Civ V on its own merits

franlato

Warlord
Joined
Oct 27, 2005
Messages
134
Like almost all people here, i've played every civilization game from the first hour to the release of the next game (including the one that were not made by sid's)

I've been listening to playthrough and reading many opinions. And I must say, i've been reading some fair criticism that I hope firaxis listen to. But in all honesty, there some unfair things going on too.

My first experience of Civ IV was one of unbalance, broken game. At the time, I had a radeon graphic card and the game was flickering and had dificulties running at all. So it's to my great delight that at least, this game work.

Also, I think it's unfair to compare a new game with a game that's been in the making for like 7 years from the first talks to the last mod (maybe more). Not a lot of people seems to remember how crappy the Ai was in civ 4 before BETTER AI. The people who made civ 4 better are forgotten in this release. It's because of people like the ones who made better AI that, in civ 4, Ai are able to use great people or grasp how to invade. I remember full well a civ 4 where the AI wasn't able to invade nothing at all.

So, I think, as a working basis, Civ 5 is better then civ 4. I hope that people will work as much on it then on civ 4. I would love both firaxis and the mod community to work together to make this game a whole lot better.

It was my honest 2 cents

thank you
 
Agreed. Civ V is a new good new iteration of the series with some great innovations. It has some obvious bugs and AI issues that need work, but I believe they will be fixed.
 
I really wish that people would look at the underlying principles of Civ V, not it's easily-patchable flaws. It's an awesome game. It just needs fixes, like many games do right after launch.
 
It needs major AI fixes and major balance issues need to be changed. These aren't minor things.
 
It needs major AI fixes and major balance issues need to be changed. These aren't minor things.

No one ever said they were minor, merely that they are fixable. The underlying game design mechanic is good. Improvements to AI and balance can and will be made.
 
I can live with the stupid AI, but the lack of diplomacy element makes the game really dumb. I am not playing a war game, if I really want to, I will play Heart of Iron. Thanks Firaxis.
 
I don't want to contribute to a downward spiral, but why would any paying customer be ok with major "fixable" balance flaws? We cut companies too much slack these days.

Why program in any AI in the next game when they could leave it to the community modders to do their work for them post release for free. This is where things are going if we continue to issue free passes for questionable quality games (at release). Let's hope it doesn't catch on in other industries. For everything other than video games, we wouldn't find it acceptable to pay for something that's "mostly finished" with the expectation we'll need to rely on friends and neighbours to "patch it up" for us to get full value out of it.

There's a few things I like with Civ 5, and on the other hand too much I feel simplified. Ok, I can accept taking some umbrage with some of the design choices. But the balance issues and AI were either not quality tested before release, were done so very poorly, or were done as best as they could in the time they budgeted. Pretty sure it's the latter, and for that I am not happy I shelled out the money.
 
Like almost all people here, i've played every civilization game from the first hour to the release of the next game (including the one that were not made by sid's)

I've been listening to playthrough and reading many opinions. And I must say, i've been reading some fair criticism that I hope firaxis listen to. But in all honesty, there some unfair things going on too.

My first experience of Civ IV was one of unbalance, broken game. At the time, I had a radeon graphic card and the game was flickering and had dificulties running at all. So it's to my great delight that at least, this game work.

Also, I think it's unfair to compare a new game with a game that's been in the making for like 7 years from the first talks to the last mod (maybe more). Not a lot of people seems to remember how crappy the Ai was in civ 4 before BETTER AI. The people who made civ 4 better are forgotten in this release. It's because of people like the ones who made better AI that, in civ 4, Ai are able to use great people or grasp how to invade. I remember full well a civ 4 where the AI wasn't able to invade nothing at all.

So, I think, as a working basis, Civ 5 is better then civ 4. I hope that people will work as much on it then on civ 4. I would love both firaxis and the mod community to work together to make this game a whole lot better.

It was my honest 2 cents

thank you

I've played a couple hours of civ 5 each night the week it came out. I played civ 4 EVERY WAKING MOMENT the week it came out.


The weird thing is, for those of us not content and finding obvious flaws, it is so amazingly mysterious why people would value 5 over 4. Its like someone driving up in a tricycle and claiming it's better than their car. Y'know, it just needs a few patches, and a fourth wheel from an expansion.
 
I'm more pessimistic about the AI than I am about the other stuff, personally. Most of the other problems with the game are relatively easy to change in a patch or mod. AI isn't easy to program, especially in a non-deterministic game. More than any of the other issues, "fix the AI" seems easier said than done.

That said, it would be pretty easy to make it at least somewhat better than it currently is (i.e. mystifyingly bad).
 
The weird thing is, for those of us not content and finding obvious flaws, it is so amazingly mysterious why people would value 5 over 4. Its like someone driving up in a tricycle and claiming it's better than their car. Y'know, it just needs a few patches, and a fourth wheel from an expansion.

It's also mysterious why people would compare a finished production model to a newer but less polished build and ask why it's worse, despite knowing that their precious was once in the same state.
 
I can live with the stupid AI, but the lack of diplomacy element makes the game really dumb. I am not playing a war game, if I really want to, I will play Heart of Iron. Thanks Firaxis.

there's more diplomacy options in V than in IV. They took out one thing, tech trading. and added several: three different pacts, research agreements, etc.
 
It's also mysterious why people would compare a finished production model to a newer but less polished build and ask why it's worse, despite knowing that their precious was once in the same state.

I think for a lot of people, its a question of learning the lessons of history.

If Civ IV had certain problems, then the expectations is that those problems would not happen again because firaxis has learned from the experience.

When you see similar issues again, the question becomes, "Why wasn't this dealt with in pre-release, knowing that it was a problem before?"
 
there's more diplomacy options in V than in IV. They took out one thing, tech trading. and added several: three different pacts, research agreements, etc.

The people mean they want Moctezuma to demand nuclear fission for fish like in the old days. They're not worry about actual diplomatic options.
 
I think for a lot of people, its a question of learning the lessons of history.

If Civ IV had certain problems, then the expectations is that those problems would not happen again because firaxis has learned from the experience.

When you see similar issues again, the question becomes, "Why wasn't this dealt with in pre-release, knowing that it was a problem before?"

That's the reality of PC game development. Everyone's computer is different, and making a game work well on every PC in the world is impossible. It's not like console development where everyones Xbox 360 is exactly the same. All they can do is make it the best they can, and fix the problems later that they didn't know about.
 
Well if we are going on Civ V on it's own merits and forget the Civ name, I will say what I said before, it is a good game. It's not a great game though.

Even if it's not Civ, the game is slow, for me at least. It seems forever to build a building. Wonders of the World, do not have the epicness it once had, and it's not that wonderfull.

Lot of the buildings, do we really need one? Do I really need to build a granery, or library? Do I really need those advanced units? While I get attacked by Barbarians, I do not get attacked from other Civs. So what is the point of researching better units. It's like I do not need half the buildings that I can buy. They cost too much money to maintain, and I can't get rid of them. So since I can't sell them, destroy them or just plain get rid of them, what is the point of making htem, when I might not want them later on. Suffer a bit now, so I don't have to suffer later.

So going on it's own merits, Civ V is a good game. Not a great game, but a good game that dosn't have much replayability. I think it's safe to say, right now I will not be bothering with any DLC, because I do not see what the point of it is. 2K and Firaxis got enought of my money, I do not see that they need anymore from it, unless they fix my game through patches to make it more exciting. If I need to get DLC to make the game more exciting, then I will just be playing Fallout: New Veagas. While 2K will still be getting my money, Firaxis will not be anymore.

Hopefully Obsideon does a better job than Firaxis did with Civ V on it's own merits.
 
That's the reality of PC game development. Everyone's computer is different, and making a game work well on every PC in the world is impossible. It's not like console development where everyones Xbox 360 is exactly the same. All they can do is make it the best they can, and fix the problems later that they didn't know about.

Sorry that excuse dosn't cut it. That excuse was good 20 years ago, when computer games didn't have many companies making games. You would think after 20 years espically a company like Firaxis would know a thing or two.

This is not the begining of making computer games. Mistakes were made back then, we shouldn't be seeing mistakes that were made 20 years ago.

So using the excuse everyone has a different console dosn't cut it.
 
Sorry that excuse dosn't cut it. That excuse was good 20 years ago, when computer games didn't have many companies making games. You would think after 20 years espically a company like Firaxis would know a thing or two.

This is not the begining of making computer games. Mistakes were made back then, we shouldn't be seeing mistakes that were made 20 years ago.

So using the excuse everyone has a different console dosn't cut it.

It doesn't matter if it was 20 years ago or today...the problem exists. It's just realty. In a perfect world, a new PC game would work on everyone's PC and everyone would like it. But it's just not possible. If anything, it's harder today to make a game work on everyone's computers. They're so much more complex.
 
I just went and trawled through a few of the post-release pages of the Civ IV forums and my gosh, it was just like deja vu all over again. People whining about every last little thing, LOTS of complaints about graphics bugs and crashes, why this is the worst iteration ever, why civ is ruined forever, some trying to start a class action lawsuit (no, really).

Personally, I think it's a lot of fun and a solid platform for a really great game once the AI and balance get cleaned up a bit.
 
Like almost all people here, i've played every civilization game from the first hour to the release of the next game (including the one that were not made by sid's)

I've been listening to playthrough and reading many opinions. And I must say, i've been reading some fair criticism that I hope firaxis listen to. But in all honesty, there some unfair things going on too.

My first experience of Civ IV was one of unbalance, broken game. At the time, I had a radeon graphic card and the game was flickering and had dificulties running at all. So it's to my great delight that at least, this game work.

Also, I think it's unfair to compare a new game with a game that's been in the making for like 7 years from the first talks to the last mod (maybe more). Not a lot of people seems to remember how crappy the Ai was in civ 4 before BETTER AI. The people who made civ 4 better are forgotten in this release. It's because of people like the ones who made better AI that, in civ 4, Ai are able to use great people or grasp how to invade. I remember full well a civ 4 where the AI wasn't able to invade nothing at all.

So, I think, as a working basis, Civ 5 is better then civ 4. I hope that people will work as much on it then on civ 4. I would love both firaxis and the mod community to work together to make this game a whole lot better.

It was my honest 2 cents

thank you
We're expected to buy Civ5 over Civ4 and since I last checked CivIV Complete was still available at Wal-Mart. Well, CivIV has more content, is more balanced, and is better; the criticisms are valid.
 
I just went and trawled through a few of the post-release pages of the Civ IV forums and my gosh, it was just like deja vu all over again. People whining about every last little thing, LOTS of complaints about graphics bugs and crashes, why this is the worst iteration ever, why civ is ruined forever, some trying to start a class action lawsuit (no, really).

Personally, I think it's a lot of fun and a solid platform for a really great game once the AI and balance get cleaned up a bit.

this :goodjob:
 
Top Bottom