Civilization 5 Game Of The Year Edition

[builer680]

Whenever I see someone posting as "we", "majority" etc I can't help but not put too much weight on their arguments, sorry. Speak for yourself, and let others do the same.

Bingo. Nail on head being hit.

 

[builer680]

Ok, I'm getting mixed signals here.



Then from a few posts ago...



So you're WILLING to admit something, but won't because you don't have to? I notice you discreetly didn't bother with the content of my questions at all...

I'm willing to admit a lot of things, but no, I do not HAVE to admit anything. I'm not the one accusing people of being unbiased and using my own supposed neutrality as the example everyone else should follow. YOU need to admit that nobody here has an obligation to be neutral, and that you are making a pointless argument when calling people out for being biased. Of COURSE they're biased, just as you are, whether you admit it or not. Your supposed "evidence" is just your way of looking at things, you are doing the exact same thing that everyone else here does.

 

[AfterShafter]

It's called Civ 5 "Strategy and Tips" and at the moment is viewed by same amount of people as Civ4 Strategy and Tips section, ~50. So, freshly released game has same amount of people interested in its strategy as six year old classic.
Why there's no War Academy for Civ5? Because there's no need for it.

That's your overwhelming evidence?


Whenever I see someone posting as "we", "majority" etc I can't help but not put too much weight on their arguments, sorry. Speak for yourself, and let others do the same.

Actually, yeah. Civ IV is pretty much recognized to be the best TBS strategy game ever released by many. We're 6 months out on Civ V, the initial mega-rush is over, if it's holding an audience the same size in the strategy and tactics forum, that's not bad. Pair that with the Steam numbers and I think I've pretty clearly shown that a lot of gamers like the game and find something to make it well worth playing or discussing. What's more, Civ III retained solid numbers in its strategy and tactics forum for almost a year after Civ IV's release.

As for the War Academy, talk to Bandarous Took and Bibor about it. They're working on getting it started but, as they've pointed out, it's tough to get going while the game is undergoing major balance changes. And what's more, you should remember, it took months before a war academy started up with Civ IV. Was that a sign that it didn't need one?

I'm not speaking for myself. I'm speaking for the obvious fact that a lot of people like Civ V. And did I say "majority" somewhere?

 

[AfterShafter]

Beside the point. The point is that you are acting as if we have an obligation to be unbiased. We do not. Just because you "think" that you are, does not obligate anyone else to do the same. That is my point, and that is why you are off base attacking people for being unbiased. They don't have to be.

Interesting. Are you openly admitting that you don't want to take a step back and take a balanced look at how the community is receiving it as a whole, outside of the group that agrees with your perspective on it? Not suggesting anyone HAS to do so, but I wish more would.

 

[AfterShafter]

I'm willing to admit a lot of things, but no, I do not HAVE to admit anything. I'm not the one accusing people of being unbiased and using my own supposed neutrality as the example everyone else should follow. YOU need to admit that nobody here has an obligation to be neutral, and that you are making a pointless argument when calling people out for being biased. Of COURSE they're biased, just as you are, whether you admit it or not. Your supposed "evidence" is just your way of looking at things, you are doing the exact same thing that everyone else here does.

My opinion is that I like the game, a good number of people like the game, and a good number of people don't like the game. There are pretty valid reasons for each side of this coin, and I'd hope people could get past their own views and recognize this.

I'm not suggesting people are OBLIGATED to actually look beyond their own personal viewpoint when making an assessment of a product. I'm just saying I wish they would, because they could potentially be scaring off people who would love the game. I think it's pretty obvious you aren't concerned about that in the slightest though, so I can see why you wouldn't admit that a lot of people have found the game enjoyable.

My "evidence" is a way of looking at things... Yep, it is. A way of looking at things that a good number of people have found things to enjoy in the game, and a good number hasn't. Am I wrong? Besides, one piece of evidence that I posted is that it's one of the most played games on Steam right now getting by far the highest numbers of any strategy game (unless you count Football Manager as strategy). I guess that's "just a way of looking at" how many people find they want to play the game in a day...

 

[Zyxpsilon]

Why there's no War Academy for Civ5? Because there's no need for it.

1) Nobody bothered yet.
2) They're too busy enjoying what they already have since the design was smart enough to cater for the casual crowds out of the box.
3) I make up my own strategies and i don't need anyone to tell me i'm wrong or right for proceeding as such.
4) Even if there were a need for it, i'd refer my daughters to the link instead of answering their multiple questions. DAD, help us! Over, finally.
5) This product has been on the market for six months only and it *IS* still evolving.

 

[builer680]

Interesting. Are you openly admitting that you don't want to take a step back and take a balanced look at how the community is receiving it as a whole, outside of the group that agrees with your perspective on it? Not suggesting anyone HAS to do so, but I wish more would.

I do not care how the community is receiving it as a whole. I care about what I think of the game, and I post what I think of the game. That's it. I care that you hold yourself up as some standard of opinions and that anyone with a biased opinion is somehow worthy of your "amazement."

Stop belittling others for having opinions that are biased. After all, for many of us that "bias" came from playing the game. I don't give a crap what you think, or that you perceive yourself to be neutral, but you don't have to go around trying to police others because they aren't trying to be neutral. They don't have to be.

I'm done talking to you now, because you have continuously taken what you want from my posts and not answered the part that I have repeatedly stated.

We don't have to be unbiased. No one cares that you think you are. That's it. Ignored.

 

[AfterShafter]

I do not care how the community is receiving it as a whole. I care about what I think of the game, and I post what I think of the game. That's it. I care that you hold yourself up as some standard of opinions and that anyone with a biased opinion is somehow worthy of your "amazement."

Stop belittling others for having opinions that are biased. After all, for many of us that "bias" came from playing the game. I don't give a crap what you think, or that you perceive yourself to be neutral, but you don't have to go around trying to police others because they aren't trying to be neutral. They don't have to be.

I'm done talking to you now, because you have continuously taken what you want from my posts and not answered the part that I have repeatedly stated.

We don't have to be unbiased. No one cares that you think you are. That's it. Ignored.

You're putting me on your ignore list because I'm suggesting you admit that a lot of people have found reason to like the game? Wow, that's priceless

As for you not caring how the community receives the game, a lot of people - including new and potential Civvers - do. Reflecting that is helpful to said community, even if it doesn't match up with your viewpoints.

And if you *really* had a problem with people belittling others, you might have pitched in when Thorm subtly suggested that those who liked Civ V just didn't have his high standards, or when Guardian basically said the game was for the twitch-Halo crowd and held little interest for gamers who weren't in that often disparaged group. As it stands, I find your concern for people being belittled somewhat unconvincing.

Guess this is goodbye then!

Edit: As far as taking what one wants from the others' posts, hey, you're the one who asked me for evidence at one point then pretty much ignored the rather significant figure from Steam that I raised. But hey, I'm the bad guy, right?

 

[Bechhold]

All i want is a Civ V game with trade being of value, competent AI, and improved/good Naval combat, also I would like to pick through a choice of leaders.

Is that too much to ask?!

 

[markusbeutel]

Actually, yeah. Civ IV is pretty much recognized to be the best TBS strategy game ever released by many. We're 6 months out on Civ V, the initial mega-rush is over, if it's holding an audience the same size in the strategy and tactics forum, that's not bad. Pair that with the Steam numbers and I think I've pretty clearly shown that a lot of gamers like the game and find something to make it well worth playing or discussing. What's more, Civ III retained solid numbers in its strategy and tactics forum for almost a year after Civ IV's release.

As for the War Academy, talk to Bandarous Took and Bibor about it. They're working on getting it started but, as they've pointed out, it's tough to get going while the game is undergoing major balance changes. And what's more, you should remember, it took months before a war academy started up with Civ IV. Was that a sign that it didn't need one?

I'm not speaking for myself. I'm speaking for the obvious fact that a lot of people like Civ V. And did I say "majority" somewhere?

I pretty much agree with most of what you said. The one thing that always irks me, though, is the steam argument. We're talking about a game that requires Steam to be played. (I know you can play the game off-line, but you have to manually check this setting, and most gamers can't be bothered). The majority of games on Steam have other distribution methods which is why their numbers on Steam are not as high while Civ's are always through the roof. If every game was only playable through Steam, IMHO Civ 5 would probably be pretty low on the list of games being played as it's been out for quite awhile already.

 

[AfterShafter]

I pretty much agree with most of what you said. The one thing that always irks me, though, is the steam argument. We're talking about a game that requires Steam to be played. (I know you can play the game off-line, but you have to manually check this setting, and most gamers can't be bothered). The majority of games on Steam have other distribution methods which is why their numbers on Steam are not as high while Civ's are always through the roof. If every game was only playable through Steam, IMHO Civ 5 would probably be pretty low on the list of games being played as it's been out for quite awhile already.

While entirely true, I was to some degree posting that under duress. I claimed "a lot of people are playing and enjoying Civ V" and he all but demanded I give him the results from a public census on the subject to "prove" that there actually were. In my eyes, you only need to look at how healthy the community is here to get a pretty good idea that the game has fans. Maybe that's my bias coming through, but the strategy and tactics forum has a good number of people active and contributing - I'm reading good stuff posted in there daily.

But, aside from that, you're right - it's a Steam only game and that means that 90% of the people playing it anywhere will be registered by that number of 24,000. I'm sure some people are playing on offline computers and such, but, they'll be a small minority. Even if it only got around 24,000 users per day though, that's still a pretty decent number, and clearly shows that the game has people interested in playing it. I think you're right that the number has to be taken with a grain of salt - and I'll bet Civ IV had more than 25,000 players in a day during its peak - but the number does show that people do like/are playing the game.

And one more thing, it's also one of the highest Steam only games. That's somewhat impressive.

PS - I hate Steam. Hate hate hate. It just gave me data that supported my argument at this point in time.

 

[Blitzscream]

On who's grounds gave it "game of the year". Most likely this is just advertisements and I for why one hate paying for a product mostly on advertisements and not quality.

 

[JohnnyW]

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.

Still reading through the thread, but I had to comment on this.

This is one of the most absurd comments I've seen regarding any video game on any forum. Ever.

Single player combat: lure AI into bad spot and shoot them from safety. Finish with melee.
Multiplayer: double-move.

So complex.

 

[Guardian_PL]

Still reading through the thread, but I had to comment on this.

This is one of the most absurd comments I've seen regarding any video game on any forum. Ever.

Single player combat: lure AI into bad spot and shoot them from safety. Finish with melee.
Multiplayer: double-move.

So complex.

What can you expect from people who think that stack combat in civ4 relied only on amassing more units?

 

[JohnnyW]

Wow, so that was quite a conversation you guys were trying to have. Too bad somebody couldn't understand what the other was saying.


Anyway, my personal opinion is that I don't like this game. It's too simple and boring. Any difficulty is simply from overwhelming AI bonuses, not intelligent AI or good game design.

Am I going to hate on anyone because they like civ5 though? No. They just like things more simple and boring than I do. If I want a simple and boring game I'll play minesweeper. I was hoping civ5 would be a strategy game based on franchise history. Turns out civ5 is more like minesweeper than I was prepared to accept. I haven't played since January.

 

[Guardian_PL]

Actually, yeah. Civ IV is pretty much recognized to be the best TBS strategy game ever released by many. We're 6 months out on Civ V, the initial mega-rush is over, if it's holding an audience the same size in the strategy and tactics forum, that's not bad. Pair that with the Steam numbers and I think I've pretty clearly shown that a lot of gamers like the game and find something to make it well worth playing or discussing. What's more, Civ III retained solid numbers in its strategy and tactics forum for almost a year after Civ IV's release.

As for the War Academy, talk to Bandarous Took and Bibor about it. They're working on getting it started but, as they've pointed out, it's tough to get going while the game is undergoing major balance changes. And what's more, you should remember, it took months before a war academy started up with Civ IV. Was that a sign that it didn't need one?

I'm not speaking for myself. I'm speaking for the obvious fact that a lot of people like Civ V. And did I say "majority" somewhere?

Wow, is that a joke? Are you trying to tell me that six months after release of Civ4 there were ~50 people viewing Strategy and Tips section?
It was 100-200 roughly or more, all the time. More people were there than in General Discussion forum. It was there were Sisiutil's ALC series has started and lasted for many, many months, patches and expansions. It was there were I've learned about game mechanics like trade routes, proper whipping etc which gave me a fascinating edge in my online gaming.

To say that paltry fifty folks looking for strategy and no succesion games running is normal due to changing balance is just a weak excuse. Same amount of people interested in the continuation of Civ4 as in Civ4 itself is "not bad"?

 

[Moss]

Moderator Action: Guys, try to tone down the discussion a bit. Focus on the points people are making, don't make the discussion so personal.

 

[electryc]

Not trying to pile on or anything, or start drama just curious. I own CivIV BTS, I bought Civ Revolutions for the PS3 for my son. He liked it while I privately laughed to myself about how simplistic and cartoonish it 'looked'. I have heard people compare CivV to revolutions which I find hard to believe.. I saw it on sale at Gamestop for 39, I instead bought another game. Is the game worth buying now since they patched it, or should I wait?

 

[Zyxpsilon]

Is the game worth buying now since they patched it, or should I wait?

Wait for at least two more patches or just buy it outright to witness the predictable progress flow in realtime; the experience is worth every minute of it.
They aren't through yet with the whole ruleset & basic features balancing as proven by the shear amount of Mods trying to beat them to *THE* solution.
v1217 made huge changes to gameplay dynamics while providing exceptional perspectives towards relatively final stability.
No matter on what everyone else might judge the whole concept for being too simple or boring. Some want to blame the whole design and lower it to a form of casual level, it's their prerogative.
But don't fall into such traps, they've been wrong before and they still are.

 

[Thormodr]

All i want is a Civ V game with trade being of value, competent AI, and improved/good Naval combat, also I would like to pick through a choice of leaders.

Is that too much to ask?!

It is actually.

Trade was too complex for the casual crowd so it got simplified greatly.

Competent AI is not in the developer's best interests financially as Jon Shafer pointed out.

Naval combat has always been weak in the Civ series. The AI needed to make it good just isn't worth their time and money apparently.

As far as leaders, that may be doable. Unlikely though as the animated leaders cost $$$ and they'd have to make all new ones.

I share your disappointment.