An Evaluation: Why CIV 5 is an absolute atrocity.

[gingerbill]

agree about multiplayer , they didnt really try

disagree on alot of other things . I dont want to just play CIV 4 again with new graphics . If it just stayed the same what would be the point. And if the just added some new things like hexes you would be on here moaning " this game is a rip off , its just CIV 4 with hexes".

 

[Chode]

I would love this game if it was Civ 4 with hexes, but it isn't.

 

[Golden.Arms]

Lol scenario, stopped reading there, hey guys I bought Starcraft Brood War to play the campaign OLOL.

 

[tom2050]

I am hoping expansions/mods will make prevent this game from becoming what Civ3 is -- a laughingstock.

Guess you hate SMAC also.

 

[devilhunterred]

Lol scenario, stopped reading there, hey guys I bought Starcraft Brood War to play the campaign OLOL.

You can play Starcraft multiplayer for literally months.

With CIV 5 you can't even play multiplayer for more than an hour without someone leaving or disconnecting.

 

[Flavorable]

Can I get a response to this:

Firaxis should have learned its lesson and not make the same mistake twice.

I agree, I just find it ironic that you have Civ 4 on a golden altar, and you forget it had just as rough a start as Civ 5.

What's "Unessential" or not is pure subjective opinions. For many of us who have played CIV IV for years, fundamental elements such as Civics, Religions, Sliders, etc, have already become an essential and inseparable part of the CIV experience.

Well, I can say, not as a matter of opinion but as a matter of fact, that religon and Civics aren't actually fundamental at all to Civ4's gameplay, considering they bear little effect on the game and you can turn them off when making a game with no change or substitute within the game logic.

Sliders, imo, is kinda silly, and the new method of managing an economy requires alot more planning, as there is no "turn science down 10%" faultswitch anymore.

Just like how Culture and multiple victory conditions have come to be naturally associated with the series since they were introduced in CIV 2.

Um... replay Civ II, that game didn't have visible borders, let alone culture.

Well so far, many (I won't say majority) of us are unpleased with the amount of features that are removed from the predecessors, I guess it's fair to say that Firaxis should implement them in a later patch?

I can totally understand this. The game is content light on release, and thats something I expected considering Civ4 was the same way, but am disappointed with.

However, once WB is released, you won't even have to wait for an expansion to satisfy the hunger for more content, as the modding community will explode. Fret not, content is on its way.










I think we can establish that what the vast majority of people are ticked off about is kinda irrelevent. Either they wanted the content of a 5 year old game with 2 expansions and countless mods at launch, or they wanted the exact gameplay of a 5 year old game with 2 expansions and countless mods.

Either way, its silly. There are far more important things to complain about then "Its not Civ 4" or "I want more content."

 

[Txurce]

If you love CIV IV, you will most likely hate CIV 5, here's why:

No Commerce, Research and Culture Sliders

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.

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.

Overall Conclusion: ...CIV 5 is infested with extremely questionable designer flaws: Lack of tile animation, no World Wonder movies, the streamlined linear UI, just to name a few. The extremely lacking single player and multiplayer aspect of the game is just utterly unforgivable, emitting the overwhelming impression that the entire package feels very incomplete, and you wonder if Firaxis did this intentionally knowing that the committed mod community will do their job for them.

I always thought sliders were a simple-minded way to play Civ, or any other game. I'm glad they're gone. But that's just my opinion. With regard to city states, you clearly haven't spent enough time exploring them. If anything, they are over-powered (although enjoyably so). The maritime ones can literally feed a typical civ - need I say more? And precisely because there are fewer military units in the game, a military civ periodically gifting a player going for a non-conquest victory can make your defense forces viable with little extra effort on your part. Those are just two examples - there are others you can discover for yourself, if you'd spend a little more time exploring the game instead of foaming about what was changed from Civ4.

 

[May Day 10]

I think the diplomacy is terrible and the AI acts almost randomly. Bismarck cancels open borders with me, then asks me for open borders 1 turn later. A leader will suddenly change attitude from one turn to the next.

All these City State things seem like 50% of the game and are obnoxious.

People keep saying the combat is great, but I think its horrible. 1upt sucks... but I can see the issue with stacks of doom. They should have provided each unit with a "mass rating" had a cap on upt. Shooting arrows from hundreds of miles away while ramming 2 horses into a city until a red bar goes down doesnt seem like a great improvement on battle.

Trading Posts look like the circus is in town

 

[devilhunterred]

People keep saying the combat is great, but I think its horrible. 1upt sucks... but I can see the issue with stacks of doom. They should have provided each unit with a "mass rating" had a cap on upt.

This is a great idea. You should be able to stack weaker units like 2-3 warriors on a tile, but only one modern tank unit is allowed per tile.

Cities should also able to stack at least 2-3 units in them.

Stacks of doom have to go, but limiting one unit per tile may be a little too harsh and restricting.

Trading Posts look like the circus is in town

ROFL I can't agree more

 

[devilhunterred]

I always thought sliders were a simple-minded way to play Civ, or any other game. I'm glad they're gone. But that's just my opinion. With regard to city states, you clearly haven't spent enough time exploring them. If anything, they are over-powered (although enjoyably so). The maritime ones can literally feed a typical civ - need I say more? And precisely because there are fewer military units in the game, a military civ periodically gifting a player going for a non-conquest victory can make your defense forces viable with little extra effort on your part. Those are just two examples - there are others you can discover for yourself, if you'd spend a little more time exploring the game instead of foaming about what was changed from Civ4.

Thanks for the advice. I will try to interact with the city states more and reconsider my opinion on them.

 

[Txurce]

Thanks for the advice. I will try to interact with the city states more and reconsider my opinion on them.

Check out this article from one of the beta testers:

http://apolyton.net/showthread.php/193019-CITY-STATES-who-s-your-buddy

At the least it should kindle a spark of hope for you!

 

[Civ5isLame]

DevilHunter,

You are a true CIV patriot. I dug up one of your posts several years ago about what would make CIV 5 great, and sadly they didn't incorporate any of your great game changing ideas. I see CIV 5 as extremely linear. MASS an army and go to war - because barbarians will constantly be attacking you as will other allies. I have a hard time believing that the tech change necessary to win a game any way other than by military victory after developing the necessary army just to defend yourself and resources to support that army is even possible. This really takes the joy out of Civ 5 for me - because I feel like the entire game I'm playing to accomplish this goal. I'm going to turn up the difficulty and maybe play online to see if that changes- but I have a feeling I'll be installing CIV 4. Thanks for your posts.

 

[HamTard]

I think the diplomacy is terrible and the AI acts almost randomly. Bismarck cancels open borders with me, then asks me for open borders 1 turn later. A leader will suddenly change attitude from one turn to the next.

All these City State things seem like 50% of the game and are obnoxious.

People keep saying the combat is great, but I think its horrible. 1upt sucks... but I can see the issue with stacks of doom. They should have provided each unit with a "mass rating" had a cap on upt. Shooting arrows from hundreds of miles away while ramming 2 horses into a city until a red bar goes down doesnt seem like a great improvement on battle.

Trading Posts look like the circus is in town

The AI will often cancel open borders with you if you have military units walking in their territory, especially if it stays too long or gets too near the capital. This is because declarations of war no longer teleport you out of their land, so you could get open borders, surround their capital, then declare war and instantly attack. The AI knows this and that's why they cancel open borders if they suspect it is happening (at least on higher difficulties they do this).

 

[Thormodr]

I do think the game is pretty good and has enormous potential.

However, the game crashes to desktop when ever I save the game, it crashes when I enter the advanced setup menu 50% of the time and it crashes randomly throughout the game.

Considering it takes about 2 minutes to load the game again this is getting pretty annoying.

Pretty unpolished game. Seems it was rushed a bit. Likely greedy 2K Games is behind this.

 

[HamTard]

I do think the game is pretty good and has enormous potential.

However, the game crashes to desktop when ever I save the game, it crashes when I enter the advanced setup menu 50% of the time and it crashes randomly throughout the game.

Considering it takes about 2 minutes to load the game again this is getting pretty annoying.

Pretty unpolished game. Seems it was rushed a bit. Likely greedy 2K Games is behind this.

You can't blame all crashes on lack of polish. Many of us have had 0 technical issues, no graphical glitches and certainly no crashes. There are literally millions upon millions of possible combinations of hardware and software that make up desktop and laptop PCs. It's impossible to test every possible configuration without having the game on millions of PCs, and that would cost billions of dollars to do between buying hardware and labour costs, not to mention take years.

 

[StargazingDog]

This is the reason why 2K probably didn't release the demo ahead of time, as they planned originally to do.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that 2k intentionally delayed the demo release until the retail release to prevent cancelled preorders.

 

[sarah_aus]

I'm actually enjoying it for the most part, it's something different and I especially like the new streamlined warfare. What I don't enjoy is it crashing after 220 turns, waiting nearly a minute to take my turn, having all the processors on my CPU running at 100% capacity, and not being able to find my units when I need them.
I would love the chance to do a multiplayer game, but it would take so long I'd be An old woman before my turn came around again.

 

[HamTard]

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that 2k intentionally delayed the demo release until the retail release to prevent cancelled preorders.

We already knew the mechanics of the game before release. We got the manual and a livestream of gameplay. If those things were enough to make people doubt the game, then they could've cancelled their pre-orders anyways to be safe and just get the game after a few patches or an expansion. The pre-order bonus of a unique map for custom play isn't exactly a must-have. I haven't used mine and only recently bothered to look for it and found it, only to not play it and do a Pangea game instead.

 

[devilhunterred]

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that 2k intentionally delayed the demo release until the retail release to prevent cancelled preorders.

Hard to disagree here......

Most developers usually release a demo a few weeks prior to the retail release to build up hype and increase pre-order sales..........if they have confidence in their product.

 

[devilhunterred]

DevilHunter,

You are a true CIV patriot. I dug up one of your posts several years ago about what would make CIV 5 great, and sadly they didn't incorporate any of your great game changing ideas. I see CIV 5 as extremely linear. MASS an army and go to war - because barbarians will constantly be attacking you as will other allies. I have a hard time believing that the tech change necessary to win a game any way other than by military victory after developing the necessary army just to defend yourself and resources to support that army is even possible. This really takes the joy out of Civ 5 for me - because I feel like the entire game I'm playing to accomplish this goal. I'm going to turn up the difficulty and maybe play online to see if that changes- but I have a feeling I'll be installing CIV 4. Thanks for your posts.

Wow, I wrote that thread 4 years ago, I can hardly remember any of it lol.

Yea I have had so much hope and expectations for CIV 5 throughout all these years...........

But thanks for your encouragement