Why all the great reviews yet.....

[Bilas]

Almost every single review rates this game as "GREAT" or "10" and many sites say it is the strat game of the year, yet many gamers have problems with Civ3! I mean I find I like the game and with fix here and there I might rate it as very good, but many gamers here and friends I talk to have problems with everything from the AI to play balancing to ....whatever! well I hope they get a patch out soon, but I don't think they will until the Exp-Pack comes out, Oh well I will hope for it!

[Libertarian]

Several reasons, already discussed as we await morsels of information...

1. It takes a bit of time, reaching the modern age with hundreds of workers, for example, to discover the dreadful shortcomings of the game. Reviewers don't have (or take) time for extended play.

2. They have fudiciary conflicts that force them to be nice to publishers.

3. They're morons.

etc...

[Azrikam]

Take Gamespot, for instance. They named Civ III as their Strategy game of the year, but take a look at this paragraph from their review. (which gave Civ III 9.2, by the way)

And since it includes a comprehensive scenario editor, serious players are going to be cranking out mods and scenarios that give Civ III almost impossibly long legs. You'd be hard pressed to imagine a game with more replay value than this.

That's just one example of a completely bogus statement, and I'm sure if fans went through these "glowing" reviews, they would find a lot more.

The full review is here:

http://gamespot.com/gamespot/stories/reviews/0,10867,2821275,00.html

[Bilas]

Originally posted by Libertarian

3. They're morons.

heh I agree! But i just gets me mad seeing things like "Game of the year" type of things when they obviously did not play the game very long, Aye but as you stated this has all been said before and I guess I shouldnt have asked the question, but people that see all theses rave reviews go out and buy it than have to wait for patches because it isnt good enough. Nuff said!

[OneInTen]

A few more possisble reasons:

* The game has more appeal to the general gamer than the hardcore TBS/civ fan, therefore reviewers are more likely to be positive in their review than the hardcore people on these boards.

* Most reviewers are used to reviewing different sorts of games, such as FPS, and really don't know how to properly evaluate a TBS game.

* The reviewers didn't read and buy into the hype before the release of the game and therefore haven't suffered from the difference between the ideal and the reality and can appreciate the game for what it is rather than what it isn't.

* Game reviewers play so many games that they're used to bugs and realise that since all games have bugs it's not realistic to mark a game down unless the bugs are very numerous, game breaking, and/or from a company that has a history of not releasing patches.

* Perhaps apolyton and other places like it reflect an aspect of culture that civ 3 doesn't - that people of a similar culture tend to share similar beliefs. And likewise, people who share similar beliefs tend to congregate and form a culture. Game reviewers, presumably not being exposed to the apolyton culture, and instead presumably exposed to some extent to a game reviewer community/culture, are therefore likely to all think the more or less the same thing as each other, but not necessarily the same thing as people of apolyton think

* The methodology of game reviews is generally fairly set yet arbitrary (generally along the lines of give scores out of a number of categories, add them up, mix in a little fudge factor, give a final score), and may not be a valid method of really determining a games worth.

* Reviewers are comparing it to 100's of games released each year, most of which lose money (90% is a figure some people use). Presumably most games lose money because there are a lot of very poor games. In comparison any half decent game looks quite good and gets a high score.

.. or finally, because I'm just about out of ideas ...

* Maybe they just happen to like the game. I throw this in because the simplest answer is often a good starting point in the search for the truth!

(In reality, I think each reviewer rates a game the way they do for different reasons, and for most it will be a combination of many of the factors mentioned in various amounts. You know, that pesky free will thing us people have ...)

[OneInTen]

That's just one example of a completely bogus statement, and I'm sure if fans went through these "glowing" reviews, they would find a lot more.

Alternatively, the reviewer might be used to other genres where the terms map editor and scenario editor are used interchangably, and has simply used the terms in that way. In other words, no ill intent, no lying, just a misunderstanding in communication.

I bring this up because when I heard about civ 3 including a "scenario editor", what they delivered in the box is more or less what I expected. It can edit units and it can make maps. To me, that's what comes to mind when I heard scenario editor.

I can understand how you could be mislead if that's not what you think when you hear scenario editor. But, as the saying goes - "never attribute to malice what can be attributed to human stupidity" - or words to that effect.

Reviews are generally written for the average gamer (ie mainstream market), not a hardcore fan who knows the genre inside and out.

[The diplomat]

OneInTen has a good answer.

I think that most reviewers are "generalist". They have to review all types of games and are not necessarily experts at reviewing one type fo game. whereas the gamers at Apolyton are all highly expert at the civ genre so we are going to look at civ3 from a very different perspective. We are going to see things that the casual review would miss. For example, the average reviewer looks at graphics, interface, learning curve, fun factor etc... But the civ players at this forum have dissected the unit stats, costs of Wonders, prerequesites for techs, AI behavior under unusual circunstances etc...

I am not saying that civ3 is bad. I just think that civ players are going to be much more demanding whereas the casual reviewer is much more forgiving. We place the bar much higher so it is much harder for civ3 to meet our expectations than it is to meet the expectations of the casual reviewer.

[Libertarian]

See Intelgamer: The Dumbest Review Yet.

[Azrikam]

Alternatively, the reviewer might be used to other genres where the terms map editor and scenario editor are used interchangably, and has simply used the terms in that way. In other words, no ill intent, no lying, just a misunderstanding in communication.

That is very possible. But the way the sentence was phrased, ("comprehensive scenario editor... ... cranking out mods and scenarios...") I seriously doubt it.

Also, when you consider the lineage of Civ, Civ fans (rightly or wrongly) expect something on par with the Scenario Editor in Civ II. They have expectations of just what a "scenario editor" would include, just as they have expectations as to what constitutes "designer notes".

[Azrikam]

See Intelgamer: The Dumbest Review Yet.

C'mon, Lib. That was like shooting fish in a barrel.

[OneInTen]

Originally posted by Libertarian
See Intelgamer: The Dumbest Review Yet.

I've seen it already ...

Um, about the only way I can see someone writing that review is if they have very little grasp of the English language, which appears to be so in the case of the reviewer. In which case playing the English language version of Civ 3 was probably a pretty tough ask.

Like I said, I think the reasons fall into many categories, but that one mostly into you "reviewer is a moron" category.

Originally posted by Azrikam
Also, when you consider the lineage of Civ, Civ fans (rightly or wrongly) expect something on par with the Scenario Editor in Civ II.

To all but the hardcore civ fans, the scenario editor in civ 3 appears as good as the one in civ 2. How many people really used the one in civ 2? How many have used it in civ 3? I suspect the answer around here will be fairly high, but amoungst even the average civ fans, probably a very small number.

I've played civ 2 but frankly I never really used the editor much (on really for playing around with maps), and everything I used it for can be done in the civ 3 one, although the civ 3 one has a nicer interface.

Thus I think it's perfectly understandable that a reviewer who probably has even less civ 2 editing experience than I have thinks the civ 3 editor is "comprehensive" (which, btw, I think it is for the average player who the review is targetted at).

Scenario authors simply aren't the target audience for the review. After all, you don't generally see a review of the latest quake clone discussing in detail how easily mods can be made for the game, do you? At best most will mention whether it includes a map editor.

My advice is find a reviewer or two who you can trust, and who have similar tastes in games to your own. Just like you have to do with movie critics, you have to shop around for the good ones.

[ACooper]

Originally posted by Libertarian
Several reasons, already discussed as we await morsels of information...

1. It takes a bit of time, reaching the modern age with hundreds of workers, for example, to discover the dreadful shortcomings of the game. Reviewers don't have (or take) time for extended play.

2. They have fudiciary conflicts that force them to be nice to publishers.

3. They're morons.

etc...

1. Most people don't use "hundreds" of workers

2. That could be, but it's more likely some ***cough*** Bullstuff ***cough*** you just made up.

3. And you're not?

[Libertarian]

Goodness, Shaggy. You're on a tear today. Is the asylum on holiday?

[ACooper]

Originally posted by Libertarian
Goodness, Shaggy. You're on a tear today. Is the asylum on holiday?

Yes. AND I"M OUT OF PROZAC!!!!!!!!!

[Ming]

Originally posted by ****gyRA
2. That could be, but it's more likely some ***cough*** Bullstuff ***cough*** you just made up.

I don't think so...
Most gaming magazines or gaming sites derive over half of their revenue from advertising... And the biggest advertisers are the people selling games... you do the math