I got in to civ really late. Civ rev was my first civ game (I know... I'm a civ n00b). I only migrated to pc a year ago, and am never looking back at consoles and civ rev was one of my favourite games. I tried the Civ 4 demo but couldn't get into it. But I tried it again months later and got the basic mechanics and I was so impressed with all the it had to offer. I would of bought it but, Civ 5 had already been announced and I decided to just wait for it instead. I waited, and waited, and waited, waited for the release date and man, the wait wasn't worth it. Where the heck is the ground gameplay from civ 4? Am I going to have to shell out another $40 to get all the missing content that was supposed to be in the final game. Did they dumb it down for the casual market? When I first played it, it was fun because it was new, but now it's just dull and boring... (my opinion) The turns take way too long, the game is poorly optimized and a buttload of feautures are missing. Why can't firaxis come out and tell the truth about the all the missing features? They already have our money so why not? I know it's only been 2 weeks or whatever since launch but there's no info. If they told everyone what they were doing and why all the missing features I bet that would shut alot of people up. I don't want a civ rev 2, I want a game that expands civ 4.
I don't want to come off sounding like a whiner but man...
- Thread starter Shmike
- Start date
charon2112
King
That's not Civ V. You want Civ 4.5, which doesn't exist. Civ V is an entirely new game, nothing is missing, everything the designers wanted to be there, is there...
One thing I would love to see is all the people who complain about CiV not to support 2K or Firaxis again. By that I mean do not buy any DLC or expansion and stay away from Civ VI. But sadly 2K and Firaxis knows all these people who complain will still buy Civ VI so they have nothing to worry about. I guess they know that most will buy the DLC and expansions anyway "for a better game" so all who complain and still buy will have "sucker" on their forhead.
Sadly the game has been more "streamlined" for the common gamer and 2K and Firaxis dosn't really care about past game players. Hopefully the sales figures will reflect this, but I doubt it.
charon2112
King
No, it hasn't. If anything it's more complex to play effectively, even though there's less "stuff" than in BTS.
I think that's what so many people, including myself, have found disappointing. Once you get past the gloss and the hexagonal goodness, there's really not much there at all.
How has it become more complex? I do not see the complexity. Oh wait, do I build a baracks or forgo the baracks and just fight the barbarians? I do not consider that complexity.
Maybe I am missing something. Can you please explain please. Not making fun of you. Maybe I am not seeing it.
Maybe I am missing something. Can you please explain please. Not making fun of you. Maybe I am not seeing it.
charon2112
King
For one (of many), in Civ IV by the late game, because production was fast you would have every building built in every city. There was not much strategy to that. In V, building is slower and you can't build everything everywhere. You need to think long and hard about what you want a city to accomplish and build buildings accordingly.
The interesting thing about the OP is, as said, he is the target audience, and he is unhappy.
I don't think that casual game players are going to be interested in a Civ style game, even if it is simplified.
I think Firaxis is trying to target a nonexistent audience.
Even a simplified Civ is too much for a casual game audience.
They already had the casual market covered with Civ Rev.
They should have made a Civ Rev for PC and made Civ 5 a true Civ game.
Only time will tell, but I sense a large mistake here.
I don't think that casual game players are going to be interested in a Civ style game, even if it is simplified.
I think Firaxis is trying to target a nonexistent audience.
Even a simplified Civ is too much for a casual game audience.
They already had the casual market covered with Civ Rev.
They should have made a Civ Rev for PC and made Civ 5 a true Civ game.
Only time will tell, but I sense a large mistake here.
MadRat
Cheese Raider
It wont. Modern game selling is all about Hype + box sales. Who cares if people play it or even *gasp* like it they just care about the box sale. EVERY vendor in every industry count give dog's bottom about repeat business because they are under the impression there are thronging masses of suckers. If they start taking the heat they close the studio and rebrand it under a new label.
Look at MMOs more and more are going F2P and all bout the initial box sales - they dont care about robust subs. It is a get in get the cash and run mentality. Craptic and its treatment of champions, STO, SQE and its horrid prison violation of the Final fantasy franchise in FFXIV. Finally the formerly vaunted Stardock made elemental into a dog's breakfast.
Rat
Im more confused by the game than think its bad or needed to be civ 4.5. But there are quite a few things that are missing without any plausable reason if the game was shipped "whole". Namely end game replays. The "End Game" information is horrible compared to even Civ I and its always been one of the best parts of actually winning the game.
I hate seeing the community jump into red and blue camps cause im firmly in the middle. I love 1 UPT and Hexes so much that it makes going back really really hard.
Abraxis
☮
this may be true, but unlike civ4, there is no need to play effectively as there is no challenge. even on deity the game is laughably easy.
It took me years to work up to the higher difficulties in Civ4.
charon2112
King
you're obviously a better player than me. although I never go for domination victories.
CountChocula
Chieftain
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2010
- Messages
- 8
I'm a huge Civ fan. I even have spread the love of Civ to family and friends like a good Civ3/Civ4 missionary. Thus Civ5 has been a pretty huge disappointment so far. My sister (one of my converts to Civ'dom) texted me not too long ago asking what I thought of it and I had to let her down easy about it.
Others have pointed out some flaws which are definitely true enough, but for me personally, I've been trying to put my finger on what is "wrong" with Civ5 and I think this post might have hit the nail on the head. It just lacks in depth. Barring the graphics, Civ5 comes very close to having about the same depth as a Facebook game. I'm not insulting, I'm being serious. Go play "City of Wonder" on Facebook, for instance.
Civ5 was made for a broader audience but has alienated some of the core audience (me, at the least). Additionally, I don't see how they will attract any of that larger audience since that audience already plays similar games online, for free. Furthermore, that "larger" audience 2k was shooting for? They don't want a war-game, no matter how streamlined, which (at it's core) is what Civ5 is.
In Civ3 and Civ4 I felt as if I were the leader of a semi-real civilization. In Civ5 I feel as if I'm playing a game. :-/
Others have pointed out some flaws which are definitely true enough, but for me personally, I've been trying to put my finger on what is "wrong" with Civ5 and I think this post might have hit the nail on the head. It just lacks in depth. Barring the graphics, Civ5 comes very close to having about the same depth as a Facebook game. I'm not insulting, I'm being serious. Go play "City of Wonder" on Facebook, for instance.
Civ5 was made for a broader audience but has alienated some of the core audience (me, at the least). Additionally, I don't see how they will attract any of that larger audience since that audience already plays similar games online, for free. Furthermore, that "larger" audience 2k was shooting for? They don't want a war-game, no matter how streamlined, which (at it's core) is what Civ5 is.
In Civ3 and Civ4 I felt as if I were the leader of a semi-real civilization. In Civ5 I feel as if I'm playing a game. :-/
Agreed, its just not magical to me. I only picked up Civ 4+expacs like 6 months ago and I thought the game was amazing. I pre-ordered CiV, 1/2 played through 2 games, and I just dont get drawn in like Civ 4 did (or Mass Effect or Kings Bounty- the last 2 games that did that for me). I will definitely give it another shot down the road, hopefully after a couple patches and when I have more time, but the "it" factor is definitely lacking for me.
At least Stardock is communicating and releasing frequent patches. The game still sucks but if the Civ 5 AI doesn't improve in 3 months then Elemental will probably be my game of choice.
With that said, I like Civ 5 but it is very different than previous civs. It feels more like a board game and less like an experience of managing a civilization. There is plenty of strategy in picking buildings, building/placing units, tech ordering, etc. but like a good board game it isn't convoluted like Civ 4 could be. Complexity != strategy.
Abraxis
☮
I agree with the board game thing, actually I was telling some friends I used to play Axis and Allies with that they should pick this up to play instead. I could see it being a great game in MP mode, with some friends you know will stick out a long game.
I almost wonder if that's what they were going for.
I do hear Elemental is shaping up nicely too, and they're giving those of us who pre-ordered a rebate for a free expansion which is nice. Do you have any idea when 1.1 will be out?
It's also nice that stardock stepped up and said "yeah, sorry, we screwed up hard", rather then just... where are you firaxis?
Ignorant Teacher
Emperor
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2009
- Messages
- 1,467
Dude, get over that line. It got old. You pop up in every single thread and say the same thing. Read the threads, don't skim them for posts you can apply that line to. Thanks.
charon2112
King
I say it, because it's true. Most people who hate this game are upset because it isn't Civ IV with better graphics...
Similar threads
