Civiliopedia gone horribly wrong..

PanicX

Chieftain
Joined
Dec 30, 2001
Messages
34
Location
VA, USA
O.K. Here it goes.. I would like to start with saying that despite it's shortcomings, I actually do enjoy the game, but being a long time fan I just couldn't stay silent with what they have (haven't!!) done with the civilopedia. I follow the forum quite regularly, and haven't seen a topic devoted to this; if there was one already, please excuse the redundancy.

The problem is: Civilopedia is in wikipedia's terms full of stub articles & the interface is just not as useful as it used to be!! As a side effect of this I never ever use the civilopedia, and I utilized it quite often up until this game.

Example 1: Notice how the tech is summarized when you hover over in Civ4..In Civ5 only 'biology is displayed. Also Civ4 lists all the units that use oil.. No such thing in Civ5.. Also take not of the color coded text. Again nothing in civ 5!
Spoiler :






Example 2: Now let's compare the gunships. Civ5 doesn't care to list the promotions, but both list the stats etc. Also both mention added bonus vs armored/tank units. Of course the civ 5 doesn't tell you when you hover over it.. See example 3 to see what happen when you click the bonus vs tank button.
Spoiler :






Example 3: Are you kidding me?!?! The explanation under bonus vs. tank is "bonus vs tank"...:dubious: No *** Sherlock!! This new civilopedia just pisses me off! :wallbash:

Spoiler :






The show could go on but I have to give it a rest for now. I'm sure there are many other fellow civvers that are frustrated in a similar fashion. I know that game is bugged with other issues, but I had to point this out. If it weren't for the manual that came out before the game, I would be totally lost the first time I played it. I still have to go back and check it out for some statistical data, because it isn't in Civilopedia.. Please someone explain to me, how is this streamlining if I'm doing extra work to get to simple information?

And the worst part is, since it's not a 'bug', I don't see this getting fixed any time soon. I just can't believe how they killed the great encyclopedia of the game :(

P.S. I was going to recommend starting a list of ridiculous articles of civilopedia to draw some attention, but the length of the list would be overwhelming. This feature clearly needs a complete overhaul.
 

AlpsStranger

Jump jump on the tiger!
Joined
Feb 8, 2009
Messages
5,820
We definitely need a Sevopedia type thing for Civ5. Not sure if it can be done with the tools available at the moment.
 

PawelS

Ancient Druid
Joined
Dec 11, 2003
Messages
2,809
Location
Poland
Yes, some improvements are needed, like information in tooltips and, for example, yields from improved resources.
 

Rohili

King
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
727
It is very clear that the Civilopedia was a rush job. My main peeve is the lack of internal linking between articles (like Wikipedia). This was present in previous Civs and made it much easier to navigate the Civilopedia.
 

Sonereal

♫We got the guillotine♫
Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2008
Messages
14,921
Not to mention that you can't access it from the main menu...

The my biggest pet peeve to be honest. Yeah, things like the vague "Bonus vs. Tanks" sorta bugs me but in CivIV, I almost always went straight to the Pedia whenver I booted up the game just to read something.
 

PawelS

Ancient Druid
Joined
Dec 11, 2003
Messages
2,809
Location
Poland
I agree about the start menu, when I'm modding the game and need to check something in civilopedia, I have to start a game :(
 

PanicX

Chieftain
Joined
Dec 30, 2001
Messages
34
Location
VA, USA
The my biggest pet peeve to be honest. Yeah, things like the vague "Bonus vs. Tanks" sorta bugs me but in CivIV, I almost always went straight to the Pedia whenver I booted up the game just to read something.

Yep, used to do the same thing.. But honestly if I were the decision maker, I would keep the link to such a mess of civilopedia as far away from the main menu as possible. The developers have done it right in that respect :)
 

E66man

Warlord
Joined
Oct 21, 2010
Messages
209
I couldn't agree more. I don't think it goes far enough to say this is the worst-written one in the entire series since I still think that gives it too much credit.

The 'pedia has usually always been so well done that I've never needed the manual, however, in this version not only is the manual needed, but it is no help either! I can't find any information in there simply stating that road are +1 gold/tile and railroads +2. All you get is the unhelpful "roads and railroads cost maintenance".

For another laugh, read the 'Diplomacy' entry in the 'pedia. It goes on to describe the things you can do in an abstract manner and then gives no follow-on articles on how to do these things. There isn't even a mention of the Pact of Secrecy or Pact of Cooperation.

The final insult for me is that one of the Steam Achievements requires you to 'read' 500 of these worthless 'pedia articles... an achievement which is, of course, bugged and doesn't work.
 

Omega124

Challenging Fate
Joined
Nov 1, 2008
Messages
7,085
Location
Albany, New York
Also, there's a huge historical misconception on America's page that really bugs me. Apparently, we lost Korea. One whom is uneducated in the war might get that opinion, due to the eventual stalemate by the end of the war. However, forgetting that the end was aStalemate, not a crushing defeat (like Vietnam), you have to realize UN Resolution 84, the war plan of all nations on the South Korean side (Including America), only mandated that we defend South Korea. It said nothing about a counter-attack. In fact, the original push into North Korea was never ordered by Truman or the UN. It was MacArthur's own choice to counter-attack, being his renegade self.
 

Sonereal

♫We got the guillotine♫
Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2008
Messages
14,921
Wait, it said we lost Korea? I should check that out.

Since when is achieving war aims a defeat? Vietnam and 1812 are wars where we didn't achieve our goals and lost.

MacArthur, guy who got fired for advocating we start WW3. :lol:
 

Wardancing

Warlord
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
162
Detailed manuals are hard to come by these days, printed or coded. Maybe this is just more the direction they aimed for. If the target audience isnt expected to read it, why bother?

RTFM anyone?
 

Varanid

Warlord
Joined
Oct 28, 2010
Messages
180
Location
Texas
I hate the new Civilopedia. It's probably th3e part of the game that pisses me off the most TBH. It isn't as "core" but jeez, it's just...bad
 

GKling

Chieftain
Joined
Oct 27, 2005
Messages
54
You don’t need the civilopedia to understand the bonus for gunship vs. tank. The icon for the bonus is very self explanatory – a yellow triangle. You know, the same icon for almost every other promotion in the game. Duh? How hard is it to figure out? ;)
 

Omega124

Challenging Fate
Joined
Nov 1, 2008
Messages
7,085
Location
Albany, New York
Vietnam and 1812 are wars where we didn't achieve our goals and lost.

Well, 1812 is highly debatable. We stopped impresment, which was a huge factor of starting the war. We embarresed Britian in New Orleans, even if that battle was literally just a waste of lives (The war was freaking over by then!). Baltimore was also a biggie. Sure, we loss Canada and D.C. burned to the ground, The Era of Good Feelings kicked in after the war. So, in a way, we won, but we also lost. I'd call it a draw, personally. But grass grows, birds fly, sun shines, and we lost Vietnam.
 

lschnarch

Emperor
Joined
Oct 7, 2010
Messages
1,296
Unfortunately, the pedia is a good example of their visual design philosophy:
Use much of the screen, have big icons, don't reveal information.

Has anybody ever read the article about citadels? :lol:
 

AlpsStranger

Jump jump on the tiger!
Joined
Feb 8, 2009
Messages
5,820
Unfortunately, the pedia is a good example of their visual design philosophy:
Use much of the screen, have big icons, don't reveal information.

Has anybody ever read the article about citadels? :lol:

Wow, I hadn't even looked at that. It really is awful :crazyeye: I love how it contains absolutely no actual information.

The 'flavor text' reminds me of grade school assignments that I did without doing any research the night before they were due.
 

PieceOfMind

Drill IV Defender
Retired Moderator
Joined
Jan 15, 2006
Messages
9,319
Location
Australia
Pedia pages like the one in example 3 of the OP are pretty much why I stopped using the civilopedia at all. (Oh, and also because it can't be accessed from main menu - that's something that modders undoubtedly are disappointed with)

My pet peeve with it (and the interface in general) is the coloured triangles that need to be hovered over to reveal information, and even the hover information is usually not specific enough to be actually useful.
 
Top Bottom