An Evaluation: Why CIV 5 is an absolute atrocity.

[Exterminas]

I would like to go throug your points in order and reply, because you took the effort of creating such a well organized post that I feel I have to respond in an appropriate manner.

Absurdly Lacking MP Support

No improvements at all from CIV IV: No dedicated servers, no matchmaking, constant lag issue, framerate problems, no online ladder and rankings, no unit animation, random crashes, no way of reconnecting a game, no way of joining a mid-game through invite.

I can't say a lot on that, because I don't care for multiplayer. So do a lot of people. Let's just say that the multiplayer- vs. singleplayer-importance debate has been going on for so long, because both sides are valid.

No SP Scenario

SP consists only of "Play Now" and "Custom Game". It doesn't get any more plain than this. And it has the stench of "sloth" and "greed" all over it.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by that. Civ4 had some scenarios, mainly from Warlords and from mods. One being an addon, the other modded by the community. Both things don't exist (yet) for civ5.

No Tile Animation

Why the **** is this taken out? Why must players have to go into the city menu to see what tiles are being worked on??

That is annoying, I agree. The icons for commerce, production in food also look all similar to me, wich makes them annoying to organize.

No Religions

That has been discuessed a lot, it's a question of taste, can't argue about that.

No Espionage

Espionage was one of the best features to have been introduced in the CIV series. It gave players so many options and alternatives to go against their opponents without the risks of declaring open war: poison their water supply, scout out enemy troop strength, stir up a rebellion, steal their treasury, sabotage their wonder construction, etc. Why is this awesome feature removed completely?

It came with the addon, not with the base-game. Civ5 is the base-game. I can understand that for some people that isn't an argument, but in times of multi-million-dollar-costs of video-games to make, people shouldn't go too harsh on DLC and other money-making-shemes, cos, you know, without money for video-games there, won't be any video-games. I'm pretty sure the people at 2k won't spend all the DLC-money on boats and golden death-robots.

No Civics

Civics was another extremely well-thought out feature that was added in CIV IV. Not only did it add flavors to each nation (Communism vs. Capitalism, Emancipation vs. Slavery, Universal Suffrage vs. Police State), it provides long term tactical options as well as short term flexibility to players to adapt their empires based on the current circumstance. Deciding and changing Civics was always a weighty decision because each one of them have their pros and cons. It makes each nation unique because rarely do two empires have the identical set of Civics.

In CIV 5 Civics are replaced by Social Policies, which is fundamentally a ladder of perks with bonuses that you can upgrade one at a time. It may still be strategic to decide on which branch of policies and perk to upgrade, but because of the fact that they are permanent and you cannot change them, they offer absolutely no tactical flexibility to players. All branches and perks add some kind of bonus to your empire with no negative side effects, so the decision of choosing which one to upgrade also becomes less significant.

Having played Civ5 I must say that you are completly wrong. The SPs make all the difference in the world. They completly depend what kind of civilition you will be able to built. Try to get a diplomatic victory via city-states without the increased efficiency from patronage. Try to keep a massive empire happy without honor and liberty. Here is the punch-line: You won't get enough culture to just "pick another SP every now and then, until you have them all", like you picture it. With my war-monger-save I made it down to two complete SP-Trees for the whole game, because I was building troops to conquer and banks to pay them, insted of wonders and temples. They are a vastly more lasting and depending system than rhe civs, who were alwasy just a revolution or a golden age/trait away.

No Hamlets

Hamlets was an important tile improvement in CIV IV as the primary commerce provider. But its greatest strength is that over time it evolves into a cottage, a village and ultimately a town, encouraging players to build them early to reap the benefits.

What you discribe as an advantage would be a reason for the current-system on my list. I alsways disliked that mindless cottage-spamming that would lead to monotonoues cities and monster-cities paying whole armies and areas of other, younger cities. In Civ5 you have to balance commerce, food and production far better than in civ 4, where Slavery and the sliders just told you: Buit the damn cottage already.

No End Game Cinematics; No World Wonder Movies

Matters of taste, really. Whenever you take something away from an established conept, there is going to be someone to complain. I'm sure they did that when they began building planes without fans.

Commerce, Research and Culture used to be interlinked in building your empire. Any of these resources can be distributed freely using sliders to let players develop their nations in the exact way they want.

In CIV 5, commerce, research and culture are completely separate entities. And the only decision players can make is to decide how much of each resource to produce.

There was no decision about that in Civ4. You made as much money as you needed to pay your maintenence. The rest was going to research. Or to culture. There was rarely a mix or a choice involved. Seperating them is the greatest change they made, in my opinion, because you actually have to manage your cities instead of just planting cottages.

City States

I really question the point of implementing City States. It may be fun to interact with them and build a good diplomatic relationship with them, but more often than not it's much easier, simpler and faster to just conquer them and take their resources than to waste gold buying their friendship.

The importance of City States as allies in war times is extremely limited too, considering that now military units cannot stack, and City States have such a small territory, their army size and strength naturally become very restricted.

The main-fun from civ-states lies in the peace-monger-bonuses. The added food or culture is HUGE for one city. But you are right, from a warmongers-side.


The rest of you points are basically matters of taste or issues of "They took something away that was there before", which one can't really argue about.

 

[westward]

Lumbermills aren't worth the (painfully slow) worker build time until steam power.

+1 hammer isn't worth much when almost everything costs 100 hammers or more.

Chopping only works for so long.

Playing on quick means you can't build 3 units without them going obselete.

And I'm not saying we should take the buy option out. That's been there since I've been playing Civ. I'm just saying that right now, buying is the ONLY option that doesn't take a, frankly, prohibitive amount of time in most circumstances.

Well, here is where we disagree opinion-wise. I don't find the build times in the game to be as ludicrous as other people seem to. And I love gold-buying, because it rewards the player for making the right decisions with his very finite resources. Buying the couple right tiles, or the one right building, or the one unit right now will smooth the player's game down the road.

 

[HannibalBarca]

Well, here is where we disagree opinion-wise. I don't find the build times in the game to be as ludicrous as other people seem to. And I love gold-buying, because it rewards the player for making the right decisions with his very finite resources. Buying the couple right tiles, or the one right building, or the one unit right now will smooth the player's game down the road.

I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree then.

 

[lodester]

I know, right? Imagine judging something for what it actually is, instead of what you think it could be. What kind of a noob would do that?

My point being that nobody has had sufficient time to know "what it actually is" (rather they are inventing scenarios to justify their inability to adapt to the 'new way' of any particular thing)

We also need to give the product team an opportunity to go through and patch up based on 1) stuff they know was broken/imbalanced at release time (sorry that's just how software works) and 2) thoughtful, constructive feedback from the community.

Or they might all just be out killing hookers. I have no idea really.

 

[Bigend]

They have made gold too powerful though. In the real world culture/science/gold are incommensurable, like the slider in earlier versions represented. If creativity could be bought, Microsoft would make all the best software.

 

[westward]

I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree then.

Dammit, I hate a good compromise.

I know there have been people working on mods to add hammers to tiles (+2 instead of +1 to a mine, for example), so you may want to keep an eye out for those.

 

[Kyriakos]

Not sure about the rest, but the map and unit gfx are a lot better than in civ4, in which they were the object of ridicule

 

[Bigend]

My point being that nobody has had sufficient time to know "what it actually is" (rather they are inventing scenarios to justify their inability to adapt to the 'new way' of any particular thing)

You could argue that about some of the deeper mechanics, but a bad AI doesn't take a rocket scientist to spot. Also a clunky GUI can be recognized by even a non-gamer. Same for poor performance. And unit imbalances. And things that too obviously contradict reality (beyond the point of simulation simplification).

This is not some great work of genius that us plebs are failing to understand, it is a strategy game and a lot of people here have many years experience in such games. And that experience is an advantage in evaluating a new one, not an impediment as you seem to think. Ignorance is not knowledge.

 

[devilhunterred]

Not sure about the rest, but the map and unit gfx are a lot better than in civ4, in which they were the object of ridicule

They have to fix the utterly absurd rivers, roads, and the fugly trading posts, they look like circus.

And please add in tile animation.

 

[devilhunterred]

And things that too obviously contradict reality (beyond the point of simulation simplification).

I can never figure out why would surrounding jungles give university scientific bonus. Anyone care to explain?

 

[Thor7]

While I need to give it a few more full playthroughs, I am in agreement. They took way too much out and added too little. It feels like an rts now where all you're doing is micromanaging units instead of building an empire.

 

[seclifeciv]

I hate the interface, because it just makes it too hard to get the information that you want. Other than that, I enjoyed the game. It's not the same as civ 4, but I don't consider that a problem. This isn't an expansion, it's a new game.

 

[Theodorick]

I can never figure out why would surrounding jungles give university scientific bonus. Anyone care to explain?

Jungles are packed full of some of the more diverse and unique species on earth, and in general are highly prized and studied by the scientific community. That's really the only explanation I can give. Some discoveries in medication and biology would have been impossible without the help that studying the lush ecosystems in jungles give.

 

[moscaverde]

I haven't obtained Civ5 myself yet but what stikes me in this discussion is the type of complaints. What I get from reading this is that people are actually missing the redundant stuff that found its way to Civ4 and despice all the tactical improvements Civ5 brings. Can it be that Civ5 divides the hard-core strategists from the fun-players?

What I find odd is that in civ 4 I always played in a more laid back style (playing on noble), having winning strategies as almost second priorities, and role-playing more. This was possible because the huge number of game mechanics, primarily the economic and happiness.

In Civ 5 when I see buildings giving static numbers (+2 food) it looks like I'm playing math. Sure that's long term planning for balancing the costs of units, buildings, happiness etc. But all looks the same.

Dunno, feels more like job than playing.

 

[anti_strunt]

For all those mentioning Brian Reynolds in connection to Brian Reynolds' Alpha Centauri (BRAC > SMAC), he did make another game which was also quite well recieved. You may have heard of it.

It was called Civilization II.

Sid had no part in the development of Civ II.

So... Brian Reynolds! Now there's a guy.

 

[Thor7]

Civilization have NEVER been sequels each game have been a reinvention of the one before, each new version has things removed and things added. thats why i still have CIV 2,3,4 on my machine i play each for a different reason

or as the chap below said...



couldnt have said it better myself
posters are so caught up about what was lost but NEVER talk about what is gained.

How do you still run civ2? Thought it wouldn't run on xp.

 

[devilhunterred]

Jungles are packed full of some of the more diverse and unique species on earth, and in general are highly prized and studied by the scientific community. That's really the only explanation I can give. Some discoveries in medication and biology would have been impossible without the help that studying the lush ecosystems in jungles give.

But South American universities that are adjacent to the Amazon rainforests aren't very prestigious at all now, are they lol?

If CIV 5 goes by the logic you mentioned, which I'm not criticizing, then virtually every tile should and can provide some kind of scientific bonus. Mountains and mines can be used as archaeology sites, towns can be used to study sociology, trading posts can be used to study economics, etc.

Only jungle tiles provide exclusive scientific bonus to universities just don't make much sense.

 

[risen-chud]

OP is wrong about everything.

 

[Flavorable]

But South American universities that are adjacent to the Amazon rainforests aren't very prestigious at all now, are they lol?

If CIV 5 goes by the logic you mentioned, which I'm not criticizing, then virtually every tile should and can provide some kind of scientific bonus. Mountains and mines can be used as archaeology sites, towns can be used to study sociology, trading posts can be used to study economics, etc.

Only jungle tiles provide exclusive scientific bonus to universities just don't make much sense.

I agree, and there really isn't any concrete reason listed.

 

[jagdtigerciv]

For all those mentioning Brian Reynolds in connection to Brian Reynolds' Alpha Centauri (BRAC > SMAC), he did make another game which was also quite well recieved. You may have heard of it.

It was called Civilization II.

Sid had no part in the development of Civ II.

So... Brian Reynolds! Now there's a guy.

Ahhhh, Sid had no part in Civ II? No wonder it was so great.