I just had an epiphany about Civ5!

[blind biker]

They're mostly artificial Achiements, too. Like "chop down 1,000 forest" or "convert 10 Barbary Pirates". Why? Why would I care? Answer: to get the Achievement.

Achievements are total fail. It's not really part of Civ V, though, as much a part of the total Civ V + Steam crapparola.

 

[Baleur]

CivFanaticMan you presented some interesting ideas, but I think you spoiled it when you let loose with:


For the sake of making this discussion worthwhile, can I please ask you to elaborate some on what it means to put more immersion back into civ5?

For one, making the AI's act as simulated nations, as in Paradox games, Civ 4, Galciv 2, etc..
Thats the biggest immersion breaker / fun breaker for me.

The AI's act like impatient 5 year olds rushing for gunpowder and mass-declaring war on the player because of no other reason than their own ensured future success.
Everything they do is with one single goal, winning the GAME.

When the player observes this, one is constantly reminded that it is a game and they are ai's.

When you play a game like Civ4 or a Paradox title where they try to simulate a nation on a turn by turn basis rather than RUSH RUSH WIN WIN WIN GG!!!!!, it feels more immersive and fun, because it feels more like it is the JOURNEY that matters, not the boring statistics screen at the last SECOND..

For example, when you play a Paradox game you can have fun for a dozen hours without even winning, even just keeping the status quo or even being slapped around by the major powers.
When you play Civ5, there's nothing to do but warfare. So keeping the status quo is just doing nothing, and being slapped around by the major powers isnt fun because theres no point, theres no ripple effects, the only effect is that your army dies and your cities get razed.

None of the mechanics that made the game meaningful to play are there anymore. Its just a Starcraft 2 marine rush.

This is the problem with Civ5, they focused so much on winning the game, and not on if the JOURNEY through all these ages and dozens of hours, should be fun or complex or not.
The entire game is streamlined, for the player, the economics, and the AI's, to enable maximum efficency to rush to VICTORY..

Not to enjoy a long amazingly fun addictive journey.
Civ has always been about the journey, not the GG in the end.
For that, we have Starcraft 2, and civ can never touch that genre, so i dont know why they tried so hard.
They should have kept at what they did best, the epic journey.

 

[Deemsum]

Civ 4 was like playing a cartoon. I guess Tibet should the richest city in the world because that is where the Buddha was born and thats a holy city. Civ4 was a game civ5 is much closer to a simulation of world history

 

[SuperJay]

So do it and post at the forums of games you like if you have nothing interesting or constructive to say here.

Wow, I had no idea my forum powers were so intimidating! I feel even more powerful now, thanks.

If you'd rather not read opinions that conflict with your own, feel free to put those people on your ignore list. You have absolutely no right to tell people to leave just because you don't like what they say, so that's a way to actually resolve your problem without being rude and pushy. Have a nice day.

 

[Zydor]

...... They should have kept at what they did best, the epic journey.

That hits it on the head "the epic journey". I've been struggling for a while for the correct phrase about my overall game concerns. That phrase is it in a nutshell.

I hope the Patch starts down a journey to regain the lost ground on this, that the stripping out took out. Its looking like the full patch notes outline a better balance, but it does not look close to regaining the traditional Civ flavour, its still very much military kill thy neighbour orientated.

Lets see how the Patch plays .... but its looking more and more like a wait for the first Expansion to see if they are going to keep to the traditional Civ. Could well mean a few months of EU3 & Victoria 2 for me, which will be an interesting first - never played any other Strat game except Civ for 15 yrs

Regards
Zy

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I think the key to part of this is to make winning require an epic journey.

ie The strategy for winning needs to be multilayered... so that an AI or an MP opponent, even one playing to win, will act in an immersive/storytelling way. Because to win you need to act like a real nation might act.

City-States are a potential part of this. (They could start liking you/hating you for adopting certain policies or religions if they were added)

 

[Zydor]

..... ie The strategy for winning needs to be multilayered... so that an AI or an MP opponent, even one playing to win, will act in an immersive/storytelling way. Because to win you need to act like a real nation might act......

Works for me - but it looks like a few months wait before we find out if thats the ultimate game plan, I hope so

After 15 years at this - I really do hope so .......

Regards
Zy

 

[PawelS]

Wow, I had no idea my forum powers were so intimidating! I feel even more powerful now, thanks.

If you'd rather not read opinions that conflict with your own, feel free to put those people on your ignore list. You have absolutely no right to tell people to leave just because you don't like what they say, so that's a way to actually resolve your problem without being rude and pushy. Have a nice day.

I don't have problems with reading critical opinions about the game and responding to them, see my other posts in this thread. But if you re-read your post, you can see that it wasn't an opinion. It was what I call "mindless bashing". Of course I don't have powers to make you leave, it was just good advice. Really, what keeps you posting in this forum if you never want to play the game again?

Ignore list is not a good solution, I don't want to pretend that the problem doesn't exist by not seeing it.

 

[CivFanaticMan]

Just curious, have you played civ V yet? Because as of a week or so ago, you admittedly had not. This thread would hold more weight if it was written by someone who has actually played the game.

I have. I downloaded a pirate version to test see if I wanted to buy it.
Moderator Action: We do not support any piracy here, so please refrain from such statements.
For test playing use the demo.

 

[CivFanaticMan]

Civ 4 was like playing a cartoon. I guess Tibet should the richest city in the world because that is where the Buddha was born and thats a holy city. Civ4 was a game civ5 is much closer to a simulation of world history

Civ5 is as much as good as a simulation of history as is any other civ game. Remember civ games aren't know for being realistic. Civ5 just lacks turn by turn satisfaction. In Civ4 every turn had something to say. Civ5 has great potential, but it still has a long way to go, if the developers take it in the right path.

FYI: Siddhārtha Gautama was born in northern India.

 

[charon2112]

I have. I downloaded a pirate version to test see if I wanted to buy it.

At least you're honest.

 

[Aristos]

At least you're honest.

I'm almost tempted to add that he is also smart... but I won't.

 

[LegioCorvus]

So do it and post at the forums of games you like if you have nothing interesting or constructive to say here.

This reminds me of the "If you don't like it here, leave!" comments by people in politics in during the Bush years. The people who are complaining about Civ5 have a vested interest in the series. We want it to be good. Right now, in the current incarnation, we do not find it to be good.

Like I said in another thread, it's like being a fan of a sports team with a losing season and a new coach. The new coach is trading away talented older players for untested newer players, and telling us that the next season will be better than this one. We're still fans, but we don't like the current direction. Why are we not allowed to be vocal about that?

We're not fair weather fans. We're here for the good and the bad, and during the bad, we're going to mention how bad it is.

 

[PawelS]

This reminds me of the "If you don't like it here, leave!" comments by people in politics in during the Bush years. The people who are complaining about Civ5 have a vested interest in the series. We want it to be good. Right now, in the current incarnation, we do not find it to be good.

Like I said in another thread, it's like being a fan of a sports team with a losing season and a new coach. The new coach is trading away talented older players for untested newer players, and telling us that the next season will be better than this one. We're still fans, but we don't like the current direction. Why are we not allowed to be vocal about that?

We're not fair weather fans. We're here for the good and the bad, and during the bad, we're going to mention how bad it is.

I understand, but I'd really prefer if people that have such opinion criticize the game in a more constructive manner than some of them do. I just want this forum to be a nice place to visit and discuss the good and the bad things about the game, not a place to vent your frustrations by bashing the game and insulting those who like it (the latter doesn't apply to SuperJay's post, but happens in this forum too).

For those who lost all hope in Civ5 and "never met a game that was so eager to make them stop playing it", I think it would be better to create a Civ6 ideas section in this forum, so they can keep expressing their interest in the series. There is really no point for them to post in the Civ5 section.

 

[TrailblazingScot]

The biggest problems?

Wars are too easy.

Most buildings aren't rewarding enough to build.

Most of the Wonders aren't worth having.

There are too few ways of playing the game well.

MP support is far inferior to that of CivIV BTS - CiV should have taken the best elements and improved upon that.

 

[Kid R]

Like I said in another thread, it's like being a fan of a sports team with a losing season and a new coach. The new coach is trading away talented older players for untested newer players, and telling us that the next season will be better than this one. We're still fans, but we don't like the current direction. Why are we not allowed to be vocal about that?

I like this It perfectly captures the irrational hope that the current team might just put a run together and challenge for a trophy (read: the latest collection of patches will somehow make things OK). And the misplaced confidence that the management will finally listen to the fans do a U-turn on all their strategies, transfer policies, and media bulls*** of the last few years (read: well pretty much the same things really). But we still read the back page reports every week just out of masochism. Luckily the seniors team is still playing and winning regularly!

 

[orthus]

if the developers of civ5 spent half the time on developing and testing that people spent about arguing goodgame - badgame --> there could be a finished playable game

maybe mods fix it, but now it's like a non-interactive screensaver.

 

[PawelS]

if the developers of civ5 spent half the time on developing and testing that people spent about arguing goodgame - badgame --> there could be a finished playable game

maybe mods fix it, but now it's like a non-interactive screensaver.

Looks like my pleas to make the discussion more constructive don't have any effect, so I give up (at least for some time ).

 

[Aristos]

Looks like my pleas to make the discussion more constructive don't have any effect, so I give up (at least for some time ).

I never see you in those threads were interesting discussions are taking place. I only see you bashing every single critical post. I may be wrong, but that is what is registered in my memory. Right now, there are two very interesting debates about the tech model (new) and the combat model (older, but "relaunched"), and I haven't seen you there.

Honestly, I have never seen a post of yours more than 2 or 3 lines long, and that includes some form of argument or reasoning. I may be wrong, but that is what is registered in my memory.

Wanna put your money were your mouth is? Go to those threads, let's see what you can contribute.

 

[PawelS]

I don't think this thread should turn into a discussion about me, but due to my narcissism I couldn't resist answering this one

I never see you in those threads were interesting discussions are taking place. I only see you bashing every single critical post. I may be wrong, but that is what is registered in my memory. Right now, there are two very interesting debates about the tech model (new) and the combat model (older, but "relaunched"), and I haven't seen you there.

There are some interesting threads other than those started by you And I'm not "bashing every single critical post", I'm answering them normally when they contain something that can be discussed instead of only rants and insults.

Honestly, I have never seen a post of yours more than 2 or 3 lines long, and that includes some form of argument or reasoning. I may be wrong, but that is what is registered in my memory.

Yes, my posts are usually short, I don't like writing walls of text, this is partially because I'm not a native English speaker, so writing in English requires some effort from me, which I tend to minimalize. Sometimes you can find some simple reasoning in my posts, but not elaborate theories. This may support your theory of Civ5 being "not for the thinking kind"

Wanna put your money were your mouth is? Go to those threads, let's see what you can contribute.

I like the current combat and science systems, so I don't have anything very interesting to say on these subjects. Posts containing nothing but praises are useless just like the nonconstructive rants