IGN gives Civ IV a 9.4

The Mad Hatter · Post by **The Mad Hatter** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 8:59 am

Blackhawk wrote: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early reviews: The only difference between this one and most is that most have an NDA that requires the reviews not be published until a certain date (usually a day or two prior to release.)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.

Sure, that's a common reason for early reviews but it's not the only one. I'm only saying to exercise caution, not to make too much out of a single pre-release review.

IceBear · Post by **IceBear** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 9:43 am

I think most of the people that are hyped about Civ4 are more so because of the favorable word of mouth from that Civ fansite than for the IGN review. The favorable review just reinforces the word of mouth that they were already hyped about.

farley2k · Post by **farley2k** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 9:55 am

Blackhawk wrote: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early reviews: The only difference between this one and most is that most have an NDA that requires the reviews not be published until a certain date (usually a day or two prior to release.)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.

Often the difference is that the reviewers don't have the final build of the game so they miss out on certain things.

Blackhawk · Post by **Blackhawk** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 10:25 am

Publishers aren't going to let beta code get reviewed as final if they are aware it is happening. Betas are almost always inferior to final builds, and are almost guaranteed to get lower ratings. They generally get a gold build - the first disks off of duplication go out to reviewers. There are generally a couple of weeks between gold and ship, time spent duplicating, packing, and so forth, during which big reviewers can play the game. Not that it is generally only the biggest - Gamespot, Gamespy, IGN, print mags that get these nowadays, as smaller companies getting gold way in advance was a major source of pre-release piracy leaks in the past. Smaller companies either get them a day or two early, or on release day.

IkeVandergraaf · Post by **IkeVandergraaf** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 10:43 am

Does anyone else find this less than comforting:

While we're on the subject of combat, I have to admit that the game still suffers from the spearman-defeats-tank combats. I honestly don't have as big a problem with this as most other players, but it's been a controversial design decision since day one. Admittedly, the disparity between primitive and advanced units isn't quite as wide as it would be in the "real word," but I'm willing to accept the abstractions used in the game. I mean, even the Ewoks were able to take out an AT-AT every once in a while. But even if you accept that a substantially weaker unit could win these combats, it just seems wrong that knights can defeat helicopters.

That's the best analogy they could come up with? Ewoks?

IceBear · Post by **IceBear** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 10:51 am

I have no opinion one way or the other. Sometimes "realistic" != "fun" and if allowing spearmen to take out takes makes the game more fun than not, I'm cool with that (though I don't think it would make that much of a difference to me if they couldn't). After adding in a kazillion houserules to my D&D campaign in the 80s to make it more realistic, I've come to realize I'd rather have my games fun rather than realistic (though if you can do both, that's even better)

The Preacher · Post by **The Preacher** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 10:55 am

IkeVandergraaf wrote:That's the best analogy they could come up with? Ewoks?

Well, it's not the worst analogy. At least it fits. Kinda. Sorta.

Torfish · Post by **Torfish** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 11:39 am

I want this game on my DS. It would be so perfect for a handheld. The map would be the bottom screen and the top screen would be your land/city/or unit info based on your cursor placement.

Nowadays I only want to play nice looking action games on the home PC while looking at a 20 inch flat screen.

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 12:41 pm

YellowKing wrote: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.

Do you think 46 great titles have been released this year? That says to me that the scale might be a bit different than my opinion of what makes a game great.

Biyobi · Post by **Biyobi** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 12:54 pm

LordMortis wrote:
YellowKing wrote: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.
Do you think 46 great titles have been released this year? That says to me that the scale might be a bit different than my opinion of what makes a game great.

There very well could be 46 great titles released this year, but not very many have appealed to me. I'm hoping Civ4 will get me off of my latest WoW kick again because nothing else has really held my attention for very long.

Bakhtosh · Post by **Bakhtosh** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 1:29 pm

I got burned with MOO3. It had such potential...and just fell so very short. The pre-release hype was mostly positive. Of course, the beta testers couldn't say much bad about it. I followed the pre-release forums, and there were some warning signs, but mostly it was positive. It wasn't until people had been playing for a couple of days that we realized that there was something horribly wrong.

I also got burned with Civ3. They released a promised feature as an expansion, and the game didn't really become complete until the "Complete" expansion.

The difference is that Civ 3 was a completely playable game.

Once again, I've pre-ordered a 4X game...I sure hope I don't get burned again...

Kobra · Post by **Kobra** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 1:50 pm

YellowKing wrote: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.

IceBear · Post by **IceBear** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 2:33 pm

Is Gamespot and IGN the same site?

The Preacher · Post by **The Preacher** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 2:33 pm

IceBear wrote:Is Gamespot and IGN the same site?

Don't you get it?!

IceBear · Post by **IceBear** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 2:34 pm

The Preacher wrote:
IceBear wrote:Is Gamespot and IGN the same site?
Don't you get it?!

Are you seriously asking me if I understand Kobra?!?!?!?

SuperHiro · Post by **SuperHiro** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 2:54 pm

IGN gave Master of Orion III a 9.2, as well as a big ass 5 page review.

IceBear · Post by **IceBear** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 3:01 pm

Yup - take everything with a grain of salt. Hopefully the words out of the Civfanatics site isn't lies like the Moo3 testers were spouting at the end.

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 3:05 pm

SuperHiro wrote:IGN gave Master of Orion III a 9.2, as well as a big ass 5 page review.

But .2 better? That leaves only .6 left until you can get no better.

The Preacher · Post by **The Preacher** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 3:08 pm

LordMortis wrote:
SuperHiro wrote:IGN gave Master of Orion III a 9.2, as well as a big ass 5 page review.
But .2 better? That leaves only .6 left until you can get no better.

IGN goes to 11.

Fretmute · Post by **Fretmute** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 3:14 pm

The real question: how long will it take to get a Rise and Rule mod for Civ IV? That's what I really want to see.

Chesspieceface · Post by **Chesspieceface** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 3:48 pm

I participated at Civfanatics and Apolyton all through the Civ3 release and initial experiences. It was a long time before the shortcomings weren't vehemently shouted down. Not that it wasnt good, but it didn't ship as great. If there is one sense in which you can fairly evenly apply the term 'fanboy' its to people who run and frequent sites devoted to single games.

That said I have my preorder receipt in my wallet and I can't wait for Wednesday; and if any retailer here has it on Tuesday I may just forfeit my preorder

Scoop20906 · Post by **Scoop20906** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 3:58 pm

SuperHiro wrote:IGN gave Master of Orion III a 9.2, as well as a big ass 5 page review.

I need to re-read this review to see what they were talking about because MOO 3 ranks very close to the top gaming disappoints for me.

IkeVandergraaf · Post by **IkeVandergraaf** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 4:00 pm

LordMortis wrote:
SuperHiro wrote:IGN gave Master of Orion III a 9.2, as well as a big ass 5 page review.
But .2 better? That leaves only .6 left until you can get no better.

That was my point. MOO3 was the worst game ever. So a 9.4 is like a 25%.

Mithridates · Post by **Mithridates** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 8:12 pm

Fretmute wrote:The real question: how long will it take to get a Rise and Rule mod for Civ IV? That's what I really want to see.

Amen.

Godzilla Blitz · Post by **Godzilla Blitz** » Wed Oct 26, 2005 1:51 am

The IGN review skips around the questions that I am most interested in:

How good is the AI? Does it trade away every tech it gets? Do alliances work? Do the AI nations gang up on you?

In five pages, the reviewer uses only two paragraphs to talk about the AI, and he doesn't address the important elements of its quality.

Lee · Post by **Lee** » Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:00 am

According to this thread PC Gamer UK gave it a 92% but said it was buggy as hell.

tgb · Post by **tgb** » Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:41 am

Lee wrote:According to this thread PC Gamer UK gave it a 92% but said it was buggy as hell.

I haven't read the thread, but I find it tough to believe they would give something that was "buggy as hell" a 92.

JonathanStrange · Post by **JonathanStrange** » Wed Oct 26, 2005 12:03 pm

I'm very likely to purchase Civ 4 at some point within the next 2 months but what I'd like to know from you early purchasers is:

Q: Are you get a new game vibe from Civ 4 that justifies the new version? Given that there's going to be a lot familiar, what about the new game makes it new for you?

Are you amused by the new graphics? Why? Is the combat resolution or wildlife or city graphics pleasing? Or is a new concept making Civ a new challenge? Sometimes these things have to be played before someone can say, "Yeah, that's an improvement that makes a positive difference."

I've been reading reading the previews, interviews, seeing the movies, examining screenshots, and I've got to admit that I'm thinking that without some incredible WOW! moments, I'll wait for some sale.

Anyhow, if you get the game and experience some cool gameplay stuff, let us know.

raydude · Post by **raydude** » Wed Oct 26, 2005 12:10 pm

The fact that multiplayer is built-in right out of the box is great for me. I loved Civ 1-3 but I've always wondered what it would be like to play with other people. I never got the Civ III: Play the World expansion for various reasons though - one being that I had heard the multiplayer was only so-so.

Contrast that with CivIV where people are saying the multiplayer is really good. That plus the "Pitboss" feature where a dedicated server can host the CivIV game and you can connect at whim to play your turn. That plus people can join in later to play a previously AI slot. And the addition of drawing lines on the map so you can show your allies exactly where you are going to go.

And a friend of mine has already stated he's going to host a Pitboss game. So that's whats new for me.