An Evaluation: Why CIV 5 is an absolute atrocity.

[Rellin]

I don't mind a single change on your list. I would like the tile working animations back, but everything else changed is fine by me. Loving Civ5 so far personally.

 

[monsterfurby]

Did I miss the point where Civ 5 asked me to uninstall Civ 4?
Interesting how capable people are of accepting change and/or dividing their attention between two equally great games.

 

[auldian]

I spent over $100 getting Civ 4 completed by the expansions. I'm not going to do that again, and it's clear this is even more unfinished than Civ 4 was at release. I've been fooled twice now. I'm not paid to beta-test or design 2K's games.
I will find more interesting ways to spend my entertainment dollars than on Civ 5's expansions. Maybe Hootie's 2nd album ...

 

[Bill Bisco]

I wouldn't call it an atrocity. I'm just a little bummed about the unnecessary removeful of so many useful, little things (mainly keyboard shortcuts and mouseover info). Setting up a production queue shouldn't be the lengthy click-fest it is now and so on...

I agree with the OP, but this x100

 

[jake_ziegler]

And you know this...how?

This game has some clever design decisions, but by changing too much at one time they weren't able to properly balance all of them...and I think that some of them were ill-conceived attempts at reaching a "casual" audience which will satisfy no one.

But plenty of people ARE satisfied. A game can't satisfy everyone.

 

[Johivin]

Did I miss the point where Civ 5 asked me to uninstall Civ 4?
Interesting how capable people are of accepting change and/or dividing their attention between two equally great games.

I haven't seen anyone make that statement. However, had they made the game into a first person shooter, are you implying that people should just accept the product no matter what? Should people not critique the games they play and compare what they feel is both good and bad about the game?

Were you to give your opinion on what you enjoy/dislike in the game, would you prefer us to bash you for what is ultimately your own opinion? Are the thoughts of others less valid just because you happen to not care?

To use your own logic as well- Is anyone forcing you to read this thread and respond? Then why can't you accept that others want to talk about the differences and what they feel are the pros and cons of the game.

 

[vandyr]

Personally, as to the things on the OP's list:

Wonder movies and end game movies I didn't bother watching anyway.

Religion - hated it. Glad its gone.

Espionage - hated it. Glad its gone.

Cottage economy - hated it, glad its gone.

UI - love it.

Gameplay depth - absolutely love it. Can't understand these cries of "dumbed down" when to me it seems the exact opposite.

I loved Civ 4 and played it constantly, but to me Civ 5 is a better game in just about every aspect.

 

[rabidveggie]

So your upset they took away hamlets? You mean the improvement that was put on just about every improvement other then a couple farms and your strategic resources? Now I actually think before improving a tile. I also don't understand why people miss random events and religion. Religion was more of a pain and was the primary diplomacy tool, now I find the computer is less gamey and just because your best buds, they wont suicide just cause you ask them too and random events took a game that rely's on random numbers and randomized it further. As for espionage, it was so pathetically annoying I never gave it a second glance.

All and all I'm enjoying Civ V and welcome the new changes to the game.

 

[starang24]

I just wanted to say that I completely agree with Hamtard in every single aspect. I absolutely adored Civ IV, and my feelings for Civ V are no different. Honestly, my biggest pet peeve is the lack of map regeneration and locked assets. There are obviously some bugs that need to be hammered out, but that is relatively standard these days. The biggest bug being the ancient ruins offering weapons upgrade to the same unit after it has already been upgraded, but that is fixed by turning ancient ruins off.

Napolean is a powerhouse in every game I have played (about 10), and my best has been with the Iroquois, oddly enough.

 

[devilhunterred]

Personally, as to the things on the OP's list:

Wonder movies and end game movies I didn't bother watching anyway.

Religion - hated it. Glad its gone.

Espionage - hated it. Glad its gone.

Cottage economy - hated it, glad its gone.

UI - love it.

Gameplay depth - absolutely love it. Can't understand these cries of "dumbed down" when to me it seems the exact opposite.

I loved Civ 4 and played it constantly, but to me Civ 5 is a better game in just about every aspect.

I seriously find it hard to believe that you "loved" CIV IV when you hated so many core aspects of it

 

[SuperJay]

All and all I'm enjoying Civ V and welcome the new changes to the game.

This. I'm far more pleased with the additions than I am saddened by the subtractions.

While I sympathize (but disagree) with those feeling disappointed, nerd-raging on an internet forum is just a waste of your time. If a computer game makes you THAT upset, you may want to go outdoors for a little while... the graphics out there are amazing.

 

[vandyr]

I seriously find it hard to believe that you "loved" CIV IV when you hated so many core aspects of it

Because its the overall game that I enjoy. I also loved Civ 2 and Civ 3, both of which had issues I didn't enjoy. There are things about Civ 5 that I don't like as well, but I love it more than any previous iteration of the series.

Religion, espionage, and SoD armies were my biggest gripes with Civ 4. Those are now gone, so, as you can imagine, I'm tickled pink.

I also prefer the new SP to the Civ 4 civic system, and I prefer the new resource system to the one in Civ 4. Two things that I see as drastic improvements, which most of the naysayers decry as being useless or dumbed down, are the new diplomacy and the new city management.

I have played Civ religiously since Civ 2 hit the shelves, always moving on to the next version when it released, and finding an improved Civilization each time. This one is no different.

 

[Likes_Civing]

Decided.

I am want to sell V. But I think since it is activated with Steam can I even sell it?

If I activated it am I stuck with the game?

I would rather continue to play MP BTS than this.

I just can't get over the hump, as I have posed but now that I have decided to sell it I don't even know if I can.

 

[SuperJay]

^ Don't know, probably not. (This is why I tried the demo first.) Good luck getting rid of it, and enjoy Civ IV.

 

[ZXTT]

Hey, I think OP summarized why I'm liking Civ V. They did proper design (the "you know you're done when you can't take any more away" school) and got rid of the "heavy" features in Civ IV that required tons of work, like religion where the simple concept of spreading the religion turned into a mind-numbing task of:

• Endlessly building units to spread the religion.
• Moving them, sometime with transports.
• Doing it again if it failed to take hold in a city.
• Constructing a bunch of buildings to take advantage of it.

And for what? How much strategic enjoyment could I get? The more I could do, the better off I was. So? Sorry, but there's just no payoff for me with a feature like this. Maybe they can bring back religion, but make it a choice with consequences, like adopt this religion to insulate you from your nasty neighbor (he will suffer major unhappiness if he attacks you), but make your pop unhappy; or, adopt that one for the opposite effect and leave it at that.

 

[MentatYP]

Civ5 PUNISHES you for being flip-floppy. Civ4 encouraged it.

This simple statement represents the fundamental shift in philosophy in Civ 5. You actually have to plan ahead now, and when you're in a bind it's not a quick flick of the sliders to get you out of it. So much of Civ 5 requires real planning and strategy, and so far I think it's a change for the better. Time will tell, but my initial impressions are very positive. I've played Civ since the very first one. It was time for the quick-fix sliders to go.

I'm only on page 8 of this thread, but I wanted to chime in real quick to say that. Back to reading the rest of the thread now.

 

[Nucleic Acids]

I seriously find it hard to believe that you "loved" CIV IV when you hated so many core aspects of it

I'd hardly consider religion and espionage core aspects in any way, shape or form.

 

[mrt144]

This simple statement represents the fundamental shift in philosophy in Civ 5. You actually have to plan ahead now, and when you're in a bind it's not a quick flick of the sliders to get you out of it. So much of Civ 5 requires real planning and strategy, and so far I think it's a change for the better. Time will tell, but my initial impressions are very positive. I've played Civ since the very first one. It was time for the quick-fix sliders to go.

I'm only on page 8 of this thread, but I wanted to chime in real quick to say that. Back to reading the rest of the thread now.

It robs a lot of the enjoyment of short term planning and micromanaging from the game.

 

[jjkrause84]

Remember what the slider is....it is a representation of your national budget. You get 'x' amount of gold a turn and can spend it ANY WAY YOU WANT. That's great! Wanna run a deficeit? Go ahead! Wanna fund culture over science? Go for it! Wanna make huge budget cuts and reap a huge profit so you can upgrade your military? Cool!

You now no longer have a national budget....you have an allowance.

 

[SuperJay]

Hey, I think OP summarized why I'm liking Civ V. They did proper design (the "you know you're done when you can't take any more away" school) and got rid of the "heavy" features in Civ IV that required tons of work, like religion where the simple concept of spreading the religion turned into a mind-numbing task of:

• Endlessly building units to spread the religion.
• Moving them, sometime with transports.
• Doing it again if it failed to take hold in a city.
• Constructing a bunch of buildings to take advantage of it.

And for what? How much strategic enjoyment could I get?

Agreed. Religion in Civ4 was a neat idea that wasn't implemented very well. Churning out missionaries just to send them all over and consume them spreading the gospel felt completely artificial and didn't really fit into the game well at all. It played like a separate layer that just got slapped on over top of the existing systems, not integrated within them.