Civilization 5 Rants Thread

Interesting discussion on the Stardock forums about "Middle Market" games.

Paradox Interactive and Stardock make middle market games and do a great job of it. Not the best graphically but they cater to a certain crowd and do it very well.

I feel that the Civ series was middle market until the fifth iteration of the game where they tried to move up to a AAA game with less than wonderful results.

Here's the link:

http://forums.elementalgame.com/406827
 
god... mods need to calm down a bit.....

I am happy that I found more people who hate civ5, but it seems that there is a moderator action in every second post.....

is this a police state?

Moderator Action: Public discussion of moderator actions is not allowed. Please PM a moderator if you have an issue with our moderating...or if you have a general policy complaint, feel free to use our Site Feedback forum to discuss. Thanks.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
 
You know, whenever I want to buy into Civ 5 being dumbed down too far, I just remember how Railroad Tycoon/RT2 turned into Sid Meier's Railroads! and I'm thankful Civ 5 is still as complex as it is.
 
I visited Poly a few months back (and again just last week, but not the Civ section) and the site owner was just cheerleading for Civ 5. His front page / blog / news or whatever read like a 2K Games press release for Civ 5. That alone was enough to send me back here to CFC. :p

Yes. It's sad what happened over there, it used to be my first port of call way back. And it gave a lot of support to Alternative Civs. But it's lost a lot in recent years. Some good people still there tho - glad that the CTP Source Code project is still going strong for a start...
 
Well I knew civ5 is going to be really bad, when I read Sid Meayer is not working on it....

In that moment I stopped my hopes. I just decided to wait and see if a miracle happens, and as it turns out, it didn't

Brian Reynolds designed Alpha Centauri, Sid's name was just on the box to sell it. Civ games are still copying ideas from AC, unfortunately AC is mired in IP disputes.
 
Well I knew civ5 is going to be really bad, when I read Sid Meayer is not working on it....

In that moment I stopped my hopes. I just decided to wait and see if a miracle happens, and as it turns out, it didn't

Sid hasn't worked directly in a "prominent role" on a Civilization game since Civilization I and II. Maybe he's working on the facebook version though? :confused: More likely just another figurehead for it.

Nicol.Bolas said:
god... mods need to calm down a bit.....
I am happy that I found more people who hate civ5, but it seems that there is a moderator action in every second post.....
is this a police state?

Even though I suspect they need to relax a little too I can understand their frustration with all the negativity threads that were being created. The people that do like Civ V should be allowed to post in an environment where their threads aren't railroaded by OT and other BS posts that were being made at the time.

My opinion doesn't matter on this when it comes to the forums/CFC or really anything else but I'll give it anyway: All the negative threads just show how unpopular this game is with some sections of CFC players. Taking away their voice by making them post in this thread only where it is likely to be forgotten (and almost was), IMO, wasn't a good decision. It smacks of a corporation-ideal about showing no negativity leads to everyone believing that no one is speaking negatively about a product and that everyone loves the product and company. Sony Only Entertainment are masters of this behaviour. :mischief:

Quite frankly, I don't see myself playing Civ V again for a long time, if ever again. I certainly won't be buying any DLC from T2/Firaxis and if/when an expansion does come out, I will not be buying it straight away. I've learnt my lesson. Firaxis are on my list where I wait and see before buying (maybe even that list where I wait and see and if any good, wait for a price drop too). If I was to follow Sid's history, he's never been on that list until now. From Microprose through to Firaxis, if either company had brought a game out that I liked the sound of or the concept, I would've bought it. Was rarely disappointed too. Now, he's with practically every other developer and publisher in the games industry. Now that's a real shame. :rolleyes:
 
I feel that the Civ series was middle market until the fifth iteration of the game where they tried to move up to a AAA game with less than wonderful results.

This would be directly due to Take-Two buying Firaxis in 2005.
I just love Jeff Briggs' comment on the acquisition:

"This is a tremendous opportunity for Firaxis," said Briggs, who is Founder, President and CEO of Firaxis. "2K Games is an energetic label that shares our goals and vision for making great games that stand the test of time. [Emphasis mine] We are pleased to be associated with the energy and commitment to quality work that 2K represents, and look forward to a great future together."
Link: http://au.pc.ign.com/articles/665/665119p1.html

Will Civ V stand the test of time?
 
I miss the 'Regenerate Map' button and the scoring system in Civ4 seemed to make more sense. I played hundreds upon hundreds of Civ4 games simply to improve my high scores.

Otherwise, I think the Civ5 is an improvement over Civ4.
 
Civilization 5 was designed with casuals and noobs in mind. That is one of the main reasons that people hate it so much. We aren't the target audience anymore.
Trying to put a product in another market segment sometimes work. e.g. the Porsche Cayenne\BMW X5 into the 4x4 mass-market. Now it was a market success and made millions for Porsche and BMW and enabled them to continue to produce and improve their other cars.

In this light, what Firaxis/2K did wrong is try to evolve a great car into a 4x4, and what they should have done is create a new game (i.e. Civ:Rev 2) for the mass market and used that to fund the development of a new version. We who play Civ 4, would understand that and patiently wait for the new version to be released.

Some may remember that Porsche was going to replace the 911 with the 924/928 models (which they thought had more appeal), but in the end the uproar from 911 fans forced Porsche to change their plans and continue to develop the 911 to the excellent car it is today.

So I say to you fans of Civ 4/3/2/1, to continue to "rant" and lobby and get 2K/Firaxis to change their direction and ensure that the "essense" of Civ continues and not be lost and rename Civ 5 Product to Civ:Rev2 for the PC and work on a new Civ 5 before all is lost.
 
Trying to put a product in another market segment sometimes work. e.g. the Porsche Cayenne\BMW X5 into the 4x4 mass-market. Now it was a market success and made millions for Porsche and BMW and enabled them to continue to produce and improve their other cars.

In this light, what Firaxis/2K did wrong is try to evolve a great car into a 4x4, and what they should have done is create a new game (i.e. Civ:Rev 2) for the mass market and used that to fund the development of a new version. We who play Civ 4, would understand that and patiently wait for the new version to be released.

Some may remember that Porsche was going to replace the 911 with the 924/928 models (which they thought had more appeal), but in the end the uproar from 911 fans forced Porsche to change their plans and continue to develop the 911 to the excellent car it is today.

So I say to you fans of Civ 4/3/2/1, to continue to "rant" and lobby and get 2K/Firaxis to change their direction and ensure that the "essense" of Civ continues and not be lost and rename Civ 5 Product to Civ:Rev2 for the PC and work on a new Civ 5 before all is lost.

Good post. I would have enjoyed this game a lot more if I wasn't expecting it to be a true Civilization game.
 
First off I'd like to say that I really do enjoy 5, however there are some very simple things that are just not OK.

I don't have a possibility to regenerate map with same settings.
When I go into advanced game setup, I want it to remember my last used settings.
I want my list of save games to be sorted by date, not alphabetically.

There are also things I miss from previous installments.

Replay after winning, now victory feels hollow. I usually spend many hours on a victory, spread over many days, I really like to see that replay afterwards.

The possibility for workers to build canals eventually (please make them like roads, so the tile can still be irrigated, feel free to add a mentainance)
Has to consider what happens if a ship ends it turn in canal and gets attacked, could get a severe terrain penalty, or could just be overrun.
 
Trying to put a product in another market segment sometimes work. e.g. the Porsche Cayenne\BMW X5 into the 4x4 mass-market. Now it was a market success and made millions for Porsche and BMW and enabled them to continue to produce and improve their other cars.

In this light, what Firaxis/2K did wrong is try to evolve a great car into a 4x4, and what they should have done is create a new game (i.e. Civ:Rev 2) for the mass market and used that to fund the development of a new version. We who play Civ 4, would understand that and patiently wait for the new version to be released.

Some may remember that Porsche was going to replace the 911 with the 924/928 models (which they thought had more appeal), but in the end the uproar from 911 fans forced Porsche to change their plans and continue to develop the 911 to the excellent car it is today.

So I say to you fans of Civ 4/3/2/1, to continue to "rant" and lobby and get 2K/Firaxis to change their direction and ensure that the "essense" of Civ continues and not be lost and rename Civ 5 Product to Civ:Rev2 for the PC and work on a new Civ 5 before all is lost.

I concur. It'd be nice if they made "ciV Classic" or "ciV Hardcore" for the long time fans who have stuck with and supported Microprose/Firaxis for many years.

I will do exactly as you said. Even if I am just "a voice crying in the wilderness", I'll keep denouncing Civilization 5. We all deserve better.
 
First off I'd like to say that I really do enjoy 5, however there are some very simple things that are just not OK.

I don't have a possibility to regenerate map with same settings.
When I go into advanced game setup, I want it to remember my last used settings.
I want my list of save games to be sorted by date, not alphabetically.

There are also things I miss from previous installments.

Replay after winning, now victory feels hollow. I usually spend many hours on a victory, spread over many days, I really like to see that replay afterwards.

The possibility for workers to build canals eventually (please make them like roads, so the tile can still be irrigated, feel free to add a mentainance)
Has to consider what happens if a ship ends it turn in canal and gets attacked, could get a severe terrain penalty, or could just be overrun.

Agreed. There are a lot of little things that are missing. I think this is mainly due to the game being released 1-2 years too early.

2k Games got greedy and wanted to placate their shareholders so they rushed Civilization 5 out the door when it clearly wasn't even close to being ready.

That's why you don't see those little things that you'd think would be logical things to have included.
 
The beginning of the game is very exciting, as you expand, choose your first policies, find out the terrain, the land-grab and early wars. But around the mid-medieval period, the game becomes terribly boring, as rival AIs are nothing but punchbags and there's nothing else to do but conquer everything in sight for the rest of the game. The only thing that extends the length of the game is the global unhappiness mechanic.

Is the mid-to-late game boring because there is absolutely nothing else to do but conquer and kill? I mean, there's no real trade, there's no religion or corporations to spread, there's no espionage, there's no diplomacy, there's not even much competition for winning the game itself. You can't even colonize the 'New World' because the maps generate civs on all the main continents.

It's just so flat and bland. All Firaxis seem to be doing is adding even more new stuff to the early game, which is already quite good (certainly, there are a gazillion choices of stuff to build and choices to make in the early game and it's usually impossible to create more than a small fraction of it), and crappy new DLC Civs.

Moderator Action: Moved to rants thread
 
The beginning of the game is very exciting, as you expand, choose your first policies, find out the terrain, the land-grab and early wars. But around the mid-medieval period, the game becomes terribly boring, as rival AIs are nothing but punchbags and there's nothing else to do but conquer everything in sight for the rest of the game. The only thing that extends the length of the game is the global unhappiness mechanic.

Is the mid-to-late game boring because there is absolutely nothing else to do but conquer and kill? I mean, there's no real trade, there's no religion or corporations to spread, there's no espionage, there's no diplomacy, there's not even much competition for winning the game itself. You can't even colonize the 'New World' because the maps generate civs on all the main continents.

It's just so flat and bland. All Firaxis seem to be doing is adding even more new stuff to the early game, which is already quite good (certainly, there are a gazillion choices of stuff to build and choices to make in the early game and it's usually impossible to create more than a small fraction of it), and crappy new DLC Civs.

Moderator Action: Moved to rants thread

As much as I do love Civ V, and I do, I have to agree with this. The first third of the game is really good, the 2nd 3rd is OK, the 3rd 3rd I already know if I'm going to win or not. Late game mechanics is something that needs some work.
 
The beginning of the game is very exciting, as you expand, choose your first policies, find out the terrain, the land-grab and early wars. But around the mid-medieval period, the game becomes terribly boring, as rival AIs are nothing but punchbags and there's nothing else to do but conquer everything in sight for the rest of the game. The only thing that extends the length of the game is the global unhappiness mechanic.

Is the mid-to-late game boring because there is absolutely nothing else to do but conquer and kill? I mean, there's no real trade, there's no religion or corporations to spread, there's no espionage, there's no diplomacy, there's not even much competition for winning the game itself. You can't even colonize the 'New World' because the maps generate civs on all the main continents.

It's just so flat and bland. All Firaxis seem to be doing is adding even more new stuff to the early game, which is already quite good (certainly, there are a gazillion choices of stuff to build and choices to make in the early game and it's usually impossible to create more than a small fraction of it), and crappy new DLC Civs.

Moderator Action: Moved to rants thread

You hit the nail on the head there.

Sadly, Civilization 5 is nothing more than a fluff game. More style than substance, it appeals to the lowest common denominator.

It is the very definition of a throw away game.

Anyway, I do agree that the early parts of the game are ok. The later ages become extremely boring. It is just one more thing that is unfinished. Firaxis ran out of time since 2K Games wanted to cash in as soon as possible.

Who knows how the game would have turned out if it had been given the proper development time? I'm not sure it still would have been as good as cIV but I wager it would have been decent.

Where is the incentive for 2K Games to pump more cash into this mediocre half baked mess in order to fix it? None that I can see. DLC will keep the cash flowing in.

It's a sad day for Civ.

On a more positive note, 0 AD looks pretty cool. It's a open source game in development. kind of looks like a cross between Age of Empires, Empire Earth and Rise of Nations.
The graphics look quite nice for a game that's free. Currently it's in alpha stage but I am very impressed with their work so far.

Here are their forums:

http://www.wildfiregames.com/forum/index.php?act=idx
 
Age of Empires online is coming out. Well, it's in beta testing now anyway. You can sign up to beta test if you like.

Looks a little cartoony but I am sure it'll be more fun than Civilization 5 is. Probably even with functioning multiplayer. ;)

http://www.ageofempiresonline.com/

Dumbed down or more entertaining? You be the judge. :D

* Familiar Age of Empires gameplay
* Download and play from almost anywhere
* Game continues to evolve over time
* Cooperative multiplayer quests and trading
* Empire creation and resource management
* Historical setting, easy-to-use RTS controls



Here's a preview as well:

http://www.g4tv.com/games/pc/64441/age-of-empires-online/articles/73424/Age-of-Empires-Online-Preview-Greeking-Out-Online/
 
It looks more like Age of Mythology.


And civ5...
The first civ iteration where I felt asleep half way the game.
The 1 upt system makes the AI so helpless, which is very sad to see.

Example, see picture.
Monty is at war with Suleiman.
A few turns back the city spawned a Great Merchant and Great Engineer.
Both were forced to leave the city, because of the Great General.
Same thing for the Aztec infantry, which was finished the previous turn.
The unit had to leave the city, exposed itself on flat terrain and lost its movement points because of the ZOC rule.

Spoiler :


 
Top Bottom