Did Sid just pull a George Lucas on us?

[Kid R]

I quite like it, but mainly for the new combat system. It isn't dragging me back for game after game like civ 4 has done for years. Nothing I do in the empire management side of 5 seems exciting - it's all so balanced out with maintenance costs and drawbacks to counter the benefits. In 4 there are a hundred different things where you read the civilopedia entry and think "yeah, that sounds really powerful", and you decide to try it out next game, and a lot of the time it was powerful, and it was fun to try, and sometimes it worked.

In 5 everything seems so muted. Tile improvements that just add 1 to the tile, where's the excitement in that? You build a library and it gives you some science every turn, but it costs some gold every turn. I mean wasn't it enough that I put the hammers into it and waited 15 turns? No, the game has to make sure it takes the thrill away a bit more with a maintenance cost too. It's a small thing and doesn't imbalance the game in any way, but it just seems like saying "don't have too much fun with that library now". It's all too samey, nothing I see on the build queue sounds worth choosing over anything else, or at least without getting out a calculator and a spreadsheet.

First thing they should do in a patch if they want to make it play better is take away the building maintenance costs. Second thing is make tile improvements all add 3 instead of 1. Third thing is multiply the benefit of all wonders and social policies by 3. Then retweak the balance if it needs it starting from there. Give people "interesting choices" always used to be the Civ philosophy, Civ 5 at the moment seems mostly rather boring choices between things with mild or unclear benefits.

Oh yes and improve the combat AI wouldn't hurt but I'm sure they've got the message on that already! If it was good I'd be happy to build units all game long and just play hex combat games. Forget tile improvements and buildings altogether. Did I say I like the new combat system?

All things considered I don't think it's far off being a brilliant game. But it's not quite one at the moment.

 

[WeneedmoreCivs]

Because you're bothered by someone's opinion, it doesn't turn them to trolls. Besides, you're over simplifying the reasons people complain.

No, what makes them a troll is when they post something that's been posted hundreds of times before simply to get a response. They didn't bring ANYTHING new to the boards other than a duplicate thread about how some ignoramus couldn't figure out that most of their issues with the game are because they haven't figured out the game yet. How can people be complaining about how horrible a game is when they've only played it for 5 minutes? I've seen idiots complaining about how you can buy units in this game (not realizing how stupid they are and how every version of Civ has allowed for unit purchasing...and wonder purchasing) or how there are these maintenance costs associated with buildings (umm, they've been in the game for years).

I don't think anybody was expecting a BTS with a couple of add-ons, that's silly. They made a new game and abandoned some aspects of what makes a civ game. Some people, like you probably, said "hey, I like where this is going" while other people, like me, felt that it's not civ anymore.

Umm, look at every one of the stupid "I hate Civ V" rants. All they are complaining about is how things have been changed from Civ IV. What did they want changed if NOTHING was changed? That's the point. If you didn't want change, why did you need a new version of the game to come out? It's supposed to be different, or else I'd simply just download another mod for my Civ IV.

Not because it's not BTS, but because it's not civ anymore. Or it is, an amputated version that I don't like. Years of development by the developers and the community were disregarded when building this new game.

Really? How is it not Civ? Is it not a turn based strategy game where you control an empire from 4000 BC until the near future? Is it not a game where you engage in trade, diplomacy, combat and empire development? Is it not a game where you build units within cities and send them out on missions? How is it not a Civ Game?
I've played Civ for nearly 20 years, played every official version and expansion (except Revolutions) and I've found this game to be a welcome addition to the Civ canon.

If you have problems with this thread, post or others, click the report button. You may get what you want. Don't you think it's also annoying when someone who can't even understand why you're saying something, comes and tells you to shut up because your words offend his or her sensitivity?

I understand perfectly well. This post was another in a long line of trolling posts with no point. Why join just to start a single complaint thread? How does this help? How does this add to the CivFanatic's forums?

Moderator Action: Please don't use words like "stupid" and "idiots" - they don't elicit kind responses.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Zharkov]

A.I.: just sad. They completely changed the way combat works, but seem to have left the same Stack-of-Doom A.I. The computer has no clue what to do with itself. Even when it has all the components for a good raid, they'll leave out catapults, so I'm able to hold them off with two units. I'm not a very good Civ Player but the game just isn't even worth playing on anything less than King setting.

Well, I will not even consider buying the game until the AI happens to place ranged units behind melee units...

 

[Packers]

The only troll I've seen so far on this thread is WeneedmoreCivs. Calling people idiots and stupid and using bold characters are signs of a troll.

Moderator Action: Please use the report post button if you have a problem with what someone has posted. Thanks.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[johnbutler1982]

I think we all need to keep in mind that Civ IV was *ripped* at launch in the same way Civ 5 is being ripped. Civ IV has two horrible AI bugs that weren't patched until Warlords (people don't remember the forum thread and forum thread complaining about this).

In vanilla civ 4, the AI when war was declared would do one of two things. If they were the stronger military, they would move their entire force, in a stack, to a city of your empire, usually the biggest border city, and try to take it. If they failed, rinse and repeat - and they would not take peace without you ceding that city. If they were the less strong military, they would take all their units and place them in their capital on defense immediately and concede the rest of their empire.

There were literally 50 "Why does the AI run to its capital? Civ4 sucks" threads when civ4 came out. People complained and complained about the change in siege.

Civ 5 will be fine. Everyone needs to calm down. Its fun now, and will be great with time, patches, expansions and mods. Then we'll get "Civ6 is awful! BRING BACK V".

 

[dexters]

I lol'ed when someone said Civ IV was an obvious classic on Day 1.

Vassal states, easily one of the mechanic that fixed a heavily unbalanced and crapshoot guessing/game for diplomatic victory wasn't introduced until the XP.

 

[zulu9812]

I think we all need to keep in mind that Civ IV was *ripped* at launch in the same way Civ 5 is being ripped. Civ IV has two horrible AI bugs that weren't patched until Warlords (people don't remember the forum thread and forum thread complaining about this).

In vanilla civ 4, the AI when war was declared would do one of two things. If they were the stronger military, they would move their entire force, in a stack, to a city of your empire, usually the biggest border city, and try to take it. If they failed, rinse and repeat - and they would not take peace without you ceding that city. If they were the less strong military, they would take all their units and place them in their capital on defense immediately and concede the rest of their empire.

There were literally 50 "Why does the AI run to its capital? Civ4 sucks" threads when civ4 came out. People complained and complained about the change in siege.

Civ 5 will be fine. Everyone needs to calm down. Its fun now, and will be great with time, patches, expansions and mods. Then we'll get "Civ6 is awful! BRING BACK V".

Actually, I don't agree. Civ4's launch problem was bugs. Still, when playing it, I remember thinking that it was the ultimate evolution of civ: it was obvious that the game had legs. Conversely, Civ5's problem is conceptual in nature. Instead of building on what was great in Civ4, Firaxis have thrown out that game and started afresh. Civ5 is less like a game in the Civ series, and more like a copycat spin-off, in the vein of Call to Power or Rise of Nations (except not as good as those games). With this instalment, the series has clearly been dumbed-down and simplified. As I've said previously, we wanted Civ4+ and instead we got CivRevolutions+.

 

[gingerbill]

i'm enjoying CIV5 . I find i build more wonders in CIV5 just because they cost no maintenance so even a little bonus is good , and anything that offers happiness bonuses is far from weak. There's as much strategy in CIV 5 as 4 , maybe even more. If you play a few games you notice how inter linked all the systems are . And socials offer far more strategy than picking the same 2 civics every game.

My only complaint is that research is far too fast in epic and marathon compard to build times.

 

[charon2112]

This is pretty much it in a nutshell. We wanted Civ4+ and instead we got CivRevolutions+

Civ V is much closer to IV than Rev...

 

[ananirtudosi]

Things now fell like a RTS game in slow motion!

- Henrik Nordtorp

THIS!!

 

[Bombguy99]

I have to say after about 15 years + of playing Civ, this one is really... un-enjoyable.

Maybe Civ IV spoiled me, as for the last couple years I have been playing only mods, the bigger, cooler, and more extensive the better.

Too much graphics, not enough substance. I'm tempted to go back to playing Rise of Mankind on CivIV.

 

[hoojahmoolah]

Sid Meier has done a George Lucas and then some.

CiV is a spit in the face to the series and, surely, to many of its long term players.

 

[Kid R]

how there are these maintenance costs associated with buildings (umm, they've been in the game for years).

Civ 4 does not have maintenance costs for buildings. There is a short term cost which is the turns a city has to spend building it, and a long term cost in the lost opportunity to build something else. There was no need to add a second way of paying a long term cost - it's just complexity for complexity's sake.

It's like when a film has a meaningless side story, they just put it in there as padding to try and deceive you into thinking the film is "deeper" than it really is. It's a clear sign that they wanted to build something deeper but just didn't know how. The result is still shallow, just murky.

 

[Kaitsuh]

Also for me this game has probably been one of the first where I feel truely ripped off. The goddamn reviewers said NOTHING about approximately 75% of the core stuff of the series missing entirely or in a severely simplified form, they were just highlighting the few new great features and I lapped it all up thinking that the basic stuff is there of course still.

Like seriously, don't even do a review on a game that is the 5th in its series, if you haven't played the previous parts. People are going to want to know about massive cuts to the usual style of the series and if you don't have a clue about the series, you're not going to be able to tell them. I just wasn't looking into things very closely, I couldn't fathom that they could even find a way to butcher the series after how fantastic Civ 4 was.

 

[jjkrause84]

It has become the trend to "simplify" games. When this happens it takes away that "edge". Only those obsessive players truly experience that edge. This may be out of nowhere for most, and I'm not expecting anyone here to know what I'm talking about, but I first saw this trend starting with one of my most anticipated games ever... Mario Kart Double Dash. I have played probably 4 combined months of Mario Kart 64. Aside from Civilization II, and maybe Total Annihilation after that, it is the greatest and most consuming game I've ever played.

So, here comes Double Dash, the next in line, the new reigning king of my family's holiday gathering's time and recreation. But, no... they changed something. There is no "mastering" Double Dash. For those who have played both, and were competitive, and "skilled" even, you know what I'm talking about. Those who haven't, you will have to trust me that it is the same thing they have done with the new Madden game, and, with Civilization V. These games are being designed to "sit down and play" while disregarding the "sit down and master and obsess" crowd. The learning curve goes down, so does the ultimate love.

Nothing grand was ever easy or simple enough to understand when first beginning.

This is INDEED the modern hsitory of gaming and I can think of one over-arching reason for it.....

MONEY.

Music went by the wayside long ago and became (largely) mass-marketed, flavourless whitebread. I really hope games don't go quite so far.

 

[cualpa]

Thread Creator forgot Cultural Warfare.

Once a border is set there is no way of getting it away from the AI no matter how much Culture you are gaining, what so ever..

the only thing you can do is waste a great cultural person on that, but come on.. thats just boring.


Cultural Warfare!!!

Since it can be epic with the new one hex per cultural expansion thing.. thats sounds so perfect for a deep thoughtfull cultural warfare that it brings me to tears..

Please Firaxis give me back great cultural border tensions that thrill evreyone until the last round of the game.

 

[Aeronomer]

Might as well pipe in. I am about 200 turns into my first solo game, so not a lot of experience yet. But not once am I getting that "just one more turn" feel. Maybe this game is as rich as Vanilla BTS but it's not obvious. Given the incredible modding that was done with Civ IV, I was expecting something with at least as much depth as vanilla BTS. It just feels dumb.

Did multiplayer last night for the first time with a buddy of mine. It was freakin boring. We'll have to try tweaking the speed setting but I spent most of my time with not much to do. Nothing much seems to happen in this game. I just sit there and tap my fingers watching the ridiculous build numbers slowly tick down and listening to City States about barbarians. <yawn>

I think there are some interesting ideas here on paper, but they must have recruited a bunch of neanderthals to playtest it. I for one am happy to see the stack of doom go away. The only part of the game that has been interesting so far is learning how to deal with the one-military-unit-per-hex. But my overall feeling is: "Nothing to see here, move along."

No real performance issues, crashes or any of that. Runs as advertised. I play it because I spent $50 on it and I keep hoping I'll discover all this hidden depth in the later game. But I'm afraid it's boring me to tears as it stands now.

Oh and Civ 3 sucked root. What an abysmal game. Never played original Civ or Colonization and don't care to. Played the original board game then jumped right to Civ 2. Civ 2 was fantastic at the time but people who pine for that game are fooling themselves. Alpha Centauri was amazing. Railroads! was a blast IMHO, I was really disappointed they didn't do more with it. We need an updated version of Alpha Centauri and Gettysburg. The last version of Colonization made me want to kill myself. Ick. Don't know anything about the console version of Civ and don't want to.

No matter what Firaxis does, the modders will make this a game worth playing in time.

 

[jjkrause84]

Thread Creator forgot Cultural Warfare.

Once a border is set there is no way of getting it away from the AI no matter how much Culture you are gaining, what so ever..

the only thing you can do is waste a great cultural person on that, but come on.. thats just boring.


Cultural Warfare!!!

Since it can be epic with the new one hex per cultural expansion thing.. thats sounds so perfect for a deep thoughtfull cultural warfare that it brings me to tears..

Please Firaxis give me back great cultural border tensions that thrill evreyone until the last round of the game.

I actually like that culture flipping is gone...it was kinda ridiculous.

By culture-flipping logic Southern California would belong to Mexico right now.

 

[Jibby924]

Totally agree with OP.

I too played since Civ 2 and after reading the reviews for Civ 5 was really buzzing about getting this game. I've loved the previous Civ's.

Disappointed on so many things which the OP nails. They seem to have taken so much out (since Civ 4), and added what?? The one unit per tile (which I like btw) seems just about it. Oh and not needing to build transports.

It's just....boring. Hit 'next turn'....hit 'next turn'....hit 'next turn'.

And I'm sick of buying computer games on release day, that need patching to be the finished article. What sort of way is that to run an industry.

From now on I'm going to stick to buying games 6 months post-release.

 

[Ignorant Teacher]

I actually like that culture flipping is gone...it was kinda ridiculous.

By culture-flipping logic Southern California would belong to Mexico right now.

No. Corporations + Culture Slider + Broadcast Towers + Hollywood + Great Artists settled there quickly overrun not well estaablished cultures. Besides, conquered cities wouldn't flip.