1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Civilization 5 Rants Thread

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by ori, Dec 3, 2010.

  1. Revent

    Revent Will SIP

    Joined:
    May 5, 2012
    Messages:
    1,914
    Location:
    London
    As a reminder to the developers of this pathetic excuse they passed off as a Civ game. It may have been a commercial success, but it is nothing in comparison to Civ IV.
     
  2. scyt4l3

    scyt4l3 Short Fused Invader

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2008
    Messages:
    135
    Location:
    Canada
    And what to say about the positive (naïve?) thinking party crashers that stop by and pollute our last bastion for our unsatisfaction, this behemot of a thread...

    Hi, my name is Scyt4l3 and I'm unpleased as f*ck. I am part-owner of this thread and trespassers will be shot!

    :crazy:
     
  3. Sun Tzu Wu

    Sun Tzu Wu Chieftain Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2007
    Messages:
    7,920
    Civ V may be a commercial success, but as a Civ game it is a total failure.

    How many players bought Civ V and played only one game? Civ V's commercial success is at the expense of the Civ legacy. It's bringing the whole series to dramatic demise, if Civ VI is ever released at all. The mere mention of the tactical game concept of 1UPT for a Civilizations and All the Ages Game is simple insanity. I bought Civ V based on the Series Reputation and was deeply disapponted. I was fooled once into buying Civ V. Will I buy Civ VI, especially if it retains 1UPT? My answer is:

    Fool me once, shame on you! Fool me twice, shame on me!

    Sun Tzu Wu
     
  4. OmniPotent42

    OmniPotent42 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2012
    Messages:
    920
    I have come to believe that if the AI was better there would be less complaining about CiV in general. I have found every other aspect of CiV to be just fine.
     
  5. scyt4l3

    scyt4l3 Short Fused Invader

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2008
    Messages:
    135
    Location:
    Canada
    Global happiness is not fine with me. I find it justifies some of the "dumbed down" comments. Also, 1 upt is slacking off in my opinion. They really could have come off with something better than that, as ad nauseam repeated, why not multiples units per tiles à la panzer general.

    My 2 commerces
     
  6. Jatta Pake

    Jatta Pake Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2007
    Messages:
    299
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Just my two cents - Civ5 did not introduce 1UPT. Civ1 was 1UPT.

    To me, Civ5 has really cut away a lot of the "fluff" from Civ3 and Civ4 to get back to the roots of good game design. Interesting choices. Skill at micromanagement has been replaced with strategic skill. What is the overall strategy? Are my choices with building, exploring, diplomacy, social policies, and war helping or hurting my overall strategy?

    Civ5 has refused to add fluff because it seems cool, but has really focused on building a balanced foundation for the core game mechanics. Some feel this lesser is more approach is merely lesser. To me, the foundation was built with Civ5, made better with patches, had the basement built with G&K, and will be pimping out the basement with cool furniture in the Fall patch. Civ5 is the basement of an amazing palace. Civ4 is the fully constructed hovel complete with well and outhouse.

    I think sales figures show most gamers prefer to live in the basement. I do, however, respect those who refuse to leave their hovel in the wilderness. They are free to mod cool games like FfH or pen their anti-civilization screeds like that crazy Unabomber guy.
     
  7. Sun Tzu Wu

    Sun Tzu Wu Chieftain Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2007
    Messages:
    7,920
    Jatta Pake: What's your rant against Civ V? I couldn't find it in your post above. If you don't have a rant, you might consider posting to the raves thread. This is the rants thread.

    Sun Tzu Wu
     
  8. salty mud

    salty mud Ey-up

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2006
    Messages:
    4,686
    Location:
    God's Own County
    Also, your analogy is baffling to say the least.
     
  9. LDiCesare

    LDiCesare Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2005
    Messages:
    2,612
    Location:
    France
    No it was not.
    Ever built a fort? Ever had several units defend a city?
    Then again, the ai would pop diplomats out of surrounded enemy phalanxes from time to time.
    Civ 1 offered a choice to put many units in one place and risk them all or to bring them one apiece. You didn't build stacks of doom, but you definitely did stack units. Even more so if railroads connected any one of your cities to the enemy target city.
     
  10. Funky

    Funky Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 26, 2012
    Messages:
    1,290
    The first part of this sentence is, I guess, a matter of interpretation... . What for us "haters", or "Sulla dinosaurs", as we are meanwhile called, is simplification and dumbing down to a point that we cannot identify a civ game behind the facade, is for others "cutting away the fluff". However, when only after an expansion almost two years after release the game becomes remotely playable, and when people cling on to the release of yet a further coming patch so tightly, in hope that after more than two years fundamental game flaws may finally be dealt with (which, of course, is doubtable), then no matter how far I bend backwards, I cannot detect any trace whatsoever of "roots of good game design".

    But we needn't worry, more patches are sure to be coming. Afterall, the game has great potential!

    :mischief:
     
  11. lollibast

    lollibast Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2011
    Messages:
    102
    love your sarcasm

    what i resent most about CiV is that every single game comes down to minmaxing in order to win it. And every game develops in the same direction so it's a rinse repeat exercise. Playing on lower difficulties for another playstyle, or just style is so easy that it's just boring. CIV was so different in that regard. Every game felt different, i never even thought about playing on the highest difficulty because the game never was about tweaking the numbers to beat the AI. I just played it my way and had fun, occasionally ragequitting but that didn't bother me.
     
  12. RD-BH

    RD-BH Human

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2009
    Messages:
    818
    Location:
    Formerly: Missouri, USA
    I love that "one more turn" feeling ...
    ... in Civ4: can't wait to see what happens next!
    ... in Civ5: can't wait for this game to end already!

    Civ On 8)
     
  13. seancolorado

    seancolorado Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2012
    Messages:
    2,106
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Jakarta, Indonesia
    First time Civ player here. Civ5(& G&K) is the first Civ I've ever played so I can't compare - on its own it's my favorite game at the moment.

    I have minor gripes here and there but my biggest gripe is due to content: Eurocentric selection of civs. I could name countless civs that could be a mainstay that simply are not. To keep my argument focused I'll simply choose one: Indonesia.
     
  14. Funky

    Funky Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 26, 2012
    Messages:
    1,290
    This, to be fair, has always been the case with civ games. The franchise definitely appeals to Western markets. If you can get over that fact and want to enjoy a real civ game, one that is full of deep meaningful decisions about building and developing a nation, rather than a shallow tactical wargame with a terrible AI which is targeted at an under-20 audience, then get civ 4. With both expansions you can probably get it for about a 10er and it is the better game by such a large extent that a comparison comes close to blasphemy.
     
  15. SuperTechmarine

    SuperTechmarine Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2012
    Messages:
    18
    Location:
    European Union
    No Wonder or Victory Videos :(

    Most everything else is perfect.
     
  16. cugel

    cugel Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2007
    Messages:
    23
    I find it boring: always the same start, build a scout, a monument, go for tradition, freedom etc etc etc
    I should mention that I have played Civ since Civ2 and i have spent enormous amounts of time on it. Mostly easy, because i don't like to struggle, I like to see everything come nicely together, sometimes, especially with civ2 I have tried to play on the highest level.
    I now replay Rise of Nations (RoN) because you can start it in a lot of different ways, you can even let the computer play and watch: fun, especially if put on fast.
    I know RoN is not turnbased, but using the pause button means you can play it like a strategy game, rather than as a clickfest (I don't like that, if I want to test my reflexes, I'm playing Snipes, fast and fun, especially at the G9 level, or even Z9)
    Only about twice in half a year, I feel might I bother to play Civ5. I thought the changes made from civ4 not bad, by the way.
    Oh, and religion sucks big time.
     
  17. Rvil Plum

    Rvil Plum Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2007
    Messages:
    136
    Having played all of the civ games, expansion packs and most of the best mods to death and beyond, I was extremely disappointed by the way in which Civ 5 had been dumbed down, because for me at least, it just wasn't challenging or entertaining enough.

    Civ 5 was so bad and in so many different ways, that I just can't play it, and I can't go back and play the older games in the series, because I have played all of them to death. So, it's been a life without Civ for the last 2 years, and I have really missed not having a Civ game to play, as I always had the latest version installed on my computer, and have happily pumped many thousands of hours into them, over the years.

    I didn't complain when Civ 5 came out, because to be honest I thought it was pointless. The Civ series had avoided the decade long trend in the dumbing down of PC games, but had produced Colonisation to create a toe in the water of the new mass market that every developer and their dog were chasing. I therefore expected the Civ franchise to provide two different types of game in the future, with the Civ 5+ games satisfying the demands of the existing customer base, and the Colinisation+ games creating a new customer base within the broader market.

    Boy was I wrong.

    It's spectacularly bad business practise to piss off your existing customer base so badly, and not own up to it, before you have established a new customer base.

    The developer have really shot themselves in the foot on this one, because they have managed to completely alienate a huge segment of their existing customer base. All sales figures for Civ 5 are meaningless in the context of future performance, because the developer has lost their "trusted" status in the eyes of many gamers, who automatically bought Civ5 expecting more of the same high quality strategy that they had seen in Civ1 - 4, and various expansion packs.

    Every long running game franchise can sound a bum note from time to time, but you can forgive a developer for trying and failing in such a context. What you can't forgive a developer for, is deciding to change the demographic they are targeting, and to then produce a game designed to satisfy the tastes of that new demographic, but not mentioning this huge policy change to their old / existing customer base. Civ 5 isn't a one off bum note, it's a complete rethink in the type of game that they are now making so as to target a new type of player.

    Civ 6 is therefore going to be more of the same watered down mass market rubbish, which is fine for the guys who like Civ 5, but where does that leave people like us, who are voicing our concern in this thread? Well speaking personally, there was no point in my complaining before, because they had obviously made a policy decision to chase the mass market with Civ 5, and I wasn't going to to be able to change their mind, so what has changed?

    Well I have been watching "Kickstarter" with interest over the last few months, and I have been pondering. There is no way that the developer is going to publicly admit what Civ 5 is, because that would just piss off their new customer base, who they obviously want to keep sweet and happy to buy Civ 6.

    However, you know, I know and they know that Civ 5 is a complete departure away from the direction taken in Civ1 - 4, and when all is said and done, these guys still know how to make the sort of mature / challenging game represented by Civs 1 - 4. All we have to do, is to financially make it worth their while.

    I personally would throw money at them to get the Civ game that I want, and "Kickstarter" is just that. A way of throwing money at a developer to get them to make the game that you want to play.

    I am not going to pre-order Civ 6, because I expect it to be more of the same, but bizarrely and despite what they did to me when they made Civ 5, I still trust the developer to be competent enough to produce the sort of game that I want to play, if they hand on heart promised to do so. I don't even need that much in terms of detail about the game, just their assurance that it will continue along the path trodden by Civ 1 - 4. Deep challenging AI, multi-layered, abundance of player choice, infinite replayability, etc.

    The developer are not going to make that game without an incentive, and if they floated the concept on, "Kickstarter", they might then get the financial incentive that they need.

    Food for thought?

    Yes, there is a potential pr issue here, as the awkward squad in the press will ask why Civ"X" is being funded on, "Kickstarter", if Civ 6 is being funded by their normal method, but the developer can be economical with the truth, and simply explain it away as a one off game that is being developed to satisfy a niche audience. If they need some actual truth to that statement, then they can give us Alpa Centauri 2 or something similar, or anything they like, just as long as it targets people with more than two brain cells to rub together. I personally don't think those of us who were disappointed by Civ 5 are in a minority or represent a niche market, and it would be deeply ironic if Civ "X" were to outsell Civ 6, should Civ 6 be the dumbed down mass market game that I expect it to be.

    I won't pre-order Civ 6 on release, but I would throw money upfront and with no strings attached at Civ X. Would you?

    Regards - Mr P
     
  18. Noble Zarkon

    Noble Zarkon Civ IV Emperor EQM Moderator Hall of Fame Staff Supporter GOTM Staff

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2012
    Messages:
    4,596
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Fife, Scotland
    Very thoughtful post - an intriguing idea.

    You should also check out KMOd for Civ IV (linked in my signature it stays true to Civ IV principles but really does feel like a new game.)
     
  19. Revent

    Revent Will SIP

    Joined:
    May 5, 2012
    Messages:
    1,914
    Location:
    London
    Hear, hear!

    I will not be buying Civ VI at the rate the franchise is going. I was one of those kids who bought Civ IV, followed by Warlords, then BtS and then finally the complete edition, I asked for as a gift. Never will I ever buy another Civ game. Civ IV will probably keep me content for years. :) It has endless re-playability. Plus, I still need to beat Deity.
     
  20. Denounced

    Denounced Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2012
    Messages:
    70
    Location:
    London
    My only gripe is it being quite difficult to build wide and keep your empire happy. It would be better if you got happiness from more than one of the same luxury.
    Most empires grew wide in a few short years. Why does it have to be eras before you can go wide properly in civ 5?
     

Share This Page