CIV 5 the worst letdown in PC gaming, ever.

[JLoZeppeli]

I am fairly sure you are a second language speaker so I'm certainly not going to pick on you for it, but I have no idea what about 66% of that meant.

I do get 'explain it clearly' and so I will.

You say that if you can't beat the game on King after some games Civ5 isn't for you. Objectively speaking this may hold some truth. The AI is fairly stupid in Civ5 and the few advantages it enjoys on King really don't make it that strong. Someone who genuinely gives it their best and can't win on Prince is probably not the most skilled Civ5 player. That does not, however, mean they should give up.

It was the attitude that I disliked. The only point I was making was that some people don't play purely to climb the difficulty ladder using a well-worn strategy. Many people I know like to try a wide range of strategies at the "flat" skill level (Noble on Civ4, Prince on Civ5, etc) and aren't particularly interested in climbing the ladder by some kind of double-backflip axe-rush nonsense.

I honestly haven't played a Civ5 game above prince yet because the game is in such rough shape that it isn't worth it. I'll just be using my cavalry to capture even more front-line AI archers. While I have only, technically, won once on Prince the sad truth is that I usually pull so far ahead of the AI in the first couple hundred turns that I get bored and play Civ4. The one win I did get on Prince was, as you indicate, pathetically easy. Once the game is in better shape I have every intention of trying to get as high on the skill ladder as I can.

All I am saying, at the end of the day, is that struggling players should be given tips and encouragement. More players playing Civ at higher levels is nothing but a boon to the series as a whole. Nobody should tell struggling Civ players to go play Starcraft. Please try to *help* people that don't get it right away instead of dismissing them and directing their business to other sub-genres.

TL;DR: Yes, the game is ridiculously easy on King or lower. Don't be a dick to people that are struggling because they might become good players if they are encouraged.

Excuse me i'm working so i can't ensure the best grammar or syntax writing so fast, and i'm italian....

Don't worry, nothing changes on Emperor... I'm not picking on the weaks, but i think that becoming a good player on Civ V is terribly easy, like my father did (a man over 65)... S if you struggle on Prince, it's quite sure that in multi player you'll be crushed by someone with Civ IV Prince level capably, annihilated by any one above that...

So what i'm telling you is that, if you have these problems winning, maybe enthusiastic claims of greatness about civ V are a little overboard, do you not think?

 

[AlpsStranger]

Excuse me i'm working so i can't ensure the best grammar or syntax writing so fast, and i'm italian....

Don't worry, nothing changes on Emperor... I'm not picking on the weaks, but i think that becoming a good player on Civ V is terribly easy, like my father did (a man over 65)... S if you struggle on Prince, it's quite sure that in multi player you'll be crushed by someone with Civ IV Prince level capably, annihilated by any one above that...

So what i'm telling you is that, if you have these problems winning, maybe enthusiastic claims of greatness about civ V are a little overboard, do you not think?

Let me boil down what I meant. I probably 'won' virtually all of the games I played on Prince. I did not 'confirm' the wins because I pulled so far ahead of the AI so quickly that it became boring and I quit. I would then go play Civ4 instead of finishing that game. I only played all the way through a single game and winning was so easy a caveman could do it.

I feel that due to the language barrier you think I am saying that I, personally, struggle to play the game on Prince. I don't want you to think I am that stupid, frankly

No hard feelings and may life treat you well

 

[Pantastic]

I think most people or just venting their disappointment, trying to get it out of one's system. It might not be the best way to deal with it, but people do it and a fansite is one of the more appropriate places to do so. Imho, it's a bit like your favorite pub after some recent event caused a lot of dissatisfaction.

No, it's much more like deciding that you don't like running model trains, then going to a model train club and whining about how much model trains suck and how the latest train release is the worst ever. Whenever people try to discuss setting up a new kind of track, you jump in and talk about how much you hate the way you set up track. If someone is trying to decide which building to put in their station, you jump in and let them know that you hate all of the buildings.

It would be appropriate to discuss aspects of the game that you don't like in appropriate context. It is not appropriate to go 'venting' in multiple threads and to hijack threads about playing the game with your venting and complaining.

 

[JLoZeppeli]

Ah ok, but i can say that you is not specifically referred to your person, it's more related to the players stating that the game is great and in the meantime they don' t manage to win on Prince level...

May the force be with you...

Cheers

 

[AlpsStranger]

Ah ok, but i can say that you is not specifically referred to your person, it's more related to the players stating that the game is great and in the meantime they don' t manage to win on Prince level...

May the force be with you...

Cheers

Ah, the Ubiquitous You, as a close friend of mine is fond of saying. Language barriers can be a pain, but I'm sure your English is far better than my Italian

Moderator Action: As a reminder, swearing is not allowed, if your post triggers the autocensor, please go back and edit it. Thanks.

 

[Narn]

yea I did that, changed the zero to a one, but it made my game crash so had to change it back



no idea what Moo3 or outpost are, so your arguement is invalid. CIV 5 winner, of worst letdown in PC gaming history

but i myself and others know what moo3 is so that argument isnt invalid. and i agree with him too

 

[sosueme]

I don't know about lefties, but it was left out because of PC and out of the wish to spread players base, I guess.
I am truly agnostic, but was appalled when read pre-game announcements about expulsion of religion from CivV.

Religion was broken badly in IV. It made diplomacy a joke and was economically unbalanced. There are still temples and other religious buildings, the player can pretend that their civ follows the religion of their choice if they really want to. None of the religions in IV were distinct from each other than in name anyway.

 

[AlpsStranger]

Religion was broken badly in IV. It made diplomacy a joke and was economically unbalanced. There are still temples and other religious buildings, the player can pretend that their civ follows the religion of their choice if they really want to. None of the religions in IV were distinct from each other than in name anyway.

This is just bogus. I may be a Civ5 optimist but I can't abide this kind of mindless bashing of Civ4 for much longer. Religion was not perfect but it was a very interesting part of Civ4 that I hope returns in an expansion in Civ5.

I may have to leave the Civ5 camp altogether if my fellow enthusiasts keeps insisting on dragging Civ4 through the mud with this crap.

 

[taylor_cu]

You clearly did not play Spore. Civ5 is a thousand times better in every way.

You seem pretty green ne? (i didn´t say the commom adjetive )

 

[sosueme]

This is just bogus. I may be a Civ5 optimist but I can't abide this kind of mindless bashing of Civ4 for much longer. Religion was not perfect but it was a very interesting part of Civ4 that I hope returns in an expansion in Civ5.

I may have to leave the Civ5 camp altogether if my fellow enthusiasts keeps insisting on dragging Civ4 through the mud with this crap.

I liked Civ 4 too, but knowing that Spain and I would be buddies for everything that happened before free religion as long as we shared a "faith" was kind of lame, as was knowing that we were going to butt heads no matter what if we had a different faith. That one small difference took all control over your relationship with certain civs completely out of the player's hands. Founding an early religion + a great prophet meant being able to ignore a lot of the economy during the expansion period of the game.

 

[Guardian_PL]

I think it was mentioned, but, FALLOUT 3, FALLOUT 3, FALLOUT 3, FALLOUT 3, FALLOUT 3!

Nothing will ever disappoint quite like that.

Wooow, that's a strong point. Very scary strong. At least with Civ5 I can wait for the patches/expansions/mods, with Failout 3 I knew straight away that it's game over - thank goodness I didn't buy that product!

Thanks Threedog, that cheered me up a bit actually


EDIT

Yeah, religion in Civ4 was interesting and added to the overall experience. To me it was great but I acknowledge that other civvers might not like it. But at least it WAS there.

 

[Psyringe]

No, it's much more like deciding that you don't like running model trains, then going to a model train club and whining about how much model trains suck and how the latest train release is the worst ever.

The thing is, most people who visit this model train club do like model trains. That's why they're there. They are just underwhelmed by the last product of their favorite model train producer. So the model train club is the logical place to talk about their respective feelings and thoughts.

Whenever people try to discuss setting up a new kind of track, you jump in and talk about how much you hate the way you set up track. If someone is trying to decide which building to put in their station, you jump in and let them know that you hate all of the buildings.
(...)
It is not appropriate to go 'venting' in multiple threads and to hijack threads about playing the game with your venting and complaining.

I think you're leaving the basis of constructive discussion here. Could you please show me which threads I hijacked before making such baseless accusations?

Some hours ago, you accused me (quite out of the blue) of "glossing over" arguments while I was actually addressing them (whereas you didn't address a single one of mine). Now you're accusing me of hijacking threads and writing hate posts. I don't know what you're trying to achieve with these personal attacks, but I kindly suggest to take a step back and re-evaluate your approach.

Reading such lines from someone who tries to tell others how to behave is not without irony, imho.

 

[smileylad]

I think it was mentioned, but, FALLOUT 3, FALLOUT 3, FALLOUT 3, FALLOUT 3, FALLOUT 3!

Nothing will ever disappoint quite like that.

Nope!

 

[danisans]

I think it was mentioned, but, FALLOUT 3, FALLOUT 3, FALLOUT 3, FALLOUT 3, FALLOUT 3!

Nothing will ever disappoint quite like that.

Fallout 3 was a huge disappointment for me too. But I still play the game. It isn't broken or bad. Hoping Fallout Las Vegas can bring back the depth and charm of Fallout I and II, but I won't be buying it until all the reviews are in (and then probably not until it is reduced in price).

Medieval Total War I and II on the other hand was for me a failure. Good game for the first 90% of the moves, then finding it a frustrating pile of crap as every end game ended up having all the countries declaring war on me, the Pope resurecting out of nowhere to declare a Holy war against me, the Mongol Hordes, the Pest and every possible natural disaster hitting me at once, with all my Kings ending up drunken imbeciles or psychopaths with most of my states rebelling against me with hordes of pissed off peasants. Frustrating to be a 30 moves away from winning the game and suddenly seeing your whole empire crumble time and time again. Just gave up on the game altogether. And the real-time battles are fun at first, but after a while you end up pressing the Auto-Resolve button way too often because it just gets boring and predictable.

I just hope I won't start feeling the same way about Civ V at the end of the month.

 

[NKVD1938]

I know it is a bit of an obscure title, but Hearts of Iron III was my worst letdown in gaming history. I remember when the demo came out and Paradox had two threads - positive feedback and negative feedback. But the negative feedback thread quickly outran the positive one by a factor of 20-1 before it magically disappeared. And that was the high point for that game.

I really don't understand why such hostility to Civ V. Is it perfect? God no. But rather than whining and posting 8,000 versions of the same thread and going to the "worst ever" card you haters should try to give these guys a chance to improve it with patches.

I already think the mod community has solved one of the main problems Sulla identified (resource yields and whatnot.) With some AI and diplo improvements I think this game will be just fine. I am at least willing to have a little patience and withhold judgment two weeks into the release.

 

[Flay]

Einstein: e=mc^2

hussar: No idea what e or mc^2 are, so your argument is invalid.

HAHAHAHA

I laugh on first page not bad !!!
Thanks

 

[zonk]

but i myself and others know what moo3 is so that argument isnt invalid. and i agree with him too

Yeah - V isn't MOO3 (and I wasn't really a huge Orion player)... though, I do think it's worth noting that as I recall, the biggest complaints about MoO3 were:

• Utterly incapable AI
• Removal of previous iteration features
• Prevalence of boring 'NEXT TURN' - both due to a loss of a lot of the previous iteration micromanagement that people liked, but in MoO3's defense, also because they got a lot of the automations "too right".
• Awful diplomacy

Eerily similar to a lot of the Civ V complaints --- V reviews were a lot better, but then -- V has far fewer crashes and gamebreaking bugs than Moo3.

The only 'missing ingredients' from V to form a perfect storm Moo3 debacle would be that 1) There are already patches being slated, whereas moo3's support and patching was pretty much 'too bad, so sad'; 2)IIRC, Moo3 actually didn't have a number of the new features they had promised during the hype.... whereas V, I think, did deliver the "things" they promised to deliver... just not well.

 

[Rylune]

Spore, Startrek Online, MOO3, Hellgate: London, Empire: Total War, Two Worlds, LotR: Conquest, Neverwinter Nights 2, Overlord, Age of Conan.

Well, there's 10 right off the top of my head that were hyped and worse than CiV. I could probably research for 20 minutes and double that list.

I actually quite enjoy CiV, but it does need some tweaks and fixes and the AI needs an overhaul. But I would hardly call it a letdown, let alone the worst letdown ever. But hey, people want to post something impactful as their thread title to evoke emotional responses and to appear revolutionary.

I enjoyed NWN2, especially after it was patched to be more stable.

And Age of Conan was a decent game at release... and then they started "fixing" it. How do you put in a temporary fix for missing drops... that crash an entire zone whenever they drop and not catch that in testing? And once they got a new person in charge that game became pretty good. Unfortunately you only get 1 chance in the MMO business nowadays to be a success.

To me the biggest letdowns were:

Shadowbane. I loved playing the game. But the crashing, the duping, etc. It was a cool game that needed fixes and just didn't get them in time.

Warhammer Online (aka World of Warhammer to my friends): Mythic managed to make a game that had terrible PvE but an amazing group based PvP system and use aspects of that and WoW to make WAR. Which was a game whose PvE was even worse (random drops + lockouts? I'd rather do Trials of Atlantis any day) and the RvR was not fun. They took everything they learned from Dark Age of Camelot, a game that turned a fairly small and no name company into one that managed to at one point have about 300k subscribers back when that was huge, and made the exact same mistakes that killed that game... only they made them far worse.

And a more subtle one. Dawn of War 2. It's not that the game was all that bad. But taking away the macro side of an RTS game annoys me. Taking away the ability to build buildings made it seem a little too 1 dimensional. Maybe I've been spoiled by playing Brood War (and now SC2) but I was expecting a shinier version of DoW with an equally cool campaign. It just felt less like an RTS and more like an FPS with squads rather than 1 guy. Some people may like that, but it was not what I was expecting. It also didn't help that the race I wanted to play was Tyranid and they were insanely overpowered at release.

FFXIV sounds like it is in the same boat. I've been looking forward to a new Final Fantasy MMO ever since I stopped playing FFXI. But friends in the beta warned me about it. With all of the negative reviews I'm hearing, I am glad they warned me.

CiV has issues, tons of them. They have definitely had a disappointing release. But I think they can fix the game in time mainly since strategy gamers are a bit more patient than MMO gamers. Civ IV took time to get where it is. Or something that I always have to remind SC2 players (you know... the ones constantly whining about balance) that Starcraft and Brood War took time. Sometimes you have to be patient. Hopefully with CiV, patience pays off and the game improves drastically. Either that or Kael finds time to either write a FFH style game or helps someone else to get one up and running.

 

[zonk]

I know it is a bit of an obscure title, but Hearts of Iron III was my worst letdown in gaming history. I remember when the demo came out and Paradox had two threads - positive feedback and negative feedback. But the negative feedback thread quickly outran the positive one by a factor of 20-1 before it magically disappeared. And that was the high point for that game.

I really don't understand why such hostility to Civ V. Is it perfect? God no. But rather than whining and posting 8,000 versions of the same thread and going to the "worst ever" card you haters should try to give these guys a chance to improve it with patches.

I already think the mod community has solved one of the main problems Sulla identified (resource yields and whatnot.) With some AI and diplo improvements I think this game will be just fine. I am at least willing to have a little patience and withhold judgment two weeks into the release.

Heh... I'm one of the few that "likes" Hoi3 -- though, even as a defender of it, I'll readily admit that the Semper Fi expansion was a shameless "patch for purchase" -- truly a "shame on you" moment for Paradox.

Personally, the biggest complaint people have about III was what I found most challenging -- the logistics and supply issues. As puzzling and frustrating as they were/still are to some extent -- I felt they were precisely the right "check" to make it truly a WWII sim and eliminate the silly "can you conquer the world as Italy" gameplay of II.

 

[Flay]

I didn't play any mod with MOO and do not even remember if it was any.
I will agree that Civ5 is for me the worst letdown in Pcgames history and this is why:

I played since Civ the first, and always anjoyed the game, som new stuff in III but I liked it after all.
IV was buggy at start but the improvment were there, and the game got patched fairly fast ( maybe my memory is generous ?).
Than I begin to play MP game allmost only, than came ROM, than AND, than I didn't play single player at all anymore only to test the new version of ROM/AND than play MP games with friends for many night in a row.

So I was expecting Civ5 to be great, it was easy to do so :
take the best from the MODS add better graphics, improve everything without taking away anything !!!, get the Hexes, BIgger maps, Improve MP stability, and well everybody would have been happy !

But no the Dev had other ideas . . . and the CRAP is born.

(When I asked my father(64ya) what he think about Civ5 he replied: well it's make me think of those small game I download from Orange it's funny but fast boring . . . )

I was dreaming of plenty UU like 5 to 10 per civ, realistic diplomacy, bigger citys that grow over many hexes, realistic movement where a modern ship do not need YEARS to go around the globe, I was dreaming of so much, realistic title improvment, realistic resources, but well I guess I must go back dreaming cause this is not happening, insteed we got a small funny game where we can move units around with no deph at all.

Yes when you are an all time Civ5 this is the worst letdown in PCgame ever In My Hopinion Only . . .
But I agree with the moderators as well, keep it polite, after all it's noones in this forum fault, and I can insure you I want to scream loud and clear what I mean about this peace of . . . software.