Civilization 5 Rants Thread

[chazzycat]

I have bought all DLC for 100$ total like you say.

I have spent 700 hours on this game and loved every minute.

That comes out to 14 cents an hour.

A couple weeks ago I went to Six Flags and spent about $120 for about 8 hours of fun.

That comes out to 15 dollars an hour.

Is riding a roller coaster 100 times more fun than playing civ?

Not for me.

Perspective is important.

 

[Thormodr]

I have bought all DLC for 100$ total like you say.

I have spent 700 hours on this game and loved every minute.

That comes out to 14 cents an hour.

A couple weeks ago I went to Six Flags and spent about $120 for about 8 hours of fun.

That comes out to 15 dollars an hour.

Is riding a roller coaster 100 times more fun than playing civ?

Not for me.

Perspective is important.

Who cares?

That's comparing apples to oranges.

Compare it something comparable like you know, ummm...cIV?

$100! and we still have a half baked game, no new game mechanics, broken multiplayer, a resource or two, three underwhelming wonders, one new terrain type, a few scenarios that maybe are fun to play once or twice, a map or two and that's about it.

Talk about a tremendous ripoff.

Thoughtful Thug has it right. CA-CHING!!$!!!$!!

 

[chazzycat]

Of course "Thoughtful Thug" has it right - he agrees with you. And you are always right

My opinion that the $100 is well spent is just as valid as his opinion that it's a ripoff.

 

[MoonFlare]

In terms of personal choices there is no right answer. But in terms of long lasting effects - DLC is poison. Free DLC is great. The Witcher 2, Valve games...They can provide quality content for free. Other greedy developers will sell DLC. And there always will be @#%$^@*#^$ who will buy them. Most of them will act like submissive sissies and say that this is the future of gaming and we can't do anything about it -> developers will raise the cost of DLC and future games(CoD). This will limit modding support (BF3 - no modding for ya suckers! Pay for DLC! and Civ5 with its "SDK") I'm not talking about expansion packs. I like them a lot.
Next step - patches for $$$. You'll love 'em!

 

[Thormodr]

Of course "Thoughtful Thug" has it right - he agrees with you. And you are always right

My opinion that the $100 is well spent is just as valid as his opinion that it's a ripoff.

Of course "Thoughtful Thug" has it right - he agrees with you. And you are always right

My opinion that the $100 is well spent is just as valid as his opinion that it's a ripoff.

When you compare it to cIV, it is not a bargain at all. A lot less content and a broken game for a quite a bit more money. It's a pretty bad deal.

The sad thing is that people that are rolling over and accepting this and all that does is encourage Firaxis/2K Games to do more of the same.

Why make a proper expansion when you just milked more than an expansion's worth of money out of people for a lot less content?

People are sheep I guess...

 

[chazzycat]

When you compare it to cIV, it is not a bargain at all. A lot less content and a broken game for a quite a bit more money. It's a pretty bad deal.

The sad thing is that people that are rolling over and accepting this and all that does is encourage Firaxis/2K Games to do more of the same.

Why make a proper expansion when you just milked more than an expansion's worth of money out of people for a lot less content?

People are sheep I guess...

What's sad is resulting to name-calling when people don't agree with you. You simply cannot accept the fact that there are many people who love this game with DLC & all, in fact prefer it to your beloved Civ 4. Rather than accept this truth, you lash out at those who simply point out it's a matter of opinion. THAT is sad.

Moderator Action: This is largely addressing the poster rather than any points made. It's needlessly personal.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[JohnnyW]

What's sad is resulting to name-calling when people don't agree with you. You simply cannot accept the fact that there are many people who love this game with DLC & all, in fact prefer it to your beloved Civ 4. Rather than accept this truth, you lash out at those who simply point out it's a matter of opinion. THAT is sad.

It is definitely a matter of opinion. I personally hate civ5 with how easy and boring it is. Others like it because it is accessible and streamlined.

I guess it's all in the perspective.

 

[Sadan01]

What's sad is resulting to name-calling when people don't agree with you. You simply cannot accept the fact that there are many people who love this game with DLC & all, in fact prefer it to your beloved Civ 4. Rather than accept this truth, you lash out at those who simply point out it's a matter of opinion. THAT is sad.

No. It's more of a fact that these people have most likely played Civilization for many, many years and are hating where the franchise is heading (broken mechanics, "streamlined" interface and concepts (i.e. losing complexity), paid-for Civilizations/scenarios and a total lack of vision from the developer/publisher).

As I've said many times, if you love Civ V, that is great. I wish I could feel the same way as you, but I do not. Where you see new paid-for content in the form of DLC, I see the publisher "nickel-and-diming" the player-base. Where you've spent many hours playing and enjoying Civ V, I find it boring, the concepts either too similar or streamlined and the game has practically no depth. Neither of us is right or wrong. Just different opinions. However, this is a rants thread; I hope you don't expect everyone here to 100% agree with someone that says they have "loved every minute of Civ V".

 

[Brimstone]

700+ hrs played. Own every single iteration of Civ, starting with Civ1 on 2, 5 1/4 floppies played on my 8088.

Civ V is a turd.

CS are horrible, gimmicky, wasted space. Pointless.

Global happiness is fail.

The AI can't handle 1UPT and makes their combat moves laughable. Not to mention the AI Diplomacy being schizophrenic and ultimately pointless anyway.

The UI in general is a piece of Xbox crap that should never have made it to a PC. There are a million things wrong with it, but I'm sure you are aware.

Map generation and resource allocation is crap.

DLC is an insult.

Game-play in general is mostly boring, especially late game where it is just a mass click fest of Next Turn, regardless of win condition.

Puppet-ting cities is fail. Why on earth would I want to puppet a city and have the horrible AI manage it? Because that is how you win

I could go on and on....

 

[Roxlimn]

FWIW, just as a heads up, puppeting is kind of a bad deal right now. It's actually worth the cost to Annex right now. Just a heads up for those who aren't up to date on patch behavior.

 

[Brimstone]

FWIW, just as a heads up, puppeting is kind of a bad deal right now. It's actually worth the cost to Annex right now. Just a heads up for those who aren't up to date on patch behavior.

True, for larger cities that is.

 

[logintime]

Look, I know I'm already on record as thinking the DLC model is terrible, and thus I am biased and will likely be called out as such*, but does anyone else think the two newly announced DLCs are kind of absurd??

Let's cover this. The Korea civ has always been worthy of a Civilization game. I'm glad it's being added, even if I'm not happy with how it's being added. My problem is that Korea's UA is about as unbalanced as any. Since Civ5 has an unfortunate tendency to favor ICS and science is already tied to population, Korea can have a dramatically faster tech rate. It's overpowered, I'd wager. The UUs are both fine, but that UA is far too strong.

Secondly, the Wonders seem like a rip-off. You are paying for just three buildings. I realize they are wonders, but really? On top of that, I'm going to call their usefulness into question. Statue of Zeus is pretty useful, since this game is so war-oriented, given. But Temple of Artemis isn't; it's main boost is the +10% growth in all cities, which (and I could be wrong here) doesn't seem that large. The increased speed for producing ranged units is kind of helpful, but again does that benefit really justify spending so much time building the wonder to begin with? And unless you have a city with a lot of stone or marble just laying around, the Mausoleum looks pretty useless. GPs are not common enough to justify building it for that particular reason, not when they could be working on financial buildings or wonders instead.

Of course, I haven't used the wonders and I haven't played this game much at all recently, so my critiques of them could be off-base. But my third problem should still stand. Because third, there is no reason other than greed for these DLCs to be charged for as they are. $7.50 for both or $5 for one? Really Firaxis? You want me to pay $5 for three buildings, or for a single civ? Doesn't that seem more than a little steep? These two were obviously made at the same time and are being released together- why not have the decency to package them both at the same rate you are charging for one apiece? The pricing model here seems greedy, in a very nickel-and-dime sort of way.


*and in fact, I'm calling myself out right now!

 

[Fabiano79]

Sometimes I think this thread is the only one I can read without being drunk.

All I can see on the new DLCs thread is "weeeee a shine new boat and 3 wonders..urray..here, have my cash".

I dont want new content, I want to play MP or a game that I cant win with 6 units.

Plp shouldnt buy DLC, we already paid 50$ for ciV, we should get those things for free if they really want to waste time creating them. They should focus on fixing the game.

 

[Sadan01]

Plp shouldnt buy DLC, we already paid 50$ for ciV, we should get those things for free if they really want to waste time creating them. They should focus on fixing the game.

Agreed but this is now "old-school" thinking. The ship has already sailed with DLC. A lot of people continue to buy DLC for all types of games. If you can do it in one genre, then expect to do it in every other genre as well.

It's a shame, but after 25 years playing computer games on many different platforms, I'm now truly feeling that the industry no longer caters to people like me. It's about the new generation which is essentially the generation that is happy to pay extra for little bits of content here and there. I expect this situation to get "worse" to eventually we'll be paying for patches to fix bugs.

 

[Thoughtful Thug]

Sometimes I think this thread is the only one I can read without being drunk.

All I can see on the new DLCs thread is "weeeee a shine new boat and 3 wonders..urray..here, have my cash".

I dont want new content, I want to play MP or a game that I cant win with 6 units.

Plp shouldnt buy DLC, we already paid 50$ for ciV, we should get those things for free if they really want to waste time creating them. They should focus on fixing the game.

I said this before: I wouldn't be surprised that they had already made all of these DLCs before the official game release. I have no proof of that ...

 

[Fabiano79]

NEVER UNDERESTIMATE THE POWER OF STUPID PEOPLE IN LARGE GROUPS

very true.

I bet that when a expansion comes around, we`ll have to buy it with a "pakage of DLCs" or we cant play it.

I said this before: I wouldn't be surprised that they had already made all of these DLCs before the official game release. I have no proof of that ...

I dont think they had them ready, but for sure they have a business plan of contents. They decide that some civs should stay out because they would sell well later, like the vikings or korea.

If the game was good, this would not make me angry. But the feeling I have is that I was cheated. Worse, they are still tryiong to cheat me. I dont understand how some plp dont see this. Wake up guys.

 

[Thormodr]

Agreed but this is now "old-school" thinking. The ship has already sailed with DLC. A lot of people continue to buy DLC for all types of games. If you can do it in one genre, then expect to do it in every other genre as well.

It's a shame, but after 25 years playing computer games on many different platforms, I'm now truly feeling that the industry no longer caters to people like me. It's about the new generation which is essentially the generation that is happy to pay extra for little bits of content here and there. I expect this situation to get "worse" to eventually we'll be paying for patches to fix bugs.

That ship has sailed indeed and it's never coming back to port.

Just like Income Tax in Canada. It was a temporary war measure in 1917.

This is the new business model for Firaxis/2K Games. I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw that the price had risen to nearly $100 and for what? It's still a horrible half baked game and they have added only a few minimal things and doubled the price!

Absolutely astonishing that anyone would be copacetic with this.

 

[kcd_swede]

If the game was good, this would not make me angry. But the feeling I have is that I was cheated. Worse, they are still tryiong to cheat me. I dont understand how some plp dont see this. Wake up guys.

If the game was excellent, I might be interested in buying DLC. But having been disappointed with the gameplay after buying the game, I can't imagine they add anything. Its like getting 6 more flavors of vanilla. Why? When I want variation I'll look for mods (and thus am ticked at the SDK situation).

That said, I'm not a "hater". I play the game with the latest patch and find a deal of challenge to it, enough to keep me playing and mostly enjoying, despite agreeing with most of the criticisms in this thread.

 

[Ashwind]

One good result of having all the rants together is this thread. This is gold.

 

[chazzycat]

No. It's more of a fact that these people have most likely played Civilization for many, many years and are hating where the franchise is heading (broken mechanics, "streamlined" interface and concepts (i.e. losing complexity), paid-for Civilizations/scenarios and a total lack of vision from the developer/publisher).

As I've said many times, if you love Civ V, that is great. I wish I could feel the same way as you, but I do not. Where you see new paid-for content in the form of DLC, I see the publisher "nickel-and-diming" the player-base. Where you've spent many hours playing and enjoying Civ V, I find it boring, the concepts either too similar or streamlined and the game has practically no depth. Neither of us is right or wrong. Just different opinions. However, this is a rants thread; I hope you don't expect everyone here to 100% agree with someone that says they have "loved every minute of Civ V".

All I ask is for people to admit it's a matter of opinion. I make no claims that civ 5 is superior to civ 4, only that I prefer it. I have also played Civilization for many, many years, and my opinion is as valid as anyones.