Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by ori, Dec 3, 2010.
nope, talkin' about civ5 sans mater.
join the Resistance.
And yes, learn to use PM's please, they will answer to the complaints in a professional and timely manner, believe me. That is the way to go. <-- sarcasm alert!!!
Keep the criticism flowing, my friend, it's probably the only way to slightly increase the tiny chance that they may reconsider everything for the next iteration, although I doubt it. In any case, "we shall never surrender" to the mediocrization. Right?
Moderator Action: You know the rules and yet continue to insist on breaking them. Do not discuss moderator actions in public.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
I fired up Civ4 the other day to try and finish an unfinished game and I can't stand it anymore.
I'm not a mod player so maybe that's my problem. I prefer to play the game as they are.
I also find a high correlation between people who like Civ4 but not necessarily Civ3 hating Civ5. But those who liked Civ3 tend to like 5.
I don't think there's any censorship about Civ5 criticism, there's no agenda by CFC and the community is pretty much united in agreement that Civ5 is a poor game that didn't live up to its expectations.
In fact the only think the moderation teem seems to be annoyed about is when people say their off-topic is in fact mod abuse and acting out, which obviously tends to get the mods ever more annoyed and handing out warnings.
Sure, the game is awful, but there isn't really any point in derailing every single thread and make the CFC experience difficult to those among us with lower standards, now is it? We already have plenty of topics bashing out Civ5 and look where that got us? Next to nowhere, unfortunately.
Coming from someone that constantly goes around saying that Civ3 is the best game ever, I can tell you, Civ5 is an abortion of a game.
Why the need for underhanded insults.
It's not an insult, it's a statement. Saying some game sucks (still) doesn't offend anyone, or does it?
You said quite a bit more than that, something about standards or whatnot.
Oh, I frequent the Civ3 boards, and don't see you post there.
Oh, that. I thought you were talking about the abortion part.
Yes, low standards, people who really enjoy Civ5 aren't exactly a game with the highest demands for quality. Not that there's anything wrong with playing Civ5 or even Solitaire for that matter.
If that's offensive then so is disagreeing and with it free speech.
No, you don't. I also think COD4 was by far the best COD, far better than this Boring Ops or MW3 Explosive Dogs nonsense, and just because I don't say these things here in Civfanatics in the Other Games Forum doesn't invalidate my opinion, or does it?
You see, what I have done after having been absent for more than half a year (from this forum) was to post my experiences with the first game after eight month.
Actually, I have to say that I'm having the impression that the combat AI has got even worse than what I remember, which is quite astonishing.
So, I haven't been "derailing" every thread - although I have to admit that after my thread was merged with this one, I asked for the experiences of others in the "help the combat AI" thread. But given the title of that thread, this can't hardly be seen as "derailing", no?
Anyway, stopping to complain will NOT make the game better.
It may make some people FEEL better, ok.
But it will not be an incentive for the developers to improve - neither the current game nor any planning for a next version (if there are such plans).
If we as fans, as members of the biggest fansite, stop complaining about the poor quality then we allow the developers to just go away with what they have delivered.
(To mods about my language : Sorry, Will watch out, though using asterix would've "worked" xD)
Anyways, back to topic
1. I don't think 1upt should be eleminated, I think however that there should've been an option that you can choose between Allow Stacking/Disallow Stacking, which would make both sides happy.
2. Maybe they're not realeasing the SDKs and DLLs because they know community can make better game
first, this is the "rants" thread, ergo the last little space where we, the "non-comformists" were put into by the "non-censorship"... so what do you expect? Praises for the dumbed down version of our favorite game? In fact, what are YOU doing here? You love the game, right? Well, this is the RANTS thread.
Second, yes, LOW standards. If that is insulting, as some here want to enforce us to believe, then free speech is also insulting. It may be for some, but the truth is that it should NOT. It is not personal, I believe that civ5 is a product for a mass of people with lower standards, and I say it so. You, nor any other, shouln't take that as a personal attack. I don't mean to attack anyone in particular, but I will not silence myself just in order to not make some low-self-esteem "dude" feel worse about himself. I don't mean you, but if it is you or not is up to you to decide.
Now, back on topic: civ5 is an aberration...
#1 (I think) is possible in RoM - AND. Not that I ever used that feature, but I read somewhere it's there.
#2 They'd benefit from having a better game, even it made their work look proper crap. It's AFAIK legal issues with 2K.
Regarding #2, I don't think it's legal crap the same way the hiding of a demo was not a legal decision. At this point in time, I am sure anyone with more than two fingers of forehead can understand that there was no demo because they knew what the reaction of the hardcore fanbase would be. It's now very easy to see what the initial sales would have been if they were to release a demo two weeks before launch... isn't it?
#2 has exactly the same reasons. What the fanbase community can do with the right modding tools is far better than what they delivered, they have shown that many times before, even with a more polished game like civ4. It is obvious to me that they don't like the idea that some freelance modders, in their spare time, will show them "how to make a quality civ game"...
Well I understand this thread's purpose as the place for marginalised Civ4 fans to complain about losing religion, spies and ::cough:: superior trade table (how I'm not sure considering Civ4 regressed considerably from Civ3 on this aspect and Civ5 burrowed most heavily from Civ3)
The question was why the need to insult people, in such an indirect way, at a point in the where it's mostly people who agree with each other having a circle jerk. The fact you feel the need to run interference tells volumes.
dex, if you really think that all that is missing from the core is religion, spies and a superior trading system, well, you really need to review your standards. As for insulting, well, apparently from your point of view any type of opinion is an insult to somebody; therefore, nobody talks anymore, to avoid insulting someone. Yeah, right... c-ya!
My friend played Civ 4 with me so I told him to buy 5. He didn't have the internet, and it was not on the disk. When I posted this on the game people called me every name in the book and said that he was a moron. Then they said I made him up because he wasn't posting it. How could he even post about it if he didn't have the internet? Anyways he pays to hook up his internet there is not even a multiplayer worth playing. All of the graphics are disabled and it's bug ridden. We didn't play this game one time against each other.
The people at Civ 5 forums dissed me every time that I posted a bug without fail. I was just making it up, or I should be happy to even be playing the game yet. After all they were under no obligation to even give me a complete game. Who the hell am I to complain?
I found tons of bugs and even mailed some to them at their request. They are still not fixed and some involved maps. Especially the Earth map. They did not fix it they sold more bugged maps instead.
Diplomacy is a joke. The AI is confused about just about everything. If you choose the patronage tree you might as well just shoot yourself in the face at the same time. The AI is going to go ballistic. They should rename the policy that gives every city state a favorable view of you to "suicide".
I could go on and on about why I hate this game. Ok, I will. When I saw this crap pile for the first time I posted it would be the most expensive game ever sold. It's well on its way to earning that title. This is not a game that should have been purchased. This should be some type of free MMORPG that sells you this other stuff. AOE Online would be a perfect example to point to. I thought I was paying a set price for a game as I had done in the past. Selling extra wonders is way overboard. Selling everything else was too but that's the final staw with me. I haven't purchased any of the DLC and I will not buy an expansion or anything else Civ V related.
You guys already know everything else that I hate about it. It's common knowledge that this game sucks.
The main complaints isn't missing features. The main complaints is questionable design choices. The combat system has 4 interlinked problems:
1) unstable. Superior tactics can allow warfare almost without casualties.
2) fragile. The system breaks down with too many units.
3) unsuited for a randomly generated battlefield
4) hard to play for computers
The consequence is that designers had to bend over backwards to ensure moderately competent players can't break the game at will. This involved consciously reducing the number of relevant choices, leading to a shallow game by design.
It seems nobody even tried to make it a good game. What was attempted vigorously was to make a game that appears good and feels good if you don't dig into it. Civ + Panzer general sounds cool but doesn't really work without a LOT more effort. The interface was made for slick looks over usability. AI was recycled from a completely different game, the lead designer is on record that AI isn't important although his creation is needlessly demanding there. Crucial mechanics originally did the opposite of what they were supposed to do in hilariously obvious ways (happiness and ICS). Things like the Giant Death Robot and deliberately overpowered natural wonders show a focus on cheap thrills at the expense of gameplay. The aggressive marketing and exploitation via DLC is the cherry on top.
The game feels like a big sloppy dump on fans who want a rich, deep game that respects its players. That's the reason of intense dislike from people who don't otherwise tend towards histrionics, not a couple of missing features or unwillingness to accept change.
I think that the core problem can be fixed in the core dll source as well, but then for what purpose is this game released? I mean the only reason could be the improved graphics, however graphics aint really better, one can even argue, that it is even worse. So for what reasons does this game exist at all?
I think Civ5 is just a failed experiment.
When I first heard about PG being the "grandfather" of its combat system, I was very excited and literally couldn't wait any longer.
But with the first screen shot it struck me: 1upt will not work in the environment of an 4X-game, as the scale for tactical combat and strategic map doesn't fit at all.
This should have become clear from the very beginning - the very first tests of the combat system should already have proven that. It is just so obvious that there isn't any chance for having overlooked this.
Which leads to the assumption that the lead designer (at least, most probably quite some other persons, too) was too stubborn to accept this fact and to do a re-design.
Which becomes even worse as a working system (granted, in no way a perfect system) was already available.
And since the graphics system is so demanding, there isn't even the chance to enhance the maps to find a solution that way.
Civ5 by design will always be a game based on few units. Because of this there will be only that many meaningful buildings. Because of that there will be only that much tile yield. And so on, and so on.
"Fixing" this would mean a complete rewriting of the core mechanics, literally a new game - not only a changed game. And that is not going to happen, how sad this fact may ever be.
Separate names with a comma.