DLC's are worth it for those who decide to purchase them. This is a free market, if anyone doesn't like the product.. then talk with your wallet. Don't purchase it. It amazes me still to this day that people feel the need to go on and on about DLC's. It's optional. It is not mandatory.
Those of us going on and on do so because players who accept DLC prioritization over a finished game product contribute, through free market principles, to ruining the gameplay for people who actually like:
- Fluid, working controls
- Rules that are known to the player
- All aspects of a game advertised functional
- Streamlined as opposed to sloppy code
- Balance between game options.
In your support (IE market demand) for DLC before these things are fixed, you are essentially telling firaxis to strip any chance of me being able to play a viably finished version of civ V (does this sound extreme? I'd like to point out that civ IV never fixed many BASIC gameplay features like controls and yet continued to add content, so this conclusion is not without precedent).
If you can't understand why that's frustrating, mull it over a bit. How would *you* feel if my preferences were taken beyond extreme and you NEVER got DLC...and that my public support through forums (and spending) continued that trend? Yeah, you wouldn't like it, and I don't like it when people do this *AND* flagrantly ignore valid points, which you did when you started talking about subjective criteria rather than absolutes. The game functioning as advertised is *not* subjective criteria. Why are you attempting to refute my points when you don't even actually address them?
As for Sc2, I don't know what you want. Few and far between are the RTS games that last more than 20 minutes in 1v1 matches (some of sc2's do even at pro levels, and many are reasonably close); sc2's focus on "e sports" is actually a focus on competitive balance - this is a GOOD thing for replayability...and the matches are similar in length to any RTS I can think of off hand (I'll just pull the "I've played RTS forever" card like you, since you feel that's a valid statement).
People who dislike games like WoW dislike the gameplay and/or design. THAT certainly is subjective, but not invalid. They are not, however, disliking it because controls don't work, advertised features functionally don't exist on the specs RECOMMENDED to players, etc. Those things are NOT subjective. Preference is one thing, incomplete games are another. Somewhere in your 4 paragraph response, you missed that. Maybe you like playing a game where you spend more time fighting the interface or waiting for turn roll-overs than actually playing, or maybe you don't play fast enough for that to be a substantial portion of your time. Regardless, these flaws are very real and there exists no subjectivity around them.
Out of curiosity, what were some of the obvious bugs on release? The only bug I noticed (and still get occasionally) is the thing where embarked units will stay on the screen even when you move it to somewhere else.
A quick glance at confirmed bugs + timing of threads can answer your question, but here's a few things off the top of my head:
- MP was no less buggy than it is now; for example you can have the game prompt you to choose production when you have already chosen, and choosing again has no effect. One can sometimes force end-turn via shift enter, but sometimes you just have to wait for the turn timer to expire. Hope you turned that on.............(note that as recently as a month ago I listened in on frustration as this literally happened in over 50% of games, and it's a SERIOUS issue that can force people to quit out and rejoin!). That's just ONE thing among many in MP; reviewers not mentioning this is gross negligence at best, fraudulent at worst.
- Permanent peace treaty on a 30 turner: Yes, you could through the ordinary course of play declare war, beat on an AI, take peace, and then never, ever be able to declare war again. Doesn't matter if you wait 35 turns or 350, the option to declare war was gone forever. Similar to above, this can easily ruin games by itself.
- Units would move differently from the interface displays (IE "ranged attack" = "move parallel to target and don't attack at all")
Now for some fun ones from confirmed bugs:
- Nuking certain units causing a crash was confirmed
- Save files would "shrink" while going deeper into a game and yep, CTD.
- The great wall didn't work as per UI description!!!
- UI display for "free thought" says 2 beakers, game gave 1
- Catapults could melee attack.
- City governors would shift tiles between turns and STARVE YOUR CITIES WITHOUT PROMPT
- Auto Unit cycle off not working
These are just the tip of the iceberg - go ahead and check out confirmed bugs for more fun, there are lots more crashes and confirmed bugs than most civ V fans or firaxis would like you to believe. This isn't even getting into obvious UI/control flaws or other basic gameplay problems that PROFESSIONAL reviewers are paid to factor into their reviews of games. If there's a bug that's actually patched by release, fine, but that's an implausible industry standard and in this case it resulted in a majority (!!) of major review publications lying to consumers. That's not an exaggerated term - those reviewers lied, and they still have jobs. Why?
I'm not buying the 10-12 hour excuse, either. They're paid to find the good and bad about games. At least one of these bugs happened in 10 hours of play guaranteed, which should be a red flag. Should be, if they weren't busy lying about it.
It wasn't Civ4. That seems to be the biggest complaint. (Why people would expect a company to release a new edition exactly like the last edition, or want to pay for it, I don't know, but there you go).
Instant argument fail. At least read the previous posts before making canned, over-used arguments in a thinly veiled effort to blindly defend a game rather than contribute to legit discussion. Seriously, where in my argument (which was where that question was addressed) did I say ANYTHING about the game not being civ IV? I didn't (although I did use civ IV as a valid basis for a negative trend, but that doesn't help your argument one iota). Don't put words in my mouth, it's unbecoming of someone
trying to make an argument.
Moderator Action: Address the post, not the poster.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
I don't think its still broken like some people say
You can be a warmongering menace to the world in AI eyes without declaring a single war or capturing a single city, among other things. That *objectively* fits some definitions of "broken" that I cited earlier in this thread.
Balance issues are not bugs, but it is certainly valid to criticize major balance problems being ignored in favor of DLC.
)
, among many many other problems with this mechanic)
