Age Poll: Fans vs Critics

[Kharum]

21 and don't like the game much at all, apart from strategic view, which I'd like to become standard feature for this type of games. It's not really, that I'm dissapointed, I just don't currently see any reason to play the game, I much rather fire up IV.

I just wait the day that I can be actually thrilled and amazed by a new game (non-indie) again, lately they have been mostly pretty dull experiences, apart from Distant Worlds and Minecraft.

 

[knug]

35, started Civ vi complete edition in may, still consider myself a newb, love the new game, despite all the hate. Would like to see more options in game setup, but I have time to learn the basic mechanics. When I got civ bts my head hurt looking at all the options for a game.

 

[Setzertrancer]

I am a critic of Civ V and I have played the franchise since the PSX port of the orginal Civilization. then really got into it for Civ II: Test of Time.

To me it doesn't feel like a Simulation game anymore, it's a strategy game with more emphasis on gamplay and less on realism.

I am 23 years old

 

[DeathReborn]

I am 27 and have played every Civ to date (starting out on the Atari ST) but I am slightly disappointed in Civ 5 although my disappointment is slightly clouded by the .20 patch breaking my DX 10/11 game (crashes on startup/load of a game). Steam ignored my "do not update this game" setting AGAIN!

I do see plenty of room for potential, perhaps that's where the disappointment stems from, feeling like so much is missing or just slightly wrong in some way. I prefer really long games on huge maps with as many civs as I can get onto it so that games can last a few days. With Civ 5 it feels like days before anything gets constructed in Civ 5 and there's way too much cloak and dagger involved (ie not knowing virtually anything about anything that happens in the game).

 

[mike_cf]

It seems very clear to me that people how like civ 5 (no matter their age) don't like many options and complex stuff. They like civ 5 precisely because it is simplified and more action inclined.

However Civilization always was about deep, complex gameplay with many features and options and many ways to play the same game, no matter the type of victory you'd choose. That's why 'the haters' prefer civ 4 and are criticizing the civ 5 approach.

People who are satisfied by civ 5 don't want Civilization, they want a nice and simplified strategy game where they can build some cities and units to make war and win. And that's what civ 5 delivers.

 

[Setzertrancer]

It seems very clear to me that people how like civ 5 (no matter their age) don't like many options and complex stuff. They like civ 5 precisely because it is simplified and more action inclined.

However Civilization always was about deep, complex gameplay with many features and options and many ways to play the same game, no matter the type of victory you'd choose. That's why 'the haters' prefer civ 4 and are criticizing the civ 5 approach.

People who are satisfied by civ 5 don't want Civilization, they want a nice and simplified strategy game where they can build some cities and units to make war and win. And that's what civ 5 delivers.

Yeah I just wish I knew they were going to do that before I forked out the money.

I'm still enjoying the game it's just not going to keep me addicted for as long as CiV 4.

 

[Me,myself,and,I]

You sir are incorrect, I certainly like my games to be as complex as physically possible. People who want simple games don't play WiF. Every post you make seems to be an attempt to invalidate the people who like ciV "Oh, there all kids." or "Well they just don't like complex games." you sound like a politician or a partisan.

Anyways I noticed that the number of people that like the game: the number of people who don't is roughly 2:1 except in the case o people less than 18 years old.

 

[zonk]

37, I go all the way back to Civ I.... in fact, I still have the original floppies - 4 of 'em 3.5", and the 'smaller' 1.38 mb, not even 1.44!!

Disappointed.

I pulled out my old versions the other night to try to recall the series progression... II is difficult get to work and I is gone, but my recollection --

I --> II
All good. Perfection in evolution. Random AI wonder builds gone, BB losing to spearman all but gone.

II --> III
My biggest complaint seems silly in retrospect - II had a massive exploit where you could farm Wonders... builds weren't exclusive, so you'd start Pyramids in 3 cities - then just keep using duplicate builds to farm hammers for the next Wonder. III introduced exclusive builds, which was really proper -- but man, I remember being sorely upset by that The other complaint, I think, everyone shared -- spearman beats tank back in a really big way. For giggles, I tried finding it on the boards but can't -- but in my original install, I remember a mod that basically eliminated "spearman", "tanks", "swordsman", etc -- and just replaced them with "Defender I", "Fast Attach II", "Attack IV" units. The idea was -- it was just the 'concept' of a tank losing to a spearman that was annoying - it felt less 'wrong' if your Fast Attack IV lost to a Defender II.

II to III was actually the last time -- before V -- that I went back to playing the previous iteration for a bit.... but once I got over my favorite lost exploit, II faded...

III --> IV
I thought gameplay was much, much better. The only thing I felt I lost was armies -- and a pseudo replacement (great generals) arrived in Warlords. The big complaint with IV is that the system requirements were just wrong... Recommended was really minimum and minimum was screwed. I liked IV so much (even Vanilla), though, that I actually doubled my RAM and bought a new gfx card specifically for Civ IV. I've never done that for a single piece of software before or since. IV also had the advantage of being truly blessed with REAL expansions -- previous expansions were generally just scenario dumps.... Warlords and BTS were real innovations and true expansions. Good stuff. Until my little trip down memory lane, I hadn't even touched III since IV came out.

IV --> V
Well, like I said... disappointed. I feel like I lost of a lot of features and concepts and epic games that span weeks --- a hallmark of Civ since II for me -- feel like a thing of the past. A lot of people have used "dumbed down" -- and maybe that's not quite right... I'm leaning towards "over-streamlined" -- even on Marathon mode, the game moves too fast (too many meaningless next turns). It's taking just 2 days to finish a marathon game... really, just one day to reach the point of foregone conclusion -- and that's my over-arching beef. At the height of IV -- and yes, I know IV+BTS+Mods shouldn't be compared to V alone -- it could easily be 20 hours+ (a good week's worth of playing time, given work and all) until I even got a good sense of whether I was going to be in a winning position, much less know which path to pursue TO win.

 

[knug]

It seems very clear to me that people how like civ 5 (no matter their age) don't like many options and complex stuff. They like civ 5 precisely because it is simplified and more action inclined.

However Civilization always was about deep, complex gameplay with many features and options and many ways to play the same game, no matter the type of victory you'd choose. That's why 'the haters' prefer civ 4 and are criticizing the civ 5 approach.

People who are satisfied by civ 5 don't want Civilization, they want a nice and simplified strategy game where they can build some cities and units to make war and win. And that's what civ 5 delivers.

Didn't Civ IV vanilla have a lot less options before the expansions/mods? I love a complex game. I'm kinda glad the game started out simpler though, so I can learn to use the new options-strategies as they come. You were probably a civ veteran from way back. Civ 4 did have a lot of options, and each option changes the game drastically. Right now, in civ V I can learn about the real basic strategies, combat and expansion and worry about just playing the basic game. The options will come in time i'm sure. I have no desire to use spreadsheets and number tricks to beat deity, but I do want to play the game on the most challenging levels that I can without resorting to game mechanic exploits to win. hell I'm just now learning how to use slingshots and GS effectively, awesome stuff!! Maybe I don't have to adjust as much as you do, since im still a noob. And I'm a pacifist in civ IV, I've only recently started to experiment with the role of the warmonger invader type. The 1 upt makes a little more sense to me than the sod's.

 

[Mad Hab]

I'm 36, and I liked Civ 5 at first. But now, the more I play it, the more disappointed I get...

Cheers,

Mad Hab

Edit: I play since Civ 1 (bought my first PC only to be able to play it at will)

 

[PreLynMax]

30, and played since Civ 1. Love Civ 5.

Ditto.... I guess... I like it.

 

[cualpa]

Didn't Civ IV vanilla have a lot less options before the expansions/mods? I love a complex game. I'm kinda glad the game started out simpler though, so I can learn to use the new options-strategies as they come. You were probably a civ veteran from way back. Civ 4 did have a lot of options, and each option changes the game drastically. Right now, in civ V I can learn about the real basic strategies, combat and expansion and worry about just playing the basic game. The options will come in time i'm sure. I have no desire to use spreadsheets and number tricks to beat deity, but I do want to play the game on the most challenging levels that I can without resorting to game mechanic exploits to win. hell I'm just now learning how to use slingshots and GS effectively, awesome stuff!! Maybe I don't have to adjust as much as you do, since im still a noob. And I'm a pacifist in civ IV, I've only recently started to experiment with the role of the warmonger invader type. The 1 upt makes a little more sense to me than the sod's.

Moderator Action: *snip*

 

[Kharum]

Huh... it's hard to believe that the +30 people, who have played every Civ throughoutly can have so differing opinions about the game. I find the critics more believable, as they tend to come up with a list of what they don't like about the game, but those who like the game, tend to mainly just say "I love the game! It's the best in the series!" or something along the line, indicating for a lot enthusiasm, were it genuine or not, but no reasoning is given. I may be bit biased though, as I'm a "critic", but I try to look this whole ordeal objectively. I have really, really hard time believing that anyone who has played strategy games since 90's or even beginning of this decade would actually like this game in it's current form or, not to mention, prefer it over IV.

 

[BufordTJustice]

30, and in a category you didn't considered, "this game has potential, but oh boy , has so much to fix " So i didn't voted, because I am neither happy or disapointed with the game.

100% agreed. Only change the 30 to a 32.

 

[Leif Roar]

I'm 35, wet my feet with Civ I back on the Amiga, tried II and III, but didn't really play much again until Civ IV, and overall I'm disappointed with Civ V in its current state.

I really like most of the new concepts Civ V has introcuded, and I like that there are fewer military units involved (the number of units in Civ IV got annoyingly large pretty soon) and that the initial land-grab is much less important. I don't mind that that the game's been pared down from the complexities of the full Civ IV BtS; you need solid foundations first before you starting getting fancy again. I also don't mind the teething problems and bugs, initial weak AI and UI niggles -- those were to be expected.

Even so, I'm not having much fun with the game. As a turtler, I loathe that city and tile improvement has become so slow, unimportant and unrewarding (even downright counterproductive at times), diplomacy feels vacuous and pointless (for instance, with the removal of religion, corporations and foreign trade routes, the "open borders" agreement is entirely pointless unless you happen to need to move through a certain civilization's territory -- and with the much slower land-grab and cultural expansion, you can usually just go around), the wonders are wonderless, the great persons not so great and the city states, while a good idea, are characterless and interacting with them are not the least bit interesting. In addition, the pacing, particularly of the early and mid game, combined with the long waits between turns just makes the whole game feel slow and dull.