Civilization 5 Rants Thread

Unfortunately to achieve fun, the 1UPT + individual play to win AIs (Note: The GAME AI should obviously play to win) would have to be rolled back, not tempered with counterbalancing or Civ4-like distracting gimmicks, which I fear is what a lot of this upcoming release will be. It is these two fundamentals of the Shafer war-gamer vision that stand in the way of fun. Alas, that would require the fundamental redesign of the game from the bottom up. In that case we might as well move on to CivVI.

So I am expecting a few Civ4 like bells, whistles and flavors to try out in the next release. The religion and espionage game may even be an improvement over Civ4. But still only a mask over the fundamental flaws.

I'm not convinced of this point.
I think someone just needed to temper his vision with FUN 8)
 
1UPT ... as implemented ... doesn't get much less FUN 8)
... CivV is a world map, PG maps were not even the size of one CivV tile.
... temper it by not making the pieces all the same unit
... Why not let the player mix and match the pieces that go into that unit.
... The AI civs could each have thematic unit builds.

The desire to make Civ more PG-like with 1UPT was a decent idea,
... but they needed more imagination in implementing it.

The new ideas in Civ5 are exciting and FUN 8)
... but they were painted in black and white.

Just sayin'
 
I'm not optimistic at all with how terrible Civ5 was. I'm definitely waiting for real reviews first before buying any expansion (never did buy any of the DLC crap). I don't think having access to the source DLL will save it. Why haven't they released it already? Did they know how bad the game actually was that they were afraid what talented modders could do with it? Or would it require tremendous code rewrite to not be worth any coder's time? The expansion would have to be a MAJOR overhaul of the game, and I don't see that happening. My bet is it'll make the game better, but not interesting enough for me, and perhaps Civ6 will be worth it (though at this rate my prediction is either I'll have to learn how to code or play Mods for anything beyond Civ5 to be interesting).
 
<snip>
After CiV I can at least be sure most review sites are either corrupt or don't know crap about games, too bad ZeroPunctuation is not inclined to bother with strategy games.

Moderator Action: Please do not advocate piracy (now deleted).
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

For anyone else sick of this game but in need of a game with depth, strategy and extremely well done diplomatics, get Crusader Kings 2, as someone who was intimidated by EU3's rules, micromanagement and graphics I can say they have fixed these problems, as Paradox is pretty big on listening to fans they figured out the best features from their many previous titles and gone for "The best of both worlds" approach, creating a title that actually feels accessible, a pretty unique thing for a Paradox strategy game.
 
Did they know how bad the game actually was that they were afraid what talented modders could do with it?

THIS.

Exactly my thinking... and probably the same reason why they did not release a demo.
 
I'm not optimistic at all with how terrible Civ5 was. ... perhaps Civ6 will be worth it (though at this rate my prediction is either I'll have to learn how to code or play Mods for anything beyond Civ5 to be interesting).

at this rate, my predictions are:
... 1) Civ6 will be a first person shooter
... 2) will have zombies
... 3) will allow purchasing CivBucks for $$$
... 4) will use Free2Play moneymaking scheme
... 5) will require Origin
... 6) will make more money than all previous titles combined

Just sayin'
 
Yes, saying I won't pay until I've played it automatically means piracy right?
No such things as friends, renting or demo's right?
And the point was that Firaxis scammed a lot of people out of their money by releasing a broken product before, something noone should forget while contemplating purchasing their newest attempt at extorting money from us.

Now put back the text you stole from my post.
Moderator Action: You're not allowed to comment on moderator actions in public. Take your comments to a PM.
 
This game version however is not as good as civilization 4. Civ 4 was the ultimate achievement for the series. I was hoping that Civ 5 would be totally different than Civ 4.

What i like about the game:
1. The graphics look fresh and clean.
2. Though confusing the hex format was a change.
3. instantly go online for content.
that was about it.

What i did not like about the game:
1. I did not like the fact that you could not stack units and had to spread them out, it made my game seem cluttered.
2. It felt the same game. LOL it put me to sleep at points. The city state were annoying and unrealistic in behavior.
3. When you think about another version or an upgrade you think more but the game actually had less content.
4. instantly go online to download content that they have not checked for viruses and worms. They should at least check the files.

Closing:

I know they are adding things to the game at but its too slow to save the interest in this game.

I was hoping that civ 5 would be:

1. even though people like to play the game in multiplayer its my opinion that more people play this game against the computer because this is a very long game. Therefore they should enhance the single player experience only.
2. Mix civilization with Sim cities. Not only do you manage each cities policy s and buildings you handle internal issues and globally problems. When you click on view city you should see the bank you made you should also be able to move, demolish, repair, and improve builds. basically you should be able to see what you built.
3. Units like spys, workers, priest, corp exec. would have meaning. for example send your spy to enemy city to blow up there port or cause a riot.
4. Solve issues from citizens or they will riot. If anyone ever played sim city the marriage of these to genre would be perfect.

one thing i really liked about civ 2. was the animated heads, they would move showing if they were angry or happy. There clothing and city style would also change during period changes. When you clicked the city you could clearly see what you built on a picture but that was about it.
 
I sort of disagree. Civ 4 was a radical departure from the first three. Civ 5 seeks to reign in some of the ridiculous things about Civ 4. Civ 5 is far from perfect, and way too easy to win at the highest levels. The big change in Civ 5 is no stacking of units. I'm not sure how realistic this is, maybe they should have limited it to 3 units on a tile? Anyhow, the no-stacking limit keeps AIs from steamrolling you at the highest levels.

I guess its a matter of personal taste. I didn't like Civ 4 from the start, so maybe I never gave it a chance. Civ 5 is a beautiful game, and you can have some great, fun games at middle levels. Too many people seem to be in a hurry to win at deity. There's even some Youtube videos that show you how.
 
at this rate, my predictions are:
... 1) Civ6 will be a first person shooter
... 2) will have zombies
... 3) will allow purchasing CivBucks for $$$
... 4) will use Free2Play moneymaking scheme
... 5) will require Origin
... 6) will make more money than all previous titles combined

Just sayin'

Reminds me of my friend whose favorite game is still that Modern Warfare Zombie map (i think its MW). He's absolutely obsessed with it.
 
I really don't like how you have to *PAY* for Civ V downloadable content that includes civilizations that I don't particularly care about. Sort of falls within the lines of a microtransaction. Buy a few additions to the game while spending money on things that don't matter.

I'm more than willing to pay fifty bucks for an expansion pack or retain a monthly membership fee, but buying things here and there that don't truly contribute a great deal to the game is upsetting. For as little as the downloadable content contains, Firaxis really needs to reduce the price. I don't like microtransaction of any kind in general, but if they can't be removed then I would suggest that official downloadable content for Civ V be a cheaper price than it actually is.
 
It's pretty cheap if you get it in steam sales Target.
 
Now, i've been whining about being disappointed over Civ5 quite alot. But i have still somewhat liked it. Not the gameplay, or balance, or combat.. But still been somewhat hopeful, especially with mods.

But then i started playing Civ4 again this week and i noticed dozens of things i thought in my mind that Civ5 had, because "lol why would they not include that? don't be ridiculous!".
I had to literally go back to Civ5 for each thing just to check, to make sure i wasn't imagining how much was missing..


So obviously we know of the big things, no diplomacy, no tech trading, no corporations, no religion.
But all the small things really stunned me.

1. Civ4 has individual civ specific voices for the units. Everytime you click on a unit it feels like it is an actual human being you guide, as opposed to a Civ5 generic "Swoochpm" sound.
With so much money thrown into voices in Civ5, they couldn't afford to record 2-3 unit-select sounds for each of the few civs in the game. But a lower budget Civ4 could?

2. Civ4 has globe view, allowing you to view the entire map from above the clouds, making it feel like a real planet as opposed to a table with pawns on it.
With millions spent on graphics in Civ5, they couldn't possibly manage to code a globe view, even with a 2d terrain (no, the strategic view does not count). Where did all this money go? Into tessellation?

3. Civ4 has far better, and more audible, ambient sounds. When over a jungle the entire soundscape immerses you in a massive cocoon of jungleness. In Civ5 you can barely hear it. Same with the music, there's great music in Civ5 but even at max it is so incredibly quiet that you can't enjoy it.

4. Civ4 has music for each age level and civ when you zoom in on a city rather than just generic 'citynoise', not to mention the main menu music which captures the enjoyment and excitement of building a civilization. Civ5's main menu music is so incredibly drab and depressing, including the background 'image' which all create an atmosphere of something so dull and grey devoid of any joy or playfulness what so ever.
Again, millions spent on the visuals and audio in Civ5, yet while bragging about having symphony orchestras recording it, the compositions are so utterly drab and mediocre. A symphony orchestra is only as good as the notes on the paper they play to.

5. Civ4 has actual interesting maps, with beautiful sprawling jungles (that aren't desaturated gray-green) and filled to the brim with details everywhere you look. As opposed to endless flat empty land.
So much effort spent on the magical hexes and natural terrain & graphics, yet they fail to produce results surpassing that of Civ4 maps with mapscripts in python that has been out for 4 years already, made by private modders just for lulz. Not even being paid for it.. (Planet generator, Perfectworld2, SmartMap, Tectonics)

6. An obvious one, several leaders per civ, all animated.
Again, millions spent on graphis and 'amg full screen leaders'. Yet they fail to have more than 1 leader per civ? The voiceovers barely qualify as an excuse in terms of being too much work, with no civ voices for unit selection, and given how most civs in Civ5 barely even say anything what so ever when you offer or accept a deal. 1-2 unique lines at most. Sometimes they are even completely quiet, a la Civ4.


I need not go on. It really surprised me. Civ4 is even better and more detailed than my memory made me believe. You know you always have nostalgia clouding the truth in some cases, i really thought i was being overly hard on Civ5.

But after reinstalling Civ4 i just can't comprehend how many small details are utterly lacking in Civ5.
It is like comparing a pepperoni pizza to just 1 slice of pepperoni laying on the floor. :goodjob:

Moderator Action: Merged with rants thread.

There is much more I found within Civ IV that is missing in Civ V. MUCH MORE.
Spot on. If we want a quality game in the future, we'll have to show them that the game as it currently is is totally unacceptable.

Personally, my hope is that the source dll/source code whatever is finally released and modders make the game that we all really wanted. Something true to the game's roots. Firaxis will then take note and learn from their mistakes.

With cIV, I remember a thread on Apolyton that was 165 pages long with suggestions for what we wanted for cIV. Soren Johnson (God bless him) took this to heart and really listened to the fans. What we got was the best version of Civ ever.

Hoping that somehow, Civ VI will get made and it will be a god game design like the Civs I through IV rather than the board game design of Civilization 5. Chalk Civilization 5 up to an experiment that went horribly wrong and get back to making the franchise great again.

I can only agree with your statement because it's perfectly valid.

I enjoyed all Civilizations leading up to Beyond the Sword expansion. I remembered looking forward to hopping on that old Windows 3.1 to play some Civilization. It was great, and best of all, it was educational.

We go from a game (the first one) that my 58-year-old dad played to a game that contains a Giant Death Robot. I mean seriously, why have an end-game unit that has more than twice the firepower of all the other combat units?

Don't even get me started on DLC. That bullcrap needs to stop. You can very easily pay more money for DLC than you would for the expansion pack. More money for less value.

As mentioned to death already, I think the franchise sold out to a group of people who could care less than to fill their grimy pockets with new dollar bills. Let's face it, today's corporate business model sucks.
 
How is Civ5 any more of a board game than Civs 1-3. Civ 4 was the exception as it added more sim elements. G+K will add more to Civ5 so maybe it will be a happy mix between both styles. Civ4 was too open ended for me. I prefer to have a few things to focus on more intensely. That's immersive for me.
 
We go from a game (the first one) that my 58-year-old dad played to a game that contains a Giant Death Robot. I mean seriously, why have an end-game unit that has more than twice the firepower of all the other combat units?

Don't even get me started on DLC. That bullcrap needs to stop. You can very easily pay more money for DLC than you would for the expansion pack. More money for less value.

Most games are over before GDR appears. Besides its name, it's a logical addition to the game given the technological progress it requires. you said yourself it's an end-game unit. Can't end the game from a domination perspective without superior firepower.

DLC is a wonderful concept, it brings us closer to what I believe will be the future of the entertainment industry: the donation model. If you love the game so much that you will pay more for less, then that's excellent, the game developers could use that backing.

If you don't, sit back and wait. The GoTY edition (almost all DLC) was released for ~$20 on Steam and less than that on another site, just a couple months ago. In 2-3 years, Civ 5 with all expansions and DLC will be $25.
 
DLC is a wonderful concept, it brings us closer to what I believe will be the future of the entertainment industry: the donation model. If you love the game so much that you will pay more for less, then that's excellent, the game developers could use that backing.

Very interesting statement. I wonder why companies don't also start making kickstarters and charge for a game during development, this cuts out some obligations from investors presumably. You develop a game and don't sell any units for the first 2 years. That is just not efficient. Of course we really have to trust the company if we give to akickstarter (in return for the game on release of course).
 
How is Civ5 any more of a board game than Civs 1-3. Civ 4 was the exception as it added more sim elements. G+K will add more to Civ5 so maybe it will be a happy mix between both styles. Civ4 was too open ended for me. I prefer to have a few things to focus on more intensely. That's immersive for me.

...and truth be told, you represent the minority in this discussion.

Perhaps you should join other like-minded individuals who enjoy Civilization V in the proper threads.

This is a 'Rants' topic for those of us who don't enjoy CiV to post our disagreements.

Most games are over before GDR appears. Besides its name, it's a logical addition to the game given the technological progress it requires. you said yourself it's an end-game unit. Can't end the game from a domination perspective without superior firepower.

DLC is a wonderful concept, it brings us closer to what I believe will be the future of the entertainment industry: the donation model. If you love the game so much that you will pay more for less, then that's excellent, the game developers could use that backing.

If you don't, sit back and wait. The GoTY edition (almost all DLC) was released for ~$20 on Steam and less than that on another site, just a couple months ago. In 2-3 years, Civ 5 with all expansions and DLC will be $25.

Wait, let me analyze this here.

So you're saying that you support the idea of the Civilization franchise becoming a war-mongering one, and not an empire building series which it was meant to be?

Put yourself in a situation where you have all the technologies except Nuclear Fusion, which is needed to build the Giant Death Robot. Suddenly, Genghis Khan and even Gandhi of all people throw a slew of Giant Death Robots towards you. All you have is Stealth Bombers and Modern Armor.

150 Strength versus 80 Strength (Modern Armor). Who is going to win?

You yourself just admitted that you prefer Conquest and Domination victories as opposed to Cultural and Space Race victories. Civilization is a poor fighting game at best. It's recipe for success lies within the balance of research, maintenance, commerce, culture, and supporting an adequate army. Put all focus on military and you got yourself a serious imbalance in the game mechanics.

====

No it's not. I simply think terrible DLC is a bad concept that wants to reach out and squeeze people of their hard earned cash. It needs to be made cheaper. They should also be where they are simply optional additions to the game, you don't need to use them if you want to fully enjoy the experience.

Now I have to pay out money if I want to play as a Babylonian. Not everybody has the option to get that DLC either. And that is just wrong.

Seriously? The donation model? It's more like 'We want your money and since we don't value you as a valuable customer you have to suck it up or quit blah blah blah'.

Once again, the popular saying 'Good things come to those who wait' is applied.

So, what should we do? Wait two-five years for everything to come out and then say 'Oh boy, everything in one package, I guess I'll go out and buy it'?

Some people prefer to buy the vanilla game during initial release just to find out the great new additions that have been built upon from the previous iteration. So far, most people think Civilization V was a huge step backwards. As a once proud fan of the Civilization series, I can't help but agree with them because there is so much wrong in this game. Who designed it? A group of game developers that actually care or a group of financial heads that were desperate for profits?

It adds nothing new that I haven't seen already in previous iterations. It's a polished piece of turd.

The best ciV review I've seen by Sulla - http://www.garath.net/Sullla/Civ5/whatwentwrong.html

Before anyone makes the decision on whether the game has been dumbed down or not, they should have a look at that review.

This guy is a genius. I mean just look at the descriptive details he gives out in his review. It's a definite spot on.

Worthy of a A+ in my book.

The only real problem I have with the Civ V buildings is the fact that they replaced many of the percentage modifiers with simple bonuses (e.g that the Library gives you +1:c5science: for every two citizens instead of the +25% bonus. It may not seem such a big deal, but it removes a lot of the strategy.

In all previous iterations of Civ, a library was basically useless in cities without commerce. One of the big differences between an experienced player and a rookie, was that the experienced player carefully estimated whether it would be worth building a library in a certain city, while the rookie would just spam libraries everywhere.

Now it doesn't really matter. Well of course, it's better to build a library in a big city than a small city, but that's basically it.

I'm pretty sure this is another attempt to "streamline" things. A lot of kids don't understand percentage works. Therefore things like sliders and +25% buildings are confusing. 1+1 is much easier.

Exactly.

It would only seem logical that you obtained a set number of gold and a positive output of gold per turn before cranking out libraries. Of course I don't speak for everybody, but the bit about experienced players is so painstakingly obvious that it would seem childish to start building universities without even looking at the commerce ratio.

Having a spamfest of libraries with only 10-50 percent research isn't going to help is it?

It's like Firaxis suddenly decided to target a group of ******ed kids who know nothing else than to play 'shoot-em-up' every time they grab hold of a strategy game.

Moderator Action: No need for name-calling.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

Simplicity does not equal better.

In my opinion, this discussion isn't really about Civ 5... It's more about the future of the gaming industry.

The Internet was originally about freedom. Thanks to Napster etc., record companies could no longer control the market like they used to. They could no longer just dress up a hot 18 year old chick in sluttly clothes and let her sing a few crappy tunes, because people started to find music on their own. The downloaded what other people enjoyed listening to, not what the record companies told them to listen to.

I was pretty sure that things would change for the better. I though that this new technology would force the companies to actually listen to what he customers wanted, not treating them as cattle. I thought that this would lead to better products.

Boy was I wrong.

First off, even though the Internet offers endless possibilities, almost ALL traffic go through Google, Wikipedia, YouTube and Facebook. These sites will keep track on your activities, for example, if you send an email in which you write "I love Civilization IV", don't be surprised if an ad pops up, saying something like "Civilization V on SALE!". In other words, though there are millions of web pages, it's easier than ever to do heavy marketing.

The big software companies will "bribe" the gaming magazines, by sending out early copies of the games, which forces them to give higher grades than the games actually deserves. This is then collected in "Metacritics". Civ V has 90%, Spore has 84%, which may very well give you the impression that these are high quality games.

As this wasn't enough, they began with the consolization. They want to keep track off their users, they want to know when and how you play their games. They want to have the ability to shut down your account if you misbehave. And the strange thing is that many people actually seem to welcome these changes.

I think it all boils down to human psychology. We like McDonalds, because we know what we get. If you were from out of town and wanted a hamburger, where would you got? To "Don's Hamburgers", "Peterman's Chicken and Hamburgers" or "McDonalds"? Most people would probably go to McDonalds without even looking at the menu. Because we (humans) don't like to make choices.

We want Hollywood to tell us what movies we should like, we want record companies to decide what music we should listen to... and we want to be told what games we should enjoy. So no matter how many times we "break free", it will always end up the same. A small group of people will have complete control over the masses, because the majority of the consumers are willing to give them this power (even though they'll probably never admit it to themselves).

Definitely. The guy who formed Napster got sued big time, and it no longer exists.

So I guess that the 18-year-old is Britney Spears, right?

We went from guys like Tupac Shakur and Kurt Cobain who helped innovate the music industry to a bunch of rejects. Justin Beiber and Taylor Swift? They look like a byproduct of Bratz.

Everything went downhill following the so called 'Y2K' announcement. Turns out that marketing firms took this new technology and started prodding mass audiences in order to buy particular products. Heavy marketing indeed.

I find very well why IGN would blindly rate games like Civilization a 9.0 rating. Truth by told, games that actually deserve the 9.0 rating are very hard to come by. The fact of the matter is, like Hollywood, most movies/games cranked out are going to be mediocre. There are only a select few that manage to climb up to the top of the rubble.

I enjoy my freedom on the Internet as well. The thought of my account shutting down just for who I am and the personal preferences I go by is clearly depressing. These companies want to control YOU, because once they do they can easily tell you what to do and what not to do. Not a good approach by any means in the book.

And this description, pertaining to McDonalds, is that society has become lazy. People associate a mainstream title and go with it because they know what to expect. Mom and pop stores don't have that reputation. They don't receive credit. Walmart receives huge amounts of credit, and for what? Because it is one of the most profitable companies in the world?

Your last paragraph is a bit unsettling. So you want Hollywood and the music industry to make the choices for us? I'm sorry but from what I see today, they're making terrible choices. Hollywood is now one of the prime suspects in deciding what we should or shouldn't do. And quite clearly, it's all about the materialism and the fame.

Then came Shafer - a 25 year old punk without a proper education. He was a fan of Panzer General and wanted to turn Civ into a tactical war game. He even said something like "Let's face it, would you rather select a building from a list or launch a bunch of nukes against your opponent - I know what I enjoy the most". He loved mechs so he decided to put them in the game. And as soon as the game was released, he left the company.

It's really sad actually.

http://magisterrex.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/blogpanzergeneralaction.gif

http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2010/290/938528_20101018_screen001.jpg
 
The identification of the key design problem with CivV was attributed by Sulla to Luddite:

"1) One Unit Per Tile: Yes, the largest change in Civilization 5 is ultimately its largest design flaw. This will be a controversial point, as I know a lot of people really enjoy the new combat system, but it has to be said: the One Unit Per Tile restriction is the core problem with Civ5's design. Everything is based around this restriction. Everything. It determines how city production works, it determines the pace of research, it explains why tile yields are so low. Civilization was completely rewritten from the ground up to make use of the One Unit Per Tile limit on gameplay. Luddite has written the best summary of how and why this system doesn't work, so I'm going to let him explain further before I continue:"

So Luddite's the original genius.

And yes, the bottom line with self-professed fans of CivV is that they *like* that the Civ series has been converted into a board wargame. "So be it" we are told. The implication is that this may have been the conscious design decision of the producers/publishers.
 
A conscious decision to shift their fan base, that is, and give us the shaft.

The identification of the key design problem with CivV was attributed by Sulla to Luddite:

"1) One Unit Per Tile: Yes, the largest change in Civilization 5 is ultimately its largest design flaw. This will be a controversial point, as I know a lot of people really enjoy the new combat system, but it has to be said: the One Unit Per Tile restriction is the core problem with Civ5's design. Everything is based around this restriction. Everything. It determines how city production works, it determines the pace of research, it explains why tile yields are so low. Civilization was completely rewritten from the ground up to make use of the One Unit Per Tile limit on gameplay. Luddite has written the best summary of how and why this system doesn't work, so I'm going to let him explain further before I continue:"

So Luddite's the original genius.

And yes, the bottom line with self-professed fans of CivV is that they *like* that the Civ series has been converted into a board wargame. "So be it" we are told. The implication is that this may have been the conscious design decision of the producers/publishers.
 
Top Bottom