DAYUUMMM, mega flop.
It's OK herms, accept the flop and move on.
This topic is locked from further discussion.
no
The expansions will score higher no doubt but I did feel like the review was a bit light considering how much content is usual involved; either way I will pick it up because Civ5 was one of my most played games last gen.
DAYUUMMM, mega flop.
It's OK herms, accept the flop and move on.
I voted AAA for the game =(
if they have expansions come out it'll probably make this really good. I did like Civ 5 a lot, but once you get the expansions with it, it really completes the game... i couldn't play it without them now. Civ 3 was the same way, the expansion added so many more civilizations.
Its too bad they can't release the game great from the start instead of milking people for expansions later on. I haven't played this yet so maybe i'll like it more then i think i will.
Except Civ 5 was a 9/10 while this is a 7/10. I doubt people are going to be running out and buying a 7. It probably won't even get expansions. And after an unmitigated disaster like this Firaxis would probably be wise to just start working on the next Civ game.
Is Firaxis even a big studio? I could see them going under over a dud like this.
I'll still put in like a hundred times more hours into this game than I will into most games Gamespot will probably give a 9, so whatever.
gameplay per square inch=/=great game
It being Civ means its quality is already a given.
LOL at consolites implying any PC gamer hyped this. Where's the hype thread? I know 5 club had one. And please, continue to ignore the 82 on MC
Except Civ 5 was a 9/10 while this is a 7/10. I doubt people are going to be running out and buying a 7. It probably won't even get expansions. And after an unmitigated disaster like this Firaxis would probably be wise to just start working on the next Civ game.
Is Firaxis even a big studio? I could see them going under over a dud like this.
First things first, you don't run out and buy PC games. You sit down in a chair and download them.
Secondly, regarding Firaxis going under:
I called it.
Too much samey nonsense... and dumbding down of culture etc... I hold this to the same standard as other series.... if you launch the same(ish) game over and over again... but with less features than the last...... and have to wait for expansions to fill the gaps... you never deserve 9s... I felt this way about Civ V
Culture needs to have emphasis place on less....why? because it should matter less when they are I don't know...colonizing an alien planet. And cultural victories are simply idiotic, especially for this setting. Alpha Centauri never had one.
Both the Gamespot and IGN reviews are pure stupid. Its like the Gamespot reviewer wanted to play this game like Civ V.
Played 2-5 and loved them. The GS video really did not look great to me. Cities being very easy to take over and units being killed by that sat strike (or whatever that was) was a let down. Ill wait a few days and check out some player reviews but for now :(
Good, no more stupid cities that take half an army out. Cities were too powerful in Civ V. Its called rely on other defenses instead of just the city itself.
gameplay per square inch=/=great game
It being Civ means its quality is already a given.
There is not a doubt in my mind that Civ is quality (i will be buying it), I'm merely saying that spending x amount of hours in a game doesn't inherently make it better. Plenty of games are simply built as time sinks by design, that however does not mean a 5-6 hour game is inherently worse because someone values gameplay per square inch over actual gameplay and design execution.
That said in a year with Endless Legend, Xenonauts, and Civilization Beyond Earth it's another solid year of strat titles on PC.
gameplay per square inch=/=great game
It being Civ means its quality is already a given.
There is not a doubt in my mind that Civ is quality (i will be buying it), I'm merely saying that spending x amount of hours in a game doesn't inherently make it better. Plenty of games are simply built as time sinks by design, that however does not mean a 5-6 hour game is inherently worse because someone values gameplay per square inch over actual gameplay and design execution.
That said in a year with Endless Legend, Xenonauts, and Civilization Beyond Earth it's another solid year of strat titles on PC.
Yeah, I can agree with that easily. Quantity=/=Quality and all that jazz.
I just read the GS review...who the hell is Nick Capozoli? A freelancer I assume, never heard of him.
He's the absolute worst.
Just shows that Firaxis continue to make shallow garbage that just happens to be compulsive busywork with production values, when compared to legit strategy games from Stardock, Paradox or hell, even Amplitude.
Yet PC gamers will eat this up. Hermits are such a joke.
Dissapointing. Especially since it's not just one review. I think I will hold off for now, especially since ther have been so many good TBSes this year and will get this when the first add-on hits, which hopefully should fix the issues and put more meat on it's bones.
All this makes me sad Paradox never tried to take their EuropaUniversalis engine into SF genre.
Except Civ 5 was a 9/10 while this is a 7/10. I doubt people are going to be running out and buying a 7.
I doubt most Civ's audience is concerned about scores. And the sales will depend on add-ons. That's how Civ sells those ridiculous numnbers. THey never get big right out the door, but regular big meaty add-ons and collected re-releases keep the sales on steady level for 5 or more years. So there definitely will be at least one expanion pack and the remaining development will depend on how the main game will sell with this add-on out.
It's funny how people are pretending that 7 is a bad score, especially when it's got much higher scores elsewhere.
It's funny how people are pretending that 7 is a bad score, especially when it's got much higher scores elsewhere.
It is a bad score for this game. It's like Zelda getting an 7
It's funny how people are pretending that 7 is a bad score, especially when it's got much higher scores elsewhere.
It is a bad score for this game. It's like Zelda getting an 7
Yes it is low for the series. But a not as great civ game is still a great game. And lets be honest, it's still better than what Civ 5 was at launch, that game didn't deserve the scores it got.
Dissapointing. Especially since it's not just one review. I think I will hold off for now, especially since ther have been so many good TBSes this year and will get this when the first add-on hits, which hopefully should fix the issues and put more meat on it's bones.
All this makes me sad Paradox never tried to take their EuropaUniversalis engine into SF genre.
No, except for the AI, which can be tweaked, reviewers are idiots.
They whine about how similar this game is to Civ V, when really, it plays far differently outside of combat. Why don't I just say that Alpha Centuari is too close to Civ 2? By reviewer logic, I can do this.
And Gamespot whining about not having a cultural victory and having more of a military focus and IGN whining about the aliens, its so stupid.
@faizanhd: apparently if it doesn't score a 9 or 10 system wars fan boys will say it sucks and a flop. The same fools were saying that about the last of us too a game with over 200 9-10 scores. You'll say you like game x and they will say "ewe you like that flop".. so immature.
Then you have GameSpot who gives good games bad scores or bad games good scores, or gives games with big marketing instant 9s, how many crappie COD games got 9 here.... I could go on and on about this site's bad reviews but I wont. I don't listen to them anyway, as I play a lot of games rated 5-6 here (dynasty warriors etc...)
What gets me is the morons who flack people for liking a game that GameSpot gave a bad review, sometimes it's like being in junior high around here.. they will not buy a game because of th is site, yet tons of other publications say game x is great.
Hmm I am playing this and so far it seems good. I just clicked Play Now. I'm at turn 80 or so. Going slow, seeing how things work. My cities have not been attacked yet so I don't know whether they fall quickly. I do see a few things that would make them stronger. The diplomacy SEEMS better to some degree... I SEEM to be able to have an actual alliance so far with 2 other civs which never happened to me in Civ V or IV unless I gave them essentially everything I had... They are still very reluctant when I ask for open borders or so, even after having a good trading relationship for quite a while.
I'm enjoying it. I heard some stuff about the aliens being impossible to deal with. Maybe that is a thing on higher difficulties (something pro players run into).
So far it seems like a cool game to me.
Gah missed this somehow when I was looking ... Sad about the score, but seems some legit gripes about the gameplay. At least you know fixes will be on the way (at some point). Happy to wait on buying this for a bit :)
Gah missed this somehow when I was looking ... Sad about the score, but seems some legit gripes about the gameplay. At least you know fixes will be on the way (at some point). Happy to wait on buying this for a bit :)
And people wonder why SW is a mess... even mods get confused with it! XD
For such a major flop this thread had no bloomin replies. I looked through 3 bloody pages and somehow didn't see it! lol
@blue_hazy_basic: Wait, this is a SW flop? O.o? Was there even hype?
Dunno if there was a hype thread, but the hype was certainly above an A, so I'd say defo a flop.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment