Drakarska
Epic Dadness
Which is the real pisser. There are some really talented modders out there who could actually do something with this mess if given the chance. Ah well.
Do you think Civ V is doomed?
- Thread starter Shmike
- Start date
Which is the real pisser. There are some really talented modders out there who could actually do something with this mess if given the chance. Ah well.
Drakarska
Epic Dadness
Both CTP 2 ( apolyton version) and C-Evo are free to play. Just FYI, C-Evo will definitely give you a run for your money challenge wise.
Disgustipated
Deity
For me the game is doomed. The biggest feature in the game which cannot be fixed is the feature I hate the most. 1 UPT. I agree with most of Sulla's points about 1upt, but I have one more of my own point I'd like to add. Others have mentioned it's silly to have 1 upt in a strategic level game, and I agree. It feels so wrong. It's very cumbersome to move units around in preparation for a war, and during the war itself. And having only 1 upt when assaulting cities is just wrong. There have been battles in history where armies over 1 million men strong have assaulted each other. This game does not represent that. I can't get my infantry units to the front because my ranged/bombard units are in the way. This system is a complete mess.
I suppose the good thing I have discovered is what type of civ player I am. There are 3 variants of civ players. Builder, warmonger, or hybrid. I lean more towards the builder side. Even in civ4, I didn't like prolonged wars. Wars I only waged to increase the size of my empire so I can build even more. Civ games at heart are builder games. They ruined that for me. I don't think it can be fixed with patches or expansions. Wars take up too much time in Civ5. Constantly moving units around is annoying.
What's really pathetic about this game is I abandoned it for a game 15 years old. I'm currently playing X-Com (the original one). The game far surpasses Civ5 in every possible way. Yes that game is technically 1upt, but it works on a tactical level such as in that game, not on a world level as in Civ5.
The designers of Civ5 should be embarrassed I'm playing a 15 year old game instead of their game (which I got as a Christmas present).
I suppose the good thing I have discovered is what type of civ player I am. There are 3 variants of civ players. Builder, warmonger, or hybrid. I lean more towards the builder side. Even in civ4, I didn't like prolonged wars. Wars I only waged to increase the size of my empire so I can build even more. Civ games at heart are builder games. They ruined that for me. I don't think it can be fixed with patches or expansions. Wars take up too much time in Civ5. Constantly moving units around is annoying.
What's really pathetic about this game is I abandoned it for a game 15 years old. I'm currently playing X-Com (the original one). The game far surpasses Civ5 in every possible way. Yes that game is technically 1upt, but it works on a tactical level such as in that game, not on a world level as in Civ5.
The designers of Civ5 should be embarrassed I'm playing a 15 year old game instead of their game (which I got as a Christmas present).
I read your thread where you posted:
You brought that kind of attention to you by preemptively labelling yourself IMO.
Anyway, I don't think Civ5 is doomed, but it will probably change its market somewhat.
There's a lot of good in V. There's some bad too, but to me, pretty much all the bad are 1. missing elements or 2. balance issues. Both can be fixed easily.
So, true, if you don't like the 1upt, or city states, or even some of the slightly changed fundamental concepts like the AI players playing to "win" instead of roleplaying (ie. you might be best of friends 1 turn, but they turn on you very fast), then there's probably little hope you'll like the game.
It's not doomed. There's a decent mass of people playing it right now, and as it gets more patches, and as more people upgrade their computers to ones that can play it (my 3-year old laptop isn't close to being able to play it), it will continue to be popular.
So, true, if you don't like the 1upt, or city states, or even some of the slightly changed fundamental concepts like the AI players playing to "win" instead of roleplaying (ie. you might be best of friends 1 turn, but they turn on you very fast), then there's probably little hope you'll like the game.
It's not doomed. There's a decent mass of people playing it right now, and as it gets more patches, and as more people upgrade their computers to ones that can play it (my 3-year old laptop isn't close to being able to play it), it will continue to be popular.
sketch162000
Warlord
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2010
- Messages
- 221
The operative word here is "fun." The game is not fun at all for me. It hasn't been fun since the demo. I have struggled to find the motivation to even boot up the program in months. MONTHS. Civ IV and Civ V are like night and day I tell you...
AfterShafter
Deity
Might I suggest you try another game then? Usually when I play a game and I don't find it fun, I find one that is and move on
Haven't had to with Civ V yet though - since the operative word, "fun," is something I'm still finding in it.
Assuming we're talking about a natural progression rather than gutting the game and using it as a base...
Doomed on account of extremely poor design choices. Some of the new features sounded hard to implement well and I kept asking myself how they were going to make it work. A read through the manual made it obvious that they didn't - to name the biggest flaw, the rules favoured a degenerate ICS more than Civ1's did.
Technically, playing it was necessary to see that the AI was atrocious... but that was almost a given with the game mechanics as they are.
The overall impression was a game designed by someone without a clue about games in general and the Civ series in particular, which really isn't excusable. Patching seems to rely in heavy-handed fixes to punish problematic strategies, at the cost of reducing relevant choices even more.
It may become a commercial success... but it won't become a good game.
Doomed on account of extremely poor design choices. Some of the new features sounded hard to implement well and I kept asking myself how they were going to make it work. A read through the manual made it obvious that they didn't - to name the biggest flaw, the rules favoured a degenerate ICS more than Civ1's did.
Technically, playing it was necessary to see that the AI was atrocious... but that was almost a given with the game mechanics as they are.
The overall impression was a game designed by someone without a clue about games in general and the Civ series in particular, which really isn't excusable. Patching seems to rely in heavy-handed fixes to punish problematic strategies, at the cost of reducing relevant choices even more.
It may become a commercial success... but it won't become a good game.
Aristos
Lightseeker
You should really head to the Stardock forums to see a pathetic defense of the newly hired... they are saying a lot of BS to try to defend Shafer from the obvious responsibility he has in the awful design of civ 5. It is amazing how people can blind themselves. Worth reading if only to better know "humanity"...
sketch162000
Warlord
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2010
- Messages
- 221
Might I suggest you try another game then? Usually when I play a game and I don't find it fun, I find one that is and move on
Of course, of course. I've had trouble finding anything that is a decent replacement for Civilization, so if you have any suggestions...
It's just...when it comes to addicting games, man, nothing is like Civilization. I more excited for Civ V than I have been for anything, videogame or otherwise, for a long time. A slight disappointment was expected coming from BTS, but for the game to go so far as to be near unplayable for me--its just heartbreaking. And not just because my lofty expectations weren't met, but because I'm not alone, because there are scores of people on this forum and likely elsewhere that are just as disappointed as I am, because it's not just a matter of me not "getting" the game but that Civ V has fundamentally alienated a significant part of its fanbase. I don't know how, I don't know why, but the lackluster reception is there.
And so, I'm still here, trying to figure out what went wrong, desperately wanting to like the game, hoping against hope that the devs are reading this, or that some miracle patch is going fix things. In my head, I figure the game is doomed, no amount of patching is going to make this mess appeal to the people who are disappointed. I'm hoping for a surprise but that hope is pretty much at it's critical mass. I'm just waiting for Civ VI at this point.
AfterShafter
Deity
Well, fair enough. On the upside, the devs have been reading - and actually taking direct note of things discussed in - this forum for years. I hope they make some changes that make you happier with the game, and I also hope they haven't been scared off by the constant overwhelming negativity that now pervades this forum.
As a serious note, might want to give Magic the Gathering Online a try. It's my other long term gaming obsession. Very different game, but with intensive strategy elements and definitely something that will flex the analytic and strategic elements of a hardened Civ player's psyche... One thing I'd recommend though, play pauper if you actually give it a try - whereas playing standard, extended, or doing a lot of drafting it'll cost you a fortune, you can play pauper for peanuts and it's one of the most robust card sets you can fiddle with. If you do give it a try, PM me here and I'll show you the ropes. (not meant as an advertisement, just a response to the fellow's concern)
I have not read all posts in this thread, just the thread title and the above post. So apologies for any repetition.
I have played all the Civ games. The Civ5 version - IMHO is the worst. It feels like Civ 1 with better graphics. Yes I can still remember the first version.
I feel I am playing a 1970s board game -- not a 2011 computer game.
Also, they have ignored the faithfull following players (over 15+ years) who expect as good as Civ4, but also a more challanging game. Instead they have dumbed down the game.
Welcome to Civ5 - Mickey Mouse.
LzPrst
Warlord
thinking much the same here. this christmas I had a crappy old laptop and enjoyed myself immensely playing civ 1 and panzer general on dosbox. playing civ 5 on the other hand frustrates and bores me.
main gripes:
Idiotic diplomacy
Crappy AI
Lack of strategic choices, warmongering is by far the only viable option
Total lack of balance
Flavorless land and resources
Strange and boring tech thread
Boring city improvements
Lack of tile improvements
Complete lack of polish
Long wait times
And many other issues, though it has to be said, some of the changes could have been good. But implementation has made the game bad. Can it be fixed? I don't know, and I don't think so.
Civ has always been a builder game that had war in it. Civ 5 is a wargame that has some element of building in it (not much either). I must say that the diplomacy in Civ 1 is very much reminiscent of Civ 5... though with a lot less dogpiling on the player. It is to me a mystery that rather than trying to appeal to the niche of civ players, 2k is aiming for the ritalin-popping FPS market. I suspect they will fall between chairs and the game will flop and die. I am always amazed at the stupidity of game companies, alienating their custormer base is just not good business...
main gripes:
Idiotic diplomacy
Crappy AI
Lack of strategic choices, warmongering is by far the only viable option
Total lack of balance
Flavorless land and resources
Strange and boring tech thread
Boring city improvements
Lack of tile improvements
Complete lack of polish
Long wait times
And many other issues, though it has to be said, some of the changes could have been good. But implementation has made the game bad. Can it be fixed? I don't know, and I don't think so.
Civ has always been a builder game that had war in it. Civ 5 is a wargame that has some element of building in it (not much either). I must say that the diplomacy in Civ 1 is very much reminiscent of Civ 5... though with a lot less dogpiling on the player. It is to me a mystery that rather than trying to appeal to the niche of civ players, 2k is aiming for the ritalin-popping FPS market. I suspect they will fall between chairs and the game will flop and die. I am always amazed at the stupidity of game companies, alienating their custormer base is just not good business...
I didn't realize it counted hours this way. No wonder I've racked up so many hours playing. I'll leave a game running for days at a time in the background because I hate waiting for the game to load (then wait for the save file to load as well after that)
