Conflicted Consumer

[Richelieu Rex]

I'm one of those people (there must be so many of us) who've been frequent readers of the forums, players since Civ1, yet never bothered to sign up. So today I've finally decided to be bothered, mainly because the reception of CiV is, well, so heated, for lack of a better word.

When I played Civ1-3, I had lots of time on my hands but I've since become, sadly, a very casual gamer, spending bursts of long weekends on one game interrupted by long periods of, well, tedious real life. I've been burned badly by an excursion into Total War games lately, both ETW and NTW basically unplayable (though amazingly pretty) on release and for months onwards. So I decided to hang around civfanatics for a couple of days to see how this one turns out. And I still haven't bought it.

And here's the problem: I'm not sure how best to tell Firaxis about my preferences in a meaningful way, apart from not buying the game. I love to see a big, strong market for demanding, complex strategy games, and I can't be the only one. There must be so many people out there who were nerds in the 90s when this whole genre took off who have the money and the interest to sustain at least a niche in the gaming market, and by niche I mean something bigger than Paradox.

I'm just trying to think what the smart customer would do here. I'm not sure if this "streamlining" (or dumbing down, depending on how you look at it) is really a deliberate choice, or if it's just an effect of too little manpower, not enough time, leaving some nice and juicy subsystems for the inevitable expansions. Either way, the majority of the forums thinks this might have been a rush job (bugs, flaws, stupid AI), even if people are divided on whether the intended changes in gameplay are a good thing or not.

From what I can tell without having bought the game yet, I see a lot of things that I like, and I would imagine that this could become a Civ to love eventually through modding and expanding. But I don't think I would want to spend money on the game the way it currently looks. But the only way I can encourage the developers to do good work is of course by buying their products. I guess the best way would be if you could lease the game on a monthly subscription. If you get it and stop playing, income for the developer would go down and they would have an incentive to work hard on improving the game, and while lots of people play it, the money would flow and the game would improve. I would totally be up for that, but it probably won't happen anytime soon.

So before this turns into a totally pointless rant, Firaxis, if you ever read this: Some time soon I won't be able to hold back any longer and you will get my money and sales will go up by one more. Please don't misread that as an encouragement to pitch Civilization to a mass market. It's just one of your old fans who hopes that every iteration of Civ will end up as a game you want to spend 16 hour days on.


P.S. This is just a pet peeve, but seeing screenshots of late-game maps with continents half-empty just bugs me.

[charon2112]

Originally Posted by Richelieu Rex

But I don't think I would want to spend money on the game the way it currently looks.

Which features or issues with Civ V do you not like?

[Fistalis]

Really depends on what your looking for in a CIV game. Expectations are as varied as the number of people who play them. I personally dislike Civ V but it doesnt make it a terrible game.. just doesn't meet MY expectations of what a civ game should be.

So.. what are you looking for in a civ game?

[Richelieu Rex]

Fair question, charon. My five obuli: that so many people seem to think it feels unfinished and buggy. When I was reading the reviews beforehand I was very excited about the novelties (I loved Panzer General back in the day, for example), at the very least these game mechanics have a lot of potential. I won't miss having to put hordes of tanks on transports and in general I like the idea of streamlining gameplay (though not at the expense of complexity).

At the end of the day I won't be able to judge the game before I've played it. But the amount of dismay around the forums seems to be more than just the usual gripes with things that are different from how they were. There seems to be more to it and it sounds a lot like, say, Empire Total War, i.e. a long paid-for beta phase. And of course I don't like the sound of that.

Plus, to be perfectly honest, I don't like the look of those empty continents one bit. I'm sure you could have the same tradeoffs of size versus culture, just on a larger scale.

[charon2112]

That's fair...although not everyone has bug issues. I didn't (lucky I guess).

Originally Posted by Richelieu Rex

Fair question, charon. My five obuli: that so many people seem to think it feels unfinished and buggy.

[Maniacal]

ETW and NTW are playable and have been for several months now. You could check out some of Paradox Interactive's games such as Europa Universailles 2 or 3, Hearts of Iron II (or 3, though you may want ot wait a bit longer on that one), or Victoria or even Crusader Kings.

[Fistalis]

Originally Posted by charon2112

That's fair...although not everyone has bug issues. I didn't (lucky I guess).

You never hit the never ending peace treaty bug

You are lucky then

[Richelieu Rex]

@ prince scamp. Actually, ETW and NTW are cases in point. I went out and pre-ordered Empire like a fool, started playing, and had a very fun day and a half. Then I realized that the AI couldn't even do naval invasions, which one would think is pretty essential in a setting of worldwide naval warfare. EUIII of course runs like clockwork now, and has fun mods and all, but it's also been around for 100 years. At least in the case of paradox, nobody expects them ever to go mass-market, because their games are deliberately niche in a way that Civ is not and never has been.

@ Fistalis, of course my expectations are totally unreasonable! I want Civ to be complex, but never tedious, visually pleasant, and totally addictive. As you said, you can have an okay game that would give you some nice gameplay for a week, and on a value for money basis that's probably worth buying it anyways (compared to, say, wasting your cash on movies and books).

More seriously, though, the one thing I really hope keeps getting better with each generation of Civ is the diplomacy. To simulate the delicate dance of a dozen big powers warring and plotting and scheming so that you really feel your guiding your lot through the ages, that's what Civ is to me (okay, that's really just the first I could think of, there are many things more, this being the glory of Civ). And I thought Civ4 did a pretty good job at doing that.

[Maniacal]

EUIII has had three expansions, several patches, and a 4th expansion is in the works (updated graphics, some gameplay changed and enhancing the far east).

Empire: Total War was definitely broken when it was released, I picked it up on its first 50% off sale for $25 USD. By that point it only had like one more patch to go and its pretty good now, at least as far as TW games go when unmodded.

Paradox games are often very buggy with some broken features when they are first released, though apparently Vicky 2 was a better launch than HoI3.

Civ5 has some cool new features and I am very glad Firaxis is not afraid to try something new, though the AI could be better but that goes for any game.

[moscaverde]

I suggest you download the demo.
Only then, after played some times you'll get if you like the game or not.

[HamTard]

The game isn't that buggy. The haters are just really loud, and probably don't have updated drivers or had settings too high for their computer.

I've completed 4 games without any crashes and I had a blast. I one-more-turned a sleepless night already.

[tom2050]

Originally Posted by HamTard

The game isn't that buggy. The haters are just really loud, and probably don't have updated drivers or had settings too high for their computer.

Gameplay bugs are in the game, and are not related to graphical issues. Of course, there are graphical bugs as well.

People making posts about these bugs helps Firaxis take notice of them so they can be fixed... how are these people 'haters'? Provoking others into some kind of flame war does nothing to help anyone.

[Thormodr]

Originally Posted by PrinceScamp

EUIII has had three expansions, several patches, and a 4th expansion is in the works (updated graphics, some gameplay changed and enhancing the far east).

Empire: Total War was definitely broken when it was released, I picked it up on its first 50% off sale for $25 USD. By that point it only had like one more patch to go and its pretty good now, at least as far as TW games go when unmodded.

Paradox games are often very buggy with some broken features when they are first released, though apparently Vicky 2 was a better launch than HoI3.

Civ5 has some cool new features and I am very glad Firaxis is not afraid to try something new, though the AI could be better but that goes for any game.

Thank you sir! I hadn't noticed that EU3 was coming out with a 4th expansion. Divine Wind looks awesome.

[Venereus]

The rushed bit I'm pretty sure of at this point. It's not just bugs, it's the clearly intended features (like the map replays and the "no cycling units" option), that were not fully implemented before release, yet they are there.

[Richelieu Rex]

Okay, so this is getting really interesting. Just to sort the different opinions a bit. Let's assume, for the sake of simplicity, that there are 3 ways in which a newly released game can cause you grief:

1. Plain bugs. The game crashes, freezes, etc. Obviously there's always going to be a certain amount of that, given the complexity of modern pc games, and the multitudes of different rigs around. It will affect people very differently.

2. Flawed innovation. The designers tried to come up with some new game mechanics but failed to implement it in a way that delivers on whatever it promised. The Empire Total War naval invasion AI would be a good example. The game is premised on multiple theatres of war, but the AI can't figure out how to put troops on ships and invade. Once that is fixed, the problem goes away. There might be more ambiguous cases, like the Civ5 1UPT unit AI. Lots of people seem to think the computer isn't really able to exploit this, presumably future AI patches and expansions will improve the issue, but it won't ever be totally broken or totally ideal.

3. Dubious design choices. This is where people will start disagreeing strongly about the nature of the problem. One man's innovation is another man's treason and betrayal of the franchise. It seems that there is a lot of discussion around the forums over these kinds of choices, but it's a different kind of discussion from points 1 and 2 above, because they are clearly intended by the designers.

So how do you guys think Civ5 measures up against other broadly comparable games (EU, HOI, ETW, NTW), or against earlier Civs in these 3 categories? Why is there so much rumble around the forums, is it 1, 2, or 3, or a combination?

[jjkrause84]

I for one will ALWAYS pre-order games I know I will otherwise buy (like Civ and Empire:TW).....because Amazon UK offers big (40% or more) discounts on pre-orders.

[gunnergoz]

I think that the Civ V developers were also listening to their marketing and funding weenies as much as anything else. They have this game they love, but it is a cash cow which means that it has to come out on time, make lots of money and to do that they insist it attract a larger gamer client base. So it was "streamlined" in some ways, simplified in others, and some interesting innovations thrown in since it is after all being programmed by some geeks who love it. The initial outcome was not at all perfect, obviously and the flaws were both in PC stability and the result of going to Steam for whatever reason that was selected (mostly monetary I suspect.)
As far as I'm concerned, the game is at least one patch from stability and two or three from reaching its gaming potential (assuming they focus on AI improvements and getting rid of some minor bugs or unimplemented features.)
Is it addictive - yes. Can it support mods like what kept Civ IV fresh for years - hopefully. If the next Civ follows this same path of simplification for sake of a broader market, however, I doubt I will much be inspired to buy it. Hopefully the lesson learned from this one is that strategy gamers can handle and do want a truly complex and well-integrated game that does take some time and effort to master, even if you do (gulp!) need to RTFB (read the manual.)

[EmpireOfCats]

The problem is, and there is no way around this, the game lives and dies with the ability of the programers to create a competent combat AI. If they can put one together that is fun to fight against, then Civ V will be able to command a long-term following. If they can't get the AI to work, the game is dead in the water, and no amount of patching other stuff will save it.

Scary thought.

[LegionSteve]

Originally Posted by Richelieu Rex

Okay, so this is getting really interesting. Just to sort the different opinions a bit. Let's assume, for the sake of simplicity, that there are 3 ways in which a newly released game can cause you grief:

1. Plain bugs. The game crashes, freezes, etc. Obviously there's always going to be a certain amount of that, given the complexity of modern pc games, and the multitudes of different rigs around. It will affect people very differently.

2. Flawed innovation. The designers tried to come up with some new game mechanics but failed to implement it in a way that delivers on whatever it promised. The Empire Total War naval invasion AI would be a good example. The game is premised on multiple theatres of war, but the AI can't figure out how to put troops on ships and invade. Once that is fixed, the problem goes away. There might be more ambiguous cases, like the Civ5 1UPT unit AI. Lots of people seem to think the computer isn't really able to exploit this, presumably future AI patches and expansions will improve the issue, but it won't ever be totally broken or totally ideal.

3. Dubious design choices. This is where people will start disagreeing strongly about the nature of the problem. One man's innovation is another man's treason and betrayal of the franchise. It seems that there is a lot of discussion around the forums over these kinds of choices, but it's a different kind of discussion from points 1 and 2 above, because they are clearly intended by the designers.

So how do you guys think Civ5 measures up against other broadly comparable games (EU, HOI, ETW, NTW), or against earlier Civs in these 3 categories? Why is there so much rumble around the forums, is it 1, 2, or 3, or a combination?

I never played Civ 1 or 2, my first 'Sid' game was SMAC. I didn't like Civ 3 very much (went back to SMAC) and I loved Civ 4 BtS.

1) I have played just over 100 hours so far. I only had 1 crash to desktop. Another time I had a game stop responding while processing AI turns, but it still let me save it, and after rebooting and reloading it started working again. Maybe its because my PC is fairly high spec, or I am just lucky.

There are a lot of very-annoying-but-not-game-ending bugs though (just look at the confirmed bugs thread in the bug reports forum). While definitely playable, at least for me, it has a lot of rough edges and does look unfinished.

I don't play multiplayer, but a colleague at work told me it was initially unplayable, then improved a lot with some quick patches.

2) I like most of the new ideas, 1 unit per tile etc. I don't understand though why they didn't let naval units share a tile with non-combat (ie embarked) sea units, in the same way that civilian and other land units can. It makes moving a large fleet of naval and embarked units to another continent quite tedious.

The AI is the most obviously flawed thing. It throws units forward in a seemingly random fashion. I have seen cannons (or even one time a settler lol) end up on the front line in battles. Defending a choke point against an AI with superior tech and production is funny, for a while, because AI land units will just spill into the sea where they can be easily killed. However, in traditional Civ style higher levels give the AI big bonuses and the AI can still kill me, or at least make me not win, some of the time (though that clearly isn't true for everyone on this forum as some are already beating it on deity).

3) Design decisions, hmm. As you say, this has caused a lot of disagreement. There are things I don't like about the interface. When I start a new game, look at my initial surroundings and then go to plan my tech path, the number of clicks it takes to get to the tech tree seems too much. Still, I found on this site a link to a list of keyboard shortcuts (which I couldn't find anywhere in the game help menu) which might help. I can't find anywhere an info screen which tells me which AIs are at war with which other AIs, maybe I am just missing it?

Some people have complained about the diplomacy, not giving enough information or being too random. Initially I felt the same, but I have come to feel that there is some logic in there, I just don't fully know what it is yet. So I don't want to say that the diplomacy is badly designed (yet), I think it needs more investigation.

The 'streamlining' of city buildings and terrain improvements has left them seeming very bland to me. Great Person terrain improvements also seem uninspiring, especially when oil or aluminium could later appear in that hex and you have to build over them. Of course there are still awesome things you can do with Great People but these aren't one of them. These concerns haven't yet spoiled my enjoyment of the game, I am happy moving units around and dealing with city states. But it does make me question if Civ 5 will ever have the replayability of SMAC or Civ 4 BtS. Only time will tell - ask me again after another 100 hours I guess.

[Ogaburan]

I bought it, got disappointed after about 30hours of play...
Lost faith in Cid and Firaxis.
Discovered mods.
Made a pretty nice civ-for-me from different mods released, and im pretty much happy now.

Thing is i much rather have given my money to those modders rather then firaxis.

I wish firaxis will pay someone to help with the development of some of the more popular mods that will come.