Can't keep up with DLC, annoyed by it.

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by Tamed, May 3, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. anandus

    anandus Errorist

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2005
    Messages:
    3,859
    Location:
    Amsterdam, Netherlands
    Well, for starters: Don't buy the 'cradle'-maps. They're not really worth it, I think.
    And there isn't a 'combo-pack' out yet for all DLC-civs.

    But once in a while, as is common practice with Steam, there's a sale on.
    A few weeks ago everything was 40% off.
    And I bet during the summer sales in june (Steam as two big sale periods, summer and christmas) the Civ 5-sale will be there again.
    Then you can get all DLC-civs at a discount (so far, if it's again 40% off, that would be about a bit more than 9 euro's, in dollars around 13½ dollars).
     
  2. Louis XXIV

    Louis XXIV Le Roi Soleil

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2003
    Messages:
    13,579
    Location:
    Norfolk, VA
    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.

    I'm not saying that reviewers don't give biased reviews for good games. I was commenting specifically on bugs. The rule is, if a bug is supposed to be fixed before release, the reviewer doesn't comment on that bug. It makes sense. No point in complaining about a bug the general audience likely will never see.
     
  3. Kerosene31

    Kerosene31 Prince

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2001
    Messages:
    402
    Your figure isn't sufficient. The simple argument is that the price is what it is, not what you say it is. I don't know what the developer and publisher's cost structure is, but I do know that game companies by and large are not making massive profits and are facing increased costs.

    You can never really calculate a price for something that isn't tangible, so there's no right or wrong in that matter.

    You're also seeing similar things all over the industry, this is not just one company doing this (a lot of people here may only play Civ and not know how the industry is changing).

    The bottom line is that DLC has had a 40% off sale which is a pretty good deal. This sale was long before we would even see an expansion. Even without that people have bought DLC and felt good about the purchase, yet people constantly need to tell us how we're being ripped off.
     
  4. Drawmeus

    Drawmeus Emperor

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2007
    Messages:
    1,213
    That sometimes happens, but the major reason reviewers give something like civ 5 a great review is that the game holds up very well for a non-hardcore fan in the first 10-12 hours, and game reviewers don't have time to play past that first dozen hours because they have to go review something else.
     
  5. Kerosene31

    Kerosene31 Prince

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2001
    Messages:
    402
    Game reviews are terrible in the past few years. I completely ignore them.

    You want to know about a game, listen to the real fans. Don't pre-order and do your homework. I didn't even get Civ V on release day but waited a few days. I read some comments here and understood what I was getting into.
     
  6. King Patrick

    King Patrick Warlord

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2011
    Messages:
    233
    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).

    Moderator Action: Please don't reduce/misrepresent others' arguments in a trollish manner. It is not at all conducive to civil discussion.
    Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
     
  7. LegionSteve

    LegionSteve Motörhead

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2007
    Messages:
    1,127
    Location:
    England
    Now I actually like Civ 5 overall, though there are still a lot of things I would like improved. But the release was horrible, you can't seriously dismiss it as people wanting exactly the same game as Civ 4. Some examples:

    The many, many graphical bugs - just look at the "funny screenshots" thread. They still haven't fixed the one where objects 'stick' to the screen and follow you around. Or stonehenge floating in the sea. Or improvements near the coast that look messed up, e.g. wheat farms that just look like a blank tile which I got in my current game. Though I haven't seen (err, haven't not seen?) the invisible cities bug for a while so maybe they fixed that one.

    The weird diplo prior to the implementation of DoFs + Denouncements. Now I'm quite happy with the diplo now, I don't think its still broken like some people say. But it sure was broken on release. Or rather I think it was just not implemented, what we have now is what was always intended and what we got on release was just placeholder code because they ran out of time.

    Crashes, freezes and general slowness. I had a few problems, despite being over the recommended specs, but not as many problems as others reported. Haven't had any problems since the last but one patch though so they definitely made progress here.

    The AI that can't do combat at all. This has improved in some very specific ways but is still a joke overall. It is particularly helpless anywhere near water and throws land units lemming-like into the sea where you can just run them over with a boat. I used to like playing archipelagos occasionally for a change in Civ 4 but it is a bit of a waste of time in 5 (oh no I'm complaining that its not Civ 4, fail :crazyeye: )

    Control issues, like seige units that move instead of attacking while the interface is displaying the range attack thingy.

    Hmm do balance things count as a bug? I think they do when they are this bad. The fact that at least half of the buildings were never worth building. That was largely fixed in the last big rebalancing patch though. The fact that ICS was always the best strategy, and the global happiness completely failed to restrict it. There is another rebalancing patch on the way apparently, but things have already improved a lot since release.

    Weird message bugs like such and such has declared war on (blank) popping up. That's been fixed.

    Multiplayer, though I don't play it I know people who do. While there are still issues with it now I'm told it was literally unplayable on release.

    Research agreements. While I have removed them from the game because I just don't like the concept, they have been made harder to exploit than they were.

    Getting bored of typing now. Anyway so I think it is fair to say there were genuine problems with the initial release.
     
  8. TheMeInTeam

    TheMeInTeam Top Logic

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    26,109
    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.

    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.

    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

    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.
     
  9. anandus

    anandus Errorist

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2005
    Messages:
    3,859
    Location:
    Amsterdam, Netherlands
    What makes you think that those things would be fixed if nobody bought the DLC?
    If nobody would buy DLC (or expansion packs) then Civ 5 would be a dried up well which gives the developers absolutely no incentive at all to continue patching. Or did I miss something?
     
  10. CossackProblem

    CossackProblem Warlord

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2007
    Messages:
    131
    Civ4 -- which IMO was more broken than Civ5 upon release -- did not need DLC to spurn two expansions.

    Civilization is a strong series. It doesn't need DLC to remind itself of this.
     
  11. anandus

    anandus Errorist

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2005
    Messages:
    3,859
    Location:
    Amsterdam, Netherlands
    In my view expansions and DLC are the same: For the developer a means of income and incentive to continue building upon a current game and for the gamers a means of variation and fun to continue playing it.

    But Civ 4 was also mentioned as broken in the reply I quoted, having (according to that reply) the same problem: The creation of content over fixing, what some people see as, core problems of the game.
    So I wonder if the game would be better off and more patched up if nobody would buy expansions (Civ4) or DLC (Civ5). I doubt that. I'd say the games probably would be even less patched up if everybody would keep their wallet closed.
     
  12. Rince

    Rince King

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2002
    Messages:
    673
    Location:
    In your city, poisoning your water!
    You willfully ignore all the patches with several pages of improvements that have been released since launch. Seriously, after reading your posts I feel like buying all the DLC.

    Moderator Action: Accusing others of wilful ignorance is considered trolling. Focus on the post, not the poster.
    Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
     
  13. TheMeInTeam

    TheMeInTeam Top Logic

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    26,109
    You missed the part where if these things carried higher market demand than DLC, developers would have incentive to address them first, or possibly not shaft its entire customer base by dumping an incomplete product on them.

    Usually, incentive to patch comes from the product being continually viable (and thus selling additional copies) as well as a reputational effect in future titles based on the quality of the current one. Firaxis chose to ignore its reputation rather emphatically and basically cashed out of the series through its choices of staffing for civ V.

    You missed something very big, yes. You missed that it is *this* conduct which will be the long-term death of firaxis as a developer of the civilization franchise. Based on their conduct in c3c, civ IV, and civ V, it's hard to get away from the conclusion that civ's position as a top tbs is in jeopardy unless someone different develops VI. In releasing consecutive titles that prioritize money siphoning over fixing basic mechanics firaxis has sent a very loud message about its intention for the series; cash-out game, not long-standing good title. Good titles get the basics right. That civ V was up for game of the year with the bugs that were still in it is one of the biggest laughingstocks of 2010. I don't WANT it this way. I WANT the company to prioritize aspects of gameplay that actually make it a fun, competitive and strategic experience, rather than a mess where players fight the UI and can't compete at all because firaxis things "luck = strategy". That's a bad trend too - ever notice how newer versions of civ *consistently* include more and more skill equalizers?

    Willfully ignore? Has it ever occurred to you that COMPLETE titles have working game mechanics BEFORE release? I'm ignoring that crap because it is an attempt (and one that's not yet finished) to turn civ V into an experience where multiple options are balanced against each other and so that the game ACTUALLY WORKS.

    What good is all these "pages of "improvements"" (note the nested quotations), when BASIC ADVERTISED FEATURES still don't work? Your attempt to turn my argument (willfully ignoring critical points) back on me falls flat. My argument all along has been that firaxis adding DLC without sufficiently addressing the core game is a big problem; rather than ignoring these improvements, I am directly implying that they are insufficient because they do not address basic flaws. Buy whatever you want. No matter what people's reasoning for purchasing something, good or bad, it's a valid driver of the market. But don't think for a second that this behavior is for the long term good of the civ franchise, or even the long term good of civ V.

    Moderator Action: If you consider another comment trolling, then please just report without feeling the need to reply.
    Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
     
  14. Kerosene31

    Kerosene31 Prince

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2001
    Messages:
    402
    DLC has nothing to do with patching. DLC would exist if the game was released in a perfect state or not. It has nothing to do with patching. They didn't release the game and realize "uh oh, we need some patches" and then start inventing DLC.

    People act like we had no idea DLC was coming out... quite the opposite was true.
     
  15. Brichals

    Brichals King

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2010
    Messages:
    775
    Location:
    Berlin, D
    I somehow feel like throwing my 2 pence in. I enjoy this game and don't see many of the problems others do. I can play a large epic game in about 10 hours, thats faster than Civ4 or Civ3 for me. I don't play at a high enough level to comment on balance but Civ4 was highly exploitable also. However it's important to respect both sides of the story, I don't want to be a "fine troll", burying my head in the sand. There are issues. And of course not everybody wants to pay for DLC, this becomes a personal issue. Steam sales are good though, I got Spain and Inca that way. I will pay full whack for Denmark though when I finish my current game.

    I must say though that SC2 has suffered some of the same complaints as Civ5. Neither can live up to the predecessor which has been patched and expanded heavily to make very excellent final products. SC2 is not BroodWar yet and Civ5 is not BTS yet. And the balance in SC2 on release was heartbreaking for a Zerg fan. It's not bugged though, that has to be said.
     
  16. troytheface

    troytheface Deity

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2002
    Messages:
    3,262
    " players who accept DLC prioritization over a finished game product contribute, through free market principles, to ruining the gameplay for people"


    lol

    i have doubts to this assertion
     
  17. TheMeInTeam

    TheMeInTeam Top Logic

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    26,109
    Wrong. Painfully wrong.

    People constantly say that the people doing DLC are different from the people patching/improving/ensuring the game is complete. That is accurate.

    People do not mention, however, which staff was LAID OFF and which staff was kept on-board. Firaxis made an active choice between DLC and a complete game, and chose DLC. The situation now might be that they don't have enough people to complete the core game, but that was a CHOICE made by firaxis/2k, and they can't hide behind their current labor situation. Designing DLC is costly. Fixing the game is costly. They're doing one of these things. Tell me why that is, and try telling me again how DLC has "nothing" to do with patches.

    Using hotkeys that DON'T EXIST in civ V (why? Is it hard to program hotkeys?) one can beat a standard map in civ IV in under 2 hours...even larger epic maps in 3ish. Civ V is actually possible to be played faster than 10 on your settings also (probably faster than doublespeed), but the UI slowdown is still there.

    Part of the problem is, of course, that all 3 games have absolutely terrible controls so comparing them is a little iffy. It's not like civ IV doesn't *still* have issues like, say, being unable to control-click a group of units because another unit class is on the same tile...or shift click not working because...well because firaxis.

    No dice. BTS has plenty of issues, some which were directly carried over into civ V, including some of the very ones I complain about on this thread. Examples of how BTS was left unfinished:

    - No AI diplo code logic at all (it picks resolutions at random!)
    - Completely ridiculous minor-religion apostolic palace auto-win button, even on deity (this is firaxian lack of balance sense at its FINEST; how was this left in the game while they went on to address OBSCURE things like spread culture espionage mission, wall whip overflow, and making barb galleys spawn x4? This is SERIOUSLY sour)
    - The game maphacks to detect trades with civs that aren't even known
    - Control, shift, alt-click don't work properly for unit selection
    - Units move into danger that is already visible at turn start WITHOUT PROMPT and in some cases before they can be interrupted based on move orders from previous turn (civ V got cute in copying this trash)
    - Vassal state mechanic is objectively broken (deleting your own vassal in worldbuilder and reducing your own power can actually make a target that was otherwise unwilling to capitulate to you now willing to capitulate :sad:, among many many other problems with this mechanic)
    - The user interface lies to the player in some instances

    These civ V problems aren't out of thin air. They are a manifestation of just how much players were willing to take in the previous title as well. Broodwar has none of those issues and frankly the balance in sc2 on release is beyond anything any firaxis product has dreamed of attaining...once roaches were buffed to 4 range we're talking win% within 5% of each other for all races! Do you see anything remotely similar to that in any civ title? Civ can't even attain strategic balance within a civ, making certain options overwhelmingly higher ROI than others in virtually all cases (such as RA).

    If you don't believe me, go on over to the starcraft2 forums and see how many canned "what people wanted was an updated broodwar" arguments are circulating there (you'll be hard-pressed), and then reflect on the fact that people put that nonsense IN THIS THREAD within the past couple hours. The reason is people use that argument despite the fact that it is, especially in relation to my points, completely invalid and actually self-defeating...but only here in civ V, where they're trying to defend a game that is a mess.

    I have doubts to the assertion that this in some way contributes to the discussion, although I haven't seen that one made yet. Do you care to refute my reasoning on *why* the market forces driving DLC > finished product contribute to ruining the gameplay for people who prefer the latter?
     
  18. Rince

    Rince King

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2002
    Messages:
    673
    Location:
    In your city, poisoning your water!
    Your point was that balance issues were ignored in favor of DLC. Patches being released alongside DLC (and yes, the patches have greatly improved the game, no need for excessive use of quotation marks) clearly refutes this point.

    I'm looking forward to your multi-paragraph reply.

    Moderator Action: The jab in the last line here is entirely unnecessary, and is considered trolling.
    Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
     
  19. TheMeInTeam

    TheMeInTeam Top Logic

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    26,109
    I'm looking forward to a legit, on-topic argument.

    Moderator Action: And this is unnecessary retaliation.
    Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

    Nope, my point was that core gameplay issues were ignored in favor of DLC. These issues were known on/just after release day and persist now (IE ignored), clearly refuting your point.
     
  20. EdCase

    EdCase Defender of the Faithless

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2005
    Messages:
    811
    Location:
    A world of my own creation
    The DLC annoying ?
    Interesting premise. DLC has become the prevalent method of maintaining revenue stream, when combined with an active patch cycle it is certainly acceptable.
    Currently Civ 5 has an active patch cycle, indicating that the DLC method is functioning as it should.

    Ultimately the decision is the players. I own F:NV I do not own , nor will I, the initial DLC as it does not appeal to me. I do however own the civilizations for 5 (not the map packs) as they do appeal.

    So basically if it appeals you buy it. If it does not you don't. Not complicated really.

    Finally, if you vehemently believe that gameplay is broken, then DLC becomes irrelevant because you cease, or at least I do, playing that title and move on.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page