A vocal minority of the Civ community hate Civ 5 and even prefer 4, why?

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by Artifex1, Dec 13, 2016.

  1. Artifex1

    Artifex1 Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2006
    Messages:
    284
    I hear it a lot...many say they hate civ 5 but why exactly? What's odd while many love it there is a strong minority that hate 5.
     
  2. Victoria

    Victoria Regina Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    Messages:
    11,724
    No game is perfect apart from civ IV to some.

    Its just human nature, some people like Justin Beiber....

    Did I spell that right? Ah well nevermind
     
    George Abitbol, vyyt and Toastypie like this.
  3. c4c6

    c4c6 Prince

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2016
    Messages:
    462
    Its just human nature.

    civ4 is great in itself _and_ it is the last representative of an era. Like the big pyramids of Cheops & Chephren. The old kingdom of square tiles and strategic combat scope ... civ4 will be the last of this type forever.

    civ5 would be Akhenaten in this picture, new ideas have always opposition ... (so we are waiting for the great Ramesses to come)
     
    George Abitbol likes this.
  4. Gumbolt

    Gumbolt Phoenix Rising

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Messages:
    23,405
    Location:
    UK
    Civ 4 is a great game. It's the depth and challenge it actually presents. It will take Civ 6 many patches and expansions before it can match Civ 4. Even then things like 1upt and other things will annoy Civ 4 fans.
     
    Eurik likes this.
  5. Khmaraches

    Khmaraches Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2014
    Messages:
    16
    Location:
    Moscow, Russia
    I don't hate civ 5, but I quit playing it and uninstall it for going back to civ 4, there is a lot of reasons for it.

    -Modding: There is a lot of super mods for civ 4 (Rhyes and Fall, Fall from Heaven and modmods, Invictus, Pie's ancient Europe...). i was hoping to have similar quality mods for civ 5, but the game is released for a while and I didn't see anything really comparable to mods for civ 4. Several projects that I was fond of were abandoned. I'm modding myself a bit, and I hate the modding tools for Civ 5. 9 times out of 10 I have to make some shamanic magic to even make the map editor work without crashing (maybe it's fixed now, didn't tried for a while).

    -Combat system: I'm not a fanatic of the many units per tile system, and I even thing that the one unit system is better and more strategic (I love age of Wonders, Warlock 2...). However the AI is screwing it so badly that I hardly have the sensation to achieve something when I'm winning a war. A remember that in one of my last plays I've destroyed a big and tech superior AI army with two archers and a city. Civ 5 wars can be fun only again human opponents, but I'm not a MP player, just playing hotseats with friends sometimes.

    -Map sizes. I own Civ4 since it release (still in Cd version^^), and I've suffered a lot from having an old computer who couldn't handle big maps. Now with the new one I can play on Huge maps with 20+ civs, and hundreds of cities in the endgame, and reasonable end turn phase. On Civ 5 the charging time is kind of awful, and even if I had the best of computers it's totally useless to play on large maps because of the next point.

    -Happiness system: I can't understand why Firaxis is doing everything to force the player to have the less cities. I understand the need to reduce the ICS, but in Civ 5 it's just dull. I remember huge maps where large chunks of land were unoccupied because everyone was at happiness limit, and there were not enough luxuries to expand. I had some games where I was just moving my workers for 50-100 turns, because I couldn't found or conquer new cities, because of the happiness limit. I understand that is a problem only for ones that play on huge maps, but heck, I'm playing a game called Civilization, not "My four villages micromanagement". Even with that system, the ICS in civ 5 still start as soon as some tech are discovered, and cities become hapiness-positive, which I find kind of stupid for realism and gameplay reasons.

    I could continue for a while, but my point here is not to prove that civ 5 is bad. In my opinion civ 5 was pretty courageous, because it introduced new mechanisms which is strongly needed in any long franchise, but that new mechanics brought new problems with them, and that problems weren't fixed neither in Beyond Earth, and as I can lurk here, or in let's plays, in Civ 6 (main reason why I didn't bought it, and probably never do).

    So, waiting for a better Civ 7, I'll continue to play Civ 4 that never disappointed or bored me since it release. I just had an epic moment several hours ago, winning a big war, where I've started in numerical and technological disadvantage, I'm really happy about it, because I won that war because of my skills as a player, and strategy, not some blind luck or AI stupidity.

    I also have the feeling that a lot of people on this forum have a logic like "a civ game can't be bad". It can. I play a lot of different franchises, and every one has a skeleton in the closet. Heroes of Might and Magic 3 was an excellent game which have a living community around it despite being 15 (15, Karl! 15!) years old, while HOMM6 is a disaster. The Total War series have Rome 2, the paradox games Rome Universalis (no love for Rome in this list).
     
    George Abitbol and Eurik like this.
  6. greygamer

    greygamer Feudal Lord

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2006
    Messages:
    1,838
    Location:
    UK
    Tried Civ IV and didn't like it. I went back to Civ III at the time. I seem to recall a lot of hate for Civ IV on the forums at the time. It probably boils down those who like 1 upt and those that hate it.
     
    vyyt likes this.
  7. Eurik

    Eurik Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2016
    Messages:
    55
    Gender:
    Male
    It doesn't greygamer. Not in my case. I don't mind 1upt, when done properly. Why I love IV so much better than V and VI is because of the 'epic' experience it is able to deliver me. I always play huge maps marathon. This works great in IV, less in V and not in VI. Some of my reasons to return to IV (especially in comparison with VI):

    - Vassal states instead of city states in IV. In V at least you were able to leave city states out. VI obliges you to play with city states. For me this is the major game spoiler.
    - Huge maps. IV delivers huger maps than VI, making the adventure greater and more epic. At the start of the game you really felt like located at a deserted place. In VI you immediately run into other civilizations.
    - Toroid maps. I could have toroid maps in IV. Reach North through South instead of only East through West. I found this much more realistic and fun than the obliged bordered maps that V and VI deliver.
    - Transporters instead of embark. In IV it was very adventureous to specialize in seafaring so you could be the first to discover new continents and civilizations. Colonizing them and conquering overseas cities was challenging. In V and VI land units magically turn into boats and back, making the map like one flat uniform substance.
    - Diplomacy. IV has a superb diplomacy compared to V and especially VI. It has a great overview, great options for trade (science, gold, map, war, Alliance, etc.). It is all worked out so much better in IV.
    - Peace. In V and VI it seems that you cannot play a relative peaceful game. Especially in VI you seem to be at war almost allways. Friendships are nothing. In IV you were better able to focus on other things, if you chose to do so.
    - Menu's. The menu's and overviews in VI are not always good and sometimes really bad. In IV this was worked out much better.
    - Many civlizations and leaders to choose from. Though I presume that VI will introduce more in the future. (IV started out rather limited in civilizations too I think).
    - AI of course. In IV the AI was able to cope with the designed system. In V and especially VI it isn't.

    I'm sure I forgot to mention other things. But it all boils down to the overall feeling of really building an epic empire and civilization that IV does, and V and especially VI don't, deliver. In IV every new game felt really unique, I don't get that same feeling with V and VI.

    That said I do think that V and VI have some original ideas. But these should have been implemented in the IV system and features. What they did is design a completely new system. With this they discarded a well proven system and they also discarded many of the cool features of IV. Not all change is an improvement. And never change a winning team.

    So now I hope you gained a little understanding about why some of us like IV better than V and especially VI.
     
    Fippy likes this.
  8. greygamer

    greygamer Feudal Lord

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2006
    Messages:
    1,838
    Location:
    UK
    @Eurik
    And that is fine, I have had epic experiences in Civ V and Civ VI. To each there own, I don't hate Civ IV it just wasn't for me. I acknowledge it is considered by many to the best strategy game ever.
    -Vassal states/City states they could be annoying in Civ V, I'm finding them less so in Civ VI
    -Toroid maps I can live without
    - Transporters ditto
    - Diplomacy agreed this is not good in Civ V/VI
    - Peace you probably can play a peaceful game if you avoid religion and just turtle. I read a lot about people having not enough room in Civ VI but not had this problem myself in the majority of my games. However it can shape your game strategy (i.e. not enough room go for RV/DV). For some this is a bad thing
    - Menu's could be patched otherwise I expect there will be mods. I can live with them as they are though.
    - AI agreed it's too passive, even when it declares war (in mid game) doesn't do much and with no embargos etc. how can it hurt you.
     
  9. Browd

    Browd Dilettante Administrator

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2012
    Messages:
    11,936
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Rural Vermont
    I never understood the appeal of toriod maps. Yes, in the real world, if you keep moving past the North pole, you appear in Antarctica, but I never thought it worked well in-game.

    (Er, something about that last sentence sounds wrong....)
     
  10. Victoria

    Victoria Regina Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    Messages:
    11,724
    Sure... and I am sure most views will not change but Civ VI is still new and we can always live in hope.

    I really liked quite a few things in Civ IV but stacks and sliders made be burn the discs, my choice and opinion.

    Iliked playing Civ5 but nothing is perfect and the fact that the AI could not move and shoot was very hard not to take advantage of. At least they can do that in 6... they have messed up the city taking rules though.
     
  11. Fippy

    Fippy Mycro Junkie Queen

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2013
    Messages:
    11,991
    Gender:
    Female
    Just for better understanding, and i will ignore stuff like "hating" games which imo just sounds silly..

    I have played Civ 4 for many years now, sometimes more and sometimes less.
    5 was not for me, so why do i think that..

    I could write many things now, but why when i can just say: where's the deep thinking in 5?
    Winning Immortal and then Deity took me months (and i already played 2 & 3 a lot) in 4.
    In 5, on my first game on Deity i was already in a strong winning position..

    I was also already half asleep. Diplo among other things was..i will leave it at "strange".
    While diplo in 4 is really important (and with many complex layers).

    So does that mean i only like Civ 4, and only this game is perfect..
    Certainly not, i play all kinds of games. But only those that challenge me.
    Civ5 did not, and was imo not programmed to be challenging, and so here's your reason why that so called "minority" much prefers 4.
     
    Eurik likes this.
  12. Eurik

    Eurik Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2016
    Messages:
    55
    Gender:
    Male
    Why not? Does reaching Easth through West also work out badly in-game, to your opinion?
     
  13. Browd

    Browd Dilettante Administrator

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2012
    Messages:
    11,936
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Rural Vermont
    Yeah, you're right. In real life, if you keep heading East you eventually fall off the edge of the world, into the place where dragons live. it is silly that in Civ, if you keep heading East you go around the whole world and eventually end up where you started -- so unrealistic.

    If you wanted to replicate real Earth N and S poles, as you go north on the Civ map (say, you're located on the top right-hand side of the map), as you hit the N pole, you should pop out headed south on the other side of the map (in my example, somewhere on the top left-hand side of the map), but still near the N pole, not popping out from the S pole. That's just silly (although I've heard that they are getting close to completing the wormhole between the N and S poles, allowing instantaneous travel between the poles -- it will be great when that's finally completed).

    Making the world look like a flat projection of a doughnut (which is all a toroid map is) is, in my view, far less realistic than leaving impassable poles that mimic the (essentially) impassable poles on our real life globe (does anyone actually trudge across Antarctica to get from Australia to South America?).
     
    nzcamel and Victoria like this.
  14. Victoria

    Victoria Regina Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    Messages:
    11,724
    Rarely has my mind be changed so much by a piece of logic missed!
     
  15. Eurik

    Eurik Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2016
    Messages:
    55
    Gender:
    Male
    That's the inconsistent answer I expected.

    No, East and West do not lead to world edges, but neither do North and South. And there you also won't find unsurpassible walls.

    And traveling towards the Western world you don't just pop up in the Eastern world. In the end the quarters are directions, not locations. All four of them.

    People usually don't "trudge" from Australia to South America; they prefer to take flights. And these stop in Africa because more people find their destination there instead of Antartica.

    But of course we all are allowed to have inconsistent world views and opinions.
     
    Last edited: Dec 14, 2016
  16. Browd

    Browd Dilettante Administrator

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2012
    Messages:
    11,936
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Rural Vermont
    Yes, we are. And you have reminded me that attempts at humor often fall flat on the internet.

    My point is that if you fly (or drive or walk) over the North pole, you do not suddenly appear outside the South pole -- you remain close to the North pole, but in the opposite hemisphere. Because a toriod map is not based on a projection of a sphere, but a projection of a doughnut (or a solid cylinder that is curved around itself to connect the two ends of the cylinder), there is only one polar region, encompassing the inner ring of the toroid. The difference can be illustrated by the two attached images. The first is a classic flat projection of spherical earth, with N pole at the top and S. Pole at the bottom. If you proceed north from some point in Russia, and cross the north pole, you will find yourself now heading south from the N. Pole towards Canada. The second image is a toroidal earth, where the equator is a ring around the outside of the toroid and the polar region is a narrow band circling the inside of the toroid, so when the torioid is projected flat by dividing it along the inner ring of the toroid, the resulting flat map looks like it has a N and S pole, but really it just has one polar region that has been split in two. A toroid map may be fun, but it in now way equates to a spherical map.

    earth.jpg Toroid N Europe.jpg
     
    nzcamel likes this.
  17. greygamer

    greygamer Feudal Lord

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2006
    Messages:
    1,838
    Location:
    UK
    Well to be fair Tundra tiles should be almost impossible to travel through until Industrial/Modern technology anyway Neither pole was reached until the early 20th century and passage through polar territory was something of a grail quest as well.
     
    nzcamel likes this.
  18. Eurik

    Eurik Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2016
    Messages:
    55
    Gender:
    Male
    Our points are well made about toroid maps.

    My suggestion is not to oblige you guys to play toroid maps, but to give players at least the option. In IV you could choose; toroid or flat map. You would choose flat, I would choose toroid. What's wrong with giving different players different options to make them all happy? In VI I must play flat maps with city states while I like the game so much better toroid without city states. In IV the game could be played in many different ways. Both with setting options and in-game. I miss that versitality in VI, and not just a little.
     
  19. greygamer

    greygamer Feudal Lord

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2006
    Messages:
    1,838
    Location:
    UK
    Did you make the same observations when Civ V was released? Did it make any difference?
     
  20. Eurik

    Eurik Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2016
    Messages:
    55
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes, it did make a difference. Did it make a difference to you that in IV the option was there to play toroid maps?
     

Share This Page