Things I don't like of Civilization V

Status
Not open for further replies.
I see here half of the people are more concerned about the communication style rather than the actual content.
You've given us little alternative. A post as massive as yours does not spark conversation or meaningful debate, by sheer virtue of its size. Few people are going to want to devote the time to analyze and respond to every detail in something that long. Merciorum's curt reply was my exact reaction.

Mostly, though, the tepid reaction is probably because every problem you mention has been discussed at great length in other topics. Again, I suggest you look around at other threads. You'll find plenty of opportunities to share your critical sentiments in a more focused context.
 
Redwing,yes that is infuriating. I was playing a game recently and had Morocco close to me and acting suspiciously around my borders. I went to the advisor screen (with not a lot of expectation or confidence), and was duly informed of the might of three other nations but absolutely no information regarding Morocco. I must say I really enjoy this game wholeheartedly but the advisors could definitely be given a massive overhaul!:)
 
I still remember, despite I haven't been playing Civ2 for years,that the advisors/council was made by real life actors that actually performed short scene to tell the player what was going on, it was really fun to see them while there was anarchy....they were pretty much useless right now, but they were more interesting to see.

Watch it yourself:

Anarchy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqPC08cPGJw

Ancients era animations:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlTIk80uBPg

Medieval:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFQDeYXq_iw

Modern:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzHOhIdTpw0

Damn that was fun :D
 
The OP is like an existential nightmare, a hellish merger of Mean Girls, Valley Girl and Civ 5.

Although I did get a good laugh out of "psychology degree"

"Like OHH MYYYY FRIGGGGIN GAWWWWWWWWD"
 
[#]
What's exactly the purpose of barbarians?,to frustrate a player?,to keep him awake?,they're just an annoyance, they're either too annoying or non-existent if you just disable them,they couldn't balance them to be reasonably annoying.
[/#]

Barbarians have a multitude of uses... to keep people from expanding too quickly, a source of early coin (I actively hunt the camps down), to make you protect civilians/trade routes, a source of culture (via Honor or being Aztecs), a small XP boost without having to DoW anyone, a source of CS influence, etc...


[#]
Set up a game...must have another civilization.....WHY? why I can't play alone in world so I am free to build my own civilization without the hassle of dealing with some ******ed opponent?
Explain me why why why why?,why I can't start a game with me as the only player??
[/#]

Play Hotseat with two human opponents and no AI. Resign with one of the human opponents and select "Just One More Turn" to keep playing despite having won with the other. Should be able to freely build an empire dealing only with CS/Barbarians (Haven't actually tried this, I tend to like playing both empires...)
 
Advisers and other in-game help and pop-ups have always been more or less useless in Civ games. Turn off the ones you can and ignore the rest, and half your complaints vanish.

The rest are pretty nit-picky. If you look at the big picture of game development, a new release in a franchise is rarely earth shattering. Generally there are a few new features and systems, while the core game remains the same. That's exactly what we got with Civ 5.

I think if you played Civ 4 (I'm pretty sure you didn't) you would have a better perspective on where the studio put their resources. You can't have everything in a game; you have to choose where to innovate. From Civ 4 to 5 there were some huge changes, particularly the hex tiles and revamped combat system. That alone has improved my enjoyment of the game a lot. I used to find warring tedious, but it now seems more strategic and fun, with actual ranged attacks and such.

But that's just the tip of the iceberg. They revamped and improved a ton of stuff from the last version. You have to take the bad with the good, and hope that the balance is for the better. I think things like your Settler not carrying religion or not being able to remove mountains are pretty minor compared to the completely overhauled systems for trade, economy, combat, religion, etc.

So terraforming didn't make it in this version. Civ isn't a reality simulator, and game studios have limited resources. Maybe in the next version they'll decide to commit more resources to altering the map. But then there will be something else to complain about....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom