Civilization 5 Rants Thread

[spider1]

And you think civ6 will come without steam?

I have other games from Steam that update just fine, and don't destroy my game. Civ V is the exception to that. I like playing Civ V, but I'm tired of everytime an update is downloaded it screws something up on my game install and I have to reinstall it. I have other games that are just as much fun and are also dependant on DRM, so I'm not scared of that. But those games don't self implode everytime their release number changes.

 

[Funky]

And you think civ6 will come without steam?

If Firaxis has learnt anything from the Civ 5 disaster, they will at least make it optional to run the game without steam.

 

[Drakarska]

Lol, are you giving Vegas odds with that quote?

 

[salty mud]

I'll go all in on "steam mandatory" for Civ 6. Not that I'd really complain about it.

 

[JJOne]

If Firaxis has learnt anything from the Civ 5 disaster, they will at least make it optional to run the game without steam.

I recommend you try another tbs: Heroes 6. If you buy it on steam you have to log on to steam AND to ubishop in order to run it.

 

[Civking5]

I recommend you try another tbs: Heroes 6. If you buy it on steam you have to log on to steam AND to ubishop in order to run it.

This is true. Now I think of it, I won't be surprised if firaxis follows ubisoft in this.

 

[Funky]

...and loses even more customers. Hopefully. Instead of following this baleful trend like sheep, it's up to us to stop this madness of paying full price for renting games and being forced to install 3rd person programmes in order to play them.

I'm not even a dedicated steam-hater, though I do find the development very disturbing. But the implicitness with which some people accept this shoddy practise shocks me.

 

[JanghanHong]

I'm not even a dedicated steam-hater, though I do find the development very disturbing. But the implicitness with which some people accept this shoddy practise shocks me.

The only way to win the game is to not play it.

You aren't going to have any fun though.

 

[elbeasto]

These issues have probably been done to death but yeah, after only playing Civ V for the last few weeks I have to say that the AI leaders/diplomacy is my biggest complaint about this game.

The AI leaders Don't Make Sense!

I could almost deal with the global happiness mechanic if only the AI went to war or denounced for a reason, Any Reason.

Coming from Civ III, the AI leaders made demands for luxuries, technologies etc.
If you refused and they had a decent military, they would most likely declare war.
In other words their actions had a reason/motive. As such the AI Civs felt more human which in turn helped with immersing the player in game play.

In Civ V, you can be "Friendly" with another Civ and all of a sudden they denounce you and won't trade or maybe even declare war.
If their is a reason for their actions, please tell us! A generic message doesn't breathe life into the AI or the game. In fact it does the opposite.

The AI really needs to be torn down completely and started again, it's definitely the worst thing about Civ 5.
I mean really, did anyone play this game before it was released?
The answer sadly is yes yet they still went ahead and released it. This is what game companies think of it's customers and fans.

Happiness - Nuff said. Like most other complaints about Civ V, my suggestion would to be keep in the game mechanics that worked well in previous Civ's.

A less serious problem would be the list of small, seemingly simple bugs that still haven't been dealt with via patching.
I intentionally bought this game (two years) late and yet here we are...

Workers asking for new orders every turn when there are no enemies around and or during peace time. Very annoying.

Textures, especially roads, not appearing until you move the camera from top to bottom. Also annoying as you have to mouse over a tile to see if the improvement has been completed.
Yes, I know you can plonk a military unit on the same tile but why should I have to go through all that extra clicking.

Random broken trade routes for no apparent reason. Another thing in Civ V that don't make no sense.

Asking what to build in a city that you've already ordered to raze.

I'm not sure if you could call this a bug but the order of dealing with units and events. The game is very adamant about this. Sometimes it even changes unit selection while you're giving orders to the initial unit it has selected.
Also annoying when moving large numbers of military units.

Poor game design - It's way to easy to capture another Civ's city and in turn have your own captured. This really leads, IMO, back to the no stacking rule. No stacking brings in a few problems another of which is real estate, for eg, what if you're started out on a small patch of land? You're screwed.

The research deal - Anyone with a few hundred gold can keep up with your Mech Infantry. Ditch the research deals and make them another item with which to trade, ala Civ III. eg, Machinery tech for Dyes for X amount of turns.

Bad game design the list goes on...


I used to wait for game patches and the like in the hope that a dud game would be good after the patch.
As an older and wiser gamer I know that that patching bad games only makes the turd bigger and so it's just best to uninstall and move on.

With that said, I'm not entirely sure that Civ V is a total pooch. It may be that the idea of a turn based strategy game itself, bringing with it elements from past gems and it's fantastic looks saves it from the rubbish heap, just.

Civ V had a demo which I tried before buying, I commend them for this as the game demo for PC is all but extinct.
Unfortunately there weren't enough turns in the demo to reveal it's massive deficiencies.


My Civ V rant/.

 

[Camikaze]

If Firaxis has learnt anything from the Civ 5 disaster, they will at least make it optional to run the game without steam.

Just to note, distribution and DRM is unlikely something Firaxis has any control over. They are the developer, not the publisher or distributor.

 

[Sid Simelia]

So I was just playing around in a game with the Ottomans, I manage to get like 5 barb ships, and I'm trying to upgrade them to frigates. My unit maintenance has my economy scraping along at 15 gpt. I got Machu Pichu going in the second city though.. Not fast enough, got beat to it.
Finish my stoneworks in my newest city, I have 3 stone and a marble being worked in this city, go for the Mausoleum.. Couple turns away.. *(&(*@$&&!!
Now Rome has sent a massive army to put me out of my misery.. Oh well, at least my unit maintenance will go down once half of my units are dead.

 

[Funky]

Just to note, distribution and DRM is unlikely something Firaxis has any control over. They are the developer, not the publisher or distributor.

2K then. Not that it makes any difference.

The only way to win the game is to not play it.

You aren't going to have any fun though.

This must be the worst possible way to argue. Following this logic, we must accept any measures that companies take to exploit their customers even further. If all you care about is fun. And the travesty is that it is exactly this short-sighted attitude that the companies are building on. Instead of protesting (which is incredibly easy, we simply don't buy the game!), people go along with whatever they throw at us, "to have fun". Sure, let them force us to install 3rd and 4th person programmes, otherwise we "won't have fun". What's next? Will you let them force you to install programmes which scan your harddrive for commercial purposes? Afterall, you want to have fun. Let them raise prices of videogames to over 100€/$. You will buy them anyway, since the only other option for you is to miss out on fun. You think these are unrealistic scenarios? The latter has actually already become practise through the DLC model, which a frightening amount of sheep-minded players follow unquestioned, to make sure there isn't any "fun" they might miss out on.

Seriously, this logic is so wrong that I could go on writing for pages. But I hope to have brought across the point. Don't feel attacked personally, unfortunately it's a whole horde of overly naive gamers which is responsible for this dire trend, which lets itself be exploited more and more without even realizing it. But each one of us holds responsibility. Let them know we won't accept to be ripped off anymore. If their sales numbers drop, they will react. And, believe it or not, you will have your fun back, without all the crap they throw at us.

If 2K really makes 3rd person programme(s) a necessity for Civ 6, fine, then stick with Civ 4. It's still an epic game, especially with all the great mods. And to be honest, going by the rumors and watching the current trends, I doubt Civ 6 will be even close to on par with Civ 4 anyway.

 

[JanghanHong]

This must be the worst possible way to argue. Following this logic, we must accept any measures that companies take to exploit their customers even further. If all you care about is fun. And the travesty is that it is exactly this short-sighted attitude that the companies are building on. Instead of protesting (which is incredibly easy, we simply don't buy the game!), people go along with whatever they throw at us, "to have fun". Sure, let them force us to install 3rd and 4th person programmes, otherwise we "won't have fun". What's next? Will you let them force you to install programmes which scan your harddrive for commercial purposes? Afterall, you want to have fun. Let them raise prices of videogames to over 100€/$. You will buy them anyway, since the only other option for you is to miss out on fun. You think these are unrealistic scenarios? The latter has actually already become practise through the DLC model, which a frightening amount of sheep-minded players follow unquestioned, to make sure there isn't any "fun" they might miss out on.

Seriously, this logic is so wrong that I could go on writing for pages. But I hope to have brought across the point. Don't feel attacked personally, unfortunately it's a whole horde of overly naive gamers which is responsible for this dire trend, which lets itself be exploited more and more without even realizing it. But each one of us holds responsibility. Let them know we won't accept to be ripped off anymore. If their sales numbers drop, they will react. And, believe it or not, you will have your fun back, without all the crap they throw at us.

If 2K really makes 3rd person programme(s) a necessity for Civ 6, fine, then stick with Civ 4. It's still an epic game, especially with all the great mods. And to be honest, going by the rumors and watching the current trends, I doubt Civ 6 will be even close to on par with Civ 4 anyway.

If the price of the games are going up as you say, people will just find other sources of entertainment. If you can't see that there are other alternatives to entertainment than computer games, then you are an addict and the game companies don't have legal imperative to charge less.

If the computer game start costing $100, I'll buy maybe one or two a year and spend my money on magazine subscriptions.

Also, why would I even feel sympathetic to people who get ripped off playing other games? I have nothing in common with them. I don't feel ripped off with CIV franchise, so why are you convincing me to join some cause that the more I think about it, the funnier it gets?

 

[Funky]

If you can't see that there are other alternatives to entertainment than computer games, then you are an addict and the game companies don't have legal imperative to charge less.

I'm the addict? You're the one who implied that "having fun" with a game is more important than being ripped off.

I don't feel ripped off with CIV franchise

This, sadly, is exactly my point.

 

[Colin]

These issues have probably been done to death but yeah, after only playing Civ V for the last few weeks I have to say that the AI leaders/diplomacy is my biggest complaint about this game.

The AI leaders Don't Make Sense!

I could almost deal with the global happiness mechanic if only the AI went to war or denounced for a reason, Any Reason.

Coming from Civ III, the AI leaders made demands for luxuries, technologies etc.
If you refused and they had a decent military, they would most likely declare war.
In other words their actions had a reason/motive. As such the AI Civs felt more human which in turn helped with immersing the player in game play.

In Civ V, you can be "Friendly" with another Civ and all of a sudden they denounce you and won't trade or maybe even declare war.
If their is a reason for their actions, please tell us! A generic message doesn't breathe life into the AI or the game. In fact it does the opposite.

The AI really needs to be torn down completely and started again, it's definitely the worst thing about Civ 5.
I mean really, did anyone play this game before it was released?
The answer sadly is yes yet they still went ahead and released it. This is what game companies think of it's customers and fans.

My Civ V rant/.

I agree that the civ5 AI has some problems, although it has improved a lot with G+K, but the AIs reasons for disliking or DOWing you should show up when you mouse over their attitude e.g. you are a warmonger, or they covet lands you own, so there are reasons for what they do, and the player is informed clearly.

 

[Qgqqqqq]

I may be the exception, but if firaxis was to release a game as good as FFH2 for $200 id still buy it.
I already only buy 1-2 (max) games a year, I'm willing to pay money for quality products. (And no I wouldn't but dlc, as that is rarely quality, normally just feature bloat).

 

[zogleheros]

Wow, after more than 2 years, there are still arguments over 1 upt ? This has already been discussed to death when the game launched, but I'll join the discussion.

@ Funky:

It is not about liking or not liking the game. It is about false quoting and superficial argumentation. And this is against what I rant! (So I feel in good hands in the rants thread )

If you don't like 1UPT, blame it for the real issues!
Choke points and the traffic jams they cause, for example. (I see them as tactical challenge. But you are right, I like the game. So this is a matter of taste and I can't blame anybody to see it different).
Or allied units blocking your own troops.
I don't deny there are problems and if you take them to your heart, they very well might spoil the game for you.

But regarding 1UPT and production, I never did read a convincing argument! (I am interested and I did follow all the appropriate threads!)
They mainly repeat only what Sulla once brought up - and I believe that he was wrong in the first place.

My main argument (and I never saw it confuted and definitely don't see why it is halfhearted) still is:
There are a bunch of possibilities to keep unit numbers in control.
Possibilities that have nothing to do with production.
So, please STOP blaming 1UPT for lowered productivity (assuming that this is the case at all)! They are not related per definition!

Yea, but go for it! Continue your argument Ad nauseam.
I really feel that you (not specifically you, Sun Zu Wu, but all those followers of this argumentation in general) successfully turn the tide in your favor!

I just makes me so sad...

Well, if the argument that they had to lower production rate to prevent too many units from being built and creating traffic jams is not convincing, I doubt you'll find anything convincing. Production and 1 upt are of course related, in the sense that everything in the game is related with each other, and that makes what is called "balance". The link between production and 1 upt is rather straightforward, but there are plenty of other more subtle links between things which may seem unrelated at first glance. And that's one of the reasons we like the Civ franchise, it is complex and deeply inter-related.

There are a LOT of troubles with 1 upt, the first being that it needs a good AI (which CiV doesn't and will never have, it's too late and costly for that). The second is traffic jam damage control. But it's true 1 upt is not the sole responsible for what some call the "complete destruction of the Civ franchise" or the "complete unbalancing of the game". Global happiness instead of local was particularly effective towards that goal too, as were the perks you could choose and were definitive (don't remember their names), and other "great ideas" from Schaffer.

Bottom of the line, production is not as "broken" as other features (AI combat and diplomacy for example, each of those 2 are complete game breakers by themselves), but it makes the game more tedious to play for those who were used to previous Civs' faster production. If you find it fine, good for you. Yes, you could think of a system to limit the number of units while keeping high production rate, but that wouldn't make the game any more interesting for "us". The problem is not how to limit the number of units, the problem is that we want MORE units to feel we are managing an empire and not small villages. We want tons and tons of units. And that is impossible with 1 upt.

Which ultimately comes down to the most fundamental issue (which you may or may not be aware of). CiV is designed to be a "board-type" game, while previous Civs were designed to be "immersion-type" games. And that's where the rift between the two types of players will never be bridged. We don't want the same game. What is broken for some is fine for others, and vice versa. 1 upt (and its after-effects) destroyed a lot of what made the Civ franchise to be immersive. Global hapiness did too. You're looking in the wrong direction with your "false quoting and superficial argumentation", or "arguments ad nauseam". Of course the argumentation becomes superficial somewhere. That's because it has nothing to do with logic but everything with what we want for a game.

 

[Cargo Culture]

...and loses even more customers. Hopefully. Instead of following this baleful trend like sheep, it's up to us to stop this madness of paying full price for renting games and being forced to install 3rd person programmes in order to play them.

Full price? I've only paid full price for a game once on Steam, and that was only because it was a birthday gift to my brother. Heck, my brother got me Civ V (not the same game I got him) pretty cheaply, considering he traded one Steam key for another and then gave the Civ V key to me.

And, well, I would complain too if Steam were the only game in town, but that's not true. There are lots of places selling games via digital distribution like GOG.com or Amazon. And, it's not only old games too. Lots of independent developers (and some non-indie) sell DRM-free copies of games.

I mean, there are more games coming out each year, for multiple platforms (consoles, smartphones, tablets, PC/Mac) and through different distribution models (CD/DVD, online download, cloud) than ever before.

Again, I would more than sympathize if there were no DRM-free games available or no quality games coming out, but it seems these days I can't swing a dead cat without hitting someone that's trying to kickstart their own game that's won some gaming festival award. The only gamers that are suffering these days are coin-op arcade or pinball gamers. I can probably count on one hand the number of decent arcades in Los Angeles, which is the 2nd largest metropolitan area in the US.

Honestly, the game industry is becoming like the movie industry. Just like how there are blockbuster films like the Avengers which are released everywhere and end up on Netflix in about 8 months, there's going to be blockbuster games like Bioshock Infinite or Call of Duty. And just like how there's arthouse/indie/foreign movies like The Master that only play in maybe two or three theaters even in a major city, there's going to be small or indie games that are sold DRM-free or even given out free.

Is it different than how it was 20+ years ago? Yes, of course. But I think it's a little bit better. When I was a kid, I would spend $50 on a SNES or PC game and cross my fingers hoping it was good. Now, I can read reviews and comments online from people who got the game early and decide OR I can just wait until it goes on sale for $25, $10, or even $5 and not feel like I wasted my money if it's garbage.

 

[Tlalynet]

And, well, I would complain too if Steam were the only game in town, but that's not true. There are lots of places selling games via digital distribution like GOG.com or Amazon. And, it's not only old games too. Lots of independent developers (and some non-indie) sell DRM-free copies of games.

Digital download ≠ DRM... Don't even start to compare a company like GOG to something like steam...

 

[Mr.WorldWide]

People will sell their souls if they can get something for a dollar cheaper. Look at all the jobs moved out of the US because people in other countries would make the same product for much less.

I would gladly pay full price for a game that wasn't tethered to Steam's DRM or their "all games - one account" system of control.

I don't care if I have to put the disk in the drive to play it - that's why I bought the game on the damn disc.