Disappointment - an unfortunate era for an otherwise remarkable franchise

[Cronos]

Excluding any irrelevant discussion on the semantics of 'vast majority', I agree with everything the OP wrote.


If you like the game all power to you, I really wish I could, but excluding the war element of the game, my view is that there really isn't much depth to it and I feel I have already explored everything it has to offer. Fex (and there are so many) has anyone seen 2 allied blocs wage a world war in the world of civ 5? Something that was common in civ 4 but sadly beyond the mechanics of Civ 5.

@ Dontar that is a tedious argument. Thing is I have played civ 5 have tried it out, I find that I can conquer the ai by spamming cities and further with little more than 4 units or if i'm pursuing peaceful means, can just hit enter for 500 turns and win easily. I don't find the game engaging in the slightest. Its shallow and in my view the mechanics of the game contain fundamental design flaws. Fex I have to make a decision if I want to pursue a cultural victory or another victory right at the start of the game, as having few cities is the key to cultural and having ICS is the key to everything else. There is no way for my strategy to evolve or adapt over the course of the game, it's not a dynamic environment that my civ lives in and IMHO just one example of a fundamentally flawed design concept.

 

[PickledDictator]

No, 80% some of people who have voted so far, and only on this forum, which considering Civilization 5 has sold over 350K retail copies (according to NPD), is nowhere near representative of the "vast majority" of players.

What you say is true, however, we do not know what the other 350k think about the game. I am not saying you would get 80% who dislike the game, like being claimed on these forums, however, this kind of game appeals to certain types of individuals (historically). Most of those historically have valued the depth and growth of the series, and at the very least on this site, there is a large and loud portion who think the game has taken a wrong turn. Not everyone likes forums, or voices their (dis)pleasure.

I imagine there are many out there who dislike the game, just like there are many who like it. Its impossible to know for sure. Until you provide stats that the sample here is not representative of the entire 350k units sold, really you are just claiming what the other poster claimed....something which is unverifiable.

350k copies sold means nothing, of course they are going to sell lots of copies, its CIV for crying out loud. It sells simply b/c of Sid Meier and the fact that a new version comes out roughly every 4-5 years. This is not NHL 2K10 etc....

while many reviews have been complimentary, the ones which have not, seem to come from reviewers who actually spent some real time playing the game. Everyone knows the integrity of the review system is dubious at best, many reviews seem positive b/c they are paid for.

I would not have bought the game had I managed to come across all the interviews which talked about taking the game in a more Civ Rev like direction b/c I played Civ Rev and that historically is not what I want from a Civ game. Many others have voiced a similar sentiment. If others like the game, all the power to them, I say enjoy whatever you enjoy! I won't look down on anyone who likes something different than myself.

Obviously there is a market for this type of game and 2k believes for this installment anyways, that Civ Rev's success should be realized in the latest incarnation of ciV. That is all fine, when they look for my dollars next time, I will come to a forum like this, listen to opinions of those I respect (those who like and dislike this incarnation of the series and others) and go from there. Gone forever is the day that I just blindly give my dollars to the makers of a ciV game simply because it is Civ.

 

[Aoeu]

I think there is a wide consensus that the game is very badly designed, unbalanced and has terrible AI.

Of course it has positive aspects: namely great graphics and very significant innovations.
This makes the game enjoyable at least at first.

Most of the people who like the game seem to like it for these elements.
I haven't been able to find any review stating that some gameplay element is really well done, and personally everything I can think of is definitely much less well designed and fun than Civ4.

Once one gets used to the graphics and the novelty of hexagons, 1UPT and city states, the underlying massive brokenness and lack of fun shows its head.

What could be possible is that most people never play the game enough for this to be a problem, but I'm not sure whether this is really the case.

As for sales, Civ4 was great, so people naturally just have bought Civ5 based on the Civ4 reputation. This won't hold for Civ6 though.

Also, note that simplification doesn't mean bad game design. They could have created a simpler game than Civ4, but with a much better design, and it would have likely been received a great welcome, since it could be expanded to be ultimately much better than Civ4.

Instead not only the game is simple, but it's also quite a bad foundation for expanding upon it, and it is likely unfixable without truly fundamental changes.

 

[tripedius]

You can't say a majority dislikes it based on the opinions on this forum. Being on this forum implies that you tend to dives deeper in to a game than most others do. This will also contribute to the fact that you like this game less as it is less aimed on the 'hardcore' player.

However the tendency seems to be that a lot of people have problems with this game or don't like it as well as they think they would like it. It is at least not a controverse free game and that's not because there is nudity in it. For me Civ V is 'meh'. Not great, but not terribly bad either. However I won't be buying Civ games blindly anymore, but does it really matter when there probably won't be a Civ VI any time soon?

One thing I want to add though, reviews can NOT be trusted. Reviewers didn't for see the problems (actual bugs) and we're far to postive. Maybe it is because it ís Civ and there is no other game to compare it too. As for some 'fanbois' they tend to defend it no matter what as it is Civ and Civ is like a religion, you don't insult or critize it.

 

[hclass]

No, 80% some of people who have voted so far, and only on this forum, which considering Civilization 5 has sold over 350K retail copies (according to NPD), is nowhere near representative of the "vast majority" of players.

Vast majority, vast majority, vast majority...
Is literally an estimation... it is definitely not like out of 9031 Civ5 customers (as recorded in STEM accounts) 8000 of them said the game is good/bad!

Don't forget, there is another vast majority of Civ old fans (like me) have NOT bought the game yet... we just sit back and watch the debates of how bad this new release is...

 

[Jharii]

Well, it is what it is though. You can enjoy something even if you are disappointed by it. You just aren't enjoying it as much as otherwise. I mean, how often are games actively painful to play? I guess even I enjoyed civ 5 a little bit. Just not very much. Does that mean I vote 'no'?

Only you can make that call. I can't tell you or anyone if you enjoy something. If that were the case, I'd simply release a $50 game that would merely display "You had fun!" when you double clicked the icon. I would name it "A Fun Game!"

As for the ability to enjoy something, yet still be disappointed... happens all the time. That's called "expectations." When you put expectations on something, you risk being let down. It does not mean that something does not have good value or good quality or is not enjoyable, it just means you were expecting more.

It happens all the time in all facets of life.

How many times have you finished watching a movie at the theater and realized that even though you were expecting so much more, you still enjoyed it?

 

[JLoZeppeli]

I think that the playerbase now is wider than in the past, so there are a lot of new civ players, causal players or Civ IV players that are not part of the "majority" on this forum...

It's a matter of fact. That this community is only a partial evidance of the playerbase, maybe not 5%, because a lot of people, like my friends, don't write on it, but they know very well where can search for mods and strategy hints... So i could say that the community is about 15% of the playerbase, more or less.

Also i think that not all of those players are interested to play the game in the near future, as we can learn from other games lifespan... Casual are the most predictalbe to leave the game after some months, ready to return only after an expansion....

If you look at Steam stats, players are dropping steadly, until they will reach a stable playerbase... Some days ago i stated 30k players on avarege, on the base of steam stats, now, as every one can see by himself, the peak of the day was 25k, and current 12k... Left4Dead2 and Football Manager demo are only 10k players behind, and that's surprising for a demo and a game like L4d2...

 

[Brawndo]

yeah they are not very good star ratings, but metacritic is at 9.1

9.1 is from "official" reviews. The aggregate user review score on metacritic is around 7.3

 

[MkLh]

CIV 5 was apparently designed to engage a broader range of player, one who may have first played on a console instead of having grown up with or developed an affinity for the complexities and rigor of the PC based series.

I doubt even that goal succeed. The game if far too tedious and slow for mass audience that plays RTSs and action games. AFAIK even Revolution didn't sell well.

 

[SuperJay]

Guys... none of us can establish "vast majority" or "wide consensus." Attempting to characterize your opinion - whether for or against - as part of some huge collective is just an attempt to marginalize those you disagree with.

IMO: The game has a lot of great things going for it. There's a lot of potential here. There's also a lot of bugs and problems that will hopefully get patched soon. I do personally feel that this is currently targeting newer players (which is good; more Civ fans helps everyone), but plenty of Civ vets from the old days love it - so that's not a rule by any means.

Trying to establish the "majority" view is a waste of time, IMO. It just doesn't really matter that much.

 

[vandyr]

This thread is disappointing. An unfortunate addition to what used to be a remarkable fan site.

 

[DaveShack]

Moderator Action: When someone posts a review, you should discuss the review -- not each other's positions on Civ5, or what percentage likes / doesn't like the game, etc. Please stay on topic!
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889