Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by TomThompson, Oct 20, 2010.
300 hours for me.
Man you just made me realize what's wrong with this game
Well, most objections center around it not actually being Civ 5 but more like Civ Society. Essentially not a successor but some sort of dream sequence that you are hoping actually didn't happen.
The question is, is bringing back the "depth" possible through modding or does it require an actual expansion pack from the company to restore the game?
While I pretty much agree with what everyone is saying, I think this guy says it about right.
And I'll compare Civ V to BTS after there are expansions to Civ V. Until then, to me, it's just Civ trying to do something different. Which is fine with me. Everyone's complaint is that Civ V is not Civ IV, but if I wanted to play Civ IV I would play Civ IV. I don't want to pay for the exact same game with updated graphics. I want something different. But I do want more in Civ V. I think we can all agree that the main problem is that there is not enough in Civ V, which is why I will wait to be super critical of it.
Who is this "everyone" you speak of? Frankly, that is not "everyone"s complaint. Many people just want a game that will not be riddled with bugs and poor design choices. I don't want a Civ IV clone. I do, however, want a good game in the Civ lineage that doesn't have some incredibly counterintuitive and nonsensical aspects--buildings are way too expensive, and you can train mechanized infantry before you discover how to make regular infantry, among other things. Unfortunately it seems many Civ fanatics (I among them) didn't get the Civ V we were hoping for. THAT is what I am complaining of.
That's a nice succinct way of put it. It's fine with me as well.
Ah, expectation - the root cause of many an angry thread on gaming forums.
Alot of people would not agree with this.
I am one of them.
OK, I shouldn't have said everyone. But when I look at this general discussion forum, most of the complaints I see pertain to things that existed in Civ IV but do not exist in Civ V. The issues you mention, I agree are things that need to be fixed. But the topics pertaining to those are in the minority. I just get the feeling, from most of the topics I see, that people wanted Civ IV again. So I said everyone when I shouldn't have.
I think the difference is that I don't have the sort of "exponential growth" feel in Civ 5 that I had in Civ 4. In Civ 4, I was always "just a few more turns" away from something that would massively benefit my empire. For example, building your first farm would triple your food production, and switching to bureaucracy could double your research rate. On the other hand, if I messed something up, it would cost me heavily. Most of the bonuses in Civ 5 are much smaller, so it's a slow, steady, boring rate of growth, and if I miss something it barely matters.
The closest thing to that in Civ 5 is the promotion system, where getting high level promotions like logistics and blitz can make a huge difference in the strength of your army. Unfortunately that just makes it even more of a war game.
think its to much of a wargame now.
build 4 cities, get declared on, start building units, loose 1 city, take it back and raze his empire.
sell most units and start expanding again.
rinse & repeat
most games I don't build more then 20 units total.
What i hear alot is "it's well known previous civ's have balancing issue's as well" and it makes me wonder: Isn't that a little too simplistic spoken ?
I know i played CIV III a long while before ever heard of "the tax issue" for example.
IOW: it took a while before someone came with this "flaw". Meaning that those issue's were not so obvious; as is now with CIV 5.
There is a difference, i think.
I still yearn for the moment you got your first army in CIV3. That was realistic and overwhelming cause it came out of nowhere. Since CIV4 we have an accountant who tells you after how many points you will get your great leader. How democratic and how boring.
Everything should be less balanced.
Oh, so it would be better not to have any expectations at all, despite the "Civilization" in the name of the game? Let's face it, it was virtually impossible not to have expectations when Firaxis announced they'd move from squares to hexes, 1UPT, ranged units attacking from range properly, animated leaders that talk in their own language, etc. Civilization is a series that has inspired great loyalty, analysis and discussion. Like many others, I had certain expectations for Civ 5--that it meet a certain bar of quality, and it didn't. I was disappointed. So are you saying I was wrong to have expectations for Civ 5?
An honest mistake. It is true many seem to have wanted Civ IV-esque, but not everyone. I like some of the new features (combat mechanics too, though I wish there was a way to move multiple units at once)--however, some gameplay mechanics as they are just lack polish. Civ IV vanilla had more polish than Civ V vanilla, in my opinion, and so when people like me say "Civ IV vanilla was better," it's not that we necessarily want Civ 4.5, it's rather that we want a game of similar high quality. Civ IV had its bugs from launch, and some balance issues, but key gameplay mechanics weren't as heavily questioned as Civ V's have been.
I am actually hooked on this game, probably even more than Civ 2 or Civ 4, and I owned both for years. I got bored with Civ IV and never really played it that much because I didn't like the combat system of stack vs. stack.
Civ V is definitely really fun for me, but they need to fix the AI.
A small part of me envies you. The other part of me is playing Civ 4 BtS while I scan the forums right now.
They want you to have fewer cities, plus they give you less things to build and it takes longer. 4-5 cities producing one building every 10-15 turns? One worker making an improvement every 3-4? In short, the pacing of the production tree is off - hence boredom. They wanted to make everything simpler, but instead they made it so simple people had nothing left to do.
Combine that with terrible AI and gamebreaking exploits and you see why a lot of people are unsatisfied with the game.
To be fair, big empires are possible in Civ 5, and they do work well. If you haven't had one yourself and don't believe me, ask Darius (with his HUGE empire) to trade, and see how much money he has stockpiled and how much per turn he's making. Compare that, then, to poor old Gandhi who usually has a mediocre economy running, and very few troops.
Personally I find that huge empires of puppet-stated cities are GREAT for virtually any victory. The problem here, then, is that Firaxis was being somewhat misleading. Small empires do suck in this game in the long term, ICS rules, and their attempts to make small empires more rewarding falls flat on its face. What does this demonstrate which is of concern?
Answer: It's worrying the developers don't know how to play their own game.
yeah I agree but I'm talking about if you play the way they want you to play (and which I suspect would be the direction any future patching is going to favor).
I suspect they'll go the ham-handed "balance" route of penalizing the many small cities approach - to guarantee precisely what you're talking about. This game has numerous harsh "thou shalt not" mechanics throughout. Too many people? Flashing red caution, everything stops growing, pop-ups warn you that you've done something WRONG. It's not like previous versions where you planted a useless outpost and it didn't mess everything else up.
Separate names with a comma.