Money has been tight lately, as most of you can probably understand in our current economic climate. Having always been a TBS fan, I had to make a decision as to which game I would buy this fall. I've been anticipating Civilization 5 and Elemental for quite some time, but I had to go with the latter, and I still don't regret it.
I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm getting pretty tired of the Civilization series. It's starting to remind me of Madden: Release the same game, add a few features, and call it the best thing since sliced bread. I've played every one of them, and every spin off since Civ 1 and the whole tour through history bit is getting a bit long in the tooth for me.
So I'm left with Elemental, which kind of feels like the old pick-up truck your dad gave you. It doesn't exactly run all that great, needs a new set of...well, everything, and doesn't impress your friends all that much. So would I rather take the old pick-up truck that can potentially take me to places I've never been before, or do I stick with Civilization, my shiny ten-speed that's always been safe and reliable my whole life?
I've read all the reviews, seen all the crap hit the fan, and even felt a bit of disappointment in the past few weeks. However, there's something about this game that just gets me excited, something unique, and something I don't feel very often with games. Even with all of the bugs and problems this game has, it has something special that I can't quite explain. With Stardock's commitment to improve things, I am giddy with anticipation as to where we will be led in the next few months and years. It's expecting the unexpected with Elemental that is holding my interest. It's hoping that perhaps one day Elemental will defy it's launch in a way that we have never seen before.
I'm sure that Civilization 5 will get reviewed really well, I'm sure it will be everything that everyone has hoped it would be. I'm sure it will be polished, stable, and relatively bug-free. I'm sure, at the core of it all, it will still feel like the Civilization we've grown to love. Unfortunately, this is where I become bored. I'll take the old pickup-truck, but I'm not sure why.
Perhaps Trinity had the answer: Because you have been down there Neo, you know that road, you know exactly where it ends. And I know that's not where you want to be.
Wrong.
The reason I want to dismiss those reviews is because they haven't played the game. I think that is a pretty simple concept. Do you know how fast a paid reviewer would be canned if he or she reviewed products without trying them? Why shouldn't user reviews follow the same standard?
"Except it is not up to you. It would make absolutely no sense for someone to give a game a 1 star review because it uses Steam and then buy it now would it."
You know what makes even less sense? Reviewing a product that you haven't tried. But hey, you can go ahead and defend that if you'd like.
I completely disagree with you. I think that is a simple concept too. Feel free to dismiss as you do with most the other people you disagree with.
Obvious troll is obvious.
Signs of a desperation.
Because you side-stepping every point I am making to ultimately throw out a generalization like "Feel free to dismiss as you do with most the other people you disagree with" is a sign that *I* am the desperate one.
Yes, Nesrie, because I don't value the reviews of people that haven't used the product they are reviewing means that you have enough information to state that I dismiss the opinions of ALL the people that disagree with me.
Like I said before, obvious troll is obvious. And successful too, because you actually got me to reply to it.
[quote who="fatindian" reply="381" id="2793283"]Because you side-stepping every point I am making to ultimately throw out a generalization like "Feel free to dismiss as you do with most the other people you disagree with" is a sign that *I* am the desperate one.Yes, Nesrie, because I don't value the reviews of people that haven't used the product they are reviewing means that you have enough information to state that I dismiss the opinions of ALL the people that disagree with me.Like I said before, obvious troll is obvious. And successful too, because you actually got me to reply to it.[/quote]
You're not too keen on reading either are you. I said most, but you changed it to ALL. It is a sign of a desperate poster to try and label someone they are having a disagreement with a troll. Do keep trying to say otherwise though. I am sure you'll wind up making some other wild accusations as you do so and try and post them as facts.
Can't we just agree that disliking Steam is ok but disliking a game because of Steam is silly?
I think it's fair to say that someone who buys a game on Steam should review the game; it's ok to take away one star if they hate Steam and say so. But if they're not going to buy it because of Steam, they shouldn't post a review at all, because other customers are looking for reviews of the game, not Steam; they already know it's on Steam and they want to know if the game is worth it. They aren't looking for other people to hate Steam with.
I think people who have an issue with Ubisoft can certainly post how restrictive that DRM system is on every game that uses that system. I am not going to make an exception to Steam just because I disagree and use it. That would be hypocrtical. I never said I agreed with the 1 star rating with Civ V because of Steam, only that it is valid to some people. That fact that it is not valid to you, or this other guy who abuses the word troll, or even to me, does not change that.
Well if you say so. But it's not a case of whether its valid to me or not, but a question of what's appropriate where. I don't see the reason in people cluttering customer reviews with their personal soapbox rant, instead of talking about the product itself. Sure people can be upset about Steam, but there are places for them to voice their opinion. It's about as relevant to an Amazon review as complaining about the delivery company that brought the product to you.
For some companies, delivery is an issue, a very big issue. Gogamer used to take around 22 days to get some of the shipments to people. People posted about it in the reviews, and guess what, gogamer doesn't use the same shipper anymore. Spore received thousands of 1 star posts about the online activation system and install limits, guess what, EA doesn't really use that system anymore. They are relevant even if this information is not relevant to you.
Well, when there's something actually wrong with the system being used, like the delivery process being too long or the DRM preventing standard use, then sure, that's a relevant complaint. But I think the complaints about Steam are largely philosophical and regard hypothetical situations, such as "What happens if Steam decides to block my account?". And when people who don't even play the game go on Amazon to complain about it, I think that's a "soapbox" situation.
It would be the same as going to the product page of a book by a politician you don't agree with and voting it low because of your feelings.
This, folks, is called poisoning the well. A preemptive ad hominem (personal attack) against people who have valid points and complaints. Because I can't have a good point to make if I don't buy the game, right ? Has it ever occured to you people may refuse to buy because of what they heard, and based on their previous experiences with Steam or Securom ?
So, is Steam too big to fail ? Companies and products based on central authentication fail all the time. It happens so often you don't even hear about it unless you're interested in the subject. I shouldn't have to buy from a company which is currently successful, often for unrelated reasons*, in order to feel safe about the future of my purchase. Once you buy from Steam, you're stuck with it. It's not like a typical retailer whom you may like or not (delays, problems with refunds, false release dates etc). Even if you buy from a crappy retailer, once you succeed the game remains yours forever, and they have no say. So yes, Steam is a perfectly valid reason to complain about a game.
* unrelated reasons - a developer makes a very good game and goes out of business anyway. 3DO, Bullfrog, the makers of Titan Quest, Westwood
-----------------------
Back to the original post: I think this thread is one huge inferiority complex. Even if Civ V is somehow imperfect, two wrongs don't make a right. Elemental doesn't need Civilization V to suck, unless it desires to be the best by virtue of being the only one (having literally no competition).
No, it's not. I'm disputing the behaviour, the reasoning behind it, not attacking the individuals themselves. This is exactly what an ad hominem is not. It's not ad hominem by abuse, tu quoque, circumstantial, or association. It probably has some fancy Latin term, but it's not an ad hominem.
Also, it's not "poisoning the well" either. That's essentially "mud slinging"... attacking the character of a person based on something completely unrelated, so that when the topic at hand is discussed, others will think less of them. This would be the case if I said "Person X has a criminal record. How can we trust his review of this game?".
A "review" of a game, by definition, has to be by someone who's played it. There is nothing personal about disputing someone who breaks this definition. As for the point about "do they have a right to an opinion if they didn't buy the game on principle" paraphrasing "Because I can't have a good point to make if I don't buy the game, right ?", yes, they have a right to express their opinion. But there are places to express that. I'm not disputing their opinion or their character, I'm disputing the form and place where they chose to express that opinion. An argument on principle, which has nothing to do with the game itself, is not a valid "review" of the game. You can review the game fairly and take away points for Steam and DRM, explaining your reasoning and that's fair enough, but flat out "one star because it's on Steam" is non-constructive.
As I said before, it's the same as voting down a book by a politician, not based on its content, but because you don't like the party he's in. That is an ad hominem; guilt by association.
No, not the same. I don't have to know the author is a politician to read the book. But if I buy a game that uses Steam, I have to use Steam. As long as it requires Steam to function, the point can't be ignored.
Time for my own analogy. Suppose you buy a board game at my local shop. I can take it anywhere, use house rules, give it to a friend. Now the shop I have in mind encourages people to gather every saturday and play their own games. They indirectly profit from it, and you get to know new people. That's fine because no one is forced to come there to play games, it's purely volountary.
Imagine they change terms: next board game i buy has to be played inside the shop, and you have to leave it at the shop when going home. I can still play the game, but with some artificial restrictions. That's a lot like Steam. They will talk you to death and distract by saying you get extra stuff like friend lists, achievements, stat tracking, advertisments. What if I just want the game, thank you very much ? No sir. One reason people are more tolerant of Steam than hypothetical board game practices I described above is that board games are simpler and more transparent. Everyone understands them, but not everyone understands computers. It's easier to confuse people. I bought a couple of games via digital distribution, and not one Steam game. They're DRM (restrictions) free. Amnesia: Dark Descent is likely to be next on my list.
I prefer independent forums, ways to track (or not) stats, I don't care about achievements. Sites governed by fans, powered only by their motivation and interests. If you don't like official Dominions 3 forums you can talk about it on QT3, RPS, or SA. Technically, you can still do that with a Steam-based game, but all roads lead to Steam. One size fits all. Internet is wonderful because it's the only place where people can be sorted by interests. I don't want to be sorted based on where I buy groceries.
That example wasn't being used in relation to not buying a game because of Steam. Read my post again - it's not about the pros and cons of Steam. My posts are specifically about one specific point that Nesrie and fatindian were arguing over which was "people who had given a 1 star review on Amazon because the game was on Steam, without even playing it". If you read further up, that was brought up because people were talking about Amazon scores and others pointed out that some people had given it one star because of Steam and that was throwing the score off, etc.
That's why the example is relevant. Giving a game you haven't played a one star on Amazon because it uses Steam is the same as giving a one star review to a book you haven't read by a politician who belongs to a party you don't like.
Your analogy about a store isn't relevant to my post. I don't care for or about Steam. I played Civ 5 in offline mode. My post is about what constitutes a game review and particularly, that one star reviews by people who haven't played it aren't relevant to the game itself. I don't care what their reasoning was, whether they don't like Steam, or the developer, or the box it comes in. It's just wrong behaviour and defeats the purpose of the scoring system.
As long as the only way to download and run the game is via Steam, I don't have any problems at all with those people. That way, Steam is practically irremovable part of experience, it can't be escaped. If I had a movie on DVD, with long unskippable advertisments at the beginning, cheap ugly box etc, and there are no alternative sellers, it still decreases my enjoyment. Maybe it's not their fault and they had no choice (suspiciously common excuse), but it's deffinitely not mine either. So in that sense, the review is correct. People are entitled to dislike Steam, or dislike a game because it uses Steam. People are also free to warn others that a game uses Steam. Crashing is not a part of game rules, but it decreases enjoyment. By the way, there's nothing wrong with philosophy in general. People can voice their philosophic concerns, it's up to me to judge if they relate to me or not.
As for the accuracy of the "reviews" suffering, I wouldn't worry about that. There are also people who love a game (10/10) for strange reason, like ("Stardock was very brave to release a fantasy TBS game"). They cancel each other out. http://www.fotfactory.co.uk/Psychology/WisdomOfTheCrowds/WisdomJellyBeans.html
In 1987, Jack Traynor placed a jar of jellybeans in front of 56 of his students. He asked them to estimate how many beans were in the jar. The results showed that only one person in class had done better then the group estimate. There were 850 beans in the jar and the group predicted that there were 871. This was reinforced in 2007 when Michael Mauboussin presented to his Business Class (73 students) a jar of beans. The actual number in the jar was 1,116. The students guesses ranged from 250 to 4,100 - a huge range. However the collective prediction was 1,151 - pretty close. Only two people in the class were nearer. Here again, this shows that individually, people were way out, but as a group there was a much greater accuracy.
Services like Steam seek to be as monopolistic as possible. With cell phones there is some basic infrastructure, transmitters and stuff you can't hope to manufacture on your own. So you are forced to deal with a carrier. They used to have a lot of abusive practices, but fortunately for me the regulations of European Union make sure you can switch to another carrier, keep your phone number and even the device. Meanwhile the world of "cloud services" and digital distribution systems is still Wild West. Impulse won't work for me, may I switch Elemental to Steam ? No. I don't have anything against other digital distribution systems. I use them and forget about them. They get the job done.
I have the game on DVD, you only need Steam to authenticate it. After that you can play offline. A lot of software requires online authentication these days, including your operating system. I am much more concerned about the quality of the game itself than what DRM it uses. Civ V has real issues which annoy me, but its DRM system and the philosophy and hypothetical situations around it are the least of its problems.
That's just how you feel about it, and while that's a perfectly acceptable view on the topic, and perhaps even be one of the vast majority, that doesn't mean that the view of someone, who can't get the game to work at all due to steam and votes 1 because of it, is wrong and shouldn't be counted.
The problem I have with review and metacritic scores is that it depends on averages. And while an average of a bigger group tends to be more accurate than one of a select few (less prone to bias), it has been proven to be wrong many times before. There's a whole science devoted to this, just look at polling methods. In general, if given a good sampling, you can properly estimate value/result (with a low margin of error). The problem with review averages is that there is no technique for sampling, you just get whoever decides to review.
Even worse is the fact that the scores completely fails to account for YOUR bias on the matter, which happens to be the most important factor when it comes to deciding whether a game is good or not for you. The game might be seen as "crap" by the majority, but if it's right up your alley, then the majority's view doesn't matter at all. This is why you can't depend on a numerical value, and have to read what they say and decide for yourself.
This is where you are having a difference of opinion from other people. It is not a review of a game, it is a review of a product. That product includes the game, the servers, the DRM or anything else attached to it. Let the pros focus on the game and ignore things like the price and value and delivery systems. As far as I am concerned, when I review something, I review the product, that includes everything. And for games attached to Ubisoft, I simply won't buy them. I will, on occasion, remind people what Ubisoft does to their games at the moment.
No, I'm taking them all into account and simply noting that the general tone in Civ 5 forums has shifted from more positive to more negative.
And wouldn't it be something if Civfanatics was the only place I've seen this particular criticism.
Or you can look at the overwhelmingly glowing reviews on release day and the deteriorating player opinion in forums a week after release and draw your own conclusions.
Indeed. And as time passes, that sentiment is becoming increasingly prominent in the forums. You post with the pretense of disagreeing with me but end up actually supporting my point.
Agreed, except about taking away points for the digital platform.
FFS Nesrie, how the hell can you sit and say that blanket 1-star reviews have ANY VALUE AT ALL??! LOL! Whenever I see such things I believe that they're posted by bitter failures of people who take EVERY chance they get to scream and complain about everything under the sun!
And they look like this:
Sorry but if a person hasn't used a product then by definition they cannot review it. Without personal use they can have an opinion about it, and that opinion may be valid or not, but it is not a review.
I might actually on some level agree with 1 starring games saddled with oppressive DRM schemes such as Ubisoft is currently peddling. But attempting to call them reviews is simply factually incorrect.
Emphasis mine -
"A consumer review refers to a review written by the owner of a product or the user of a service who has sufficient experience to comment on reliability and whether or not the product or service delivers on its promises"
Alright guys, I think this thread has passed the point where it's doing anything productive.
Again, if the game doesn't work because of DRM, I agree, but that wasn't the case with that review. But as I've mentioned, I'm not saying people should ignore Steam in their reviews, just that they should review the game and take away a reasonable number of points because of it. Not just go blanket one star for any game on a DRM system (unless it's terrible, like Ubisoft's).
But then, I play very few games so I must not be seeing why Steam is such a big deal for people. I own two games on it.
True, people don't work like that and most scores are all over the place. We all mostly go to forums anyway.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
