IGN gives Civ IV a 9.4

Kulgan · Post by **Kulgan** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 7:28 am

Nice 5 page review and some new screenshots.

Grifman · Post by **Grifman** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 8:40 am

Liars, we'll all know this game was rushed out and is going to suck!

Peacedog · Post by **Peacedog** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 11:56 am

And cause the destruction of the world!

Massena · Post by **Massena** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 12:19 pm

Yeah, but whether or not the game is any good, was there ever any doubt that IGN was going to give it a high score?

Incendiary Lemon · Post by **Incendiary Lemon** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 12:30 pm

Massena wrote:Yeah, but whether or not the game is any good, was there ever any doubt that IGN was going to give it a high score?

No

JonathanStrange · Post by **JonathanStrange** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:22 pm

Massena wrote:Yeah, but whether or not the game is any good, was there ever any doubt that IGN was going to give it a high score?

So, it may in fact be worthy of a high score? Or should we wait for official OO chitchat?

Det. Dave · Post by **Det. Dave** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 pm

In a world with MOO3, no sequel is safe from pre-release hype. But I have to admit that this a day one purchase ( I hope it runs on my laptop as I will be travelling through most of November and Civ IV would make an excellent companion.

LordGek · Post by **LordGek** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:54 pm

I'm all hyped for it and hoping for the best! While the IGN review is encouraging, it doesn't really prove or say anything new. I mean for all we know they just hobbled something together by checking out the other previews and then snuck in a few screen shots from the Gold Build (since the pictures don't seem to correlate to what's being discussed in anyway).

But my wife, who hasn't bothered following any of the preview stuff OR even gives a shoot about this game anyways is having fun teasing me with, "Another Master of Orion 3?" Her whole theory rests on the fact that this game has been SOOO HYPED while at the same time having its release date moved up several weeks to help out a struggling publisher. I hope she's wrong.

Kobra · Post by **Kobra** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 2:19 pm

Civ4 could be the only non-disappointing sequel release this year it is sounding like!

That's great news.

tgb · Post by **tgb** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 3:05 pm

LordGek wrote:I'm all hyped for it and hoping for the best! While the IGN review is encouraging, it doesn't really prove or say anything new. I mean for all we know they just hobbled something together by checking out the other previews and then snuck in a few screen shots from the Gold Build (since the pictures don't seem to correlate to what's being discussed in anyway).

And for all we know the game doesn't even really exist. On Wednesday all anybody is going to get for $49.95 is a Civ IV box containing a picture of Sid giving you the finger.

Geez....how paranoid can you get?

Rincewind · Post by **Rincewind** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 3:07 pm

I had a list of all the good sequels and their scores to post here, and then I realized there was no point bothering with you, because you won't listen or change your tun no matter what.

EDIT-directed to Kobra, not TGB-he posted in the meantime.

LordGek · Post by **LordGek** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 3:54 pm

tgb wrote: And for all we know the game doesn't even really exist. On Wednesday all anybody is going to get for $49.95 is a Civ IV box containing a picture of Sid giving you the finger.

Geez....how paranoid can you get?

Damn...it looks like THEY already got to you!

Zathras · Post by **Zathras** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 7:34 pm

Well, one think that will keep Civ IV from becoming another MOO3 is Sid. I just don't think that Sid will let that happen.

If there are issues with the game due to an early release, there will be patches in the future that will take care of them. He knows that the Civilization series goes hand in hand with his name, and he's a developer that wants to do the best game that he can given the constraints that he's working under from the publisher.

I'm not saying that the man's incapable of making a game that sucks, but I have the feeling that if the publisher's releasing a game before all of the features are finished or all of the major bugs are squashed he's the kind of developer that wants to stand behind the game and fix anything that's broken.

Kobra · Post by **Kobra** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 8:43 pm

Zathras wrote:I'm not saying that the man's incapable of making a game that sucks, but I have the feeling that if the publisher's releasing a game before all of the features are finished or all of the major bugs are squashed he's the kind of developer that wants to stand behind the game and fix anything that's broken.

This is the only thing worrying me.. This game was heavily rushed because the publisher has profit concerns to deal with. I'm sure Sid wasn't happy, but had no control.

Now the question is, was it so rushed that it will be unplayable, or will it simply lack some of the features they intended it to have?

triggercut · Post by **triggercut** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 8:50 pm

Over at another message board where there are computer game writing-type folks who've played the game but are not able to "officially" comment on it until reviews hit print, the vibe is this: Civ4 is a great, great game.

Zurai · Post by **Zurai** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 10:18 pm

Kobra wrote:This is the only thing worrying me.. This game was heavily rushed because the publisher has profit concerns to deal with.

Man, you have no clue. Please stop lieing and/or making up shit and/or trolling. The game was moved up TWO WEEKS when it's been in beta for SIX MONTHS. Oh no. Such a huge rush.

Now the question is, was it so rushed that it will be unplayable, or will it simply lack some of the features they intended it to have?

Neither. Pitboss and the AI SDK were never shipping features.

Kobra · Post by **Kobra** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 11:29 pm

Zurai wrote:
Kobra wrote:This is the only thing worrying me.. This game was heavily rushed because the publisher has profit concerns to deal with.
Man, you have no clue. Please stop lieing and/or making up shit and/or trolling. The game was moved up TWO WEEKS when it's been in beta for SIX MONTHS. Oh no. Such a huge rush.

Miss your prozac dosage today? Sounds like my post made you break a blood vessel in your head.

Take Two is in dire financial straights, I have no question whatsoever they forced a rush on this one.

The question is, what - if any damage was done by this - maybe none at all, which will be nice, maybe some, who knows yet. Try not to be such a rabid fanboy there pal, it makes you look stupid.

raydude · Post by **raydude** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 11:57 pm

Kobra wrote:
Zurai wrote:
Kobra wrote:This is the only thing worrying me.. This game was heavily rushed because the publisher has profit concerns to deal with.
Man, you have no clue. Please stop lieing and/or making up shit and/or trolling. The game was moved up TWO WEEKS when it's been in beta for SIX MONTHS. Oh no. Such a huge rush.
Miss your prozac dosage today? Sounds like my post made you break a blood vessel in your head. Take Two is in dire financial straights, I have no question whatsoever they forced a rush on this one.

The question is, what - if any damage was done by this - maybe none at all, which will be nice, maybe some, who knows yet. Try not to be such a rabid fanboy there pal, it makes you look stupid.

Moving a schedule up two weeks is not heavily rushing it in my book. Makes me wonder whether the "dire financial straits" is them owing $2.50 for Starbucks coffee.

rhinohelix · Post by **rhinohelix** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 1:05 am

A few comments:

-A disclaimer: I have pre-ordered this. I think it looks fantastic and am glad to hear that I have no been deceived.

-There is no way this will be MOO3 redux. So many things are completely different, such as word of mouth, original designer around as producer, etc, etc. No one was posting anything other than "Train Wreck!" about MOO3, where they? I honestly don't recall, and my memory could be back-filling disappointment.

-Why is no one linking anything? IGN's review, the "off-the-record" comments, etc. Did someone just recompile your internet kernels into "noob"?

- Given that the only person who makes me wish there was an ignore feature as part of these forums said it, it comes as no suprise that Take Two is in no "dire financial straights". I don't think companies in said "straits" do stock buybacks. While not the strongest quarter or net earnings, nothing I see here suggests anything other than hyperbole on the part of some.

Several other things were moved back, and this is a bookkeeping move. The move up two weeks was to get Civ IV into this financial year, but if two weeks that is all it takes to finish it, then everything should be done with the first patch.

-How long ago was the move up annouced? It wasn't like they were working toward a Nov date and then last week they said "Hey, get that thing out the door, *STAT*, we need cash!" This has been planned for at least a few months.

There is no patch that would have ever fixed MOO 3, unless it retroactively changed the design document.

Take Two's Q3 results:

Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. Reports Third Quarter Fiscal 2005 Financial Results

New York, NY – September 7, 2005 – Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. (NASDAQ:TTWO) today announced financial results for its third quarter and nine months ended July 31, 2005.

Net sales in the third quarter increased 6% to $169.9 million, compared to $160.9 million in the third quarter of fiscal 2004. Net loss for the quarter was $28.8 million, compared to a net loss of $14.4 million last year, with a net loss of $(0.41) per share compared to a net loss per share of $(0.21) last year.

Net sales for the nine months ended July 31, 2005 increased 30% to $894.4 million, compared to $689.7 million for the same period a year ago. Net income for the first nine months increased to $18.3 million from net income of $2.7 million in the comparable period last year. Diluted earnings per share of $0.26 increased from $0.04 per diluted share in the prior year's first nine months.

Take-Two attributed its increased third quarter sales to the launch of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas for Xbox and PC and Midnight Club 3: DUB Edition for the PSP™, along with the release of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory on multiple platforms and Sid Meier's Pirates! for Xbox.

The Company initiated its stock repurchase program during the third quarter and completed the entire $25 million program shortly after the end of the quarter. Approximately 925,000 shares were purchased at an average price of $26.96 per share.

Guidance

Take-Two is updating its fiscal 2005 guidance primarily to reflect the movement of Bully for PlayStation 2 and Xbox out of the current fiscal year to provide additional development time for the title, the movement of the Japanese launch of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas for PlayStation 2 out of the current fiscal year, and the movement of Sid Meier's Civilization IV for PC from fiscal 2006 into fiscal 2005. The Company now expects $1.22 to $1.27 billion in net sales and $0.85 to $0.90 in diluted net income per share for the fiscal year ending October 31, 2005.

Take-Two is issuing initial guidance for fiscal 2006, excluding the estimated impact from adoption of FASB 123®:

* For the fiscal year ending October 31, 2006, $1.4 to $1.5 billion in net sales and $1.25 to $1.55 in diluted net income per share.
* For the first quarter ending January 31, 2006, $350 to $400 million in net sales and $0.14 to $0.20 in diluted net income per share.

The Company's diluted earnings/(loss) per share for all periods above do not include the impact of adopting FASB 123®, requiring the expensing of employee stock options. With the adoption of FASB 123® beginning on November 1, 2005, the Company's estimated diluted net income per share guidance will be $1.05 to $1.30 for the fiscal year ending October 31, 2006 and $0.10 to $0.15 for the first quarter ending January 31, 2006.

Draw your own conclusions. If am wrong, please correct me here.

Rhino

Carpet_pissr · Post by **Carpet_pissr** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 11:17 am

(from an analyst report at Morningstar.com)

The balance sheet is in decent shape, with more than $155 million in cash and no debt. We expect the company will use cash to continue snatching up small development studios.

Their "financial health" grade according to M* is A-, which is pretty damn good.

IceBear · Post by **IceBear** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 11:34 am

I love how Kobra likes tossing out the term "fanboy" as a derogative and yet when he's overhyped over a game he's not one. Oddness

Grifman · Post by **Grifman** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 1:34 pm

triggercut wrote:Over at another message board where there are computer game writing-type folks who've played the game but are not able to "officially" comment on it until reviews hit print, the vibe is this: Civ4 is a great, great game.

Liars, all liars!

Grifman · Post by **Grifman** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 1:41 pm

The comparison to MOO3 is plain dumb. MOO3 was developed by an entirely different developer than previous versions. They also completely overhauled the game and attempted a very different paradigm than many/most 4X games out there - the infamous IFPs (Imperial Focus Points). When that didn't work or wasn't fun, it was too late, this feature was too imbedded in the game. They had to rip it out and try to kludge together something from what remained. Beta testing was rather limited. The result obviously was a disaster for the most part.

Civ has been with the same team in some way, shape or form from the beginning. They know Civ. This game is probably the biggest overhaul to the game system ever, but still within the same gameplay paradigm. The game has had 6 months of beta testing, probably because of the extent of changes they made to the system.

Please, Chicken Littles, go cry over someone else's sky falling - because it ain't falling here . . .

tals · Post by **tals** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 1:42 pm

You mean it hasn't fallen yet

Tals

LordGek · Post by **LordGek** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 1:52 pm

tals wrote:You mean it hasn't fallen yet

Tals

Exactly!

I KNOW there is no way this can be a MoO3 level spill...but I still think its dangerous to just ASSUME it will all be smooth sailing here.

tals · Post by **tals** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 1:56 pm

I should clarify - my game is on preorder - its at a silly price so I can afford to take that risk.

Listening in at the civfanatics forums it does appear to have had a strong beta test and i'm not detecting any concerns yet. Now NDA's and a certain amount (to cue Kobra's eloquism) of Fanboism maybe kicking in. But watching the video reviews at IGN as well as reading the various previews i'm pretty confident this is going to be a huge sucess.

It may, if the pitboss turn server is as well written as I am hopeful for, kick start pbem gaming with a vengance when that is out in December.

Tals

triggercut · Post by **triggercut** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 2:05 pm

rhinohelix wrote:A few comments:

-Why is no one linking anything? IGN's review, the "off-the-record" comments, etc. Did someone just recompile your internet kernels into "noob"?

Rhino

Might have something to do with us "noobs" knowing where to find reviews at IGN and knowing how to scan a certain forum that seems to antagonize some regular posters here.

Noob, recompile thyself.

tals · Post by **tals** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 2:09 pm

Whoops was looking for that comment but couldn't find it. Anyway here be the links requested:

Video Review and other videos
http://media.pc.ign.com/media/620/620513/vids_1.html

Review
http://pc.ign.com/articles/660/660495p1.html

MP Preview
http://www.civfanatics.com/civ4/preview/multiplayer.php

Preview - good
http://civilization4.net/3/171/

Main Site
http://www.2kgames.com/civ4/home.htm

Kobra · Post by **Kobra** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 2:38 pm

I'm not sure I could trust Take Two's own appraisal of their own self worth.

http://www.cfo.com/article.cfm/4074042/ ... 5?f=alerts

With that being said, I hope the game does turn out great, we need a great game this year, a year nearly totally devoid of anything really really great and original. (save for a couple of titles)

Chesspieceface · Post by **Chesspieceface** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 6:01 pm

Kobra wrote: we need a great game this year, a year nearly totally devoid of anything really really great and original. (save for a couple of titles)

I wish something good would happen to me... its been a really really bad day (except for the all the great things that happened this morning).

The Mad Hatter · Post by **The Mad Hatter** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 6:08 pm

Beware "reviews" written before the game is released.

IceBear · Post by **IceBear** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 7:14 pm

Demosthenes wrote:
Kobra wrote: we need a great game this year, a year nearly totally devoid of anything really really great and original. (save for a couple of titles)
I wish something good would happen to me... its been a really really bad day (except for the all the great things that happened this morning).

Hehe - I wanted to say something about that conflicting statement too, but that was much better than anything I could come up with

Depward · Post by **Depward** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 8:43 pm

The Mad Hatter wrote:Beware "reviews" written before the game is released.

Beware EbG posters who come and post one sentence posts that aren't even true. Plenty of games have reviews written before they're "released." A majority of hyped up games do. What are you talking about?

Arnir · Post by **Arnir** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 9:06 pm

With the extremely short period between "gold" and street date for cIV, I imagine that the major reviewers have had the final version for a while. Who knows about the probably quickly released patched version?

Nevertheless, I'm jazzed for this one.

edited for punctuation.

The Preacher · Post by **The Preacher** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 9:11 pm

Kobra wrote:I'm not sure I could trust Take Two's own appraisal of their own self worth.

http://www.cfo.com/article.cfm/4074042/ ... 5?f=alerts

Got any accusations more recent than 4 years old?

Any word on the Xbox hardware cuts?

Feeling the need to blog about this?

Blackhawk · Post by **Blackhawk** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 9:58 pm

On early reviews: The only difference between this one and most is that most have an NDA that requires the reviews not be published until a certain date (usually a day or two prior to release.) Practically every game of any significance is in reviewers' hands days or weeks before it hits the shelves.

Heck, I remember finishing Halo PC a day before the ship date, and that was with the copy that Gamespot had already used for their review.

IkeVandergraaf · Post by **IkeVandergraaf** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 10:09 pm

I think the only comparison with MOO3 is that IGN gave that pile a 9.2. My point is that IGN's reviews are not to be trusted. Civ4 may be the greatest thing since sliced bread; it may be ass. IGN are whores.

rhinohelix · Post by **rhinohelix** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 10:25 pm

IkeVandergraaf wrote:I think the only comparison with MOO3 is that IGN gave that pile a 9.2. My point is that IGN's reviews are not to be trusted. Civ4 may be the greatest thing since sliced bread; it may be ass. IGN are whores.

That's very true.

About the linkage: Thanks so much, tals.

IGN I could find, I was just curious about the forum where the comments where made, since the name was only alluded to. I just wrapped it all up in one joke.

I wasn't aware of some forums chafing the regulars here.

But making me work? WTF?

<-again, just humor.

I think this has been a good year for games, and I think this will be yet another, hopefully great one.

Rhino

YellowKing · Post by **YellowKing** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 10:58 pm

Just some stats on what a crappy year this has been...

Gamespot has given out:

-Five 9.0+ scores
-Twenty 8.5+ scores
-Twenty-one 8.0 scores

For games released this year so far.

That's 46 titles with a "Great" or better rating.

For a format that is "dying," an average of nearly five 8.0+ titles a month doesn't seem too shabby in my mind.

The Mad Hatter · Post by **The Mad Hatter** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 8:39 am

Depward wrote:
The Mad Hatter wrote:Beware "reviews" written before the game is released.
Beware EbG posters who come and post one sentence posts that aren't even true.

Um, I've been gaming for 25 years and writing about them online for over a decade. I know a little bit about it, regardless of where I do most of my posting on this site.

Plenty of games have reviews written before they're "released." A majority of hyped up games do. What are you talking about?

I'm talking about reviews that aren't necessarily written based on the final product, or are even more than an adapted preview. It's happened many, many times before. That may not be the case here, but I will wait for more reviews before I make any assumptions about how good Civ 4 is.

Octopus Overlords

IGN gives Civ IV a 9.4

IGN gives Civ IV a 9.4

My Cynical Wife...

Re: My Cynical Wife...

Re: My Cynical Wife...