civ5 "after release" rate: 65% - by votes of 41 CFC members

In another thread (here) I asked you to vote on 29 features of civ5:
from victory conditions through combat elements to the AI and more...
Possible answers were LIKE, DON'T LIKE and NOT DECIDED.

50 persons filled out the questionnaire,
and from this I now give here an evaluation
(for a detailed and more specific breakdowns and methodology, see attachment):

From the 29 features a created 9 factors that I took equally important
for a calculation of the final rating.

The answers were given about the pre patch "62" version of civ5!

The factors are:

VICTORY CONDITIONS (4 features here from the questionnaire, the 4 victories)
CITY STATES (1 feature)
SOCIAL POLICY (1 feature)
DIPLOMACY (1 feature)
HEX TILES (1 feature)
COMBAT (9 features: 1UPT, terrain use, ranged/melee combat, unit types)
GAME "CURRENCIES" (4 features: science, gold, culture, production)
CITIES
AI (3 features: AI in general, AI in combat, AI in diplomacy)

All nine factors reached a %, where
100 is "total like",
0 is "total dislike".
Here is a score for the features:

VICTORY CONDITIONS - 64 %

CITY STATES - 86 %

SOCIAL POLICY - 70 %

DIPLOMACY - 20 %

HEX TILES - 98 %

COMBAT - 76 %

GAME "CURRENCIES" - 65 %

CITIES - 57 %

AI - 23 %

and the average of the 9 factors give the final rating for the game, so

GAME: 62%

Let’s see some more details form the survey, updated to the 50 voters:
(you can find all data in the attached file of the OP)

1. DECIDING ON THE AI

You can find breakdown by „not disliking” or „disliking” the AI.

Those disliking the AI rate the game 55-58%,
and there isn’t much difference as to what is not liked in the AI.
Also, these rates aren’t much lower than the game overall 62% result.

On the other hand, when the AI is „not disliked”, things matter:
Those not disliking AI in general or in combat, rating is 67 and 68,
againm thes are higher than the overall 62%, but very far from it.

But for those who actually don’t dislike AI diplomacy, the game is highly rated: 78%!
It is almost the same high rate, as for those who don’t dislike AI in any respect (79%)…
(Not dislike means either „like” or „not decided&#8221.
Mind you, these are small groups, and that can have distorting effect on the rates…

Diplomacy is a very interesting factor for general rating,
those who rate AI diplomacy higher, rate other things higher, too
(diplomacy in general included, as somewhat expected).
Could this mean that those not dislike diplomacy are perhaps too kind and biased in judgement in general?…
This implies that objectively, diplomacy should get an even worse rating than 20%...

2. LIKES

When you examine the list of „likes”,
You find that when you see groups who like one factor, the game is usually rated 72-75%,
with „gold” and „production” being with a lower rate: 70% and 68%, respectively.

But all these are way less compared to the group where diplomacy is liked:
Only 6 persons said this, a small group, but they all rated the game extremely high, 86%!
Of course, the „like diplomacy” group means 100% for diplomacy, when even the other „like” groups rate diplomacy in the range of 28-33 %.
Those who like diplomacy, were also more kind to the AI, too… again, positive bias?

3. DISLIKES

It is interesting to find that there is a group, where disliking a certain feature results in a very low overall rate: where socialy policy disliked: the overall rate is 40% (!)
Can it be that this group is also a bit biased, but negatively?
This implies that objectively, social policy deserves better than 73%...

THE EFFECT OF NUMBERS – LOOK AT ONLY THE BIG GROUPS

Those disliking diplomacy rated the game 55%. Perhaps you wonder why this rate is „so high”.
The reason is the big number of questionnaires: 36 for those disliking diplomacy.
The bigger the group is, the more its overall rating closes to the 62% overall game rating result we found.

So it is worth looking at those groups who has more than 25 voters,
As perhaps these groups are statistically more reliable, than the small ones:

- Dislike AI in general (28): game 58 % - diplomacy 16%, currencies 67%, AI 8%
- Dislike AI in combat (31): game 59 % - diplomacy 19%, currencies 65%, AI 12%
- Dislike AI in diplomacy (31): game 56 % - diplomacy 6%, currencies 61%, AI 12%
- Like Social policy (33): game 73 % - diplomacy 27%, currencies 80%, AI 27%
- Like Science currency (26): game 73 % - diplomacy 29%, currencies 89%, AI 25%
- Like Gold currency (32): game 70 % - diplomacy 27% , currencies 82%, AI 25%
- Like Culture currency (31): game 72 % - diplomacy 32%, currencies 84%, AI 25%
- Like Production currency (30): game 68 % - diplomacy 28%, currencies 81%, AI 23%
- Dislike diplomacy (36): game 55 % - diplomacy 0%, currencies 58%, AI 18%

Based on the above groups only, averaging of their game rate gives an overall of 65%...

A very accurate reflection of the game if you ask me. All the major new changes to the game have been given the

I.e. - City States, Social Policies, Hexes & Combat have all got high approval %.

The big worry with the game and the reason that most of us are complaining is the abysmally low %'s for Diplomacy & AI both of which have a rating of 24% and 25%.

So for those who claim we are afraid of change and that we want civ IV.5 every time we complain, the evidence is clear .... (had to borrow that line from troy )

Yeah, I have no real issues with the new features. Generally I take change as they come. The AI is my biggest concern.

It really seems like the product was rushed based on the kind of bugs we're uncovering in the bugs section. A lot of UI issues or bug around that. And looking at the Frankenstein team, Firaxis had access to some of the top talent that helped them iron out Civ3 expansion beta testing and Civ4 and expansions.

I'm just puzzled as to how this product got shipped and obviously no one involved is talking.

It could have used an extra month of testing.

Likewise here. It isn't any of the new features most of us are disappointed in, its the old ones that were lost like diplomacy, a challenging AI, being able to build productive cities, lackluster victories, and the game "currencies."

I challenge those who backlash against us critics to show how there are any real strengths in these areas, or how the game is just fine with those the way they are and they aren't serious shortcomings that hurt the replayability and fun factor of the game.

I added some analysis in a second post below the OP

Chibiabos said:

I challenge those who backlash against us critics to show how there are any real strengths in these areas, or how the game is just fine with those the way they are and they aren't serious shortcomings that hurt the replayability and fun factor of the game.

Click to expand...

Since both you and Shafi-is-back mentioned the 'critics' to your criticism,

As been said any times, it's the hyperbole that's annoying and whatever was said in response was said in response to those types of critics, who actually are quite regressive in their tastes, but hide behind more reasonable critics like yourself who have no issue with the new features but have specific problems with the AI and diplomacy

Though regressive tastes isn't something I normally take issue with, there's still an active community who play the older Civs, some exclusively.

dexters said:

Since both you and Shafi-is-back mentioned the 'critics' to your criticism,

As been said any times, it's the hyperbole that's annoying and whatever was said in response was said in response to those types of critics, who actually are quite regressive in their tastes, but hide behind more reasonable critics like yourself who have no issue with the new features but have specific problems with the AI and diplomacy

Though regressive tastes isn't something I normally take issue with, there's still an active community who play the older Civs, some exclusively.

Click to expand...

Would you mind explaining what you mean by regressive tastes exactly? Perhaps I'm wrong here but it does sound somewhat insulting.

Quite some interresting results.

I would have liked to have seen peoples opinion on non combat units like workers, also being included in the 1UPT system.(One of the things that annoys me.)
Its tedious to handle multiple workers improving the same area.

Also what about cities automation AI? Both when it comes to which land to work and when to use specialists. Sofar i think this works less than optimal and the AI does some bad choices in this area.

pagh80 said:

Quite some interresting results.

I would have liked to have seen peoples opinion on non combat units like workers, also being included in the 1UPT system.(One of the things that annoys me.)
Its tedious to handle multiple workers improving the same area.

Also what about cities automation AI? Both when it comes to which land to work and when to use specialists. Sofar i think this works less than optimal and the AI does some bad choices in this area.

Click to expand...

Your points are all valid, but there is a limit for questionnaires
maybe I should have added the tech tree, too - I forgot that, and now it is late...

Thormodr said:

Would you mind explaining what you mean by regressive tastes exactly? Perhaps I'm wrong here but it does sound somewhat insulting.

Click to expand...

Well, dexters seems to feel (from the context of his statement) that anyone that may play or like games like SMAC are less advanced; and are of a former or less developed state.

IMO, the only thing regressive is this kind of thought.

V. Soma said:

Your points are all valid, but there is a limit for questionnaires
maybe I should have added the tech tree, too - I forgot that, and now it is late...

Click to expand...

you could always do a new poll

Please be aware that people usually give high score with thinking that the game will be fixed / patched so it will be better in the future. In another word, they vote for the future game anyway.

Someone preordered the game because they thought that the game would be good at release. But after release, they were all disappointed and upset. Now, they are continuing to hope and wish it will be better after fixed. Just let wait and see

President Obama was highly exptected to make lots of good change (Change we need ). And he was voted for that but see now?

So don't vote for something in the future please...

Nice survey

AI and Diplo kill the score, have to agree with that.

Good analysis.

The changes in Civ5 are on the whole good, but unfortunately it was released before they could be properly balanced and the AI made to understand what they do. Majority of the AI complaints I have and have read all revolve around its inability to manage city states, 1upt combat and general ******edness.

Diplomacy is about as simple as it comes: "OK we'll trade, but when I am done murdering the neighbourhood you're next". Almost like European history (slightly exaggerated)

Er, hate to break it to you, but that's no kind of rating whatsoever.

I can post a poll tomorrow including only the AI stuff and then run and post: "CIV PLAYERS ALL OVER THE WORLD HAVE VOTED! CIV5 rates a 3 out of 100 !

Shafi-is-back said:

A very accurate reflection of the game if you ask me. All the major new changes to the game have been given the

I.e. - City States, Social Policies, Hexes & Combat have all got high approval %.

The big worry with the game and the reason that most of us are complaining is the abysmally low %'s for Diplomacy & AI both of which have a rating of 24% and 25%.

So for those who claim we are afraid of change and that we want civ IV.5 every time we complain, the evidence is clear .... (had to borrow that line from troy )

Click to expand...

Very early in the release, though --

On day 2 or 3 -- I'd have given high marks to CS and SPs, too. They were new concepts, there was an interesting learning curve, etc.

However, the true test of a feature is whether it stands up to repeated play and whether it adds variety and enhances replayability. A month in - I can't say that either CS or SPs do that.

* * *
I do agree that it would be interesting to have an updated survey.... I also find it interesting that two of the three highest scoring 'features' are war aspects - while cities and diplomacy, which are essentially builder/non-warmonger aspects, scored 2 of the 3 lowest.

Sort of goes along with what a lot of us have been complaining about -- Shafer's vision is panzer general with more empire-building aspects than other 4x wargames.... but he's completely left the builders in the dust.

Lightzy said:

Er, hate to break it to you, but that's no kind of rating whatsoever.

I can post a poll tomorrow including only the AI stuff and then run and post: "CIV PLAYERS ALL OVER THE WORLD HAVE VOTED! CIV5 rates a 3 out of 100 !

Click to expand...

I agree that it is a "fabricated" rate at the very end, when I say "overall rate of the game".

But I tried to be fair with putting nine different factors to weigh in evenly into it...
Not just AI, and not just combat, you see, I hope...

But of course, weights can be different, methods can be different, etc...

zonk said:

Very early in the release, though --

On day 2 or 3 -- I'd have given high marks to CS and SPs, too. They were new concepts, there was an interesting learning curve, etc.

However, the true test of a feature is whether it stands up to repeated play and whether it adds variety and enhances replayability. A month in - I can't say that either CS or SPs do that.

* * *
I do agree that it would be interesting to have an updated survey.... I also find it interesting that two of the three highest scoring 'features' are war aspects - while cities and diplomacy, which are essentially builder/non-warmonger aspects, scored 2 of the 3 lowest.

Sort of goes along with what a lot of us have been complaining about -- Shafer's vision is panzer general with more empire-building aspects than other 4x wargames.... but he's completely left the builders in the dust.

Click to expand...

I also agree... so I will have an updated survey...

I will close this at the release of the first patch...
(this week?)

I think I will have a new survey after the big changes that hopefully will come
with patch(es) near Christmas, say, end of this year...
So, maybe survey will start in first day 2011...