Civilization 5 Rants Thread

[uat2d]

It's actually kind of easy: you can try the games before you buy them, you can watch gameplay commentaries, you can listen to that game's community and, in case of reviews, never trust anyone who can rate a game with a number and who doesn't points out a game's flaws.

When it comes to game reviews, I just completely ignore them, as they're just always so detached from reality. Just read any old review for those big games from the biggest sources, you'll know what I mean.
Actually, the only reviews I like to watch are the ones by Yahtzee (Zero Punctuation), specially because he actually knows how to review a game and by pointing out its flaws, tells how it could be improved. The fact that his reviews are also incredibly humorous (and also filled with swearing) is just a nice bonus, depending on your personal taste.

 

[Padje Dog]

I totally agree with the hype thing, and recognise that I do have it still. Diablo 3 and Conquest of Elysium 3, both I'll be purchasing on the day of release.

I don't rely on reviews anymore (although I do like the "Out of Eight" review site) and prefer to watch the forums after release to see what the game is really like. My evidence: Elemental War of Magic. Granted I pre-purchased so there was no saving me but it should have been clear to anyone that the game was bad.

Actually I do get Fallen Enchantress and another expansion for free for pre-purchasing Elemental War of Magic, its being totally reworked by Derek Paxton of Fall From Heaven fame so actually I'm laughing

 

[Chadwiick]

My problem with this game is many-

*Stoopid AI (Spelled it like that on purpose)
*City spam
*I don't feel like an emperor or something
*There is pretty much no such thing as an economy
*Too little resources and most of them don't have much value
*Removal of religion
*Policies half developed
*Being released when not ready
*DLC. REALLY?
*Lack of variety of civs
*Too many bugs and lag when I first started to play
*Weak weak diplomacy
*All units looks the same
*Civs aren't detailed enough
*Little variety in vanilla units when comparing to other civs (Russians&English have same tanks)
*Not enough era classification, go from what mid 1800's to 1940's? What about WWI?
*Not enough units/buildings/etc.
*Technologies don't feel right and don't flow well to meet appropriate times
*As someone said, gold = victor
*No save for MP?

Lets see so I am not a complete pessimist

*Good level of eye candy when you carve the land with workers
*Decent animations
*Oh, forgot this one- better combat system / more defined

 

[Tabarnak]

*No save for MP?

Yes. Just press ctrl-s

Basically, tiles don't have much value i agree. That's why some early buildings enhancing these tiles are precious and need to be built sooner.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

Addionaly, the Save is now a button from recent patch in PC version (maybe Mac too)

And honestly, I don't want too many building/s units, too much clutter, especially for people who play on Quick speed like me)

 

[Brichals]

Totally agree with the cynicism about gaming journalism. Don't believe any scores. Well at least most of us learned that by now but there are still lots of sheep around. I'm not disappointed with Civ5 though. It was the hype of SC2, which is a complete turkey imo, which convinced me. Diablo3 will be a mess also I'm calling it. Hard to find originality in games nowadays.

Also if you buy a game on release you're paying to play a beta nowadays, but I am OK with that if it's a game I care about and if patches are done well.

 

[uat2d]

Also if you buy a game on release you're paying to play a beta nowadays, but I am OK with that if it's a game I care about and if patches are done well.

It's also getting harder to find developers actually caring for their game. Once they have your money, forget it, it's more profitable for them to just push some minor patches to give the impression they actually care without fixing anything major while they start working full steam (if they haven't started already) in selling more DLCs and more games, each one more shallow than the other.

 

[Naokaukodem]

The review conspiracy is a bit harsh, don't forget that many players indeed like Civ5, that most of the reviewers liked it, so it can't have been a too bad game (notice the past : before patches it was pleasant, after them, with fans contestations, it is an awful game)... and if the wrong guys were you ? Hardcore gamers that spend all their life playing, finding bugs, finding unbalances, etc...

A golden rule when you make a game : never EVER listen to the fans. They are too self centered, spend all their life playing, having time to notice this and that, they are helping each others on forums, etc... all those things that a normal and sane player would never do. Why anyway ? Because one should be able to complete a game by oneself, not with forums help, that involve program decryption most of the time. Oh yeah, fine, to play one game in the hardest difficulty mode, I should decrypt the program in order to see the weaknesses of the AI ? Great.

When realised, Civ5 was a good game. That's when developers started to listen to the fans that it started to become a so bad game. Nerfing luxuries (as if they were not rare enough !), nerfing happiness buildings, nerfing horsemen (great, now i have to be damn lucky or plant a city at the other end of the map, be happy if you get not attacked there ! by the way it already happened to me ), rising difficulty levels so that only one person on Earth can win on Deity, and share his experience on the web so that other persons can achieve this... I really miss the times of Civ2, when I could complete it in Deity after having understood most of its mechanics.

I have nothing against a weak AI solely (the progresses of AIs nowadays are not that great, especially on end users computers, and when you know that the behavior of an AI is not directly seen on the screen, it discourages developers to look deeper in it)... only when it is so poor that it must rely on overwhelming advantages in order to be competitive or more hard. Now with Civ5, it is just bad general design that AIs must have countless RIDICULOUS advantages in order to be competitive... one of them is of course the happiness bonus... man, this one is so CRUCIAL that giving so much advantage to the AI in this regard is just ridiculous. So when I'm stuck with 3 cities in Prince, expansionist AIs have at least the double, and continue to produce settlers to surround my poor civilization. So even with nowadays poor AIs, one could do a decent one by giving it advantages, but not pure brute ones like those, here it comes to general design of the game which is bad in that case.

 

[The Little One]

The BIG problem:

Civ5 is a good game. I refuse to listen to anyone who says otherwise.

But the DLCs...

People say 'It's only a few dollars'. Well listen up. If you want to buy all of the DLCs, it will cost you about £30 (I think that's about $50). This is about the cost of the base game. Here's what you get for each:

Civilizations: Base game, 18 - DLCs, 6 (FOR THE SAME MONEY)
Maps: Base, not sure, about 20 I think - DLCs, 14
Scenarios: The only thing that the DLCs are better for (only 1 with the base game)
Wonders: Base Game, 27 - DLCs, 3...

Conclusion:
DLCs should be free. We paid for the game, we shouldn't have to pay for it again

 

[Aristos]

The BIG problem:

Civ5 is a good game.

Exactly. Many of us got spoiled by the older iterations, which were GREAT, and now our feeling is just there, at that point you mention, a feeling that it is only a "good" game when it could have been great, like all its predecessors... refusing to listen to other's opinions won't make us, all of us, a favor, but only encourage the same attitude on the developer: not listening.

On the DLC topic, completely agree with you. It feels like a big fat lie.

 

[The Little One]

Exactly. Many of us got spoiled by the older iterations, which were GREAT, and now our feeling is just there, at that point you mention, a feeling that it is only a "good" game when it could have been great, like all its predecessors... refusing to listen to other's opinions won't make us, all of us, a favor, but only encourage the same attitude on the developer: not listening.

On the DLC topic, completely agree with you. It feels like a big fat lie.

I guess I'm lucky that I never played any of the others so I don't have to cope with the disappointment...

 

[Aristos]

I guess I'm lucky that I never played any of the others so I don't have to cope with the disappointment...

Well, that is a good point. You still have time though, you can play the others (or at least the latest) if you want, and then make your own updated opinion about the differences.

On the other hand, if you feel you are enjoying it, why even try to compare it to the others? In any case, play it till you are fed up with it, and then try to others just for fun... they are cheap these days anyways (Civ4 Complete sells for a few dollars).

 

[Leif Roar]

Civ5 is a good game. I refuse to listen to anyone who says otherwise.

It's mediocre. It has a uninspired tactical wargame part coupled with an uninteresting strategic empire building part. There is little in the way of synergy between the two parts. Graphics and audio are fine, but nothing special. Production values and technical implementation are rougher than they should be, but mostly serviceable. The game is playable, but not very interesting.

 

[Iranon]

It's a lot of lipstick on a lot of pig. Quite an achievement that it's somewhat playable considering the design blunders at the core of it.

 

[bitula]

A golden rule when you make a game : never EVER listen to the fans. When realised, Civ5 was a good game. That's when developers started to listen to the fans that it started to become a so bad game.

Huh? I first thought this is just a joke, but actually it may be, that most Civ5 fans simply ignore the genre and the past and the overall feel of the game which made it unique. Ofcourse it is hard to argue this way, but imagine, that some people, dont play just any game which is, say, trendy, but play just certain types of game. I myself play only 4 or 5 games, but I play those very frequently. So those people, who do not really have a favourate game, which they play for a lifetime but are casual players and like buying games and playing those for short time, just to have something to "refresh" them, and then go on to other games, probably constitute the majority of Civ5 fanbase. This is simply because Civ5 is boring as hell when compared to previous series, and that is not a philosophy, just an oppinion which is probably shared by most non-casual players who were fanatics of previous series. The success of civ5 will be temperal and after several decades will be chronicled as a failure - and not recognized as famous games, like civ1, civ4- unless something happens to save it. But nothing so far hints to there being any attempt thowards this.

 

[Melvin Gerbil]

Christ I hate this game, I'd go as far as saying it's at the level of Sim City Societies. It is just awful compared to its predecessors.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Huh? I first thought this is just a joke, but actually it may be, that most Civ5 fans simply ignore the genre and the past and the overall feel of the game which made it unique. Ofcourse it is hard to argue this way, but imagine, that some people, dont play just any game which is, say, trendy, but play just certain types of game. I myself play only 4 or 5 games, but I play those very frequently. So those people, who do not really have a favourate game, which they play for a lifetime but are casual players and like buying games and playing those for short time, just to have something to "refresh" them, and then go on to other games, probably constitute the majority of Civ5 fanbase. This is simply because Civ5 is boring as hell when compared to previous series, and that is not a philosophy, just an oppinion which is probably shared by most non-casual players who were fanatics of previous series. The success of civ5 will be temperal and after several decades will be chronicled as a failure - and not recognized as famous games, like civ1, civ4- unless something happens to save it. But nothing so far hints to there being any attempt thowards this.

Nerf of horses, happiness ressources and buildings, and so on... how do you call that if not to please the so-called "harcore" fans ?

 

[bitula]

Nerf of horses, happiness ressources and buildings, and so on... how do you call that if not to please the so-called "harcore" fans ?

Well though I happen to be a hardcore fan I dont even begin to understand what are you talking about... Why would nerfing anything would please hardcore fans?

 

[Becomedeath]

But the DLCs...

People say 'It's only a few dollars'. Well listen up. If you want to buy all of the DLCs, it will cost you about £30 (I think that's about $50). This is about the cost of the base game.

So don't buy them. If they're overpriced, people won't buy them and they will reduce the price. Simples.

If we consider that £30 is basically a cheap night out and that a single DLC will keep you entertained for a time period equal to that if not greater then the you're basically saving yourself £27 each time you buy one. Multiply that by the number of DLC civs you have and then say you're not actually getting a decent deal.

If you can't afford it, nobody is holding you at gunpoint to buy it. If you bought it, then you surely thought it was a decent price otherwise you wouldn't have bought it?

I have never understood this concern over the price of the DLCs. I spend more than that over the weekend in change given to hot barmaids I don't have a shot with. At least I get to play with the DLC civs!

 

[Rub'Rum]

If they're overpriced, people won't buy them

This is where you are wrong. Sadly.