My totally unbiased and definitely not paid for by 2k review
- Thread starter Afforess
- Start date
r_rolo1
King of myself
The bolded sentence is quite discussable in terms of this latest interaction, with all the hype about streamlining and such. They really gone with the axe in a lot of stuff indeed , and if the lack of content was not a issue before, IMHO it is a defendable position that they axed a little too much/ stuff that didn't needed axing. And that is clearly a point that deserves to be in a review, especailly when the axed stuff radically shifts the game balance in comparison with previous versions.
I do understand why you decided to not open that can of worms, but this excuse is not the best one you could get
While I agree with Afforess that a lack/reduction of content alone is not reason to criticize a game (chess is very challenging and has far fewer aspects than Civ), I also agree with you that they have gone to far with Civ5.The bolded sentence is quite discussable in terms of this latest interaction, with all the hype about streamlining and such. They really gone with the axe in a lot of stuff indeed , and if the lack of content was not a issue before, IMHO it is a defendable position that they axed a little too much/ stuff that didn't needed axing. And that is clearly a point that deserves to be in a review, especailly when the axed stuff radically shifts the game balance in comparison with previous versions.
I do understand why you decided to not open that can of worms, but this excuse is not the best one you could get
But more importantly, the whole "streamlining" PR is just a way to distract us from the fact that they didn't put a whole lot of effort into many important aspects that make/made Civ great. It's a charade, because why say that they want the player to focus on the thing at hand, hence the notifications on the side, but they still give you a pop-up when you invent a tech. Now, instead of selecting a tech directly, you have to deal with the issue twice. Same with the production UI.
As with chess, "streamlined" does not have to mean "simple" or "dumbed down", but in the case of Civ5, it does (see other discussion thread).
JLoZeppeli
Prince
- Joined
- May 11, 2009
- Messages
- 598
Afforess, i was thinking about a way to add and correct some of the issue of this game, but don't know if is it even possible...
Like adding the ability to Great Generals (making them more simple to obtain of course) to create an army stacking like CCTP. a limited stacking of course, but i think it is worth of, because i can see anymore the hex filled of troops... It is not Panzer General scale...
And moving is so boring that makes me sick... Also the problem about neutral units not stacking...
What do you think, it is possible to make a mod?
Like adding the ability to Great Generals (making them more simple to obtain of course) to create an army stacking like CCTP. a limited stacking of course, but i think it is worth of, because i can see anymore the hex filled of troops... It is not Panzer General scale...
And moving is so boring that makes me sick... Also the problem about neutral units not stacking...
What do you think, it is possible to make a mod?
I agree.
Personally - I think 'streamlining' is a really bane to gaming (actually, I think for software generally). I'm not pro-bloat, of course, but working in business software development --- what I've found over the last 10 years is that EVERYONE wants their product more "streamlined".... the problem is - when it comes to "streamlining" - it always becomes 'take out what the OTHER person likes' circular firing squads.
When it comes to gaming, I prefer a game "streamlines" by making certain aspects optional... I realize that means more AI coding time, but I'd rather wait and not lose things.
When it comes to massive strategy games - I especially hate 'streamlining' because it's almost always code for "we want to poach more casual gamers who think you people that like complexity are crazy".
Big warning lights always flash in my head when a beloved titles touts streamlining in its next iteration... but there simply aren't a lot of titles, relative to FPS/RPG/et al, for us strategy gamers... so what are you gonna do?
Game publishers are able to take a lot of us strategy gamers for granted because the options are so limited -- they just push the streamlining border further and further.
Afforess
The White Wizard
I love you Ender!
Ender's Game is a phenomenal book. Despite it being about Ender, Peter was my favorite character.
The bolded sentence is quite discussable in terms of this latest interaction, with all the hype about streamlining and such. They really gone with the axe in a lot of stuff indeed , and if the lack of content was not a issue before, IMHO it is a defendable position that they axed a little too much/ stuff that didn't needed axing. And that is clearly a point that deserves to be in a review, especailly when the axed stuff radically shifts the game balance in comparison with previous versions.
I do understand why you decided to not open that can of worms, but this excuse is not the best one you could get
Again, while I know that previous iterations of Civ played a large role in creating Civ5, I wanted to review Civilization 5 on it's own merits, and not judge it against past titles. I did in fact mention features that I felt would have better suited the happiness feature (emigration/revolutions), so you can't claim I didn't ignore missing content.
Streamlining doesn't have to be "dumbing down". I'm not sure I would agree that civilization 5 is even dumbed down at all. The main problems have to do with an atrocious AI, and flawed implementations of features. I rather like the new popup system on the sidebar. I'd rather have 1 extra click, then have it take my camera hostage, like in Civ4. I even gave Firaxis points for this in the review.
I don't think you can argue that anything other than happiness has been streamlined in Civ5. Diplomacy, War, and Cities are more involved, if anything.
Not without the source code.
I agree - but again, I don't think streamlining is the chief problem in Civ5.
Lord Parkin
aka emperor
Nice review, I agree with most of it. A couple of minor disagreements off the top of my head:
- City States are far too OVERpowered. The benefits that they provide you are quite literally equivalent to what multiple AI nations could ever provide you in a lot of cases, and coming from just a single city. The small gold cost of allying with them relative to the massive empire-wide benefits (food and culture) is way out of proportion. If you think they're worthless and destroy them to replace them with your own cities, I think you're doing it wrong.
- I very much dislike the fickle AI. It will found cities on your borders then get hostile at you for settling too close to them. It will send scouting units into your territory and complain about your military buildup near their borders (even though you are nowhere near their borders). It will ask for you to help them in a war and then get pissed off at you for warmongering. It will often immediately turn hostile as soon as said war finishes and suicidally attempt to backstab you (ensuring its own demise). See here for an example.
- I dislike how Steam has been forced on everyone wanting to play Civ5 (it should be a choice), but it seems that's a tired argument by now.
- City States are far too OVERpowered. The benefits that they provide you are quite literally equivalent to what multiple AI nations could ever provide you in a lot of cases, and coming from just a single city. The small gold cost of allying with them relative to the massive empire-wide benefits (food and culture) is way out of proportion. If you think they're worthless and destroy them to replace them with your own cities, I think you're doing it wrong.
- I very much dislike the fickle AI. It will found cities on your borders then get hostile at you for settling too close to them. It will send scouting units into your territory and complain about your military buildup near their borders (even though you are nowhere near their borders). It will ask for you to help them in a war and then get pissed off at you for warmongering. It will often immediately turn hostile as soon as said war finishes and suicidally attempt to backstab you (ensuring its own demise). See here for an example.
- I dislike how Steam has been forced on everyone wanting to play Civ5 (it should be a choice), but it seems that's a tired argument by now.
Stoney the I
Prince
I for one cant believe i just read all 9 pages! most of my thoughts have been put in this so ill just end up saying its a great review and please, pretty please, with sugar on top: mod, patch, fix everything as i wanna love this game as much as all of you 
That is EXACTLY what I said.
I also pointed out that chess is very streamlined and not dumb at all. But better yet, it hardly gets more streamlined than Go, which is still a very challenging and fun game.
Oh, sorry then, I guess I have misjudged you. To me it is so obvious that I don't even know how to respond by this other than to recommend reading this thread (which I assumed you had).
It's not the AI, it's the limit of good choices that actually requires some deeper though processes. But as I said, one (good) thread about whether or not Civ5 is dumbed down is enough, I reckon.
Don't get me wrong, I like the popup system as well. But either you streamline something or not. What Civ5 does is half-baked; either give me the popup and let me chose the next tech right away or don't give it to me and I can enjoy the information about the great tech I just researched on my own time.
And why not? I don't understand (maybe it's because I'm German) and a little stupid, but what is streamlining other than to cut away the meat that you don't think is necessary anymore? And isn't that exactly what they did with culture, espionage and tons of other stuff (see other threads)?
Oh, when I came to this part of your reply, I just realized that you might be kidding and being sarcastic. You are joking, right? Please tell me you are!
...because Diplomacy and Cities are more boring than ever imo and now, when I see the enemy approaching with all his forces that occupy most of the tiles, I just shrug and slaughter them one by one. What is "involved" there? Again, you might argue that it is due to the horrible AI, but I don't think it is and refer you to this thread, which I agree with and will not add anything about this here.
I firmly believe mods can make this game a whole lot better, but at the moment I don't see this game getting anywhere near the point where I would want to cope with the looong waits between turns. But I hope I'm wrong.
First off, Congratulations. I appriciate your effort in this. Aldo i agree with alot you say, i have some issue's with it also.
They won't harm your city, they are NOT a real treath anymore and they give you , as a player, too much bonusses, EXP for your unit(s) and a fixed bag of gold. Each time. Ow, and if you are not stupid; you never Loose ONE single unit to them.
Just a few side notes, from someone who is used to player on higher difficulty with other CIV's; but by no means a 'specialist".
Some may think it's more interesting, i think it makes things easier and simpler, in any case not better.
Do you really think so ? I see them them as easy to get cash, with no losses, sort of "jack-pots".
They won't harm your city, they are NOT a real treath anymore and they give you , as a player, too much bonusses, EXP for your unit(s) and a fixed bag of gold. Each time. Ow, and if you are not stupid; you never Loose ONE single unit to them.
It could be refreshing, only if the AI player knew how to use it to his advantage; as a good player does. It don't and therefor i don't give FireAxis points for that.
Just a few side notes, from someone who is used to player on higher difficulty with other CIV's; but by no means a 'specialist".
Guardian_PL
Emperor
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2006
- Messages
- 1,231
Jediron, StonetheI and Markstar - all good posts here
@StonetheI
Well done for reading whole thread, it's a rarity nowadays, and I've liked your short and simple reply
@Markstar
kudos for bringing other interesting threads to this discussion - should help with providing more info for the readers.
@Jediron
I completely agree with you about the barbarians. I was like I could have no defence in my city, and still use my worker while it was on the opposite side of town from the barb unit. Yes, you can't pillage the improvement that's under construction, so in the end I had every tile around the city improved to 1 turn to completion, and by then that "terrible" and "menacing" Brute will surely be dead (because that's what you're getting, Brutes, Archers, occasional Spearmen, even on Deity some more advanced barb units are showing only when the encampment has been left untouched for hundres of turns), unless it wanders off. Yeah, menace my behind
@StonetheI
Well done for reading whole thread, it's a rarity nowadays, and I've liked your short and simple reply
@Markstar
kudos for bringing other interesting threads to this discussion - should help with providing more info for the readers.
@Jediron
I completely agree with you about the barbarians. I was like
I could have no defence in my city, and still use my worker while it was on the opposite side of town from the barb unit. Yes, you can't pillage the improvement that's under construction, so in the end I had every tile around the city improved to 1 turn to completion, and by then that "terrible" and "menacing" Brute will surely be dead (because that's what you're getting, Brutes, Archers, occasional Spearmen, even on Deity some more advanced barb units are showing only when the encampment has been left untouched for hundres of turns), unless it wanders off. Yeah, menace my behind
r_rolo1
King of myself
I haven't claimed that you ignored missing content. I just said that you used a poor excuse for ignoring to talk about some of the things that were in previous versions and are not here
I clearly understand that you tried to make a civ V review like if it was a brand new game completely unrelated with anything done before , and in that aspect you are right, civ V is a decent game ... nothing earth shattering, but surely better that similar stuff made in the last years ( like Spore ... nice idea, complete lack of depth in implementation ). And given that the rest of reviews in general always brought the heritage of previous games to the boot ( either to try to prop it or to bring it down ), it is a refreshing and clearly welcome read...
But the fact is that this is civilization V and that were 4 civilization games before this one, 2 made by this same company ... and the devs clearly said that this was something that was suposed to be on the shoulders of giants ( previous versions of civ , PG , ... ). So it is impossible to make a honest and wide range review without looking at what was kept, what is new and what was trashed out.
Well, even if we take the atrocious AI ( and the rather dubious philosophy behind it's principles ) out of the issue , civ V has serious design flaws that will not be easy to fix in a coherent way. The way they detached army size limitation and empire size limitation ( that in civ IV were function of the same variable ) added to the fact that buildings have maintenance costs created a situation that is clearly favourable to the dreaded city spam of previous versions instead of catering of well developed cities ... and this is just the more glaring example ( this one will not be easily fixable without a serious revamp of the mechanics to the point that the game will be more a civ 5.5 than a fixed civ V ). The empire size limiter in itself can be ignored without major consequences and there is nothing that makes you to stop warring after you started, leading to steamrolls, either of human or AI .The very nature of the balance between building your stuff anew vs rushing it in civ V leads to pretty strange stuff ( like the fact that your strategic military reserve is your bank account ).
All of this are core issues. Surely , this doesn't mean that the game is "dumbed down" by itself, but it is a pretty streamlined game in the bad sense of the word : it favours a lot a certain way of being played compared with pretty much everything else you can think on... and that is a capital sin for any game that suposedely is a strategy game .
-Yup, City states are not well balanced. period, end of discussion. They give too much for their price tag compared with anything else in the game. This most likely fixable without major concerns.Nice review, I agree with most of it. A couple of minor disagreements off the top of my head:
- City States are far too OVERpowered. The benefits that they provide you are quite literally equivalent to what multiple AI nations could ever provide you in a lot of cases, and coming from just a single city. The small gold cost of allying with them relative to the massive empire-wide benefits (food and culture) is way out of proportion. If you think they're worthless and destroy them to replace them with your own cities, I think you're doing it wrong.
- I very much dislike the fickle AI. It will found cities on your borders then get hostile at you for settling too close to them. It will send scouting units into your territory and complain about your military buildup near their borders (even though you are nowhere near their borders). It will ask for you to help them in a war and then get pissed off at you for warmongering. It will often immediately turn hostile as soon as said war finishes and suicidally attempt to backstab you (ensuring its own demise). See here for an example.
-A lot of what you said around there revolves around a bug that makes the Ai think that their units are their borders as well ( probably a leftover of a more grandious code for detection of enemy grouping in areas not directly on your borders but in sensitive spots that was never fully developed ). The diplo thing ...well, the AI diplo modifiers are simply a mess and there a lot of things there that look completely out of scale ( the AI will have a worst opinion of you if you settle near or if you are weak than if you are close of winning in the way they wanted to win themselfes
). Nothing that experience and a careful rebalance will not solve... if people will have the patience to stick around long enough, that is.Officerjackboot
Chieftain
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2010
- Messages
- 41
Great review. I think patches and mods will fix all of the concerns people are having.
Afforess
The White Wizard
I haven't claimed that you ignored missing content. I just said that you used a poor excuse for ignoring to talk about some of the things that were in previous versions and are not here
I clearly understand that you tried to make a civ V review like if it was a brand new game completely unrelated with anything done before , and in that aspect you are right, civ V is a decent game ... nothing earth shattering, but surely better that similar stuff made in the last years ( like Spore ... nice idea, complete lack of depth in implementation ). And given that the rest of reviews in general always brought the heritage of previous games to the boot ( either to try to prop it or to bring it down ), it is a refreshing and clearly welcome read...
But the fact is that this is civilization V and that were 4 civilization games before this one, 2 made by this same company ... and the devs clearly said that this was something that was suposed to be on the shoulders of giants ( previous versions of civ , PG , ... ). So it is impossible to make a honest and wide range review without looking at what was kept, what is new and what was trashed out.
Can't disagree more. You can (and I have tried to) keep my review entirely on Civilization 5 and have ignored past games. Fact is that Civilization 5 is a new game, with a new development team, and Jon Shafer has attempted to (and largely succeeded) to distance himself from Soren, and other past dev's. You can argue that the other games were made by the same company, and should be compared, but 5 years in the game development world is like 2 generations of people. Should I compare you to your grandfather's personality, successes, and failures? I hope not. I doubt anyone from the original Civ4 development was even on the Civ5 team.
I agree. My review was not generous by any account. My point simply was that I don't think "dumbing down" was the problem Civ5 has. I agree more with another posters analysis of the subject, that Civilization 5 was built from a Board Game style game, not a God Simulator style game. While this has made Civilization 3 fans (who are completely mad, IMHO) happy, it has alienated the large part of the core fanbase.
I think the military city states are actually too weak IMHO. I usually kill them off, since I don't need free units. Maritime City States are uber powerful though. Cultural are a toss up. If you are going for a cultural win, they are crucial, but not otherwise. They might be the only balanced city state type.
It's rather sad that Soren Johnsen wasn't a part of the Civ5 development team, and it shows. He had a Bacholer's in History, and a Masters in CS, which is the perfect combination for a Civilization-style game. I worry that Civilization 4 was a once in a lifetime game, made by the perfect person, at the perfect time.
Yes, I agree. It is a lot more "board gamey" and there isn't enough god game design/empire building in the game. The immersion factor is very low, at least for me.
I now understand why I disliked Civ III so much and why it makes perfect sense that its JS's favourite Civ game.
Of course the game has other issues like atrocious AI but those are theoretically fixable. The core design, not so much.
I miss Soren Johnson. Hopefully the bridge isn't burnt too bad and they can bring him back for Civ VI. *Starts praying*
r_rolo1
King of myself
True, but I'm not talking of the people in it self, I'm talking of the ideas Mr Shafer said that were the basis for this game. He quoted the previous Civ games ( especially IV ) and PG... so it is perfectly feasible and fair to ask why X feature of those games ( even of PG ) was not included, especially when it would fit well and maybe even add value. Like , taking your example, if i said I followed my family values as a important core of my beleifs , it is perfectly fair to ask me why I don't do like my grandfather in a certain situation, where he did X and do Y. The devs IMHO are in a similar situation ...
Anyway, I'm not criticising your take on the game. I do agree that is perfectly fair to talk of civ V as a standlone game completely unrelated with the rest of the civ series. I just consider the rationalization you made at a certain point to explain your decision on this quite lacking. That is a rather minor point, though
True, civ V, as it is, is a board game with increasing number of units ... those never go well in terms of balance, by my experience ( just see Risk
). I really thinked that the devs knew better ... that is a very bad way for a civ game, that always betted in trying to give the players more than a way to win. In fact, IIRC I posted something in this tone when the news that civ V would borrow stuff from PG I'll abstain of commenting about the mental sanity of civ III fans
Yeah, cultural CS seem reasonably balanced. Military CS increase their value with the increase of level, but with the atrocious AI we have, that does not show so much... they have the potential of being quite useful if the Ai starts playing the game. Maritime CS need some kind of nerf ... that or you need a serious buff to the food giving buildings/food output of the tiles in general.
Well, about Soren, I have my critics about his take on civ IV, but it seems that his "playing to lose" AI aproach outperforms Shafer "playing to win" AI aproach ... life is rich in irony , isn't it ?
I always thought the AI in cIV was playing to entertain.
It's almost like JS was worried that the AI would have hurt feelings or something if it
didn't play to win.
The cIV AI, while nowhere near perfect, added to the immersion.
It's almost like JS was worried that the AI would have hurt feelings or something if it
didn't play to win.
The cIV AI, while nowhere near perfect, added to the immersion.
Afforess
The White Wizard
I think Shafer forgot that the point of Civilization was to have fun, not to win. If AI's can make the game challenging enough to make the endgame memorable, it's a success. At any rate, I think I it would be humorous to see someone port Civ4's AI to Civ5 for a side-by-side battle to see who would win. I'd bet 5 bucks on civ4.
r_rolo1
King of myself
Not so sure, because it would be a sheep in a wolf world and the diplo enviroment is completely diferent. But I'm sure that it would give more fight than civ V AI would have on IV, that would DOW monty because Civ IV Monty had far more units than him ... with predictable resultsI think Shafer forgot that the point of Civilization was to have fun, not to win. If AI's can make the game challenging enough to make the endgame memorable, it's a success. At any rate, I think I it would be humorous to see someone port Civ4's AI to Civ5 for a side-by-side battle to see who would win. I'd bet 5 bucks on civ4.
My take on this is that what I posted elsewhere, Shafer made a AI that could be compared with Cartman of South Park in their prime directives, egocentrical, easy to infuriate and short-term focused. That is exactly the kind of strategy that gets eaten alive in most strategy games . That is not playing to win in any sense ... and it will not give memorable endgames as well
P.S BTW since I seen that cartman reference, everytime I think on the civ V AI, I remember that small appearance of him in a SMAC wonder movie screaming "Get out of my planet!!!" . Dunno, seems very fitting
Similar threads
