Civilization 5 Rants Thread

[Andulias]

Sorry, that doesn't wash. Many games get very good reviews from customers. Users can review the reviews, and the ones that receive a lot of recommendations get promoted to the top. Uncritical 5 star and one line 1 star reviews don't get this treatment. Oddly enough, the customers are only wrong when they don't like a high profile release, or when their opinion differs from those of the gaming publications. If you actually read the Diablo 3 reviews, for instance, you'd see that people critiqued the game play as well as the model. More to the point, if you choose a design feature that makes a game difficult to use, why shouldn't that be a factor in the game ratings? Civ 5 has poor AI (and, yes, the AI is objectively worse than prior versions because of the catastrophic combat model.) This should be an absolute disqualifying factor in a review of a single-player game, and it didn't prevent glowing scores.

The reason why I place a lot of weight on user reviews comes from your second point. The best ones are from people who have played previous versions, are familiar with the genre, and who understand the impact of changes in game systems. Professional reviewers who have never played previous versions and spend few hours simply don't have the relevant background.

It sounds as if you're a professional reviewer. If that's the case, you should think hard about the criticisms that your peers are getting. You have game designers admitting problems with their designs (e.g. Dragon Age 2) that the "professionals" ignored in their 95% reviews. You have people in forums like this one who can find serious flaws in new games within a day of release - not even commented on in the reviews. And you even have thoughtful people with a lot of background who can spot *design* flaws that you'd expect to be the true province of professionals with a generalist background - again, not captured in the uniformly loving scores for the AAA titles.

Edit: and, of course, we've been through the Civ 4 vs. Civ 5 user reviews before on this forum. Civ 4 got criticized because of stability issues and bugs, which is a completely reasonable basis for a reduced score. Civ 5 got criticized for bad design. There is a difference between these two things.

Yes, I was a reviewer. Gave DA2 7.5 (as opposed to 9 for DAO) and CiV 7. But that's because I know CIV inside and out and I played CiV day and night, probably clocked close to 30 hours in 4 days just to make sure I'm not missing something. And you have no idea what kind of flame wars we've gotten because of low scores, if anything is pushing reviewers to score games higher than they should, it's flamers. Kevin VanOrd over at GameSpot said he got numerous hate and comments and e-mails because he gave TOR an 8 (?!). Something is obviously wrong here.

You are missing my point though. I absolutely despise with a burning passion the way most current reviewers rate games, how the 8 is now a bad score, and how well-established franchises get high scores for free for the sake of not pissing off fanbois. I am not trying to say this isn't an issue.

What I am trying to say is, user reviews rarely are better taken as a whole. Again - CIV has a score lower than 8. That's just ridiculous. And why? Because of reviews like this one:

Deeply disappointing. Above all, the geography stinks. What I mean by this is that in far, far too many cases one's civilization is bereft of any natural frontiers - obviously designed deliberately that way so that you HAVE to build massive armies. Unrealistic and tedious. A massive step backwards from Civ 3.

The score is a 3. Am I supposed to take this seriously? No, thank you. Note also it's not about stability issues. It's about supposed "bad design". In fact, scrolling through the reviews, I am stunned to see how many people whine about the game not being like III and stacks being boring. Some reasoning...

Anno 2070 has a 6.9. Why? Because of this:

Sadly buying this game, results in so harsgh DRM/Copyright protection meassures that those people who actually illegally download the game profit from it.

Yeah, see, I agree about that, but I want to know if the actual game is good (pro-tip: it is). Bash the DRM all you want, by all means do so, but ignoring everything else is kind of stupid. I also don't think ME3 deserves a 4 because of its last 15 minutes. A lower score? Yes. A 4?! No.

So in the end of the day I just go to Rock Paper Shotgun and read their WOTs as well as the comments below them. I also keep a track of several reviewers whose opinion I value. To me Metacritic scores and user reviews are just as bad as their "professional" biased counterparts. After all, one of my personal favourites has a user score of 7.4 (Gothic 2). Doesn't stop me from loving the game to death.

 

[Tiaramisu]

People are simply putting too much weight on other people's opinions. While "proessional" reviews are something any avid consumer, or any consumer really, should turn their nose up to, consumer reviews are someone else's opinion and should not be a basis to form your own opinion or to judge their own. Likewise, those same reviews should also not be compared to your own opinion of something. So what if somebody gave CIV a bad review? Obviously not everybody is going to think it was the pinnacle of the series, and it's something I would expect of children to complain about.

But that's horribly off-topic, so, my biggest complaint is the AI. It's poorly done, to say the least. There are other things that irk me, like the cost of roads, civilization-wide unhappiness, but none of it bothers me as much as the former does.

 

[Tambien]

So a major arguing point is the depth of the games, right? Their ability to immerse you in their world, to connect you with the people of your empire, and to provide legends to stand the test of time. Well, in this respect Civilization V quite obviously fails.

Look at the activity levels of the Civilization 4 Stories and Tales Forum as compared to that of the Civilization 5 Stories and Lets Plays Forum. Indeed, look at the forums themselves. CiV S&T was so unpopular and inactive that they decided to merge Lets Plays with it. Something, you will note, that has not happened in CIV's much more diverse and fulfilling S&T Forum. The same goes for CivIII S&T.

In the CiV S&LP forum, there's what, 1 story thats active (Do Gods Cry? Which, BTW, is very imaginitive in its work with the limited framework CiV provides, if you havent read it I suggest you do) and 1 IAAR (Imperium Romanorum- Also very good, but only because of the depth of the politics and rules the players provide. I also suggest that you join this!)

As I look at the CIV S&T forums, I see 12 stories that have been posted on since the 20th. I see one new IAAR that is still going strong. I see many more stories that have been posted in since the 15th.

As I look in the CivIII forums I see 3 active stories, still more than CiV!

If that isnt proof of the disparity in depth between the games, I dont know what is.

I rest my case.

 

[ezwip]

I love metacritic. There is enough information to determine if I'm going to enjoy the game and all of the pitfalls that I can expect. I don't buy a game until I've gone there.

 

[Andulias]

So a major arguing point is the depth of the games, right? Their ability to immerse you in their world, to connect you with the people of your empire, and to provide legends to stand the test of time. Well, in this respect Civilization V quite obviously fails.

Look at the activity levels of the Civilization 4 Stories and Tales Forum as compared to that of the Civilization 5 Stories and Lets Plays Forum. Indeed, look at the forums themselves. CiV S&T was so unpopular and inactive that they decided to merge Lets Plays with it. Something, you will note, that has not happened in CIV's much more diverse and fulfilling S&T Forum. The same goes for CivIII S&T.

In the CiV S&LP forum, there's what, 1 story thats active (Do Gods Cry? Which, BTW, is very imaginitive in its work with the limited framework CiV provides, if you havent read it I suggest you do) and 1 IAAR (Imperium Romanorum- Also very good, but only because of the depth of the politics and rules the players provide. I also suggest that you join this!)

As I look at the CIV S&T forums, I see 12 stories that have been posted on since the 20th. I see one new IAAR that is still going strong. I see many more stories that have been posted in since the 15th.

As I look in the CivIII forums I see 3 active stories, still more than CiV!

If that isnt proof of the disparity in depth between the games, I dont know what is.

I rest my case.

Please do, because none of what you said has anything to do my post. I'm talking about how unreliable user scores are, you are talking about role-playing

But I checked anyways, saw 9 threads in the Civ 5 LP and S forum that have been active since the 22nd (yesterday). And after the expansion I don't really see what makes V more limiting than IV. Would like you to tell me exactly what makes CIV THAT much deeper in that regard? Vassals aren't around, that hardly hurts the game in my eyes. What else?

 

[Tambien]

Please do, because none of what you said has anything to do my post. I'm talking about how unreliable user scores are, you are talking about role-playing

But I checked anyways, saw 9 threads in the Civ 5 LP and S forum that have been active since the 22nd (yesterday). And after the expansion I don't really see what makes V more limiting than IV. Would like you to tell me exactly what makes CIV THAT much deeper in that regard? Vassals aren't around, that hardly hurts the game in my eyes. What else?

I wasnt adressing your point..... I was talking about something else. Either way, I usually assume that a game is somewhere in between the user ratings and the professional ratings.

Yes, but I am talking about STORIES. LPs dont count. Like I said above, Stories prove

Their ability to immerse you in their world, to connect you with the people of your empire, and to provide legends to stand the test of time.

In addition, I will reference you to this:

CiV S&T was so unpopular and inactive that they decided to merge Lets Plays with it. Something, you will note, that has not happened in CIV's much more diverse and fulfilling S&T Forum. The same goes for CivIII S&T.

As to the expansion, I don't know about it yet as I dont own it yet. I will not be wasting my money on it until the price drops to $20, which is sure to happen soon.

 

[Andulias]

I wasnt adressing your point..... I was talking about something else. Either way, I usually assume that a game is somewhere in between the user ratings and the professional ratings.

Yes, but I am talking about STORIES. LPs dont count. Like I said above, Stories prove


In addition, I will reference you to this:


As to the expansion, I don't know about it yet as I dont own it yet. I will not be wasting my money on it until the price drops to $20, which is sure to happen soon.

Can't argue with that, CiV vanilla, thanks to its non-existent diplomacy and the lack of religion and espionage, really wasn't worth it, but IMO the expansion did a lot to elevate those problems. As of now I really don't see much that would get in the way of writing a good CiV story. I do see 4 of them now, but still not much more activity than the IV or III forums.

 

[Tambien]

There aren't 4 stories in the CiV S&LP thread if thats what you're saying.

 

[Andulias]

Do Gods Cry, Rise of the Ottoman Empire, Civ Diaries, Vol. I and Imperium Romanorum. Or does that not county as a story? I don;t know, I haven't been following that forum

 

[VikingTy]

I play on DEITY now and I can't help but feel the only way to increase difficulty is to allow the computer to cheat...... It's getting to the point where I have to resort to dirty tactics to survive.

I wish increasing the difficulty would improve the AI and not allow them to use infinite happiness and infinite production cheats. It's really stupid when I have a army with good composition and I've made military my FOCUS and the AI has twice the amount of units and a tier above me ............ It's just not fun anymore.

I need to find a realism mod or something.

Immortal is too easy, deity cheats like a mofo.

 

[Iranon]

TBH, that's not too different in Civ4. On Immortal, you can delude yourself into accepting that the AIs are playing the same game as you, on Deity... not so much.

 

[Andulias]

TBH, that's not too different in Civ4. On Immortal, you can delude yourself into accepting that the AIs are playing the same game as you, on Deity... not so much.

IMO it was already noticeable on Emperor. Oh hello, Monty, it's turn 35, where did you get that archer?

 

[Jayman1000]

No matter what you say, Civ V cant escape its insane AI and the rampant 1UPT problems. Mod all you like, but these core issues will remain. To fix these problems you would have to make an entirely new Civ game; but I have no illusions here. Civ V was the definate end to the continuation of the Civ-series.

 

[Andulias]

No matter what you say, Civ V cant escape its insane AI and the rampant 1UPT problems. Mod all you like, but these core issues will remain. To fix these problems you would have to make an entirely new Civ game; but I have no illusions here. Civ V was the definate end to the continuation of the Civ-series.

G+K says hi. The Ai has been noticeably improved.

 

[Eskel]

Anyway, there are two things that ruined this game for me: general hapiness and policy system in place of civics. Took away completely any sense of reason for in-game internal affairs strategy.
Mind you, that game costing with G&K add-on twice as much as Civ 4 vanilla, barely makes the same level of fun ... what makes this purchase completely senseless. I won't put my money on it in the nearest future, as it doesnt deserve this. Civ4 still plays better.

 

[ohioastronomy]

Please do, because none of what you said has anything to do my post. I'm talking about how unreliable user scores are, you are talking about role-playing

But I checked anyways, saw 9 threads in the Civ 5 LP and S forum that have been active since the 22nd (yesterday). And after the expansion I don't really see what makes V more limiting than IV. Would like you to tell me exactly what makes CIV THAT much deeper in that regard? Vassals aren't around, that hardly hurts the game in my eyes. What else?

Civ 4 isn't crippled with a tragically misconceived combat system and a designer who wanted to turn an empire building game into a shallow wargame. Civ 5 is.
That doesn't make Civ 4 perfect, but at least it isn't a train wreck like Civ 5.

 

[Esoteric Arcane]

Government choosing that has a positive and negative effect, forcing anarchy, between government types, which means your cities might revolt and leave your empire. Policy really has no negative consequence, tech tree has no complicated cross training so you can beeline things easier, hex vs square, your unit that cant stack, lost two available places to move i.e. 8 to 6. List goes on, really...

Edit:
Forgot to add, that if you build a city and improve that tiles resource, your WHOLE empire gets to use that resource even if its not in the trade network. Previous Civ, you had to link it to other cities for those cities to be able to build say horseman with horses....etc...

 

[Andulias]

Civ 4 isn't crippled with a tragically misconceived combat system and a designer who wanted to turn an empire building game into a shallow wargame. Civ 5 is.
That doesn't make Civ 4 perfect, but at least it isn't a train wreck like Civ 5.

It's a matter of personal opinion, not an actual design flaw. I prefer the new system even if just because it's not luck-based. Losing 98.5% sometimes just made me want to quit out of frustration. I also don't see how a more tactically oriented combat system automatically means it's no longer an empire building game. I don't see one excluding the other.

Government choosing that has a positive and negative effect

25 civics. 2 of them had ANY kind of a negative effect, and since those civics were incredibly powerful, the trade-off was necessary. That's 8% of all civics. I am sorry if I feel like laughing when you say that they all have a positive and a negative effect. They don't.

forcing anarchy, between government types, which means your cities might revolt and leave your empire.

True enough. Cities couldn't revolt until BTS though, don't forget that.

Policy really has no negative consequence

You are repeating yourself. Neither do almost all of the civics.

tech tree has no complicated cross training so you can beeline things easier

Agreed, the tech tree was terrible in vanilla. This is one aspect of the game that was much improved in G+K. Beelining is nowhere near as easy as it used to be, and it's generally more complex and branching out. Is it better or worse than the one in 4 now? I don't know, but it certainly is a huge improvement over vanilla. The vanilla tree made me quit the game. The new one made me come back.

hex vs square, your unit that cant stack, lost two available places to move i.e. 8 to 6.

You repeat an argument yet again. Hexes are by default better than squares, your 6 vs 8 comparison is completely bogus. The way diagonals were always the best way to move when exploring was idiotic and most certainly not deep, and now strategic placement of troops on the map has a much bigger influence because of hexes. It's done the game nothing but good, even most CiV naysayers agree about that. Unit stacking I can hardly regard as "deep". Both systems have their ups and downs, and while nothing beats building a well balanced and thought-out stack, the tactical combat system in CiV is in fact very deep and rewarding, with correct unit placement, tactical formations, zones of control etc.

List goes on, really...

No, it doesn't. The only thing you came up with is Anarchy, that's it. You also repeated two of your arguments twice, which makes me question how long that list of yours is.

EDIT: The funny thing is I CAN come up with several arguments that CiV has been "dumbed down" and I was honestly waiting for someone to come up with them. No luck so far And for the record, i can also come up with several arguments that support the notion that CiV is NOT dumbed down, some things that it better than 4.

 

[Esoteric Arcane]

I didnt say Civics, I said government system, which was in the 1 - 2 - 3 civs. The civic system was not perfect either, but could of been improved in its balancing as well.

The 6 vs 8 movement is not bogus based on a 1upt map of this size. If the army hexes were 1/10 the size, I could see it as an improvement, the AI trying to master the hex 1upt tends to get itself bungled up. I have seem it improve a little, but it was much better at defending units in a stack, but do not let that mislead you in me saying stack was a lot better, as it does have it ups and downs.

The list does go on, if you really want to read my previous posts.

I do like that bombarding has made a comeback, I didnt care for the archery line ending, and was waiting on a patch to fix it since day one,

I do look forward to the expansion, but as is, not worth 30 bucks for a game I hardly play compared to the other Civs.

Mind you I didnt play Civ 4 as much as I played Civ 2, but I was addicted for that next turn button, didnt care for warlords, BTS, added a lot of the game play I have enjoyed.

 

[Esoteric Arcane]

Couple more if you want. Caravan from Civ 2, Great Merchant from Civ 4, I cant personally trade with who I want in Civ 5, as the trading system is automatic, and I can only use the great merchant for City States in Civ V, which I have found in Vanilla to be more of getting in my way than adding anything to the game.

Changing the way roads work, with 1upt you really want the roads to be everywhere, making roads scarce in Civ 5, the 1upt falls on its face when trying to manage unit movements.

If you want, I can add more, legitament bad changes in Civ 5 from previous Civs.