The only, only problem I have is with the enemy battle AI. I like 1UPT, I like a little slower building, and I'm OK with all the changes. I like everything else, but when I get war declared on me on KING by a country that has double my points and double my army, I don't even worry a little because I can always win. That seems lame.
Refined Poll: your standing with the game
- Thread starter kelmen
- Start date
501st Legion
Warlord
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2009
- Messages
- 107
I'm now indifferent towards CiV. With the game's cons being thrown around here - from bad AI to broken diplomacy - in my case I stopped playing because it just got boring. The total playtime I had with CiV was around 100 hours. At least the music was somewhat varied.
After that began playing Europa Universalis III instead, which is an awesome and highly addictive game once you get past the very steep learning curve.
After that began playing Europa Universalis III instead, which is an awesome and highly addictive game once you get past the very steep learning curve.
It's the forum. Most people who enjoy the game have been flamed and insulted out, or just don't care.
jacyp
Winter Lover
Fallacy. The same can be said about those who dislike the game.
So people who like the game are flamed and run like little girls when they see a cockroach; and people who dislike the game are flamed but stick around?
And can't people who dislike the game also don't care?
Let's face the facts: there's roughly a 50/50 difference of opinions on this and others forums about Civ 5. That doesn't mean the game sucks or rocks, it only means that 50% of the players who participate on these forums like it, and 50% don't.
As for the pool:
C: I dislike it, but still playing because... of the mods. They are evolving each week and many are solving major problems of the game that bores most people out. So I'm still playing in hopes that someday they will make the game enjoyable as a whole, though somethings can't be changed yet with mods.
Brian Shanahan
Permanoob
I don't think you've been flamed once, but all we hear from you is rubbish like this, or "It's a good game don't be so negative!"
yeah hes a classic crybaby Im glad im not the only one who sees it.
Moderator Action: Such insults are not allowed here.
awsome point
this is an amusing comment coming from you when I joined the forum I saw just as many out of line post from you as I did the civ 5 haters crowd.
MadRat
Cheese Raider
I try to like the game but the moronic AI and idiotic diplo along with the happiness system just create such an unholy trifecta of stupidity that even thinking of playing the game in its current state tests my gag reflex.
Rat
Rat
blind biker
King
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2009
- Messages
- 609
Yes, I have the same symptoms. Just the thought of starting Civ V makes me nauseous. Haven't touched it in more than 3 months.
I tried really hard to like it. My initial dislike on some of the design choices (no religion, civics) notwithstanding, I played the game for a long time trying to enjoy it ...
But after over 100 hours divided up between 6 games, 2 of which after the penultimate patch, I am finally at the end of my rope. Even with said patch and a ton of modifications to balance the game properly, I couldn't even come close to enjoying Civ5 like I enjoyed vanilla Civ4 in the first few months! Civ5 is simply not a good game to begin with and no amount of half-measured patches will ever change that.
Unless Firaxis takes players' concerns seriously and revamps several key components of the game I will not touch Civ5 again and rather play Civ4 until Civ6 is released ...
But after over 100 hours divided up between 6 games, 2 of which after the penultimate patch, I am finally at the end of my rope. Even with said patch and a ton of modifications to balance the game properly, I couldn't even come close to enjoying Civ5 like I enjoyed vanilla Civ4 in the first few months! Civ5 is simply not a good game to begin with and no amount of half-measured patches will ever change that.
Unless Firaxis takes players' concerns seriously and revamps several key components of the game I will not touch Civ5 again and rather play Civ4 until Civ6 is released ...
AfterShafter
Deity
Actually, there is some truth to this. I was excited about a new civ and getting to participate in a forum with people interested in either helping each other out in the game or bettering the game. After a month or two of a host of people that were intent on repeatedly voicing the opinion of "This game sucks. Make Civ six. The people who like Civ V are stupid." I've found this forum to be pretty distasteful. I swing by once a week or so and will continue to do so until more of the people who have nothing to add to discussion of the game other than negativity have moved on to something they do like. Not to say there aren't people who constructively pursue negative opinions, but I virtually had one fellow following me from thread to thread dropping one line responses of "you're stupid, your views make no sense" regardless of what I was saying for a period of several weeks. What's more, an influx of some newer posters who don't like the game has *drastically* changed the tone of the board from what it was a few years ago.
My three regular civ partners, also members here since around my join date, want nothing to do with the place for the time being. We play the game a few times a week, they are reasonably happy with the game, and they won't have voted in this poll. Some of us who actually do quite enjoy the game just aren't interested in arguing with people who seem to want to trash the game ad nauseam.
PS - for the mod who warned "don't discuss other users," I was discussing the general tone of the board and how it has affected some fans of the game, and no specific users. See all in a week
Well, enlighten us.
For whom do you think Civ5 was created?
For whom?
For the dedicated fan of tactical wargames (the so-called "warmonger")? With that combat system and combat AI?
For the dedicated fan of developing and improving your cities (the so-called "builder"?) With building of which a good half is meaningless?
For the fan of balancing diplomatic options?
For the fan of creating an alternative history?
As far as I see it from the respective postings, people who are happy with the game in the current state are the ones who are happy with the combat.
And to be quite honest, successfully fighting an engagement, a battle, a war for sure is not exactly rocket science. This is a pity, but that's the way it is.
builer680
eats too much Taco Bell
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2010
- Messages
- 525
There is "some truth" to its corollary as well. Therefore, it's disingenuous for either camp to cloak themselves in this sniveling statement.
I can only assume it's the same targetted demographic that CivRev pursued and the upcoming CivFacebook hopes to capture; namely, anyone who hasn't already played a Civilization title.
Only in the case of the facebook app does that seem an appropriate target.
Alternatively, there was no target audience. I maintain that the game was terribly managed by the woefully inexperienced Shafer. Someone else, I believe it was Sullla or Luddite (Pi-r8 iirc), who said that the game exhibits symptoms of being designed from a "what's a really cool feature that we could throw in" mentality where features were considered on their own theoretical merits totally outside of any context within the Civilization franchise or even of the gameplay of the actual game.
Yes, 1UPT would fall into that. I've defended it in this thread not because I necessarily support the decision to implement it, but because it has become the scapegoat feature blamed for so much of the game's failings. The irrational hatred for it loses sight of the list of features that were implemented poorly, many of which were more integral to the game than I feel warfare ever was.
My own tin-foil explanation is that Sid used CivRev and CiV as a testing ground for CivFacebook. CivRev had no chance; I don't know that Civilization would ever have translated well to console, and I am positive that the current console playerbase has little interest, if any, in strategy titles. What CivRev offered was a chance to fiddle with the traditional Civilization interface, something that will benefit CivFacebook. CiV suffered the ignoble fate of being a second guinnea pig to test content streamlining on, most especially 1UPT, which I believe will be used in CivFacebook.
That or the corporate culture over at Firaxis has really bought into the belief that designing games for dummies is guaranteed success. They've been shot down twice now, but I actually hope they follow that belief through in making CivFacebook; in this case, I think two wrongs will make a right. Hopefully by CiVI they take heed of the lessons learned between CIII and CIV, or pehaps just of Soren's terrific vision and leadership, if that's really what made CIV so excellent.
Hormagaunt
Warlord
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2010
- Messages
- 212
My personal opinion is that you're wrong; two wrongs are going to make a third. I don't think that CivFacebook is going to survive over the long term. Something about the idea just strikes me as off. I can't explain it better than that.
Disgustipated
Deity
I believe most people are already getting burned out on facebook games. I'm not sure how well it will do there. But I admit, I don't know the economics of FB games. Maybe they can make money. I'd say they made money off of Civ5. Even though most people played it less than 100 hours, it doesn't matter. They got their money.
And yes I do believe 1 upt ruined the game. It's a strategy game, not a tactical game. 1upt just feels so wrong to me. I can't explain why exactly. I still have hope that somehow the game can be modded to be fun. But it's a slim hope. I guess I never knew how much of a builder I was until this game. I always liked war in civ games, but what I truly love is building things. And this game fails in that regard. So maybe, just maybe some mods can come out to make this into a builder game. *crosses fingers*
And yes I do believe 1 upt ruined the game. It's a strategy game, not a tactical game. 1upt just feels so wrong to me. I can't explain why exactly. I still have hope that somehow the game can be modded to be fun. But it's a slim hope. I guess I never knew how much of a builder I was until this game. I always liked war in civ games, but what I truly love is building things. And this game fails in that regard. So maybe, just maybe some mods can come out to make this into a builder game. *crosses fingers*
Lance of Llanwy
King
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2006
- Messages
- 710
I would argue it's the one feature that has been implemented fairly well, save for the AI's inability to comprehend it thus far. It greatly enhances the military aspect of the game by making it far more involved and strategic than slapping together the bigger SOD.
The only reason it gets criticism is because other aspects of the game have been marginalized and/or are currently poorly-executed. But the one doesn't lead to the other.
I, for one, shall hold off on the vitriol. Sadly, many games nowadays(especially in this genre) aren't very good until they've had a steady stream of patches and an expansion or two. Many of the games people cite as games this one should emulate/as being better were not so well-regarded before their expansions. Civ IV, for example, had a significant contingent of people who strongly preferred Civ III pretty much up until BtS was released. Europa Universalis III was pretty dull until In Nomine(and it was an exceptionally good release by Paradox standards! Just look at everything they've released before or since...)
Civ V clearly needs some work on the building end. Lots of work. It needs more, more interesting buildings, better-balanced building costs, and more to do other bribe city-states and war. But, again, the lack of the former does not mean the abundance of the latter is bad.
Similar threads
