Why do people take it personally?

Nah there's no betrayal. We got sold an unfinished rushed game, which tend to magnify the negative views or those holding extremely negative views of which every Civ transition will have. There are still people in the Civ3 forums who refuse to pick up Civ4 for example. I find I can't really post posts that mentions the things that are broken and talk about the things working when your competition for attention is the chicken little clique.

And the sort of spurious dramatic claims also tend to detract, but it's a lot easier to fire off a reply and much to grabby to see posts from someone who is acting like that, as opposed to someone just making a normal comment.

I've had discussions with individuals about this and have been told to just take it to ideas and suggestions and the deeper forums in Civ5 where the play acting and the crying is less tolerated.

eviltypeguy said:

FACT: You feel that the game was misrepresented, but are unwilling to provide anything other than vague handwaving as your "proof".


FACT: You feel that the game was made into one for "console kiddies".

Are you really implying that everyone who likes Civ 5 is a "console kiddy"? If so, I've got news for you. I don't own a console, and haven't since the original Nintendo.

Click to expand...

For my part, its a FACT that MOST people are feeling like the game was misrepresented and feel like this franchise is SOOO dumbed down that its plainly unplayable, and in the BEST of cases boring. Those feelings might not fit the description of a scientific fact, but it easily can reach the stage of a common sens... which is IMO factual in the sens that it become tangible.

Those feeling are the direct cause of me and many others writing everywhere how much we hate this game, the reason for my signature and the reason why I try to convince friends and family that this game doesnt worth it.

My point is that it doesnt matter if those complaint are base on a subjective matter, the reality of it stand, most people dont like it and want it to be fixed.

You like it... fine... I have no problem with it.. really! I envy you, I would love to like it, or else I wouldnt waste my time posting here, but this game isnt enough and if it stay at this stage of development (and with 2K track records, it might) they will kill this franchise that I loved so much for good.

General accessibility is a new notion that firaxis has taken and it will continue to be so. Sid himself was the lead designer of CivRev and Civ 5 has been very successful from a bussiness's point of view so expect to see more 'console games for kids' in the future. Sorry, but remember that most of veteran civ fans were the 'console gamer kids' back when civ1 and civ2 came out.

Vordeo said:

If that's a shot at me, I'm posting at work.

Click to expand...

Shouldn't you be doing the work you are getting paid for; and being a productive employee, instead of browsing Civ Fanatics, in which the company is losing money because you are purposely not doing your job?

It's like the employees for the US Govt that spent all day looking at porn. And similar to the people at GM that smoke dope and drink on break, and then go back to work high and drunk making cars that families drive in. (not that you are like these people doing these things, but in general, people should work while at work).

Moderator Action: It's better to not make such insinuations to begin with, then you don't have to put a disclaimer. And it's pretty much trolling the classes of people singled out for the comparison

tom2050 said:

Shouldn't you be doing the work you are getting paid for; and being a productive employee, instead of browsing Civ Fanatics, in which the company is losing money because you are purposely not doing your job?

Click to expand...

Eh, I've not got that much to do today, and will finish all today's work in more than enough time. I'll also make progress on a number of side projects for the company which aren't necessary but will help in general. Also, multitasking.

Shouldn't you be off saving kittens from trees?

It's like the employees for the US Govt that spent all day looking at porn. And similar to the people at GM that smoke dope and drink on break, and then go back to work high and drunk making cars that families drive in.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure if you're serious here, but that is hilarious.

Grimberht said:

For my part, its a FACT that MOST people are feeling like the game was misrepresented and feel like this franchise is SOOO dumbed down that its plainly unplayable, and in the BEST of cases boring. Those feelings might not fit the description of a scientific fact, but it easily can reach the stage of a common sens... which is IMO factual in the sens that it become tangible.

Click to expand...

No, you believe "most" people are feeling that the game is unplayable or boring. I have yet to see any conclusive evidence that such a statement is true unless you define "most" people as the set of people that don't like the game on this forum as evidenced by their posting.

SuperSmash5 said:

I think the critical difference in what I'm saying and what some of you are understanding is that there's a difference between expecting something and feeling like you're entitled to it.

Click to expand...

I'm "entitled" to it because of the very large pile of money I gave them. The game, in it's current state, is not worth the price. It's that simple.

eviltypeguy said:

Indeed. I like the game, but nowhere have I ever said it's perfect. I think the AI at the moment is in need of some serious rewhacking. And I'm rather unimpressed by the crashes I've encountered during 62+ hours of game play (just checked my steam stats; yowzers).

But there's also a lot I like about the game, such as 1-UPT, graphics, music, sound, the interface, and other bits.

Click to expand...

You like the same stuff we all like too....but admit the AI is in need of some serious re-whacking.

1) First off, please define rewhacking to me...as I don't seem to understand this word (this should be easy for you). I assume you mean re-programmed.
2) If the AI needs re-programming that ruins the ENTIRE game, this is a HUGE FLAW. This is not debatable, this is fact (for anyone who believes this, not for those who do not) Since you take this opinion, you are admitting a major problem with the game - FACT!!!!
3) The game crashes - well sounds like another issue out of the box that should have been dealt with already.
4) Major balance issues - Horses, City States, Runaway AI, just off the top of my head. Yes some things can be patched, but not everything, even you must understand that.

I won't even open the debate about concepts added or removed b/c alot of that stuff is personal taste. However, in the podcast they basically admitted its a dumbed down AI.

Are we entitled to a great game - N0. Am I entitled to all the facts before I part with my money.... YES ( I know no one does this in business b/c were all schmucks who allow them to get away with stuff)

I also take issue with game review sites or magazines who gave such a high rating to an obviously flawed game. I know this isn't directly 2K's fault, but I assume some sort of deal to get these great reviews paper trails back to them on the books.

If 2K told me Civ V was going to be more like Civ Rev, I would have no interest in buying and I can tell you that a group of people here on these forums would share that sentiment.

I'm "entitled" to it because of the very large pile of money I gave them.

Click to expand...

Um, what? $50 isn't a very large pile of money. $50 isn't even a trip to the ATM. A very large pile of money is thousands up front and thousands on recurring maintenance for a piece of software that does less than what CiV does. Do that and you get direct support and attention, prompt patching to address specific issues you (and only you) find in the product, and a personal voice to direct development. You want all that for $50?

Maktaka said:

Um, what? $50 isn't a very large pile of money. $50 isn't even a trip to the ATM. A very large pile of money is thousands up front and thousands on recurring maintenance for a piece of software that does less than what CiV does. Do that and you get direct support and attention, prompt patching to address specific issues you (and only you) find in the product, and a personal voice to direct development. You want all that for $50?

Click to expand...

Sure he does, b/c he's not the only one paying that $50, thousands of others are too. And when you expect people to pay you for your efforts you have to be able to handle the criticism and own up to inferior products.

gaming is like painting, its subjective, but those opinions matter especially the ones who pay for a product which fails to live up to expectations. Unlike a painting you can see once completed, you cant' do this on a preorder of a video game, and you can't get a "honest" review b/c the market is controlled by the companies who design the game.

jpinard said:

This is it exactly. Sid did the same thing with "Railroads!" Sometimes I don't know what to think.

Click to expand...

Sid is a tool. I'm sorry, he's just a useless has-been who's been riding off the talent of others for years.

Read his E3 2010 speech at Gamespot. It's horrifying. All he talks about are removing any sense of depth or challenge from games so the player will feel successful. He talks about how if something in a game has 2/3's probability of winning, the player will expect to win, so what the game should do is SAY "2/3" but really be 100%. Where nothing in the game should be balanced or real, just phony window dressing to seduce the player with flashy lights and sounds and a completely false sense of accomplishment.

Did you ever wonder WHY the only games that Sid Meier has become seriously involved in creating lately are the "casual games", Civ Rev, Civ Facebook, Railroads, Pirates? If Sid had lead Civ V instead of Shafer, it would be a Farmville clone, or worse. Seriously. He is totally obsessed with the Wii set and openly disdains games like "his" Civ IV.

Civ as we knew it is dead. If there is ever a game that builds on Civ IV without breaking or ruining everything that made Civ great, it won't be from Firaxis, and it won't bear the Civ brand.

You guys keep thinking Firaxis is still a Blizzard when it's becoming more of a PopCap, or Armor Games. Simple, disposable games for a purely casual market.

That's the direction Sid wants to go in and it's his company.

SuperSmash5 said:

Why do people take it personally?

Click to expand...

Because they have an emotional attachment to a videogame.

Nothing wrong with that, of course (or is there? I hope not). I'm certainly attached to some games. Civ4 is just one of them.

PickledDictator said:

You like the same stuff we all like too....but admit the AI is in need of some serious re-whacking.

1) First off, please define rewhacking to me...as I don't seem to understand this word (this should be easy for you). I assume you mean re-programmed.

Click to expand...

It was slang, yes, but you have the gist of it.

2) If the AI needs re-programming that ruins the ENTIRE game, this is a HUGE FLAW. This is not debatable, this is fact (for anyone who believes this, not for those who do not) Since you take this opinion, you are admitting a major problem with the game - FACT!!!!

Click to expand...

I know *lots* of games that need better AI. So what? You act like this is some smoking gun. It's not. It's just a complaint.

3) The game crashes - well sounds like another issue out of the box that should have been dealt with already.

Click to expand...

Civ V is not the only game I own that crashes, and I'd also note it's happened a few times out the 62+ hours I've played -- so not exactly stopping from enjoying the game; just annoying.

As I said before, I don't think the game is perfect, and yes, like every software product I've ever used -- it has flaws. Again, it's not stopping me from enjoying the game; it's just annoying.

I played a duel against Napoleon tonight and was thrilled when I just managed to pull of a victory against his little high and mightiness. And as an example, during the battle against him, the AI actually pulled off some fairly smart moves that I wasn't expecting (and hadn't seen before). So yes, I believe the AI could use improvement, but it's not a total pansy.

4) Major balance issues - Horses, City States, Runaway AI, just off the top of my head. Yes some things can be patched, but not everything, even you must understand that.

Click to expand...

It's software. Software can always be changed.

If 2K told me Civ V was going to be more like Civ Rev, I would have no interest in buying and I can tell you that a group of people here on these forums would share that sentiment.

Click to expand...

Schafer said as much during multiple interviews. If you read one of my earlier posts, there's links.

I liked Civilization: Revolutions personally, although I think Civilization V is much better.

I think civ5 has to much the console feel to it
and like all the publishers they sell it to soon

and yes, I am disappointed with it, it should have been much better.

eviltypeguy said:

It was slang, yes, but you have the gist of it.



I know *lots* of games that need better AI. So what? You act like this is some smoking gun. It's not. It's just a complaint.

Fine, its only a complaint to you, I think to many it is THE smoking gun.



Civ V is not the only game I own that crashes, and I'd also note it's happened a few times out the 62+ hours I've played -- so not exactly stopping from enjoying the game; just annoying.

As I said before, I don't think the game is perfect, and yes, like every software product I've ever used -- it has flaws. Again, it's not stopping me from enjoying the game; it's just annoying.

How many just annoyings does it take before something is truly annoying?

I played a duel against Napoleon tonight and was thrilled when I just managed to pull of a victory against his little high and mightiness. And as an example, during the battle against him, the AI actually pulled off some fairly smart moves that I wasn't expecting (and hadn't seen before). So yes, I believe the AI could use improvement, but it's not a total pansy.

The AI has not yet done anything to me that I would find brilliant. On Deity it just builds more cities and units, but it still can't wage a real war properly. The hardest maps for me to win is anyone in which the AI gets a ridiculous peace treaty that includes another Civ's entire empire. The peace negotiation is also horribly imbalanced.



It's software. Software can always be changed.

True, but as we all know, most crap software is NOT changed, just tweaked somewhat. If all software were changed, we would have a ton more great games to choose from.

Schafer said as much during multiple interviews. If you read one of my earlier posts, there's links.

I did see these further back, kudo's to that Personally I missed these during the whole Civ V buildup so that is on me.

I liked Civilization: Revolutions personally, although I think Civilization V is much better.

Click to expand...

Entitled to what you like. I didn't like it, b/c I found it too dumbed down, but I understand WHY they released it, I am just disappointed that Civ V may actually be Civ Rev 2.

You're entitled to your opinion, that much I will respect. People like different things.

However, I think that you downplay the importance of this crappy AI, and its not justifiable just b/c some other **** game suffers from a similar problem. If that logic were sound, a poorly built bridge would be the industry standard for all engineers and that my friend leads us down the wrong path.

We need to unite as consumers to protect what we buy, let the industry from reviewers to developers know that inferior products will not be tolerated, and that we are not going to pay 60 beans just to beta test problems that should never have been there in the first place.

Now I am going to check out those links b/c I want to hear Mr. Shaefer

sorry for the bold, forgot how to quote properly

to answer the OP, it's mainly because I love the series and I've been looking forward to this launch all year.

Straight-up disappointment really, and not because it's a bad game (it's actually not, at least with a few of the right mods I'm still having some fun with it), but it's a sloppy, buggy, unfinished, untested mess of a game, which is insulting.

eviltypeguy said:

It was slang, yes, but you have the gist of it.



I know *lots* of games that need better AI. So what? You act like this is some smoking gun. It's not. It's just a complaint.



Civ V is not the only game I own that crashes, and I'd also note it's happened a few times out the 62+ hours I've played -- so not exactly stopping from enjoying the game; just annoying.

As I said before, I don't think the game is perfect, and yes, like every software product I've ever used -- it has flaws. Again, it's not stopping me from enjoying the game; it's just annoying.

I played a duel against Napoleon tonight and was thrilled when I just managed to pull of a victory against his little high and mightiness. And as an example, during the battle against him, the AI actually pulled off some fairly smart moves that I wasn't expecting (and hadn't seen before). So yes, I believe the AI could use improvement, but it's not a total pansy.



It's software. Software can always be changed.



Schafer said as much during multiple interviews. If you read one of my earlier posts, there's links.

I liked Civilization: Revolutions personally, although I think Civilization V is much better.

Click to expand...

1) I like how you dish Thormodr and advise him to provide constructive criticism... next time you gonna do something like that it's good to have a look at your target's post history.

2) So basically your argument to PickledDictator's points 1-3 is "Others do it to"... Yeah that's a really solid case your building there. So if everything tastes like crap then crap must be ok-ish / acceptable / mildly annoying.

Just so you know those OTHER games that have really bad AI and suffer from bugs or crashes or both... yeah you guessed it... they're horrible games too.

3) Next time you want to use the word example, better follow it up with actual description of what happened and not just say "it pulled off some fairly smart moves". If you look through the forum you 'll find plenty of real examples of why the AI is useless, with screenshots, descriptions, even videos.

4) Is that your definition of constructive replies?

So you have any recent examples of games that had their code majorly overhauled post release? Civ V complainers have identified several issues with core mechanics - concepts stuff that don't get sorted by simply patches.

Do you consider major rebalancing something as easy as countering an argument with "Software can change"?

Long-time civ fans feel an attachment to the series because it is a completely immersive experience full of soul and struggle. It has a feeling that is different than any other game out there. When people ask me if I play video games, I say "No, I play Civilization." It has distinction, a spirit that is unique. It captures your imagination.

While I'm enjoying CiV as it stands, it's not in the same league as versions 1-4. It doesn't have the grandeur, the feeling of empire-building. At the moment I'm simply trying to see how many different ways I can win on Immortal, and it's only getting easier, as once you figure out the AI there's little challenge. It's just expand-click-expand-click-expand-click until a screen says "yeah, you win."

As a fan of the game for 20 years, it does earn a special place in your heart - like an old friend, a favourite movie or book, or comfort food. Do I take this version of CiV persionally? No, but I can understand why many do.

I like some of the new ideas - city states, 1upt - but in general they didn't put it all together successfully, tied together with an AI that can't think and doesn't try to win. I mean, has anybody seen the AI build a spaceship yet? I haven't. Ditto for the UN or a cultural win. If I survive the initial stages, it's simply a matter of time until I win. Sometimes a loooong time. I want an opponent that tries to take me down.

I'm not going to dump on the designers or the companies, but after two decades, and the heights that BtS took us too, CiV just doesn't have what it takes to inspire any passion. Again, while I am enjoying it, I put it more along the lines of Sid's other games, like Railroad and Colonization ... Interesting for a while, but one-dimensional and lacking in depth.

I can only hope the next version knocks it out of the park.

CultureManiac said:

after two decades, and the heights that BtS took us too, CiV just doesn't have what it takes to inspire any passion. Again, while I am enjoying it, I put it more along the lines of Sid's other games, like Railroad and Colonization ... Interesting for a while, but one-dimensional and lacking in depth.

I can only hope the next version knocks it out of the park.

Click to expand...

I think you have eloquently hit the nail on the head.
What I miss most is that 'one more turn' feel to the game. There is no addiction, just some gloss which is wearing far too quickly for a Civ series game

I think there have been mentioned 2 very reasonable explanations as to why people are so upset.

• The game was released unfinished, thus they, the customers, have payed good money for a product that is, in its current state, not worth that money.
  Since they payed for the product, they're entitled to complaints. Those complaints may be a bit more vocal than if they bought for example a new piece of dissatisfactory hardware, because they could give that back and get a refund, which seems to be impossible with software.
• Players, especially those that grew up with Civ and have played since cIvilization, feel emotionally attached to the name Civilization and what it represents and don't find it in ciVilization - for various reasons, most prominent amongst which seems to be the "streamlining."
• (belongs to the second point really)Players expected a better product because they can't see while standards should be lowered from cIVilization to ciVilization.

Somewhere someone argued in favour of the "streamlining" aka "dumbing down" with a comparison between Mahler and Peter Glass - that's spot on:

If you're a fan of Mahler and his complex compositions you'd probably be utterly shocked if he composed something like Glass (minimalistic music) (and vice versa). Just like that, many fans of the earlier civs are now pissed that complexity has been taken out of a game. They expected this complexity, deepness etc. pp. because it's been composed by Mahler, not Glass ... sorry, been published as Civilization, not Civilization Revolutions or Panzer Generalization or something.