Civilization 5 Rants Thread

Was it? I'm not convinced. There are a couple of places in the game where it feels like they've rounded down a corner to make the game more approachable, but only a couple1. There isn't any major change in the tone and timbre of how the game is presented, there's no attempt to make the game take a shorter, more "casual friendly" time, there isn't any "gentle easing into" the strategic concepts and they've actually trimmed away a lot of the eye candy (wonder movies, unit voices.)

More importantly, the main thrust of their advertising campaign has been traditional and "industry centric." There hasn't been much work done in changing the perception of the game or in attracting the "people who don't play video-games" crowd.

No, I think the target audience of Civ V truly was us old-timers. Sure, with an added contigent of "and as many new people as we can get", but that's just good business sense. It was still the three million people who've bought Civilization IV who were the main audience for Civ V.



[1] The "feel" I get for the rest of the stuff that's been chopped off and pared down is more "balanced for multiplayer" with a side dish of "simplified for your convenience (and ours)" rather than "aimed at new players."

Methinks you are straying off topic a wee bit but I'll indulge you since you are polite and respectful. :)

Civilization 5 is basically Starcraft Civ. :eek:

You've got 1UPT in both games and the idea is to swarm the opposition with military units.

You've got paranoid, xenophobic opponents who know literally nothing about diplomacy. Starcraft is much the same. ;)

You've got flavourless resource depots (they are called cities in Civilization 5) to collect resources in both games.

The tech tree in Starcraft actually might be deeper than Civilization 5's.

You've got Giant death robots in both games.

Etc, etc.


Don't get me wrong. Starcraft I and II are amazing games. They aren't Civ games though. They are simple games for people that like beer and pretzels games. Nothing too stressful on the old noggin.

Starcraft I and II sold extremely well. Firaxis and greedy 2K Games took note and tried to emulate them.
 
Religion was a cool concept, I loved the "idea" of having something other than Military, Science or Wonder techs to bubble/rush/build a strat around.

However I just about hated most of everything else about it...

Spreading it felt dumb, random or both.

Abusing the AI was a bit dumb with it, making it a bit easy at first to make allies with close border, but harder with people who are far away, which meant that AIs basically were polar opposites of playing against real players till Free Religion, but then when Free religion kicks in everything goes a little funny, since now the guys who are far from your borders are nice to you, but the guys in your face finally wake up a little.

I also never was a huge fan of the Religious war overtone, which wasn't major, but if I wanted them to bring back similar concepts like that one in DLC/Expansions/Whatever I don't really care if they chose to call it something else and stay away from Religion.

Digital download didn't save them "some" money, it saved them a bucketload of money. Were talking about the difference between making 50-80% profit margins for each unit sold and maybe making 5$ per box sold... For an industry where the prices haven't really gone up in 10-15 years, that's kinda great.

Why? Because they can cater to the nerds and don't need to sell 10x more copies to be profitable.

DLC vs Full Expansion... I'm at a crossroad for that one. In 2005-2008 I was all about the Boxes and full expansions. Today, I much prefer the convenience of going Digital, and seeing DLC with reviews where I can pick and choose which one I want and avoid the bad stuff. A little complicated for multiplayer, but in all the Civs I've played so far... I've "tried" to play a multiplayer game... twice? So I think DLC works out a little better for this game, but wouldn't mind a bigger "expansion" DLC than what they have released so far.

DLCs are terrible value for money, full stop. I've decided not to buy any, for any game, regardless of reviews for that very reason.
 
DLCs are terrible value for money, full stop. I've decided not to buy any, for any game, regardless of reviews for that very reason.

Some of it is terrible, worst example to this date being Oblivion Horse armor I think... and some of it is mediocre, however there's some really cool stuff out there. Fallout NV has some killer DLC and arguably they would have never gotten to release this kind of content if the concept didn't exist.

Civ 5 DLC I find to be somewhere in the middle, if you like scenarios they seem pretty cool, but if you don't it's not like they are forcing you into buying them... Civ 4 expansions kinda felt like that to me, where if you didn't like everything that was bundled in the expansion it felt like really bad value.
 
I remember a few months ago 2k were posting on the 2k forums that CivWorld is Sid's "baby and "his own project".

At the time alot of people felt this was unfair that he was working so hard on "his own project" whilst Civ5 remained broken.

2k's response was that it had nothing to do with them or the devs for Civ5 and they were completely committed to Civ5.

Now we see CivWorld in Beta testing and from the posts you see from 2k it looks like they have quite alot to do with CivWorld and are putting alot of time in to it.

Yet Civ5 still remains broken and past the point of being able to be fixed IMO.
 
I remember a few months ago 2k were posting on the 2k forums that CivWorld is Sid's "baby and "his own project".

At the time alot of people felt this was unfair that he was working so hard on "his own project" whilst Civ5 remained broken.

2k's response was that it had nothing to do with them or the devs for Civ5 and they were completely committed to Civ5.

Now we see CivWorld in Beta testing and from the posts you see from 2k it looks like they have quite alot to do with CivWorld and are putting alot of time in to it.

Yet Civ5 still remains broken and past the point of being able to be fixed IMO.

Civ World is the cash cow. 2K Games' shareholders need to be satisfied.

Civilization 5 is not a priority as there is less $$$ in it.
 
bought the disc. so i wouldnt have to use steam (i have dail-up :( ) but even paying 50 dollars for the disc i still had to download the game from steam i thought that was a bit crappy, it took me 40 hours to download the game!!!
 
bought the disc. so i wouldnt have to use steam (i have dail-up :( ) but even paying 50 dollars for the disc i still had to download the game from steam i thought that was a bit crappy, it took me 40 hours to download the game!!!

Sorry to hear about that.

Discs cost money.

2K Games must cut costs at all cost. ;)
 
I remember a few months ago 2k were posting on the 2k forums that CivWorld is Sid's "baby and "his own project".

At the time alot of people felt this was unfair that he was working so hard on "his own project" whilst Civ5 remained broken.

2k's response was that it had nothing to do with them or the devs for Civ5 and they were completely committed to Civ5.

Now we see CivWorld in Beta testing and from the posts you see from 2k it looks like they have quite alot to do with CivWorld and are putting alot of time in to it.

Yet Civ5 still remains broken and past the point of being able to be fixed IMO.

To be fair, a lot of other software companies prioritise like this as well although may be not with the deception included (both game and business software).

Furycrab said:
Civ 5 DLC I find to be somewhere in the middle, if you like scenarios they seem pretty cool, but if you don't it's not like they are forcing you into buying them... Civ 4 expansions kinda felt like that to me, where if you didn't like everything that was bundled in the expansion it felt like really bad value.

Yeah, I agree with the Civ V point; if you like scenarios, then they might just be worth it. I'm sure however that if Firaxis get around to doing an expansion for Civ V, you'll see all the "DLC Civilizations" bundled in as well. It's the "early-adopters" that are going to be paying the extra money. Personally, I got the free extra Civilization from Firaxis but have no interest in buying the extra Civilizations, even if I actually liked the game more than I do now. The only exception would be is if Valve/Steam had a sale and the price was brought down to $1.99 per Civ as that is how much I think they're worth - not $4.99 or $9.99.

With the Civ IV expansions, especially with Warlords, I waited until a couple of patches were released before buying it. I'd much prefer an expansion than DLC as today, companies are tending to "nickel and dime" moreso than release quality content as DLC (The horse armor is one I had forgotten from Bethesda - OMG, that was ordinary and I never bought it). There are exceptions (Fallout New Vegas DLC, as the example you name for instance) but mostly, they're fluff added on with comparatively exorbitant prices.

But if people are willing to pay (and in my mind, be generally willing to be ripped off), then the industry will continue to release DLC content that (mostly) isn't worth the price they want for it.
 
Good post on the quarter to three forums:

Someone many pages back said something along the lines of playing Civ5 is like having a nagging developer stand over your shoulder slapping your wrist whenever you try to play the game 'wrong'. I felt like the game was always trying to force me down the rails rather than giving me piles of options and letting me try to piece them all together. In Sid's terms, I felt I had fewer interesting decisions to make.

As an example, playing Civ5 on huge maps, there never feels like there's any competition for land. Mostly the land remains fallow throughout the game, which eliminates one of my favorite periods of a Civ game: the land rush. Having to take decisions on what location to prioritize over others, what resources are going to be needed, how quickly I should be shooting for settlers vs. military units and structures, how far I could try to expand without overextending myself militarily or economically.

Another thing is the lack of features like Health and Religion. There were times in Civ4 where I'd have a materially poor start, but was able to have a rip-roaring economy due to being able to focus on religious techs, founding a few religions, and carefully spreading those to my neighbors to keep them off my neck long enough for me to establish myself. In terms of Health, while it was minor, I still miss it. I miss starting in a "Nile" type region, where the abundance of flood plains was going to mean big population gains but massive health problems. It gave me another interesting decision, in that I prioritized trading for (or expanding to) additional sources of food for health, or shooting for techs I otherwise might not in order to get health under control. Nowadays I start in that same Nile type scenario and... well, it's not really much different than any other location with a river.

It plays like a much more streamlined game with a fairly set path to take rather than a sandbox. That's what always led to my particular frustration. I love the Civ franchise, and Civ5 certainly brings some interesting ideas to the table, but it's just not there yet. I'm really hoping for a true expansion to the game, with some re-working of some systems (I like the concept of 1UPT in terms of removing SODs, but the current implementation needs work), addition of new mechanics, and some polishing in terms of AI/MP, this game still has the potential to be really good.

It's an interesting thread with many different viewpoints.

http://www.quartertothree.com/game-talk/showthread.php?t=57760&page=170
 
Noobs is hardly pejorative. It merely means new players and I wasn't using it in an offensive manner. Meh.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newbie

It's generally accepted that "newb" = new player and "noob" = bad player. Simple error.

And AFA I'm concerned civ5 is a dead game. An expansion with new real features would be the only possible resurrection.
 
It's generally accepted that "newb" = new player and "noob" = bad player. Simple error.

And AFA I'm concerned civ5 is a dead game. An expansion with new real features would be the only possible resurrection.

Fair enough. I'll stick with with Newb from now on.

Not expecting an expansion but if they made one that totally remade substantial parts of the game, it might become acceptable.

Not holding my breath however.
 
Interestingly ... I have just started playing "Final Frontier" which was made by John Shafer (designer of Civ 5) and it was really well conceived, but it was really slow and had CtDs. I upgraded to FF+ 1.651 (developed by others) and it transformed the game.

So funnily enough I suspect Civ 5 may get better after a couple of years.
 
Interestingly ... I have just started playing "Final Frontier" which was made by John Shafer (designer of Civ 5) and it was really well conceived, but it was really slow and had CtDs. I upgraded to FF+ 1.651 (developed by others) and it transformed the game.

So funnily enough I suspect Civ 5 may get better after a couple of years.

That is possible. However, as a word of caution, Soren Johnson did a talk on AI in computer games (good AI versus fun AI essentially) where he stated that he fought with 2K Games to get a lot of the source code released for modders pertaining to the AI. 2K Games finally relented while grumbling about legal issues.

It is entirely possible that without someone with the pull of Soren Johnson around, this may not happen for Civilization 5.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJcuQQ1eWWI
 
Which IMO, would be a serious blow to the mod community. Civ V is in need of some tlc from the mod community. As it stands now, I have no interest in playing the game. No immersion, no real fun factor, and pretty much every game played is the same way....

2K can tout all they want about how the game "is a big wet sloppy kiss" to the fans, but i'm a wee bit older and actually prefer some foreplay to my enjoyment, and this game doesn't even begin to come close.
 
Which IMO, would be a serious blow to the mod community. Civ V is in need of some tlc from the mod community. As it stands now, I have no interest in playing the game. No immersion, no real fun factor, and pretty much every game played is the same way....

2K can tout all they want about how the game "is a big wet sloppy kiss" to the fans, but i'm a wee bit older and actually prefer some foreplay to my enjoyment, and this game doesn't even begin to come close.

Yeah, the game needs a heck of a lot of work from the modders to bring it up to par. We'll see if 2K Games allows Firaxis to devote any resources to such a project. That is unlikely as that would cost $$$ and if it interferes with their DLC sales though, it will be a very definitive NO!

A total conversion mod might save this turkey ala cIV with hexes, perhaps limited stacking, city states done right, no idiotic global happiness, etc.

Likely not 2K Games shareholder friendly though.
 
When the competition with CivWorld starts, we'll soon find out what the future of civ5 will be.
 
Not so random musings:

1) With the myopic focus on money from turn zero I wonder why we start with agriculture instead of banking.

2) This game needs a major "economy" makeover.
... maybe, something other than "anything/everything for a buck".

3) Bring back variety ... please.

4) This is the first Civ game I've played where I get nauseous at the thought of having to actually play to a victory.

5) Easy victory does not equal FUN 8)

6) Boring, tedious, monotonous gameplay does not equal FUN 8)

7) Note to self: invent new words to describe how truly disappointing this game currently is.
... maybe, monotediously borinauseous.
 
I've bought EU:3 Chronicles to see how it compares to Civ 5. However it will be an unfair comparison as EU;3 will have had lots of updates and expansions versus the virtually nil of Civ 5. But before that I am playing and enjoying Civ 4's Final Frontier Plus 1.651 (developed by dozens of modders), which transforms the playability of the original Final Frontier (by Jon Shafer)
 
I've bought EU:3 Chronicles to see how it compares to Civ 5. However it will be an unfair comparison as EU;3 will have had lots of updates and expansions versus the virtually nil of Civ 5. But before that I am playing and enjoying Civ 4's Final Frontier Plus 1.651 (developed by dozens of modders), which transforms the playability of the original Final Frontier (by Jon Shafer)

It may initially seem to be an unfair comparison however it goes to the heart of the two companies' philosophies.

Firaxis seemed to have the theory that if it ain't broke, break it anyway.

Paradox has been steadily improving EU since the very beginning, adding on layer after layer and making it a better and better game over time. Today we have a near masterpiece. When they get around to making EU4, they will incorporate ideas from other games they've made to make it even better. (Crusader Kings II, Sengoku, etc.)

Firaxis chose to throw away so much of what made Civ fun in order to chase the casuals/newbies and mass market. Bad decision.
 
Top Bottom