1000 reasons why you're disappointed

[GreyIago]

Haha. I like the post.

As for why the game hogs resources? It's mostly the various processes going on behind the scenes. Graphics has a small part to play.

 

[Il Principe]

The user interface.
I am still in my first game, so I haven´t seen all the changes in game mechanics yet. Some seem strange to me ( no roads needed for resources?!), some good ( maintenance for roads)... but I won´t judge them yet, since I need a few games to get used to the change.

But the interface freaks me out! It´s waaay to large. No clock. The new yield icons are to cartoonish for my liking, but maybe thats just because I am so used to the Civ IV ones.
But they, like everything else, are too large. I can live with the foldable parts of the city screen, and I am ok with the units panel... or I would be if the reduced font size by half for everything.

 

[Kharum]

Well, now that I got to play it, I can't deny most of the criticism that has been brought up in the forum, although I don't so much care for a lot of the small details and graphics and such.

The game just feels very dull to play, there isn't enough micromanagement, decisions to be made and challenge. I like building improvements and expanding, all the stuff in the early game, but in Civ 5 it feels just like spamming next turn and letting advisors do the job. Building and units take ridiculously long to make compared to researching technology, not to mention I don't have the sliders! Social policies also seem very dull and streamlined.

The warfare becomes interesting in later parts of the game and the hexagons are pretty cool, but that's it, for everything else, I prefer playing Civ IV and that's what I'm going to do until Civ 5 gets expansions. I fear though, that it will never entertain me, as Firaxis seem to want this game to be simple, noob friendly with console like interface.

 

[boredatwork]

Then your general sentiment is that it is too detailed, it doesn't allow every city to become a powerhouse (you can optimize for production...), there are non-war ways to win (I'm assuming you miss religion), I don't understand the point of tech trading with AIs, and playing against AI where your relationship is fluid and ever changing is no fun?

Does not compute.

Too detailed? It's not detailed enough. There is no supporting fire, suppression, unit histories, entrenchment, or any of a dozen features that made PG such a slick system. And yet the game forces you to warmonger. Are there non war ways to win? I haven't come close to any other form of victory besides domination or the time running out in Civ5.

Yes I expect every city should at least have the opportunity to become a powerhouse. Deciding what to build next was for me the most enjoyable part of Civ 2-4. With 16 cities producing something new on average every 4 turns meant I would get to make on average 4 decisions per turn - enough to break up the monotony of moving units without bogging down with too many clicks.

Now with an average of 6 cities producing something every 20 turns my games now resemble:

Nothing to do, click next turn button
Nothing to do, click next turn button
Nothing to do, click next turn button
Nothing to do, click next turn button
Nothing to do, click next turn button
Nothing to do, click next turn button
Nothing to do, click next turn button
Something to do, Finally!
Nothing to do, click next turn button
Nothing to do, click next turn button
Nothing to do, click next turn button



You assume incorrectly - as implemented in Civ 4 the missionary spam wasn't fun.

The point of trading tech with the AI was to compensate for the weakness of the AI and make late era warmongering challenging by giving weaker civs the ability to mount some resistance. Steamrolling musketmen with modern armor was as boring as hell in Civ4 and it's boring as hell in civ5. The difference being civ 4 had an option which let you do something about it.

Changing relationships is desirable. What isn't is the complete unpredictability of those changes. I don't mean I want the +/-1 garbage of Civ4 but if I go to war at Ghandi's request to save him against a third party, I liberate his cities for him and go on to beat back the invading army, I reasonably expect him to behave like a real leader and be greatfull for at least a few turns instead of immediately stabbing me in the back while we're still fighting the first war. If I wanted that I'd play MP.

 

[stavka]

When TMIT weighs in against the new release, thats not a good sign.

 

[SidMeierGroupy]

-The AI is terrible. We're talking senseless, unworkable Rome Total War level terrible.

-The graphics are terrible - Civ 3's were even better.

-The game play is content-less.

-There is no sense of awe, in the march of civilizations or educational experience as with all the previous Civs. Even this version's civilopedia is akin to two first year college students blethering over beers in a strip club.

-Despite all the simpletons' expostulating on the combat, it's horrible. And boring. Shifting to hex doesn't redeem it.

-The UI isn't streamlined. It's clunky and ugly.

-The map is ugly and not animated. You can't zoom far enough to admire your growing cities, which doesn't matter anyway, because they're poorly devised, uninspring polygons.

-Everything that made the Civ games special is absent in this title; wonder completion is not inspiring (even the non-animated wonders with their *Gong* sound in Civ 3 were more satisfying). There's no generation of an interest in science, history or politics.

-There's no adequate or accurate social engineering or policy implemention in this game, just linear, unflexible choices that completely castrate any gameplay options and this is because the game is dumbed down, with a terrible ai.

-No ending movies - for a 4x game that is supposed to be epic in scope this is attrocious.

A very, very boring game. I have a strong feeling that many of the screeching fanboys themselves will be tiring of this game within a year, DLC's or no. What am I talking about? I'm a fan boy, for crying out loud, but Civ 5 is just a miserable gaming experience.

 

[Dorkhan]

-I'm disappointed that map trading is gone! It's slow as hell to explore the whole map yourself.(and technology trading overall, even though the ''let's pay for a random technology together!''-thing makes kinda up for it)

-I'm disappointed that exploring units keep dancing around in city state territory... I mean, come on. My first warrior kept running around in Stockholm area for 5 turns until I realized that he couldn't get away from there on his own. Thank you for negative rep, just the thing I wanted to use my money against, I didn't even want to buy units or buildings with it.

-I'm disappointed that ''This is how the game played out''-feature is gone. I enjoyed watching the game again and how the cities developed/were conquered... ''Ahah, so it was MONTY who stole my Stonehenge!'' ''Hmm... Seems that France was doing pretty well before I met him'' etc.
My favourite frigging feature of the whole game

-Also, I miss religion, but I knew that it would be gone. AND cottages are gone? So the best gold improvement for a hex is 2 gold? (+some research later)

-I'm also disappointed that gold isn't worthless anymore ^^


Other than those, I'm enjoying the game and I'm glad I bought it as soon as it hit the shelves ^^

 

[Davor]

Am I in the Civ forums? I havn't read this many complaints since, Civ IV I guess. Back to that in a second though.

I swear I am in the Call to Power 2 forums. The main complaint of that game is the AI. Yes there is no excuse espically if you are Firaxis and Sid who what was making games for about 20 years now? No excuse for a poor AI at all. The only excuse for a poor AI in the game, is if I was making it. Since I do not know how to do it, that would be the only exucse for a poor AI.

Again we were mislead from everyone. From the people at 2K games for hyping up the game on how fun and addicting it is, to all the other magazines and game sites saying how great this game is in previews. You telling me all those people who got to preview this game, and not one person said it was dull. How the hell can we ever take these people serioius again? Oh well.

One thing though, you would think Firaxis would have lernt thier lesson in Civ IV when it came out. I guess the didn't. Oh wait they have. They all call us suckers now. They know we will buy it no matter what and they were right.

This brings up another question...

 

[h@@kon]

Let me paraphrase that I do like the game. It's just... I'm a little disappointed that it wasn't the game I expected. I mean they called it a Civ sequel, I was expecting to have to play the deep politics game to play people against each other, get my leg up on research, on those vital goods, manage an empire, etc etc.

It doesn't feel like a civ sequel, it feels like a war strategy game. The empire management exists to support your war effort. It's not that you do war to help your civilization be successful, its that you run your civilization to make your war successful. Not quite what I wanted.

The diplomacy game feels very weird, random at best. It feels like it exists solely as a reason to not be at war with everyone at once and only a few at a time if you can manage it a little. The people have no sort of continuity or rationality. They'll randomly team up and go war with you even if its obvious they're going to be beaten badly, and even if they've been cooperating with you in research and friendly relations. Like I said, it's just a means to pacing the combat, and that's it.

So! If you like the war strategy game, you'll like it. If you don't like simulating an empire, trying to tweak different stuff, you'll like it.

And I find it fun for now, but it's already getting a little old. The combat is much improved and kinda fun, but it doesn't change much, keep your empire as efficient as possible to pump out the strong units you can manage.

+1 from me. Exactly how I feel, but also that i have never been so bored playing Civ-games. It's not happening anything when not going to war. I really, really wants to like this game, but i will wait for a patch and going back to IV until something new happens.

 

[RohirrimElf]

1) AI doesnt bould enough citys
2) Combat: I`ve destroyed 3 civilizations straight without losing a single unit in my first game(medieval era, king difficulty) I think i diddnt lose one unit in the whole game. (one scout maybe)

 

[Davor]

1) AI doesnt bould enough citys
2) Combat: I`ve destroyed 3 civilizations straight without losing a single unit in my first game(medieval era, king difficulty) I think i diddnt lose one unit in the whole game. (one scout maybe)

So you did loose a unit then eh? LOL. Kidding there. I lost a few units, but to Barbarians. I was getting tired of fighting Barbarians and the other civs never delcared war.

Yes it was the demo, but why should I have to wait till turn 150 for combat to happen? Playing the demo felt like playing the same game over and over again, i didn't feel like starting a new game would feel different.

With 4 fracking gigs to play a stupid demo, there should have been able to play random generated maps. See all this game is graphics. Graphics for the stupid diplomacy that really dosn't do anything except delcare war or peace. Boring.

 

[totallylost]

They dont exist..along with civics.

The silly notion that archers can shoot over mountains and your riflemen have to run up to them face to face to return fire.. etc etc I could go on all day but theres plenty of complaining/whining about this in previous threads here as well on 2k Forums..

im pretty sure archers cant shoot over mountains, but they can shoot up them.

 

[totallylost]

No game clock... Without it I'm find I'm unable to attend to the real world... again.

 

[totallylost]

lets just face it, they left out all those things so that they can fleece us on the expansions.

 

[totallylost]

-There is no sense of awe, in the march of civilizations or educational experience as with all the previous Civs. Even this version's civilopedia is akin to two first year college students blethering over beers in a strip club.

wow, agree 100 percent. the civilpedia reads like it was written by 13 year old lady gaga fans.

 

[gonzo562]

I am also disappointed that map trading is gone. Hopefully this will be added later on via patch or expansion.

 

[aguds]

I am also disappointed that map trading is gone. Hopefully this will be added later on via patch or expansion.

Me too. Also I miss the auto-explore function of the scout. Or am I and idiot and can't find these things? Also I am very disappointed I'm at work and not home playing right now

 

[KeyCey1995]

Hmm, almost sounds like vanilla Civ 4

Ya, the expansionpacks will for sure make the game much more interesting.

Not because I think the game is boring now, it really is a great game, but its just a bit simple, and it depends too much on luxury resources.

 

[dot]

When TMIT weighs in against the new release, thats not a good sign.

When TMIT weighs in against Civ5 it's a very good sign. He's got an audience in the community and probably a quicker route to the eyes and ears of the firaxians. So that hopefully means we'll get patches faster and more to the point.

 

[bernlin2000]

They dont exist..along with civics.

The silly notion that archers can shoot over mountains and your riflemen have to run up to them face to face to return fire.. etc etc I could go on all day but theres plenty of complaining/whining about this in previous threads here as well on 2k Forums..

Yeah they have unique traits now, instead of 2 non-unique ones. Social policies replaced civics: they still allow you to control what kind of system your society will be. Archers shooting over mountains, I think you need the indirect fire promotion, and anyway why would this bother you? It's also unrealistic that archers are nearly as tall as a city, and apparently can live for thousands of years. They're symbolic of military units...not actual replications. True, there's a lot of complaining/whining about stupid stuff like this, but there's far more pressing issues (weak combat AI, interface problems, multiplayer, etc.).