Why is Civ 3 Getting Such Good Reviews?

[Daveraver]

I mean, I think the concensus around here is that the game is mediocre at best, even when counting in the insipid patch...

I mean on average, even with the people that love this game... I think we'd all end up giving it a big fat 7/10 at the most....

Why then, do we keep on seeing 9's and 9.5's and the ilk? huh?

Anyone?

[Spiffor]

Some possible reasons :

1) Infogrames paid the reviewers and their publishers to have good reviews. Well, these people have to make a living... When we tell you corruption is high ! (note to Infograme, which is eager to sue : it is only an assumption, I do not affirm that you are corrupting reviewers... But I heard many things about videogames press)

2) The reviewers are blinded by their previous Civ experiences and remember the good old days playing civ1. They can't imagine a game from the Civ-series to be mediocre or bad.

3) The most important reason I think : the reviewers are not hardcore gamers, they probably never belonged to the civ fan community, and therefore attach little importance to the lack of MP and the lack of scenarios. They probably didn't ever try the editor !
The reviews test a single-player empire-building game. And if you pass the details (useless privateers), Civ3 is a really good experience in empire building, with an interesting concept of trade, a complete diplomacy, and an incredible addictiveness -at least for those who are not used to play civ permanently since 10 years, all of these qualities are accessible to the newbies, and don't need days to be learned. That's why Civ3 had much more success to the reviewers than Imperialism had : complete and complex, but simple to handle.

[Sabre2th]

I, too, am wondering why it keeps getting 9s and 9.5s. I gave it a 9.8.

[HalfLotus]

I would give the game a 9. Probly 9.5 after patching.
I haven't played any other games since I got civ3.

A better question would be: Why do people get freaked out when someone else likes the game alot? Some people on these boards **** their pants when someone disagrees with them.

[sachmo71]

Probably because the reviewers can forgive the game because it doesn't have an editor or multiplayer. While some of the people here are ready to take a torch to Firaxis/Infograms because of this, real people realize that it isn't a reason not to enjoy the game.
Also, I don't think the reviewers would scrap the game because airplanes cannot destroy ships. Nor if the Americans are present in the game but the Spanish aren't. They also won't stop playing the game because you can't resist harvesting forests or trading with the AI and having them give you 1 million gold per turn. So, this shows how stupid and irrelevant they are. If they could just see how important these things are to the game, they would slash the ratings of this game to nothing. If they don't think that IFE is a horrible enough bug to scrap the game, well **** them.


(The above sarcasm was intended to amuse. If you take offense...**** you, crybaby)

[Libertarian]

I think Firaxis and Infogrames built Civ3 the in true Civ player tradition — they examined their resources, assessed the playing field, made a building plan, and executed the best way they could within the constraints and context they had.

I'm not sure what is meant by "hardcore gamer", a very subjective term. But there actually are lots of platforms that you can use to customize to your heart's content. I recommend the one published by Microsoft: Visual C++.

Interesting irony: Borland used to have a better C++, but they targeted "hardcore programmers" and lost the whole market.

[Akka]

People tend to react excessively without thinking twice or really considering what they are saying. When they like something, they praise it skyrocketting, when they don't like, they put it beneath the floor.
A very good game like Civ3, while having very noticeable flaws and being a step back in many things from Civ 2 and AC, can jump to the moon in the critics, just because they are enthusiastics.

Moreover, few testers actually have the time to play all the games intensively to find the hard-to-see flaws or see if the game takes time to be appreciated. It's often the first few impressions that are graded.

There is also the childish fascination for excess in any senses, like when modders make a 50/50 unit, or when they put a 10000 in ressources appearance. Just look at BGH maps in SC and how ridiculous they are. It leads to streaks of '9,5 stars out of 10' for good games, and '1 star out of 10' for bad ones.

This lead to the problem of being able to grade a product that is even better than the previous 9,8/10 game you just tested two months before
Just wonder what grade Sabre2th and HalfLotus would give to a game better than Civ3

And lastly, there is some games that are just liked by reviewers, while not being so great. Look at Epic, Dungeon Keeper, Black & White, all good games but not transcendant that were graded like the 8th wonder of the world. Often, a stunning first impression or an impressing name/good idea shake the tester enough to overpraise the game.


Plenty of reasons to have too high grades when it comes to video games

[MarkG]

Originally posted by Daveraver
I mean, I think the concensus around here is that the game is mediocre at best, even when counting in the insipid patch...

I mean on average, even with the people that love this game... I think we'd all end up giving it a big fat 7/10 at the most....

mediocre is not a 7...

check the various polls people have made here over the last month...

[Dravin]

Well that's a simple question if I ever heard one. Maybe it's getting good reveiws because the reveiwers like the game?

[MarkG]

Originally posted by Dravin
Well that's a simple question if I ever heard one. Maybe it's getting good reveiws because the reveiwers like the game?

it's a conspiracy, i tell you!!

[GodSpawn]

I wonder if the consensus among folks who have time to post is representative of reality... I have hardly any time to post at the moment because, you've guessed it, I'm too busy playing Civ.

It's always this way on the forums, whatever the game. You get an unrepresentative view of reality, because upset people complain much louder than contented people (who are probably too busy playing whatever game to talk about it).

IMHO, of course.

[Dravin]

No, you are on to something. It's amazing how a community almost always tries to pass its self off as representative of everyone who bought the game. Because unless registered users is around the total number of units sold such isn't the case.

It’s a subconscious thing, all you see is the people in the forum and you come to feel that they are it.

[yin26]

It's all about expectations: If you expected Civ3 to be Civ2+, then you are a happy camper. If you expected Civ3 to really rework a good number of basic Civ elements, then you are horribly disappointed.

Now, the Civ2+ had the more reasonable expectations, of course. This just goes to show that if you aim low enough, you are never disappointed in life.

[MarkG]

Originally posted by yin26
It's all about expectations: If you expected Civ3 to be Civ2+, then you are a happy camper.

you're just saying that to promote your "civ3 expectations survey"(tm)

[yin26]

True! ...but I didn't include the link, so I still have some integrity intact (very little, admittedly).

[MarkG]

Originally posted by yin26
I still have some integrity intact

this coming from the man who has 3 quotes of himself in his signature

[Matte979]

Some say 10 some say 7 and few say 1 in anger..

I say 10 no debate. Its the most addictive game i played since
civ2 and the replayability is enourmous.

Short. As there is some truth in the posts that think its bad there are something thats good if magazine after magazine givs it good reviews just accept the fact that alot of people think that this is a great game. Those that like it do not post here all day becuase they are as mentined before playing the game.

/Mathias
To many experts on how civ should play in this forum is my view

[yin26]

Hey, I had the same way of thinking in graduate school: Most of my peers were off reading what OTHER people had to say about this and that book. I never really cared. Sure, I had to know the history, etc., but I wrote papers from MY point of view contributing a new voice to the discussion.

Thus, a number of profs told me they learned something from my papers. This taught me a valuable lesson:

Don't look for other people to do the talking for you.

[Alex]

Don't look for other people to do the talking for you.

Yep. That's why I bought the game, played it, and now I can say that I agree with the reviewers: Civ3 is a very good game.

This community is made up of people who have been playing civ games for... 10 years now? More than that, considering board games?

So I think that the truly hardcore civ gamer has come to a point of no return: you simply cannot rehash an old formula for these kind of gamers. For them, Civ must be continually evolving. Many have discerned that evolution in SMAC; others think that "that piece of garbage a.k.a. CTP", despite its flaws, introduced new concepts that -- could -- represent the future of civ games.

What happened when Civ3 was released? A game that should appeal "both to newbies and veterans alike"? A game whose major font of inspiration was CivI, released 10 years ago? Whining and moaning, of course. The truly hardcore civ gamer simply cannot believe that he/she is playing a game which still carries, on its core gameplay, the old civ formula from 10 years ago.

On the other hand, for many people, Civ still retains its addictive qualities, its epic scope, its "one more turn" syndrome. The old civ formula is still fun for a lot of people. It is still fun for me. I like the urgency I feel when I'm about to get an important advance, so I can "teach those [civ name here] bastards a good lesson". I like when I need a strategic resource and the AI won't trade it, unless I agree with totally unreasonable demands they make. I like when my military advisor pops up and says that the citizens of Pompeii decided to overthrow their opressors and decided to join my civ!

And, despite all that fun, I cannot help but think that Civ3 is not the big improvement to the series I would like to see.

So, no wrong sides here. There are not bad guys and good guys. As yin pointed out, it's all about expectations. But it does not stop there. I had fairly high expectations about this game, but I am not "disappointed". The game has already gave me enough fun for my money. I still think that I will play it for many more hours and days and even months. But one thing will always be clear to me: that Civ3 is not a big step forward.

And, for what it matters, I am satisfied.

[yin26]

There is no part of the game that drags on or is tedious.

That's an example of one of the reviews that gave the game a 9. Yes, people, these guys played the game a lot and feel the same way the average thinking human being does about moving 200+ units / turn one at a time.

[Alexander's Horse]

Most game sites give positive reviews because they depend on game makers for their existence - content, tips, info, interviews etc. Many of them also sell the games so they are hardly going to bash the product.

Another factor is reviewers might not be hard core fans and they don't play games for long before posting their review.

[Venger]

I suspect crack addiction is rampant in game review circles...

That said, the reviewers likely played all of one game, after playing a game of Wolfenstein, Quake3, Kingdom Under Fire, blah blah, blah blah... reviewers who give bad reviews ... don't get sponsorship from publishers. And that means ads.

Listen to the people who play the games. I prefer gamespot because the reviewers will occassionally dogpile a game, but because it's easy to see the average scores of users of the game and their comments too (Note CTP2 is ahead of Civ3 - ahem)

Anyone giving Civ3 9+ is uniquely unqualified to do so. There are too many BUGS to give it that high a score, much less overall game quality.

I think the poll on this site says it all - what was it, 50/50 last time I checked it? And that's what I'd give it, a passing 7.5 (assuming that's a C average). Nothing more.

That said, I'm likely posting my final thoughts on the game (my game is ending, and the patch doesn't address the core problems with the game) and will sell it or shelve it until patch number 5 comes out. Culture killed the cat...city defection is still bad, the game is anathema to conquest.

That's okay, I got CTP and SMAC patched and ready to roll...

Venger

[Seeker]

In answer to the thread title:

1. It's a 'Sid Game' and so there is somehow the idea that it is immediately given a point for this.

2. General tendency of magazine reviewers not to really pan games from large, ad-buying publishers unless the game is awful in an epic way (Daikatana, Outpost)

3. Reviewers tend to keep in mind the 'target audience' which for Civ 3 seems to have been envisioned as not terribly demanding.

4. As has been said, reviewers have a short time to play. Therefore, immediate 'cool things' are more important than subtler, long term things. Graphics tend to emphasized (the faces). A reviewer would probably not even notice that planes can't sink ships because they don't play as much as we do. They are more fixated on things like "OMG! There are RESOURCES in CIV!" or "Look at my little workers all swinging their shovels!"

5. Editability/Customizability SEEMS to be present until you actually try to use them, then again reviewers don't pay much attention to this.

6. Reviewers are not attached to Civ in the way that gamers are. If Civ has been your most played computer game for 9 years, then it IS ****ing important that there are no Mongols, and if there were they wouldn't be in Mongolia, and they couldn't sink the Bismarck with planes. We want POLISH, not just broad strokes.

7. Reviewers have not had the better part of decade to buy expansions, scenario packs, Gold Editions, ToTs, and CtPs waiting and dreaming of the coming of the Messiah, the Great Civ 3 which will fix all Civ 2s problems while remaining the same great game.

[yin26]

Yes, very well said! Might I add one?:

** The reviewers probably didn't pay $50 and, thus, see any future patches as 'icing on the cake' rather than 'bare minimum support' for the features they never even noticed were missing or broken.

[Downer]

I too agree that Civ3 is very addicting and many of the problems it had are now almost completely gone because of the patch. I think most of the reviewers are right on with the reviews, because I would defiantly give it at least 9/10. I just hope the Firaxis guys beef up the editor a bit more so we can have some world war 2 scenarios

[Ancientfool]

I think when they give civ a 9.8 they just forget to mention its a 1-100 scale. hehe

Seriously, its not bad but its not great either. Many reviews are inflated for many of the reasons listed by others. If civ *is* a 9.8 though then ive been playing quite a few transwarp 12 or 13 games lately.

[Trifna]

Because critics are looking at what it is and not it could have been.

[Expatriate]

Originally posted by Daveraver
I mean, I think the concensus around here is that the game is mediocre at best, even when counting in the insipid patch...

I mean on average, even with the people that love this game... I think we'd all end up giving it a big fat 7/10 at the most....

Why then, do we keep on seeing 9's and 9.5's and the ilk? huh?

Anyone?

The concensus you are talking about is a very small group of very active gamers. For each person that posts here what he or she thinks, there are 100+ that have never heard of this site.

Also, I think its the nature of online communities to bash the game they love no matter how good it is. MMORPGs are the prime example here. Take a game like Everquest that has more than 300,000 people paying 10$ every month to play. If you ask the online EQ communities they will tell you that the game sucks and the publisher is the devil. Still there are 300K+ people playing and paying......

[Badtz Maru]

It's a great game, that's why it gets great reviews. The people on these boards who are slamming it have their own expectations of what the game should be - they seem to expect some combination of Civ2 and SMAC with tons of new features all custom made to fit their idea of how a game should be, an editor that allows you to do anything you can imagine - oh yeah, no bugs either. It doesn't, they are disappointed, and they are trying to get revenge on the makers.

But really, it's an elegantly designed game. More is not always better - Civ2 had lots of useless units, features that were poorly implemented, and was poorly balanced. It's been a while, but I don't think it even came with an editor, either. SMAC was an ambitious game, but was even more unbalanced and had an extra level of complexity that made it inaccessible to more casual gamers - I could not recomend SMAC to my brother or my wife, for instance (I also had some serious issues with other, more subjective aspects of SMAC, but I recognize it was at least a good idea).

Civ3 is better than all that came before it, especially when you take into consideration that the Civ series was NEVER a serious, hard-core strategy game. Everybody I've introduced to Civ3 has loved it - I let my 16 year-old niece, who is a casual gamer at best, play it and she was hooked, spent the rest of her visit playing it and delayed going home to finish her game. Her father (my brother) bought it for her and got hooked himself, had to buy a second copy so he could play too, and calls me long-distance for advice on the game. My wife, who thought the game looked boring, was finally talked into playing and now I'm considering buying a second copy so I could get a chance to play. She's never been into games of this sort (preferring action-RPGs and online RPGs) and is even beginning to delve into the editor to tweak the game to her liking. My 66 year-old MOTHER stayed up to 2:30 AM playing the game recently, and would probably play more if she could get a chance.

Firaxis has truly accomplished a rare feat here. There's a reason why this game is selling so many millions of copies. This is a GOOD thing, as it ensures the continuing life of the Civilization series.

[Expatriate]

OMG Badtz! If they ever add multiplayer, your family could play a 16 nation game all by yourself