Talk:Civilization: Beyond Earth

Additional material for sources

 * http://www.polygon.com/2014/5/20/5732878/civilization-beyond-earth-takes-4x-strategy-to-the-stars


 * I copied that reference to the refideas template above. — Fr&epsilon;ckl&epsilon;fσσt | Talk 16:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Cool. I just moved that over from the article page. was the one that brought it to our attention.   S ven M anguard   Wha?  19:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Isn't it worth noting that the game user score on meta-critic is way below "critic" score? Gives more unbiased measurement.. Charnger (talk) 05:20, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * We need other sources to note the user score difference from critic sources. User scores can always be manipulated so we need a source to make the assessment that user scores represent a different opinion than the press. --M ASEM (t) 15:13, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think "mixed" reviews on steam http://store.steampowered.com/app/65980/#app_reviews_hash would be a good second reference point. As a side note, I think that if there is a good number of user reviews that contradict the critics, it can be a sign of manipulated critics, which not an uncommon for big publishers .. Charnger (talk) 09:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * We can't use the Steam user reviews either - again, those can be manipulated because of being self-published (I'm not saying they are in this case, but that's a point in general). --M ASEM (t) 14:54, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, I don't get it. I think it is important to note that for this game, user reviews seem to be largely less critical than official reviews. It is the case in 2 independent cases. What more do you want as a measure? Charnger (talk) 14:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Totally missing user reviews means not providing accurate information as well. They ARE generally less favourable, and though exact figures could differ, the trend itself looks clear. What about saying that "user reviews were generally less favourable"? I understand the desire not to rely on self-published materials, but really, I never check the critics score and just read user reviews. Critics are hardly ever accurate, they get paid for writing these (correct) reviews. Atr577 (talk) 09:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem is that we have a verifyability and reliable source policy that simply because user review exist does not mean that is valid information to include due to the lack of authority and potential of manipulation. It would also be original research to review user review scores and make a conclusion that they were different from critic review scores. We need a secondary source to note that there's a disconnect and possible why that exists and then we could mention that. --M ASEM  (t) 14:51, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Right, why just not mention these user scores "as is", just like official ones? I understand and support that simply writing "I asked 1000 people and most of them like/dislike that" is inappropriate, but in this case there is a source that can be quoted. Referring to it shouldn't express any opinion about the game, it should just acknowledge the fact of a user review score at some site, with a link to it for verifying purposes. Why official reviews are considered reliable while user reviews at the same sites are not is not very clear as well; both are written by people, who can be influenced in a number of ways. What should be done - is simply referring to existing scores, leaving it to the reader whether to trust them or not. Atr577 (talk) 10:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Rising Tide page
I disagree with the notion that Rising Tide should be the same page. All of the other Civilization expansions have a separate page.


 * Test of Time
 * Play the World
 * Conquests
 * Warlords
 * Beyond the Sword
 * Colonization
 * Gods & Kings
 * Brave New World

The spinoff page, Rising Tide needs some work no doubt, but I say we restore the Rising Tide page. I intended to put more information on it at a later time. Oldag07 (talk) 21:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems like the reception page can not handle two sections BTW. Oldag07 (talk) 21:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * None of the expansions seem appropriate for having a separate article - there's no development, only gameplay changes and reception, and the details of gameplay changes are a bit heavy (the only one that would be reasonable is Colonization which is almost a fundamental game shift). A single page for the game and its DLC makes sense. --M ASEM (t) 21:38, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * StarCraft: Brood War has one, as well as the StarCraft 2 expansions. Heck it seems like there is a whole category for expansion packs Category:Video game expansion packs. The Sims??? How are the Civilization expansions any different? Oldag07 (talk) 22:37, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I am fine with DLC having their own articles, if they have got a lot of press coverage. I redirected the Rising Tide article because it basically repeat the same information in the Rising Tide subsection, and it barely has any new content besides the review table. It needs really a lot more work before it can be published in the mainspace. I have moved it to Draftspace though. AdrianGamer (talk) 09:11, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Civilization Beyond Earth RT article for deletion discussion
The page Civilization: Beyond Earth - Rising Tide has been nominated for deletion. You have been invited to participate in the discussion Oldag07 (talk) 23:30, 11 July 2016 (UTC)