@leandrombraz: You've played the game for fifty days straight and there are things you haven't discovered? What have you been doing? It would be like playing a game like Halo and finding out that there is a a melee button after 100 hours of gameplay. By the time you've finished one game of Civ, ANY CIV, you should have, more or less, complete knowledge of the mechanics and gameplay. You should know how the game plays intimately. Civ by design is not a complicated game. Especially not Civ 5.
Because it's not a game that slowly ramps out new features. Once you've reached the end of the tech tree you've seen them all. You know how the game unfolds and you've spent about a eight hours on standard speed so you should be aware of the snags in the game. If you can't tell me about the nature of a board game after playing it for nearly two months straight, then ... what?
@TigusVidiks: If this is the quality of the intellects of my critics, I'd say your post is proof that my argument is quite sound. If all my opposition can muster against me is the obnoxious braying of a donkey, then my opposition must be quite feeble.
@leandrombraz: I beat the game three times, one of which was on deity. I've completed a religious victory, a tech victory and a culture victory. I've played around with all of the systems in the game. I've played a multiplayer match. What details might I be missing that will only be revealed on further play throughs? Do you think that if I play through as EGYPT on an Island Plates map on LARGE on EMPEROR, that I'll get some keen insight into the nature of the game? It's designed to be played multiple times. That means, it's designed so you will be able to grasp the game quickly. This isn't a whole new game, it's just building on core concepts that civ has been using from day 1. It doesn't forget it's heritage, but moves forward intelligently sifting through the lessons they've learned to make a top-form civ game.
There isn't anything left to learn, content-wise, because that would be a fundamentally poor strategy game.
Why aren't you? It's basically a board game. You should be able to review it after a handful of playthroughs. I did three today. After 13 hours, I could review this game. Because I've seen all of the content the game has to offer. That's because it's a board game.
@jimmythang: Thank you for taking the time to respond. I appreciate it and maybe my frustrations are more aimed at Gamespot as an organisation than the people who produce content.
Fair enough though, and on that previous interview I did call it "one of the best interviews that I have seen in a long while" and, honestly, that previous interview is why I had so high hopes for this one.
However, I don't think you were as critical as you could have been. I think you should have challenged his claim that "exclusives are good for the market" with a follow up. That's a statement which is obviously feeding off similar arguments for console ecosystems. However, where that statement falls flat is, unlike consoles, where you maybe will buy every competing console to get the exclusives, this isn't the case with VR. Few people are going to get both a rift and a vive and whatever. Even with exclusives. They're expensive, as you note. $2,000 is a lot to just get access to some games. In my view, exclusives are -- MAYBE-- good for publishers. They're bad for the consumers who are getting locked out of content if they invested in the wrong hardware. If Nvidia came out and said "Battlefield 1 will be a Nvidia exclusive", people would be up in arms.
That they're trying to create a closed infrastructure right at a time when we're trying to establish an open platform is not only anti-consumer (trying to blackmail consumers with fomo), it's toxic to the culture and drives up development. If you know what you're going to ask, you probably have a good idea of how they'll respond and you should have been able to catch this sort of bullshit. I mean, you asked "are your exclusives going to be timed" and he responded "exclusives are good". Neither letting him answer with misdirection nor letting him say that uncontested would constitute holding his feet to the fire for me.
Gamespot, you dropped the ball. These scumbags have consisently peddled PR bullshit and you just let them walk away with it instead of asking anything that holds their feet to the fire when they make pretty bold statements.
What service do you provide to me to justify your advertisement budget? I can see how this would be a service to oculus; you let them say anything they want without a single critical word to balance it. This website is increasingly more vapid in its content and its a shame because it used to be an intelligent place for discussion on video games (that occasionally sold review scores.) Now it's... legitimately terrible and you don't care it's legitimately terrible because quality simply is not a concern. This is a website that exists solely to generate ad revenues and the quality of the product shows it. It is a sham to call this news. You're a travesty of media.
Verenti's comments