The infamous BIOSHOCK was one of the first games whose pre-release hype could only be compared to the idiocy of the DRM scheme it harbored.
Later MASS EFFECT, SPORE, PRINCE OF PERSIA: FORGOTTEN SANDS and, sadly, STARCRAFT II, were all games that came with DRM schemes that "heavy-handed" and "uncontrollably greedy" do not even begin to describe.
Gamers, we have been complaining from day one. And we have every right to do so. After all, it is our hard earned money that keeps the industry alive, not the pirates who play these games without any DRM hassles. Imagine that, NOT paying for your games and yet having more fun with them!
Instead of paying some attention to their customers, a number of game publishers did the most wrong thing they could possibly do: they kept ignoring us and they continued overburdening their games with draconian DRM. The only thing they did change was the number of company shills recruited to attack any review not praising their games enough and to vote down any post that brings up the uncomfortable issue of DRM schemes that steal our purchases back from us.
There are already out in force in Civ5. Any one or two stars review (or any review complaining about the OnLine Activation and you-only-THINK-it's-yours STEAM requirement) is quickly buried under piles of negative votes. In contrast, 5-stars drivels that simply state "the game is fantastic" and "I love STEAM" get propelled to the spotlighted positions. Never have I seen such blatantly orchestrated campaign to promote a product.
It's pretty bad on the 2k forums too. Anyone expressing any level of dissent or dissatisfaction about DRM is jumped on and morally lectured by a pack of what is probably a mix of official and wannabee shills about how piracy is theft and you might as well go straight to hell and not pass go right now for even complaining.
Looks like there are going to be a lot of late nights and free dinners for the testers in a last minute emergency bug fix session. This is why I always wait at least a couple months before delving into a fresh release. After seeing the buggy games that are released just to meet a deadline first hand from working as a tester, it is a good rule to consider for other gamers.
Poor testing and concrete deadlines lead to this sort of thing.
I see the problem as completely opposite. I see good reviews of games (or well-written and honest reviews) buried under a mountain of 1-star, "Steam/DRM/Starforce sucks, selling this crap" kid's reviews. It's hard to guage what people are saying about the game on Amazon when they are rating thier hatred for Steam or thier inability to get the game working on thier machine.
The game is fun. Is it better than Civilization 4? That is subjective. I don't think its much better than the previous games, so it may not be worth spending the money of you already have any of those. However, if you're new to the series this is definitely the Civilization to pick up.
I don't think the City/States added as much as it was hyped to. The gameplay hasn't changed much, except for some balance issues, which you may or may not like.
I suspect most of the one star reviews are from people who
A) Didn't know the unlock time was 10am EST B) Are anti steam C) Didn't even play the game
To be fair the game isn't ground breaking. However, I don't think its as broken as some make it out to be. You will always see more people complaining, as people who are playing don't have a reason to post, as they are enjoying the game.
I've played the game for several hours. Tried different civs. My system is on the high end, so no probs with graphics or performance. Worst bug so far is that the screen saver doesn't work, Have to Alt-Tab back to desktop tand then re-enter game. That being said. The Steam reqruiement is a deal breaker for two of my friends. One can't afford internet access. So unless I haul his Tower PC back 25 miles, install game and repeat as the various patches come in. He can't play. After almost 20 years of playing Civ versions, that bites. There is also the rumor that even in off-line mode, Steam insists on checking in on a regular basis. The other planned to put the game on his business laptop for business trips. A program that DEMANDS internet access (if you block Steam or uninstall it, it will invalidate your programs) is not acceptable for his business. The reply by the publisher and far too many fans, is basically it sucks to be you.
According to 2Ks official steamwork FAQ, you only need to go online once.
>Q. Can I play Civilization V while not connected to the Internet? A. Yes. After you have activated your installation by launching the game once while connected to the Internet, you may restart Steam in "offline mode." This will allow you to have access to Civilization V even while not connected to the Internet. Details on how to use offline mode are available on this Steam Support page: https://support.steampowered.com/kb_...3160-AGCB-2555
>Q. Will I need to run Steam every time I want to play Civilization V? A. Steam will need to run when you play Civilization V, but an Internet connection is not required after the initial installation.
I love how everyone complaining probably hasn't played a new video game in years. I know I PREFER games on Steam so I can always access them even if I lose the disk or get a new computer. Get with the times, Steam is the preferred way to do DRM because at least you get access to your games for life.
I like how it is instantly the fault of "company shills" that reviews that only complain about the DRM get negative votes. I give them a negative vote everytime I see one and I don't work for them in any way shape or form. A well written negative piece that takes in all factors I don't have a problem with even if I don't agree with it. In the past I have come here to try to get an unbias review on games and now I don't even bother.
I was really interested when Spore came out but wanted to get some more information on the game. I came to Amazon and all it was Haters/Fanbois going back and forth and there was no information on the game itself. Tell me information on the game and include what type of DRM it has and I will make my OWN decision if I will buy the game. (never did buy the game because I didn't think I would like it, not because of the DRM rants).
For the record I like Steam and have bought about 30 games from them, 90% of them on their great sales. I think it adds a lot to my game playing enjoyment and I personally never have had a problem.
After playing further I finally have noticed numerous bugs . TBH, I haven't been able to complete a game in multiplayer without some bug stopping anyone from taking turns. The single player portion is fine...multiplayer beware.
All of the complaining deserves to get buried. The complaints have NOTHING to do with the game itself and everything to do with a lack of understanding about the platform through which the game is delivered.
And describing the B.Net as "uncontrollably greedy" is laughable. If anything you have just established the strongest case for Steam: games like Mass Effect, Spore, and Bioshock implement draconean DRM measures that affect legitimate customers far more than the pirates which they ostenibly target. Meanwhile Steam makes it very difficult to pirate the games it supports and provides a slew of perks.
Yeah, this reaction is hardly a surprise. The anti-DRM squad "swarms" the biggest online retailer as soon as it's possible to review to leave a bunch of worthless empty 1-2 star Steam rants that tell customers nothing from reviewers that haven't so much as touched the *demo*, then blame it on shills when they're downranked. This prompts the equally worthless empty 5-star reviews as retaliation. That causes both "sides" to go on a massive downrank war, leaving the entire review section an unhelpful juvenile mess drowning out the legitimate negative and positive reviews and helping no one and proving nothing to publishers.
You know, it's a bad sign when the GameSpot user review section is by far more helpful and informed, no matter what your feelings about Steam may be. We still have a long ways to go before it's completely devolved into the same dark abyss of terrible that is the IGN user reviews, but don't worry. It'll happen.
Coming here to vent as the reviews are essentially over-run now. I can understand that some people don't like the idea of Steam. But if you haven't actually played the game, and especially if you haven't actually used Steam, then those views don't belong in the reviews. Vent all you want in the forums, but don't clutter up the reviews with a bunch of nonsense. It astonishes me how many people openly admit to having not played the game or having any experience with Steam while blatantly abusing the review system. The new "amazon verified purchase" system doesn't really help much when most of the people actually playing the game probably just bought it through Steam anyways. This is really becoming a problem with game reviews.
"Buried" is a strong word LONGTIME GAMER. Especially coming from someone who has shown no interest in reviewing anything else... besides CIV-5. You are willing to support this game not only by insulting everyone who complains about its shortfalls or rentware status ("rabid"? really?), but also by turning a blind eye to the endless bugs and problems this game suffers from. Why is that?
A great number of gamers hate STEAM, for many different reasons but mainly for stealing our games back from us. Any game that requires OnLine Activation is never yours. However, the great majority of CIV-5's problems derive from its internal DRM and not STEAM.
And I hate to break this to you but NOT "ALL PC GAMES HAVE BUGS ON RELEASE" and "This is [NOT] a fact of gaming life" as you claim in your review (you know, the one that, quite ironically, has NOTHING to do with the game). Releasing unfinished games in need of a string of patches to make them tolerable seems to be the new form of DRM by tying the game to an endless chain of required online updates - and paying customers be damned.
Meanwhile every single STEAM game has been cracked, ripped or cloned days following their release (if not before). As proved again and again, STEAM offers zero protection from piracy while it manages to annoy more than half the honest gamers.
By now there are over 44 1-star reviews, compared to 15 5-star reviews. And yet, since Tuesday when this game was released NEVER was a negative review allowed to reach a spotlighted position. THAT is what the work of organized shills looks like.
The majority of gamers did not appreciate one bit the fact that CIV-5 comes with STEAM, OnLine Activations requirement and endless bugs. When complained they have been called many names, from "rabid" to "deluded", not to mention a "swarm". Once more, the incompetent lawyers running the gaming industry missed the point.
No game can be good enough to ignore the fact that it requires OnLine Activation and it is tied to an online server in perpetuity. No game is good enough to buy half-finished and crashing-prone because the publisher relies on said online server to deliver an endless number of patches.
CIV-5 seems to average to 2&1/2stars. Sad for a game with such a history but not unjustified.
Of the 45 one-star reviews, 14 of the reviewers have no history. Of the 15 five-star reviews, 5 of the reviewers have no history. I didn't bother to include in that tally the number of one star reviewers who also stated they just won't buy it, or the ones who have a review history including one star reviews for other games based solely on DRM.
Right now, there's 45 one star reviews, and 16 five star reviews. You claim how all the "well-deserved" bad reviews and comments get buried by people who click No, for not being helpful or adding to the discussion. I looked at the very first 1-star review that was posted, and it had 200 people so far choose whether or not it was a helpful review, and only 45 people clicked Yes. That's 155 people who clicked No, so why isn't there 155 5-star reviews from "shills" who "protect" the game? Most of the 1-star reviews are poorly written and merely attacking Steam rather than the game, so yes they deserve to be "buried" as you put it.
(1) The shills were prepared by having set up multiple accounts. It would be counterproductive to employ 150 "reviewers" to cast 150 negative votes - when 10-15 people with multiple credit cards and different laptops could achieve the same result. Recently the No.2 reviewer at British branch of amazon was banned and deleted for manipulating the voting system to his advantage. If a lonely bozo could do it you think it is beyond the abilities of a behemoth company such as TAKE TWO/2K GAMES?
(2) The game publisher circulated an internal memo to its employees asking them to "protect our product" by any means necessary. Hence, the unbelievable number of ...150 negative votes to the first 1-star review. Who were these 150 people supporting a game barely out? They could not possibly be fans of the game as it was so new and STEAM activation prevented anyone from playing it before the release date.
Of course, there could always be a combination of the above. There is no rest for the wicked...
Give me a break. The whole 1-star vs 5-star happens becuase once people sense a vast polarity, (think Democratic vs Republican), they forfeit any middle ground thinking for themselves and fall into one of the bandwagons in hopes to counter the other.
You are in one side, and anyone that doesnt mind DRM is on the other side. You will give 1-star review, and because people know you will give it a 1-star, they will give it a 5-star. And so the cycle continues and Amazon.com reviews are turned into DRM forums.
You are a troll just like everyone else. I bet GameTroll30 is your brother.
If these were deal breakers with everyone, then no one would by the game and force the industry to change. But just like any GOOD game, it will sell a million copies and continue to make money because of it's quality.