Do You Enjoy Civilization V

[Aussie_Lurker]

This one was a tough one to vote on. "Yes" I enjoy elements of this game, but "no" I'm not enjoying it the way I did Civ4!

Aussie.

 

[charon2112]

I think that this poll at least shows that people who dislike the game, can stop saying that the "majority" of Civ players agrees with them.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

IMO, that's mostly people who played a single game, discovered it was not Civ4.5, and ragequit.

I've played several games &-though I'm not disappointed that it isn't Civ4.5, I am deeply disappointed that-from an AI & diplomacy standpoint-it feels more like Civ3.5. If they fix the AI & Diplomacy-& re-balance key elements of the game (like City-State Interactions)-then I could happily see myself vote yes to this poll (or one like it) in the not too distant future. Oh, & Mods don't really count in my books because-though I do enjoy playing Civ5 with Thallasicus' Mods in place, I shouldn't *need* a forum-users mod to make the game *PLAYABLE*! I certainly didn't with Civ4!

Aussie.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

This, pretty much. Civ5 has more potential than Civ4 ever did. People tend to forget that Civ4 did not start out as polished as it ultimately became.

I can't agree with this I'm afraid. I found Civ4 Vanilla to be *very* polished, before any patches or expansions came out. With Civ5 I found it nigh-on unplayable in an un-modded form, definitely not an accusation I'd level at Civ4 Vanilla. Sure Civ4 got even better-& so can Civ5-but first they need to fix all these massive AI & balance issues!

Aussie.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Did I enjoy it? NO!

But I have to say I loved Civ IV passionately. So I really wanted an upgrade* of that, and got Civ "Facebook" V instead


* more complex, more features

I'd recommend Rise of Mankind: A New Dawn personally-though if that's too heavy for you, check out the Mod in my signature !

Aussie.

 

[Valkrionn]

I've played several games &-though I'm not disappointed that it isn't Civ4.5, I am deeply disappointed that-from an AI & diplomacy standpoint-it feels more like Civ3.5. If they fix the AI & Diplomacy-& re-balance key elements of the game (like City-State Interactions)-then I could happily see myself vote yes to this poll (or one like it) in the not too distant future. Oh, & Mods don't really count in my books because-though I do enjoy playing Civ5 with Thallasicus' Mods in place, I shouldn't *need* a forum-users mod to make the game *PLAYABLE*! I certainly didn't with Civ4!

Aussie.

Diplomacy is my main complaint as well, as I said.

For me, though, the gains made in other departments are able to mitigate that loss, more or less.

I can't agree with this I'm afraid. I found Civ4 Vanilla to be *very* polished, before any patches or expansions came out. With Civ5 I found it nigh-on unplayable in an un-modded form, definitely not an accusation I'd level at Civ4 Vanilla. Sure Civ4 got even better-& so can Civ5-but first they need to fix all these massive AI & balance issues!

Aussie.

I enjoyed unmodded Civ4 for 1 game before I lost interest. BtS was purchased specifically for FfH.

Far too many mechanics in civ4 just... weren't that great at representing what they were intended to represent. Diplomacy sucked (not as bad as civ5, in that it existed at least, but really, being able to control how the AI saw you by hitting a few buttons? That's such simplified crap it's not even funny), far too much of the game was up to chance (example: If an aggressive civ started next to someone such as Ghandi, the aggressive civ would conquer the other with no issue. If that happens on Deity, you can end up with a runaway AI that is nigh-impossible to defeat... And that happened often), Civics (while on paper a good mechanic) typically were just used in a set manner and then never changed.

I could go on, but it's not necessary. My point is: I had huge issues with Civ4. In many areas, Civ5 reduced or removed those issues... It just adds it's own.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Far too many mechanics in civ4 just... weren't that great at representing what they were intended to represent. Diplomacy sucked (not as bad as civ5, in that it existed at least, but really, being able to control how the AI saw you by hitting a few buttons? That's such simplified crap it's not even funny)

I'll give you this one-I was a supporter of the decision to remove visible diplomacy modifiers, I just didn't realise they were going to throw out diplomacy *altogether*!

far too much of the game was up to chance (example: If an aggressive civ started next to someone such as Ghandi, the aggressive civ would conquer the other with no issue. If that happens on Deity, you can end up with a runaway AI that is nigh-impossible to defeat... And that happened often)

Don't really see what you're getting at here-the lack of balance in the Civilization Abilities means that there is now usually only *one* strategy that predominates. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the more unique abilities in Civ5-but I just think they've been put together in a way that pushes both human & AI players down a very specific path!

Civics (while on paper a good mechanic) typically were just used in a set manner and then never changed.

Really, how are social policies that different? All of the policies in a branch stack &, short of switching to a contradictory branch, you never lose those abilities. I find that concept even *less* fun-though I do like the ability of buying Civics/Social Policies using Culture!

I also don't like the extent to which they streamlined Happiness & Health (the latter out of the game completely), nor do I like the fact that bonus resources have been made largely *useless*. I, too, could go on-but you surely must see my point?

Aussie.

 

[Valkrionn]

I'll give you this one-I was a supporter of the decision to remove visible diplomacy modifiers, I just didn't realise they were going to throw out diplomacy *altogether*!

Well, they didn't intend to. From what I can see, diplomacy was supposed to be enhanced via City States... It just didn't work out that way.

I personally want Alliances, Vassalage, and Colonization back in some form, though not necessarily the way it worked in Civ4.

Don't really see what you're getting at here-the lack of balance in the Civilization Abilities means that there is now usually only *one* strategy that predominates. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the more unique abilities in Civ5-but I just think they've been put together in a way that pushes both human & AI players down a very specific path!

I'm getting at the fact that some civs (rather, leaders) were actually implemented in such a way that they would not expand, would not build a decent military, and thus end up fodder to other civs. Creating a runaway expansionist civ... Ever run into that civ on the other continent that had conquered/vassalized everyone? Yeah, that's how it happened.

It may have gone too far in the other direction with Civ5 (even Ghandi will backstab), but I'd rather have an AI that actually plays to win than an AI that is flavorful but blatantly uncompetitive.

Before it's brought up: Tactical and Strategical AI in Civ5 are very different. Strategic level is very good; Tactical is getting better.

Really, how are social policies that different? All of the policies in a branch stack &, short of switching to a contradictory branch, you never lose those abilities. I find that concept even *less* fun-though I do like the ability of buying Civics/Social Policies using Culture!

I also don't like the extent to which they streamlined Happiness & Health (the latter out of the game completely), nor do I like the fact that bonus resources have been made largely *useless*. I, too, could go on-but you surely must see my point?

Aussie.

Social Policies and Civics are the perfect example for the difference between Civ5 and Civ4; Less common, very important, permanent choices, vs more common, less important, easily changed choices. I personally like the former, as I like having important decisions in the game. I do think we need more micro, though, so we can have a good balance between the two.

And while I would like to add Health back (and my views on Bonus resources should be obvious, given what I did in my mod), I actually like what they did with Happiness. It's a far better limit on expansion, which is a good thing IMO.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I'm getting at the fact that some civs (rather, leaders) were actually implemented in such a way that they would not expand, would not build a decent military, and thus end up fodder to other civs. Creating a runaway expansionist civ... Ever run into that civ on the other continent that had conquered/vassalized everyone? Yeah, that's how it happened.

It may have gone too far in the other direction with Civ5 (even Ghandi will backstab), but I'd rather have an AI that actually plays to win than an AI that is flavorful but blatantly uncompetitive.

OK, that makes a bit more sense. I made it quite clear-even when the game was still in development-that I wanted a more Role-playing driven game experience, & I felt I got that more in Civ4 than I ever get in Civ5. My suggestion was that-rather than make the AI more cut-throat-they should have made role-playing more beneficial to the human player via the happiness system (to reflect your People's viewpoints).

Social Policies and Civics are the perfect example for the difference between Civ5 and Civ4; Less common, very important, permanent choices, vs more common, less important, easily changed choices. I personally like the former, as I like having important decisions in the game. I do think we need more micro, though, so we can have a good balance between the two.

I'm not saying that Civics couldn't have been done better (I spent the better part of 3 years modding them ), but I do like being able to change my nations direction at some points in the game-at a cost. As I said, though, my biggest beef is the stacking of Social Policy bonuses. Sometimes it makes sense, but other times it *really* doesn't

And while I would like to add Health back (and my views on Bonus resources should be obvious, given what I did in my mod), I actually like what they did with Happiness. It's a far better limit on expansion, which is a good thing IMO.

Just to clarify. I don't mind that they made Happiness Global-my beef is that they removed the city-based happiness element. i.e. Some things (like Buildings) should only impact happiness at the city level (which, in turn, would effect how productive that individual city is), but that city-based happiness should also feed into the Global Happiness system. Check out some of my posts in the Creation & Customization thread to see what I mean! I also think that They should have retained the Distance & Number of City component of Maintenance-perhaps via a multiplier of the building maintenance (again, see my posts on the subject). Given the greater importance of Gold in Civ5, expansion related things that eat into your gold supply would thus be even *more* important-yet they seem to have gone for happiness *alone*!

Please note, though, I don't *hate* this game-not at all. As I think I said, Civ5 has *great* potential IMHO, but the out-of-the box experience is simply less compelling than with Civ4!

Aussie.

 

[Valkrionn]

OK, that makes a bit more sense. I made it quite clear-even when the game was still in development-that I wanted a more Role-playing driven game experience, & I felt I got that more in Civ4 than I ever get in Civ5. My suggestion was that-rather than make the AI more cut-throat-they should have made role-playing more beneficial to the human player via the happiness system (to reflect your People's viewpoints).

I tend to like roleplay as well; That's why I said they may have gone too far in the other direction. I still prefer an AI that wants to win to an AI that rolls over and plays dead simply because the leader is "supposed" to be pacifistic.

Really, the bigger issue is that militaristic victories are too easy compared to others; Pushes everyone, players and AI, into a military strategy. Balance it a bit better, and that is lessened, and you can have some AI's that will favor cultural/diplo victories, so long as they keep up an adequate defense.

I'm not saying that Civics couldn't have been done better (I spent the better part of 3 years modding them ), but I do like being able to change my nations direction at some points in the game-at a cost. As I said, though, my biggest beef is the stacking of Social Policy bonuses. Sometimes it makes sense, but other times it *really* doesn't

I like the stacking, but to each their own.

It is quite possible to use the Social Policy system to create something approximating civics. Main difference is you don't have all civic categories available at start, and have to pay culture for the new civics as well as gain techs... but otherwise, pretty similar. Everything you need exists in XML.

Just to clarify. I don't mind that they made Happiness Global-my beef is that they removed the city-based happiness element. i.e. Some things (like Buildings) should only impact happiness at the city level (which, in turn, would effect how productive that individual city is), but that city-based happiness should also feed into the Global Happiness system. Check out some of my posts in the Creation & Customization thread to see what I mean! I also think that They should have retained the Distance & Number of City component of Maintenance-perhaps via a multiplier of the building maintenance (again, see my posts on the subject). Given the greater importance of Gold in Civ5, expansion related things that eat into your gold supply would thus be even *more* important-yet they seem to have gone for happiness *alone*!

I think the removal of some of that maintenance was an attempt to make some mechanics more clear to players, though I agree, distance maintenance at the least would be a good thing.

Please note, though, I don't *hate* this game-not at all. As I think I said, Civ5 has *great* potential IMHO, but the out-of-the box experience is simply less compelling than with Civ4!

Aussie.

And I have pretty much the reverse opinion.

 

[snoochems]

I enjoy it, so yes... still disappointed, and still prefer Civ 4.

 

[Horace]

Btw Valkrionn, your mod is awesome ta. keep up the good work.

Improved my enjoyment of civ5 so far loads.

 

[lschnarch]

Far too many mechanics in civ4 just... weren't that great at representing what they were intended to represent. Diplomacy sucked (not as bad as civ5, in that it existed at least, but really, being able to control how the AI saw you by hitting a few buttons? That's such simplified crap it's not even funny),

Almost nobody claims that the diplomacy system of Civ4 would have been near perfect.
But playing on bigger maps, with more opponents it was not *that* easy to control your relationships.
I know, many players went for the small maps where it literally came down to "pick the right religion" in the early to mid game. And I agree, this was a weak feature then. But, as said, that was very much caused by playing a small map with only that many opponents.

far too much of the game was up to chance (example: If an aggressive civ started next to someone such as Ghandi, the aggressive civ would conquer the other with no issue. If that happens on Deity, you can end up with a runaway AI that is nigh-impossible to defeat... And that happened often), Civics (while on paper a good mechanic) typically were just used in a set manner and then never changed.

In exactly which way would this be different from Civ5?
Well, the AI is incapable of fighting wars, so "runaways" don't mean that much of a threat to you, but this is not design, but poor implementation.

And even if you don't have to fight wars in Civ5, then the allegedly "playing to win" AI is not able to really win.

So, what saves the player's rear end is not game mechanics, it is that game mechancis actually don't work.

Actually I think that many players are satisfied with Civ5 just because of this: the game doesn't work in it's total, and therefore they think that THEY would be doing good.
Unfortunately, they aren't. The game just is completely incompetent, thus covering their own weaknesses.

 

[JLoZeppeli]

I think that this poll at least shows that people who dislike the game, can stop saying that the "majority" of Civ players agrees with them.

I think it show that, probably, as a natural effect, who dislike the game is leaving the section quietly, who think it may be better but now are not enjoying it very much or are enjoying it with some reserve, are still here and, of course, the typical raging people that " i rant because its funny" are too...

I'm for now enjoiying the game, playing it like a distraction between other games, 20\40 turns, not more... But i'm still here because of some hope in the future....

 

[bhavv]

Its nowhere near as enjoyable to me as Civ II, IV, SMAC, and the CTP series were.

 

[ahcos]

I think that this poll at least shows that people who dislike the game, can stop saying that the "majority" of Civ players agrees with them.

wrong.

alot of people already moved back to civ4 (or civ3, civ2..) and never look into the civ5 forum whatsoever, or only rarely. therefore, mostly people who actually like the game vote, because 4 weeks after release they're the majority on this sub-forum.

i somewhat agree that it's wrong to say "the majority dislikes the game", but due to the way statistics and polls function you barely can destilate a statement like yours out of them either. ofc, people who actually play the game like it, otherwise they wouldn't play. but you cannot take into account all the disappointed players who already stopped playing, for example. on such a vote, only hardcore-hates (like me) or hardcore-fans vote because they feel the strong need to do so and don't want to let their side down, or because they want the game to be improved and believe their voice will be heard

simply put, this poll shows nothing else that, from the people who actually voted on this poll, there are more people who like the game than dislike it. the poll is nowhere representative for any majority of players, hence your statement is wrong.


voted no, even though i had a pretty good money-fun ratio with the game (30 hours of more or less fun until i discovered that i simply dislike it, for ~40 €) compared to a visit at the cinema (~6€ for 2 hours of fun) - but for a game of the civ franchise, that's a horrible ratio.

 

[vandyr]

wrong.

alot of people already moved back to civ4 (or civ3, civ2..) and never look into the civ5 forum whatsoever, or only rarely. therefore, mostly people who actually like the game vote, because 4 weeks after release they're the majority on this sub-forum.

i somewhat agree that it's wrong to say "the majority dislikes the game", but due to the way statistics and polls function you barely can destilate a statement like yours out of them either. ofc, people who actually play the game like it, otherwise they wouldn't play. but you cannot take into account all the disappointed players who already stopped playing, for example. on such a vote, only hardcore-hates (like me) or hardcore-fans vote because they feel the strong need to do so and don't want to let their side down, or because they want the game to be improved and believe their voice will be heard

simply put, this poll shows nothing else that, from the people who actually voted on this poll, there are more people who like the game than dislike it. the poll is nowhere representative for any majority of players, hence your statement is wrong.


voted no, even though i had a pretty good money-fun ratio with the game (30 hours of more or less fun until i discovered that i simply dislike it, for ~40 €) compared to a visit at the cinema (~6€ for 2 hours of fun) - but for a game of the civ franchise, that's a horrible ratio.

You can twist it however you like, you'd still be wrong.


Civ 5 is fun, more fun, to me, than Civ 4 was at any time. As they say, to each his own.

 

[Jharii]

You can twist it however you like, you'd still be wrong.

Please remember...

It is very common to expound on various theories to prove your side of an argument, especially when statistics and data are presented to you that go to disprove your argument.

On the other hand, If that data supports your argument, it will be your first point of contention and all other theories your opposition would present would thus be "preposterous" and "outlandish."

It is a very basic debate tactic.

 

[vandyr]

Please remember...

It is very common to expound on various theories to prove your side of an argument, especially when statistics and data are presented to you that go to disprove your argument.

On the other hand, If that data supports your argument, it will be your first point of contention and all other theories your opposition would present would thus be "preposterous" and "outlandish."

It is a very basic debate tactic.

hydrooxopropylmethylcellulose is my argument. It cannot be refuted.

 

[Jharii]

hydrooxopropylmethylcellulose is my argument. It cannot be refuted.

Even with antihydrooxopropylmethylcellulose?