds from many games are still with me.
Attention to detail: Is it buggy? Major programming glitches?
Replay value: Is it worth repeated play? Big selling point, I think.
Multiplayer compatible: Another major selling point. Maybe we will get a straight answer, instead of double talk.

That's about it, from my point of view.

[Urban Ranger]

- fun
- addictiveness
- replayability

Everything else is just chrome

[tniem]

If you are asking about your review of Civ III, I want to see whether it is worth it. I mean we have been waiting five years and expect a lot (maybe too much) so did they deliver? Is it all that it could be? Not just the ratings that other sites give but ratings of whether or not this is the best that can be done at this time. Is it balanced? Is it as great as Civ I? Will ten years from now, will I still be playing it? Ask some questions and answer them that only can be done by the Civ community that has been obsessed for so long.

[Master Marcus]

mostly gameplay, but I like the presentation category from ign- this is how a game's storyline ( if it has a solid one ) can be in harmony with the programming - the SMAC review is a good example of this, and widens it a lot next to all other reviews from any other site . The lasting appeal is closely related to replayability, which is closely dependent to the fluidity and versatility of the gameplay. This is where the TBS genre overcome the RTS, but cannot be seriously rated before 6months, if not a full year after release in my mind. So any rating about replayability or lasting appeal (or related to) is completely irrelevent in a review published immediately after the release.

[MarkG]

the Apolyton review wont have any ratings, but here are my suggestions(which along with your suggestions will be used for something else )

Gameplay
Graphics
Sound
Replayability
Mod-friendliness
AI
Interface

i guess Interface could be replaced with Presentation, to also include the manual and the charts, and the general look and feel of the game

[Rasputin]

Originally posted by MarkG
the Apolyton review wont have any ratings, but here are my suggestions(which along with your suggestions will be used for something else )

Gameplay
Graphics
Sound
Replayability
Mod-friendliness
AI
Interface

i guess Interface could be replaced with Presentation, to also include the manual and the charts, and the general look and feel of the game

pity you didnt include Chis's and Drakes comment re MP.. just because they havent included it means we should be able to lower the overall rating a sa good game nowadays should have MP... IMHO anyway....

[MarkG]

Originally posted by Rasputin
pity you didnt include Chis's and Drakes comment re MP.. just because they havent included it means we should be able to lower the overall rating a sa good game nowadays should have MP... IMHO anyway....

i disagree

you judge a game based on what it actually promises on the box, not on what the company had announced 2.5 years ago or what you expected it to be in your dreams...

[Rasputin]

then how do you judg ethe other items you have listed, rarely do companies claim replayability levels , nor do they say how great the sound is .. so if people start judging the game only on what the game box promises it should rate 100% in all areas. To get a good judgment of the game you need to compare it to other games and also to your own expectations of the game IMHO

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by MarkG
i disagree

you judge a game based on what it actually promises on the box, not on what the company had announced 2.5 years ago or what you expected it to be in your dreams...

Than why are we discussing it?
Have they relaesed the box yet?

And you answered the king of pointless posts!

Many more to follow....

[Rasputin]

i cant see how trying to get a more fair (IMO) rating system implemented is pointless. I think mark tends to ignore my pointless remarks and only asnswers those that need answering... I for one apprecaite this subtle difference...

[MarkG]

Originally posted by Chris 62
And you answered the king of pointless posts!

look who's talking....