The frustrating thing is that people with self control need to use their self control only because there are people with no self control. If nobody gave in to overpriced stuff, then we'd all have the same stuff, in a proper expansion as it used to be, for much better value. The minority (I'd be surprised if more than 25% of Civ owners buy the DLC full price or at all) making the business model viable penalize everybody.
Civilization 5 Rants Thread
- Thread starter ori
- Start date
Fabiano79
Prince
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2008
- Messages
- 337
That's one way to look at things.
Myself, I love the people with no control who overpay, prepay and must get things as soon as they come out. They keep the industries going while myself, I have no problems with waiting until a deal. Usually in mere weeks most of the time.
I also usually buy a game after I read reviews on who's opinions I value.
So, someone wanna post how cheap it was possible to buy all that stuff together? I believe I paid about $30.00 for what you say costs $99.
I would feel bad for a person who makes it so obviously clear that their life is apparently ruined by the massive let-down that the game must be for you... until I read your sig that also makes it clear that you're probably just a sphyxter who now only lives to ruin things for everyone else. (yes, yes, its your right in life to be as miserable as you wanna be- please keep sharing)
You know, hitting yourself in the head with a hammer is great because it feels good when you stop... I highly recommend it..
Moderator Action: Such attacks are not at all acceptable.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Myself, I love the people with no control who overpay, prepay and must get things as soon as they come out. They keep the industries going while myself, I have no problems with waiting until a deal. Usually in mere weeks most of the time.
I also usually buy a game after I read reviews on who's opinions I value.
So, someone wanna post how cheap it was possible to buy all that stuff together? I believe I paid about $30.00 for what you say costs $99.
I would feel bad for a person who makes it so obviously clear that their life is apparently ruined by the massive let-down that the game must be for you... until I read your sig that also makes it clear that you're probably just a sphyxter who now only lives to ruin things for everyone else. (yes, yes, its your right in life to be as miserable as you wanna be- please keep sharing)
You know, hitting yourself in the head with a hammer is great because it feels good when you stop... I highly recommend it..
Moderator Action: Such attacks are not at all acceptable.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
mtrein
Chieftain
10 months on and the game is STILL unfinished (but playable). Instead of investing their time fixing the game, Firaxis decides it is much more worthwhile (and they are absolutely right from an absolute monetary point of view) to create stupid DLC that they can get idiots to buy. Heck, there are quite a few who don't mind... And it is filling their coffers, so why bother changing anything?
As I said in another post, if Civ 6 ever comes out I'll be trying it before buying it, that's for sure.
As I said in another post, if Civ 6 ever comes out I'll be trying it before buying it, that's for sure.
kiwitt
Road to War Modder
From what I understand the move to create this thread was to bring all negative discussion in one location.Bad Brett said:
There are plenty of newbies to the Civ franchise, brought in by Civ 5. This thread is mostly populated by Civ 4 and earlier civ players. Why clutter up a general discussion forum, which would upset newbie players who are more than satisfied with the game they have bought and are genuinely wanting to discuss aspects of the game they may or may not understand, outside just simply complaints. Besides once here they may also see Civ IV, III and even II and I, etc.
The focus of Civfanatics is to treat everyone well regardless, make sure everyone enjoy their stay on this forum.
However, I agree 100% with your other comments.
Bad Brett:
To be forthright, the extremely vocal and generally unreasoning negativity of many Civ IV veterans were ruining the Civ 5 forums for the rest of us. It is unfortunate that valid critiques such as your thread are sacrificed to the axe, but perhaps you couched it in too negative a fashion?
There is nothing that I see wrong with DLC, because I'm more or less happy with my Civ 5 purchase as-is. Compared to similar content with prior Civs, it's comparable, even if others will vociferously say otherwise, with little to no substantiation.
bitula:
That's interesting. Great Generals was one of things which I did NOT like about Warlords, generally because it tilted the balance even more towards the player. The AI was already generally bad at war. Adding Great Generals made it comparatively worse, because it was just that bad at using Great Generals.
I liked the war-themed expansion for Civ 3 better, just for the Sengoku Jidai Scenario, though the Army mechanic was at least just as broken as Great Generals were (and still are).
Thormodr:
I'd broadly say that, with the addition of new Wonders and the new Unique Improvement mechanic, DLC so far for Civ 5 is comparable with the new content in Warlords, for a cheaper price, if they are acquired on sale with the case game today.
This is particularly so because unlike in Civ 4, modern combat in Civ 5 actually works. Past Medieval (and particularly Nationhood) in Civ 4, combat just became incredibly broken. We're talking hundred unit stacks, here.
Granted, this is supposed to be a rant thread. I'm just maybe suggesting that we might want to direct the ranting to things that are worth ranting about. YMMV.
To be forthright, the extremely vocal and generally unreasoning negativity of many Civ IV veterans were ruining the Civ 5 forums for the rest of us. It is unfortunate that valid critiques such as your thread are sacrificed to the axe, but perhaps you couched it in too negative a fashion?
There is nothing that I see wrong with DLC, because I'm more or less happy with my Civ 5 purchase as-is. Compared to similar content with prior Civs, it's comparable, even if others will vociferously say otherwise, with little to no substantiation.
bitula:
That's interesting. Great Generals was one of things which I did NOT like about Warlords, generally because it tilted the balance even more towards the player. The AI was already generally bad at war. Adding Great Generals made it comparatively worse, because it was just that bad at using Great Generals.
I liked the war-themed expansion for Civ 3 better, just for the Sengoku Jidai Scenario, though the Army mechanic was at least just as broken as Great Generals were (and still are).
Thormodr:
I'd broadly say that, with the addition of new Wonders and the new Unique Improvement mechanic, DLC so far for Civ 5 is comparable with the new content in Warlords, for a cheaper price, if they are acquired on sale with the case game today.
This is particularly so because unlike in Civ 4, modern combat in Civ 5 actually works. Past Medieval (and particularly Nationhood) in Civ 4, combat just became incredibly broken. We're talking hundred unit stacks, here.
Granted, this is supposed to be a rant thread. I'm just maybe suggesting that we might want to direct the ranting to things that are worth ranting about. YMMV.
I didnt have any problems with AI, but to be sincere I dont play civilization for the reason as to exercise my mind. If I want do that, I play chess. So AI was never a major issue for me (until Civ5 where the AI nuked my empty town 15 times in a row, without destroying anything - because you see - the city was empty.) But can you tell me, how much hours in a day you play Civ5? Im just curious. I understand that it can be played casually llike 2 or 3 hours per day. But does anyone plays it less casual?
Edit: btw, this is a rant thread, why are you posting positive things here about civ 5
TheMarshmallowBear
Benelovent Chieftain of the Ursu Kingdom
I agree with Roxlimn, there's obviously going to be flaws in the game, but I think it's generally the age we live in, a lot of game are slowly becoming over-rated and disappointment to many, for example, Diablo III and Duke Nukem Forever appear to be huge disappoiments.
And you gotta have it in the back of your mind that every game company is just trying to maximize their profits, and they gotta make it appealing to everyone, for example I love the original Diablo II series, I think it's an amazing game, but when I heard they added a "anime-type" hero, all of my family were in disgust, it's not our thing, but for MANY people it's something that's intresting,
Same with CiV, the game is designed to be "playable" for everyone, and more or less older series is probably more "logic/strategicly designed", which isn't very appealing to average person who is not as "bright" as game would require you to be, and Civ V is probably designed that everyone can get the hang of it (which could lead to the Non-Stacking Feature beind added, it was hell seeing those Doomsday Stacks, which is why I always hated playing agasint A.i and was always peace focsued in Civ III and IV).
And you gotta remember that the economy is somewhat in difficult times so they have to MAXIMIZE the possible profit to make money.
And, I do tend to usually play very long per game (even on Cheiftain)
And you gotta have it in the back of your mind that every game company is just trying to maximize their profits, and they gotta make it appealing to everyone, for example I love the original Diablo II series, I think it's an amazing game, but when I heard they added a "anime-type" hero, all of my family were in disgust, it's not our thing, but for MANY people it's something that's intresting,
Same with CiV, the game is designed to be "playable" for everyone, and more or less older series is probably more "logic/strategicly designed", which isn't very appealing to average person who is not as "bright" as game would require you to be, and Civ V is probably designed that everyone can get the hang of it (which could lead to the Non-Stacking Feature beind added, it was hell seeing those Doomsday Stacks, which is why I always hated playing agasint A.i and was always peace focsued in Civ III and IV).
And you gotta remember that the economy is somewhat in difficult times so they have to MAXIMIZE the possible profit to make money.
And, I do tend to usually play very long per game (even on Cheiftain)
I didnt have any problems with AI, but to be sincere I dont play civilization for the reason as to exercise my mind. If I want do that, I play chess. So AI was never a major issue for me (until Civ5 where the AI nuked my empty town 15 times in a row, without destroying anything - because you see - the city was empty.) But can you tell me, how much hours in a day you play Civ5? Im just curious. I understand that it can be played casually llike 2 or 3 hours per day. But does anyone plays it less casual?
Edit: btw, this is a rant thread, why are you posting positive things here about civ 5
This is an interesting question. I don't know myself anything on this matter but I would like to think there can hopefully be a competitive scene going on. Now I don't know if the game is too easy, or if the only way to beat Deity is to sword rush/exploit. In this case then the game is not up to scratch for serious players. If you set up a GOTM and 6 top players all complete it in different styles then it can be a serious challenge for competitive players. (Just my uninformed guess on things).
Maybe MP needs fixing a lot before we see a flourishing MP scene. I think it could be possible. The lobby seems to have some nice functionality at least. However it will need to come from this community, and a lot of the negative comments might have turned people away from it. The thing is CFC is probably the best place to grow such a community, 2K are not going to start opening tournaments.
While most of this thread is about Civ 5 as a game and how it disappoints some in its mechanics, DLC is almost more about a business model, the future of gaming in general, and decision-making as a consumer.
Therefore, I honestly think having a thread to specifically rant about DLC, an ubiquitous subject that is invading a lot of other threads, is legit. Maybe the thread should have been called "CIV 5; The DLC business model and future gaming platforms" or something like that, and not have included the word "rant", appearing to be a duplicate...
Fabiano79
Prince
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2008
- Messages
- 337
CiV is going to improve, for sure. Ill wait until a proper expansion.
On a side note, please dont delete this Camikaze, because its not an idea for CFC, its just something I want to say to my fellows on CFC.
Moderator Action: Do not comment on any moderator action in public.
If you want to say something, then do it via private message.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
I feel bad about some changes around here, and Im leaving the forum after four years reading it. See you guys around if CiV becomes playable online.
On a side note, please dont delete this Camikaze, because its not an idea for CFC, its just something I want to say to my fellows on CFC.
Moderator Action: Do not comment on any moderator action in public.
If you want to say something, then do it via private message.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
I feel bad about some changes around here, and Im leaving the forum after four years reading it. See you guys around if CiV becomes playable online.
bitula:
Haha. You're right. It is a rant thread. Aside from having nothing all that bad to say about Civ 5 that wouldn't be apropos in a general thread, I don't have rants, so I generally stayed away. That said, it seemed to me that the rants in this here rant thread were beginning to not have any sort of relevance to Civ 5 the way it is right now. Many complaints that are still being propagated in the thread are no longer valid, which makes me suspect how much Civ 5 ranters here really play. If the rant is so off-base as to be ridiculously untrue, does it still belong in the Civ 5 rant thread? I just wanted the ranters to rant a little more accurately, I suppose, so that the rant thread doesn't look as silly as it already does.
When it came out, I played it for about a month, maybe 5 hours a day or so? Since the last few weeks, I took it up again after the latest patches and have played all the Civs, each playthrough lasting maybe a little over 8 hours - so, 96-ish hours in a few weeks?
I tend to play at King with a rather healthy amount of self-imposed restrictions. Makes it more fun for me. Arguably, putting those restrictions in would improve the game for everyone, but I wouldn't presume (example: I NEVER saved social policies, even early on. It seemed a little broken to me to have that ability, so I never used it. Now, it's standard not to be able to save SPs).
SimonL:
Maybe the thread's tone shouldn't have been so unreasonably rant-ish. The excessive, combative, and unpleasant posting style of many ranters has left an extremely bad taste in the mouths of many of us who like Civ 5 just fine. It's a suggestion. If you live in this thread and believe that you have a reasonable grievance that could be addressed in a future patch, it pays to phrase it in an extra-reasonable tone outside this thread, especially when you're known to hate Civ 5.
Haha. You're right. It is a rant thread. Aside from having nothing all that bad to say about Civ 5 that wouldn't be apropos in a general thread, I don't have rants, so I generally stayed away. That said, it seemed to me that the rants in this here rant thread were beginning to not have any sort of relevance to Civ 5 the way it is right now. Many complaints that are still being propagated in the thread are no longer valid, which makes me suspect how much Civ 5 ranters here really play. If the rant is so off-base as to be ridiculously untrue, does it still belong in the Civ 5 rant thread? I just wanted the ranters to rant a little more accurately, I suppose, so that the rant thread doesn't look as silly as it already does.
When it came out, I played it for about a month, maybe 5 hours a day or so? Since the last few weeks, I took it up again after the latest patches and have played all the Civs, each playthrough lasting maybe a little over 8 hours - so, 96-ish hours in a few weeks?
I tend to play at King with a rather healthy amount of self-imposed restrictions. Makes it more fun for me. Arguably, putting those restrictions in would improve the game for everyone, but I wouldn't presume (example: I NEVER saved social policies, even early on. It seemed a little broken to me to have that ability, so I never used it. Now, it's standard not to be able to save SPs).
SimonL:
Maybe the thread's tone shouldn't have been so unreasonably rant-ish. The excessive, combative, and unpleasant posting style of many ranters has left an extremely bad taste in the mouths of many of us who like Civ 5 just fine. It's a suggestion. If you live in this thread and believe that you have a reasonable grievance that could be addressed in a future patch, it pays to phrase it in an extra-reasonable tone outside this thread, especially when you're known to hate Civ 5.
I really have no Idea what this thread is about, its sort of a chaos, but at least its not getting closed. So come on Civ5 opposers, unite! Lets post as much as possible about how bad game Civ5 is so this thread always remains on top!
Wow, aint Im evil?
Moderator Action: Don't troll around.
Hmmm, to be more rant-constructive, did I already mention, that Civ5 is boring and I hate puppeting, 1UPT and city states and DLC concept?
Wow, aint Im evil?
Moderator Action: Don't troll around.
Hmmm, to be more rant-constructive, did I already mention, that Civ5 is boring and I hate puppeting, 1UPT and city states and DLC concept?
Unfair comparison. You are comparing DLC that you got on sale with an expansion that is full price.
To make a proper comparison, you'd need to have the cIV expansion on sale as well.
Looking at it in the proper way, the DLC is still a rip off. You get less content and still have to pay more.
It's a rip off compared to Warlords and it's a horrendous rip off compared to Beyond the Sword.
2K Games/Firaxis know exactly what they are doing. They are milking this game for everything it's worth.
2K Games/Firaxis know exactly what they are doing. They are milkingthis game for everything it's worthuncritical customers with deep pockets on a quest for immediate short-term bliss for what they're worth.
Fixed that for you.
*hides in a bush*mtrein
Chieftain
I agree with Fabiano's post, things have changed a lot around here.
Moderators, if you are going to keep deleting this you may as well just go ahead and ban me.
Moderator Action: Do not comment on any moderator action in public.
If you want to say something, then do it via private message.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Similar threads
