The Final Analysis?

I just finished reading Sulla's analysis of the last patch and the general state of Civ 5.

http://www.garath.net/Sullla/Civ5/whatwentwrong.html

I'm nowhere near a high-level Civ player, but I've always enjoyed Sulla's blunt assessments and detailed walkthroughs of the game. I began reading them around Civ4 and in many ways they have enhanced my own enjoyment of Civ in general. Just wanted to share my appreciation.

I admit I've spent more time reading the forums and following the ebb and flow of the controversies surrounding Civ 5 than actually playing. I love the art style, the quotes, the awe I feel when pondering the important people, works and wonders throughout history that the game highlights. I have had more fun with the game since the last patch but I find it hard to argue with the logical deconstruction that Sulla et al provides.

Whatever the future holds, thanks again for all the insight.

Sounds like Sulla wanted another Civilization 4. Some of his arguments are definitely sound, but I get the feeling he is so pessimistic and disillusioned with the game (and enamored with Civ4) that his arguments aren't objective. Some of his analyses make mountains out of molehills.

Great read, thanks. I've played a few games with the patch and found myself just as disappointed as before really. Not surprising I guess, but I just really really really wanted ciV to be a good game. I'll probably put it away for good now, especially with Shafer leaving. Can't wait for 6 if they have the balls to make it. But I wont be prepurchasing next time, nor trusting professional reviews. If they want my cashola they will have to make a finished game.

Good luck to those who still enjoy it. Can't understand you but I guess I'm glad some of you do. I'd rather the game was one I liked even if it meant you didn't, but I guess too bad for me

An excellent read indeed.

Sullla's critique is harsh but totally fair.

biohazard72 said:

Sounds like Sulla wanted another Civilization 4. Some of his arguments are definitely sound, but I get the feeling he is so pessimistic and disillusioned with the game (and enamored with good game design) that his arguments aren't objective. Some of his analyses make game designers who release shabby games thinking "it'll be allright mate, it's all for kids anyway and they're stupid" frown.

Click to expand...

Fixed for you.

biohazard72 said:

Sounds like Sulla wanted another Civilization 4. Some of his arguments are definitely sound, but I get the feeling he is so pessimistic and disillusioned with the game (and enamored with Civ4) that his arguments aren't objective. Some of his analyses make mountains out of molehills.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately a very common mistake is assuming that because someone dislikes things that have been changed, they are automatically wrong. A little thought will tell you the new things are by far the most likely bits to be broken/bad ideas simply because they are not tried and tested.

On some of his minor complaints I don't agree or don't caree. Global happiness I think might be possible to get to work as intended, but it doesn't now and I'm not convinced it's better than the Civ 4 approach. The remainder of his major complaints are spot on though. The issue of how 1unit per tile simply can't work with the average number of tiles and units on a Civ map really needs to be restated, as it is something that will have to give if the game is going to be improved.

Sulla may be fairly scathing of the game - that doesn't make him wrong, or for that matter against change. I personally largely stopped playing Civ 4 some months before 5 came out, as it had got rather stale and I'd got all I was going to get out of it. That's not to say Civ 4 wasn't a great game, but it had run its course. The difference is I hit the same point in Civ 5 by the middle of my second game. I'm not against change - I played Civ 2 and 3 to death as well, and moved on happily to the next version. This is the first one where I've really felt it was a major step backwards.

Thanks for posting the link, I always enjoy reading Sulla's write-ups but wouldn't check his site otherwise.

I think his analysis is lucid and compelling. He has said it all--from the big-picture view of the epic train wreck of poor gameplay comprimises that 1 upt by its very nature creates, down to details like the ridiculously annoying miraculous barb spawn. And the section on the MP debacle was a real eye-opener; that whole element was clearly written off by the devs.

The aspect he caught best was the "punishment" factor replacing the choice between benefits that only carry opportunity costs that rules in CiV and makes it so annoying and frustrating. He elucidates that very well when discussing roads and the barracks, for example.

Long build times, dubious long-term benefits, high maintenance costs, and patches that nerf nerf nerf everything to get the broken AI even remotely credible--he's right across the board. Has anyone ever built the stable?

I still play CiV but only really enjoy it up to rifling, and hardly ever bother to finish a game once I see I'm winning. I also play at immortal level to have some challenge; I dropped down to emperor to test the patch but it was still far too easy. I was a mediocre IV player at prince--what does this say?

And he's right it's a broken war game masquerading as a strategy game--without war, it is pure tedium.

oh its the mighty Sulla again!! WoW


everything he says is just spot on..... bow before his knowledge....




no sorry, he is just another internet reviewer to me.

trueblue said:

oh its the mighty Sulla again!! WoW


everything he says is just spot on..... bow before his knowledge....




no sorry, he is just another internet reviewer to me.

Click to expand...

Judge him by his content, not his reputation.

Just like the latest iteration of the game.

In so doing you'll see that Sullla is spot on and that the latest iteration of the game is

woefully lacking in many areas and poorly designed.

The aspect he caught best was the "punishment" factor replacing the choice between benefits that only carry opportunity costs that rules in CiV and makes it so annoying and frustrating. He elucidates that very well when discussing roads and the barracks, for example.

Click to expand...

Exactly. I don't agree with everything he posted but the vast majority was fair criticism. I also feel that the game scales very badly through the eras, just as Sulla believes it scales badly with empire size.

Sulla is a prophet!

OR

Sulla's just all sour grapes!

The truth is almost always in the middle. Civ 5 is not a complete disaster, but it does have more serious shortcomings than the last two releases.

There's your final analysis. For some people the flaws overwhelm the flow of the game (particularly for particular play styles) and for others they do not.

Can we all stop just yapping in circles about it now?

Helmling said:

Sulla is a prophet!

OR

Sulla's just all sour grapes!

The truth is almost always in the middle. Civ 5 is not a complete disaster, but it does have more serious shortcomings than the last two releases.

There's your final analysis. For some people the flaws overwhelm the flow of the game (particularly for particular play styles) and for others they do not.

Click to expand...

Aye. One of the better posts in this forum.

lol, the thread is turning out to be more about the reaction to Sulla's perceived reputation than what he said.

I've only just heard of him recently, but I've played enough Civ IV and CiV to know that he has the knowledge and passion about games and took the time to put up the site and write about games and you know what? He does it very well indeed, and his summation of CiV is quite thorough and thoughtful.

He makes a lot of good points. However, for me, the problems with the game aren't major barriers to my enjoyment.

I find a few simple mods (like the balance-combined mod), makes a big difference in game play. I think when the modders have more access to the inner workings of the system, it will get even better.

As it is, the game is still enjoyable for me. But I can understand the frustration as Civ V is not as good as the mature Civ IV is currently.

Sulla is right about the 1upt problem. 1UPT was the first thing Fraxis told us about Civ5, it was what the developers praised highly as the new big improvement. 1UPT was obviously what Civ5 was built off of, and it just doesn't work with a Civ game.

Hey, I'm just another guy. You're always welcome to agree or disagree as you please.

I was sucker enough to pay £40 for the 'Deluxe' edition and I've only clocked 92 hours gameplay so far. If I can get to 120 hours without being too bored I'll consider it a fair deal and lay Civ to rest

One area that I didn't see emphasized there is the lopsided treatment of war. Unlike everything else in Civ 5, there is no cost to war: no extra maintenance, no decreased income, no unhappiness from a prolonged war (unless you capture cities, e.g. do well.) Conversely, there is little benefit to peace (such as trade income.) This leads to endless wars and no reason for wars with limited aims...which again removes interesting choices from the game and adds yet more incentive for all-war-all-the-time.

ohioastronomy said:

One area that I didn't see emphasized there is the lopsided treatment of war. Unlike everything else in Civ 5, there is no cost to war: no extra maintenance, no decreased income, no unhappiness from a prolonged war (unless you capture cities, e.g. do well.) Conversely, there is little benefit to peace (such as trade income.) This leads to endless wars and no reason for wars with limited aims...which again removes interesting choices from the game and adds yet more incentive for all-war-all-the-time.

Click to expand...

Well that's because the game is basically a war-game now; you have to be constantly at war or be threatened with war to divert you from the tedium and vacuity of extended peacetime.

Interesting article, I strongly disagree but regardless worth the read.