Dislike CIV5 development? Tell us how!

[eraofdiversion]

What bugs are frustrating you so much?

-Runs slow even on small maps on a new pc.
-Problems with Tile Improvements not being recognized.
-The game takes about 10 minutes to load (including logging into steam and waiting for the stupid intro video)...I want to play NOW, not 10 or 15 minutes later.
-Mods/browser not working correctly.
-Terrible multi-player support. (no servers, no chat lobby, no rankings)

I could keep going but most people already know..

 

[vandyr]

-Runs slow even on small maps on a new pc.

Not to be argumentative, but - I have a 9 month old pc and I don't have this problem at all.

-Problems with Tile Improvements not being recognized.

Haven't noticed this either, unless you're referring to road quests from city states, which is a bug, supposedly getting fixed soon

-The game takes about 10 minutes to load (including logging into steam and waiting for the stupid intro video)...I want to play NOW, not 10 or 15 minutes later.

Again, I don't have this problem. What kind of specs are you running? Generally takes me around 30 seconds to get through all the intro crap and into the setup screen.

-Mods/browser not working correctly.

Could be a fault of the mod? Dunno about that. To be honest it sounds like most of your frustration is coming from your pc, but again, the argument can be made as to optimization as well. I have a fairly fast pc and I don't experience any of what you mention above.

 

[Thormodr]

None of the above.

Operate like Blizzard.

 

[eraofdiversion]

I'm not sure of the specs, the pc wasn't mine...but it was purchased less than 6 months ago. For this type of game that should be fine...it's not like I'm trying to run Crysis or some other FPS...most people that play these games dont care about graphics very much and usually don't have high end pcs either. 10 or 15 minutes is probably an exaggeration on loading...but in my opinion having to log into steam and wait for an intro video is still too damn long to wait.

 

[vandyr]

None of the above.

Operate like Blizzard.

lol haven't been by the WoW forums lately have you

Although I do agree, Blizzard is a freak of nature.

 

[vandyr]

I'm not sure of the specs, the pc wasn't mine...but it was purchased less than 6 months ago. For this type of game that should be fine...it's not like I'm trying to run Crysis or some other FPS...most people that play these games dont care about graphics very much and usually don't have high end pcs either. 10 or 15 minutes is probably an exaggeration on loading...but in my opinion having to log into steam and wait for an intro video is still too damn long to wait.

Have you defragged lately/ran malware and/or spyware software on it? If your pc is fairly new, it sounds like you're bogging down or maybe bottlenecking somewhere. Then again, like I said, optimization could be a problem...if a pc is fast enough even when a game has bad optimization the pc will run it just fine, but something less powerful may run into problems it shouldn't normally have when running something of that caliber.

 

[eraofdiversion]

Yea the pc was fairly clean...fresh install of windows, and I run spyware/antivirus daily.
It plays Left 4 dead 2, Fallout3, Team Fortress2, WoW, and other games perfectly...seems strange that a game like this runs slowly.

I just find the process of logging into steam, waiting for the game to launch, and having to sit through most of a stupid intro video to be very irritating...considering I just want a single player game.

 

[elthrasher]

I'd postpone. Anyone who doesn't know that software sometimes just isn't ready doesn't understand the challenges in producing quality software. Of course that anyone will include irate fans, but when they receive a totally freaking awesome game a couple months late, they will appreciate my dedication to quality. I'd say, "I'm sorry. I know I promised this in September, but it just doesn't meet my standards so you're going to have to wait a bit longer. All I can do is apologize for failing to project my completion date and promise to you that this will be the best gaming experience you've ever had!" Or something like that. I might tone it down a bit if I didn't really think it was the best edition of the game so far.

The guys in suits, on the other hand, they need to really understand that deadlines will slip. You can hang a developer for it, if you must, but don't push that software out until it's ready!

 

[KrikkitTwo]

None of the above.

Operate like Blizzard.

That would be the last option... ie keep things indevelopment for 10-20 years.

 

[elthrasher]

That would be the last option... ie keep things indevelopment for 10-20 years.

So you mean I can finally play StarCraft: Ghost in 2024?!?!?

 

[KrikkitTwo]

So you mean I can finally play StarCraft: Ghost in 2024?!?!?

Well, no they also kill things

 

[Drawmeus]

Release the game, admit that it has flaws, promise extensive patches and deliver on that promise.

You're probably contractually obligated to put on a public face of "We launched something awesome", by the way. Their recent statement that they're working to make things better is about the furthest I could see any developer which is not self-publishing every going in that direction, and further than I would have expected.

 

[Mavfin]

I'm not sure of the specs, the pc wasn't mine...but it was purchased less than 6 months ago. For this type of game that should be fine...it's not like I'm trying to run Crysis or some other FPS...most people that play these games dont care about graphics very much and usually don't have high end pcs either. 10 or 15 minutes is probably an exaggeration on loading...but in my opinion having to log into steam and wait for an intro video is still too damn long to wait.

I have a two-year-old computer, and the game runs fine. Thirty seconds to menu, huge map loads in less than a minute in the modern age, etc.

You need to look at your computer instead of whining about the game not running right, if it's only six months old.

 

[bhavv]

I remember that the producers of Sacred 2 went with option 3, and delayed ther game for over a year. After its release, they went bankrupt because it didnt sell enough.

What I would rather have seen is them create a smaller game with an earlier release date, and then add extra content as expansions. The problem these days is that a lot of games are over ambitious and have too much to create and get right by launch date. I would happily take smaller games and pay for more content later if it means getting a well working game on release.

 

[PieceOfMind]

Yea the pc was fairly clean...fresh install of windows, and I run spyware/antivirus daily.
It plays Left 4 dead 2, Fallout3, Team Fortress2, WoW, and other games perfectly...seems strange that a game like this runs slowly.

I just find the process of logging into steam, waiting for the game to launch, and having to sit through most of a stupid intro video to be very irritating...considering I just want a single player game.

All of those games probably have lower system requirements than civ5. (I don't care what the official recommended or min specs say, I'm talking about reality.)
However, a beefy graphics card - something you probably have - will make those games (but not civ5) play just fine. That said, WoW runs well enough on old enough hardware that it's irrelevant what your specs are.

Extremely slow load times in civ5 would point to either cpu, hard disk or RAM inadequacy, some combination of the three, or a technical problem that has nothing to do with your hardware.

 

[vexing]

i like blizzard's release style. they take their time and release finished things.

 

[vandyr]

i like blizzard's release style. they take their time and release finished things.

I'd rather have something playable early than nothing at all...while I commend Blizzard on the release of SC II, by the time it FINALLY came out, I had all but forgotten about it.

 

[Hail]

All of those games probably have lower system requirements than civ5. (I don't care what the official recommended or min specs say, I'm talking about reality.)
However, a beefy graphics card - something you probably have - will make those games (but not civ5) play just fine. That said, WoW runs well enough on old enough hardware that it's irrelevant what your specs are.

Extremely slow load times in civ5 would point to either cpu, hard disk or RAM inadequacy, some combination of the three, or a technical problem that has nothing to do with your hardware.

how may tiles does a std map have?
and you say that i have to spend a minute late game waiting for a save with a std map to load, because my cpu/memory/hdd sucks?

LOL

 

[PieceOfMind]

how may tiles does a std map have?
and you say that i have to spend a minute late game waiting for a save with a std map to load, because my cpu/memory/hdd sucks?

LOL

If a program is written badly so that it has steep system requirements, that doesn't change the fact it has steep system requirements.

In case it's not already obvious, I'm not saying any piece of your hardware sucks. It may be adequate for operating an interstellar spaceship, but it doesn't mean it will run civ5 smoothly.

Maybe re-read my post to make sure you got the intended message.

 

[jtb1127]

sigh. I guess your right. Maybe we've been too hard on firaxis.