a serious question

[Duke of Awesome]

I was on the "optimistic" side of Civ V prior to its release. i was really genuinely excited and pre-ordered the game. i looked back fondly on Civ4 where i would play so long my fingers would be cold from lack of blood (good times ). i started up Civ V and started playing and... it was alright. i was certainly addicted. i played for about 3 hours straight the first time i loaded it up. i started playing a few games and i realized that i was having fun. and i was DEFINATELY addicted... but it wasnt as much fun as Civ IV. i keep wondering what makes Civ V different from Civ IV that i dont like... any theories from the learned members of this community?

 

[Ricci]

Just keep playing and pretty soon you will be answering the question yourself..

 

[joyous_gard]

I am glad you asked me such a serious question. And I will leave you with this Chinese proverb "A man removes a mountain by carrying away small stones." The great Leonard Nimoy.

There's less overall diversity to this game.

 

[charon2112]

any theories on why we need a new "civ IV is better than civ V" thread?

Moderator Action: Please use the report post function if you have a comment about whether or not a thread should exist, commenting in a thread without adding thread-related content (i.e. answering the OPs questions) is inappropriate.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[testdummy653]

any theories on why we need a new "civ IV is better than civ V" thread?

Search function is broken?

 

[Duke of Awesome]

im not trying to say Civ IV is better but i guess it came off that way. sorry

 

[testdummy653]

im not trying to say Civ IV is better but i guess it came off that way. sorry

Honestly, that not really the reason for our sarcasm.
This topic has been discussed so many times, and the threads are everywhere.
These reason that I'm replying to this thread is because I like that you apologized for posting a genuine question that we made fun of you for. (we should be more open/understanding).


These links should answer your questions and tell you about our "learned members":
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=396052
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=393893
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=394243
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=396101

 

[charon2112]

Honestly, that not really the reason for our sarcasm.
This topic has been discussed so many times, and the threads are everywhere.
These reason that I'm replying to this thread is because I like that you apologized for posting a genuine question that we made fun of you for. (we should be more open/understanding).


These links should answer your questions and tell you about our "learned members":
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=396052
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=393893
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=394243
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=396101

^this.

 

[hussar]

I was on the "optimistic" side of Civ V prior to its release. i was really genuinely excited and pre-ordered the game. i looked back fondly on Civ4 where i would play so long my fingers would be cold from lack of blood (good times ). i started up Civ V and started playing and... it was alright. i was certainly addicted. i played for about 3 hours straight the first time i loaded it up. i started playing a few games and i realized that i was having fun. and i was DEFINATELY addicted... but it wasnt as much fun as Civ IV. i keep wondering what makes Civ V different from Civ IV that i dont like... any theories from the learned members of this community?

1. every game is the same
2. the AI is not so much Intelligent, as more like low 50s IQ dumbass, like the AI in say a 1970 computer game.
3. There was very few changes from Civ 4, and a patched civ 4 is actually a better game, A pacthed and working Civ 4 with FFH installed is many many times a better game
4. they hoped to get away with a few small cosmetic changes, but any frequenter to this fourm will probably have downloaded free mods that had many LARGE changes to the game.
5. Steam sux
6. Expensive DLC appearing before any real patches
7. Did I mention dumb AI? apparently on the hardest setting the computer still wont rush you, that means every game runs the same as the last and the next

probably way more but I am thankfully forgetting because I havent played the game since a week after release, and wont be playing for any foreseeable timeint he future

 

[toccoto]

probably way more but I am thankfully forgetting because I havent played the game since a week after release, and wont be playing for any foreseeable timeint he future

*sigh* And people wonder why the negative people can sound so uninformed.

 

[lynxxyarly]

I'm confused as to why people who have so much hatred for civ 5 still post in the civ 5 forum. Why do they waste their time and energy on something they don't like to play?

 

[John-SJ]

This is especially confusing in that the haters don't seem to have anything constructive to say, they only seem intent on getting others to agree with them.

My theory is that they are inwardly insecure, and they attempt to quell their insecurities by getting others to agree with them

Moderator Action: Please don't make sweeping generalizations, thanks.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[kaltorak]

This is especially confusing in that the lovers don't seem to have anything constructive to say, they only seem intent on getting others to agree with them.

My theory is that they are inwardly insecure, and they attempt to quell their insecurities by getting others to agree with them


Just had to change one word to show how anybody could say that paragraph.

And now answering to the other more constructive post, we remain in the forums because we have been playing civ for over a decade and won't give up so easlily. So we are trying to civ5 become a good game, by pointing out all the things that need to change.
For example, after much complaining about diplomacy, we got a post telling us it's their priority right now. Who were the ones insisting that the 2 worst points of civ5 were diplomacy and AI? Players making posts like this one. Granted even lovers said AI was bad, but they still tried to say diplomacy was fine... We "haters" managed to get them to admit diplomacy is a priority to patch.

 

[Akka]

I'm confused as to why people who have so much hatred for civ 5 still post in the civ 5 forum. Why do they waste their time and energy on something they don't like to play?

The worse the response of the community to the game, the better the chances Firaxis will get Civ6 right.

I could also point that nothing in the world ever change with yes-men, and that's the criticisms that actually push people to improve things, but considering how some just prefer to lump anything negative under "haters" and ignore everything constructive ever posted, I doubt it would reach them.

 

[KingMackem]

And now answering to the other more constructive post, we remain in the forums because we have been playing civ for over a decade and won't give up so easlily. So we are trying to civ5 become a good game, by pointing out all the things that need to change.

Hear, hear.

 

[kaltorak]

I could also point that nothing in the world ever change with yes-men, and that's the criticisms that actually push people to improve things, but considering how some just prefer to lump anything negative under "haters" and ignore everything constructive ever posted, I doubt it would reach them.

Not only that. They even try to make excuses on things not working. Like that diplomacy thing. No you see, it's working fine, it's just that the AI is playing for winning. So he does all this random stuff which makes no sense to surprise you and it attacks you when it shouldn't because it has inner logic which we can't see that makes total sense.

2 weeks later greg 2k: patching diplomacy is our top priority

 

[Alki]

My theory is that they are inwardly insecure, and they attempt to quell their insecurities by getting others to agree with them

No, not for me. Strange as it may seem, I just like the gameplay more.

5 retains and improves the parts of the game I liked (warfare, empire building etc) and removed the parts of the game I didn't like but forced myself to buy into. (Religion, espionage corporations etc.) The whole micro management of BTS was a real chore. And not fun in the slightest.

I much prefer the social policies idea.
I much prefer 1upt. I'm glad I don't have to wage Stack of Doom v Stack of Doom warfare.
I'm glad I don't have to spam my religion all over the planet. Building all those missionaries was a pain in the hole. And the idea that if I was first to bulb a religion would see me 90% first to the othes felt cheesy.

Certain things which are obviously broken or need recalibrating, like the horse rush, I will avoid.

I just like this edition more overall.

 

[kaltorak]

Alki I even agree on most of the changes you say. It's not those specific additions or removals they have made which make the game bad in my opinion. I liked civ4 civics but I also like policies. I love 1upt. I liked religion but the removal doesn't bother me. And more things like this

Besides some specific flaws, it's the general "flow" of the game which I find boring. Everything seems to be balanced to be a match against oponents, instead a civilization game.
Some examples
-Buildings just scale in maintenance and effect, like the happiness line for example: boring
-Land. Resources matters much less. Having cities is just good, no matter if the city is a good one or a bad one: boring
-AIs playing only to win. Or trying to. but even if it would work: boring.

just a few examples, but like I said, its the general direction of the game, to turn it into a balanced battleground

 

[SuperJay]

Haha, wow. The poor OP gets slammed as a hater within a handful of posts, just for asking a pretty reasonable question - and then even apologizing for asking it. So who's doing the hating, now? Hmm.

 

[charon2112]

I had 2 points about this line. #1 - True constructive criticism is great, but also very rare on these forums. #2 - If one wants to complain and have the developers listen and address the issues, why not do it on 2K's forum, instead of here...? It would be more productive, that's where the game makers are looking for feedback.

For example, after much complaining about diplomacy, we got a post telling us it's their priority right now.

Slammed as a hater? Really? Where...? I don't see anything like that.

Haha, wow. The poor OP gets slammed as a hater within a handful of posts, just for asking a pretty reasonable question - and then even apologizing for asking it. So who's doing the hating, now? Hmm.