Civ III In Computer Games Magazine: Wins Game of the Year

[MarkG]

Originally posted by yin26
it does seem in this case that the difference between their score and the fans' score is much wider than usual.

Civilization 3
gamespot: 9.2, fans: 7.9, difference: 1.3

FIFA Soccer 2002
gamespot: 9.3, fans: 7.4, difference: 1.9

Max Payne
gamespot: 9.2, fans: 8.9, difference: 0.3

Return to Castle Wolfenstein
gamespot: 9.2, fans: 8.5, difference: 0.7

Black & White
gamespot: 9.3, fans: 7.9, difference: 1.4


Average
gamespot: 9.2, fans: 8.1, difference: 1.1


i wouldnt call it "much wider"....


btw, notice the difference on fifa, which is a sequel just like civ3...

[Ironikinit]

I already posted why the votes at Gamespot were tainted. I'm not sure what Gamespot has to do with this topic.

What game deserves the Game of the Year award more than Civ 3? Gotta give it to somebody.

[yin26]

And looking at those scores, the fan average seems far more informed than the Gamespot one, which brings us back to my original point. To give Black and White a 9+ and to call it 'highly polished' is simply sad.

I already posted why the votes at Gamespot were tainted.

Yes, and you were wrong.

[Special_Olympic]

Bah, what a cheap scam. It's an AWFUL game. One of the worst.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Special_Olympic
Bah, what a cheap scam. It's an AWFUL game. One of the worst.

Many people would disagree with you

[XP NAPOLEON]

MarkG....all your post demonstrates is that gamespot rates EVERY game at 9.2-9.3. The only significant (read meaningful) difference in game to game ratings is provided by the fans.

[DarkCloud]

What I don't understand is how poeple could call the game the "best Civ Game ever" if it does not have the sceario editing tools that Civ II had?

I can see best game of the year since the games of this year were not too good- but best civ game- NO. I don't play games without good scenario editing tools... Although I suppose the addons will include better tools (the cheat menu; etc.)

[DarkCloud]

Originally posted by XP NAPOLEON
MarkG....all your post demonstrates is that gamespot rates EVERY game at 9.2-9.3. The only significant (read meaningful) difference in game to game ratings is provided by the fans.

I think htat he only chose the high rated games for the details- and thus he proves his point.

However, I cannot see how this game could be called the 'best civ game'. Civ is customization, above all else! that is what got it this community.

[OneInTen]

However, I cannot see how this game could be called the 'best civ game'. Civ is customization, above all else! that is what got it this community.

Civ is many things to many people. To me, customization isn't one of them.

[Heliodorus]

Yin, keep banging your drum. This is definitely one of the "1 in 10 times" when I'll stand behind you and nod vociferously that you're on target and in good voice.

Speaking of reading comprehension, did anyone take umbrage at what the reviewer said - that the team spent time playing the game and taking out the things that don't work? Huh? What a trite piece of drivel that is to anyone who played more then 3 games on a map larger than "small." That's what pisses me off in awarding Civ3 GOTY in its genre. That's crap, and anyone who played the game with a modicum of honest analysis knows.

I don't have a problem with Civ3 winning in its field because I don't know what other games might have been considered, and I didn't play any of them anyway. Maybe it's possible that this was literally the best game in the field this year and the other stuff was worse.

The more distance I have from these magazines (I've let all my subscriptions lapse in the last year and a half to PC Gamer and that CGW or whatever its acro was) the more I realize that, like the celebrity journalism magazines (People, etc.), this is just one big cult of celebrity worship.

It makes me ill.

"we lie to each other so much that there's nothing we trust"

[MOHonor]

Originally posted by Heliodorus
That's what pisses me off in awarding Civ3 GOTY in its genre. That's crap, and anyone who played the game with a modicum of honest analysis knows.

Uh so let me get this straight. You're telling me the reviewer didn't know if he was having fun playing the game or not? That he erronously thought he was having fun when in fact he wasn't? Further all the billon other reviewers who rated the game highly because they thought they were having fun are also suffering from this bizarre and undiscovered disease?

I'm am constantly amazed that some of you retards can look at this game that is back in the top 10 and is getting perfect reviews and now game of the year awards and say it was a disaster. Maybe it's all venting and if we weren't subjected to it you'd be keying cars or telling AIDS jokes or something. But it seems to me more like brittle egos who can't admit they don't know sh*t beyond comic book, video and computer game stores.

[FrantzX]

Oh, my, god! Could be it? Could it actually be... that...

Some people actually LIKE this game!!??

[DarkCloud]

It is a disaster beccause it isn't better than Civ II.
Civ II had more options.
THus it desreves its criticism.

And anyways- those magazines are frequently bribed or are idiots... Now I am not saying that Firaxis or Infogrames did as such, for example:

They gave Tropico 4 stars or something like that and complained of how you had to hit 3 clicks to access some data or figure things out.

1.) Did they not use hotkeys?
2.) I could figure out when a revolution would come. All i needed to do was look at political dissent and somehting else, etc.

3.) They neglected to mention the game's one major flaw- it was TOO EASY!

I have only been able to beat a few games without cheats- and tropico, sadly waws one of them.

These reviewers don't know what they are doing.

[Encomium]

Originally posted by DarkCloud
It is a disaster beccause it isn't better than Civ II.
Civ II had more options.
THus it desreves its criticism.

And anyways- those magazines are frequently bribed or are idiots...
These reviewers don't know what they are doing.

I think they KNOW what they are doing - sucking up to Firaxis and encouraging INTEREST and sales in computer games, which is what they want.

Civ III is a disaster also because it is simply a lot less enjoyable than Civ II, and the lack of a scenario builder and cheat mode is a major failing, among a ton of other things.


Civ III is such a huge disappointment owing to failed potential.

[Heliodorus]

Originally posted by MOHonor


Uh so let me get this straight. You're telling me the reviewer didn't know if he was having fun playing the game or not? That he erronously thought he was having fun when in fact he wasn't? Further all the billon other reviewers who rated the game highly because they thought they were having fun are also suffering from this bizarre and undiscovered disease?

I'm am constantly amazed that some of you retards can look at this game that is back in the top 10 and is getting perfect reviews and now game of the year awards and say it was a disaster. Maybe it's all venting and if we weren't subjected to it you'd be keying cars or telling AIDS jokes or something. But it seems to me more like brittle egos who can't admit they don't know sh*t beyond comic book, video and computer game stores.

Like I said, it's about reading comprehension: Here's the quote you took from me:

Originally posted by HeliodorusSpeaking of reading comprehension, did anyone take umbrage at what the reviewer said - that the team spent time playing the game and taking out the things that don't work? Huh? What a trite piece of drivel that is to anyone who played more then 3 games on a map larger than "small." That's what pisses me off in awarding Civ3 GOTY in its genre. That's crap, and anyone who played the game with a modicum of honest analysis knows.

Now, where in that did I say anything that remotely could be construed that Civ3 wasn't fun for the reviewer in question. I didn't. Read it again. Maybe get someone who understands human communication to give you a hand.

Even I had fan playing Civ3. I only played 3 games into the modern era or to completion, though. Then I set it aside. I questioned the writer's integrity (and as much as I'd like to question yours with a handle like "MOHonor" all I have grounds to question is your negligible capacity for discerning thought) because he claimed that everything in the game "works" even into the modern era.

Your name-calling and pedantic apologies belie your own psychological self-interests. I quote one of my favorite bands, Tool:

"You can point that f***ing finger up your a$$"

Heliodorus loves Tool.