so i want to ask the people who don't play the game anymore basically because the game isn't that good.

do you think the game is salvageable, by future patches and expansions/DLCs or is the core of the game so problematic that the game can't be salvaged? (unless they totally overhaul the very core of the game)

i read a lot of people saying the game will be enjoyable once we have an expansion or two but the more i think about it, my problems are with the core of the game. while i think it is possible, i think the overhaul is such a monumental task that i don't think they will undertake it.

what do you guys think?

They're slowly getting there, but they've yet to tackle one of the biggest problems in the game: There's virtually no diplomacy with these aggressive AI who'll strike you whenever it suits them.

I voted "possibly". I think Firaxis have a long way to go just yet. Just adding information about how the AI's feel towards the player isn't going to change much. It is a welcome change nonetheless.

I voted for "no" since I think that many, if not most problems of the game are caused by basic (and in my eyes: wrong) design decisions.

Fixing this would mean to transfer the game into something different, which I would welcome but don't see coming.

Possibly if they completely remove 1UPTs and City States or change these completely, like add an additional Tactics layer (battleground) for 1UPT. Anyway modders can remove or completely re-implement these, so the question is rather how moddable the game will be. Which is not known at the moment. Yeah, well I don't like the core ideas, except probably for the hexes, though it's sort-of-a indifferent to me. However some "less core" features like quantifiable resources and hierarchical policies are a good idea IMO.

No, because...

...many of the criticized aspects were intentional ("to target a wider audience")
...there are just so many core issues
...Firaxis doesn't have a good track record when it comes to fixing issues (many here blame 2k, when in fact Firaxis' programming skills were questionable before - fans have been better at fixing bugs without the source code than Firaxis since Civ3)
...some issues can't be fixed without a complete overhaul, which is simply not going to happen

Removing mandatory steam will make it an instant purchase for me.

...many of the criticized aspects were intentional ("to target a wider audience cash in on Civilization's name")


This.

Possibly,maybe, not so likely. Game is in a terrible state right now imo, much worse than civ4 was on release. I doubt that the team that developed this mess is able to turn it around but we'll see.

More transparent diplo is a step but there's a whole lotta work to be done on other aspects of the game as well.

As said often - considering how often this question rear its head - the problem in Civ5 is that the FOUNDATIONS are bad.
The very principles on which the game was built are bads, the new concepts are arbitrary and boring, the dropped concepts were, on the contrary, crucial and important in history, the new mechanisms are conceptually broken and practically unmanageable.

It's not only a question of balance and programming. It's a flaw in the deepest level of the concept.
As such, it's NOT salvageable. At best it could make a passable game by hiding the conceptual defect under a new paint (at the VERY best it could be entirely remodded to be a brand new game that works in the complete opposed way as how it was built, which would only point at how deeply flawed it was from the start), but even this is quite a bit of wishful thinking.

^There are many who think so and they might well be right. I'm not totally convinced. I stopped playing the game after 4-5 tries because (to name just a few things that come to mind now):

Game's far too easy atm
Diplo is virtually non existent
1UPT a good idea doesn't work atm because AI can't handle it
Game's not balanced (overpowered horsemen,ICS,maritime states etc...)
Interface issues

These things can all be fixed. Once (if) they are i'll try again and then i'll probably have a better idea if the game's indeed fundamentally flawed in other aspects.

I voted yes simply because of steam. It will save this game for the future due to, in part, the mod community being kep up to date with steam news and updates about the game.

Steam is the best thing to happen to civ since civ2 was made.

Probably no.

In vanilla no, it can never be fully balanced really at this point. Developers can't have the risk of a failed balance patch even though extreme balancing is needed, so you will get tweaks for months that don't do much. Modders are quick to balance, though :) And as many of the modders more talented than I have said, civ 5 will be the most moddable civ ever.

But yeah, if you play at a high level and don't want to use mods.. well you've sorta lost 50 bucks.

I voted no...

The direction they went in simply precludes my style of play -- I like managing my empire and warfare is not why I play Civ.

Everything they did to globalize happiness, streamline naval play, remove city specific management like health, remove government, eliminate religion and corporations --- all of these things were seen as "features, not bugs".

But - for a peaceful builder like me, it all adds up to nothing but a lot of boring, staccato NEXT TURN NEXT TURN NEXT TURN fests.

The game has gone in a direction that's just not for me... I have seen zero hint that anyone from Firaxis either gets that, much less cares.

All the dev talk has been about fixing the military and diplomatic AI -- hey, I heartily agree those things need fixing, badly.... but -- doing that just gives you a much improved wargame and that's not what I play Civ for.

"Possibly", but it is a tough nut to crack. I was very enthusiastic before the release. Hexes and 1upt gave an opportunity for chess like, rock-paper-scissor like battles. Unfortunately this only works out, IF you have an intelligent opponent, which is in single player far from true.

I also more and more become to realize that the philosophy of this game is different as the others. In Civ5 the developing team tried to create AIcivs that are equal to the player and therefore their only objective is to win, leaving very little room for diplomacy. This creates a very different game as compared to other Civs. I think Sid always told that the real game plays in the player’s head, but with Civ5 it just all happens on the board.

"Possibly", but it is a tough nut to crack. I was very enthusiastic before the release. Hexes and 1upt gave an opportunity for chess like, rock-paper-scissor like battles. Unfortunately this only works out, IF you have an intelligent opponent, which is in single player far from true.

I also more and more become to realize that the philosophy of this game is different as the others. In Civ5 the developing team tried to create AIcivs that are equal to the player and therefore their only objective is to win, leaving very little room for diplomacy. This creates a very different game as compared to other Civs. I think Sid always told that the real game plays in the player’s head, but with Civ5 it just all happens on the board.

That's a very good point and one that can't be made often enough.

The AI in any game shouldn't be trying to 'win' - it should always be playing a counterweight role.

By the time an AI exists that can truly "try to win" against an experienced human player, we'll all be looking for the last battlestar off the planet and hoping we at least get to be seduced by a toaster that looks like Tricia Helfer before we're incinerated.

Developers of single player AIs should know the limitations...

That's a very good point and one that can't be made often enough.

The AI in any game shouldn't be trying to 'win' - it should always be playing a counterweight role.

By the time an AI exists that can truly "try to win" against an experienced human player, we'll all be looking for the last battlestar off the planet and hoping we at least get to be seduced by a toaster that looks like Tricia Helfer before we're incinerated.

Developers of single player AIs should know the limitations...

Repeating this nonsense each and every time doesn't make it more true.

Civ5's AI does *NOT* play to win.
The first step for this would be playing to survive, and even here the AI completely fails. And if the AI somehow was able to survive, it doesn't identify the winning conditions, nor does it take action to achieve any of them.

*What* it does is to play in a way which hampers the player the most. And, once again, it fails.

In a nutshell: the AI does something, but whatever it may be, it doesn't do it successfully. In total, I regard the AI much weaker than for instance in "the game which must not be named".

To be honest I'll just wait 4-5 years for civ6 to come out and play civ4 in the meantime. I like a complex game (not complicated, there is a difference), and civ5 just doesn't have it. Even with an improved war and diplomacy AI there are some game design choices that make the game boring at its core. I don't get the feeling I am managing a complex empire with civ5, and I don't feel like I'm being punished for being lazy with my city placement or building choice. There are just so many things fundamentally boring with the game that I wish all the resources being put into fixing it goes towards making Civ6 instead.

I voted possibly despite having the feeling it's hopeless...

I must admit, I was looking forward to 1UPT with so much anticipation, but when it came to play I just noticed it's not feasible for the scale a Civ game has.
A tactical warfare on a strategic map - i don't know - for me it's a medicore to bad Civ and also a real bad tactic game compared to the classic ones, e.g., Panzer General, Battle Isle 1&2(my favorites) and even Nectaris.
So I ended up like this:
I want to play a game with tactical demanding warfare ->playing BI2;
want a Civ game --> playing Civ 1,2,3,4
I don't want to blame Firaxis nor Shafer - for me the merge of the 2 great genres sounded tempting too, unfortunatly in my opinion (remark you can't skip nowadays in CFC forum) CiV failed to yield a reasonable result.:sad:

After seeing the videos of Soren Johnson's designer notes, I fear the worst for civ5.
There are too many unfun gameplay features and an AI which lies in coma.
More patches, DLCs, etc. won't help.

To quote The Heavy: "Maybe. Maybe."

Of course, it doesn't need salvaging; it's perfectly enjoyable for many (most?) current players. Some of us don't like it because we just wanted Civ4.5, so--OH CRAP YOU CAUGHT ME :o

Just kidding. But "is it salvageable" isn't the question, because tons of people like it just fine and it sold well. The implied question is more "can it be made fun for you" and I have a hard time answering that. For me, there's just not much to do. It's not very engaging. I could make it challenging on Immortal or Deity (at which point it becomes work, not fun) but at the moment I fear that the foundations of the game have been streamlined to the degree that it just won't appeal to me that much even after patches, mods, and expansions. But hey, I could be wrong - it happened once before - so here's hoping that mods and patches are able to add enough balance and replayability to the game that I'll find it as enjoyable as I originally hoped.

Whether or not I'm going to pay $20-40 USD for expansions is a whole 'nother issue. I'm not happy with the value I received for my $60, so I'm going to have a hard time spending more money to get the game I thought I'd already bought.

Not salvage-able. Like III. I'll wait for 6 and cross my fingers, continuing to play CIV in the interim. Much like I did w/II while waiting for something like IV. No point buying a bad game--sends all the wrong messages. I second every criticism cited in this thread so far. All of it is on target, all of it makes sense. No mods will make this game something I want to spend my time with, and no amount of patches/expansions will improve it sufficiently.

I voted possibly but I'm leaning heavily towards no. They just made too many changes to fun core concepts which resulted in making the game less fun. Since a number of those changes are sort of the foundation of the identity of this game, I don't see them ever being changed back through expansions. Mods? Maybe, but then whats the point? I'll play mods that make a good game more fun, I'm not going to go seeking mods that are a must just to make an average game fun at all.

They just made too many changes to fun core concepts which resulted in making the game less fun.
By the way, a "funny" thing : the next patch actually destroys one of the fundamental concept of the game ("hidden" diplomacy).
It tells volume at the level of the failure, when something that was hailed as a core concept is simply patched out.

By the way, a "funny" thing : the next patch actually destroys one of the fundamental concept of the game ("hidden" diplomacy).
It tells volume at the level of the failure, when something that was hailed as a core concept is simply patched out.

Ugh.

Misdiagnose of the core issue by the devs... It's not "hidden" diplomacy that was at issue, it's the schizophrenia. I don't need see to an attitude in words or numeric values -- I need the AI to recognize that if we've been trading peacefully for generations, if our borders don't abut, and if I sign and keep sacred every pact you offer me -- the AI damn sure shouldn't turn on me because I have success against a common enemy in a war IT INVITED ME INTO!

Ugh.

Misdiagnose of the core issue by the devs... It's not "hidden" diplomacy that was at issue, it's the schizophrenia. I don't need see to an attitude in words or numeric values -- I need the AI to recognize that if we've been trading peacefully for generations, if our borders don't abut, and if I sign and keep sacred every pact you offer me -- the AI damn sure shouldn't turn on me because I have success against a common enemy in a war IT INVITED ME INTO!

I agree, some more consistency in AI diplomatic behavior is needed.

Edit: Sorry for posting in this thread, I forgot that it's for those who don't play Civ5.

Well there are obviously some who feel the game in it's current state doesn't need "salvaging", and that's cool, I'm glad they are having fun with it.

As for me, there just isn't enough strategic variability. No matter what, the game is predictable. Once you've played more than 5 games, you learn very quickly that every one of the AIs WILL attack you no matter how friendly the relations, which makes it pretty much impossible to suffer a "surprise attack" or a backstab (since you always know it's coming). There really isn't much satisfaction in defeating an enemy, because if the outcome isn't in doubt then the conquest is really more tedious work than fun. The social tree while an interesting concept has the side-effect of "locking you in" to a strategy or victory condition and making it very impractical if not impossible to change strategies halfway through and pursue another victory condition.

I could go on and on, and some people do. Like I said it's cool that lots of folks are happy with the game, but I just think it's fundamentally incapable of delivering interesting strategic choices, sacrificing depth for simplicity has led to a very formulaic game.

No, this game can not be saved. I can't afford to lease the rest of it off them when it is completed in a few years.

To quote The Heavy: "Maybe. Maybe."

Of course, it doesn't need salvaging; it's perfectly enjoyable for many (most?) current players. Some of us don't like it because we just wanted Civ4.5, so--OH CRAP YOU CAUGHT ME :o

Just kidding. But "is it salvageable" isn't the question, because tons of people like it just fine and it sold well. The implied question is more "can it be made fun for you" and I have a hard time answering that. For me, there's just not much to do. It's not very engaging. I could make it challenging on Immortal or Deity (at which point it becomes work, not fun) but at the moment I fear that the foundations of the game have been streamlined to the degree that it just won't appeal to me that much even after patches, mods, and expansions. But hey, I could be wrong - it happened once before - so here's hoping that mods and patches are able to add enough balance and replayability to the game that I'll find it as enjoyable as I originally hoped.

Whether or not I'm going to pay $20-40 USD for expansions is a whole 'nother issue. I'm not happy with the value I received for my $60, so I'm going to have a hard time spending more money to get the game I thought I'd already bought.

that's why i asked the question for the people who don't play the game. obviously, the people who like the game and are enjoying it won't see the need for salvaging.

Possibly, but I doubt Firaxis will manage. If they do, it's in the form of an expansion.

The various excellent civ-modders, on the other hand, are bound to make it into something fun eventually.

Why bother with an expansion when people are happy buying DLC?

guys, this poll is for people who don't play the game anymore.

i get a feeling a lot of people who like the game and still play it are voting...

You know, I voted possibly - but I have to say I'm getting more doubtful. As many have said before, most of my issues are tied in heavily to what the designers seem to have as the core of this particular iteration - so to fix the game, for me, would require a major overhaul.

I am aware, of course, that there are those who like this one - not trying to start any flames here. Just saying this one, for me personaly, missed the mark.

In my mind - well, I'm already starting my wait for Civ VI, and going back to Civ IV mods to bide my time.

Civ 5 sux, end of story. Deep at a fundamental level, Civ 5 sux. not fun, not entertaining, not informative, not fun. Civ 5 sux.

of course, but i don't see firaxis being the one salvaging it

their recent patchnotes and focus really show that they don't understand what the real strategy is.

from a very very high level design standpoint it is the best civ so far, but they screwed up pretty hard on the specifics and they're not getting better

This is all too depressing.

I guess having to actually pay to get more Civilizations is just ridiculous.

I mean come on, isn't that what an Expansion set is for?

I am not holding my breath for 2K to do anything substantial, but voted 'yes' as I have plenty of faith the modding community will not only fix the game but transform it into something a hell of a lot better.

I am sure this is why it was released in such an abysmal state, knowing that the actual polishing of the game would be done by the community. At present it feels like a bare bones distant cousin to Civ.

that's why i asked the question for the people who don't play the game. obviously, the people who like the game and are enjoying it won't see the need for salvaging.

Although I disliked the game from the very first moment on, I continued to "play" it. Better, I continued to check and experience certain game mechanics.

Since almost two weeks now, I have some savegames on the HD. Each of them looking "good" so far in terms of my success in the game.

Yet, I cannot force myself to fire them up again since I know what is waiting for me: tediousness, shallow, simple, uninspiring gameplay.

And as I've said previously in this thread, it's the core mechanics which make it unsalvagable.
People are putting hope in patches (which are meant to solve bugs and maybe misbalancing), modding and expansions.
Now, first.... would I buy (aka: pay for) a game which which already has disappointed me beyound my ability to express my disappointment? Would I buy an expansion created by the same team which messed this incarnation?
Second: This game plays slow. Playing on a huge map makes you playing with 12 civs in total. Each of them is going to have only that many units. People defending the game say that there are 24 CS, too. But those are just sitting around, waiting for being bribed, checking for when it is time to issue a new "quest" and except for this, moving one or two units back and forth.
In a vey early moment of the game it already slows down considerably, because the core engine doesn't work well.
And now since expansions are expected to ADD something, people think it would become any better? No way.

The same it is with modding. Yes, maybe the core engine can be completely re-written over the course of time by the combined efforts of many modders.
But that literally means turning Firaxis' Civ5 into a new, *different* game.

Conclusion: Civ5 cannot be salvaged. It's a stillborn child by design and implementation. By putting more money into it, you can mummify it more nicely, but it won't come to live. A corpse is a dead body, may it be nicely looking or not.

Umm, not to nitpick, but can I just point out the option "Possibly" is completely meaningless and is probably skewing the results? Because when you ask whether something is "salvageable", you are essentially asking whether it is possible for it to be salvaged. So the answer is either "Yes" or "No".

Under such circumstances, "Possibly" really means the same thing as "Yes". Though I suspect those who picked it meant to express a lower level of confidence in the probability of Civ V being salvaged.

Umm, not to nitpick, but can I just point out the option "Possibly" is completely meaningless and is probably skewing the results? Because when you ask whether something is "salvageable", you are essentially asking whether it is possible for it to be salvaged. So the answer is either "Yes" or "No".

Under such circumstances, "Possibly" really means the same thing as "Yes". Though I suspect those who picked it meant to express a lower level of confidence in the probability of Civ V being salvaged.


I actually didn't vote, because IMO everything is possible, so everyone should chose this option (thus it is meaningless). I think the poll should have go along "likely" or "unlikely", or just remove that "Possible" option.

EDIT:
For example I have the feeling that it won't be salvaged but can't express it here since I can't assert that it is not possible...

I actually didn't vote, because IMO everything is possible, so everyone should chose this option (thus it is meaningless). I think the poll should have go along "likely" or "unlikely", or just remove that "Possible" option.You are right. I just interpreted it in the "can it be salvaged if Firaxis puts the maximum realistic effort into it and modders get the optimum out of it"-way.

It's still no, because while the game can, in theory, be rewritten from scratch, that is just not realistic. And the modders can only do so much (like add/tweak) some content, but not re-design the GUI or fix the game engine. :(

ok how can i get this poll changed to yes/no only?

I voted no.

Of course everything is possible. A mutation could give wings to pigs next week. But when something is so improbable as to make the chances of it happening a miracle, then I prefer to be brief and say it is impossible.

Semantics aside, the fundamentals of this game are not what I liked in the Civ games before. They have picked up the least interesting (to me) and tweaked it, and removed which was genuinely interesting.

That's another thing to consider: all these opinions are personal, influenced by our experience with the game. I'm an old hand, playing it since the first version, on a Window 3.1 machine. I've got used to a certain set of parameters that are not there and cannot be added, or are not working any more.

One of those parameters is the AI. Civ 4 failed in that sense. Winning in Civ 4 was easier than winning in Civ 2, even though the AI cheated more. Adding the mods like RoM and AND only made things worse, in that department: you had to play in the highest possible level, handicapping yourself in some way (like, for example, staying with one city until the year 0), in order to make the game challenging.

A game like Civ 5 needs a much better AI to even try to achieve balance. And that is not happening. To improve the AI, the whole engine would need to be remade.

A mutation could give wings to pigs next week.

Problem is that you may consider this game like a game lacking 2 expansions before it can be considered a base game. And 3 more to be at same level or better than Civ4. The question rather is that whether Firaxis and the community thinks it is worthy to put hard work into it in the future. Although chances are low, but not like pigs next week. AI can always be refined both at core level and via scripting. It can be modded as well. That's not that big issue.

I chose "no" because 2k would never allow it. All 2k cares about is making money. Thank you, Sid Meier, for selling your perfectly legit developer to a McDonald's-like corporation that doesn't give a crap about real Civ fans.

Problem is that you may consider this game like a game lacking 2 expansions before it can be considered a base game. And 3 more to be at same level or better than Civ4. The question rather is that whether Firaxis and the community thinks it is worthy to put hard work into it in the future. Although chances are low, but not like pigs next week. AI can always be refined both at core level and via scripting. It can be modded as well. That's not that big issue.

AI is the core issue, and explaining why would take a book. Just two examples:

1. The computer never learned to use stacks properly before. In Civ4, all you needed was some espionage to know what they had and where, and then build a stack that would be undefeatable by their available units. Result: owning half the planet by the 2nd century.

In this one they changed from overarching war strategy ("stacks of doom" running rampage) to a tactitcal battle strategy (1UpT). But the core AI is the same --so, since the computer was too dumb to use SoD properly, how can anyone expect it to be smart enough to organize a proper attack in the 1UpT mold? For that you'd need to consider: a) melee front units; b) main force, ranged units; c) fast units right behind; d) reinforcement units to enter as soon as a tile is freed; e) garrison units to remain in conquered land after.

Result: computer *sucks* at tactics, which is to be expected since it already sucked at strategy.

2. Strategic (ergo, military) resources are limited. Which is realistic, since the resources are supposed to be consumed. But it's dumb to implement it when the computer has such a poor AI.

Let's say they have iron and build the max of swordmen: 5. If you trick them into being in bad terms with the civ on the other side of their territory, they'll be exposed on your side. You can backstab them, and get deep into their land before the swordmen are back to defend. By then, they'd be suing for peace (offering you all their cities, but that can be fixed).

So, making something more realistic (something that on paper seems good) does not work due to the limitations on the AI. The civ you attack cannot just build newer swordsmen on your side, and early in the game moving their swordmen to your side is going to take them too long.

All the changes are in that vein. Awesome, if you were playing another human (or a computer with true AI), but miserable when playing the same ol' "intelligent" engine from 10 years ago.

1. The computer never learned to use stacks properly before....


Fine, but why do you think this is unsalvageable? What if they hire a talented programmer for expansion 1 who will fix the AI? Is there anything in the engine that apriopri prevents it? No. Is it impossible to program or script this? No.

OK guys, re-do of the poll with simply yes or no choices:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=400062

please re-vote at the new poll.

Yes, please do so. Closed here. The_J