For those who don't play the game anymore... Is Civ5 salvageable?

[Minmaster]

so i want to ask the people who don't play the game anymore basically because the game isn't that good.

do you think the game is salvageable, by future patches and expansions/DLCs or is the core of the game so problematic that the game can't be salvaged? (unless they totally overhaul the very core of the game)

i read a lot of people saying the game will be enjoyable once we have an expansion or two but the more i think about it, my problems are with the core of the game. while i think it is possible, i think the overhaul is such a monumental task that i don't think they will undertake it.

what do you guys think?

 

[Morningcalm]

They're slowly getting there, but they've yet to tackle one of the biggest problems in the game: There's virtually no diplomacy with these aggressive AI who'll strike you whenever it suits them.

 

[Sadan01]

I voted "possibly". I think Firaxis have a long way to go just yet. Just adding information about how the AI's feel towards the player isn't going to change much. It is a welcome change nonetheless.

 

[lschnarch]

I voted for "no" since I think that many, if not most problems of the game are caused by basic (and in my eyes: wrong) design decisions.

Fixing this would mean to transfer the game into something different, which I would welcome but don't see coming.

 

[bitula]

Possibly if they completely remove 1UPTs and City States or change these completely, like add an additional Tactics layer (battleground) for 1UPT. Anyway modders can remove or completely re-implement these, so the question is rather how moddable the game will be. Which is not known at the moment. Yeah, well I don't like the core ideas, except probably for the hexes, though it's sort-of-a indifferent to me. However some "less core" features like quantifiable resources and hierarchical policies are a good idea IMO.

 

[Markstar]

No, because...

...many of the criticized aspects were intentional ("to target a wider audience")
...there are just so many core issues
...Firaxis doesn't have a good track record when it comes to fixing issues (many here blame 2k, when in fact Firaxis' programming skills were questionable before - fans have been better at fixing bugs without the source code than Firaxis since Civ3)
...some issues can't be fixed without a complete overhaul, which is simply not going to happen

 

[Osama Bin Davis]

Removing mandatory steam will make it an instant purchase for me.

 

[CornPlanter]

...many of the criticized aspects were intentional ("to target a wider audience cash in on Civilization's name")

This.

 

[Dirk1302]

Possibly,maybe, not so likely. Game is in a terrible state right now imo, much worse than civ4 was on release. I doubt that the team that developed this mess is able to turn it around but we'll see.

More transparent diplo is a step but there's a whole lotta work to be done on other aspects of the game as well.

 

[Akka]

As said often - considering how often this question rear its head - the problem in Civ5 is that the FOUNDATIONS are bad.
The very principles on which the game was built are bads, the new concepts are arbitrary and boring, the dropped concepts were, on the contrary, crucial and important in history, the new mechanisms are conceptually broken and practically unmanageable.

It's not only a question of balance and programming. It's a flaw in the deepest level of the concept.
As such, it's NOT salvageable. At best it could make a passable game by hiding the conceptual defect under a new paint (at the VERY best it could be entirely remodded to be a brand new game that works in the complete opposed way as how it was built, which would only point at how deeply flawed it was from the start), but even this is quite a bit of wishful thinking.

 

[Dirk1302]

^There are many who think so and they might well be right. I'm not totally convinced. I stopped playing the game after 4-5 tries because (to name just a few things that come to mind now):

Game's far too easy atm
Diplo is virtually non existent
1UPT a good idea doesn't work atm because AI can't handle it
Game's not balanced (overpowered horsemen,ICS,maritime states etc...)
Interface issues

These things can all be fixed. Once (if) they are i'll try again and then i'll probably have a better idea if the game's indeed fundamentally flawed in other aspects.

 

[lynxxyarly]

I voted yes simply because of steam. It will save this game for the future due to, in part, the mod community being kep up to date with steam news and updates about the game.

Steam is the best thing to happen to civ since civ2 was made.

 

[GfxJG]

Probably no.

 

[Slowpoke]

In vanilla no, it can never be fully balanced really at this point. Developers can't have the risk of a failed balance patch even though extreme balancing is needed, so you will get tweaks for months that don't do much. Modders are quick to balance, though And as many of the modders more talented than I have said, civ 5 will be the most moddable civ ever.

But yeah, if you play at a high level and don't want to use mods.. well you've sorta lost 50 bucks.

 

[zonk]

I voted no...

The direction they went in simply precludes my style of play -- I like managing my empire and warfare is not why I play Civ.

Everything they did to globalize happiness, streamline naval play, remove city specific management like health, remove government, eliminate religion and corporations --- all of these things were seen as "features, not bugs".

But - for a peaceful builder like me, it all adds up to nothing but a lot of boring, staccato NEXT TURN NEXT TURN NEXT TURN fests.

The game has gone in a direction that's just not for me... I have seen zero hint that anyone from Firaxis either gets that, much less cares.

All the dev talk has been about fixing the military and diplomatic AI -- hey, I heartily agree those things need fixing, badly.... but -- doing that just gives you a much improved wargame and that's not what I play Civ for.

 

[DiRectum]

"Possibly", but it is a tough nut to crack. I was very enthusiastic before the release. Hexes and 1upt gave an opportunity for chess like, rock-paper-scissor like battles. Unfortunately this only works out, IF you have an intelligent opponent, which is in single player far from true.

I also more and more become to realize that the philosophy of this game is different as the others. In Civ5 the developing team tried to create AIcivs that are equal to the player and therefore their only objective is to win, leaving very little room for diplomacy. This creates a very different game as compared to other Civs. I think Sid always told that the real game plays in the player’s head, but with Civ5 it just all happens on the board.

 

[zonk]

"Possibly", but it is a tough nut to crack. I was very enthusiastic before the release. Hexes and 1upt gave an opportunity for chess like, rock-paper-scissor like battles. Unfortunately this only works out, IF you have an intelligent opponent, which is in single player far from true.

I also more and more become to realize that the philosophy of this game is different as the others. In Civ5 the developing team tried to create AIcivs that are equal to the player and therefore their only objective is to win, leaving very little room for diplomacy. This creates a very different game as compared to other Civs. I think Sid always told that the real game plays in the player’s head, but with Civ5 it just all happens on the board.

That's a very good point and one that can't be made often enough.

The AI in any game shouldn't be trying to 'win' - it should always be playing a counterweight role.

By the time an AI exists that can truly "try to win" against an experienced human player, we'll all be looking for the last battlestar off the planet and hoping we at least get to be seduced by a toaster that looks like Tricia Helfer before we're incinerated.

Developers of single player AIs should know the limitations...

 

[lschnarch]

That's a very good point and one that can't be made often enough.

The AI in any game shouldn't be trying to 'win' - it should always be playing a counterweight role.

By the time an AI exists that can truly "try to win" against an experienced human player, we'll all be looking for the last battlestar off the planet and hoping we at least get to be seduced by a toaster that looks like Tricia Helfer before we're incinerated.

Developers of single player AIs should know the limitations...

Repeating this nonsense each and every time doesn't make it more true.

Civ5's AI does *NOT* play to win.
The first step for this would be playing to survive, and even here the AI completely fails. And if the AI somehow was able to survive, it doesn't identify the winning conditions, nor does it take action to achieve any of them.

*What* it does is to play in a way which hampers the player the most. And, once again, it fails.

In a nutshell: the AI does something, but whatever it may be, it doesn't do it successfully. In total, I regard the AI much weaker than for instance in "the game which must not be named".

 

[cdcuase]

To be honest I'll just wait 4-5 years for civ6 to come out and play civ4 in the meantime. I like a complex game (not complicated, there is a difference), and civ5 just doesn't have it. Even with an improved war and diplomacy AI there are some game design choices that make the game boring at its core. I don't get the feeling I am managing a complex empire with civ5, and I don't feel like I'm being punished for being lazy with my city placement or building choice. There are just so many things fundamentally boring with the game that I wish all the resources being put into fixing it goes towards making Civ6 instead.

 

[ozon]

I voted possibly despite having the feeling it's hopeless...

I must admit, I was looking forward to 1UPT with so much anticipation, but when it came to play I just noticed it's not feasible for the scale a Civ game has.
A tactical warfare on a strategic map - i don't know - for me it's a medicore to bad Civ and also a real bad tactic game compared to the classic ones, e.g., Panzer General, Battle Isle 1&2(my favorites) and even Nectaris.
So I ended up like this:
I want to play a game with tactical demanding warfare ->playing BI2;
want a Civ game --> playing Civ 1,2,3,4
I don't want to blame Firaxis nor Shafer - for me the merge of the 2 great genres sounded tempting too, unfortunatly in my opinion (remark you can't skip nowadays in CFC forum) CiV failed to yield a reasonable result.