Civilization 5 Rants Thread

Or this report by T-Hawk not too long ago. When it is still this ridiculously easy to run a strategy which is counter to every base concept of the type of game you're playing, and still come out ahead, you know that those working on the game still do not know what they're doing.

@ Naokaukodem, when you don't understand the mechanics of either the game you're knocking or the one you're defending, the following is the best advice you'll get: "Better to remain silent and have the world think you a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."

The mechanics are simple : global happiness.

And that's not because you provide arguments of authority that it makes your words heavier : I don't use authority arguments, *I*, am the argument, I don't speak for anybody else but for myself, and what I say is that it's common that I stay stucked on Prince with 2-3 cities and a negative happiness, making expanding difficult and long. It breaks with the series mechanics greatly and yet is frustrating by itself.
 
Or this report by T-Hawk not too long ago. When it is still this ridiculously easy to run a strategy which is counter to every base concept of the type of game you're playing, and still come out ahead, you know that those working on the game still do not know what they're doing.

Had a blast reading that report. So CiV really is a 4X game, and maybe the ultimate one as it is all about eXploiting the game mechanics in order to win, and that results in a valid point by the AI getting mad at you "for trying to win the game" because you should not minmax but enjoy it instead.
 
Had a blast reading that report. So CiV really is a 4X game, and maybe the ultimate one as it is all about eXploiting the game mechanics in order to win, and that results in a valid point by the AI getting mad at you "for trying to win the game" because you should not minmax but enjoy it instead.

Actually that makes it a 1X game, 1)eXpand, 2) win, 3)????, 4) profit?
 
The mechanics are simple : global happiness.

And that's not because you provide arguments of authority that it makes your words heavier : I don't use authority arguments, *I*, am the argument, I don't speak for anybody else but for myself, and what I say is that it's common that I stay stucked on Prince with 2-3 cities and a negative happiness, making expanding difficult and long. It breaks with the series mechanics greatly and yet is frustrating by itself.

Read the report I posted. IIRC that was at immortal, and the strategy was easy, spam settlers, build happy buildings, and science ones, trade post spam, build enough units for war, win however you want.

T-Hawk's concluding remarks just show how badly balanced the game is still, almost two years after release. You don't get a game this imba this late into it's life-cycle unless the original design was fatally flawed and the development workers didn't understand those flaws.
 
Actually that makes it a 1X game, 1)eXpand, 2) win, 3)????, 4) profit?

eXplore the shallowness of the game
eXpand your mind to find new ways of cheesy play
eXploit the mechanics
eXterminate any fanboys you come across a forum or games convention

when (not if) you're bored to death wait for an expansion, rinse, repeat
 
Why are oranges a luxury but bananas are only a bonus resource? Bananas are tastier than oranges >:\

Banana tile provie much more food though...

Perhaps bc banana have much more fat, and you can't make Fanta from it? :mischief:
 
"You built wonders they coveted", WTH?!?

Babylon built more wonders than I but Persia isn't mad at them for this same reason? My only "ally" in this current game is the pseudo city state of Polynesia (He lost all cities but Honolulu to Persia). I'm just going to rip the world apart with my military, I have no allies and I feel unsafe going for a culture win with Persia around.

My understanding was that AI DID get those penalties.
 
Banana tile provie much more food though...

Perhaps bc banana have much more fat, and you can't make Fanta from it? :mischief:


329051268_bd19d0bac8.jpg
 
Read the report I posted. IIRC that was at immortal, and the strategy was easy, spam settlers, build happy buildings, and science ones, trade post spam, build enough units for war, win however you want.

T-Hawk's concluding remarks just show how badly balanced the game is still, almost two years after release. You don't get a game this imba this late into it's life-cycle unless the original design was fatally flawed and the development workers didn't understand those flaws.

True. And yet you will still get those dedicated to V refusing to see the actual point of what most of us in this thread are trying to point out. Kudo's 2K marketing pro's :goodjob:

Oh, this is my personal favorite http://http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/07/16/is-metacritic-ruining-the-games-industry nice to get confirmation finally that Metacritic is influencend by the industry.
 
Oh, this is my personal favorite http://http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/07/16/is-metacritic-ruining-the-games-industry nice to get confirmation finally that Metacritic is influencend by the industry.

Haha, yeah, that review is complete trash. In typical review style it bashes metacritic and adds some remarks to relativate the bashing, but those positive remarks carry much higher weight than the criticism.

Metacritic is just another source of information, how you use it is up to you and whats wrong with the industry caring about receiving good reviews? That statement absolutely blows my mind.
It's like saying a census is a bad thing because it gives you a wrong picture due to some population growth in one (unimportant) area over the really mattering stagnation in your hometown.

Personally, I dont care much for a Metacritic's professional reviewers score because those are bought anyways. When i see that users rate a game significantly lower than pros I get suspicious, like Civ 5: 90vs6.8 or Diablo3: 88vs3.8
 
Wow, i couldn't find the TECH Forum, but surely a lot of Civilization V fans here, have noticed some graphic changes and game-play issues, and for mine the worst, was bombing 3 AIRCRAFT Carriers with my STEALTH BOMBERS only to have them be shot out of the sky on all occasions, with zero aircraft defending the enemy carriers. This horrific imbalance needs an instant patching. Another graphic that has been tampered with was The visual Effect when an ATOM BOMB is dropped on an enemies city, the beautiful Mushroom cloud effect has gone missing to a look of a backyard fire instead. I have the latest patch, and truly this happens far too often, if it don't need fixing, then don't patch it, to make it worse !.
Disappointed CIV 5 fan
 
yes, however it's still not as bad as some of the glitches and non sense Mathematics in the game play since the latest patch made things worse !!...i do know what you mean !!!..Bent Nail :P
 
Read the report I posted. IIRC that was at immortal, and the strategy was easy, spam settlers, build happy buildings, and science ones, trade post spam, build enough units for war, win however you want.

T-Hawk's concluding remarks just show how badly balanced the game is still, almost two years after release. You don't get a game this imba this late into it's life-cycle unless the original design was fatally flawed and the development workers didn't understand those flaws.

Ok, I've just read this report. First, he speaks about "happiness bubble", means it's more like an economic phenomenon than a simple carthesian mean. And he is fairly right about it. Because things like wonders or policies are based on percentages, that are hardly monitorable. Second, he uses shamelessly all the happiness bonuses, be them from policies, wonders or unique buildings. Actually I'm doing the same, but I don't play on Deity, so I know I can't count on them in higher difficuly levels. Third, he plays on Emperor, not Deity, and that pretty sums it all up.

Without Egypt UB (so with all other civs), wonders and SPs, one can easily see that happiness in unmanageable with solely luxury resources. T-Hawk himself was dependent of its global happiness level, and we can feel that he can't really do much about it, except streamlining the game to it more or less. Rather more than less here.

Then, you just have to accept that other people may be dependent of it in the same way. Those people, including myself, don't necessarily understand the importance of the different and rather seemingly unsignificant bonuses build-up. By the way, T-Hawk probably didn't understood them first. He says he played a lot at the game. To add to the confusion, there is plenty other ways to play, like choosing other SPs. Or building settlers. (for that part, note that he plays on a large map, that let him to choose various new luxury resources, when on standard (small) ones, you most of the time end up with the two ones of your capital, 1 or 2 more if you are lucky, the other ones have to be taken from enemies, yet it happened to me that those enemy capitals had the same resources I already had, and then you ask : "Whyyyy?")
 
I've tried to play the horizontal expansion route, not as Egypt and not strict 3 hexes between cities.
It simply didn't work, because of the unhappiness factor. You can't grow vertical and horizontal in civ5.
 
Okay. Finally bought Civ5 (including G+K) a few weeks ago...

The good:
  • Social policies. Civ4's civic system was decent but I like the fact that SP's are based on the culture (influence) resource, making it important.
  • Pantheons. I love making those early situational choices. I'd like more of that in future Civ titles, possibly even replacing all terrain-based abilities specific to civs (if the Inca have a coastal start on an island with no mountains, why should they have those hill/mountain bonuses?).
  • Embarking land units instead of loading them up on a ship. So much more fun and less tedious, and mostly more realistic too.
  • Hexes. I don't care too much, but all things equal I prefer the hexes to the tiles.
  • Barbs can slow you down but won't ruin your game - i.e. they can't really capture your new cities or totally destroy your terrain improvements. I find that this makes them meaningful without being downright frustrating. I like that pillaged improvements can be repaired, instead of having to rebuild from scratch.

The bad:
  • Diplomacy. It feels empty and pointless. All I do is sell off some resources every now and then. No matter how much they like me, eventually they'll declare war on me because I settled too close or because my military looks weak or for some incomprehensible reason. Then after I kick their ass on defense, they offer me a ton of gold and all their resources... 20-30 turns later they attack me again, fail, pay me more gold and resources... rinse and repeat ad nauseam.
  • No trade routes between civs? Seriously? Why?
  • Religion. All those choices look nice and shiny at first and having a specific faith resource seemed promising. Then after playing with it I realized that it takes a considerable effort to accumulate faith and then the only reward for it are some minor bonuses returning bits of gold, happiness, production or influence. Wait, why not just skip faith and go for buildings and city states that give me those other resources directly? Best strat seems to be to just get a pantheon, then ignore religion unless it comes your way without effort (natural wonder, city state, etc). I miss having religion matter for diplomacy, as it did in Civ4.
  • Why can I not reroll my start?
  • On the whole, while playing Civ5 I feel starved for meaningful choices. I find myself just hitting end of turn a lot, waiting for something to do. I'm already playing on immortal and finding myself in a superior position by mid-game, without feeling that I did anything particularly important to make that happen.

Overall verdict: Civ5 looks shiny at first but feels empty and boring after a little while. It makes me miss Civ4 but I can hardly imagine playing more of that game after so many years of it. :(
 
not exactly about the game but hey, a rant is a rant:
got warned for trolling because i told someone who complained about tile size to city size and unit size to have a look at the rants thread

maybe the moderator was just unhappy with advertisement for this thread
Moderator Action: Public discussion of moderator actions is not allowed here. If you want to say something, then do it via PM.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

as to not be warned again:
I CAN'T BELIEVE THERE IS STILL NO COMBAT LOG IN G&K
 
Overall verdict: Civ5 looks shiny at first but feels empty and boring after a little while. It makes me miss Civ4 but I can hardly imagine playing more of that game after so many years of it.
Exactly my thoughts
 
[*]Embarking land units instead of loading them up on a ship. So much more fun and less tedious, and mostly more realistic too.

A) How is it more realistic? B) How is it more fun? C) It is one of the most egregious of the c.50bn AI fails D) Unless G&K has significantly changed naval warfare, having your units turn into what is effectively a work-boat which forgot it's nets at port is seriously a horrible design flaw.

Actually the only good I've seen out of this game is that I managed to play enough of the demo to know not to buy it. Ever. Hell, I wouldn't take it even if I were paid to.
 
Back
Top Bottom