Tiberias
Chieftain
I am, as many of you here (if not most of you), a long-time Civ player, having played since Civ 1, through Civ II, Civ III, Civ IV, Master of Magic, Alpha Centauri, and Colonization. But I have serious doubts about Civ V, and it may be the first of the Civ series that I do not pick up. I realize that the game is not yet out, but most of what I have seen so far is not encouraging. My issues, in no particular order:
Combat: It's a tactical system shoehorned into a strategic game. I don't know what else to say about it, other than that it's a terrible mistake, and this is likely the game-breaker for me. I can tolerate a lot, but I cannot tolerate archers who can shoot arrows 500 miles, and one-unit-per-250-miles stacking limits. It demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of even the most basic principles of warfare on the part of the game designers.
Same Winning Strategy as Ever: Amass Land, Amass Population, Fast-Tech to Game-Breaking Military Unit, Amass Military Units, Faceroll Enemy (don't think so? read the Gamespot hands-on.) I realize that this is the "classic" approach to Civilization and it would be borderline heresy to remove it from the game, but with now five major titles and a number of subsidiary titles having come along, nobody seems to have ever asked the question of why this approach does not seem to reflect history. I realize the game is not supposed to be entirely realistic, but it is supposed to capture the flavor of history, and this simply does not capture the flavor of anything except a mathematical simulation that shows no understanding of history.
Plus, it's really, really boring.
The "if it ain't broke don't fix it" Mentality: Some point after the release of Alpha Centauri, Sid & Co. had a decision to make: stick with "classic" gameplay for Civilization and move in very small increments, or go with a radical, AC-style overhaul of the entire system, with a host of innovations and risky new features. They chose the former, and while this iteration introduces a few features that should have been introduced a long, long time ago (e.g. hexagons--squares should have been phased out with patch 1.01 to Civ 1, IMO), it's still the gradually-and-carefully let's-not-upset-the-traditional-players approach. Not only are innovative features introduced in a very limited way, but it is perfectly clear that they are very much "on probation" and liable to be removed at any time should they prove disruptive to "classic" gameplay (nice knowing you, Religion!)
Target Audience and Design Philosophy: Along the same lines, there seems to be a marketing difficulty at the heart of all of this: Firaxis knows that its core audience is the "die-hards", but at the same time, the conundrum is, why would the long-time Civ players bother buying the new version when they are perfectly content with the old one? The current approach seems to be to offer new versions that are mostly graphic overhauls of the older versions, but with some highly demanded changes (e.g., new Civs) and a few innovative features that tinker with the gameplay, but not by too much.
There seems to be a desire to attract a new audience, but let's be honest: that's not going to happen until Firaxis completely redesigns the game (hint: massively multi-player web games have very large audiences of new players, despite abysmal graphics and unbelievably atrocious gameplay; I wonder if they might be on to something that the old-school RTS game designers have not yet figured out?) But they can't redesign the game without risking the wrath of their core audience; so it is more muddling through with a few changes here and there and shiny new graphics, but essentially unchanged gameplay.
Graphic Requirements: I am reasonably confident my system can handle the game, but that's not the point. Firaxis doesn't seem to realize that for the vast majority of strategic gamers, graphics are not first on the priority list. This is not the FPS crowd that has to have shiny objects and loud explosions to even consider a game. This is a turn-based strategic game, it's highly unlikely to attract new gamers outside of its core niche (sorry, but that's the brutal truth.) So why the heavy emphasis on new graphics that is likely to turn away more customers (whose systems are not up to speed) than it attracts?
Lack of Insight: One thing I have always hoped for with the Civilization series is that it would use its system to explore interesting and complex features of human civilization. To be blunt, I just don't think it's ever gotten there, and I don't think this iteration is getting any closer.
The "Great Wonders" are a classic example of the way the game is designed: recognizable icons taken from history, with game effects that have very obviously been tacked on after the fact to make them significant. There is little to no insight, and nothing resembling any exploration of difficult and complex issues.
Take the Pyramids: there is absolutely no connection between the Great Pyramids and granaries, or between the Great Pyramids and choice of government, or whatever effect they will have in Civ 5, which really could be anything, because it obviously doesn't matter. Nobody on the design team has sat down and asked the serious question: what do the Great Pyramids represent? Why were they built? What impact did they have, and what do they say about the society that built them? Instead, the mindset seems to be: "Umm, the Great Pyramids are always in history books, so we better have them in the game, but what effect should they have? They're early game, so we can have them act as, oh, I don't know, like maybe a temple or a granary in every city . . . [flips coin] . . . let's say a granary."
It's an opportunity missed, and an opportunity missed over and over. A counter-example may also be helpful: the economic model from Colonization. It's not a perfect model, but in playing the game, you came to genuinely understand some of the fundamentals of the colonies' economic model; there were some genuine insights into history regarding the importance of specialization, investment in production vs cash exports, etc. Which brings me to my last point . . .
Trade: How many iterations of Civ now, and there is still no compelling game system for handling what is arguably as important a factor in world history as technology and warfare. I've been waiting for an interesting and engaging world trade system (and no, I don't mean just swapping gold coins with an ally, or sending one caravan and the money magically flows), but I suspect I will be waiting indefinitely.
That's enough complaining for one day, so I'll leave it at that. Suffice it to say, I think that Civ 5 will be in my bargain bin only category, which is a real shame (and even then, the combat system may result in a rage uninstall.)
Combat: It's a tactical system shoehorned into a strategic game. I don't know what else to say about it, other than that it's a terrible mistake, and this is likely the game-breaker for me. I can tolerate a lot, but I cannot tolerate archers who can shoot arrows 500 miles, and one-unit-per-250-miles stacking limits. It demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of even the most basic principles of warfare on the part of the game designers.
Same Winning Strategy as Ever: Amass Land, Amass Population, Fast-Tech to Game-Breaking Military Unit, Amass Military Units, Faceroll Enemy (don't think so? read the Gamespot hands-on.) I realize that this is the "classic" approach to Civilization and it would be borderline heresy to remove it from the game, but with now five major titles and a number of subsidiary titles having come along, nobody seems to have ever asked the question of why this approach does not seem to reflect history. I realize the game is not supposed to be entirely realistic, but it is supposed to capture the flavor of history, and this simply does not capture the flavor of anything except a mathematical simulation that shows no understanding of history.
Plus, it's really, really boring.
The "if it ain't broke don't fix it" Mentality: Some point after the release of Alpha Centauri, Sid & Co. had a decision to make: stick with "classic" gameplay for Civilization and move in very small increments, or go with a radical, AC-style overhaul of the entire system, with a host of innovations and risky new features. They chose the former, and while this iteration introduces a few features that should have been introduced a long, long time ago (e.g. hexagons--squares should have been phased out with patch 1.01 to Civ 1, IMO), it's still the gradually-and-carefully let's-not-upset-the-traditional-players approach. Not only are innovative features introduced in a very limited way, but it is perfectly clear that they are very much "on probation" and liable to be removed at any time should they prove disruptive to "classic" gameplay (nice knowing you, Religion!)
Target Audience and Design Philosophy: Along the same lines, there seems to be a marketing difficulty at the heart of all of this: Firaxis knows that its core audience is the "die-hards", but at the same time, the conundrum is, why would the long-time Civ players bother buying the new version when they are perfectly content with the old one? The current approach seems to be to offer new versions that are mostly graphic overhauls of the older versions, but with some highly demanded changes (e.g., new Civs) and a few innovative features that tinker with the gameplay, but not by too much.
There seems to be a desire to attract a new audience, but let's be honest: that's not going to happen until Firaxis completely redesigns the game (hint: massively multi-player web games have very large audiences of new players, despite abysmal graphics and unbelievably atrocious gameplay; I wonder if they might be on to something that the old-school RTS game designers have not yet figured out?) But they can't redesign the game without risking the wrath of their core audience; so it is more muddling through with a few changes here and there and shiny new graphics, but essentially unchanged gameplay.
Graphic Requirements: I am reasonably confident my system can handle the game, but that's not the point. Firaxis doesn't seem to realize that for the vast majority of strategic gamers, graphics are not first on the priority list. This is not the FPS crowd that has to have shiny objects and loud explosions to even consider a game. This is a turn-based strategic game, it's highly unlikely to attract new gamers outside of its core niche (sorry, but that's the brutal truth.) So why the heavy emphasis on new graphics that is likely to turn away more customers (whose systems are not up to speed) than it attracts?
Lack of Insight: One thing I have always hoped for with the Civilization series is that it would use its system to explore interesting and complex features of human civilization. To be blunt, I just don't think it's ever gotten there, and I don't think this iteration is getting any closer.
The "Great Wonders" are a classic example of the way the game is designed: recognizable icons taken from history, with game effects that have very obviously been tacked on after the fact to make them significant. There is little to no insight, and nothing resembling any exploration of difficult and complex issues.
Take the Pyramids: there is absolutely no connection between the Great Pyramids and granaries, or between the Great Pyramids and choice of government, or whatever effect they will have in Civ 5, which really could be anything, because it obviously doesn't matter. Nobody on the design team has sat down and asked the serious question: what do the Great Pyramids represent? Why were they built? What impact did they have, and what do they say about the society that built them? Instead, the mindset seems to be: "Umm, the Great Pyramids are always in history books, so we better have them in the game, but what effect should they have? They're early game, so we can have them act as, oh, I don't know, like maybe a temple or a granary in every city . . . [flips coin] . . . let's say a granary."
It's an opportunity missed, and an opportunity missed over and over. A counter-example may also be helpful: the economic model from Colonization. It's not a perfect model, but in playing the game, you came to genuinely understand some of the fundamentals of the colonies' economic model; there were some genuine insights into history regarding the importance of specialization, investment in production vs cash exports, etc. Which brings me to my last point . . .
Trade: How many iterations of Civ now, and there is still no compelling game system for handling what is arguably as important a factor in world history as technology and warfare. I've been waiting for an interesting and engaging world trade system (and no, I don't mean just swapping gold coins with an ally, or sending one caravan and the money magically flows), but I suspect I will be waiting indefinitely.
That's enough complaining for one day, so I'll leave it at that. Suffice it to say, I think that Civ 5 will be in my bargain bin only category, which is a real shame (and even then, the combat system may result in a rage uninstall.)
