I just had an epiphany about Civ5!

[charon2112]

In Civ4 I normally decided what victory I would go for based on a number of things that would pop up throughout the game. I would never know how I would win (unless I set only 1 or 2 victory modes). It wouldn't be until the late game when I decide what my course of action would be. If I happened to have lots of wars with the AI earlier and I gained a lot of territory, then I would decide for a conquest victory. If the AI and I had relatively good relations throughout the game, and I had the time to build up my city infrastructure, I would go for a culture victory. The game decided what I would do, so each game was a mystery and I never really knew what would happen.

Contrary to some people's opinions, you can play this way in Civ V too.

 

[blind biker]

I'm pretty sure there were random event quests in Civ IV.

Exactamundo - Civ IV BtS has these mini-quests, part of the "random events". I always remove the checkbox next to "random events" - I don't like that stuff.

 

[astonished]

I can never stress that enough.

I want the best for Civilization 5.

Like my favorite sports team during a bad season, I want them to do better. I want them to have that turn around game that bring them to the finals in a Cinderella victory. Right now the new coach is making strange plays, trading away the better older players for untested rookies, and promising me that the next season they will have a better team. So I'm waiting for next season. But I'm going to remain angry and vocal about how bad they're doing this season.

But I bought season tickets this year! I'm not Firaxis's fan, I'm their customer. And right now I feel like they sold me NBA tickets and I showed up and it was the local trade school's nerf tennis league. This is a shoddy product. It doesn't deliever on the only thing a game should: fun.

You want the best for Civ5? What does that mean? Don't you want the best value for your money?

I don't understand why you feel loyalty to a company that is obviously is cashing in on that loyalty. They make a super dumbed down vanilla then wait for all of the extrememly talented amateur modders to make their game for them. Thank you, Firaxis, for letting us pay our money for the opportunity to make your game for you. having a game that is easy to mod is only cool if the vanilla is cool enough to want to mod.

 

[joyous_gard]

Exactamundo - Civ IV BtS has these mini-quests, part of the "random events". I always remove the checkbox next to "random events" - I don't like that stuff.

There is no way random events (IV) = quests (V).

No contrived Random Event mechanism popped up and said "Find China and I will randomly make food happen."

Instead a random event was like "A gladiator is doing really well in Susa. What should we do? A) Make him a star (90C) B) Give him a holiday (45C), or C) Don't do anything (0C)."

Random events were a small part of IV that provided some diversity and variability to gameplay, it wasn't forced, you could deactivate it. City-states can be deactivated too, but in this case city-states were designed to be a major part of the game. For all the quest-loving Civ Fanatics, they put in a unsubtle system that is pretty much a necessity to play the game. A necessity if you want your cities to grow at a more normal rate.

There is a huge difference between random events and City-States. City-States is a selling point of Civ V, random events is just an afterthought in Civ IV.

EDIT: Oh yeah! They had the build a naval fleet quest, holy mountain quest, etc. OK I see what you were talking about but I still think their is a huge difference here. I should clarify - One aspect, of many, the city-states mechanic that is particularly annoying and game is the quests. I feel complied to interact in these quests as City-States were clearly made to be used in the game. Random Events on or off does make a different game of Civ IV. City-States on or off does make a different game of Civ V.

 

[Honorable_Pawn]

Oh man, this game is great!

The only thing that would make this game better is if they put a little crosshair in the middle of the screen so that I can aim a little better. Maybe a couple of explosions, and lots of blood.

Man I can't wait until they put in an option that lets me start off with body armour and a brand new shiny alien super deluxe ion blaster!!!

 

[joyous_gard]

@ blind biker

The main idea remains, random events in IV are different and less intrusive than City-State quests in V.

Random events are a different game mechanic and not a selling point of the series. The new city-states are integral to the gameplay for culture, for growth, and in some cases for units. City-states and their associated quests are more forced gameplay than random events and its quests.

I didn't buy CiV Clown Shoes to play "my buddy" with city-states. Deactivating city-states is not practical in a game that was built around them providing sufficient food and culture for the player's civ.

If you guys are fans of the City-States and their quests, more power to you. It's apples to oranges as pertains to Civ IV random events.

I'll also add, the random events at least attempted to be based in some sense of reality. Build navy to assert dominance and get a national bonus, Forest fire and you lose a forest tile, Gladiator gets his city's colosseum extra gold, Your religious fanatics are looking for the mountain top go find it, etc. These are some small things that give you something to do and seems more or less in the realm of possibility. I could see an awesome gladiator drawing larger crowds to a particular arena. I can see a dominant navy inspiring a nation and influencing neighboring states. Hey, forest fires happen. Random events were also based on what your Civ was doing. If you weren't running a religious civ, you wouldn't be asked to find the mountain top. If you were running a religious Civ you wouldn't always be asked to find the mountain top. Random events were just an accessory to the game.

City-States is childish. "Build me a road so you can have Food for your entire nation." "Find me Russia so you can have Food for your entire nation." "We want the wisdom of a Great Scientist. You will get Food for your entire nation." It's hoky, immature, not detailed or developed. It's for simpletons.

City-states are on a par with the rest of CiV Clown Shoes. "Who has Pointy Sticks." "Smiley Point Leaders." "Most Busy People." If they had a writer, they could have come up with some real text for those screens. It all just adds to the shoddy tradecraft feeling I get when I play.

Look, I want the game to improve. I still play it. I boil over every couple of weeks. It is a simple game though and I find I have nothing to do but grind out achievements and that irritates me.

 

[PieceOfMind]

Tip: You can just ignore the quests that city states give you. I certainly do most of the time. I think it's a bit of a stretch to call these quests "forced gameplay". More like "optional gameplay" IMO.

 

[joyous_gard]

Ugh, you guys!! Maybe I should just revise my original post to avoid the quest statement and say:

I don't like city-states. The whole heavy-handed mechanic is childish and intrusive to the game. It feels like a gimmick and makes the game less about my civ than it is maintaining relations with the gimmicky City-States. It's not even necessary to have good relations with the actual AI competitors because the city-states are overpowered. Just about every aspect of the game is permeated by this bad idea. Growth, Science, Culture, Diplomatic Victory off the top of my head.

If city-states were intended to replace random events to give something for the player to do while building and expanding, they failed terribly because they are way too intrusive.

 

[lschnarch]

@highfive: I understand your position, if you don't like the game but think it's "salvageable", you're more than welcome to post your ideas how to make it better. The devs read these forums, so they may implement some of your ideas in patches. But those who don't have anything more interesting to say than "this game is a worthless piece of [insert appropriate word here]" should better leave.

I really wonder who you are to tell others to leave the forum?

Tip: You can just ignore the quests that city states give you. I certainly do most of the time. I think it's a bit of a stretch to call these quests "forced gameplay". More like "optional gameplay" IMO.

I assume Joyous_Gard wasn't complaining about "quests" having to be fulfilled, but about the fact that these socalled quests are not based on anything you do.
In no particular order:
Kill barbs within our borders
Kill a barb encampment
Find a natural wonder
Find a certain nation
Get a certain luxury
Get a certain Great Person
Build a street
Kill another city state
Give us units
Fight our war
(Did I forget one?)

Nothing of these things is based on the way in which you've managed your empire.
There is no difference in reward, it is always "influence" (which can be bought anyway) and it won't change anything the city state is going to do for you, given you have enough influence over it.

Talk about "gamey features" and look at city state "quests".

 

[cf_nz]

I don't like city-states. The whole heavy-handed mechanic is childish and intrusive to the game.

Can I point out the obvious, you can play without city states.

For what it's worth I kind of agree that city states are a bit gimmicky, their implementation is extremely simplistic and they don't really have much of an impact on diplomacy (at least in the games I've played), which I thought was the point of the addition.

 

[PawelS]

I really wonder who you are to tell others to leave the forum?

I promised not to "troll" this thread anymore, but I'll answer this. This is really my last post here.

As I said earlier, it's just good advice, I don't have to be anyone special to give it.

 

[Aristos]

I promised not to "troll" this thread anymore, but I'll answer this. This is really my last post here.

As I said earlier, it's just good advice, I don't have to be anyone special to give it.

hey Pawel brother, you should really try to refrain from that sentence... even I stopped saying that "civ5 is not for the thinking man", imagine... nobody likes to be told if they can or cannot write and where, or else we might end up alone here the two of us, and that would be less fun, wouldn't it?

 

[PieceOfMind]

I agree the whole city state sub-game could be improved. At the moment they are pretty much just vending machines splattered across the map. And since they have their own AIs, they slow the game considerably too.

 

[Mad Hab]

Games that fall more under the Competitive immersion are: Starcraft, Total War games, Call of Duty, Civ Rev.

As much as i dislike the silliness of Civ Rev, I must admit I had a blast in one game on the DS (the better platform for it, imho). I was playing with the Mongols, overstretched my empire with several converted barb camps, then lost all but two cities to the spaniards. Boy, it was hard - but oh-so-gratifiying - to take them all back and then to conquer the Spanish cities!

Unfortunately, Civ 5 never gave me that kind of satisfaction - not even close. It's very hard to 'turn the tables' without resorting to cheap tactics (high population = high tech - come on! ).

Or, like you said, maybe it's too focused on competition to be immersive, maybe it's too long to rely on competition only...

Cheers!

Mad Hab

 

[Jade Wolf]

If you wonder why Firaxis is not reading the forums here is a thought. Try reading these posts through their eyes. I have read through 4 pages on this particular thread. In that time I found perhaps 3 usefull and insightfull posts or remarks regarding the state of the game and what needs fixing. The other 50 or so were personal attacks on forum posters or a simple statement that the game sucks. If I worked for Firaxis I doubt I would have the patience to wade through so much crap. I would not care if poster x dislikes poster y, and although I would care that people are very unhapy with my product it is only depressing to read that over and over again without being told what is wrong exactly. That might impact the quality of CIV 6 but does nothing to fix CIV 5.

If you realy want to see CIV 5 become great consider being part of the solution. Identify the problem elements (in your opinion) and maybee even give a sugestion or two on how to solve it. Allow others to give you feedback without geting bent out of shape about them having an opinion that may conflict with yours. If 10 other people say your idea makes sense and one guy disagrees don't bother telling him off, it's obvious your on the right path. If 10 people tell you your idea is not so good, perhaps it isn't.

Then again this is all my opinion and you can flame me if you like, I won't lose any sleep over it.

 

[Seek]

If you wonder why Firaxis is not reading the forums here is a thought. Try reading these posts through their eyes. I have read through 4 pages on this particular thread. In that time I found perhaps 3 usefull and insightfull posts or remarks regarding the state of the game and what needs fixing. The other 50 or so were personal attacks on forum posters or a simple statement that the game sucks. If I worked for Firaxis I doubt I would have the patience to wade through so much crap. I would not care if poster x dislikes poster y, and although I would care that people are very unhapy with my product it is only depressing to read that over and over again without being told what is wrong exactly. That might impact the quality of CIV 6 but does nothing to fix CIV 5.

If you realy want to see CIV 5 become great consider being part of the solution. Identify the problem elements (in your opinion) and maybee even give a sugestion or two on how to solve it. Allow others to give you feedback without geting bent out of shape about them having an opinion that may conflict with yours. If 10 other people say your idea makes sense and one guy disagrees don't bother telling him off, it's obvious your on the right path. If 10 people tell you your idea is not so good, perhaps it isn't.

Then again this is all my opinion and you can flame me if you like, I won't lose any sleep over it.

Well said.

 

[blind biker]

Random events are a different game mechanic and not a selling point of the series. The new city-states are integral to the gameplay for culture, for growth, and in some cases for units. City-states and their associated quests are more forced gameplay than random events and its quests.

I didn't buy CiV Clown Shoes to play "my buddy" with city-states. Deactivating city-states is not practical in a game that was built around them providing sufficient food and culture for the player's civ.

I agree with you on this, though.

BY THE WAY - I didn't see the revision when I posted, because I didn't read till the end. Let's do this: I delete my post, and you can delete the (obsolete) citation.

 

[joyous_gard]

I assume Joyous_Gard wasn't complaining about "quests" having to be fulfilled, but about the fact that these socalled quests are not based on anything you do.
In no particular order:
Kill barbs within our borders
Kill a barb encampment
Find a natural wonder
Find a certain nation
Get a certain luxury
Get a certain Great Person
Build a street
Kill another city state
Give us units
Fight our war
(Did I forget one?)

Nothing of these things is based on the way in which you've managed your empire.
There is no difference in reward, it is always "influence" (which can be bought anyway) and it won't change anything the city state is going to do for you, given you have enough influence over it.

Talk about "gamey features" and look at city state "quests".

Yeah that is pretty much it. The whole feel of CS feels hokey. It bugs me that they are central to the game. I thought they were going to be glorified barbarians and they are actually mini-civs. I would have preferred glorified barbarians or being able to deal with barbarian cities over mini-civs.

Reading the feedback, I will try some games with no CS and see how I like it. I am just worried I am going to have a bunch of Size 15 cities. I guess the AI will too though, so it should even out. Maybe I will need to focus more on building farms. But then where will my gold come from?

EDIT:
blind biker I edited my previous post.

EDIT2:
Sorry to everyone for calling it Civ "Clown Shoes" and stating "CS for simpletons." It is too shallow for my taste but if it's in the game, it's in the game.

 

[fed1943]

IMO City States are essential to Civ5 (and I'm not saying if I like it or not).

In previous Civ games the map was the top feature to dictate strategy. Here the map is above
all "where CS are?".

I am not able to decide a strategy without knowing about the location of (some) CS. Are you?

 

[JLoZeppeli]

This is what I didn't like in Civ4, I prefer to slowly build my empire instead of making quick and dramatic changes. As I posted in another thread, Civ5 is for builders (of course when played "normally", not as a total warmonger or ICSer), while Civ4 is for "switchers".

It is for builders as well Call of Duty is a train simulator....