1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Are there any HardCore Civ fans who like CiV?

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by vincentz, Oct 13, 2010.

  1. Ambo

    Ambo Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2005
    Messages:
    5
    I played Civ 1 on the Amiga and Civ 2, 3, 4 and 5 on PC. There are other games I play more but I've put in hundreds of hours on each iteration (except 5... yet).

    Personally, I like Civ 5 but I do find it's weaknesses to be a killer for the game's long term appeal. The biggest problem of course, is the AI. I actually spend most of my gaming time in MMOs (Eve and, in the past, Planetside). I generally like my games with a healthy dose of multiplayer. Unfortunately, with Civ, multiplayer is just not what I'm after. It's all about the singleplayer game for me and that is totally compromised by the terrible AI.

    That said, there are many things I like about Civ 5. 1UPT is a great change and long overdue. It's just a shame the AI can't handle it.
    Hexes! \o/
    The method by which cultural borders expand is much better.
    Ranged units actually having a range is good. I understand that having your archers fire arrows from one end of england to the other on an earth map is not exactly accurate but it undoubtedly makes for more tactical fights & manuvering. (Or it would if the AI wasn't so poor)
    City states are a nice addition but imo there are numerous details of thier implementation that could be improved. Also, the AI seems to have trouble making effective use of them.

    I could go on. In short, there is much to like in the latest Civ. Unfortunatley, it is all semi-overshadowed by either the terrible AI or wasted potential.

    I have no doubt that future patches and expansions will correct the worst of the problems though.
     
  2. TPQ

    TPQ Cogito Ergo Civ

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2010
    Messages:
    587
    Location:
    UK
    Ah, I think that was me. Just stating my opinion. Not trying to start an argument.

    Civ V just feels more realistic to me than previous versions. No doubt there are good arguments against that, but I'm not analysing it on an intellectual level, its just how the game makes me feel.

    If you want to, you can pick apart all of the Civ games and find problems with their abstractions, realism, game mechanics and so on because all of these games are a compromise to some extent.

    The only thing I'm really quite disappointed with, with Civ V, is that it was released with so many bugs! It makes me feel like an unpaid beta tester! I'm actually quite excited to play the game when it's finished!
     
  3. hclass

    hclass Prince

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2003
    Messages:
    518
    Not really, unless that entitle me for free Civ5 and future version.

    Not really, but I reserve my right to doubt any claim without proof.

    All your points are heard. Again they do not prove anything nor do they support your claim that the forum join date means nothing.
    The fact is nobody will doubt about I have played Civ at 2003 or earlier (see my join date, didn't you), if it is not enough, just do a search for my ealiest post, eh eh eh...

    But for your case, it will take a little more effort to claim so... I don't think talking poor student story will help.
     
  4. Rince

    Rince King

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2002
    Messages:
    673
    Location:
    In your city, poisoning your water!
    How is Civ5 less a god game than Civ4? Because of the lack of sliders? Or because the hexes remind you of Settlers of Catan?

    Why do you find Civ5 do be less immersive and less deep, and why don't you feel like you are building an empire?

    I have the impression that the discussion around Civ5 is more and more shifting from real gripes to some fluffy concepts (immersion, depth etc.)

    Civ5 is just as much a Civ game as all the other installments before. Don't talk yourself into the "everything was better" perspective. If you can't stand to play Civ5 anymore (not even after the next few patches), maybe you have grown tired of the Civ concept as a whole.
     
  5. Fistalis

    Fistalis Prince

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2009
    Messages:
    373
    And nope.. i still play civ IV and get tons of enjoyment out of it.. Civ V however just don't do it for me.
     
  6. JLoZeppeli

    JLoZeppeli Prince

    Joined:
    May 11, 2009
    Messages:
    598
    As always something may be better, something may be worse... Civ V did, apart the AI and umbelanced expolits, some game basics really bad.

    The global happiness kills micromanaging, as well the absence of cultural expansion over AI tiles and the maritime cities giving a bonus to every cities... So in the end you must build not specifically for the city, but for the empire. So as i do often, i build when it is necessary something to highen the happiness (where is of no importance) and buid up a lot of trading post, spamming everywgere buildings as the market (no manteince olny bonus to gold), i build up only improvement on luxuries and the few roads i need. For food i manage from Maritime, only few farm because is better to have low population and more cities...

    If it may be called a good improvement for builders, than no one know how good it was on Civ IV...
     
  7. valrond

    valrond Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2001
    Messages:
    57
    Location:
    Spain
    Hi. I'm one of the oldest members of the forum that have posted in this thread. I haven't contributed much, but I've been play CIV since II. A lot. And there is something that Civ V doesn't have.

    With all previous civs, I was so addicted that I could (still can) play for hours. I started playing Civ V the day it was released, I had it on preorder. At first, the novelty, you start seen the new things, but after a while, it gets old, and I simply get bored. It never happened before in a Civ game. So that's it, I don't like it.

    It will get better with patches and mods, but I'll still get bored and not care about the game.
     
  8. Saarud

    Saarud Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2004
    Messages:
    113
    I've been playing CIV since 1991 and I am one of the few that actually thinks that the gamedesign is the best of all the CIVs so far. The release however was disastrous with some great balance issues and above all a substandard AI that actually are worse than most other strategy games I have played the last few years. I think it's strange that Firaxis release a game that is so not ready. If it has to do with 2K being publishers I hope that Firaxis looks for another publisher company that actually knows what they are doing.

    The design for CIV 5 clearly needs a strong tactical combat AI (yes it's actually possible I've seen much stronger tactical combat AIs in other games) and as the always so optimistic person that I am I DO think it will be patched together in the near future. The core elements in the gamedesign for CIV 5 also require absolute balance. When this work as intended the game will be a totally other game than what people see today.

    So am I happy with the game? YES very much indeed. I've gotten pretty bored with CIV 4 even with mods such as FFH2/RoM2/Rhyes/Planetfall and I was hoping that this new iteration of CIV would have some drastic changes and indeed it did have. The problem though is that the game is not ready and I feel for those that are dissatisfied.
     
  9. ohioastronomy

    ohioastronomy King

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Messages:
    714
    My problem with Civ 5 is that I dislike the design. The early pace is too slow; the is AI too aggressive and glitchy. Global happiness is a bad concept, and no unit stacking just doesn't fit the game. The controls are clunky and touchy. Peaceful builder games are like watching paint dry; the game is boring as sin without war. And I played better wargames on the Apple IIe.
     
  10. Pratputajao

    Pratputajao Warlord

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Messages:
    280
    I have been playing Civ since #1 in 92 so I am not sure if I am "Hardcore" but I have played almosy every Civ game since, even call to power (Though I did avoid the Super NES version of Civ 1 and never played Civ Rev).

    I find I like this Civ about as well as any other upon 1st release, actually like it more than I did IV when it was 1st released. Its just a good game. Do I like all the changes- Nope. Though I dont think I have liked all the chages in the differant versions since #2.
     
  11. ohioastronomy

    ohioastronomy King

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Messages:
    714
    I really like the Civ 5 treatment of science; yanking sliders around always felt artificial to me. You can actually achieve much the same thing in late game by having many tiles available and swapping them around.

    But you just lose too much in the way of fun little choices. There are too few bonuses where a building is better with a local resource. The tiles are very similar so you don't get a big bump when you build something. The improvements are bland - you mostly make trading posts. Workers run out of things to do, which is a symptom of not much to build. And, obnoxiously, they cost a lot of money to keep around in the late game. The buildings are similar - no chrome. Individual cities are thus pretty generic to me. You get magic maritime food and they sprout up; they all sort of look the same. The course of a game is getting to a good enough cash surplus to be able to buy stuff and scatter it around all of your cities. Generic play, generic AI opponents, generic strategy. I'm glad to see that others enjoy it and would like to see some depth - but since I never did BTS, and haven't done Civ 4 in a couple of years, maybe I should go back there and pick up some mods instead. Food for thought...
     
  12. Jediron

    Jediron Prince

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    Messages:
    396
    Oke, that's fair. Aldo i just can't "grasp" your idea of realism.
     
  13. man-erg

    man-erg Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2006
    Messages:
    107
    Bought my first home PC to play Civ1 soon after it came out. Civ 2 was instantly a huge improvement. Civ 3 I didn't like at first, slowly grew to like it more. Had the right ideas, but the implementation was rough. When Civ 4 came out, I could hardly play it as my machine wasn't up to it. (I had upgraded since Civ 1, though!) . Came back to it after an upgrade a year or so after release and soon got totally hooked more than any other in the series. I remember lots of complaints about bugs and poor performance of Civ4 - justifiably so as performance was truly awful on release. I don't remember much complaint about the content and design, though.

    Civ5? Still not sure about it. It feels like Civ3 to me in that there are good aims that don't seem to have been implemented well. IMHO the only major flaw with Civ4 is that to win on higher levels requires much more micromanagement and knowledge of AI exploits, NOT superior strategic genius! So I'm all for reduced micromanagement. But not at the cost of any management at all.

    I was hooked on Civ5 for, oh, about a week. Since then, I've lost interest in it. After a couple of straighforward victories and a couple of false starts, I'm not playing Civ5 till the major patch. Lost interest in it even quicker than Civ3. There are some good things in it. I prefer the *idea* of the new cultural victory as in 4 it involved too much micro. Less road spam is good, as is the auto-boat boarding. There are a couple of things I find majorly underwhelming, though: the 1upt hex system and the utterly tedious city states. ie the main new design elements!
     
  14. Rince

    Rince King

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2002
    Messages:
    673
    Location:
    In your city, poisoning your water!
    Again, these are not real arguments but merely observations or feelings. Of course, if you don't find any fun in the game then there is not much to do. Except maybe distance yourself from the game for a while and see if you can approach it later without prejudice and with a fresh desire to discover the game.
     
  15. Kark

    Kark Mad berserker

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2007
    Messages:
    356
    Location:
    Nidaros, Norway. Viking capital.
    In fact, I'm there. It's not as addictiv as BTS after all the patches, but I like hexes, ranged fire, 1 unit per tile and some other new stuff. Playing just now as a warmonger, it's quite a different game from BTS.
     
  16. Zogar

    Zogar Warlord

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2010
    Messages:
    117
    Hola. Lots of things to answer here.

    Civ 5 is less a god game and more a board game since it follows the idea 'Less is more' of the board games. The game has been stripped of many little things that added to gameplay without being so important that you couldn't avoid them if you wanted to.

    The game philosophy is changed, and you don't build an empire and then try to win, in Civ 5 you try to win and therefore build an empire (or don't build an empire in fact). Every decision is now weighted to win the game, you don't have anymore a lot of small things not relevant to winning that you can play with and that many players liked. This is why immersion doesn't feel good at all, and you get bored pretty easily.

    The hexes have nothing to do with it and are actually a good change.

    If I (or any player) can't stand playing Civ 5, I just play Civ 4. That has nothing to do with being fed up with the Civ Series. Actually only someone who didn't play all the Civs would say something like you, Civ 5 has changed more core designs than any sequel before, and the game is not the same anymore. There are more differences between Civ 5 and any other Civ than between Civ 1 and Civ 4, which in itself says a lot. It is bound to disappoint a lot of people.

    Releasing the game in the state it is now just disappointed a whole ton more people who were open to change. It is borderline taking people for idiots.

    The problem is, you play 3 games you have nothing to discover anymore. You've seen all the new things, the good ones and the bad ones, and you know how to exploit the AI.
     
  17. Mustakrakish

    Mustakrakish In 'Node' We Trust

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    2,520
    Location:
    Grainvillage, Finland
    And all your points are heard. And as I said I'm not heartbroken about your doubts. As you said it yourself, you have the right. As do I... don't really feel the need to prove anything to anyone, sorry. I know Internet forums are serious business, Right!? :rolleyes: But you can consider me an unbeliever.
    I still think forum join date means nothing, how about that? :eek: Do you still feel the need to prove me wrong or should we stop this before moderators get angry? :crazyeye:
     
  18. KroninW

    KroninW Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2010
    Messages:
    14
    This is one of the most pessimistic + arrogant things I've ever read on this forum. I've been reading this forum since 2005, but didn't bother signing up to post until many years later. Not sure if you know it, but you can read the posts without signing up! Sure I COULD be lying, but going through life believing everyone else is a liar sure isn't a way I would want to live.

    On topic: I like civ V a lot. I liked I, II, III, and IV a lot too. I've been a hardcore PC gamer since 1992. Not just civ but all PC genres. The Civ franchise has always been one of my favorites, and V is a nice reset button on series. It needs some love and attention, especially with regards to the AI, but if the series didnt evolve and change, it would simply die as the # of dedicated players with enough time to justify purchasing the game dwindled.

    Game series need change. Some hardcore fans will like the change, some won't. As long as the series attracts new fans and new blood, while providing a fun base to build expansions upon, it is a success. Putting out CIV IV part 2 with only a graphical upgrade would have been a huge mistake. If you would like to see what happens when you put out a game without enough change see HoMM 3 to 4.

    HoMM 3 is widely regarded as the greatest of the series. 4 was widely considered to suck terribly even though the base gameplay is essentially identical, with a graphical update.
     
  19. r_rolo1

    r_rolo1 King of myself

    Joined:
    May 19, 2006
    Messages:
    13,818
    Location:
    Lisbon, Portugal
    Do you actually know that those are not the only options regarding this ? ;) Manicheism is still well and alive, I guess ...
     
  20. Rince

    Rince King

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2002
    Messages:
    673
    Location:
    In your city, poisoning your water!
    Still don't get your point about empire building vs. trying to win the game. This hasn't really changed between Civ4 and Civ5.

    I can see what you mean regarding the small things not really relevant to winning though. If you really enjoy micromanaging various little details (like in Paradox games for example) then Civ5 has less to offer than Civ4. For me this streamlining is an advantage. I also think that streamlining does not mean reduced complexity but simply reduced apparent complexity.

    Once the core game is balanced, polished and improved, expansions will surely add back layers of complexity just like Civ4 expansions pack did.

    Sorry but I have played all the previous Civs extensively and I never said that Civ5 isn't different. Civ5 has changed a lot (fortunately) but still has the Civ spirit IMHO and I can't understand how people can claim that it is not.
     

Share This Page