Do you think Civ V is doomed?

[Teperi Blaze]

Don't cut your nose to spite your face.

Don't cut your nose?

Don't cut your nose in spite of your face?
Don't split your your face to your nose?
Don't split your nose, to spite your face?
Don't spit in your face, or cut your nose?
Don't cut your nose and spit?

I NEVER heard the saying you stated, please help me along

Or is it really as you said: Don't cut your nose to spite your face.

....It might be, with some imagination and my bad english?

 

[JohnnyW]

Sigh....

 

[Horizons]

The diplomacy system is a total shambles ... when the Firaxians said it was a 'design decision' to make the AI unpredictable and unreliable (i.e. shambolic), what they actually meant was that they didn't have sufficient resources to develop the AI properly and they used this lie to cover up their incompetence!

 

[Teperi Blaze]

Sigh....

That made it even less clear?

 

[builer680]

Don't cut your nose?

Don't cut your nose in spite of your face?
Don't split your your face to your nose?
Don't split your nose, to spite your face?
Don't spit in your face, or cut your nose?
Don't cut your nose and spit?

I NEVER heard the saying you stated, please help me along

Or is it really as you said: Don't cut your nose to spite your face.

....It might be, with some imagination and my bad english?

"Don't cut OFF your nose to spite your face."

He didn't say it exactly right, but it was close enough. It's just a saying in English. Here's a bit of detail to make it more easy for someone with a different first language to understand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cutting_off_the_nose_to_spite_the_face

 

[Öjevind Lång]

sullla told you, and he is right.

A voice of a former teamplayer in cIV is not just another voice in the crowd. He understands the game better than most of us, and he saw the failures early on.

And by my experience after 400 hrs of play, sullla is right. He needed only 30 odd hrs to figure out all the mess, it took me maybe 200 hrs, so I'm not bagging him!

Sullla being an expert on Civ IV doesn't automatically make him an expert on Civ V.

 

[Teperi Blaze]

"Don't cut OFF your nose to spite your face."

He didn't say it exactly right, but it was close enough. It's just a saying in English. Here's a bit of detail to make it more easy for someone with a different first language to understand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cutting_off_the_nose_to_spite_the_face

It was meant as a joke, as I fairly understand the point. The writer is a good person in my books and has vented several things, that I agree to.

Cutting off the nose to spite the face. Is weird, I will try to understand it. Just doesn't sound right...But I bet Poms knowitall

Thanks for the reference.

 

[Itfan]

Diplomacy: useless
Longevity: poor
Support: bad (now i have more problems)
Depth: poor
Diversification: low

It 's a project doomed? I think so.
And i think that the idea to pay for two factions and one scenario is insulting.

 

[Teperi Blaze]

Sullla being an expert on Civ IV doesn't automatically make him an expert on Civ V.

That's like degrading a superstar to a hobo.

He found the faults within the first hr of play and couldn't do jack-crap, because he was sent off the team before 5.

One of the best players ever on 4, he was disregarded. He played with a plan, and always stuck to it. He had visions, which ended with his termination.

CIV5 doesn't need magic, it need brains!

 

[Anthropoid]

Sullla being an expert on Civ IV doesn't automatically make him an expert on Civ V.

Maybe the point you are making is valid; but if so, then it isn't really Civ 5. Its "Take Two ScamNOldSeries I."

If it really were the fifth installment in the series, then someone like Sulla would be one of the best individual sources of feedback.

This is the fundamental reason why so many folks are displeased: almost complete disconnect with the developmental trajectory shown in the previous games in the series.

 

[blind biker]

Sullla being an expert on Civ IV doesn't automatically make him an expert on Civ V.

Only Civ V experts may comment on Civ V!
BWAHHHahahahahahahhahahhhh-...

Oh, sorry. That statement is so absurd.


Going by that logic, Richard Feynamn's Physics Lectures books are worthless, because he's only an expert on quantum electrodynamics, superfluidity and a few select nuclear physics topics. All his Physics Lecture books are garbage, because he's not automatically an expert in the rest of physics subjects. Why the heck was he invited to be part of the Rogers Commission ? Just because Feynman received a Nobel prize in physics, that doesn't automatically make him an expert on rocket propulsion!

And I definitely think Blaise Pascal should have stopped researching physics - what does a matematichian know about physics, anyway? Just because Pascal was an expert in maths, that doesn't automatically make him an expert in physics!


Strict specializations, please! All you Civ IV experts: sorry guys, you gotta get that Civ V Certificate of Proficiency before you may comment. Sulla, that goes for you, too!

 

[Iranon]

+1.

This appreciation for narrow 'expertise' just results in a very professional form of incompetence. Approximation by computer simulation for problems solvable with creative application of high-school level math. Man-years are spent on minimising the consequences of design flaws that would have become apparent after an hour of thinking things through. Complex empirical analysis without checking for fallacies known for centuries.
It's depressing how far this goes without even getting into the importance of marketability over substance.

Unfortunately, technology offers crutches so good these days that using one's brain is considered optional.

 

[Toulouse]

The game is beyond repair and is a shoddy, boring mess of a game. Well...it is!

 

[Ayt]

Sullla being an expert on Civ IV doesn't automatically make him an expert on Civ V.

Ideas stand on their own merits apart from whomever stated them.

 

[fed1943]

Sullla being an expert on Civ IV doesn't automatically make him an expert on Civ V.

May I ask what level do/did you play civ4 and civ5?

I play, after some years, civ4 at Emperor/Immortal and civ5, after some hours, at
Deity.

And I am not an expert.

 

[Öjevind Lång]

May I ask what level do/did you play civ4 and civ5?

I play, after some years, civ4 at Emperor/Immortal and civ5, after some hours, at
Deity.

And I am not an expert.

May I ask you why your posting style is insufferably smug? I have played all the Civ avatars but prefer the lower difficulty levels due to the lack of options if you do the mountain-climbing thing. All it takes is build units and attack, build units and attack. Your achievements at Immortal/Deity don't impress me; anyone can study some strategy articles and learn how to do that. I enjoy the game in other ways - exploring, building, catching some Wonders on the way.

What they tried to do in Civ V was to make infinite warmongering less attractive. They largely failed because of bad game balancing, but that's another story. The idea as such was good.

 

[Iranon]

Sorry, but it appears you have no idea what you're talking about.

Peaceful games were entirely possible on high levels, and at least in Civ4 many people consider mostly peaceful play easier (although there's usually the opportunity for one easy and gainful war around the Renaissance).
I clawed my way up mostly with strategies that were the opposite of conventional wisdom because exploring something new is indeed more fun.

Making a good game (which to me implies that it works competitively) requires balance, but even more so it requires depth. Mechanics need to allow this depth and at the same time they need to be robust enough that a very pure ('degenerate') strategy doesn't consistently dominate all others. Civ4 fulfils this need even if it's inelegant in many details, Civ5 doesn't and probably never will.

Making a good toy (something that's fun to play around with non-competitively) has more ephemeral needs that will vary from player to player. Formally, all entries of the Civ series are more games than toys: at least some attempts at competitive balance, sacrificing both realism and atmosphere for it. None of them is primarily designed for players who just want to play them immersively or as an open-ended sandbox game, although it tends to work quite well.

If you're saying you're having more fun with Civ5 as a toy than you did with Civ4... fair enough. I may not get the appeal, but this is indeed mostly about taste and arguing won't go anywhere. But this is completely irrelevant to most of my and many other people's criticisms. Failings as a serious game are quantifiable and open to rigorous analysis.

 

[zuraffo]

the toy/game explanation is quite refreshing! I think it explains why some people still enjoy the game. Anybody can enjoy a toy. Why, I CAN too!

 

[leckig]

It is a good game, but too many people expect CivV to be CivIV, just improved.

CivV is just a different game and if you dont like it, go back to CivIV.

I have been playing V recently a lot and I really enjoy it. I am happy that I dont have to mess with the religion, spies and my least favorite: corporations. The game is simplified and many people appreciate it. I do. I am sure I will play Civ4 again, when I feel I want a, perhaps, deeper experience.

I like that I dont have to manage huge armies (but I agree that a 15 units SoD was a whole WAY easier to manage than 5 unit CoD). I VERY much like that battles are now so much more tactical. I like the new graphics and the UI.

And dont forget - when Civ4 came out, it was impossible to play for months. I still remember how disappointed I was and I still remember reading the same worthless complaints here....

 

[astonished]

Doomed. There a lot of things I like about Civ5. I had never heard of Civ before I picked up a copy of Civ4 on a whim at a Best Buy and can only compare the two. The truth is I like the differences and really enjoy both , but Civ5 runs too slow for me. I bought a new, decent laptop a month ago and it starts to lag pretty early on even on small maps with few opponents. Every time I launch a volley of arrows, I have to wait, every next turn click seems to take forever, loading takes long enough for me to make a sandwich, it slows so much I have actually fell asleep twice while playing (I'm sure this bumped my steam numbers up, 274 hours by their count, maybe 40 by mine, the load time took so long I just minimized the game when not playing).

I know that you true Civvers who have been around since the ancient era think I should go out and build a custom desktop just to play this game, but it's just not feasible. As engrossing as Civ is, it doesn't appeal to the broadest of audiences and shouldn't further exclude players because they don't have top of the line gaming machines. The more people excluded, the less content you get from modders and with less content comes less contentment.

Civ5 wasn't worth the money for me and now I've learned my lesson. There's no reason to buy a civ game until it's been out for about 2 years. So, Firaxis, the next time you may see money from me, it won't be until Civ6 release +2 years. Thank your current staff. And Steam, you put up one too many crappy pop-ups as I exited out of civ5 advertising those 3 dollar games. You're gone, too.