Civ 5 criticism – looking beyond the detail

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by TomThompson, Oct 20, 2010.

  1. Ronnoc

    Ronnoc Warlord

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2004
    Messages:
    105
    I never play just vanilla Civ, I always use a mod. It always seems like the mods are what the game should have been. I am seriously hoping for a great mod like Total Realism for Civ 4, or the VISA one. Those are what Civ should have been from the developers.

    It seems like Civ is just the basic engine and that it takes players to make it what it should be.

    The truly frustrating problem with Civ 4 and mods are the memory leaks causing crashes. I really hope that problem is avoided with real mods like Total Realism for Civ 5, and no crashes. Till then, I think Civ 5 will have to go on hiatus and back to Civ 4 and Total Realism, and the crashes.
     
  2. Celsus

    Celsus Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2010
    Messages:
    14
    The problem about relying on modders is that the game has to be well-loved by the kind of hardcore geeks who love modding in order to build up the game. I've tried my hand at modding a bit but I freely admit it's far more effort and skill than I am capable of (or perhaps I don't have the time). When a game appeals to the "casual" market I somehow doubt you're going to find the kind of mods anywhere close to the scale of cIV unless some much deeper gameplay starts to develop in future patches (not xpacks that will be too late by then).
     
  3. Öjevind Lång

    Öjevind Lång Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2005
    Messages:
    2,371
    I do think they should make the food resources more important. Now they don't really matter much even in the city area, and building improvements on them outside a city is pointless. Setting things up that way was a poor decision.

    Even so, I am getting very tired of the apparent determination among some posters to dislike Civ V at any cost. "I hated it because it was too easy. Now I hate it because the pach has made it harder." Come on, folks!
     
  4. Cashie

    Cashie King

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Messages:
    691
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Newcastle AU
    I wonder if the development team took this quote too seriously

    So many of the features of Civ 4 were removed - small things mainly.

    I am disappointed with Civ 5. I like the hexes. I love that cities can bombard (even if it means that barbs pose no threat at all now). Ranged units are great - a stealthy sniper unit would have been cool, but I digress. It's just not enough.

    "The whole is more than the sum of its parts" much?
     
  5. joyous_gard

    joyous_gard Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2010
    Messages:
    476
    Hear, hear!
     
  6. TomThompson

    TomThompson Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2010
    Messages:
    2
    Location:
    UK
    I must say, to my vanity, that I am delighted with the response I have solicited, though I feel that much of the ensuing debate has fallen into one of two traps. One I anticipated and one I did not. Both of these can be summed up by the quote…

    Firstly this statement exemplifies the reductionist approach I was trying to avoid and that pervades so much of the debate regarding the question of “what’s wrong with Civ5”. To me this is like taking your car to the mechanic to find out why you keep getting lost when go for a drive.

    Secondly the statement betrays an analytical emphasis towards “what we put in” rather than “what we get out”. This is a tail-wagging-the-dog approach that also pervades many of the threads trying to discover where the problem lies.

    In my original posting I had intended to frame micro-management (m-m) as merely the means to the ultimate aim: rewards – the psychological pay-off. The m-m is not the point of the game, it is a mechanism through which we are delivered pleasure, and we receive it repeatedly and continuously. We travel through the game like birds following a trail of seeds, reluctant to break off because the next treat is just one peck away.

    Finally, to meet the quote head on: does “the kind” of micro-management matter? From my experience of other m-m games I can’t say that it does. It seems to me that the key is to provide a player with a few clearly defined responsibilities with regular, tangible outcomes. With Civ5, like many others, I tend NOT to perform many of the management operation on offer simply because their outcomes are not tangible. We are left asking the question, “What was the point of doing that?”

    And what is the point? To ask that question leads to accusations of ignorance. I have seen many posts implying that say if you don’t like Civ5 it’s because you don’t get it – it’s your fault. To those of that opinion I would respond that, through too much game time, you have become conditioned - conditioned to believe that we are here to serve the game. Did someone say tail-wagging-dog.

    TT
     
  7. ChevalierdeJstn

    ChevalierdeJstn Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2010
    Messages:
    60
    I do not mean this request to be offensive. Obviously some significant thought went into designing this game. There are what I consider to be a lot of REALLY COOL additions and changes.

    However, obviously there are many, shall we say Prominent forum-posting Civ veterans (of which I am not one) who feel the game is broken in various ways. I have been playing Civ incarnations since the very beginning (I recall fun times hiding out in the computer lab during lunch, playing succession games with the junior high CS teacher and the MathCounts team).

    Given this past knowledge, there are certain fun gameplay aspects I expect from a Civ game. These are summed up by the "Just one more turn" addiction which has been explained at length by others. These seem to be lacking here. In fact the ONLY reason I still start new Civ 5 games is it's a challenge to try to find a way to play that is actually fun, and I like new challenges. For a while. It's going to lose it's lustre pretty quickly however if it appears there is no solution to the problem.

    I'm not even a particularly dedicated Civ veteran, I generally play Civ 4 on Monarch and am happy to win most of the time and not get completely hosed by a bad decision here and there. Certainly I could up the Civ 5 difficulty to Immortal and let the AI cheat even more, but just upping the game difficulty doesn't make the game more fun at the core.

    So, OK, fine. I paid $50+ for this thing and I would like to get some fun playtime out of it. It appears obvious that this is not like the old Civ games I am used to. My question is, How am I supposed to play this game? What is the "intended" playstyle? What sorts of "exploits" should I ignore in order to approach the type of game the developers had in mind? I trust Firaxis to the extent that I doubt they'd release something they knew wasn't going to be fun for anybody. So what was intended? Don't early rush? Don't ICS? Don't abuse Maritime CS? Don't raze? If I do this, the game turns into a tediously long, slow, slog of waiting for Courthouses to build in annexed cities (I don't see how puppets are viable long-term without TP spamming.) Or just sitting around hitting "End Turn" while my 3 or 4 core cities grow culture and tech through the chart. Which...is boring. And not fun.

    So, I'm willing to keep an open mind and try something new. My guess is most of the other dissatisfied folks posting here are as well. We would, after all, like to get our money's worth. Open plea for help - please enlighten us. Those of you who have fun playing this game (more fun than playing a previous version that is) - how do you play?
     
  8. Balderstrom

    Balderstrom Emperor

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2007
    Messages:
    1,141
    Location:
    Halifax, NS, Canada
    Lot of good points here, that seem more reasoned/reasonable than some of the other Civ5 'complaint' threads. I'll just quote myself, as I posted in a NEWS article comment section thats somewhat disconnected from the general forum discussions.
     
  9. SewerStarFish

    SewerStarFish King

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2002
    Messages:
    810
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Reading, Pa., USA
    Octagons don't fit together, there'd be a square on the diagonal axes.
     
  10. Balderstrom

    Balderstrom Emperor

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2007
    Messages:
    1,141
    Location:
    Halifax, NS, Canada
  11. Öjevind Lång

    Öjevind Lång Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2005
    Messages:
    2,371
    As for puppet cities, they are now, after the patch, geared to produce gold for you, and not to build such things as barracks which only add to your economic costs. They are quite good to have now.

    As for having fun playing Civ V - I simply do, despite the bugs and imbalances. When I first played it, I liked it; then I became bored; then I realized that although one can win Civ V by playing it as if it were Civ IV, that means boredom. Perhaps they should have introduced more things that punish people who employ the old stratagems from Civ IV. Basically, you learn how to play the game and enjoy doing so by playing it and gradually realizing what is actually going on.

    I enjoyed Civ IV immensely, but I enjoy this game too; and I believe I'll get more fun out of it in the long run.
     

Share This Page