Civilization 5 Game Of The Year Edition

[Zyxpsilon]

Guys, guys.....you're reading the game title all wrong:

"Game of the year edition" just means it's the game they released last year. The game of the year.

Think of it this way... 3 months gap between DLC (with either one or two solid Civs); value for our initial purchase is climbing as long as we keep spending for supplemental features.
Comes Q4 meetings (every year, btw), businesses summarize their results in profit or loss terms.
Big voting at the conference table; CEO decides to release a GOTY or whatever else is necessary to hit the bottom line figures - cuz, he *also* doesn't want to get fired.
Project Quality=Invested work done.
No matter in how many differently packaged marketing gimmicks.
2K fired staff last summer, remember?
Their fault, not Firaxis.

 

[Zyxpsilon]

Game of the year? Polish that turd!

The idea of DLC is offensive, because we all recognize it's items deliberately withheld from the game in order to extort additional revenue. GOTY edition? Hey asshats at Firaxis, I *paid* $50 for this game that wasn't complete and bug addled, you OWE us the complete game, instead of trying to ransom it to us. Execrable behavior from a company applying console gaming models to the PC.

We saw the golden era of gaming. And we will miss it.

Not Firaxis fault...

 

[Thormodr]

Hrm... Do you think many people who have already bought the game will be buying the GOTY edition?

I had bought every single Civ product I could until Civilization 5 came along.

I still have the original boxes and Rome on 640K a day.

I probably have spend over $1000 on Civ over the years.

I am quite confident that I am not alone among long time Civ fans.

 

[Thormodr]

Not Firaxis fault...

Some of the blame lies with Firaxis to be sure. A lion's share lies with 2K Games though.

 

[AfterShafter]

I had bought every single Civ product I could until Civilization 5 came along.

I still have the original boxes and Rome on 640K a day.

I probably have spend over $1000 on Civ over the years.

I am quite confident that I am not alone among long time Civ fans.

So wait a minute... You bought, say, the gold edition of Civ IV after already buying Civ IV Vanilla and Warlords, which had all of the content present in the Gold Edition? So you essentially re-bought the same product in a different package? And if you didn't (as you've reminded us so often) feel such disdain for Civ V, you'd buy the GOTY edition even after buying the DLC's which effectively means you have all the content from the GOTY edition already? And you're confident a lot of us long time Civ fans would do the same?

However confident you are that you're "not alone among long time Civ fans," I'm even more confident that people who have already bought all the content in the GOTY edition aren't going to buy an edition that has no significant new content for them.

Your whole "get more money out of you" joke implies that this is an attempt to get more money out of the existing audience that's interested in the extra content in the box. I just don't think this is the case as the people interested in that content have it available to them already and probably already have it. What's more, if they already own Vanilla, buying the DLCs separately will cost less than the GOTY edition. A GOTY edition like this is pretty obviously not aimed at getting more money from existing customers, but rather is a re-release aimed at getting new people to sign up. Most of us existing civfanatics who care about DLC already have it.

Sorry, I don't have the confidence that you do that you'll find that many people willing to completely re-buy content. I doubt 2K/Firaxis does either.

 

[Thormodr]

So wait a minute... You bought, say, the gold edition of Civ IV after already buying Civ IV Vanilla and Warlords, which had all of the content present in the Gold Edition? So you essentially re-bought the same product in a different package? And if you didn't (as you've reminded us so often) feel such disdain for Civ V, you'd buy the GOTY edition even after buying the DLC's which effectively means you have all the content from the GOTY edition already? And you're confident a lot of us long time Civ fans would do the same?

However confident you are that you're "not alone among long time Civ fans," I'm even more confident that people who have already bought all the content in the GOTY edition aren't going to buy an edition that has no significant new content for them.

Your whole "get more money out of you" joke implies that this is an attempt to get more money out of the existing audience that's interested in the extra content in the box. I just don't think this is the case as the people interested in that content have it available to them already and probably already have it. What's more, if they already own Vanilla, buying the DLCs separately will cost less than the GOTY edition. A GOTY edition like this is pretty obviously not aimed at getting more money from existing customers, not customers who have already bought its contents or had a chance to.

Sorry, I don't have the confidence that you do that you'll find that many people willing to completely re-buy content. I doubt 2K/Firaxis does either.

I never said a lot. I merely said I wasn't alone. Please read the post again.

A lot of people collect things. Coins, stamps, trading cards, action figures, etc.

I collected Civ products. I am sure that there are some people like me. Not the big deal you are making this out to be.

Well, that is until Civilization 5 came along.

However, this is off topic.

The topic was that "Game of the Year" was an inappropriate title for such a huge disappointment.

I totally agree.

 

[AfterShafter]

I never said a lot. I merely said I wasn't alone. Please read the post again.

A lot of people collect things. Coins, stamps, trading cards, action figures, etc.

I collected Civ products.

Well, that is until Civilization 5 came along.

However, this is off topic.

The topic was that "Game of the Year" was an inappropriate title for such a huge disappointment.

I totally agree.

So you think that the game of the year edition is targeted towards the Civ crowd that has a stamp collector mentality about Civ - gotta own 'em all, even if it adds nothing to the gaming experience? Yeah...

And if you thought it was so off topic, you probably shouldn't have pushed it in that direction with a misinterpretation of what "GOTY" stood for

Any which way, for whatever reason, disagree with it or not, etc etc, the game got a Game of the Year award. This isn't up for debate, and a game with a game of the year award can appropriately be given a game of the year edition.

Many of you are acting as if this is some sort of official stamp of game-of-the-yearedness and we should be up-in-arms about the whole thing. The reality is, game of the year editions are not rare, and the title is almost meaningless because all it takes is one game of the year award on an obscure site - and they've even done game of the year editions for games which only got a per-platform game of the years from any sort of major site. (see: Borderlands) As long as there's no clear organization which is looked at as a central authority for giving out game of the year, every Tom, Dick and Harry publication is going to be handing them out as if they were important. So why are we making such a big deal out of a shallow marketing ploy referencing a meaningless award from a hack site?

Oh, and before you say "but they're trying to drag people into a bad game that doesn't deserve their attention!" A lot of us are enjoying Civ V a lot and, particularly after the last patch, it's getting into the range of a very respectable release. Don't paint your own dislike of the game on a potential audience that might love it. There is a demo and plenty of sources to get information on the game prior to buying, after all.

 

[builer680]

Don't paint your own dislike of the game on a potential audience that might love it. There is a demo and plenty of sources to get information on the game prior to buying, after all.

And we are one of them.

 

[Thormodr]

So you think that the game of the year edition is targeted towards the Civ crowd that has a stamp collector mentality about Civ - gotta own 'em all, even if it adds nothing to the gaming experience? Yeah...

And if you thought it was so off topic, you probably shouldn't have pushed it in that direction with a misinterpretation of what "GOTY" stood for

Any which way, for whatever reason, disagree with it or not, etc etc, the game got a Game of the Year award. This isn't up for debate, and a game with a game of the year award can appropriately be given a game of the year edition.

Many of you are acting as if this is some sort of official stamp of game-of-the-yearedness and we should be up-in-arms about the whole thing. The reality is, game of the year editions are not rare, and the title is almost meaningless because all it takes is one game of the year award on an obscure site - and they've even done game of the year editions for games which only got a per-platform game of the years from any sort of major site. (see: Borderlands) As long as there's no clear organization which is looked at as a central authority for giving out game of the year, every Tom, Dick and Harry publication is going to be handing them out as if they were important. So why are we making such a big deal out of a shallow marketing ploy referencing a meaningless award from a hack site?

Oh, and before you say "but they're trying to drag people into a bad game that doesn't deserve their attention!" A lot of us are enjoying Civ V a lot and, particularly after the last patch, it's getting into the range of a very respectable release. Don't paint your own dislike of the game on a potential audience that might love it. There is a demo and plenty of sources to get information on the game prior to buying, after all.

*Yawn*

Approaching very respectable status with a putrid AI and awful diplomacy?

The game is approaching the lowest thresh holds of mediocre status at the moment.

Anyway, the game of the year award was essentially bought and paid for. A sham award.

They can call it "Game of the Year" if they want but people who don't have their blinders on can see it for what it is.

 

[AfterShafter]

*Yawn*

Approaching very respectable status with a putrid AI and awful diplomacy?

The game is approaching the lowest thresh holds of mediocre status at the moment.

Anyway, the game of the year award was essentially bought and paid for. A sham award.

They can call it "Game of the Year" if they want but people who don't have their blinders on can see it for what it is.

Feel free to not respond if you're bored

And yeah, the game is very respectable. I'm having a great time with it and, simply put, a lot of gamers are finding difficulty levels where they getting reasonably challenged even without great AI and shallow diplomacy. After the last patch though, I'm pleased to say I see fairly solid power blocks forming around the world now...

Your little is an example of precisely that phenomenon of "painting your own dislike" on the game for the rest of us. Yeah, the AI is weak, but unlike you, many of us are finding the game hugely enjoyable in spite of that. If I'm recommending the game to someone, I'll make sure to point out that it does have significant flaws and they're dealbreakers for a lot of gamers, and any potential buyer should strongly consider whether it would be for them. To dismiss a game that many people like because of things that hosts of gamers are able to see past is just unfair to potential fans though.

Speaking of great AI, I'm still waiting for a Civ game to have AI that's anything above passable, because there hasn't been one yet...

A sham award in a host of meaningless sham awards doesn't really bug me so much. I'm amazed it does for many of you, or that an empty marketing title bugs you.

So do the people "without their blinders on" see it as a game that actually has a solid, healthy fanbase that's loving the great deal the game has to offer? Do they recognize that it's a game that's not for everyone, but it most certainly is for some people? Or do the people without the blinders say "this game sucks" and stick around the forum for a few months to make sure everybody who likes the game knows it?

 

[Venereus]

*Yawn*

Approaching very respectable status with a putrid AI and awful diplomacy?

This is a perfect example of how your average Civ V diplomacy goes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwhI7qdrsaA

Player: "I know there is much we can learn from each other, if we can negociate a truce (Research agreement). We can find a way to coexist (Friendship), can there be peace between us? (Negociate peace)"

Psycho AI #1: "Peace? No peace!" (DoW)

Player: "What is it you want us to do? I used to be able to befriend you in Civ IV"

Psycho AI #1: "Die! And stop going for the same victory condition I am, too!"

Player's military advisor: "Is this LCD screen bullet proof?"

Player's science advisor: "No"

"All I wanted was a quiet empire building game!" *Player shoots a gun at his computer*

 

[Thormodr]

Feel free to not respond if you're bored

And yeah, the game is very respectable. I'm having a great time with it and, simply put, a lot of gamers are finding difficulty levels where they getting reasonably challenged even without great AI and shallow diplomacy. After the last patch though, I'm pleased to say I see fairly solid power blocks forming around the world now...

Your little is an example of precisely that phenomenon of "painting your own dislike" on the game for the rest of us. Yeah, the AI is weak, but unlike you, many of us are finding the game hugely enjoyable in spite of that. If I'm recommending the game to someone, I'll make sure to point out that it does have significant flaws and they're dealbreakers for a lot of gamers, and any potential buyer should strongly consider whether it would be for them. To dismiss a game that many people like because of things that hosts of gamers are able to see past is just unfair to potential fans though.

Speaking of great AI, I'm still waiting for a Civ game to have AI that's anything above passable, because there hasn't been one yet...

A sham award in a host of meaningless sham awards doesn't really bug me so much. I'm amazed it does for many of you, or that an empty marketing title bugs you.

So do the people "without their blinders on" see it as a game that actually has a solid, healthy fanbase that's loving the great deal the game has to offer? Do they recognize that it's a game that's not for everyone, but it most certainly is for some people? Or do the people without the blinders say "this game sucks" and stick around the forum for a few months to make sure everybody who likes the game knows it?

Agree to disagree I guess.

If you can stomach the watered down game (designer's intentions) that was designed for the casual crowd then more power to you. If you can deal with the horrendous AI (cIV's wasn't great either but at least it could use SODs. The AI is totally bamboozled by 1UPT) and the crappy diplomacy then you must have a cast iron stomach indeed.

Unfortunately I guess, I have much higher standards.

 

[Guardian_PL]

And yeah, the game is very respectable. I'm having a great time with it and, simply put, a lot of gamers are finding difficulty levels where they getting reasonably challenged even without great AI and shallow diplomacy. After the last patch though, I'm pleased to say I see fairly solid power blocks forming around the world now...

Yeah, that level being Deity... Fix the AI, make it challenging on King-Emperor as it was the case with Civ5 predecessors and then all gamers will find reasonable challege appropriate to their needs. But no, Halo-crowd is uberpwnroxorz and they have to be able painlessly finish the game on highest setting (using cheap exploits like selling cities or lump gold for luxury then pillage/declare war, thinking how crafty they are), otherwise they throw a tantrum.

So I don't think we will see any improvement on the AI until some Neo-style modder will do what suits deemed unprofitable and comes up with a solution. Only more GOYE releases

 

[AfterShafter]

Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't see the game as "watered down" - in fact, I've found complexity in some areas has gone up drastically (particularly combat/conquest) while in other areas it is less so. Change of focus, but this is no Civ Rev, or even anything close to it. However you try and paint it as if I just have a high tolerance for pain, I simply enjoy the game - and a lot of others do too.

You think wrong Thorm. You don't like a game, and you're confusing your not liking it with it having nothing to offer. That makes you somewhat elitist, not a purveyor of fine taste. Sorry

 

[AfterShafter]

Yeah, that level being Deity... Fix the AI, make it challenging on King-Emperor as it was the case with Civ5 predecessors and then all gamers will find reasonable challege appropriate to their needs. But no, Halo-crowd is uberpwnroxorz and they have to be able painlessly finish the game on highest setting (using cheap exploits like selling cities or lump gold for luxury then pillage/declare war, thinking how crafty they are), otherwise they throw a tantrum.

So I don't think we will see any improvement on the AI until some Neo-style modder will do what suits deemed unprofitable and comes up with a solution. Only more GOYE releases

Keep in mind, not everyone is a Civfanatic who blows through everything but Deity easily. I have two nephews who are getting into Civ who are struggling on King while I'm happily playing Immortal. Also, one of my more casual buddies who has a kid and a wife and can't marathon the series like he used to is having a great time on Emperor.

Civ V is not as hard, currently, as Civ IV or III were on their highest difficulties - that's a given. This is unfortunate for the players who are already above deity essentially and I do hope they make the AI their major focus in the next few patches to rectify this, but some of you forget that the people who are whupping deity are probably a very small portion of the total audience and potential audience.

Oh, and one thing to remember about Civ IV... The AI was actually quite abysmal upon release - and they all but copy-pasted an AI mod to make it what people were quite happy with at a later juncture. Why expect the world from vanilla Civ 5 out the gate when it's now legendary predecessor messed it up badly as well?

And come on, don't be so hard on the Halo crowd. They're just the Mario crowd of a new generation. Most of us got into gaming through some sort of big release, and eventually came to find our niches... If Civ V is the game to get a newer generation into the Civ fold, I have no problem with that.

 

[Guardian_PL]

You think wrong Thorm. You don't like a game, and you're confusing your not liking it with it having nothing to offer. That makes you somewhat elitist, not a purveyor of fine taste. Sorry

Oh but of course. Just because I find a smelly turd distasteful it doesn't mean that some people will find it awesome, esecially after big marketing campaign: "Remember this great cake you've eaten some time ago? This is THE Continuation! Same good old taste, now in different shape, more streamlined! No need to digest even, just gobble it up and ENJOY!!!"




EDIT

Keep in mind, not everyone is a Civfanatic who blows through everything but Deity easily. I have two nephews who are getting into Civ who are struggling on King while I'm happily playing Immortal. Also, one of my more casual buddies who has a kid and a wife and can't marathon the series like he used to is having a great time on Emperor.

Civ V is not as hard, currently, as Civ IV or III were on their highest difficulties - that's a given. This is unfortunate for the players who are already above deity essentially and I do hope they make the AI their major focus in the next few patches to rectify this, but some of you forget that the people who are whupping deity are probably a very small portion of the total audience and potential audience.

And that's the thing - for nephews levels like Warlord should be used, casuals Prince-King, higher ones for enthusiasts. But you said King? My mate who's a better stategy gamer than be, being a casual is unable to win Civ4 on King. And that's my problem.
I sincerely hope that one day Civ5 will be for everyone, but for that we need a good AI

Oh, and one thing to remember about Civ IV... The AI was actually quite abysmal upon release - and they all but copy-pasted an AI mod to make it what people were quite happy with at a later juncture. Why expect the world from vanilla Civ 5 out the gate when it's now legendary predecessor messed it up badly as well?

To learn from past mistakes? To avoid failure. Perhaps Civ4 was abysmal on the release, but people didn't consistently win on Deity all the time, did they?

And come on, don't be so hard on the Halo crowd. They're just the Mario crowd of a new generation. Most of us got into gaming through some sort of big release, and eventually came to find our niches... If Civ V is the game to get a newer generation into the Civ fold, I have no problem with that.

Well yeah, I guess you're right. But at the same I think I'm getting old, and soon there won't be any good games for me around since industry standard will be dumb lead-me-by-the-hand-I-can't-loose games. Nevermind.

 

[Thormodr]

Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't see the game as "watered down" - in fact, I've found complexity in some areas has gone up drastically (particularly combat/conquest) while in other areas it is less so. Change of focus, but this is no Civ Rev, or even anything close to it. However you try and paint it as if I just have a high tolerance for pain, I simply enjoy the game - and a lot of others do too.

You think wrong Thorm. You don't like a game, and you're confusing your not liking it with it having nothing to offer. That makes you somewhat elitist, not a purveyor of fine taste. Sorry

Glad you like it. Keep playing it.

Any Civilization 5 succession games going on at the moment by the way?

I quite liked those in cIV.

Maybe I'll try to get into one of those.

That may re-spark my love of the game.

 

[builer680]

A sham award in a host of meaningless sham awards doesn't really bug me so much. I'm amazed it does for many of you, or that an empty marketing title bugs you.

Why does it bother you that it bothers us? I'm amazed that you're amazed that some people think that marketing shams should be called out for what they are. This becomes circular and annoying fast.

You continually go after people for voicing their opinions on a board that's dedicated to discussions and opinions. Then you spout your opinion. Then you turn around and say "Well... agree to disagree."

Duh...

You should have known that before you even posted. There are plenty of sources for information about the game from any number of perspectives. We are merely one more of those sources. You are another... so why are you posting paragraph after paragraph alluding to your amazement that other people think differently than you, indirectly belittling their opinions (why would you be amazed unless it's somehow stupid for people to not just accept "sham" marketing without challenging it at all), then following with even more paragraphs voicing your own opinions?

Everyone (at least most of us) here already knows that this is how marketing works. We don't need you to play Captain Obvious for us. You should also know by now that there will always be someone there to call them out for it, even IF we know that's how it works. That's because that's how it ALSO works. Make deceitful claim, be called out for deceitful claim, even if deceitful claim will work anyway. At least we tried. To borrow you own line, I'm amazed that this bothers YOU so much.

For Pete's sake, just voice your own opinion and let others do the same without your professed amazement when they do so.

 

[AfterShafter]

Oh but of course. Just because I find a smelly turd distasteful it doesn't mean that some people will find it awesome, esecially after big marketing campaign: "Remember this great cake you've eaten some time ago? This is THE Continuation! Same good old taste, now in different shape, more streamlined! No need to digest even, just gobble it up and ENJOY!!!"

Again, painting your dislike of a game as if it were the objective reality of the game. You think all of us long term Civ players who are playing and loving Civ V are just a bunch of morons who have been duped by marketing? Really? Because there are quite a few of us who are liking the game, and it just seems unlikely that we've all drank the 2Koolaid and don't realize we're really not enjoying the game we think we're enjoying.

Did you ever stop to think that the two biggest negatives in the game at this point (well, one of the three) just aren't dealbreakers in the face of a lot of other good stuff for some of us? AI is a means of increasing challenge, essentiallly, and if challenge is sufficient for some of us with bad AI, we can live with it. Diplomacy isn't up to the level it was in Civ IV yet, but it frequently gives me things to do which have realistic effects in the way the game unfolds, so I can live with it. The feature lacking multiplayer gets me a functional game going between me and my friends, so I can get past the lack of things ranging from after-turn activities to a save button and enjoy what is a good experience. These things are dealbreakers for some and I understand and respect that - I won't recommend this game to some people. For some though, some long-time Civvers, the game is just dandy and scratches that itch. Is that so hard for you to concede - because the evidence that it is the case is pretty overwhelming - or can you really not get it through your head that the game ISN'T a "turd," but rather just a game that you can't get past the flaws of?

Objectively, the AI is bad. Objectively, the diplomacy is more shallow than late Civ IV diplomacy - not unworkable and without things to do, but lacking meat. Objectively, it doesn't have some important features in multiplayer. Subjectively? It offers a lot to gamers, even a lot of long term Civ fans. The proof is in the pudding - a lot of long term Civ fans are actively playing and enjoying the game. Is that so hard for the people who didn't like the game to concede?

 

[builer680]

Again, painting your dislike of a game as if it were the objective reality of the game.

Again, painting your like of a game as if it were the objective reality of the game.