A theory on why ciV has been so divisive to the community.

The divisiveness is from drawing comparisons to Civ 4 in its final state with expansions to a newly released Civ 5.


Most gloss over how bad Civ 4 was at release. Hell it wasn't even Vista compatible.


Civ 5 needs a couple patches, especially to its AI. But Civ 5 is superior to Civ 4 in the comparative life cycles. Give this game a patch or two and most of the complaints will disappear.

I do agree that the Civ team should have learned from its mistakes and not put out a product that isn't really ready, what can you do?
 
I went back and compared Amazon reviews of Civ 4 and Civ 5; I also went back and looked at popular forum topics for Civ 4 and Civ 5 on these boards. It is night and day, full stop, and nothing to do with later expansions. If they could get Civ 4 to run on their computer (a big if) people really liked it. People dislike the gameplay in Civ 5, and that is a whole lot worse. If we had a database of online resources that was reliable back to Civ 3 I suspect that it might have been closer to the Civ 5 reaction; I didn't go for Civ 3 much, but also didn't engage online enough to know how common that sentiment was back then.
 
lschnarch said:
It was not? :eek:

:rolleyes:

After that remarkable statement quoted above no further comment necessary
Click to expand...

Actually it wasn't compatible.


Even people on this very forum in the Civ 4 section have written about Civ 4's problems with Vista.

To play Civ 4 on release you had to either install XP or wait for a patch. This has been so heavily documented that it isn't even debatable.

In fact I still have the initial CD and even to this day I cannot play Civ 4 in a fresh install until I patch it
 
But, though what you say is quite true, it misses the point, leafs43. Look for a furore about *gameplay* on Civ4, as ohioastronomy has, and you won't find one. Here we have a veritable firestorm over that, while the bugs/incompatibility seem secondary in comparison.
 
Doctor Phibes said:
But, though what you say is quite true, it misses the point, leafs43. Look for a furore about *gameplay* on Civ4, as ohioastronomy has, and you won't find one. Here we have a veritable firestorm over that, while the bugs/incompatibility seem secondary in comparison.
Click to expand...

Gameplay is certainly different, no one debates that.

Some people will just prefer Civ 4 gameplay to Civ 5. Either from a nostalgic standpoint or just not like the tactical aspects Civ 5 introduces.
 
Personal opinion:

It is not really the game that has caused the backlash. Not its style or substance.
I find more and more on the release of any game that it is community that has changed.
It seems almost obligatory to slash and burn any new title on its relevant fansites (even moreso on the official sites). Quite why? I'm not sure.

Civ V is different, it is new, it has problems. Civ IV was new, it was different (less radically), it had problems. Civ III was new, it was different (very much so), it had problems. I and II are almost prehistoric now so no comparison can be truly made.

In 5 years Civ V will be mature. Will it stand the test of time ?

I hope so because I look forward to wash rinse and repeat of launch + week 1, 2, 3 etc...........
I find it to be Civ at its core and am having no difficulty building an Empire...my focus, as ever, is as a builder...though much more forward planning in city founding and build schedules is required. I'm even enjoying having to pay attention to the the military aspect a little more than I have ever before.

Loved Civ the boardgame...rejoiced at the computer game...fell in love with II. III grew on me. IV refined IIIs love. V has sparked a new way to look at things.

Basically, I'm deriving enjoyment and can always regress if I lose it.
 
I think this is a big part of the problem. Personally, most of Civ 5's mechanics simplifications strike me as elegant, and it does remind me of a German board game in many respects.

The much more heavily abstracted resources are a big part of this. While people both here and in the 2k thread seem to take a black and white view of "Civ is already abstracted!", the degree of abstraction is unquestionably different and is probably a large part of what is grating on some people. Global happiness versus local happiness+health is a huge abstraction. Science being purely population based and turning "trade" into "gold" is another.

I think the "possibilities" part of what the 2k post mentions is another very grating thing for some people, myself definitely included in this case (I actually like the resource changes for the most part). It's much harder and/or slower to dramatically alter your empire now, which strikes me as a board game mechanic rather than a computer one.

leafs43 said:
The divisiveness is from drawing comparisons to Civ 4 in its final state with expansions to a newly released Civ 5.
Click to expand...

A lot of people are also parroting this line, and it's pretty insulting. Plenty of people I know, myself included, never bought a single expansion of Civ4, and liked it despite its faults from the day it came out. Even among those who have gotten expansions, I'm sure most of them can differentiate between a game they fundamentally like that's rough around the edges, versus a game they fundamentally dislike (that's also rough around the edges).
 
Civ5 is better compared with Civ3.

Both were following up well loved predecessors, both brought in major new features and changes. (cultural borders, open table diplomacy for Civ3) Civ3 got a lot of hate and was ultimately sidelined by a lot of new fans who entered with Civ4. Civ3, is in my books still the more important game to the franchise.

But that's not to mitigate 2K/Firaxis' mistake of releasing not only a buggy product but a product that didn't seen to have passed basic testing with so many features not functioning properly, it took many of us only a few days to find out.

I can't believe the Frankestein beta team missed all that. It was likely a decision from 2K to make a date.

So I hope there's been at least a month or so of patching/upgrade work since the game went gold in between the build we got and the first big patch we will be getting.
 
I just realized that, maybe, Charon2112 is a Rush (the band) fan....and as such is 100% OK in my book! ;)
 
Not to say that the quote in the OP is 100 % true, but it certainly highlight a very interesting and at the very least partly true point.

The "AI made to win like a player" rather than trying to be immersive and pretend it's actually a nation leader, is quite an example of the different philosophies between Civ4 and Civ5.
And it's true that, overall, Civ5 feels much more abstract and much less immersive than the previous iterations.

Worth considering anyway.
leafs43 said:
Actually it wasn't compatible.


Even people on this very forum in the Civ 4 section have written about Civ 4's problems with Vista.

To play Civ 4 on release you had to either install XP or wait for a patch. This has been so heavily documented that it isn't even debatable.

In fact I still have the initial CD and even to this day I cannot play Civ 4 in a fresh install until I patch it
Click to expand...
As you seem to have a problem grasping the point : Civ4 was released more than a year before Vista. How exactly is it surprising that there is compatibility problem ?
 
The "AI made to win like a player" rather than trying to be immersive and pretend it's actually a nation leader
Click to expand...

That is a statement I cannot begin to wrap my head around.
 
Buccaneer said:
That is a statement I cannot begin to wrap my head around.
Click to expand...
I probably didn't write it in the best way, and it ended a bit confusing.
What I meant is that Civ4's leaders behaved more in the way that a "real" leader would make : like if he's trying to rule a nation, following some personnal preferences.
Civ5's leaders behave more like players trying to win a game.
 
It's not more board gamey, its more Civ3-ey,[/QUOTE]


No, not for me. In fact, I really enjoyed Civ3 quite a bit more than IV. IV wasn't fun for me at all until I discovered FFH and Wildmana. And V just feels void of life. I would have never thought to compare 3 with 5 in the way constructed.

CiV feels lifeless. I don't know how better to describe the feeling I get playing this game than lifeless. Heretofore, Civ had always felt vibrant to me and while I didn't always agree with the details, I could always feel anima in the game.

To me, CiV feels rigid in a way much more alligned with Rev. than Civ3.

And I kinda' like Rev., not what I want in a PC strat. game, but I liked Revolutions. To me, CiV is much closer to the the console experience and to be honest that's just not what I paid for.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

mastrude
Civ V Calculator Nerds
Replies
0
Views
340
mastrude
mastrude
ThermobaricPunch
Multiplayer desyncs (loading screen between turns) and weird bugs
Replies
1
Views
839
coolhandluke11
C
S
Is it Possible to Set Up Civ-V to play like Civ-III...?
Replies
5
Views
1K
aieeegrunt
aieeegrunt
The_J
Can you make an anti-imperial empire game? The 4Xperts behind Civilization, Syphilisation and Victoria 3 discuss eXperimental 4X design
Replies
5
Views
2K
martindo
M
The_J
April Fool's: 2K buys Paradox, Millennia is the "next civ game in development"
2
Replies
35
Views
2K
Quintillus
Quintillus
Top Bottom