Civilization 5 Rants Thread

Yeah, definitely gone mass market. I say it happened once Take-Two acquired Firaxis, as it usually does. Look at all the DLC coming out consistently. I'd say they're trying to cash in as much money as they can from the "masses" before releasing a most likely overpriced expansion.
 
The basic design decisions are... questionable.

Stripped down and awkwardly scaled Panzer General on top of an empire builder - a fraction of the depth but requires more busywork because the map isn't ideal for this type of gameplay.
It was utterly predictable that the AI would struggle with this as well, but they didn't even try and reused parts that assumed stacking was possible.

Even if it worked, the system is fragile: SoD combat can result in temporary tedium, CoD can lock down the game. They had to pull every cheap trick to prevent excess production while still making it feel somewhat like a Civ game. Rabid AI may have been a deliberate choice because the game can't handle military buildup without war; passed off as 'playing to win'.
Since the combat system is also conductive to snowballing resuls, it was necessary to limit the effect of player choices; in combination with the above this made samey terrain yields and samey cities necessary. Note that many genuinely new features like limited strategic resources play into this.

The happiness system was originally broken to an amusing degree. Meant to prevent infinite cities (a bigger problem than ever if you have barely significant tile yields but easy access to per-city bonuses), it encouraged just that: Support filler cities with tiny filler cities prioritising happiness buildings.
I suspected this just from reading the manual and considering the mechanics, according to official statements and judging by the state of release nobody in charge had a clue how to play their own game. Thoughtful players could break it on their first try, and many did.
*

What we had originally was a terrible mess that can only be explained by a focus on marketability and utter contempt of gameplay.
A concept that sounds cool but would be all but impossible to implement well without making something totally unlike Civ. A shiny and sleek-looking UI that's not very usable. Reused AI from a totally different game (Shafer has been on record saying that putting real effort into AI isn't commercially sound). It was marketed as a 'big sloppy kiss/love letter to the fan community' AND as a 'streamlined Civ for everyone', at the same time. The aggressive hawking of DLC for something so fundamentally broken is either sad or hilarious, as is the glowing reception from what passes for a gaming press. Again: what's the problem, competence or integrity?

The game being butchered into some semblance of playability is already a major succes. Expecting it to become genuinely good without starting over would be... more than optimistic.
 
I have been playing Civ 5 for some time after the latest patch, and I can say even it's "deep" combat system is just an inferior clone of the old hex-based games like Fantasy general or its modern incarnation, Elven legacy.

Still, years old Fantasy General is much better than Civ5. Why? Because of greater consistency.

Ranged units, for example, fire back when they have sufficient range to match the attacker. Makes sense, right? No more exploity ganging up on one unit with ranged troops, because the target fights back. Fantasy general gets it, Civ5 not. Plus, FG has special skirmish attack that needs adjacency, but only skirmishers may fight back (not melee troops). Even more depth.

Also, ranged troops provide fire support for adjacent melee troop attacked in melee, encouraging combined arms. But Civ 5 reinvents the wheel and forgets all those lessons learned.

And don't even make me speak about flanking... and morale...

Moderator Action: Moved to rants thread. Note that you're more than welcome to start a discussion thread on the subject, but please provide something to actually discuss (this involves asking questions) if you choose to do so.
 
So why don't you play Fantasy General or Elven Legacy instead?

Would it be that Civ V is actually a better game?

If not, why are you still playing Civ V?

If you don't like this game, why do you take so much time and trouble over-criticizing it here?

Yes, Civ V is not perfect, but it's a lot better than so many make out!

Moderator Action: This is the rants thread, designed for people to rant about the game. Questioning their reasons for doing so is not conducive to productive discussion.
 
So why don't you play Fantasy General or Elven Legacy instead?

Would it be that Civ V is actually a better game?

If not, why are you still playing Civ V?

If you don't like this game, why do you take so much time and trouble over-criticizing it here?

Yes, Civ V is not perfect, but it's a lot better than so many make out!

And your post could be answered in exactly the same way.

So why don't you post in threads that talk positively about Civ V instead?

Would it be that you secretly agree with some of the points here?

If not, why aren't you playing Civ V instead of posting here?

If you do like this game, why do you take so much time and trouble defending it here?

You see? Your post adds nothing to this discussion/rant. Civ V may be lot better in your opinion. :goodjob: No, really. If you like Civ V, that is great. More power to you. However, for those of us that do not like it, for whatever reason, please do not criticize us (if that was your intention; if not then there's nothing wrong in asking a question), especially when Kamamura has taken the time to write a detailed post on why they do not like it.

Moderator Action: Please do not respond in kind, but report a post if you have a problem with it.

My opinion is that I still think it's bland, boring and it intentionally caters to the lowest common denominator. It's a cookie-cutter game that is a shadow of every version of Civilization that has come before it. Instead of bring proud of it, Firaxis should be bloody ashamed of not only releasing something so obviously broken but also something that in no way shape or form matches up to the complexity of prior games before it. They should also be ashamed that their owners (Take-Two) now are nickel-and-dime'ing the game to death through BS downloadable-content where instead they should be fixing the game non-stop and THEN releasing the extra content after the so-obvious problems are resolved.

Since the last patch was released, I've tried Civ V again and to me it is still the same - it lacks soul, depth, it is boring, and more importantly, it's still broken (especially the combat AI - probably the most important AI). Maybe new players to Civ will not know what I mean but if they've ever played a different franchise through it's various versions and suddenly the developer releases a new version in that franchise that rips out most things that made the game fun in the first place and the game has become a shadow of itself, then you'll know how I feel about Civ V.

I'll stop :cry:'ing now and go back to Civ IV. Thanks for your time! :lol::mischief:
 
There's more to Civ5 than a tactical wargame. However, the problem remains that Civ5's combat system is a very hollow version of Panzer/Fantasy General. You need to do at least as much low-level micromanagement as in those classics although it's far behind in complexity and depth.
Not sure how AI improved for that kind of game, but the ones I've played were weak and required compensation by careful level design. You don't get this if it's a layer on top of an empire building game, and balancing immediate against long-term goals increases the challenge even further.
Doing this *well* would have been an impressive task and still problematic because you'd demand quite a bit of tactical insight from your players... you can't necessarily presume much interest in such. There are also other problems.

A hypothetical example: The civilian equivalent would be to replace city management with a Sim City clone. Again, sounds awesome (and marketable), but in the real world corners would be cut until it's joyless drudgery and here's why: We won't have the budget of a full game for this. We'd need to simplify it so players who aren't buying it for the city management will still accept it. And for those who are into this sort of thing... how do we deal with them getting a huge economic advantage out of this? Can't have them run away with the rest of the game, so we subtly need to render everything that happens on the empire/military level meaningless.
Chances are this wouldn't work as a game, and we'd put more effort into maintaining the illusion of a game than genuine gameplay. Which never stopped anyone from marketing it as a paradigm shift.
 
I agree with the people who bemoan that there is all the micro with none of the depth. A lot of the winning strategies seem gimmickey, like scrupulously timing your GPP to get 3 great people on the same turn, RA-blocking, sell resource declare war and repeat. None of this is fun, but all of it is pretty much necessary if they are allowed in a competitive environment.

Playing the game casually, I find it challenging at emperor level and above. I suppose that is how the mass market will play the game and can therefore understand why it appeals to some. Its not bad enough that I won't play it, but its not good enough that I want to play it all the time. The games are slow, even when nothing is happening. Takes a long tme to play, and most of that time is not doing anything that makes civ fun such as adjusting strategy to changing conditions. the user interface is pretty lame, too, making it tedious to get the information you want to use in decision-making.

As a game by itself I'd say its OK for what it tries to be. But if you compare it to earlier civ versions, you can only conclude it falls far short of expectations.
 

I've heard it was a horrible flop, but I've never personally played the series. I was only speaking of my personal experience when I posted earlier.
 
I'm a long time Civ player. I've played most versions of it. Most have been enjoyable. CivCity Rome was a disappointment but Civ 5 is the worst. I'm not even going to go into game play. One of my gripes is that from when I click the Civ 5 icon until the game actually begins takes 5 minutes! What a waste of time! I play online games like Guild Wars & Planet Calypso & they don't take this long even when downloading megabytes of updates.
Another gripe is that the game engine can't render the graphics correctly in the late stages of the large maps, & I prefer to play the large maps. It may have improved a little with the latest patch but not that much.
And I really think Steam is just so intrusive. Totally off-putting. I'm being diplomatic here. If I give my real opinion of it my post will be removed.
I hope a lot of people thinking to buy this game read this & save their money for something worthwhile. I won't be wasting my money on any further Civ games.
 
Civilization 5 was a tremendous letdown and a wake up call that they don't give a damn about their long time fans anymore. Shame...

I've been playing Paradox interactive games to scratch that gaming itch.

Mostly Victoria II and EU III. Their games aren't perfect either but they sure are fun. Crusader Kings II is going to be fantastic. :D

I've also discovered a French gaming company called AGEOD that has been making quality games for a long time. They are a small company that was recently bought by Paradox. Anyway, they certainly aren't targeting the mass market and casuals.

Their games are military focused and very well done if that is your type of thing.

A game called Pride of Nations is coming out June 7th. Although it only takes place between 1850-1920, it is turn based (1680 turns in all) and it looks deep, complex and very fun. Certainly the military element and warfare will be excellent but the other areas like empire building, colonization and economics look very strong as well.

The graphics are, at least in my opinion, elegant, clear and remind me of old boardgames I used to play. Very pleasing to the eyes I think. They are also 2D and easy on mid range laptops.

Some pretty cool scenarios will also be included including the American Civil War, the Russian-Japanese War, the Franco-Prussian War, possibly the First World War and others.

Also, the game will only be $20. Quite a bargain methinks.

Here's a screenshot (Original name was going to be Vainglory of nations):



Here are their forums:

http://www.ageod-forum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=250

You can also check them out on the Paradox interactive forums:

http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?558-Pride-of-Nations
 
"Pride of Nations" - WOW WOW WOW ... time to move
 
"Pride of Nations" - WOW WOW WOW ... time to move

Yeah. It looks very strong. :D

The developers also seem like really good guys who love what they do.

Their previous works like Rise of Prussia, Birth of America and American Civil War are exceptionally well done.

Revolution under siege (Russian Civil War 1917-1923) looks really cool. Very complex and in depth but extremely rewarding. I think I'll be buying that one next.

Some of the best war games on the market in my opinion.

Love your sig as well. Lol.
 
longtime Civ fan here... "shelved" civilization V since buying it last year after playing it for about a month.

I hate hate hate the one UPT and awful awful AI war fighting ability. All I wanted was Civ IV WITHOUT the eyeburning cartoonish graphics and cyclical unit-counter unit type warfare (e.g. Yay I have a tank.. but he has an anti-tank .. oh thats fine I'll use a Infantry.. but now its a machine gun.. wtf!)

When I saw screenshots for Civ V i lept out of my seat and bought it.. thinkin thats what it was. Turned out to be more like Axis and Allies than anything..

Still, Civ IV's cartoon grafx still bug me from time to time so I actually reinstalled Civ 3 and have been enjoying it :cool:
 
Somehow, the forums ate my reply. :rolleyes:

Anyway, graphics aren't everything. You are spot on about it basically being Axis and Allies.

I too was fooled by Civilization 5's impressive graphics at first. Later on, I discovered that it really didn't have much else going for it. The beauty was truly only skin deep.

The fact that they put so much time, effort and money into the graphics was a huge mistake in my opinion.

At least that is if you want a deep, challenging game that is with excellent game mechanics.

I now consider Civilization 5 as merely a fluff game. It's a shame what they've done but it's opened my eyes to other game companies that actually still care about making quality games

In the long run it will be a good thing for gamers. Other game companies with fill the vacuum eventually and do a better job of it.
 
Those graphics don't look too hot to me. Still, I'm sure it'll be a better game than civ5.
 
Those graphics don't look too hot to me. Still, I'm sure it'll be a better game than civ5.

Perhaps I am more old school. They remind me more of old board games I used to play. Euro Boardgamerish. Ahhh...nostalgia. ;)

In my opinion, they are more than adequate. They serve the purpose of conveying the proper information to the player. Of course beauty is in the eye of the beholder and I am an old dinosaur. :lol:

It's really substance over style I think. If I had a choice, I'd choose substance every time.
Mmmm...Dwarf fortress. :D
 
The whole game is one giant bug. We should launch a class action lawsuit against them for releasing such an awful game.

I'm joking of course.
 
The whole game is one giant bug. We should launch a class action lawsuit against them for releasing such an awful game.

I'm joking of course.

Civilization 5 or Pride of Nations? ;)
 
Top Bottom