Is CiV up to snuff yet?

You guys are all completely welcome to your own opinions about these games, but if you're going to reference my writings, you can at least quote them accurately. Making ad hominem attacks against me as a person isn't going to do anything to promote your point of view.

The reason why you don't see me around much any more is because I don't have anything more to say. Why would I continue to write and post about a game that I don't personally enjoy playing? I had my say, some people agreed, some people disagreed, and I moved on. Sticking around to complain endlessly would just make me a troll.

I'm glad that a lot of people enjoy Civ5. I don't. More power to you. Life's too short to waste on games that you don't enjoy.

Funky said:

I already mentioned why I got into this thread. Now let's stop this personal stuff, ok?

Click to expand...

Mentioning a "reason" for continuously assailing a game you don't like and don't play, in a fan forum devoted to that game, does not absolve you. Certainly you must realize that continuing to do so makes you fit the definition of a troll.

As Sulla points out:

Sullla said:

Why would I continue to write and post about a game that I don't personally enjoy playing? ... Sticking around to complain endlessly would just make me a troll ... I'm glad that a lot of people enjoy Civ5. I don't. More power to you. Life's too short to waste on games that you don't enjoy.

Click to expand...

gps said:

So loving this game makes YOU an authority, not loving it doesn't?

Click to expand...

Nice straw man. In a "fan" forum, fan being short for "fanatic", the appropriate condition is "loving the game". The inappropriate condition is invading a "fan forum" and spending all your time bashing that game. In every corner of the internet, that sort of behavior is called "trolling".

Perhaps you should refer to your designated authority figure on this matter:

Sullla said:

Why would I continue to write and post about a game that I don't personally enjoy playing? ... Sticking around to complain endlessly would just make me a troll ... I'm glad that a lot of people enjoy Civ5. I don't. More power to you. Life's too short to waste on games that you don't enjoy.

Click to expand...

Since Sulla's opinion precisely mirrors mine in this regard, I submit that I'm an equal authority on this particular matter. Enough said.

Donaskme said:

Mentioning a "reason" for continuously assailing a game you don't like and don't play, in a fan forum devoted to that game, does not absolve you. Certainly you must realize that continuing to do so makes you fit the definition of a troll.

Click to expand...

Jesus dude, relax. I'm not "countinuously assailing the game", I pointed out some aspects of it which many people consider flawed in a thread asking for information about the game. No need to get all worked up about it. Is it so hard to tolerate critical posts? Are all people who post critical posts trolls then?

Funky said:

Jesus dude, relax. I'm not "countinuously assailing the game", I pointed out some aspects of it which many people consider flawed in a thread asking for information about the game. No need to get all worked up about it. Is it so hard to tolerate critical posts? Are all people who post critical posts trolls then?

Click to expand...

Pointed out some aspects?

Calling the AI a 'total catastrophe that's not open to debate' is not pointing out some aspects, it's railing against a game because of your own opinion.

Do you even admit the AI is much better in G&K than Vanilla? The AI is not that bad IMHO.

Cheers.

manu-fan said:

Pointed out some aspects?

Calling the AI a 'total catastrophe that's not open to debate' is not pointing out some aspects, it's railing against a game because of your own opinion.

Do you even admit the AI is much better in G&K than Vanilla? The AI is not that bad IMHO.

Cheers.

Click to expand...

How can he know? He never played the game, may be few times when the game got released two years ago.

manu-fan said:

railing against a game because of your own opinion.

Click to expand...

So again, everyone whose opinion is critical about some aspects of the game is "railing against it"? Let me remind you that I am entitled to post here just as much as you are, despite having a different opinon. In fact, you should be glad about diverse opinons existing in the forum, as they proliferate the debates. And naturally forum discussion is about sharing opinions. I gave my opinion on several issues; if the points I raised are so preposterous, it should be easy for you to counter them. In fact, I would like to hear other well thought-out opinions. Instead I get constantly personally attacked, called a troll, told to get out of the thread, refered to as immature, and told that my opinion must be invalid because I hardly played the game (interesting what you all know about me by the way).

Anyway, if you want to contend any of the previous points I made in a civil manner, feel free. I'm not responding to any personal attacks anymore though. It gets too tiresome. Being a teacher, I have to deal with this kind of behaviour every day among my kids at work, I would prefer to do without it in my free time. Thank you.

I also think that CoD pic is contrived, because attrition would never let the game come down to that. Greece would have dominated any place long before it became that scenario.

What "is" dangerous is a very high productivity center mid-early to late-early game producing immortals/landsknecht every 1 or 2 turns, or composite archers every 2-3 turns and rolling opponents with 30-40 units. I do it. Other players do it in mp. The AI "could" do it, and "should" do it if you let them.

I don't see any argument against carpets. Why is this so threatening to peoples' view of the game? Historically I can point to several examples wherein (by era) a disproportionate amount of infantry is fielded and regardless of how many you can possibly kill the sheer numbers overwhelm you. I can also point to encounters wherein the smaller, more elite, more disciplined army rolled said attrition potential, e.g. Alexander's battle of Issus.

Funky said:

So again, everyone whose opinion is critical about some aspects of the game is "railing against it"? Let me remind you that I am entitled to post here just as much as you are, despite having a different opinon. In fact, you should be glad about diverse opinons existing in the forum, as they proliferate the debates. And naturally forum discussion is about sharing opinions. I gave my opinion on several issues; if the points I raised are so preposterous, it should be easy for you to counter them. In fact, I would like to hear other well thought-out opinions. Instead I get constantly personally attacked, called a troll, told to get out of the thread, refered to as immature, and told that my opinion must be invalid because I hardly played the game (interesting what you all know about me by the way).

Anyway, if you want to contend any of the previous points I made in a civil manner, feel free. I'm not responding to any personal attacks anymore though. It gets too tiresome. Being a teacher, I have to deal with this kind of behaviour every day among my kids at work, I would prefer to do without it in my free time. Thank you.

Click to expand...

I asked you a simple question which you have yet to answer. Don't you at least agree that the AI in G&K is much better than Vanilla?

Well?

BTW: There was no personal attack. I was merely pointing out a discrepancy between the statement of pointing out some aspects vs providing your own opinion.

Cheers.

Hey guys. The replies have been very helpful but I feel poor Funky is being piled up against. He did directly address my the question which I had and that was very appreciated and I understand what his concerns with the AI are. But it is good to see that there are so many people passionate about CiV... enough that I will get the game but with my expectations tempered so I'm not disappointed.

Reading the posts as a pretty objective observer, the problem seems to be peoples' passions and their disappointments and we tend to internalize our views on the game and take attacks on it personally.

Funky: I completely respect and appreciate your take on the AI and how you view the game. I would just suggest that you try to ignore that little devil that wants to throw in the adjective 'immature' or 'dumb-downed'. You have very intelligent things to say but those small things can be taken very personally and take away from those points and I think that is why you have been deluged with this wrath.

Other friends: Don't take these things personally. Like I said before, I love Civ3 (every now and then I still have vivid dreams about my early game Jaguar warrior conquests) but very few other civ fans seem to like it. But it's okay, I don't let it bother me. I never played civ2 so I didn't understand why everyone had an orgasm over it and despised Civ3 but that's just the way it was. I really like that passion.

Sulla: I would play vicariously in my head while at work while reading your epic game posts on Civ3. Immensely enjoyed that (I was in undergrad working in a neuroscience lab tediously training a monkey... I am now a physician at the Mayo Clinic if anyone was wondering what becomes of some civ players) thanks for that.

manu-fan said:

I asked you a simple question which you have yet to answer. Don't you at least agree that the AI in G&K is much better than Vanilla?

Click to expand...

Yes, this we can agree on, I guess. From my view it is still not challenging enough that I would refrain from calling it bad when asked, but perhaps my standards are just too high.

manu-fan said:

BTW: There was no personal attack. I was merely pointing out a discrepancy between the statement of pointing out some aspects vs providing your own opinion.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I didn't mean you actually with the personal attacks. Sorry if it came across that way.

@vonSharma:

Thank you for your kind words. I wish you the best of luck with the game and hope that the problems I have with it are not so meaningful for you. By the way, I used neither the word "dumbed down" nor "immature" in this thread (well the latter only as a quote ).

I have played hundreds and hundreds of hours each of Civ1, Civ2, Civ3, Civ4, and Civ5.
I always thought Civ2 was the best ... till Civ5 came along.
Civ5 fixes a lot of things I didn't like in Civ3 and Civ4.

I played civ2, 3 , 4 and 5, and loved them all. One things that I was happy with was the fact that each civ game was so different than the other, so this game never got repetitive to me. In fact, currently I have both civ4 and 5 installed in my computer, and play one of them depends on my mood. This issue of difference between each game did not happen to my other favorite titles like heroes games. I like heroes 3 and 4, but heroes 5 and 6 had almost nothing new or revolutionary to offer, and I didn't play them much.

I remember adoring 1 and 2, but honestly if I played them today I'd probably hate them. I'd try to do something I couldn't and be like, I can't believe that feature wasn't in the game! I hardly played 3- 4 seemed a lot like 3 only fixed a lot of issues imo. That's why I think more people liked 4. I mean 3 introduced ranged bombardment (still present in 4 bombers and ships though not siege), cultural borders, civ traits, resources and I think great people too. It just needed a little polish with the government systems and corruption.