Civilization 5 Rants Thread

[Brian Shanahan]

This game is still top 10 games played(Steam). Why they would worry?

2 weeks after release a 11 month old game, FM2010, with it's successor out the same time as Civ 5 had three times the players on the Steam servers, and most FM10 players weren't playing on the Steam servers (c. 70,000 average vs a c. 22,00 average).

Top ten in numbers of players doesn't mean anything much outside the top three or four.

 

[Civking5]

After reading this thread for a long time, i just joined to say that People stop ranting page after pages, and come and join multiplayer groups like no quitters and see how much fun this game is.

 

[Socratatus]

After reading this thread for a long time, i just joined to say that People stop ranting page after pages, and come and join multiplayer groups like no quitters and see how much fun this game is.

Many of us don`t, won`t and will never go multiplayer for many reasons. And we shouldn`t be forced to the problems of MP (and there are many you guys never mention) just for a good game. This is why a better AI is always needed.

If Devs had gone to the trouble of making a really good AI, or programmed routines, as they do making glorious graphics we`d have something approaching HAL by now!

 

[Civking5]

Many of us don`t, won`t and will never go multiplayer for many reasons. And we shouldn`t be forced to the problems of MP (and there are many you guys never mention) just for a good game. This is why a better AI is always needed.

If Devs had gone to the trouble of making a really good AI, or programmed routines, as they do making glorious graphics we`d have something approaching HAL by now!

Never say never, may be an offer of duel would change your mind, eh?

 

[Socratatus]

Never say never, may be an offer of duel would change your mind, eh?

I`ve many hours of gaming online under my belt. I got tired of the silliness (swearing, racism, cheaters, rage-quitters, etc) to the point that playing against a bad AI was preferable.

 

[Civking5]

I`ve many hours of gaming online under my belt. I got tired of the silliness (swearing, racism, cheaters, rage-quitters, etc) to the point that playing against a bad AI was preferable.

My friend, this is the whole point of making group like Nq, none of the things that u r worried about are allowed in Nq.

 

[Brian Shanahan]

After reading this thread for a long time, i just joined to say that People stop ranting page after pages, and come and join multiplayer groups like no quitters and see how much fun this game is.

I'll wait until 2K/Firaxis actually manage to publish a playable game. Until then Civ4 BtS and exploring the various mods will do just fine.

I`ve many hours of gaming online under my belt. I got tired of the silliness (swearing, racism, cheaters, rage-quitters, etc) to the point that playing against a bad AI was preferable.

If you're interested in re-trying Civ4 PB/PBEM games, come over to Realms Beyond. The games are generally civilised in behaviour, apart from the obligatory raging against the map-maker.

Plus it has the added advantage of being based on a solid game with strong mechanics.

 

[Civking5]

IMHO civ5 multiplayer is far better than previous multiplayer civ games. and to the above poster; you cannot make comment on civ5 multiplayer, since based on your older posts, I assume u never played the civ5 multiplayer.

 

[bossconian]

It's been two years ... Or is there still the "don't touch" label on it ?

Moderator Action: Merged into the rants thread.

 

[SouljahAtWar]

The way I see it, once you get past the obsolete graphics, the stacks of death, the generic religion system, the vassal system, the pollution and the unhappiness hampering your progress, and the worse-- the slider system, you tend to miss Civ IV a little. I could barely get past Noble on Civ IV, and now I'm sitting around Emperor and Immortal on Civ V. I can't say Civ IV is better than V, in fact, even if Civ V is post G&K, Civ IV yields itself a better game overall, but the frustrating and irritating core mechanics of Civ IV makes me go back to V over IV.

My argument still stands.

 

[shadowplay]

It's been two years ... Or is there still the "don't touch" label on it ?

I didn't like the game one bit upon release, but I tried it out again last month finally... after all those patches, it's much improved now and I even suffer full-blown "one more turn" syndrome like with past Civs! So yes, I'd recommend giving it a try now. I'm sure there's a demo so you can try it out first without having to put out any money.

 

[Funky]

My argument still stands.

Excuse me, but if you are refering to the passage you quoted from yourself, that is not an argument. You don't argue for anything. You list several features of Civ 4 that you apparently don't like (but don't say why or how) and go on to say you prefer Civ 5 over Civ 4. Well, good for you, point made, nothing to argue over. So don't be suprised if your "argument" stands forever.

 

[Brian Shanahan]

My argument still stands.

Personal opinion does not trump the objective reality that Civ 5 was a badly lead and coded game, which sacrificed too many core mechanics to change what is essentially the smallest of all the core mechanics within the game, and not for the better.

Oh, and what's wrong with sliders, city wide happiness and health? Everything else (even the religion) is candyfloss.

 

[Brian Shanahan]

IMHO civ5 multiplayer is far better than previous multiplayer civ games. and to the above poster; you cannot make comment on civ5 multiplayer, since based on your older posts, I assume u never played the civ5 multiplayer.

I hear there is still no proper PB or PEM system in place, and that Civ 5 MP is still a click fest, so what is better about it?

Civ 4 MP still has a wider range of options, and is a far better test of skills in a TBS environment (frankly if I wanted MP games where my mouse-click speed won me games I'd have bought Starcraft 2), assuming my two caveats in the previous paragraph still stand.

Oh, and Civ 5 was developed with no multiplayer input, and was developed solely as a SP game, whereas there was significant MP involvement at all levels of development at Civ 4. Somehow I don't think a game that ignores a whole area of the customer base will better represent that base than a game which developed for and significantly involved it.

 

[Revent]

This thread has had the most replies in CiV General Discussions (excluding stickies). Says a lot about the game...

 

[Tabarnak]

This thread has had the most replies in CiV General Discussions (excluding stickies). Says a lot about the game...

It's biaised by the fact that all rant poasts merge here compared to all others distributed in many many other threads. A single discussion about strategies can be related to a rave thread/post.

From my opinion, we approximatively have 80% and 20% over all civfanatics members.

Well i still don't understand why we are still ranting the game here...been 2 years already. What are we waiting for?

 

[markusbeutel]

It's biaised by the fact that all rant poasts merge here compared to all others distributed in many many other threads. A single discussion about strategies can be related to a rave thread/post.

We approximatively have 85% and 15% over all civfanatics members.

Well i still don't understand why we are still ranting the game here...been 2 years already. What are you waiting for?

If people didn't rant we'd still have Pacts of Secrecy and Pacts of Cooperation in the game - and we might not have religion at all, along with diplo hints - as all of these were not included in the vanilla release, (being originally specified as design decisions for this new direction Civ was taking). Remember how diplomacy was meant to originally be "mysterious?" Thanks in large part to rants on the forums, this design decision was pretty much abandoned, and I doubt many people would disagree with that decision.

Fact of the matter is, many long-time fans of the series felt V was a streamlined, simplified war-game aimed at the masses, and an affront to the Civ series they'd been playing for 20 years.

By ranting, at the very least they're making their voice heard, with the possibility of future releases in the franchise reverting back to previous systems and levels of complexity. The designers come to these forums a lot for fan-feedback, seeing as the 2K forums only get a trickle of the viewers that come here - and I think they appreciate a well-worded rant just as much as words of praise.

I'm also sure that "ranters" would gladly welcome their rants not shoved off into 1 thread - but there's a reason why this current system was implemented.

 

[Tabarnak]

Hence the necessity to merge them into all in one thread.

Of course we will all want a better game and such. I personnally think that the 1upt feature is going to stay for civ6(well maybe into a larger form like Mupt who know). I feel sorry for SoD lovers but i don't think they will come back with that aspect of the game. Don't forget that CiV is actually a commercial success.

I'm not playing the devil's advocate i'm just analyzing the situation with facts.

DLL files are going to be released very soon btw.

 

[markusbeutel]

Hence the necessity to merge them into all in one thread.

DLL files are going to be released very soon btw.

.dll files will allow us to alter the AI - to make them understand new systems and mechanics. It doesn't mean FFH is going to appear as soon as the .dll is released (or that we're going to get 3D leaderheads like in IV - that's just not possible in V) - as something on that scale takes years of work by dedicated teams.

The release of the .dll is a welcome addition to modding for CIV V, but it doesn't really open up that many new frontiers. We might get a better tactical AI after a few months at best - but people should lower their expectations that all of a sudden everything is going to change. If the .dll was released when vanilla CIV V was released, we might be seeing some fruits of that labor by now.

Hopefully what this release does do, is attract new and existing modders to CIV V.

 

[Thorite]

If people didn't rant we'd still have Pacts of Secrecy and Pacts of Cooperation in the game - and we might not have religion at all, along with diplo hints - as all of these were not included in the vanilla release, (being originally specified as design decisions for this new direction Civ was taking). Remember how diplomacy was meant to originally be "mysterious?" Thanks in large part to rants on the forums, this design decision was pretty much abandoned, and I doubt many people would disagree with that decision.

Fact of the matter is, many long-time fans of the series felt V was a streamlined, simplified war-game aimed at the masses, and an affront to the Civ series they'd been playing for 20 years.

By ranting, at the very least they're making their voice heard, with the possibility of future releases in the franchise reverting back to previous systems and levels of complexity. The designers come to these forums a lot for fan-feedback, seeing as the 2K forums only get a trickle of the viewers that come here - and I think they appreciate a well-worded rant just as much as words of praise.

I'm also sure that "ranters" would gladly welcome their rants not shoved off into 1 thread - but there's a reason why this current system was implemented.

I'm probably (mis)counted in the 85%.

The merging of the Rants thread put me off of the site. I was a long time lurker who only created an account to say how disgusted I was with Schaffer 0.5 (are we still calling it that? ). I'd have lots to say but there's just no point when civfanatics doesn't want to hear it. I got really tired of seeing "Moderator Action", "Moderator Action" every time anything negative was said.

So congrats on your 80 or 85%. Self selection can go miles in making a case for Civ 5.