Bast
Protector of Cats
I played Civ II more than any other game in my life probably.
It's the truth though. I don't play console games and it sadly seems like that's where Civ is headed as another console game.
An Evaluation: Why CIV 5 is an absolute atrocity.
- Thread starter devilhunterred
- Start date
- Status
I played Civ II more than any other game in my life probably.
It's the truth though. I don't play console games and it sadly seems like that's where Civ is headed as another console game.
Moderator Action: I will seriously infract any further use of the "its a shame civ5 uninstalls civ4" troll - if you have nothing to add to the discussion apart from trolling - then 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
The only reason to have such big buttons is so they can be seen from the couch (console) or used with fingers (iPad). With a PC you are right close to the screen and have a very accurate mouse pointer, so surely it would not look like it does *unless* they were thinking of consoles/iPads.
Goldribbon
Chieftain
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2010
- Messages
- 31
I have been playing Civ since Civ 1. I remember getting Civ 3, 4, and now 5 the days they came out.
Civ 3 was definitely the worst vanilla, but mostly because update times back then were so long and easier to miss.
Civ 4 was definitely the best vanilla. It's release is head and shoulders above 3 and 5.
So far I give Civ 5 vanilla a C+. (Is it just me or does it have the stripped down feel of Colonization?) I will keep playing for a while to see if it improves.
I wouldn't say Civ 5 is an atrocity, but I do think the OP is on target with alot of his criticisms. Firaxis needs to wake-up to the fact that a large percentage of CIV players don't want a "Streamlined game." I am not in anyway anti-console but it would be really nice for a few games like the Civ franchise to not be so console-oriented (when not on the console).
FIRAXIS: I will not buy any DLC until some of these issues are solved (expansion pack, fine).
Civ 3 was definitely the worst vanilla, but mostly because update times back then were so long and easier to miss.
Civ 4 was definitely the best vanilla. It's release is head and shoulders above 3 and 5.
So far I give Civ 5 vanilla a C+. (Is it just me or does it have the stripped down feel of Colonization?) I will keep playing for a while to see if it improves.
I wouldn't say Civ 5 is an atrocity, but I do think the OP is on target with alot of his criticisms. Firaxis needs to wake-up to the fact that a large percentage of CIV players don't want a "Streamlined game." I am not in anyway anti-console but it would be really nice for a few games like the Civ franchise to not be so console-oriented (when not on the console).
FIRAXIS: I will not buy any DLC until some of these issues are solved (expansion pack, fine).
Roland Ehnström
Prince
The original post is a good rundown of the differences between IV and V.
Here's my take:
Absurdly Lacking MP Support - I never played MP, so this doesn't matter to me. Civ is just about the only game I enjoy more playing against the AI.
No SP Scenario - I never play scenarios either.
No Tile Animation - Does not matter to me at all.
No Religions - I kinda liked religion and wish it was changed instead of removed.
No Espionage - I always turned Espionage off in my games, never enjoyed it.
No Civics - Agree that Civics gave more tactical flexibility than Social Policies. I'd like to have both actually, I think it could work.
No Hamlets - Agree static trading posts are inferior to growing cottage/hamlet/village/town. Not a biggie to me, though.
No World Wonder Movies - Desn't matter one bit to me, never watched them anyway.
No End Game Cinematics - Dito.
No Commerce, Research and Culture Sliders - I actually like how the game is now more focused on population growth than just gold, gold, gold. Before, gold/commerce could be converted into anything: Research, culture, happiness. Now you have to have multiple focuses. I'm still undecided, but I am leaning towards accepting the Civ V economic system as an improvement on the old "sliders" system from previous Civ games.
No Random Events - Those random events provided no strategy, they were just, well, random.
User Interface - I also kinda preffered the Civ IV UI, but I think it's also a matter of just getting used to it.
City States - I like these so far, much better than Barbarian cities, for me this is a big improvement from Civ IV. Maybe could use some tweaking to make them less easy to conquer, though.
Framerate Problems - I am running the game on high settings and my computer barely surpasses the minimum specs, I am surprised it runs so well.
No Leader Personality Traits - We've got civ-specific "traits" instead. Personally, I would have liked both.
One Leader Per Nation - Doesn't matter much to me for the moment, will surely be modded in later.
Hexagonal Tiles - Awesome!
No Military Unit Stacking - I am very exited by this, I never liked the old combat system, Civ V is miles ahead in this aspect.
Strategic Resource - Another great improvement, I am loving this.
Fully 3D Leaders with Spoken Native Language - Pretty nice, but not important to me.
Overall: Civ V isn't exactly how I would have done it myself, but for me it's overall a clear improvement on Civ IV, and I am sure expansion packs and mods will make it even better - perhaps by re-introducing Religion, Civics, Cottages, multiple leaders and leader traits. Then it would be perfect.
Here's my take:
Absurdly Lacking MP Support - I never played MP, so this doesn't matter to me. Civ is just about the only game I enjoy more playing against the AI.
No SP Scenario - I never play scenarios either.
No Tile Animation - Does not matter to me at all.
No Religions - I kinda liked religion and wish it was changed instead of removed.
No Espionage - I always turned Espionage off in my games, never enjoyed it.
No Civics - Agree that Civics gave more tactical flexibility than Social Policies. I'd like to have both actually, I think it could work.
No Hamlets - Agree static trading posts are inferior to growing cottage/hamlet/village/town. Not a biggie to me, though.
No World Wonder Movies - Desn't matter one bit to me, never watched them anyway.
No End Game Cinematics - Dito.
No Commerce, Research and Culture Sliders - I actually like how the game is now more focused on population growth than just gold, gold, gold. Before, gold/commerce could be converted into anything: Research, culture, happiness. Now you have to have multiple focuses. I'm still undecided, but I am leaning towards accepting the Civ V economic system as an improvement on the old "sliders" system from previous Civ games.
No Random Events - Those random events provided no strategy, they were just, well, random.
User Interface - I also kinda preffered the Civ IV UI, but I think it's also a matter of just getting used to it.
City States - I like these so far, much better than Barbarian cities, for me this is a big improvement from Civ IV. Maybe could use some tweaking to make them less easy to conquer, though.
Framerate Problems - I am running the game on high settings and my computer barely surpasses the minimum specs, I am surprised it runs so well.
No Leader Personality Traits - We've got civ-specific "traits" instead. Personally, I would have liked both.
One Leader Per Nation - Doesn't matter much to me for the moment, will surely be modded in later.
Hexagonal Tiles - Awesome!
No Military Unit Stacking - I am very exited by this, I never liked the old combat system, Civ V is miles ahead in this aspect.
Strategic Resource - Another great improvement, I am loving this.
Fully 3D Leaders with Spoken Native Language - Pretty nice, but not important to me.
Overall: Civ V isn't exactly how I would have done it myself, but for me it's overall a clear improvement on Civ IV, and I am sure expansion packs and mods will make it even better - perhaps by re-introducing Religion, Civics, Cottages, multiple leaders and leader traits. Then it would be perfect.
moscaverde
Prince
Not every time, but once in a while was nice to watch the wonder movies, even more so the civ 2 ones.
cece84
Chieftain
Have you ever seen the SMAC Wonder movies? Not only stupid animations like civ4..
If the movie is something original and contain interesting concepts / philosophies then it adds so much flavour to the game
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YO_xh7xIabk&feature=related
look at this, people still discuss about this 10 years after the release of the game
If i build the Pyramids, i don't want to see a stupid video that shows a tourist postcard of the monument, but a video that shows the ancient egyptians thougts and point of views about the monument. Come on Sid, you understood this 10 years ago, why don't you adopt this idea today?
10 years ago SID was still working on products with his name, wonder movies are a clear example of that.
Nowdays there are a bunch of kids developing the game addicted to Final Fantasy clones only and SID no more work on the projects. SID is now out of any concept of the game, unfortunately for us.
Nowdays there are a bunch of kids developing the game addicted to Final Fantasy clones only and SID no more work on the projects. SID is now out of any concept of the game, unfortunately for us.
jjkrause84
King
Government CAN change spending on a lot of things VERY quickly....ask all those CA state employees who got a 10% salary cut over the past couple years. Heck, come here to Blighty and deal with our budgetary constraints and fluctuations! People "fighting for their funding" is hardly a barrier in tough times if the gov'mt really wants/needs to do something...and this is MUCH more true as you go back in time.
Funding for research generally comes as grants with new grants being given every single year and many old ones expiring. The amount given away in grants each year can and does fluctuate. The fact that there is research which goes on regardles of gov'mt spending was taken care of with things such as "Library: +3 science"...no one could take that away. It was not as big a percentage of your overall science as it could/should have been, but it was still there. This was something Civ5 might have improved upon.
Now Civ4 went too far in effectively forcing you to spend ALL of your money on science but a more balanced system in Civ5 could have had some real potential (as I've alluded to in earlier posts). Just because the Civ4 slider wasn't perfect doesn't mean the concept of a slider is bad. Obviosuly EXTREME shifts are unrealistic (albeit, not impossible)......but here we are entering into the realm of players abusing the system and using it in unintended ways. Nothing wrong with doing that (games are supposed to be fun afterall) but again...it is not the slider's fault.
On an unrelated note the idea that Civ5 critics want it to be Civ4 is spurious, as is the oft-repeated quip that Civ4 vanilla also had problems.
Civ 3 was a clear and blatant evolution from Civ2, and Civ4 was an evolution from Civ3. They took old concepts and tweaked them, improved them, added a new thing or two and made substantial steps forward each time. Maybe it is too much to expect nowadays for a released game to be fully balanced upon launch....but is it too much to expect for OLD, EXISTING ideas (like religion) to be kept? Making a new Civ vanillia doesn't mean you forget that WL and BtS existed and you start over from absolute scratch (even though the CSs and 1UPT would require a substantial rethinking of the game, no doubt). It means you take ideas that have been growing and evolving over 20 years and you improve upon them and take them to the next level while hopefully adding a thing or two that is totally new.
You can't complain that Return of the Jedi was just a re-boot of Empire Strikes Back because there's still the Empire and Darth Vader and crap and sequels should "reinvent" the series....
OK, bad analogy but you see where I'm going....
this !!
Hyronymus
Troop leader
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2003
- Messages
- 1,872
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?
See, that bolded part is what makes no sense to me. National budgets don't work like that. There's an incredible amount of institutional momentum, which makes it damn near impossible to defund something once you've started funding it. With very few exceptions, you can't radically change the focus of a national budget on an annual basis.
SidMeierGroupy
Chieftain
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2010
- Messages
- 43
I'm not happy with the game in it's current state. It bores me to death. Never have I played a civ so uninteresting. I'll try it again in a few months I guess.
This would probably rock on a console though. They should port it.
Exactly. It's boring.
Not only that, but truthfully, it is dumbed down.
Nothing in V is Civ-like at all. That's not revolutionary, that's just stupid.
Wonders don't seem to matter, tech choices don't seem to matter, diplomacy doesn't seem to matter, not even the whoop-de-do hex map seems to matter.
And since you're not rewarded with any emotional grand ending when completeing a game, the whole effort doesn't seem to matter.
QuixotesGhost
Warlord
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2005
- Messages
- 272
@ the OP.
Ever pay attention to Civ IV while you played it? You know - like this quote:
"A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." - Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Complexity is not, in of itself, desirable unless it adds depth. Games can be simple and have depth. Games can also be needlessly complex and be shallow. Yes, in many ways Civ V is simpler than Civ IV, yet is it shallower? That's the argument I'm waiting to hear.
Ever pay attention to Civ IV while you played it? You know - like this quote:
"A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." - Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Complexity is not, in of itself, desirable unless it adds depth. Games can be simple and have depth. Games can also be needlessly complex and be shallow. Yes, in many ways Civ V is simpler than Civ IV, yet is it shallower? That's the argument I'm waiting to hear.
SidMeierGroupy
Chieftain
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2010
- Messages
- 43
Have you ever seen the SMAC Wonder movies? Not only stupid animations like civ4..
If the movie is something original and contain interesting concepts / philosophies then it adds so much flavour to the game
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YO_xh7xIabk&feature=related
look at this, people still discuss about this 10 years after the release of the game
If i build the Pyramids, i don't want to see a stupid video that shows a tourist postcard of the monument, but a video that shows the ancient egyptians thougts and point of views about the monument. Come on Sid, you understood this 10 years ago, why don't you adopt this idea today?
Well said.
Intro, Wonder and Closing movies are all relevent. People who don't bother to watch them...sound like boring people, tbh. No I don't watch the intro or wonder movies all the time, but occasionally I'll let them play. End movies I always watch. You've just played an epic, hours-long game, a movie ending is a must.
1) Warfare is so much better in Civ 5 that I can't believe now that I even bothered with it in Civ 4. Funny I used to think that roaming around with my 40 unit stack made me a brilliant tactitian lol. Now that I've played Civ 5 I could never play 4 again without laughing at the superficial combat
2) Strategic resource limitations adds A LOT of extra decision making and strategy. It also means they are always worth trading for or going to war for even if you have one
3) I am one that much prefers the social policies over the old civics system. I thought arbitrarily changing civics back and forth to optimize war/peace felt like a hack. Social policies feels like you are evolving over time rather than arbitrarily optimizing. "OK, got a lot of population better jump to slavery for a few turns to whip me up some more tanks"
4) Hexes are better but actually that wasn't a real show stopper for me
5) Random events was sort of replaced by the City-State requests. I bet traditional random events will be in an add-on and if not I'd be surprised if a mod isn't availabel within a month that adds some. I like random events too but it really is a minor thing
6) Religion and espionage I miss a little but the way they were implemented in Civ 4 was a bit broken. Hopefully they make a reappearance in a future expansion but much improved over Civ 4
7) And how can you take as an "atrocity" the fact that there are no scenarios, or world wonder movies, or end game cinematic? rofl
8) Interface is different and takes getting used to. But hard to say it is worse than Civ 4 once you play a few games
9) Multi-player I'm sure will be fixed if it is broken. Cant tell as I havent played it yet and probably wont for quite a while. Most likely the bugs will be ironed out by then.
10) Framerate problems? As with a previous poster, I am running on max graphics settings at 1920x1200 and am running very smooth. and I have a fairly old PC from 2005 (Pentium 4 class but did upgrade to new Geoforce 9500 video card recently)
Actually, I could have stopped after 1) and 2) above as those two features alone make this vastly better than Civ 4. Don't be afraid of the new. I so absolutely no reason to ever go back to Civ 4 at this point and belive me I logged THOUSANDS of hours in that game I'd bet. Civ 5 really is a great evolution of the series and I can't wait for the expansions and mods that will perfect it (until Civ 6 probably)
2) Strategic resource limitations adds A LOT of extra decision making and strategy. It also means they are always worth trading for or going to war for even if you have one
3) I am one that much prefers the social policies over the old civics system. I thought arbitrarily changing civics back and forth to optimize war/peace felt like a hack. Social policies feels like you are evolving over time rather than arbitrarily optimizing. "OK, got a lot of population better jump to slavery for a few turns to whip me up some more tanks"
4) Hexes are better but actually that wasn't a real show stopper for me
5) Random events was sort of replaced by the City-State requests. I bet traditional random events will be in an add-on and if not I'd be surprised if a mod isn't availabel within a month that adds some. I like random events too but it really is a minor thing
6) Religion and espionage I miss a little but the way they were implemented in Civ 4 was a bit broken. Hopefully they make a reappearance in a future expansion but much improved over Civ 4
7) And how can you take as an "atrocity" the fact that there are no scenarios, or world wonder movies, or end game cinematic? rofl
8) Interface is different and takes getting used to. But hard to say it is worse than Civ 4 once you play a few games
9) Multi-player I'm sure will be fixed if it is broken. Cant tell as I havent played it yet and probably wont for quite a while. Most likely the bugs will be ironed out by then.
10) Framerate problems? As with a previous poster, I am running on max graphics settings at 1920x1200 and am running very smooth. and I have a fairly old PC from 2005 (Pentium 4 class but did upgrade to new Geoforce 9500 video card recently)
Actually, I could have stopped after 1) and 2) above as those two features alone make this vastly better than Civ 4. Don't be afraid of the new. I so absolutely no reason to ever go back to Civ 4 at this point and belive me I logged THOUSANDS of hours in that game I'd bet. Civ 5 really is a great evolution of the series and I can't wait for the expansions and mods that will perfect it (until Civ 6 probably)
- Status
