Civilization 5 Rants Thread

I have been playing Civs for over 20 years now, starting with #1 on Atari. So, overcome with nostalgia and after having had a good month I finally decided to download Civ V on Steam. Initially I thought there was something wrong with me head, but thanks to this thread I can see now that I'm quite sane thinking: "What a waste of £30 odd quid" and "What a constipation to wait 5 years for this turd"...

I can only echo most of the sentiments posted here, to sum up: -off the top of my head- I don't like: :mad:
1. claustrophobic gameplay which does not make me feel like a Grand Ruler controlling a vast Empire and Massive Armies, lack of immersion and intrigue
2. sprawling cash-cow saint city-states (hate 'em and wish I was one) and puppet fail
3. demented schizophrenic diplomacy
4. no vassals, no spies, no sabotage
5. no religion or political doctrine influence
6. indestructible capitals
7. dumbed-down trade and no international trade routes
8. loopy and inverted global happiness
9. 1UPT and AI combat decisions (-face palm- archers shooting, say 20km?!)
10. 1GPT road tax
11. the look, feel and functionality of the interface
12. resource-hogging and buggy graphics
13. £££ for poor quality DLC
14. policies mechanics (good concept but half-baked execution)
15. some other horrible new rules / design decisions limiting options or plain defying logic

To be fair, -scratch scratch- I like: :D
1. hexes (octagons please in Civ VI)
2. ranged bombardment (awkward but can and has been modded in Civ IV)

The Stacks 'o Doom replaced by the Carpet 'o Doom. Yay!

Like someone brilliantly observed in a post above, the game plays like a board game, and not that good too. I have to add that I still own Civ The Board Game (actual real cardboard) and it is less tedious and more fun to play than this computer iteration.

So yes, I think I shall go back to the excitement of Civ IV BTS Revolutions for now. What really bogs my mind is that Firaxis/2K/WhoeverIsCurrentlyOnTop and Civ franchise has such an excellent, outspoken and vibrant community as a resource to make the game really outstanding, especially as nowadays there's really nothing to compare it to. Instead, it seems to me that Civ V has been designed by The Marketing Department and coasts on the phenomenon of it's predecessors. Such a shame to see it go that way. I hope the excellent modding community will breathe some life into it after a couple of years and will keep it going, for me it is time to adapt and move on with the times: Call Of Duty 4, bring it on!

Welcome to the club, man. I share all your impressions and more.

Yet, stupid me, I am still trying hard to like it...:mischief: I guess the virus runs deep in me. This iteration put me in so much trouble, even inside this community, yet here I am, still trying to find the "hidden treasure"... helping some modders here and there... trying... trying...

Sometimes I think I see some light, but I wonder if it is only wishful thinking... sometimes the AI seems "sane"... sometimes 1UPT seems interesting... sometimes policies seem civic-like... sometimes I feel like I am really "strategizing"...

Sometimes I wish it didn't happen.
 
Yet, stupid me, I am still trying hard to like it...

Oh, it's easy to like it. You just have to accept that it is just a sub-par wargame with a minimal part of socalled "economics".

Actually, the past weeks I had it running most of the day while I was writing some texts and now and then I fought a little war. As the AI is so braindead, you can easily do it when you need some minutes off for amusement.

Actually, I have come to the conclusion that not only the SoD system of Civ4 was superior, but the whole AI of Civ4 was much better than this travesty.
 
Actually, I have come to the conclusion that not only the SoD system of Civ4 was superior, but the whole AI of Civ4 was much better than this travesty.

By which you mean the fan-patched AI of BtS (yes, Warlords and BtS both incorporated elements of a fan mod to improve the AI). Play some Vanilla Civ IV, and you're not going to find that competent an AI.

I wouldn't mind Civ 4's SoD if we can incorporate Civ 5's units don't die in one turn.
 
sometimes the AI seems "sane"... sometimes 1UPT seems interesting... sometimes policies seem civic-like... sometimes I feel like I am really "strategizing"...
Sometimes I wish it didn't happen.

1UPT completely deranges the already demented AI and on smallish/snaky less-landmassy maps (I like naval combat, besides Earth is +75% water) ... Well, get the picture :eek:
I can only play it with Legions mod set to 3UPT max and archer units 1 bombard range. It "kinda" works better than either SoD or CoD.
Policies can be modded (I think) so that there's only a limited number enacted/deacted at any one time, the number increases with each era and circumstances.

But then there are so many other things broken/missing... Lemme think - fun, emotions, finesse, sense of gratification and fulfilment, mental exercise, depth, scope... all gone now.

Again, with every incremental release, ThePowersThatBe take a huge leap backward. WHY OH WHY?!? The game will never be "mainstream" no matter what Marketing says and how much they stupefy (read: streamline) - it is a niche game by definition. The only way to expand user base is to make it soo freakin' good that it will expand the niche. <sarcasm>Or go Facebook.</sarcasm>

Seems to me this iteration has been written by the AI that plays it. :blush: But hope's not lost as long as there are modders out there.
 
Quality of Civ4's AI is besides the point imo. Civ4 was robust enough as a game that it could tolerate poor AI, it just meant that high-level play had to be more asymetric. The problem isn't that Civ5 AI is poor, the problem is that Civ5 desperately needs decent AI: 1upt, nonfatal combat, ranged attacks and extreme handicaps being a bigger problem (SoDs can be annoying, CoDs can kill the game) all raise the bar.

AI tactics are unimpressive in both games. Not a problem in Civ4: tactics are rewarding enough if you bother to explore them, but you can get quite far focusing entirely on material (overall strategy and economy). In Civ5, the AI's tactical incompetence is crippling and allows flawless player victories with far inferior material.

To add insult to injury, I don't see any more opportunity for tactical brilliancies in Civ5's combat system: most of the advantage over the AI comes from avoiding obvious pitfalls, focus is on micromanagement rather than inspiration. Whatever additional depth it may have isn't worth the hassle and more than offset by having more conspicuously incompetent competitors.
 
By which you mean the fan-patched AI of BtS (yes, Warlords and BtS both incorporated elements of a fan mod to improve the AI). Play some Vanilla Civ IV, and you're not going to find that competent an AI.

I wouldn't mind Civ 4's SoD if we can incorporate Civ 5's units don't die in one turn.

Well, even in Civ4 vanilla I cannot remember the AI to send settlers and workers into the warzone.
Taking into consideration that you don't have to connect resources any longer, the AI's city placement sometimes is highly questionable, to say the least.

And finally: Firaxis is the very company which released Civ4, no?
It wouldn't have been a total surprise if they would have made use of the better AI algorithms of the previous game.
But no, since somebody didn't like the success of Civ4, they had to re-invent the wheel in each and every aspect - just look at the shortcuts (facepalm).
 
Actually, the Vanilla Civ 4 AI often left workers in the borders a war zone. The AI's city placement was also highly questionable.

The problem was not that somebody disliked the success of Civ 4; the problem was that Civ 4 was so successful.

If Civ 5 had been Civ 4 with updated graphics, this thread would have been full of people complaining that Civ 5 is Civ 4 with updated graphics, but that is essentially what the game would have been if they didn't decide to reinvent the wheel.

There are complaints to be made about Civ 5; just be careful they aren't being made by idealizing past versions of the game.
 
The problem isn't reinventing the wheel, the problem is making it square. If they want streamlined city/citizen management, fine. They could have taken inspiration from games like Master of Magic: Terrain determined the food cap and percentage bonuses for commerce and production, all citizens are essentially specialists with no tiles worked.
Very good at reducing tedious micromanagement, without making cities samey and trivialising big-picture decisions.

Streamlining is a good thing in strategy games when it reduces effort without reducing depth. Civ5 did the opposite, greatly increasing the 'clicks : meaningful decisions' rate. This is only desirable if the aim is to create a time waster that won't make the audience feel stupid even if they are.
 
Am I the only one who finds the idea of streamlining a TBS a bit odd? Kind of like taking a FPS, but removing all those pesky AI enemies....
 
Am I the only one who finds the idea of streamlining a TBS a bit odd? Kind of like taking a FPS, but removing all those pesky AI enemies....

FPS games are meant to be played versus human players.

TBS, on the other hand, need an AI that isn't plain stupid, as multiplayer here is not the main focus (because of the genre handicap of being turn based). Don't get me wrong, a functional multiplayer is key to a game's longevity, I'm just trying to say it's harder to achieve one than it is for other genres like FPS, for example.

As for streamlining, I dislike it. It removes choices from the player, which is certainly not good. I for one deeply enjoyed that in Civ4 one could, for example, completely ignore Archery, Horseback Riding or Rifling, no point in researching those techs if I was alone, for example.
 
Actually, TBS games may need an AI that is plain stupid. Players are uneducated, lazy and feel entitled to win; good AI and elegant mechanics would just make them cry OMFG CHEATZ!

Modern game design = replacing depth and challenge with an illusion of depth and challenge; so much easier to adjust to the taste of the average gamer.
 
I want Civ V to be good, I paid $80 for it on release. It looks nice and promises much but isn't delivering....

And there will probably be no expansion pack to improve things as they chose DLC crap instead!!!!

And game review sites, magazines and shows gave it always +80%!!! Often +90%!!!!!!

And I'm looking forward to Civ VI!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
I want Civ V to be good, I paid $80 for it on release. It looks nice and promises much but isn't delivering....

And there will probably be no expansion pack to improve things as they chose DLC crap instead!!!!

And game review sites, magazines and shows gave it always +80%!!! Often +90%!!!!!!

And I'm looking forward to Civ VI!!!!!!!!!!!!

I don't necessarily think faith is a bad think, but in your case, I believe you're being too much faithful and those assumptions you're making without a considerable amount of evidence to support them might just continue to disappoint you like they did in Civ5.
 
I don't necessarily think faith is a bad think, but in your case, I believe you're being too much faithful and those assumptions you're making without a considerable amount of evidence to support them might just continue to disappoint you like they did in Civ5.

I'm one of the "older gamers", started with Civilization on the Amiga 500 and have never looked back, until now. Even played Civilization 2 on the Playstation when I didn't have a proper computer, it was hilarious having half the map unoccupied due to the map city limit reached.

The series has a lot of what I'll call positive capital, kinda like friendship capital when a friend does something really crappy to you, you have that good relationship to cover it whereas if they weren't a friend you would just bugger them off.

If Civ V was released under the title "Emperization", I wouldn't buy Emperization 2. I won't buy Civ VI on release but I will have the money for it stashed away if the players (not reviewers, BIG difference) say its good.

But to further my rant.....

How the heck did Civ V get such hugely glowing reviews? That Tom Chick guy was the only one I know of to say "It looks great but I something isn't completely right". Everyone else was "Whooo! The Civilization series has done it again! Party!".
 
How the heck did Civ V get such hugely glowing reviews? That Tom Chick guy was the only one I know of to say "It looks great but I something isn't completely right". Everyone else was "Whooo! The Civilization series has done it again! Party!".

Yes, that question has me wondering too... I have heard the rumors regarding the reputation of such review sites, but I still resist to believe they can be true... I wonder if they are.
 
Well, by biggest problem is actualy quite trivial, and it's something I posted about on day one (or very soon thereafter) -- but since this thread has been recently ressurrected, I will say it again --

I want to see the tech I am researching / turns to complete from within the city screen. Escaping out whilst manipulating citizens / specialists is not cool. And I know I'm not the only one who can't do all the math in my head while trying to MM my cities, especialy later in the game with rising costs/more cities etc.
 
If Civ V was released under the title "Emperization", I wouldn't buy Emperization 2. I won't buy Civ VI on release but I will have the money for it stashed away if the players (not reviewers, BIG difference) say its good.

Don't rely too much on player reviews either. The marketing departments are still one step ahead of you. Writing fake player reviews is common in the industry. You can hire whole companies who try to raise (or lower, if one wants to badmouth a competitor) a game's review score at popular customer review sites, or in forums.

Play the demo, if there is one. If you consider reviews, I'd suggest staying with those of people you know, or popular figures of a game's fanbase.

Yes, that question has me wondering too... I have heard the rumors regarding the reputation of such review sites, but I still resist to believe they can be true... I wonder if they are.

The publishers pull lots of strings to secure good ratings. Reviewing sites or magazines don't have to succumb to them, but it's very hard to resist - and it's actually economically less viable to write truthful critical reviews.

There was a German review site a couple of years ago that was very candid about the way publishers tried to influence them. Once they even made a list. Items on that list ranged from the not-so-problematic sending of PR material or the "exclusive invitation" to preview a game, to more shady methods such as pre-written reviews (by the marketing department) sent together with the game, to soft pressure (phone calls demanding to know the game's rating before it's being published, subtle hints about the importance of the game's success for further advertising campaigns, hints about how many jobs depend on this game's success - "Do you really want to be responsible that all these people lose their jobs?"), to open threats (canceling of advertising campaigns), to secret deals with the chief editor (who then overrules negative reviews and "adjusts" the game's rating), to actual secret contracts (see below), to having the publisher's legal department attack the reviewer (there was one instance where publisher wanted to censor a magazine's bad review of one of its games, and threatened to sue for damage compensation if the magazine went into print uncensored).

Once they had an interview with an ex-marketing guy which was very revealing. They also published a contract in which a publisher and a reviews magazine declared to support each other in the marketing campaign for a new game. The magazine received a substantial sum of money, which of course was not paid directly for a good rating, but for the magazine's work in creating advertisements and raising awareness for the game. The original offer from the publisher even included to pay the magazine 2 Euro per sold copy of the game, but only if a minimum of sales was reached, with a further incentive to pay up to 5 Euro per game if the game sold really well.

All this has been known for years, it just doesn't change anything. People apparently prefer to run with the hype, and even if they have been burned, they will still run with the next hype if the marketing tells them that the developers have "learned" and "reacted" to any fan criticism and "improved" the game. The simple method of saying "The fans (didn't) want that, we listened to them" is so ludicrously successful that it belongs to the main strategies of every marketing department by now (see 2K Elizabeth's attempt of justifying the move to Steam DRM by saying "The fans demanded that"; she never answered the question where these "fan demands" actually happened.)

2K / Take2 will of course have tried to influence the ratings, doing that is in the job description of every marketing department in the industry. We just don't know how subtle or overt the respective attempts were.
 
Play the demo, if there is one.
Wish I had done so. But I wasn't about to go upgrade my system just to play a demo. Having sunk the money in to a new system, buying the game was the least of my expense. I am quite happy with the performance of my new computer, btw. That is the silver lining for me.

Another silver lining is that while my son plays Call of Duty or Starfcraft II on the new computer, the old computer is free for me to play Civ 4 all I want! Still works great. :lol:
 
I want to see the tech I am researching / turns to complete from within the city screen. Escaping out whilst manipulating citizens / specialists is not cool. And I know I'm not the only one who can't do all the math in my head while trying to MM my cities, especialy later in the game with rising costs/more cities etc.

The VEM mod (formerly Thal's Balance Mod) fixes this by making the bar at the top show number of turns instead total output. Along with a huge number of other improvements.

Anyway since this is the rant thread:
:mad: WHY IS IT SO DAMN SLOW BETWEEN TURNS? :mad:
 
Top Bottom