A little confused about all the "this is not Civ 4" criticism

[Becephalus]

Of course the exact same criticisms came up for Civ 2, Civ 3, and Civ 4 so I shouldn't be surprised I guess.

Its not like they completely ruined the game (looking at you MOO3 and Simcity Societies).

Personally I think the changes and design decisions were very wise ones. Yes it is not complete, but only 5% of games are when released these days. Budgets are too tight, development cultures too corporate, and patches/expansion too lucrative.

Mainly the AI needs tightening up, but that is true of every single strategy game I have ever played.

There are also a few nonsensical things with the tiles, and the tech tree, and a little balancing of great people is in order but overall I think it plays great.

 

[SuperJay]

There are also a few nonsensical things with the tiles, and the tech tree, and a little balancing of great people is in order but overall I think it plays great.

You and me both. And we're in the majority, but the minority thinks it's the majority and it won't shut up.

 

[Boojumhunter]

Its not like they completely ruined the game (looking at you MOO3 and Simcity Societies).

Thou shalt never mention the game that begins with 'M'
I'm still on medication because of THAT debacle.

 

[Zechnophobe]

You and me both. And we're in the majority, but the minority thinks it's the majority and it won't shut up.

The minority wanted another awesome game, and got a decent but not great one.

I mean, civ 4 is one of the best games of all time, losing 20% of the avid customers from it on civ 5 is a whole lot of people.

 

[Stiefel]

Anyone who says that Civ 5 is better than Civ 4 clearly <snip> at Civ 4 and wanted something simple.

Moderator Action: If you don't have anything constructive to say, please don't say anything at all.

 

[RX2000]

You and me both. And we're in the majority, but the minority thinks it's the majority and it won't shut up.

Yep this is true. I've liked Civ V since I first played it, but I come on the boards & it looks like everyone is just bashing it. Oh well, to each his own I guess.

I dont think its perfect, but what PC game is these days? They all come out with bugs & usually dont get super awesome til after a couple expansions.....

 

[Ignorant Teacher]

The problem is not that the game is different. I like different. The problem is that the game is stupid. It's a sequel of Civ Rev and should have been named accordingly.

 

[RX2000]

Anyone who says that Civ 5 is better than Civ 4 clearly sucks balls at Civ 4 and wanted something simple.

Or just didnt need Civ V to be Civ 4.5. Its a totally different game. Why should it be like Civ 4?

I think people who play games to have FUN like Civ V. Seems to be the people who play games to prove to themselves how bad ass they are at outsmarting a computer who dont like it & think its "dumbed down."

 

[Becephalus]

The minority wanted another awesome game, and got a decent but not great one.

I mean, civ 4 is one of the best games of all time, losing 20% of the avid customers from it on civ 5 is a whole lot of people.

You are way way way overestimating the avid fan-base compared to the total fan-base.

Easily 90% of Civ buyers never go to a fourm. You are looking at a tiny sampling of the people who buy the product and thinking it is representative.

I would bet any amount of money that the truly disaffected purchasers are under 5%, and that even most of the die hards think it is an improvement.

In 5 years you will be the exact same ones crying This Civ 6 sucks and it is no Civ 5. They took away great people how could they do that great people are the roxorz!

 

[Zechnophobe]

I think people who play games to have FUN like Civ V.

Why do people always say this? This is... I don't even know what. What do you think these other people are doing with their games? Smashing them against their foreheads? Using them to benchmark their computer, and then deleting them?

When you say this, who do you envision these people are, who "don't like FUN" or whatnot? Armchair art critics who spend 50 bucks and review games from the armchair of their lazy-boy while toking a bit of a cigar in their loafers?

 

[Becephalus]

Anyone who says that Civ 5 is better than Civ 4 clearly sucks balls at Civ 4 and wanted something simple.

Yeah I put in over 1000 hours on BTS, made some popular mods/maps for Civ 3/Civ 4, and could beat the game on very hard settings with a ton of house rules.

But I must think Civ 5 is good because I sucked at Civ 4. I hope you were being sarcastic?

 

[May Day 10]

in my opinion, Civ V isnt fun at all. I havent even gotten through a complete game and have not touched it for 4 days.

Im a huge fan of Civ and have been looking forward to this release for so long. Didnt want to hear any negative words or reviews either. I was positive the game would be great.

Its not because it "isnt Civ IV". Its because the game sucks and is boring, and isnt really all that challenging.

 

[Ignorant Teacher]

Or just didnt need Civ V to be Civ 4.5. Its a totally different game. Why should it be like Civ 4?

Agreed. But it is too far from Civs 2, 3 and 4 while it's close to Civ Rev. That's why I think Firaxis was just milking the name when they released it as Civilization V. I, for one, would have saved my money to buy a better designed (not talking about bugs) game.

 

[Zechnophobe]

You are way way way overestimating the avid fan-base compared to the total fan-base.

Easily 90% of Civ buyers never go to a fourm. You are looking at a tiny sampling of the people who buy the product and thinking it is representative.

I would bet any amount of money that the truly disaffected purchasers are under 5%, and that even most of the die hards think it is an improvement.

In 5 years you will be the exact same ones crying This Civ 6 sucks and it is no Civ 5. They took away great people how could they do that great people are the roxorz!

So, when I say '20% of the avid fan base' I am specifically referring to the population of people who go on to forums. Those are the Avid Fans. Them.

Avid fans will spread word of the good or bad of a game a lot faster than those that just picked it up.

Also, while polls on the forum show about the numbers I put up there, I am guessing you have even less to back up your 5% number.

I loved civ 2, civ 2 test of time, civ 3, civ 4, civ 4 with bts and warlords. I loved Alpha centauri.

I don't particularly love Civ 5.

So... extrapolating that I won't like civ 6 either is contrary to trend. Only if civ 6 is even worse than civ 5 will that be true.

 

[anandus]

Anyone who says that Civ 5 is better than Civ 4 clearly sucks balls at Civ 4 and wanted something simple.

I wouldn't say any is better, they are different.

And besides Civ4 vanilla wasn't that good either. But apparently people tend to forget.

Civ 4 BTS on the other hand is brilliant, and it is imho unfair to compare these two.
Let's see where we stand in two years time, and then compare it with Civ4 BTS. Than we can make a fair comparison.

And the fact that I've put in 34 hours since friday-evening does count for something, I'd say.

 

[SuperJay]

You are way way way overestimating the avid fan-base compared to the total fan-base.

Easily 90% of Civ buyers never go to a fourm. You are looking at a tiny sampling of the people who buy the product and thinking it is representative.

Bingo.

Yes, a few hundred people may hate it and rush to the interwebs to register their displeasure. Meanwhile, a few hundred thousand are nowhere near any forum and are enjoying the game.

Plus, the few hundred old "die-hards" they lost because those folks wanted Civ 4, Part 2 are easily overcome by the few thousand new die-hards they gained by releasing a fun, accessible game. Their 'loss' won't even be noticed.

I'm sorry that you feel disappointed, but it's a numbers game. Software development is a business, like it or not. A corporation doesn't worry about hurting your feelings, it worries about releasing a quality product. Sid is not here to hold your hand and croon sweet nothings into your ear. You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake.

 

[Stiefel]

Or just didnt need Civ V to be Civ 4.5. Its a totally different game. Why should it be like Civ 4?

I think people who play games to have FUN like Civ V. Seems to be the people who play games to prove to themselves how bad ass they are at outsmarting a computer who dont like it & think its "dumbed down."

But Civ 5 isn't fun at all, and many people on this forum could attest to that. Slow turns, lack of depth, and bugs galore make Civ 5 unorthodox to Civ's reputation for quality. I'm not saying it needs to be another Civ 4, but it does need to match, if not surpass the depth and level of choice. Civ 5 is Civ Rev with glitter and perfume.

 

[Ignorant Teacher]

Plus, the few hundred old "die-hards" they lost because those folks wanted Civ 4, Part 2

You fanboys just don't get it, right? No one wanted a Civ 4.5 or something, we wanted Civ V, not Civ Rev 2.

 

[Stiefel]

I wouldn't say any is better, they are different.

And besides Civ4 vanilla wasn't that good either. But apparently people tend to forget.

Civ 4 BTS on the other hand is brilliant, and it is imho unfair to compare these two.
Let's see where we stand in two years time, and then compare it with Civ4 BTS. Than we can make a fair comparison.

And the fact that I've put in 34 hours since friday-evening does count for something, I'd say.

I was very hooked on Civ 4 vanilla. There are very few other games I can say that about.

 

[Becephalus]

Also, while polls on the forum show about the numbers I put up there, I am guessing you have even less to back up your 5% number.

I worked as a game developer and at one point we were putting all this effort into MP balance and the needs of the forum goers. Then we installed some software to see how people were playing the game and connected the forum accounts with the game registration.


91% of people never played a single game of MP (despite it being the only thing any of the developers played), and a full 87% never went to the forum once. And this is for a game that was much less generally popular and had a much more dedicated fanbase than civ.

It was a huge shock to us and made us completely realign our priorities. I am sure companies like 2k know this as well.

Frankly all and all Civ 5 has had a much more positive launch than civ 4 did. But I think people forget.