Civilization 5 Rants Thread

I will take a franchise a few sequels before they re-boot ... look at batman ... it went really bad before it got good again ;)
 
I have no idea personally how much money Civ 5 has made or will make so this is just a comment from someone in dev side of the industry (I run an independent game studio for a living).

Yes the marketing people are... tiresome... at times. So yes the points made here about them pressuring people to rush releases and target only features that will turn profits are, unfortunately, accurate to some degree. However at the same time demands on the games are going up. Better graphics, better UIs, better AIs, better gameplay, etc, etc. Developing a new engine takes years and all this other stuff takes longer too. So you want wonder movies for example? Sure they were cool... but I suspect you want them fully 3D now and high def unlike how they were before? That isn't free and it takes longer than before.

Basically all I'm trying to say is there are increased demands on the dev's time these days. Both from the gamers and from marketers. And I know people hate to hear it but piracy has taken a bite out of this too. So yes the large companies that mass produce the same type of game over and over again with little changes tend to make quite good profits. But the small independent types... the ones that build those unique games that they themselves are passionate about and have spent years of their lives on... those are the ones that barely break even or take heavy losses... and usually have some of the worst piracy rates because they couldn't afford to protect it.

My first dev project I spent 5 years on to solely develop a new engine and built a new game for it. I made $0 the entire time but I loved every minute of it so that's why I stuck with it. Now I run something successful and profitable (and *fingers crossed* growing into something bigger).

There are problems on both sides: There is no excuse for buggy, unplayable, decepetively marketed games. There is no excuse for the marketing people demanding only features that they believe will be profitable as they really don't understand how those features might make the game more immersive. There is also no excuse for placing heavy demands on devs, requesting support and patches all the time, and then not even bothering to pay for the game in the first place.
 
My only conclusion is that the lancer was rush bought by the AI civ in that city and sent to destroy my troop ALL ON THE SAME TURN, which is against the rules for a player.

Sure they didn't come down a road? Those suckers can cover some ground when you're fighting in their territory.
 
I have no idea personally how much money Civ 5 has made or will make so this is just a comment from someone in dev side of the industry (I run an independent game studio for a living).

Yes the marketing people are... tiresome... at times. So yes the points made here about them pressuring people to rush releases and target only features that will turn profits are, unfortunately, accurate to some degree. However at the same time demands on the games are going up. Better graphics, better UIs, better AIs, better gameplay, etc, etc. Developing a new engine takes years and all this other stuff takes longer too. So you want wonder movies for example? Sure they were cool... but I suspect you want them fully 3D now and high def unlike how they were before? That isn't free and it takes longer than before.

Basically all I'm trying to say is there are increased demands on the dev's time these days. Both from the gamers and from marketers. And I know people hate to hear it but piracy has taken a bite out of this too. So yes the large companies that mass produce the same type of game over and over again with little changes tend to make quite good profits. But the small independent types... the ones that build those unique games that they themselves are passionate about and have spent years of their lives on... those are the ones that barely break even or take heavy losses... and usually have some of the worst piracy rates because they couldn't afford to protect it.

My first dev project I spent 5 years on to solely develop a new engine and built a new game for it. I made $0 the entire time but I loved every minute of it so that's why I stuck with it. Now I run something successful and profitable (and *fingers crossed* growing into something bigger).

There are problems on both sides: There is no excuse for buggy, unplayable, decepetively marketed games. There is no excuse for the marketing people demanding only features that they believe will be profitable as they really don't understand how those features might make the game more immersive. There is also no excuse for placing heavy demands on devs, requesting support and patches all the time, and then not even bothering to pay for the game in the first place.

Good post.

Yeah, it does suck. Piracy is a big problem. Especially for the little guys :mad:

I've pretty well written off the AAA game developers now. I will support Paradox, Stardock and Runic games, etc. The middle market companies. They'll never have the super fancy graphics like the AAA games but they give a damn, support their games and don't use DRM. They manage to survive piracy although I'm sure it still hurts them too.
 
I will take a franchise a few sequels before they re-boot ... look at batman ... it went really bad before it got good again ;)

The words highlighted in the quote are the problems I see in the games industry. Everything seems to be franchised which means we get endless sequels before the developer/publisher realises the game sucks and they re-boot the franchise. Rinse and repeat ad infinitum. As long as the money is there, it doesn't matter.

The games industry today is fast making people like me irrelevant. People that have played games since the mid-1980s or even earlier. When games were a passion. When they were certainly a lot harder than they are today. Today they add two new features, increment the number (or change the name) and then release it and say it's an "all-new" game. People fall for it all the time. This must be the new-generation. :rolleyes:
 
TBH: PC games are virtually dead or if not dying ... the consoles is where the money is these days ... the developers and their backers know this, and are changing their focus accordingly. Hence the console like Civ V we have now.
 
No, I'm using a mod where the meritocracy bonus is different, no free GP

And URGH cities are far too hard to take over in this game.

Not any harder than Civ 4 really. I mean could you take on a city stacked to the gills with longbowmen? Even with modern artillery, infantry and bombers?
 
- the AI never pays tribute, even in front of imminent danger.

- the AI will go to war with you but if you have to move your units through their territory, will not accept that.

- the AI will call you a warmonger even if you went to war because others attacked you first.

- the AI will hate you or declare war against you simply because you're the best, even if you were nice the whole game.

- the AI will hate you for liberating them but will vote for you at the UN (?).

- the AI makes ridiculous deals when they are hostile. they should simply say that they do not want to trade.

- the AI will accept a deal to go to war without you in return for something but some turns later will denounce you for that.

- absolutely no way to repair relationships (except those rare cases where you'll save a civilian from a barbarian encampment).

- the AI never come up with an original deal. if they talk to you, 80% chances it's for a research or open border agreements. 10% chance it's to denounce you.
 
- the AI never pays tribute, even in front of imminent danger.

- the AI will go to war with you but if you have to move your units through their territory, will not accept that.

- the AI will call you a warmonger even if you went to war because others attacked you first.

- the AI will hate you or declare war against you simply because you're the best, even if you were nice the whole game.

- the AI will hate you for liberating them but will vote for you at the UN (?).

- the AI makes ridiculous deals when they are hostile. they should simply say that they do not want to trade.

- the AI will accept a deal to go to war without you in return for something but some turns later will denounce you for that.

- absolutely no way to repair relationships (except those rare cases where you'll save a civilian from a barbarian encampment).

- the AI never come up with an original deal. if they talk to you, 80% chances it's for a research or open border agreements. 10% chance it's to denounce you.

I found it allways funny that the Siam AI has a high warmonger hate but olso has a high conquest rate :p
 
if they talk, 80% chances it's for a research or open border agreements.
10% is to denounce or angry 10% is to say that they are in good terms with the same civ.

what kind of freaking limited diplomacy is this? can they come to us and offer us something original? i don't know like go to war against x in return for luxuries..
i'll offer you money in exchange for x

they never want to buy some stuff..

Moderator Action: Merged into Rants thread.
 
they do - they tell you that your culture is barbarian, your a city state, they want your ivory and you shouldn't interfere with their protection of Warsaw.

best of all, they will ALL do it in rapid succession every 5 turns.
 
LOL. Civilifailzion.

On a more serious note though, OP is absolutely correct, I've thought about the same thing. How come the AI never comes to you to offer you a deal where it swaps its surplus ivory for your extra cotton?

... but don't worry, all these issues will be fixed when the game is finally finished in 2014.
 
I heard there is some new DLC coming. Realistic sound effects or something like that. It should really capture the essence of Civilization 5. You can check it out here:

http://www.failhorn.com/
 
I heard there is some new DLC coming. Realistic sound effects or something like that. It should really capture the essence of Civilization 5. You can check it out here:

http://www.failhorn.com/

Why this isn't the main menu music in Civ5? It sounds so..."organic" with the rest of the game.
 
As annoying the AI is when they do that... the human can sell Songhi their luxuries for 300 each luxury before declaring war... then the human gets the luxuries back and can sell again to Germany getting 600 gold (300x2) per luxury:crazyeye: I sell my horses like this unless I can have a UU like Keshisks.

This cheapo works best on deity where the AIs have so much gold, that ends up becoming my gold...:mischief:

I'm not knocking you for doing this, but personally I don't like to make these kinds of moves. It feels cheap and exploitative to me. Granted the AI is getting cheap exploits at your expense... but then it's just some simple code while you're a sentient being ;)

I also don't like RA blocking, though it's not nearly as bad as the bait and switch maneuver previously mentioned.

My point in bringing this up is to suggest to the OP that maybe you shouldn't play Diety? I forget who on the forums said it, but I'll paraphrase by saying that playing on Diety and Immortal are to prove something; playing on Emporer is to have fun.

While I can beat the AI at Diety extremely consistently, I've started playing at Emporer lately, and my enjoyment of the game has increased immensely. With that said, I've seen the behaviour the OP describes in Emporer games as well. It's wise to pay attention to what CSs the AI's are targeting. And it's wise to pay attention when a Particular AI seems to want to win via Diplomacy. Alexander for example.

It's very hard to compete with AIs on Diety if they're bound and determined to own that CS, because they have ungodly :)clap:) amounts of gold.
 
Top Bottom