Did Sid just pull a George Lucas on us?

[jdog2050]

I.e., Episode 1/2/3, Indiana Jones 4?

Hey guys, long time lurker, first time poster. I've always found the Civ Fanatics forums insightful, but this is my first time posting because I've never had a complaint or question really.

I'm really let-down by Civ V. Not just let down, but this is the first time I've ever actually wanted my money back for a game. As a 29 year old not living in the States (my home country), I depend on good game reviews and the reputations of certain series because I don't have the time, ability, or money to simply go down to a Best Buy and pick up a game on the way home. As far as I could see, Civ 5 was getting amazing reviews and most of the changes the Devs were talking about seemed like interesting departures. Honestly, the one change I was most concerned about, Hexes from Squares, turned out to be amazing. I love hexes.

But...I feel like I've been sold a bill of goods when it comes to Civ V. It's like we've been sold a re-packaged version of Civilization:Revolutions, instead of a deep, tactically satisfying addition to the series.

The main-game of the dev's this time around was to simplify the more managerial aspects, so that we could get down to the nitty-gritty of playing right? Ok, sounds good on paper, but then when you play you find that a lot of what was removed was the *flavor* of Civilization: religion, satisfying wonders, empire building.

Religion: Ok, so it wasn't the best implemenatation in Civ 4 because it caused a ridiculous divide between you and the A.I., but it was a very deep system that you could also exploit economically in a very engaging way. I LOVED popping Buddhism/Judaism/Christianity in one shot, forcing my religion on everyone, and then building the gold producing temples. It felt really organic and I don't see why they completely removed it now.

Wonders: In Civ 4, maybe they were a bit over-powered, but now with the exception of The Great Library, Stonehenge, and maybe the Pyramids, they don't do squat. They seem like "Buildings that take an extra long time to build" instead of giving you the feeling that they'll REALLY add to your ability to win the game.

Empire Building: Ok, in Civ V, we're supposed to be running a tighter ship than ever before, right? Sounds good on paper, but then you see that the A.I. is STILL building sprawling empires with, apparently, no check. Also, the lack of a distance tax means that the A.I can literally build a city anywhere with no rhyme or reason.

Social Policies: Again, sounds good on paper, and honestly they're an interesting mechanic, but...unchangeable? This is just ridiculous. I feel like I'm plotting out the research tree in Starcraft 2 and not running an ever-changing world empire.

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.

Production time vs. Science: It was a little disconcerting in Civ IV, but now it's just ridiculous. Units take freaking forever to produce. Again, you're supposed to be running a tighter ship, but...ya know what? <snip> a tighter ship. I want to feel like I'm amassing an army to take over the friggin world.

Bugs: do I even need to go into this? Even after the patch I can't run in full-screen mode, and yes all my drivers are up to date. It seems like this game will need to be at at least 1.1 before it's truly playable.

Victory screen: where is it? Just more proof that this game was rushed out.

All in all Civ V just isn't a very engaging game. Small empires, no religion, slow production, bad A.I., bland luxuries...it all leaves me feeling very hollow.

Anyways, I just got a Vestax Typhoon DJ rig, so I'll be entertaining myself with that until this game is patched...a lot.

Moderator Action: Swearing isn't allowed on these forums.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Charvel1]

Sorry you didn't like. I think it's the best of entire series myself.

 

[franlato]

sorry you didn't like it. I also think it's pretty good.
George Lucas?? And who is the Jar Jar Binks of Civ?

 

[hj232]

jdog2050--I agree. There are some nice improvements over IV but the game is lacking some intangible it seems.

 

[jdog2050]

sorry you didn't like it. I also think it's pretty good.
George Lucas?? And who is the Jar Jar Binks of Civ?

Suleiman.

 

[shadowplay]

And who is the Jar Jar Binks of Civ?

Well for me it would be the giant death robot.

 

[Bad Brett]

Great review, I totally agree with everything you wrote. I think it feels more like an RPG game, such as Diablo. You run around with a few characters, do some missions, fight some battles. They level up and eventually get really powerful. You collect cultural points and select updates from the social policies tree.

I was so excited when I first read about the hexes and 1upt, but already when I looked at the gameplay video, I realised that this game wasn't for me. They wanted to do it simpler, which is fine, but somehow they lost the soul of Civilization on the way.

It's like Joe Shafer wanted to do his own Panzer General and then someone told him "You know what, we need to have some wonders and buildings as well".

In my opinion, the original Colonization is still the game that gives me the best feeling when playing. I begin with a small colony and is totally dependent on Europe, but after a while a transform the landscape and turn my colonies into cities and produce everything I need myself. Alpha Centuari was decent in this aspect as well.

 

[Dr. Epictetus]

I for one totally agree. I was worried after watching months of buildup about how good the diplomacy screens would look, and how well the world map looked, etc... The only thing I wanted to hear about was the AI, but it rarely came up.

After playing the game for a few days, I'm convinced that it wasn't much of a priority. I just cannot understand this. Gal Civ managed to have a great AI on a much smaller budget, why can't these guys do it?!!!

Please god, let whoever makes CIV VI care more about gameplay and strategy then pretty graphics...

 

[Blacklanner]

I'm very impresed with the game in so many ways. Its civ, but new and different, which is exactly what a new civ should be. If everything worked right it'd be awesome, but it feels like it wasn't done/polished. A lot of the mechanics work/don't work strangely, the game crashes randomly for many people, technical performance and hardware requirements are very very poor, and in particular production/commerce/research balance feels really off. World wonders are decent speed to build, everything else is much much too slow. The ai is abysmal. I'm a decent emperor player of civ 4, and I can already play V on immortal/deity.

Also there's the whole steam thing.

So i guess i should say I'm impressed with the design and disappointed with the implementation. Probably be decent to good with some patching, but its rather rough right now, and there's likely never going to be an official remove steam patch which is what I want most.

 

[jdog2050]

I'm very impresed with the game in so many ways. Its civ, but new and different, which is exactly what a new civ should be. If everything worked right it'd be awesome, but it feels like it wasn't done/polished. A lot of the mechanics work/don't work strangely, the game crashes randomly for many people, technical performance and hardware requirements are very very poor, and in particular production/commerce/research balance feels really off. World wonders are decent speed to build, everything else is much much too slow. The ai is abysmal. I'm a decent emperor player of civ 4, and I can already play V on immortal/deity.

Also there's the whole steam thing.

So i guess i should say I'm impressed with the design and disappointed with the implementation. Probably be decent to good with some patching, but its rather rough right now, and there's likely never going to be an official remove steam patch which is what I want most.

EXACTLY!

I'm not going to pretend like Civ V is absolute garbage--it isn't. But it's an obvious rush job and you have to be wearing some pretty thick rose-colored glasses to ignore that. I want my money back because I feel like I paid $50 to beta-test.

 

[ProkhorZakharov]

After playing the game for a few days, I'm convinced that it wasn't much of a priority. I just cannot understand this. Gal Civ managed to have a great AI on a much smaller budget, why can't these guys do it?!!!

Gal Civ was pretty terrible on release. So was Civ IV, Civ III, Civ II, Elemental, Napoleon: Total War, and probably nearly every other turn-based strategy game. Testing and refining an AI for a complex strategy game requires a huge amount of time and data, more than any company can reasonably be expected to be able to do internally. Unfortunately, this means that a lot of the burden of testing is placed on the community.

 

[jdog2050]

Gal Civ was pretty terrible on release. So was Civ IV, Civ III, Civ II, Elemental, Napoleon: Total War, and probably nearly every other turn-based strategy game. Testing and refining an AI for a complex strategy game requires a huge amount of time and data, more than any company can reasonably be expected to be able to do internally. Unfortunately, this means that a lot of the burden of testing is placed on the community.

I mean, I can honestly give the A.I. a pass. Here's the thing though...o.k, A.I is kind of broken, but SO IS MULTIPLAYER, so you can't even play against humans.

 

[Zechnophobe]

Gal Civ was pretty terrible on release. So was Civ IV, Civ III, Civ II, Elemental, Napoleon: Total War, and probably nearly every other turn-based strategy game. Testing and refining an AI for a complex strategy game requires a huge amount of time and data, more than any company can reasonably be expected to be able to do internally. Unfortunately, this means that a lot of the burden of testing is placed on the community.

Now hold on there. It's easy to wave your hands and claim all those games had trouble, and some did (Elemental clearly, I will not purchase it until I hear it gets fixed). But this entire argument is rather ingenuine since there isn't any real way to show that you are just putting names up there.

Civ 4 was pretty much an obvious classic within days of its release. Even if it had technical difficulties, the core gameplay was so rich from even before you settled your first city, that it was hard to ignore.

Civ 5 seems to have really, really divided the community. I played the game for hours the first day, fully EXPECTING TO ENJOY IT, but just couldn't get into it. My first abortive game of Hiawatha ended because I got to like turn 100 and was just clicking 'next' already. My second game as the french ended around turn 250 when I realized that of the remaining 2 dozen techs, none had anything in them that sounded interesting to research. More units? More slightly better versions of buildings (some called 'wonders') that I'd built before? That's what I have left to strive for? Sigh.

 

[slowjames]

Nah. Civ V is not perfect, and there are some people who contend that the series went backward with it, although I think it is enormously premature to make that judgment. But the movies you cite are seeping garbage. The debate about Civ V is "Is it a great game or a good game?" With Star Wars I/II/III it's more of, "Is it ham-handed, greedy and soulless, or actively malicious?"

 

[Dementual]

I normally try to take a more positive look at Civ V, but you pointed out pretty much everything I feel is wrong about the game.

 

[MeteorPunch]

Good review, agreed with everything. Just do something else in the meantime while Firaxis uses us as beta testers to continue to improve the game.

 

[Tylerryan79]

I see nothing wrong with production at all. I can build a library in 14 turns with growth, or 10 stagnent. This is before reaching the second era on epic. I can build a new archer in 6 or 7 turns, a scout in 3, a settler in 10. Really nothing wrong with that. You just have to develop your cities right. I build wonders in 20 turns or less, and this is all before the ball really starts rolling. I just think some people need to rethink what they are doing.

 

[jdog2050]

I see nothing wrong with production at all. I can build a library in 14 turns with growth, or 10 stagnent. This is before reaching the second era on epic. I can build a new archer in 6 or 7 turns, a scout in 3, a settler in 10. Really nothing wrong with that. You just have to develop your cities right. I build wonders in 20 turns or less, and this is all before the ball really starts rolling. I just think some people need to rethink what they are doing.

No, I can too...in my capital. Other cities though? Super slow production.

But, even when my production is humming the game still feels slow because there is, flat out, a LOT less to do in this game.

 

[monolith94]

Yeah, I'm pretty glad I tried the demo out before running out and getting this game.

 

[jtwood]

Good review, agreed with everything. Just do something else in the meantime while Firaxis uses us as beta testers to continue to improve the game.

:upvote: