I don't like pure generalities, so here are some specific thoughts I had when reading Nick's review.

I didn't think this review would help me until six paragraphs in, when Nick talked about parity. Then the rest of the review clicked for me. I started Civ 5 by looking for the one Civ that agreed with me the most, and trying to figure out the best way to use it. I finished maybe a couple of games in my first 100 hours. Then after a years-long break, I returned to the game and said, "Screw this. I'd just go down the list of available Civs, see which has unique attributes that sound interesting, and try to leverage them into victory." I hardly ever played a regular game thereafter; I'd adjust at least a few of the advanced settings. That brought back my love for a Sid Meier game I hadn't felted since Alpha Centauri, in which I really did favor a couple factions pretty exclusively in progressively harder standard games.

I remember someone on a forum once telling me that great Civ players don't want random factors because they need to play a very specific way to win on Deity. Colin Campbell on Polygon hints at something similar when he said he tended to find a research path and stick to it. For people who approach the Civ games partially as an optimization problem but who aren't dead set on playing a perfect game, the additional bit of spontaneity and opportunism might be a welcome break. For those who seek an asymmetric playing field from the start, it may not go far enough. Or worse. It may seem like window dressing to cover a glorified chess mod or accounting problem.

On a side note, an even playing field is likely better for multiplayer. Too much asymmetricity could ruin the strategy that actually exists in the meta game between competing human minds. I take too long playing Civ to play MP. I think playing chess against the AI, except as a practice tool, is stupid.

The most helpful reviewers have distinct personalities. This is something I learned from Kevin in an earlier review, but it didn't become clear until now when I see examples of that in a game series that I know well. Reviews are not game summaries, though I think we should have those too, so players can learn how a game fare on objective metrics like graphics/sound quality, bugs, features that are comparable to existing games, and so on. If all game reviewers agreed, all except (a non-specific) one would be useless. The trick is to find the reviewers who see a game as I might, so I can learn from their reviews whether I will like that game. At the same time, reviewers with whom I disagree could open my eyes to a new way of looking, indeed playing, a game.

@texasgoldrush @owlcoholic We all know how that's working out in today's world, don't we? I do agree that cultural victory doesn't seem to make sense for this game.

@Tribesmaster I don't actually know Satan. I chose this user name during a younger and more brash time. But thanks. :)

@NTM23 I am grateful that you helped me out. You can just as easily not say anything, and to every careful reader who happen to read my comment, I'd be the one looking foolish.

@NTM23 Thank you for pointing it out so quickly. I've modified my comment to more accurately reflect the score descriptor.

This is one of those games with reviews that are interesting to read. I've read two favorable ones and two unfavorable ones. I still can't decide whether this game is excellent or "fair," and because I am scared of horror games, I suppose I'll never find out. I am left with a question: what do people who don't especially like Alien but enjoy horror games in vein of Amnesia, think of this game? The game isn't out yet, but I'll be curious to learn their reactions.

I saw the original Star Wars trilogy first, and I found the whole Force business rather boring. Despite getting numerous other games along the way from Dark Forces to The Force Unleashed, I didn't get into Jedi-vs-Sith except in KOTOR, and not in a big way except in KOTOR 2. I digress. Strange, it felt relevant when I thought of it.

I didn't expect this game to turn out like Destiny, but I am now curious how the two will compare. Destiny has a clear amusement park feel to its structure; there are these distinct game modes that you can play at your leisure. The Division struck me as a more blended experience (based on info in this video, maybe not really?) where you might find friendly or hostile players at places that you visited by yourself at other times. If The Division turn out to be simpler--there are these PvP zones and everywhere else you play in co-op--I wonder how it will be received, especially compared to Destiny. I don't think it'll be better or worse; I'm just curious what people are into.

I don't get it. I mean, I get the 2001 SO reference, but I don't see how that's relevant to this game. I haven't paid attention in a while, is Star Citizen now a game about exploring planets and interacting with native species?

@aylchico I've been playing a ton since launch. I am about to buy my first battleframe with credits.