jespersa86
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2010
- Messages
- 6
They way you are participating in this 'debate', leaves little room for it.
An Evaluation: Why CIV 5 is an absolute atrocity.
- Thread starter devilhunterred
- Start date
- Status
They way you are participating in this 'debate', leaves little room for it.
jjkrause84
King
In my opinion it's just a thing you see with most of the games today, they make it easy 'for everyone', a game for the masses. Often people don't have the time and/or don't want a learning curve, this is just how a game sells better, when things get more easy, mostly you don't hear many people complaining, except of course if you have some old civ players / hardcore gamers who like to put allot time in a game.
The last few years it's hard to find any really good games for the PC, we now got BIG game makers who just bought other game makers, where it just becomes more and more important to make allot of money, so we now lack SPIRIT/Love when they make games these days. But this is just how pathetic our western civilization has become these days; we sell things on the cheapest way possible! (you can read that as cheap womans who sell their body's)So you see this just everywhere, music, movies, you name it.
Of course I know they put allof of hard work making this game and many many will be happy with this game. Maybe me too later, I try..
I agree wholeheartedly. One of the reasons I stopped playing WoW is they made it way too friendly which devalued everything. You never felt like you 'earned' anything or ever 'risked' anything. Wanting a time when strategy games are developed by strategy gamers and music publishers are owned by people who love music......sounds like the way things were at one time and should still be!
I can't tell you my frustration when I see excuses like, "Well it makes financial sense" and the like. Maximizing profit is not the end-all purpose of life. Obviously developers of entertainment need to make money to exist and I think they deserve to be handsomely rewarded for their enriching of our lives.....but to latch on to that to the exclusion of doing a good job and producing art (for video games are art) which is heartfelt and the result of a greta deal of love and devotion......
As someone else said about making the game too accessible...too unbalanced.....
Debating the game? LOL.. I slam bs on this .. 90% of all posts in this thread is endless whine about the most ridiculous things: Bugs, new things that are scary, different outlay that someone is supposedly able to have an opinion on 3 days after the release.
Obviously had these things been written out with standard word use most people wouldn't take it seriously, because the fact that there are new things that will take a good few games to get used to is logical for even the biggest idiot.This instead results in ridiculous sentences like "This game is an Atrocity!", "the new fighting system is a remake of the holocaust", it's threads like this that makes gamer forums an "atrocity".. why? Because one person, who has played the game for a maximum of 3 days is able to blindfold himself from the countless of 9/10 reviews and the obvious fact that he has no clue what he's talking about and write a "debate" on it.. A debate including comparisons to Starcraft2 .. Jesus christ..
M
Me,myself,and,I
Guest
I love cIV, and ciV is truly awesome. I agree with the poster on the first page, exempting civ II all civ games have been more of a re-imagination then a sequel.
THESE TWO. Especially the first one. I have no idea why Firaxis would remove them at all. It doesn't make sense to me...
But I disagree on the point of UI. I think it has been streamlined to be more easy to use, as I can certainly keep tabs of my empire much more easily now. While I do miss some complexity from Civ IV, I have to remember that I'm basing my opinion on the expanded BtS version, not Civ Vanilla.
"Overall Conclusion: If you are a CIV IV fan, you will most likely hate this atrocity of a "sequel" "
What a totally ridiculous conclusion !
I have loved playing all versions of Civ over the years and I am really enjoying this one. there are many people like me.
You have listed differences between two different games and then declared that everybody who liked one would hate the other.
Pathetic.
What a totally ridiculous conclusion !
I have loved playing all versions of Civ over the years and I am really enjoying this one. there are many people like me.
You have listed differences between two different games and then declared that everybody who liked one would hate the other.
Pathetic.
M
Me,myself,and,I
Guest
I HATE random events.
Nutteria
Tzar
If people like the OP and his supporters could see beyond their nose this thread whould not even exist.
Sequal =/= same game with new features.
Sequal =/= same design with better/new imlpementation.
Sequal == same IDEA and CONCEPT that feels smooth and intuitive yet deep.And the majority here on civfanatics agrees that religion and civics were good for civ 4.But they fail as a concept in the curent idea of the game.And quite francly I don`t miss them ONE BIT!
Sequal =/= same game with new features.
Sequal =/= same design with better/new imlpementation.
Sequal == same IDEA and CONCEPT that feels smooth and intuitive yet deep.And the majority here on civfanatics agrees that religion and civics were good for civ 4.But they fail as a concept in the curent idea of the game.And quite francly I don`t miss them ONE BIT!
Unionfield
Warlord
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2007
- Messages
- 273
What I would like to know is how Civilization V got so many "100/100" reviews. Say what you want about the game, I think we can all agree that it isn't perfect. I agree that it is better than probably any other strategy game out there right now (though I have a special place in my heart for Settlers 7 now) but I don't think scores are relative; they're absolute.
Here's what I think happened, and this also explains the divide in this community:
1. GIANT BOMB receives Civilization V for review, gives it to a random reviewer to play.
2. Random reviewer isn't a longtime player of the series and have been given a briefing on the features he should expect/explore while he plays the game.
3. Random reviewer finds the entire experience competent, and assumes it will be great for those that really love the genre.
4. Random reviewer awed by the prestige of the franchise, and assumes that anything he does not like must be because he is not really a fan of the genre.
5. Random reviewer sifts through the box of promotional materials sent by Firaxis.
6. Random reviewer gives the game a perfect rating.
Here's what I think happened, and this also explains the divide in this community:
1. GIANT BOMB receives Civilization V for review, gives it to a random reviewer to play.
2. Random reviewer isn't a longtime player of the series and have been given a briefing on the features he should expect/explore while he plays the game.
3. Random reviewer finds the entire experience competent, and assumes it will be great for those that really love the genre.
4. Random reviewer awed by the prestige of the franchise, and assumes that anything he does not like must be because he is not really a fan of the genre.
5. Random reviewer sifts through the box of promotional materials sent by Firaxis.
6. Random reviewer gives the game a perfect rating.
DarkSchneider
King
You are more harsh than I would have been, but I agree with the majority of your points. I don't understand why they took out so many things that worked well in Civ IV, and why they released a game with so many technical issues.
Specifically, the leader traits worked much better than the unique bonuses in the current game. The unique bonuses all seem either overpowered or useless. While I like the addition of the new social policies, they do not allow your Civilization to evolve over time the way the Civics did. Perhaps a mod that allows you to change a single social policy allocation every 50 turns?
For technical issues, the AI is terrible at the new combat system (at least on Prince, which is where I started) and there are some serious save/load related issues. I hope these are patched soon, it has already gotten to the point where reloading a save within the game causes the framerate to slow to a crawl, and reloading a second time causes the game to crash.
Specifically, the leader traits worked much better than the unique bonuses in the current game. The unique bonuses all seem either overpowered or useless. While I like the addition of the new social policies, they do not allow your Civilization to evolve over time the way the Civics did. Perhaps a mod that allows you to change a single social policy allocation every 50 turns?
For technical issues, the AI is terrible at the new combat system (at least on Prince, which is where I started) and there are some serious save/load related issues. I hope these are patched soon, it has already gotten to the point where reloading a save within the game causes the framerate to slow to a crawl, and reloading a second time causes the game to crash.
ohioastronomy
King
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2005
- Messages
- 714
With religions I had reasons why some nations got along with me and others didn't. Ditto government choices. The bland Diablo-style "social policies" don't give me any sense of creating alliances/conflicts with other players.
One common argument I see on this thread is people saying "I miss X" and others replying that "I always hated X." That's an extremely selfish attitude - have people forgotten the Golden Rule?
What really made Civ as a game, and this place as a community, is the fact that there were many ways to experience it. I didn't go much for espionage, but others clearly did - so I respect them when they say that losing it degraded their game experience.
This game is, very obviously, extremely simplified relative to its precursors. Simplicity can be a virtue - Chess and Go are obvious examples of deep games with simple rules. But simplicity can also become Candyland or Parcheesi. I think there is too much of the latter in this game. I attribute this to changing too many things at one time and then not being able to properly balance them. Exhibit A is the AI, very weak at both tactics and strategy. Exhibit B is the severe imbalance between war-making and other ways of winning (e.g. you need to keep a tiny core empire to do a culture win.) Exhibit C is the distortions from arbitrary design choices - e.g. you can't sell buildings or rush buy them; you can stack up great scientists for millenia; archers attack Scotland from London.
I loved earlier incarnations out of the box, and have never used mods in any significant way. So the patch/mod argument does nothing for me. Patches will remove bugs, they won't fix design mistakes.
Teperi Blaze
Warlord
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2010
- Messages
- 225
I haven't even tried the game, and I feel like a donkey.
Just bought the game for 40 Aussie bucks, confirmed!!
The seesaw comments on here, makes me wary...
But, I bought all of the iterations of the franchise and "maybe"
got this one for cheap.....dunno
Ask me in 4 - 12 days...
Just bought the game for 40 Aussie bucks, confirmed!!
The seesaw comments on here, makes me wary...
But, I bought all of the iterations of the franchise and "maybe"
got this one for cheap.....dunno
Ask me in 4 - 12 days...
As a professional games reviewer (award-nominated, in fact) I can tell you that, in the vast majority of cases, there is no corruption and to say otherwise is grossly insulting, especially when you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I can't speak for smaller websites or for more... enthusiast reviewers rather than professionals, but there's a reason some people get paid money to review games and some don't - the ability to be objective, to not deduct hugely from scores because of subjective minutiae and to weigh up pros and cons.
Anyway, I've been loving Civ V, mainly because it's got rid of a lot of the things I despised from Civ IV. Warmongering is now actually a much more interesting part of the game, one unit-per-tile is a great addition and blah blah blah, so on and so forth.
Just a little note to the people who dislike it - that's fine, you have your opinion and that's perfectly acceptable. What isn't is to just assume that something you don't like, such as the removal of espionage, is automatically the majority view. In fact, having scanned through this thread, it seems to be completely the opposite. Don't forget that the majority of those enjoying the game will not be bothering to post on forums such as these, primarily because they're playing the game, so it's very easy to assume that negativity on forums automatically means universal hatred.
jjkrause84
King
This is exactly it for me.
I wasn't a huge espionage user (used it a bit) but if did add another dimension and if peopel liked it, cool! It certainly didn't ruin my experience. Same with health, and corruption and everything. The game shoudl NOT be nice all the time. We should be limited in a NUMBER of different ways (as people are in real life). This i sthe first Civ that I haven't loved from day 1 which to me means a lot. The concept of Civ is SO strong and, frankly, so easy to pick up on (it's a simulation of history created by a history nerd FOR history nerds...it IS NOT a war-game in which 'everyone's trying to win'), that I can't see why the core of the game could not be easily maintained. Make me feel like the leader of an empire. Make me feel like I can communicate with other powers meaningfully. Let me have fun in a way that is NOT related to making war.
etc., etc., rant, rant, BS
Crezth
i knew you were a real man of the left
You realize this a completely baseless assertion, correct? One with almost no intrinsic value in terms of determining the causes and results of the review process?
All those rants and whines from the 3 % of users who don't love the game make me really tired.
It's the same with every single game which comes out, on every game forum and especially on the best games (nobody cares about bad games). Is it because idiots always talk more ? Or did they become spoiled brats ? Does being anonymous bring the worst of us ?
I don't know. All I know is I'll be back with the fans in this same forum in a few weeks / months and they'll be gone. But fans will be there talking about the game, probably modding and improving the game. Like they did with Civ 4, after the same posters came and posted the same rants.
Civilization V is a great game. It removed most tedious things from Civ 4 and improved on so many points you couldn't even manage to list them all : 1 unit per tile, AIs which really play to win and are often challenging even on Prince without bonus (quite a feat, congrats to Ed Beach), social policies which expand greatly on the few government choices we had before, a great interface which reminds you every important thing to do before the next turn, city states which bring a real world feel and new aspects of the games...
Change is good. Civ 5 > Civ 4 > Civ 3 > Civ 2 > Civ 1. In nearly every way. Don't let your bain and nostalgia foul you (brains modify memories and make them rosier). Don't be afraid about change, forget what you expected, accept to be surprised.
If you still can't see how awesome this game is, well, I feel sad for you, really. /back to Civ5
It's the same with every single game which comes out, on every game forum and especially on the best games (nobody cares about bad games). Is it because idiots always talk more ? Or did they become spoiled brats ? Does being anonymous bring the worst of us ?
I don't know. All I know is I'll be back with the fans in this same forum in a few weeks / months and they'll be gone. But fans will be there talking about the game, probably modding and improving the game. Like they did with Civ 4, after the same posters came and posted the same rants.
Civilization V is a great game. It removed most tedious things from Civ 4 and improved on so many points you couldn't even manage to list them all : 1 unit per tile, AIs which really play to win and are often challenging even on Prince without bonus (quite a feat, congrats to Ed Beach), social policies which expand greatly on the few government choices we had before, a great interface which reminds you every important thing to do before the next turn, city states which bring a real world feel and new aspects of the games...
Change is good. Civ 5 > Civ 4 > Civ 3 > Civ 2 > Civ 1. In nearly every way. Don't let your bain and nostalgia foul you (brains modify memories and make them rosier). Don't be afraid about change, forget what you expected, accept to be surprised.
If you still can't see how awesome this game is, well, I feel sad for you, really. /back to Civ5
Moderator Action: If you cannot post without flaming/trolling other users, don't post.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
I own an abhorrent amount of strategy games on my Steam account, from the super simulation to the more casual. I have played pretty much every turn-based strategy of any worth that has come out in the last several years. I like super complex strategy games, I love games like Dawn of Discovery and Setllers 7 because their economy system is so mind bogglingly complex that it lets me go all micro crazy.
That paragraph was to explain one thing: I know strategy games, especially non-RTS strategy games (despite that both Settlers 7 and DoD are RT, they're not RTS which is a genre I also love).
So, with my knowledge and love of strategy games asserted, I will now make this statement: Based on my experiences thus far, Civ 5 is on track to be the best turn based strategy game I've ever played.
What was lost was UNNECESSARY FAT. What was gained really rises Civ up another notch.
Sliders were not complicated, the new economy in Civ5 I find infinitely more nuanced. You can't just move a slider or change a civic to change your strat, you need to literally drag your economy in a new direction and it will kick and scream while you do it.
Civics were stale and artificial compared to the natural progression of the new SP system. The fact that certain SPs will make previous ones obsolete, meaning that a major change in policy literally leads to earlier wasted points, is amazing.
Civ5 PUNISHES you for being flip-floppy. Civ4 encouraged it.
Crezth
i knew you were a real man of the left
And this new paradigm I believe is the center of the problem. Certain of these old players are not willing to learn the new system, and in their frustration cast it aside as frivolously non-strategic. It is actually far more strategic than its predecessor.
cece84
Chieftain
I refuse to spend my money for this game.
Firaxis is going totally crazy. The only true upgrade since civ2 is graphical (eye candy).
SMAC was a great game with many new ideas. But near to no one of that improvements have been kept.
Hardcore gamers does not give a **** to 3D graphics. Hardcore gamers want a DEEP game. Civ started his career as "the perfect strategic game" but, hey, we are in 2010, not in 1996....
So, what new IMPORTANT features civ has implemented in the last ..mmm.. 10 years? Culture and fishing boats? -_-
CIV REVOLUTION -> LOL
CIV 5 -> DOUBLE LOL
Firaxis is going totally crazy. The only true upgrade since civ2 is graphical (eye candy).
SMAC was a great game with many new ideas. But near to no one of that improvements have been kept.
Hardcore gamers does not give a **** to 3D graphics. Hardcore gamers want a DEEP game. Civ started his career as "the perfect strategic game" but, hey, we are in 2010, not in 1996....
So, what new IMPORTANT features civ has implemented in the last ..mmm.. 10 years? Culture and fishing boats? -_-
CIV REVOLUTION -> LOL
CIV 5 -> DOUBLE LOL
- Status
