I think i know, Civ5 is the first Civ game that is about NOT building instead of building. Don't build troops since support is so high, don't build buildings because support is too high, don't build roads because.... yada yada yada
I like Civ 5, because it's different in a good way.
Don't really have much else to say, but I'll say that I don't understand where people come from when they say it's a fail.
It is well-known that Civ 5 has significant economy and balance problems. It is also well-known that previous Civ games had significant balance problems until corrected by not just one, but multiple patches. It is also well-known that previous Civ games, most notably Civ 4, were significantly improved by later expansions.
Given these three widely known pieces of knowledge, I don't understand what the point of continually starting new topics on this same subject is.
Civ 5 will be correctly tweaked to make game decisions more meaningful, or it won't be. Until at least three patches come out, threads which complain without pointing out specific problems and/or proposing specific solutions aren't adding anything to the discussion.
In a few months, if things haven't improved, I fully endorse letting Firaxis have it. Until then, I think it's best to either be specific, or stop complaining.
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.Everyone's complaint is that Civ V is not Civ IV, but if I wanted to play Civ IV I would play Civ IV.
That's a nice succinct way of put it. It's fine with me as well.Until then, to me, it's just Civ trying to do something different. Which is fine with me.
Ah, expectation - the root cause of many an angry thread on gaming forums.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.
why were you hooked on Civ 2/3/4 in a few minutes but still left cold by Civ 5 after a few days.
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.
Ah, expectation - the root cause of many an angry thread on gaming forums.
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.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 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.
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.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.
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).