Blast From the Past: CivFanatics Forums from November 2005

[Bleser]

Just for comparisoin' sake and curiosity, I went back in time in the Civ IV General discussion right around Civ IV's release date. It was hilarious... it was like I'm reading this thread all over again.

- Game is full of bugs
- Graphics crash for XYZ video card
- Why did they add this/remove that
- Time between turns is too long

http://forums.civfanatics.com/forumdisplay.php?f=144&order=desc&page=737

Anyway, thought I would share, and all of us, as Civ players, should remember to learn from history. Seems that most people are comparing Vanilla version 1.0 Civ V to BtS Civ IV patch 37 and find all kinds of fault. Really we should be comparing it to Vanilla 1.0 Civ IV. Just reading these threads you could think they're talking about either game.

Anyway, thought I would share, and hopefully will remind everyone that the full Civ V we all want may not be until late 2011, much like the first "good" Civ IV (to me anyway) was after the first patch to the Warlords expansion (roughly a year from the original release date).

 

[Qin Shi Huang]

lmao so when civ 6 comes out people will say civ 5 is so much better etc etc that'll be amusing

 

[zonk]

Just for comparisoin' sake and curiosity, I went back in time in the Civ IV General discussion right around Civ IV's release date. It was hilarious... it was like I'm reading this thread all over again.

- Game is full of bugs
- Graphics crash for XYZ video card
- Why did they add this/remove that
- Time between turns is too long

http://forums.civfanatics.com/forumdisplay.php?f=144&order=desc&page=737

Anyway, thought I would share, and all of us, as Civ players, should remember to learn from history. Seems that most people are comparing Vanilla version 1.0 Civ V to BtS Civ IV patch 37 and find all kinds of fault. Really we should be comparing it to Vanilla 1.0 Civ IV. Just reading these threads you could think they're talking about either game.

Anyway, thought I would share, and hopefully will remind everyone that the full Civ V we all want may not be until late 2011, much like the first "good" Civ IV (to me anyway) was after the first patch to the Warlords expansion (roughly a year from the original release date).

Plenty of others have tried to make the same point, but I don't see it...

Complaints of bugs and hardware problems (especially) were the primary IV complaint driver. In the case of IV, I don't think ANYONE would disagree -- they badly undershot the minimum/recommended specs (min was unplayable, rec was minimum).

In the case of V, I'm not seeing nearly the same number of bug complaints --- the complaints are about gameplay, not stability.

Looking at some of the old polls from IV's release, as useless as self-selecting samples are for rigorous "polling" -- it seems like V definitely draws more ire than IV.... and I will readily admit that V is more "polished" (in terms of less CTD and bug issues) than IV.

 

[Ogrelord]

You should always want to improve on the latest IP release. And that was BTS.



EDIT: I don't compare Super Street Fighter IV to Super Street Fighter II, I compared it to Capcom last iteration of that game, Street Fighter IV.

 

[poncratias]

you should always want to improve on the latest ip release. And that was bts.



Edit: I don't compare super street fighter iv to super street fighter ii, i compare it to capcom last iteration of that game street fighter iv.

this.

 

[sgrig]

I also had a look at old threads. When looking back like this, make sure you sort the threads by date started, rather than by date of last post, otherwise there is a "thread survivorship bias" - i.e. you only look at threads that didn't get much attention back then.

It does seem (and that's how I also remember it) that most of the complaints back then were about technical bugs and graphics compatibility problems. There were much fewer gameplay complaints, and hardly any "Civ4 is dumbed down" complaints.

I tried to find some polls. Here is one:
Does your Civ IV work?

Amazingly, 25% voted that it doesn't! Although of course, there is a bias here that people for whom it doesn't work are more likely to vote on such a poll.

Also I tried to find a poll that compares Civ4 to previous versions of civ. Here is one:
Best Civ game to date?

Back then, 75% voted for Civ4. Another poll Which version do you like the most? gives 71% in favour of Civ4.

In comparison, a recent poll Best version of Civ gives only 30% to Civ5.

Even the poll that asks Can Civ5 become the best civ of all time once it is fully polished? only gets 55.5% for Civ5.

So clearly, the initial reception of Civ5 vs previous versions is far worse than the initial perception of Civ4 vs previous versions.

 

[Justicex]

The point being, is that when Civ IV came out, the same complaints were levied against it as we are seeing now with V.

Comparing a vanilla Civ V with Civ IV BTS is royally unfair. Civ V was just realeased but Civ IV has had 5 years of updates, patches, etc. to tweak and repair it. Plus, two add-on disks (Warlords and Beyond the Sword) with even more patches, fixes and new gameplay elements. There is no way any vanilla can compete with that.

Now, if Firaxis had spent 10 years in development, spending all that money on wages, R & D, etc. to release Civ V as a suitable "successor" to BTS, then I could see it. But what comany in their right mind is going to spend that many millions of dollars, for that extended amount of time before they release a game? Especially when all people will say is "Why wasn't this game released 10 yrs ago? It looks like it was ready back then!"

And for the record, Street Fighter has been unplayable since Super Street Fighter 2......

 

[SuperJay]

The point being, is that when Civ IV came out, the same complaints were levied against it as we are seeing now with V.

If you truly believe that, I don't think you've been reading the current complaints - which is fine, there's no real reason you should, if you enjoy Civ5 currently. But maybe don't paint them all with one broad brush unless you've actually been reading the threads. Most of the concrete ones have to do with issues specific to Civ5. Maybe you're skimming a thread here and there about slider missing or other "it isn't Civ 4 anymore" issues, but I think those are on the fringe at this point. The lasting problems we're having aren't related to Civ4.

(I know it's tempting to generalize everyone else's opinions so you can easily dismiss them as "whiners" or "haters" who have no valid basis. But you don't even need to go that far, just don't read them. Play the game if you're enjoying it in its current state, and don't worry too much about anyone else's opinions since they don't hamper your fun anyway.)

 

[Ayt]

As others mentioned, the issues with Civ4 were largely technical. Issues with Civ5 mainly have to do with design.

 

[zonk]

The point being, is that when Civ IV came out, the same complaints were levied against it as we are seeing now with V.

Comparing a vanilla Civ V with Civ IV BTS is royally unfair. Civ V was just realeased but Civ IV has had 5 years of updates, patches, etc. to tweak and repair it. Plus, two add-on disks (Warlords and Beyond the Sword) with even more patches, fixes and new gameplay elements. There is no way any vanilla can compete with that.

Now, if Firaxis had spent 10 years in development, spending all that money on wages, R & D, etc. to release Civ V as a suitable "successor" to BTS, then I could see it. But what comany in their right mind is going to spend that many millions of dollars, for that extended amount of time before they release a game? Especially when all people will say is "Why wasn't this game released 10 yrs ago? It looks like it was ready back then!"

And for the record, Street Fighter has been unplayable since Super Street Fighter 2......

But then --

Doesn't that mean that they shouldn't have called it V - and instead, calling it Civilization: Reborn or somesuch?

Either it's V -- as in, the fifth iteration of the award winning series.... or - it's a reboot.

You can't have it both ways -- if it's "V", as in the release that comes after IV -- then it needs to beat IV. If it's a new direction that shouldn't be judged against IV, then simply don't call it Civilization V... I mean -- I'm ultimately sorry I wasted my money on the IV-esque 'Colonization', but I have no excuse because they made no attempt to brand it as the expansion on top of BTS or really, even IV.... The trappings and hype (what there was) for Colonization made it clear it was a different game, taken in a different direction.

 

[Justicex]

If you truly believe that, I don't think you've been reading the current complaints - which is fine, there's no real reason you should, if you enjoy Civ5 currently. But maybe don't paint them all with one broad brush unless you've actually been reading the threads. Most of the concrete ones have to do with issues specific to Civ5. Maybe you're skimming a thread here and there about slider missing or other "it isn't Civ 4 anymore" issues, but I think those are on the fringe at this point. The lasting problems we're having aren't related to Civ4.

(I know it's tempting to generalize everyone else's opinions so you can easily dismiss them as "whiners" or "haters" who have no valid basis. But you don't even need to go that far, just don't read them. Play the game if you're enjoying it in its current state, and don't worry too much about anyone else's opinions since they don't hamper your fun anyway.)

I never called anyone anything. Don't put words in my mouth.

I can only read so many threads on the same topic for so long before my brain starts to split. People complained about both game's AI, UI, diplomacy, whatever they felt the need to complain about.

I do actually agree with most of those complaints, I just don't think they are as bad as people make them out to be. Except for diplomacy. That's just messed up.

But then --

Doesn't that mean that they shouldn't have called it V - and instead, calling it Civilization: Reborn or somesuch?

Either it's V -- as in, the fifth iteration of the award winning series.... or - it's a reboot.

You can't have it both ways -- if it's "V", as in the release that comes after IV -- then it needs to beat IV. If it's a new direction that shouldn't be judged against IV, then simply don't call it Civilization V... I mean -- I'm ultimately sorry I wasted my money on the IV-esque 'Colonization', but I have no excuse because they made no attempt to brand it as the expansion on top of BTS or really, even IV.... The trappings and hype (what there was) for Colonization made it clear it was a different game, taken in a different direction.

Every game in the seris is a "reboot" of sorts. Civ V is a bit farther of a departure than previous games, but Firaxis is not a company to rehash previous games with a fresh coat of paint.

All I was saying with that post is, you can't compare a freshly-released game with one that has had 5 yrs of upgrades and patches. The freshly-released game will usually look bad in comparison. Give Civ V some time and I am sure that in 5 yrs, people will be fondly bashing Civ VI for not being as good as Civ V BTS (or whatever the name of the last expansion will be).

 

[Xanikk999]

Except i liked civ4 when it first came out. Not to mention the game was actually fun and without the gameplay flaws present in civ5.

Its common nature for developers to release buggy titles for the pc when they come out and patch it later. Civ5 isnt just buggy its practically bare bones, unfinished, and unbalanced and chock full of design flaws.

 

[zonk]

Every game in the seris is a "reboot" of sorts. Civ V is a bit farther of a departure than previous games, but Firaxis is not a company to rehash previous games with a fresh coat of paint.

All I was saying with that post is, you can't compare a freshly-released game with one that has had 5 yrs of upgrades and patches. The freshly-released game will usually look bad in comparison. Give Civ V some time and I am sure that in 5 yrs, people will be fondly bashing Civ VI for not being as good as Civ V BTS (or whatever the name of the last expansion will be).

I just don't think that's true -- barring patch miracles or a probably-impossible-at-this-point expansion that brings back a lot of the city and tile TLC (I say probably impossible because the core of the game necessitates global/empire-level care formerly reserved for city management) -- I highly suspect you'll find a lot of long-time "I've bought every release" Civ players saying goodbye to the series... at least, so long as it remains in Take2's hands (and absent a move in the other direction).

I never thought I'd reach this point - but I really have no interest in an expansion. The core of the game - for my style of play - has been irreparably broken and V heads in a direction that I have no interest in following.

I'd highly suggest checking out some of the old threads that SGRIG posted -- I think you'll find it's quite true.... There will always be anti-change based complaints -- but read through those old threads. The complaints about IV had a smattering of "they ruined it" -- but both the content of the threads and those (meaningless as they are) polls all indicated that IV was received by an overwhelming majority as a giant step forward, warts and all.

It's hard for me to see how that's the case here -- I take nothing away from people that like V, more power to you, glad you feel satisfied -- there seems to be pretty clearly a sizeable number of complaints that truly don't like this release... and those numbers appear to be growing, not slowing.

We're a month in -- and I've seen a lot more "I was wrong, this game is TEH SUCK" than I have "I was wrong, I should have given it a chance". Maybe that changes first patch, but I don't see it....

I think it can be taken as a universal fact that everyone agrees the AI is completely inept. Probably close to a universal fact that the game suffers from serious imbalance issues. Perhaps not quite universal, but I would say a supermajority agree that diplomacy is nonsensical.

Those things are fixable --- but how does fixing the AI, correcting imbalance, and improving diplomacy resolve problems like "Next turn boredom"?

 

[zonk]

Except i liked civ4 when it first came out. Not to mention the game was actually fun and without the gameplay flaws present in civ5.

Its common nature for developers to release buggy titles for the pc when they come out and patch it later. Civ5 isnt just buggy its practically bare bones, unfinished, and unbalanced and chock full of design flaws.

Yes - bugs bother me not in the least... Paradox has me well-trained to expect paid-for betas, for better or worse

 

[gaiko]

It should be easy to see why that should be so. Civ 4 was build upon the traditional Civ wargame design (and yes, Civ has always had a wargame aspect to it, but it was its least attractive feature). CivV is the first true revamp of that design. A revamp that was much needed and that I welcome as a good (and even courageous - they could have took the easy way out and stuck with SoDs) design decision. Have the designers pulled it off? Not entirely - I think an unfinished design implementation was pushed out the door. Welcome to the commercial PC gaming world.

As others mentioned, the issues with Civ4 were largely technical. Issues with Civ5 mainly have to do with design.

 

[danisans]

The point being, is that when Civ IV came out, the same complaints were levied against it as we are seeing now with V.

Comparing a vanilla Civ V with Civ IV BTS is royally unfair. Civ V was just realeased but Civ IV has had 5 years of updates, patches, etc. to tweak and repair it. Plus, two add-on disks (Warlords and Beyond the Sword) with even more patches, fixes and new gameplay elements. There is no way any vanilla can compete with that.

Now, if Firaxis had spent 10 years in development, spending all that money on wages, R & D, etc. to release Civ V as a suitable "successor" to BTS, then I could see it. But what comany in their right mind is going to spend that many millions of dollars, for that extended amount of time before they release a game? Especially when all people will say is "Why wasn't this game released 10 yrs ago? It looks like it was ready back then!"

And for the record, Street Fighter has been unplayable since Super Street Fighter 2......

I really hate when I read that comparing vanilla Civ V to BtS Civ IV is unfair. Give me a break.

If I dish out 50 bucks to buy the next instalment of a game, I expect it to be better than the previous version I am playing, patches, expansion packs and all. If it is a "vanilla" Civ V and we are meant to be beta testers so that they can charge us again for an Expansion Pack that will fix the game and make it really enjoyable, then ask 25$ for the "vanilla", and 25$ for the expansion pack and we will call it even.

When moving from Civ I to II, III, IV and V, players will always voice their discontent at a newly introduced feature that affects balance, or the removal of a feature that they really liked. Having grown comfortable playing the previous version of Civ for years, some players are likely to resist change for a while, be slow in adjusting their time honoured strategies or simply declare they are going back to their beloved previous version until a patch comes out. But, inevitably, most CIV players will end up adopting and embracing the new version.

We saw the same thing when Windows XP came out. People voicing their dislike, that they will stick with the old Windows version until they release a service pack or a revamped version. Then, next thing you know, everybody's running XP. When Vista comes out, the same people who were complaining about XP are now devoted XP defenders jumping on the "Vista is crap" bandwagon. But while XP recovered from the initial complaints, Vista never did. Nobody is saying Windows 7 is crap, I am going back to Vista. The XP / Vista analogy applies to Civ IV / Civ V. I think that three years from now, a large percentage of experienced players will yet have converted to Civ V, reverting instead to Civ IV until Civ VI is released.

 

[kuukkeli]

The point being, is that when Civ IV came out, the same complaints were levied against it as we are seeing now with V.

This is BS. I did some digging too when I posted some old polls from that time to another thread and like many have already said majority of complaints back then were of technical nature while now majority of them are about the design decisions. Old polls showed that clear majority of voters considered the design of Civ4 as an improvement while with Civ5 the division is at best 50/50.

Comparing a vanilla Civ V with Civ IV BTS is royally unfair.

No it's not. Maybe the industry wants you to believe that but from the consumer's point of view it's the only meaningful comparison.

 

[Buccaneer]

I am still puzzled by the perceived "great amount" of complaining when Civ4 came out. I thought it was very playable out of the box and had zero problems with crashes, graphics and drivers. I build my own PC so I do keep it clean to ensure proper running. I remember playing three games in a row before the first patch (I play slowly) and struggled to learn good strategies.

While I am playing long games in a row with Civ5, I am not struggling at all to learn good strategies.

 

[Justicex]

Those things are fixable --- but how does fixing the AI, correcting imbalance, and improving diplomacy resolve problems like "Next turn boredom"?

I don't know about anyone else, but I've always had "next turn Boredom" in every civ game. In the beginning, it's always interesting getting your army going, expanding your civ, planning your path to victory. but somewhere around the middle, It always gets tedious with much "Next turn button mashing". Sometimes I pray for a civ to declare war (I'm usually doing Diplomacy at this point) just so I have something to do.

I'm also guessing that fixing those issues would help alleviate the boredom since wars would be more interesting to fight, diplomacy would be more cutthroat, balancing city-states so that you actually need to build things that are enhanced by the the benefits from allying with a city-state.

We can't know how interesting (or un-interesting) these updates and expansions will be until we see them implemented

 

[CarloTheCurious]

It should be easy to see why that should be so. Civ 4 was build upon the traditional Civ wargame design (and yes, Civ has always had a wargame aspect to it, but it was its least attractive feature). CivV is the first true revamp of that design.

Personally, I think V is much more like a boardgame, where the sole purpose of playing is to win - I preferred the greater 'empire simulator' aspect in earlier Civs.