Intelgamer: The Dumbest Review Yet

[Libertarian]

Good lord.

Deciding where to begin tearing this review apart is like deciding where to begin cleaning Jeffrey Dahmer's kitchen. The incredibly sophopmoric grammar aside (leading, as it does, to meanings the author clearly never intended), Diamonds' review of Civ3 on Intelgamer is by far the lamest of the many lame reviews out there.

Let us hope it is the last.

Some of you may remember the first Civilization, created by the now infamous (sic) Sid Meier.

Clearly, he meant "famous" and not "infamous", but oh well. Let's not pick on arguably the most sensible portion of the review.

From the creation of the original Civilization up to the present Civilization 3, the Civilization title as (sic) gone through a steady increase in development quality.

Whatever that means. Oh wonder of wonders: the third step is higher than the first and second. Wow.

Each new release has maintained the original concept created by the first Civilization. With the not so popular exception of Activision’s Civilization: Call to Power.

A technical error so egregious that we now know the reviewer is a mere hack.

Civilization 3 is the best-created game bearing the Civilization title yet. Basically put it’s the original title in perfection. This review is going to assume that you’ve played a civilization (sic) title before.

But clearly, it doesn't assume that the reviewer has played this title. Oh, maybe he played it in the same way that Firaxis did — up to the middle ages or something.

But perfection?

That assertion destroys the reviewer's credibility, not only because it is demonstrably false, but because he himself does not give the game a perfect score.

Most noticeable about Civilization 3 when you purchase it, is the hefty paper manual that comes with it. The manual is divided into two sections: Those who have played a Civilization title before, and those who are new. Both are very comprehensive.

It is to laugh. Ha!

The Civ3 "hefty paper manual" is like a Creation Science biology textbook: thick and full of errors.

When you start, you start just like normal. You get one settler to make yourself a city. However, you are joined by 2 other units, which are called workers.

Apparently, the version that ships to reviewers gives an extra worker at the beginning of the game. No wonder the reviewers like the game so much!

These units, unlike Civilization’s before it, are specifically designed for working the land around you. They do tasks such as creating mines, building roads, clearing forests, etc. This is significant because the player no longer has to rely on other settlers or Public Works to do these activities.

It just gets goofier and goofier, doesn't it?

To decry a much needed public works feature in favor of moving hundreds of workers around on a fitful map with a daunting interface and one level of zoom is testimony to the reviewer's myopia and ignorance.

The land around you becomes more important as well. For instance, resources can be used to create revenue. More importantly, they can be used to create weapons. For instance, when you start in the Middle Ages, in order for you to create swordsmen, you have to have a resource link to iron. Or you can trade with other countries for the resource. As well, only the cities that are connected to the resource can use them. Cities either have to be connected via road or harbor.

Or airport.

We'll never know whether his failure to differentiate between luxury resources and strategic resources is an oversight or a manifestation of his majesterial ignorance. And we'll likely never care.

An added feature in the game is your countries (sic) influence. This is marked by a dotted line around your cities and borders. Things you build as well as population size and advancements increase your influence. Influence is used to determine how other countries react to you. As well, if your influence becomes great enough, you can annex enemy cities. Meaning the city becomes yours. Your influence line is also your countries (sic) boarder (sic). It plays an important part in wars and treaties.

Gaah!!!

This review reads like a remedial tenth-grade English paper by a hapless jock who wrote on his helmet while sitting on the sideline during a game.

Is he talking about "culture" here? Yes, obviously. But once again, he gives us wrong information. Culture, as anyone knows who has actually played the game, is derived solely from the accrual of certain improvements over time. Postively nothing about population or advancement influences culture in any direct way.

In Civilization 3 the diplomacy screen is much more advanced than the previous versions. Not to mention the eye candy that goes along with them. Going into all the possibilities in diplomacy would be mind numbing, so I won’t go into them here.

Thank you.

Eye candy? Is he talking about the bobbing heads? Did he never have any need to call up the documentation while conducting diplomacy? Did he ever even see the diplomacy screen outside of a screenshot?

You be the judge.

As a great leader of your people you are given advisors. These guys basically tell you what your country needs and how it is feeling. They give suggestions as to how to run things and what is needed. But, more importantly, they give statistics.

[...shaking head...]

I'm almost embarrassed for the poor sap. "Build more cities!" when the game won't allow another one. "We need more resources!" when we already have every resource on the map. "The best unit that we know of..." Uh huh.

Managing your cities is about as fun as beta testing "Martha’s Make your Own Recipes" software. But the good news, you don’t have to do it. Civilization 3 sports 'governors' that will manage your city for you. While this isn’t a new concept to Civilization, the new part is THEY’RE ACTUALLY SMART.

May I call upon people of all faiths to pray for this gentleman? Clearly, nothing short of divine intervention will give him a clue.

Yes, surely I want to stop production of my Hanging Gardens two turns before it's finished so that I can discard a few hundred shields and build an aqueduct instead.

I could go further into what Civilization 3 has, but I like to think that I have a life. It would honestly take some 20 hours to possibly describe everything in the game. You’ll even notice that I completely skipped warfare. But what’s there say (sic) about that?

[...blank stare...]

Well, what I would say is that you threw this review together in about fifteen minutes of momentous struggle with a language that is only remotely familiar to you about a game that you most likely did not play.

So it was a late review, I know that. But right now I’m hoping that your (sic) all (sic) of (sic) your (sic) are reading this review not wondering if it’s a good game or not, but agreeing with me because you already have your copy.

Mercifully, the review ends here.

I'm reminded of Dabney Coleman's line from Modern Problems: "I don't want you to do it because you're weak; I want you to do it because you know I'm right."

If there were a Hall of Shame for game reviews, this one surely would merit a lifetime achievement award.

(edited to correct spelling)

[MrWhereItsAt]

Now THAT's funny. Maybe there is a different game out there that this reviewer has seen, and they just screwed up the title.

So get searching! This perfect game MUST be found!

[Setsuna]

I'm glad I read that now, in case this thread gets deleted later.

[moomin]

You did notice, didn't you, that the gentleman who wrote this, eh, review, had his resumé available on-site? Among other distinctions, he was apparently "head guy for Firaxis Qality (sic) Assurence (sic) for three years". Much becomes clear.

Nah, just kidding. But his talents are doubtlessly wasted at his current line of work.

[Bkeela]

Good work Libertarian - quite funny. I hope this person isn't paid to be a reviewer. If so, he doesn't even deserve a free copy from which to judge. But if he reviews games for the love alone, and for the sheer pleasure of writing, well, full credit for trying.

Bkeela.

[Venger]

Libertarian's review is pure greatness. Welcome to the Dark Side.

Venger

[ruebarb01]

I disagree....Sid is "infamous"

He has brought down the decline and fall of more Civilizations then any other dictator. Literally millions of Citizens and cultures wiped out without a trace...not even a save game file.

Call the UN Tribunal....he's a genocidal maniac.

-

ya know I love ya, Sid.

RB

[ACooper]

I disagree. I think the review of the review was dumber.

[Kc7mxo]

quote:

From the creation of the original Civilization up to the present Civilization 3, the Civilization title as (sic) gone through a steady increase in development quality.



Whatever that means. Oh wonder of wonders: the third step is higher than the first and second. Wow.

Um. While it may seem that things should get better in newer versions, its not paticuarly a given.

cough tomb raider cough cough

quote:

Each new release has maintained the original concept created by the first Civilization. With the not so popular exception of Activision’s Civilization: Call to Power.



A technical error so egregious that we now know the reviewer is a mere hack.

Um. What? It was a civilization game. The fact that it wasn't a SID game doesn't mean that it shouldn't be considered a CIV game, after all your precious public works came from that abomination didn't it?

The Civ3 "hefty paper manual" is like a Creation Science biology textbook: thick and full of errors.

ok, you got a point here, the manual in civ 3 wasn't much but compare it to other modern game manuals, and it was pretty good.

To decry a much needed public works feature in favor of moving hundreds of workers around on a fitful map with a daunting interface and one level of zoom is testimony to the reviewer's myopia and ignorance.

I hate public works. Its stupid and frustrating, and takes control away from me. It was one of the primary reasons I disliked CTP.

quote:

The land around you becomes more important as well. For instance, resources can be used to create revenue. More importantly, they can be used to create weapons. For instance, when you start in the Middle Ages, in order for you to create swordsmen, you have to have a resource link to iron. Or you can trade with other countries for the resource. As well, only the cities that are connected to the resource can use them. Cities either have to be connected via road or harbor.



Or airport.

We'll never know whether his failure to differentiate between luxury resources and strategic resources is an oversight or a manifestation of his majesterial ignorance. And we'll likely never care.

Um, this is a review, not a strategy guide. I'm not sure why you're jumping al over his case right here.

[...shaking head...]

I'm almost embarrassed for the poor sap. "Build more cities!" when the game won't allow another one. "We need more resources!" when we already have every resource on the map. "The best unit that we know of..." Uh huh.

This is true however. For a person who can play civ in the dark with the monitor off while asleep and still beat deity, the advisers are pretty useless. But for the average joe schmoe (who the game was obvisously intended for, given the war model) the advisers are a valuable tool, as is the governor.

quote:

In Civilization 3 the diplomacy screen is much more advanced than the previous versions. Not to mention the eye candy that goes along with them. Going into all the possibilities in diplomacy would be mind numbing, so I won’t go into them here.



Thank you.

Eye candy? Is he talking about the bobbing heads? Did he never have any need to call up the documentation while conducting diplomacy? Did he ever even see the diplomacy screen outside of a screenshot?

You be the judge.

Yes, i think he is talking about the bobbing heads that firaxis probably spent a third of their budget on. They were a large portion of all the screenshots they gave us. Personally I wish they'd spent more money on play testing, but thats just me. And the diplomacy model is leagues ahead of the civ 2 one. So whats your problem? And what do you mean with the documentation?

quote:

I could go further into what Civilization 3 has, but I like to think that I have a life. It would honestly take some 20 hours to possibly describe everything in the game. You’ll even notice that I completely skipped warfare. But what’s there say (sic) about that?



[...blank stare...]

Well, what I would say is that you threw this review together in about fifteen minutes of momentous struggle with a language that is only remotely familiar to you about a game that you most likely did not play.

Well, the reason he skipped warfare was probalby that he hated it, but couldn't figure out why, a problem i had for a couple days as well.

If there were a Hall of Shame for game reviews, this one surely would merit a lifetime achievement award.

i wouldn't go that far, sure the review wouldn't make any english teacher happy, and wasn't entirely accurate, but you make it sound like he's a terrorist or something.

[Libertarian]

Originally posted by Venger
Libertarian's review is pure greatness. Welcome to the Dark Side.

Venger

Thanks for the honor of your welcome, Venger. However, I believe that wherever there is truth, there is light. Therefore, I've come over to the Side of the Light.

[Libertarian]

i wouldn't go that far, sure the review wouldn't make any english teacher happy, and wasn't entirely accurate, but you make it sound like he's a terrorist or something.

A terrorist is something to take seriously. Diamonds' is too pathetic for that.

[shyaway]

More importantly, they can be used to create weapons. For instance, when you start in the Middle Ages, in order for you to create swordsmen, you have to have a resource link to iron.

am i playing a different game here from everyone else?
swordmen in middle ages?

[Libertarian]

Nah, you're right on target. It's Diamonds and Shiggy who're playing on another planet.

[ACooper]

Yeah, I'm here on Earth.

[Zanzin]

My god. Is all I've got to say about that review.

Libertarian, thankyou for bringing this terrible atrocity to our attention. Now I know, once and for all, that there are some truly stupid people (Diamond) in this world.

Unbelievable!

Although, I think the reviewer got the section on combat pretty much spot on

[yin26]

Yes, when I saw this review I thought: Firaxis has nailed its target audience. Fare thee well.

[Akka]

What would you expect from someone called INTELgamer ?

[scientist]

Well, I've stopped playing the damned game (it wasn't fun anymore), but I still get a kick out of checking out these forums.

I wonder what Firaxis or Infogrames has to do to get these pathetically sycophantic reviews. I expect the next Sid Meier game will not get rubber stamped as a classic, as Civ III has been, as word gets out what a real clunker of a hack-job Civ III truly is.

By the way, I wonder if I've gotten on the Firaxis guys' "ignore" list yet?