3 ms·

> 81% on metacritic, 52% user reviews on Steam This _always_ happens with new Civ games, though. Definitely back to Civ 4 anyway (I don't remember Civ 3, thoug

> 81% on metacritic, 52% user reviews on Steam This _always_ happens with new Civ games, though. Definitely back to Civ 4 anyway (I don't remember Civ 3, though I assume it existed); I think Civ 2 _was_ seen as kind of perfect on delivery.

lupusreal 2y ago
The issue is not so much the user scores, but the delta between users and critics. It strongly indicates the publisher is paying off critics (for instance, with access if not cash.) Hence "everything wrong with modern gaming"
- rsynnott 2y ago
  I mean I think Civ 6 had a similarish delta in the early days. > It strongly indicates the publisher is paying off critics (for instance, with access if not cash.) Or just that critics are less temperamental than the average user. If nothing else, the critics have been here before and know how new Civ games go. Taking a Steam review at random: > A couple minutes in and it's just... so blatantly unfinished, especially by Civ standards. [...] I've got to assume from this that this person never actually played another Civ game at launch; the 'especially by Civ standards' is particularly laughable. The last one to feel 'finished' at launch was Civ 2 (or _maybe_ Civ3? I'm drawing a total blank on that one; I know I played it, but I don't remember it at all). Civ4 and on (and _especially_ Civ 6) took a while, and a bunch of patches and expansions, to get good. (Also quite a lot of the reviews just seem to be indignation that they put Harriet Tubman in it...). I'll probably pick this up at some point, and will go in with the expectation that it'll be extremely rough around the edges, and get better over the next few years, as is tradition.
  - lupusreal 2y ago
    I never got the impression that Civ 6 ever caught on. At least in my circles, people still play and talk about Civ 5, but never 6.
    - rsynnott 2y ago
      https://steamdb.info/app/289070/charts/ https://steamdb.info/app/289070/charts/ vs https://steamdb.info/app/8930/charts/ https://steamdb.info/app/8930/charts/ would imply that Civ 6 was _far_ more popular than 5. And may understate it a bit, because Civ 6 had that rarest of all things, a usable mobile version. The iPad version in particular is basically just the same as the desktop one, and if you have Netflix you get it free. (Of course, this isn't necessarily the full story, as it was certainly available outside of steam, but I would guess that most users got it on steam.) I always assume that the popular ones were Civ, Civ 2, Civ 4, and Civ 6, though I suspect I'm biased there (I was way too busy when Civ 5 came out, and though I'm pretty sure I _did_ play 3 I found it totally forgettable.)
mcv 2y ago
Of course Civ 2 had to be perfect on delivery, because there was no online patching back then. Modern tech had made it easier to release unfinished games to test the waters and patch them up later. DLC also didn't exist back then.
- rsynnott 2y ago
  Civ 2 actually had a bunch of official and third party expansions, but they weren't as consequential, and it was a complete game without them in a way that its successors were not.
  - mcv 2y ago
    I do recall a mod or scenario where you basically replayed the entire history of Rome in surprising detail. Tons of scripted events. And obviously the Web was very much up and coming when Civ 2 was released, but I don't think releasing a game through downloads and updating them through the internet was really much of a thing yet when it was first released. As far as I know, everybody ran it from the CD-ROM. Also because that's how you got the awesome advisors (still the best).
Jensson 2y ago
It doesn't, civ4 got excellent review scores on release. This is the first one that is significantly below 90%.

lupusreal 2y ago

The issue is not so much the user scores, but the delta between users and critics. It strongly indicates the publisher is paying off critics (for instance, with access if not cash.) Hence "everything wrong with modern gaming"

rsynnott 2y ago
I mean I think Civ 6 had a similarish delta in the early days. > It strongly indicates the publisher is paying off critics (for instance, with access if not cash.) Or just that critics are less temperamental than the average user. If nothing else, the critics have been here before and know how new Civ games go. Taking a Steam review at random: > A couple minutes in and it's just... so blatantly unfinished, especially by Civ standards. [...] I've got to assume from this that this person never actually played another Civ game at launch; the 'especially by Civ standards' is particularly laughable. The last one to feel 'finished' at launch was Civ 2 (or _maybe_ Civ3? I'm drawing a total blank on that one; I know I played it, but I don't remember it at all). Civ4 and on (and _especially_ Civ 6) took a while, and a bunch of patches and expansions, to get good. (Also quite a lot of the reviews just seem to be indignation that they put Harriet Tubman in it...). I'll probably pick this up at some point, and will go in with the expectation that it'll be extremely rough around the edges, and get better over the next few years, as is tradition.
- lupusreal 2y ago
  I never got the impression that Civ 6 ever caught on. At least in my circles, people still play and talk about Civ 5, but never 6.
  - rsynnott 2y ago
    https://steamdb.info/app/289070/charts/ https://steamdb.info/app/289070/charts/ vs https://steamdb.info/app/8930/charts/ https://steamdb.info/app/8930/charts/ would imply that Civ 6 was _far_ more popular than 5. And may understate it a bit, because Civ 6 had that rarest of all things, a usable mobile version. The iPad version in particular is basically just the same as the desktop one, and if you have Netflix you get it free. (Of course, this isn't necessarily the full story, as it was certainly available outside of steam, but I would guess that most users got it on steam.) I always assume that the popular ones were Civ, Civ 2, Civ 4, and Civ 6, though I suspect I'm biased there (I was way too busy when Civ 5 came out, and though I'm pretty sure I _did_ play 3 I found it totally forgettable.)

mcv 2y ago

Of course Civ 2 had to be perfect on delivery, because there was no online patching back then. Modern tech had made it easier to release unfinished games to test the waters and patch them up later. DLC also didn't exist back then.

rsynnott 2y ago
Civ 2 actually had a bunch of official and third party expansions, but they weren't as consequential, and it was a complete game without them in a way that its successors were not.
- mcv 2y ago
  I do recall a mod or scenario where you basically replayed the entire history of Rome in surprising detail. Tons of scripted events. And obviously the Web was very much up and coming when Civ 2 was released, but I don't think releasing a game through downloads and updating them through the internet was really much of a thing yet when it was first released. As far as I know, everybody ran it from the CD-ROM. Also because that's how you got the awesome advisors (still the best).

Jensson 2y ago

It doesn't, civ4 got excellent review scores on release. This is the first one that is significantly below 90%.