Why all the great reviews yet.....

Bilas · January 24, 2002, 10:01

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 · January 24, 2002, 10:03

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 · January 24, 2002, 10:24

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)

Quote:

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...821275,00.html

Bilas · January 24, 2002, 10:31

Quote:

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 · January 24, 2002, 10:37

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 · January 24, 2002, 10:44

Quote:

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 · January 24, 2002, 10:48

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 · January 24, 2002, 10:49

See Intelgamer: The Dumbest Review Yet.

Azrikam · January 24, 2002, 10:55

Quote:

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 · January 24, 2002, 11:05

Quote:

See Intelgamer: The Dumbest Review Yet.

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

OneInTen · January 24, 2002, 12:58

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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 · January 24, 2002, 14:07

Quote:

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 · January 24, 2002, 14:14

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

ACooper · January 24, 2002, 14:16

Quote:

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 · January 24, 2002, 15:12

Quote:

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

FNBrown · January 24, 2002, 16:20

The advertising conflict is almost certainly the primary reason why CivIII is getting the glowing reviews all over the place.

One other thing... and, please, help me out here if I'm wrong... but, what other games (of the same genre) does CivIII really have to compete with this year?

It reminds me of the time I won second-place in a chili cook-off at my company picnic....

... there were only two entries.

Slax · January 24, 2002, 16:22

Quote:

Originally posted by OneInTen
* 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.

This is an interesting point. Reviewers usually get only one chance to review a game, and the game may or may not improve with patches.

Do they include the effects of anticipated patches ? If so, then is some of the opinion based on the designers and publisher?

Heliodorus · January 24, 2002, 16:38

Quote:

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...

Damn you, Lib. Now I have nothing useful to add to this post...

this post brought to you by the shameless desire to graduate from whatever level comes after Chieftain...

FNBrown · January 24, 2002, 16:41

Yeah... I wanna graduate from Chieftan, too...

Heliodorus · January 24, 2002, 17:03

Having read the review linked herein, I must say:

OMFG I can't believe someone would submit such drivel for publication. This is a writer, as Lib so humorously noted, who seems to have vague familiarity with our language, and who wrote the review on a football helmet...

It's not one of my finest hours, but I wrote reviews for a online site (shall remane nameless, but it wasn't top tier). I took great pride in my submissions, and I ended up quitting that non-paying job for two reasons. These were (in order of importance):

I hated playing crappy or uninteresting games. They assigned me an NBA game to review - and I hate basketball. Then they expect me to play 30 hours of a game I hate to give a good review (not to mention the fact that I'd never even PLAYED another title). Oh, sure, I got to review the original Thief, and Aliens v Predator, and I did good jobs on those. But when it came to reviewing some po-dunk 2nd tier autoracing title when I hate racing games, I wasn't able to generate any interest in the subject, and thus wasn't able to write with pride - so I pushed out crappy reviews just because I was obligated to.

Sounds to me like your reviewer could not care less about TBS games...

Second, because we were a second tier site, we had a lot of crappy writers like THIS guy at Intelgames. Proofreading was the job of all writers and editors - and it about killed me to spend more time trying to teach 3rd-rate buffoons why complete sentences are mandatory. It's one thing to be able to even write cogently. It's another to be able to focus on a subject and relate it successfully. It's another beyond that to do both of these with unique style...

There are very few good reviewers out there. The magazines have it easier in one sense because they can pay better and because they have a slightly easier deadline schedule (they know they can't compete with the online speed, so they get to play a game a little more, usually). I think the magazines are WAY too caught up in their own hype (I personally quit my subscription to PC Gamer because their hardware dweeb, Greg Vederman, couldn't stop telling readers about his love affair with pornography while insulting them for their technical inexperience with hardware). In fact, I'm slowly but surely leaving the PC game arena. I've replaced it with an X-Box, and mountain biking.

One thing I'll say for the editors at my unnamed review site (they still exist, and still rather suck). The editors insisted that we rate a game based on it's status, not reputation. They constantly reminded us that there should be very few 9 reviews, and near impossible to get a 10 (I gave Thief a 10, and by god I stand by that). If you gave a game a 9.2, then you were asserting that it was better than 92 percent of all computer games you've ever played. It ought to be approached that way.

There ought to be a lot more 6 and 7 games out there. The curve on all reviews puts the majority of hyped, popular games into the 85% range.

It's just another sham, isn't it? Like politics and religion and tax codes? Hey, Lib, what is the fable/myth about Cynic (or whatever his name was, Cynicus for all I remember) carrying a lantern in the daytime, and when he was asked why, he said he was looking for an honest man?

Oh, that reminds me... I'm at work. I ought to at least LOOK like I'm doing something to benefit the corporate bottom line.

Yeah, right, as if...

Raion · January 24, 2002, 17:22

Okay, a few reasons why CIV III is rated so high.
It was the first game like this, that people liked when CIV I came out back in 1991, so it was put in the Hall of Fame of Games, that year, after DOS-CIV.
CIV II was better, but still at first there was complaints, which Sid took to heart and changed the game around with later patches or scenarios.
CIV III is drawing back on the first review, when it was rated high, and also because there is a market still for the game, 10 years later.
So, it has some faults, but some people have been playing this game, with mods, with whatever, for the past 10 years.
Sure there are other games out there, but a few are in the Hall of Fame.
Surely you heard of Hapoon, Hapoon IV is coming out sometime,
its played by the Navy.
Master of Orion == Master of Orion III, due out this year, again, after MOOII.
XCOM - taken over by Virgin, to hopefully be released at the end of this year after being dropped.
Sim City -- another version Sim City Unlimited Edition Gold, whatever, -- about the 3rd or 4th version.

These games have been around for about 10-12 years, and the next version is................................................
Another one some people probably will buy.

Libertarian · January 24, 2002, 17:28

Helio:

Quote:

Hey, Lib, what is the fable/myth about Cynic (or whatever his name was, Cynicus for all I remember) carrying a lantern in the daytime, and when he was asked why, he said he was looking for an honest man?

It was Diogenes who carried the lantern. Glad you enjoyed the review of the review.