Will I regret installing steam and buying civ IV complete through it?

[giblets]

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/sid-meiers-civilization-iii

Sid Meier's Civilization III
User: 8.1

[Dinner]

No. They should review what is in front of them. Not what they would have made, or what they expected.

I agree they should review what is in front of them but to put it in context they have to know what other games of the type have accomplished. You can't say so and so if the best X (name sports position or anything requiring talent) ever if they have no idea who else has played the position nor what those other players accomplished.

[Al B. Sure!]

I agree they should review what is in front of them but to put it in context they have to know what other games of the type have accomplished. You can't say so and so if the best X (name sports position or anything requiring talent) ever if they have no idea who else has played the position nor what those other players accomplished.

But they're not saying so and so is the best QB... to use your analogy, they're simply rating him as a good QB. Do you need perspective to determine what is good? Sure, it helps, but you can go off of what would constitute good (winning games, scoring tds, etc.) without needing to know what numbers Jim Kelly put up.

Similarly, they don't need to put Civ 5 in the perspective of Civ 4 to know it's good on its own merits.

[Wiglaf]

But they're not saying so and so is the best QB... to use your analogy, they're simply rating him as a good QB. Do you need perspective to determine what is good? Sure, it helps, but you can go off of what would constitute good (winning games, scoring tds, etc.) without needing to know what numbers Jim Kelly put up.

Similarly, they don't need to put Civ 5 in the perspective of Civ 4 to know it's good on its own merits.

Any game with no AI and one winning strategy isn't good on the merits, ******.

[giblets]

They do need to keep Civ 4 in mind in order to judge whether Civ 5 is worth spending $50 on. "Good on its own merits" means nothing. If the original Civ came out after Civ 4 it would be considered garbage.

[Barnabas]

Civ III is fun. I meant the last final version. I still like the civ III maps better.

[notyoueither]

They do need to keep Civ 4 in mind in order to judge whether Civ 5 is worth spending $50 on. "Good on its own merits" means nothing. If the original Civ came out after Civ 4 it would be considered garbage.

If a critic is a fan of mid-sixties pop-rock, should they judge the late-sixites and early-seventies Beatles by that?

No.

What the artist did earlier is not relevant to whether the new work is good or not. Valid criticism needs to be based on what is in front of the critic.

[giblets]

It's a stretch to call a videogame like Civilization a "work of art".

[notyoueither]

Good thing I didn't, then. I used music for an example of what would be blindingly invalid criticism.

That CiV does not allow stacks of doom = invalid criticism.

That CiV 1UPT breaks immersion when playing what is supposed to be a game of global strategy = valid criticism.

Wah! CiV is not like earlier Civs in ways that I liked! = invalid criticism.

CiV failed to create an immersive game that I would come back to time and time again = valid criticism.

[giblets]

That CIV is a much better game and a better value for your money = valid criticism. Your post is a strawman. No one suggested that any deviation from CIV is inherently bad.

[notyoueither]

No, that's not valid.

[Elok]

Since Al brought up SCII, I looked at the electronics section at Walmart when I went to pick up a prescription today. Two major games, released the same year...one is selling for $50, the other's twenty bucks cheaper. I think Spore still cost about $30 too...

Since Civ is a series, it's fair and sensible to compare the games to each other. To use NYE's analogy, it might not make sense to compare "Wild Honey Pie" to "Satisfaction," but it's fine to compare it to "A Hard Day's Night." It's the same group, it's fine to say you like, or dislike, the way they're headed. It makes even more sense to do this with game series, where each is supposed to build on the last. They had several years to look at the series and see what worked and what didn't. What did they do? Not much to their credit, it seems. Certainly not to compare with the way II built on the original, or IV finally implemented III's bold ideas properly.

[Wiglaf]

What the artist did earlier is not relevant to whether the new work is good or not. Valid criticism needs to be based on what is in front of the critic.

This is completely ridiculous. Read it back to yourself.

[Wiglaf]

"Boeing really messed up with this new design, steve, it requires 20x more fuel to fly than previous models." INVALID CRISTISM!!!!1 11

"Christina was teh worst lay ive ever had" INVALID CRISITM GET OUT OF MY BAR DOUUUUUCCCHE

Get real.

[Dinner]

But they're not saying so and so is the best QB... to use your analogy

Yes, in effect they're ranking them against the competition. If you don't know how good the competition is then your ratings/rankings are rather useless.