Do you think Civ V is doomed?

[Shmike]

Or do you think Firaxis can save it? I'm hoping they can because I just got bored of this game and I'm going to give civ 4 another spin and try my best not to let the stacks of doom bother me. Stacks stopped me from playing IV.

 

[HorribleHarald]

I think it's doomed and only small improvements are coming like in the previous patch, maybe something in diplomacy and AI but not so big changes are not excepted. Main focus will still be in razing and settling because of streamlining. They do not want to make multifaceted strategy game.

 

[vincentz]

my personal view > yes its doomed,
but it might do the trick for others.

sadly, im not going to play civ 5 again... unless it changes the whole concept which i doubt...

 

[DaveGold]

I think the last patch was very disappointing as it failed to resolve the main problem area it was trying to fix, diplomacy. Even promotions inherited on upgrades are often still wrong. Given that the patch didn't arrive quickly and the civilopaedia wasn't updated, it would appear that Firaxis are struggling with limited resources to correct the problems. It doesn't bode well for the future.

 

[JesusOnEez]

Yup, I think it's doomed as well. I think Firaxis will pay it lip service with another couple of half-hearted patches which nerf strategies to further disguise the AI failings, and perhaps one expansion pack because the sales figures are pretty good after all (which will be half already released DLC and half new stuff). Maybe it'll be worth a punt at that point, but I can't see it having the support life cycle of Civ 4 and apart from modders, I think it'll be dead in the water and forgotten by the developers by summer 2012, guessing an expansion for this autumn and a couple more patches after that.

I suppose in terms of support lifecycle of a game generally that's not actually bad, but with a Civ game it's pretty short.

I hope I'm wrong, and Civ V is developed over the course of 5 or 6 years and becomes something awesome, I really do.

Where's Soren when you need him?

Oh, Spore. :/

 

[bonafide11]

It's not doomed. You guys may not like it, but it will have another two expansion packs (or maybe they'll release them as DLC this time), and plenty more patches, and it will improve a lot over the next couple years. Many, many people will still play the game.

 

[Horizons]

I will put my neck on the line and say that a good expansion pack could save it.

 

[JLoZeppeli]

It's not doomed. You guys may not like it, but it will have another two expansion packs (or maybe they'll release them as DLC this time), and plenty more patches, and it will improve a lot over the next couple years. Many, many people will still play the game.

Moreover the same amount of people that played Revolution, it will have is fellow players, but not anything near the other Civ games....

 

[Horizons]

I would like to see some of the 'improvements' made in the last patch reversed, like the nerfs to meritocracy and monarchy. Also there needs to be a counter for incredibly powerful cities that have walls, castle, and are founded on a hill and defended by a trebuchet.

 

[SuperJay]

Doomed? No. People will play it for a while. Some will even play it for years. But it's going to take some serious improvement to bring some of the longtime fans back into the fold. A few major overhaul patches or free content additions could help. Expansions could too, but that's trickier ground because you're asking people who are already disappointed in your product to spend MORE money to make it into the game they thought they'd purchased in the first place.

 

[basta]

No, I don't think it's doomed. From what I've read, it's been a great financial success so far, but money aside, will it be judged as a failure in 1-2 years' time? This is really up to what Firaxis pours into it in the way of patches and expansions.

Quite obviously, it was rushed out the door half-finished for the Xmas shopping season. They have limited dev manpower and getting 1upt to work must have been more than they bargained for. The result, diplo was to be "inscrutable" because they didn't have the time to develop it properly. Overall the game was going to be "streamlined" because they just didn't have the manpower to do everything that should have been done. The whole "dumbing down" looks very much like it is the result of too much to do and not enough time or manpower to do it.

So hopefully they'll flesh out the skeleton with some very hefty patches and expansions, giving us real diplo, a revised diplo victory, rebalanced yields/build times, a functional gui, a decent victory screen and replay, multiplayer, etc, etc.

I think they better continue working on CiV full time for another year at least if they want to be able to sell Civ VI as well as they did this one.

 

[Smote]

I would like to see some of the 'improvements' made in the last patch reversed, like the nerfs to meritocracy and monarchy. Also there needs to be a counter for incredibly powerful cities that have walls, castle, and are founded on a hill and defended by a trebuchet.

nukes, my dear Horizons. nukes.

Alternatively, 1 mech infantry and 8 bombers.

Alternatively, troop swarm it (make sure you come from all directions, or it won't work. This includes ocean tiles, using troops with amphibious. Try to be a tech tier up- like riflemen vs trebuchet, or longswordsmen vs catapult.

Alternatively, use 4 riflemen and 4 artillery.

Alternatively, carefully pillage all the squares and don't bother attacking.

Alternatively, culture bomb it and laugh as you get to attack it from friendly territory.

 

[Eskel]

I am not so sure, if Civ 5 has been so great financial success. So far, I havent' seen any reliable sales data, nor any evidence on Firaxis return rate.

IMO it is not obvious then:
1) that Firaxis will have enough money to produce those awaited great expansion packs and hefty patches
2) that Firaxis IS able to make those great expansion packs (who will make them? People who made Civ 5 and do not see any problem with it?)
3) that Firaxis has will at all to make any meaningful changes to the game. Judging on the latest patch, obviously has not.

So, Civ 5 is not doomed yet, but the future is not that bright I wished it to.

 

[pi-r8]

I think it is what it is, and it's not going to change substantially. If you like it the way it is now, great, the patches that come will probabably improve the balance and fix more bugs. If you don't like it the way it is now, patches and DLC won't change anything.

 

[Fistalis]

Yes. I think 2k pushed firaxis to streamline the game to increase immediate sales of the next title (civ V) without a care for the overall effect it would have on the franchise in the future.

 

[Fizpez2]

I would like to see some of the 'improvements' made in the last patch reversed, like the nerfs to meritocracy and monarchy. Also there needs to be a counter for incredibly powerful cities that have walls, castle, and are founded on a hill and defended by a trebuchet.

If you're at tech parity then yeah, you're pretty much boned. There's a reason they used slaves and serfs as wall-fodder during castle seiges - properly built and defended a castle should hold out indefinitely against equal/inferior tech.

Lesson 1 is don't let that happen to you - or - learn to use to your advantage - be the guy with the wall/castle/treb with a big, nasty neighbor, declare war and let the AI spend it's units upgrading your treb.

 

[markantony]

Unless they rip out the AI "playing to win" concept, yes it is. This is what ruins diplomacy. Also the combat AI needs completely re working.

Also adding something to do beyond clicking next turn would help.

 

[Luckystrike77]

Moreover the same amount of people that played Revolution, it will have is fellow players, but not anything near the other Civ games....

What!!!??? Civ rev is a terrible dumbed down Civ-game. Civ 5 is a masterpiece. The stability issue in mp and the bad AI for those liking single player is a bit devastating, but it will improve. This is coming from a guy that has played all civ games from 1991, and played them all alot lot lot. (Well, if you look away from Civ Rev of course). Civ 5 is played for 600 hours already, the other games I played with the same enthusiasm as well (but not Civ Rev of course). I'm a lifelong Civfanatic.

I only play mp these days, haven't played sp since Civ3. That can of course affect my opinions abit. But even with those anoying bugs in MP; If I can play a mp to the the endgame, with few quitters or droppers because of bugs, god damn what a great game experience it is. With some expansions and even more meat to the bones of this game.... oh holy cow, the sky is the limit for Civ5. A pitty Shafer had to go.

 

[MkLh]

Pathes won't fix the core issue that the game is shallow and boring. Expansion disks and maybe mods are the only hope.

 

[player1 fanatic]

Yes, it's "doomed to annoy Civ4 fanatics".