Civilization V has been nominated for Best PC Game by the Spike VGA Awards!

[GKling]

Speaking of nominations, I hereby nominate this thread to be closed.

 

[charon2112]

We are well aware of your blind spot, thank you
People. lets face it. We are fighting a loosing battle here. Civ ain't Civ anymore, in the old tradition. It is streamlined and ported from the console, anyone who looks for it, can see it clearly. CIV 5 is for the greater majority. Too much thinking, doesn't belong in such scenario. Discussing this with people like "Charon2112" is like talking to a brick, steel enhancded wall. Give it up, it's just a waste of time and energy.

I suggest we all send him our box of CIV 5, because he loves it so much; he surely gonna break his copy.

I stopped listening after noticing that you can't spell.

For some reason that I can't fathom, nothing bothers a Civ V hater, more than someone who actually likes the game.

Moderator Action: Stop the trolling
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[eviltypeguy]

I can too. Doesn't mean they're not unfinished.
...
I guess we'll also keep having people creating strawmen as well?

Here's a torch for the strawmen. Now that we don't have to worry about that, let's continue

You implied that you agreed with the original poster, and asserted that Civilization V was "unfinished". Given that previous posters implied that their definition of "unfinished" == "bad", what other interpretation was I to have of your words given context?

Or, put differently, what's the point of calling any PC game "unfinished"? It's stating the obvious. I would argue that almost any PC game a person could name could arguably be considered "unfinished" depending on what criteria the evaluator was using to determine whether the game was considered "finished".

You call the game "unfinished", but fail to define (except implicitly) what you might mean when you say "unfinished".

 

[Vordeo]

I stopped listening after noticing that you can't spell.

For some reason that I can't fathom, nothing bothers a Civ V hater, more than someone who actually likes the game.

So much so that they insist on coming onto a board about something they hate to complain nonstop.

It's hilarious, really.

All that said, I'd like to appeal to the mods to not lock this thread. It's got about as much substance as the random complaint threads which are still open (and frankly mostly goes over the same territory).

Alot of it is off-topic, granted, but people who actually want to discuss this story should be able to do so without the avalanche of hate drowning everything out.

Moderator Action: It would be much easier to keep threads open without the trolling.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Aristos]

I stopped listening after noticing that you can't spell.

For some reason that I can't fathom, nothing bothers a Civ V hater, more than someone who actually likes the game.

For many reasons I CAN fathom, nothing bothers a fanboy more than someone who is convinced that said fanboy's beloved game is a dumbed down version of a deep strategy game.

Moderator Action: As I said: stop the trolling.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I could name a number of "AAA" game titles that all have a very long list of issues that were discovered at launch and later fixed, or that continued to have problems long after launch. Yet I doubt many of the same people here vilifying Civilization V would be willing to use the same criteria for their favourite game.

A product working as advertised is a PRETTY OBJECTIVE means of evaluating whether it is finished. Bugs and game crashes = not finished.

And the AAA titles you reference, whichever ones they are, were not finished until they had similar issues ironed out. For a game where its controls don't even work properly, it's not a matter of opinion.

So far, your defense of this matter is about as realistic and intelligent as me arguing that "in my opinion, the mass of the earth is greater than that of the sun". Obviously, that's wrong. Objectively wrong. Just like what you're saying.

Hey, TMIT ... while I agree with what you say, I am getting worried about your blood pressure over this. You need to relax. So I will poke a little fun at your signature, for comic relief:

Maybe I'm just evil, because I don't actually feel upset while making these statements. Or maybe I'm evil because of what I do to other civs, but what's a little radiation if everything is yours?

The problem you have is that you're making the faulty assumption that whether a game is "finished" is something that can somehow be quantified in a factual manner. It can't be. Whether the game is "finished" is a subjective matter at best.

- Product advertises that it does x, y, and z based on consumer inputs.
- Product does not behave as advertised
- Product, with possible future additions, will behave as advertised.

You are claiming that the bolded text does not constitute an unfinished product. Yes, I think that position falls under "willfully ignorant". If people find that insulting to their intelligence, do note that I find that arguments that fly in the face of common sense being purported as valid and rational to be insulting. Literally, your continued insistence that civ V is a FINISHED product and the rationale behind it insults the intelligence of those with opposing views. If you can't be objective, you're not going to convince anyone else who's rational, either.

Some advertising claims, straight from the civ V website:

1. Intuitive interface: The same interface that ninja-starves your people...and holy I could go on. -1
2. Modability: Patches and early compatibility to mods has not been kind. -1
3. Multiplayer: A known, yet to be patched issue limits the #players that can play together in practice to far below the advertised amount. -1

There are also some implicit things that comprise a game as a product:

4. Actually being able to play it; any crash that walls you from playing the game AT ALL or being unable to finish a game (still ongoing for many) breaks the intended use of the product. The # of ways this could happen on release was staggering, but even now it's problematic.
5. Controls. All games have controls, and they're supposed to work. Civ IV was probably worse, because the game had a higher incidence of issuing commands different from what you input, but that still goes on.
6. Specifications: People running minimum specifications should be able to play the game...that is why they are defined as minimum specifications. People running recommended specifications shouldn't have any issues at all. Take a look at crash reports and tell me that's the case, if lying is your thing.

Don't even get me started on the disparity between the instructions and how the game plays in practice, or that the rules of the game are being hidden from the player...........

Now, there are lots of bad gameplay issues too, but that doesn't necessarily make V incomplete (lots of awful games are still complete if they accomplish the design goals...even if the goals are terrible. A terrible game that works is still a complete game.)

No, sorry, that's not "factually" true. I know it's hard to believe that somehow, someway, somebody disagrees with your particular viewpoint. But just because somebody disagrees does not mean you have the right to claim your viewpoint is the "factually" correct one.

I have now provided you evidence. Good luck worming out of all of those and somehow still arguing that this game is still finished, even based on its OWN advertising. Actually, good luck coming up with any evidence to back up your side of this argument at all...

Realise that people can actually appreciate and enjoy Civilization V, and even (gasp!) view it as a "finished" game from their own viewpoint.

People believe all kinds of things that aren't true all the time. Sometimes even a majority do so, such as the hysteria over nuclear power and the actual vs perceived risks of meltdowns. While that idiot perception carries weight when making business decisions, the facts about nuclear power are NOT subjective, just as several glaring issues with civ V making it incomplete are NOT subjective. You want me to "just agree" on the one point I'm proving you flagrantly wrong...no dice.

My primary point (although dripping with sarcasm) in my original post was that it's foolish to believe that one's own view of Civilization V as a product is somehow the only "right" one and everyone else is "wrong".

Opinions on whether or not it's a good game, playable, it has good design, etc. are all subjective and people will like/love/hate as they please. That the game does not consistently work is not subjective. It doesn't consistently work. It's been proven over and over.

Again, I could point to a number of "AAA" game titles that both changed and *added* new things well after their release.

The funny thing is, each of those titles on release had something in common with each other that civ V does not have in common with them:

They worked. There were not random little issues that made completing the game impossible. Control inputs actually did what they advertised they did, and were pretty streamlined on release. All of their game modes were immediately playable on recommended specs. When they advertised a feature, such as "supports MP up to x players", they came through on that promise consistently. None of those games hid their rules, either. If anything, you're making your case weaker and weaker.

None of this is to say, by the way, that unfinished games are "bad" games. I don't believe I said that outright on this thread. However, whether a game is finished is certainly a valid criteria for naming it GOTY, and also for comparing it with other titles. THAT is where civ V falls short: it can not compete with the well-made titles with which it attempts to compete in the OP link.

Or, put differently, what's the point of calling any PC game "unfinished"?

Edit: ! I just saw this. So even you realize this game is unfinished after all, and are now choosing to backpedal and say that ALL games are unfinished .

Okay then. Take my arguments above, and switch them to read "reasons why civ V is decidedly, objectively less finished than quality titles such as the ones against which it is competing in the OP, even if technically no game can be finished". Maybe that will make you happy, even if it doesn't change the relative reality of the situation .

I guess we'll also keep having people creating strawmen as well?

Looks that way , with varying degrees of nonsense to accompany it.

For some reason that I can't fathom, nothing bothers a Civ V hater, more than someone who actually likes the game.

Dig deeper, and maybe logic will reach you:

Spoiler :

People who heavily support products that don't even work completely as advertised, and are "fine" with them are enablers to future products of similar quality. Every person who does not care that the UI is streamlined is another person the developers can sell the game to after dropping any support towards UI. Every person who is "happy" with a game which hides rules, heaps on fake difficulty, and forgoes balance is another person driving developers to leave a game in that state. Every person who is happy with the rate at which the game plays on systems WELL above the recommended specs is another person driving the development team toward adding more content before fixing the core experience.

Essentially, ever person that argues in favor of the game in its present state is another person who is driving the development team to maintain the status quo; they'll maintain it now AND in future installments of the game, all the while dropping basic gameplay quality in things like UI controls, gameplay rules, competitive balance, and the rate at which the thing runs/works. They watch, you know. They know the arguments you make, and they know the arguments I make. They're trying to maximize their bottom line; your support of the travesty that is some of civ V's flaws has a long-run impact on the gaming experience for everyone, and it's a very negative impact. You are "fine" with cities starving at random, "fine" with only 1 viable approach to play the game at a decent level, "fine" with a shoddy MP experience (that has nothing to do with actual in-game play, but rather just attempting it at all), "fine" with the game crashing at #cities >70, "fine" with units moving before their orders can be interrupted. All these things you're "fine" with ultimately make competent players who still care about the quality of high level play suffer. When you put in a vote for civ V for GOTY over a title like sc2, which was held UNTIL it was a finished product, you are putting a vote in to damper the very future of PC gaming...and you have the gall to call people out for arguing against the mere IDEA that civ V should sit beside those other titles. Really? You REALLY can't fathom this?

All that said, I LIKE the game. Don't forget, I LP it as the most successful current series on my youtube channel. I wouldn't be doing it if I didn't like it. I WANT it to get better. I'm still active on the beta forums, not just here.

The important thing to realize, however, is that the game is NOT where it should be. It needs work and a LOT of it. It's not all doom and gloom, but it isn't going to get better if so many people are pretending major issues are non-issue, unless the developers know better. The reason I seem quite passionate here is because many of the posts I am arguing with directly undermine the game from improving. Developer resources are finite; the community pulse channels where they put those resources considerably. I am not going to stand by arguments that essentially enable shoddy gameplay so that we can get more fluff kindly.

 

[ori]

Moderator Action: This thread actually has some decent discussion, I'd hate to close it, but any and all trolling/flaming/uncivility will stop here.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[eviltypeguy]

A product working as advertised is a PRETTY OBJECTIVE means of evaluating whether it is finished. Bugs and game crashes = not finished.

And the AAA titles you reference, whichever ones they are, were not finished until they had similar issues ironed out. For a game where its controls don't even work properly, it's not a matter of opinion.

So far, your defense of this matter is about as realistic and intelligent as me arguing that "in my opinion, the mass of the earth is greater than that of the sun". Obviously, that's wrong. Objectively wrong. Just like what you're saying.

There we go insulting the intelligence of other forum members

Maybe I'm just evil, because I don't actually feel upset while making these statements. Or maybe I'm evil because of what I do to other civs, but what's a little radiation if everything is yours?

No, I'm the evil one here

- Product advertises that it does x, y, and z based on consumer inputs.
- Product does not behave as advertised
- Product, with possible future additions, will behave as advertised.

You are claiming that the bolded text does not constitute an unfinished product.

No, I'm claiming that some people will care about some of the things on that list, and some will not. And in addition to that, some people's interpretation of which items on that list are or are not available (or are complete) is always subjective.

1. Intuitive interface: The same interface that ninja-starves your people...and holy I could go on. -1

Whereas I would disagree; I actually like the interface quite a bit. So again, subjective.

2. Modability: Patches and early compatibility to mods has not been kind. -1

It has modability; does it have the degree of modability which some people may desire? Yes, possibly, and no possibly. Again, subjective.

3. Multiplayer: A known, yet to be patched issue limits the #players that can play together in practice to far below the advertised amount. -1

Obviously, many people are playing multiplayer, to what degree multiplayer does or does not work is again subjective.

4. Actually being able to play it; any crash that walls you from playing the game AT ALL or being unable to finish a game (still ongoing for many) breaks the intended use of the product. The # of ways this could happen on release was staggering, but even now it's problematic.

I've played over 92 hours. And yes, I've had it crash a few times. But I can also point to at least a dozen or more other PC games that have also crashed on me at one point or another. What's your point?

5. Controls. All games have controls, and they're supposed to work. Civ IV was probably worse, because the game had a higher incidence of issuing commands different from what you input, but that still goes on.

The controls seem to work just fine to me. I'm lost on what you're trying to do here.

6. Specifications: People running minimum specifications should be able to play the game...that is why they are defined as minimum specifications. People running recommended specifications shouldn't have any issues at all. Take a look at crash reports and tell me that's the case, if lying is your thing.

Is it really necessary to implicate or insult others to get your points across?

I have now provided you evidence. Good luck worming out of all of those and somehow still arguing that this game is still finished, even based on its OWN advertising. Actually, good luck coming up with any evidence to back up your side of this argument at all...

No, you have provided me with your subjective view of the game. You're entitled to that view. You are not entitled to claim it is the "right" view or "factual" view.

People believe all kinds of things that aren't true all the time.

Yep, they sure do. I'm glad I'm here to help you understand where you went wrong

I believe the game is "finished" enough to playable (obviously, at over 92 hours of play).

Again, it all depends on what your definition of "finished" is. It's obvious Civilization V doesn't meet your definition of "finished". That's fine, you're free to feel/think/believe that.

Just don't go insisting that everyone else shares the same subjective criteria you do for "finished".

 

[blind biker]

So every single one of the professional reviewers is either wrong, or paid off by the game developers? You can't seriously believe that. I certainly don't buy it.

Paid off? No. But they have clear incentives in publishing positive reviews of a game they didn't even play to completion (or else at least ONE of the many professional reviewers would have run into one of the many late-game crashes).

 

[blind biker]

It's worth emphasizing, for those who missed it, that the Amazon reviews of Civilization V are nothing short of abysmal.

 

[Akka]

Oh, it's not just my blind spot. Apparently, all the real reviews are blind as well, right.

conspiracy! conspiracy!

Or simple incompetence, or simply targeting their reviews for the casual crowd.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
Or, as people already pointed, the fact that many factors simply push reviewers to overrate "big games".

And it's not like the "professionnal reviewer" were considered as reliable before Civ5. It's been years that they are the laughing stock of players. I know I certainly NEVER used any online review to make a choice about if a game would interest me or not.

 

[Maniacal]

It's worth emphasizing, for those who missed it, that the Amazon reviews of Civilization V are nothing short of abysmal.

Its also worth noting that the reviews for Civ4 are not that much better for the GOTY editon .

 

[nmosfet]

Yeah i agree with OP that it should go to Mass Effect 2. I'd even vote for SC2 or FNV over Civ V

 

[jprc]

I am a bit lost...
Reading through the last 5 pages, with mostly bla bla bla between some posters who obviously can have 4 or 5 trolling warnings without consequences... I wonder if I can go back to the original topic:

Civilization V has been nominated for Best PC Game by the Spike VGA Awards!

(? Spike ??)

My questions are simple:
Does anyone know what are the Awards existing for PC games?
Which one makes an impact?
Which one is recognized by at least a reasonable amount of
- players
- and/or developpers
- and/or publishers
- and/or reviewers ??????
With this "award", are we not talking about an epiphenomenon?

 

[Maniacal]

Spike is hosting Video Game Awards now apparently. Really it just looks like another boast the developer/publisher can put on their advertisements, especially since only high-profile games from major publishers are included. Really its just a way to get people hyped up and briefly entertain them, and encourage ultimately pointless debates on the internet.

 

[lschnarch]

The controls seem to work just fine to me. I'm lost on what you're trying to do here.

I have to assist TMIT here.
The controls clearly are working in a weak way, to say the least.

Example 1:
You order a mounted unit to attack. It does, and "apparently" stays active for some time, so you try to order it to retreat.
Yet, internally a different unit somewhere else on the planet already has been selected.
As soon as you release the mouse button, this other unit happily starts it 35-turns way to the wrongly designated hex.
Since there is no way to display "go-to" orders on the map, you will have fun in finding out which unit now is on the march.

Example 2:
You order a unit to move from its present position to a new one. It is very likely (according to my experiences in around 1/4 of all cases) that the first thing you notice will be the red circle with red dot to indicate that said movement is not possible.
Around a second later it will change to the white circle with white dot, since actually the movement was and is very well possible.

Example 3 (subset of 2)
This will be very often happen for maritime units in the ocean, where the red circle will just stay, although the unit finally moves to the designated target.

Fact is, mouse controls are working poorly.

 

[Vordeo]

I'd let TMIT handle that one, as I seriously doubt that's what he's talking about. Believe it's more to do with the lack of shortcuts and hotkeys. He clearly also says that the problems existed in CivIV, and those did not (well, they did a bit).

Spike is hosting Video Game Awards now apparently. Really it just looks like another boast the developer/publisher can put on their advertisements, especially since only high-profile games from major publishers are included. Really its just a way to get people hyped up and briefly entertain them, and encourage ultimately pointless debates on the internet.

Actually, on that note, are there any video game awards generally recognized by fans and industry as the most prestigious around? I'm talking the video game equivalent of the Academy Awards for movies.

 

[tm01xx]

This nomination is an embarrassing. The devs people in Firaxis must be embarrassed for this new development.

 

[PieceOfMind]

Example 3 (subset of 2)
This will be very often happen for maritime units in the ocean, where the red circle will just stay, although the unit finally moves to the designated target.

This one happens when you have a unit crossing over the left-right edge of the map. There are also graphical glitches (e.g. forests on top of mountains) that happen on the edge of the map.

 

[Toady]

There we go insulting the intelligence of other forum members

The same way you insult his intelligence by supporting that clearly objective terms can infact be subjective.

No, I'm claiming that some people will care about some of the things on that list, and some will not. And in addition to that, some people's interpretation of which items on that list are or are not available (or are complete) is always subjective.

There is nothing left to interpretation.... sure i can show you a square and you can say circle.... or i can tell you something is not there and you can say that it is. Just because you have a differing opinion doesn't mean something is subjective.

Whereas I would disagree; I actually like the interface quite a bit. So again, subjective.

Totally irrelevant. You liking it doesn't invalidate his assertion and certainly doesn't make the issue of wether it's working subjective.

I've played over 92 hours. And yes, I've had it crash a few times. But I can also point to at least a dozen or more other PC games that have also crashed on me at one point or another. What's your point?

What's yours? If someone calls you stupid are you going to point to other people that are stupid and say "their stupid too"?

Is it really necessary to implicate or insult others to get your points across?

Is it really necessary to argue with no points other than "I have an opinion so everything is subjective" and counter anything you don't have an answer to with pretentious righteousness?