I just had an epiphany about Civ5!

[Aristos]

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


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.



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"



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

Well, you are welcome to show me that I'm wrong

Again, this post seems more like a list of excuses. Come on, show me, show us. A self-defined narcisist has to have something interesting to say. Even if you like the present model, I refuse to believe that you cannot find something that can be better, as much as I cannot say that they are completely broken.

I am not a native english speaker either. English is not my first language (nor my second, nor my third). That is exactly why I try to write walls of text, to practice.

I know my threads are not the only interesting ones here, quite the contrary... but those are the only ones I can invite you in.

So, bottom line, show us what you got.

 

[highfive]

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

I think that he's right and Civ 5 definitely makes you want to slam your head against a table or desk rather than play the game.

I enjoyed reading the thread, but I think that people are too worried with the game design when that's not the problem. The game was released too early. It was buggy and unfinished. It's really that simple.

I think the two complaints are:

1. The single player AI isn't challenging, no matter what route to victory you choose. I'm not sure that's a fixable problem or worth more development time.
2. The MP is stripped down to the point of not really being playable (no combat log, replays, animations, etc). The internet MP is unstable and unplayable. I have to lan up to even play MP with a friend, which is silly considering that I've had no problem playing recent RTS's (betas and release versions) over the internet.

I think that a lot of the problems can be fixed so that's why I've tried to play the game, understand the issues and make some suggestions. However, in the game's current state, it does make you just want to quit and play something else when it could be an excellent and very fun game.

 

[TPQ]

I agree Civ5 is not as immersive as some previous versions of the game. I agree that the details make a difference to how much immersion you can achieve easily.

After playing Civ5 for around 350 hours I conclude that, as of 1.0.0.621:

The AI personalities are more bland than Civ4.

Most AIs seem very much alike, to the extent that it matters very little who you play against, they all seem to be so similar and not distinctive in the way they behave in the game world.

Diplomacy seems virtually non-existent.

I give up trying to form any kind of friendship or alliance with the AI civs, as it makes virtually no difference to their behaviour towards me. I may get (literally) a few gold more in trades, but otherwise I may as well just play non-stop war, as that's what'll happen in the end anyway. It seems impossible to make genuine alliances/friendships with the AI, they just seem to pay lip-service to their diplomatic commitments and then just declare war regardless.

Leader animations never change, regardless of era.

For example, how can Catherine have such a sumptuous palace and such fine clothing in 4000BC? She hasn't researched mining yet, but she still manages to have gold-leaf on her mirrors behind her? Where'd she get the gold from? How did her civ make the glass for the mirrors, or the windows? Is that a polished marble floor she's standing on? Where did the marble come from? Leaders don't change at all with era, so immersion is broken.

Music doesn't change with era.

Music sets the mood of the game era and having it specific to era really helps immerse the player in the game more. I think there should either be choice, or be several tracks for each era, but the music should be reminiscent, or indicative of era to aid immersion.

Not enough tiles animate.

It certainly helps to create a living, breathing, believable, immersive game world when elements of the environment behave, or attempt to simulate the behaviour of, those same elements in reality. This doesn't happen enough in Civ5. Forests are especially lifeless and bland. In addition, worked city tiles like mines and lumber-mills don't animate when worked, breaking down immersion and removing a useful quick-look city management tool.

The landscape graphics are more bland than Civ4.

With the exception of the oceans, which are really nicely executed, the landscape in general seems much more lifeless, drab and bland in it's colour, variety and detail than in Civ4. This makes for a less engaging game environment and helps to erode immersion.

Units don't stand out from the landscape enough.

Although the units behave in a more satisfying way when in combat, they tend to otherwise fail to contrast enough with their environment and as such can seem to blend in, becoming less compelling to interact with.

In summary:

On the whole, I do like Civ5 and haven't played Civ4 since I got Civ5, but I do agree the game is lacking in immersion. It isn't impossible to become immersed, but it requires more effort than Civ4 did, which may go some way to explaining the manifest dissatisfaction on this forum.

 

[PawelS]

@ricardojahns: OK, you lured me, I'll try to post something in these threads soon (the part about narcissism was kind of a joke, it's other people who should tell if I'm a narcissist or not, not myself).

@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.

@TPQ: Your concerns are mostly about the visual aspect of the game, which is not very important for me. I generally like Civ5, but I must admit that it has some more serious issues than graphical ones (Btw there is one thing about the graphics that I really like, namely different tilesets for different continents. The rest is just OK for me.)

 

[Aristos]

@ricardojahns: OK, you lured me, I'll try to post something in these threads soon (the part about narcissism was kind of a joke, it's other people who should tell if I'm a narcissist or not, not myself).

@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.

@TPQ: Your concerns are mostly about the visual aspect of the game, which is not very important for me. I generally like Civ5, but I must admit that it has some more serious issues than graphical ones (Btw there is one thing about the graphics that I really like, namely different tilesets for different continents. The rest is just OK for me.)

look at your PMs...

(and of course you are, that's why you clash with me... you know, the "same poles" thing... )

 

[Seek]

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.

Agreed. For me the biggest issue with the game is that there aren't many mechanics which involve risk. The game needs more life!

Since the game is so deterministic, the excitement derived from risk taking or unforeseen events is moderated. The game needs more mechanics that are based on a conscious decision by the player to accept the possibility of a negative consequence to attain the goals desired. The most frequent complaints I've seen are that civ5 is boring, not immersive and/or only fun to play during war. I think this is because outside of war (and to a lesser extent, wonder building) there are very few risks leading to potential gains that the player can choose to take, and half the fun of gaming in general is the risk involved for potential reward for success. I'd argue that more mechanics which do so - especially in peacetime - would improve many people's enjoyment of the game.

For example, there were a variety of such mechanics in Civ4:

• Bonuses for reaching certain techs first
• Being the first to circumnavigate the globe
• World Wonders that were really powerful and thus worth racing for
• Civics that had bonuses along with penalties
• Random events (though I think these should have had more player control - certain events would only happen under certain conditions which the player knew about)
• Health (to some extent)

To be clear, I'm *not* saying that these necessarily should be in Civ5, but similar elements would go a long way. Such things add drama and excitement to the game, and that's sorely missing in Civ5's peaceful/builder gameplay. To be constructive, a new mechanic for Civ5 I think might be fun: You may skip adopting policies, but the longer you wait while having enough culture to choose one, the greater the chance that your people demand political change, which would result in a turn of anarchy.

Sorry for the lengthy post.

[Disclaimer: I like Civ5, so nobody take this the wrong way! The game can definitely be better though.]

 

[Nares]

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

I found his statement very interesting and immensely constructive.

I hope he ellaborates, or uses that same insight to detail other of the game's failings.

 

[gmbodhi]

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

Why don't you just go play the game if you like it so much, what's the point of telling everyone that you like a game? So you like it, go play it then, why waste your time here.

 

[PawelS]

I found his statement very interesting and immensely constructive.

In case of your post being sarcastic: the purpose of my statement was to improve the quality of discussion in this forum, so it was constructive in this sense.

Why don't you just go play the game if you like it so much, what's the point of telling everyone that you like a game? So you like it, go play it then, why waste your time here.

Well, sometimes it's good to do other things too instead of using all your free time to play games. And I agree that "telling everyone that I like a game" isn't particularly interesting (just like telling that you don't like it), so I avoid posting such things.

 

[Nares]

In case of your post being sarcastic: the purpose of my statement was to improve the quality of discussion in this forum, so it was constructive in this sense.

I wasn't being sarcastic.

I think you're overly fearful of this community degenrating into something more remnisicient of the WoW or LoL forums than of Civfanatics. I cannot envision that ever happening; this game just isn't enticing/popular enough.

Your trolling of this thread was the only negative and non-constructive discussion I've read within.
Moderator Action: Please don't accuse other posters of trolling. Report their post if you think they are.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

As for what I quoted, I've always felt that such a statement would be immensely useful to someone such as Soren, based on what I've gleaned of how he ran development from reading over at RB.

Obviously the player shouldn't be penalized for every single decision they make, but that's basically what happens here.

 

[gmbodhi]

My point is, I honestly believe that everyone who would bother come to a forum to post anything (for example me posting this reply), including those angry rants, did so because they care for the game, I don't know the exact word for it, but it's not as simple as like or don't like or hate. If someone truly HATES Civ5, they will probably go to a webshop review section and post there, to warn potential customers. There's no hatred here, it's anger, and in most cases, anger came from love and care

 

[PawelS]

OK, I won't troll it anymore.

 

[Aristos]

My point is, I honestly believe that everyone who would bother come to a forum to post anything (for example me posting this reply), including those angry rants, did so because they care for the game, I don't know the exact word for it, but it's not as simple as like or don't like or hate. If someone truly HATES Civ5, they will probably go to a webshop review section and post there, to warn potential customers. There's no hatred here, it's anger, and in most cases, anger came from love and care

YES. YES YES YES. And YES.

 

[Aristos]

OK, I won't troll it anymore.

did you check your PMs?

 

[joyous_gard]

Nothing happens in the game. You build buildings or units. They took the nuance out of the game. Build 1000 temples for Templestravaganza Achievement.

There's nothing to do but build units or buildings. The tiles are FUBAR - completely stripped of their previous variability. Everything is a building now. Sure, the tiles are streamlined, but how about unit-pathing from Point A to Point B? They didn't want to streamline that, I guess. Players like moving units one tile at a time to make sure there is no computer error.

It's nonsense. Ecology gets you solar panels and that's it. You can't even build them everywhere. What's the sense of researching Ecology? You are just forced to do it. A solar panel could have been a cool, new tile enhancement for the series; but I don't think they could handle the complexity so they made it as simple as possible with only buildings and units.

Streamlining to me should be programming the AI to automate correctly. Or, you know, things like having a user interface that doesn't require lots of clicking and backclicking to get simple stuff. I feel the designers for Civ V interpreted streamlining as stripping out detail for the sake of simplifying the programming.

I used to like to see what percentage my culture was in a newly conquered city. It gave me something to check on now and then as the game went on. Now, new cities are puppets. I can't even click into those cities without getting some garish pop up window offering me three choices.

The game feels like they programmed it this way because they weren't able to handle intricacy and detail. Puppet cities just feels like a patch to me. Like they couldn't get the game to work, so they had to invent puppet cities to make it work.

Who ever thought Civ would have quests? What a joke. City-state quests? That is hokiest thing I have ever seen. The fact that city-states play a large role in the game should be a cause for shame. Why isn't there a City-state Quest achievement? Why take out detail and put in heavy handed, over-the-top, contrived game mechanics?

This patch is balance oriented which is sad for me because it is really setting in that it is just a crappy game. Balancing a crappy game. They aren't bringing in any nuance or detail. It is just +2F, -2C tweaks. The crappy interface will still be there. The lack of tile variability will still be there. But now there is a Clown College national wonder to balance out the Frowns you get when you play the game.

Civ 5 Clown Shoes.

 

[charon2112]

Nothing happens in the game. You build buildings or units. They took the nuance out of the game. Build 1000 temples for Templestravaganza Achievement.

those achievements aren't really part of Civ V, they're Steam achievements...and I agree, they're pretty stupid. Every Steam game seems to have them.

 

[cf_nz]

Who ever thought Civ would have quests? What a joke.

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

 

[Michael Vick]

It's very lamentable that this game has taken the turn it has. Rarely do you see such a large portion of a fan base disappointed about the same issues. This is my first post since Civ5 has come out. However, I've been reading these threads full of disapproval since the game came out. I never posted a reply because, well, every one was complaining about the exact same thing and I agreed completely. What's my comment going to make different, I thought? How many other thousands that bought Civ5 must be going up and down these forums with the same thoughts?

Everybody wants to offer constructive criticism and that's all great but I do fear that nobody is listening. We would have been able to find solace in the thought that there is some big BtS-like expansion pack in the works, but we know that's not true. Firaxis is trying to be like most of the other developers on steam now, selling the game with the use of massive amounts of hype, and once people have paid their $40/50, raking in the cash with DLC. There's a crucial difference though. Take Empire:Total War for instance. There must have been at least 10 instances of DLC since the game came out. It was quality DLC though, that enhanced the game both strategically and "immersively". (Thank you, CivFanaticMan, for putting it so well.) Let's face it, Civ 5 is spewing out small doses of crap on a biweekly basis in order to make money. Remember the map pack DLC? $3 for a single map that was smaller, less accurate, and less detailed than the free version available on these forums. The same concept of the bare maps of parts of the Earth was included for free in vanilla Civ4. I'm probably not the only one to remind you all that Civ 5 did not come with a single scenario? Depressing as it may be, this is all solid evidence of Firaxis' new direction. Has anybody heard of any promises to make it better or try something new? No, they're too busy making money to worry about that right now.

I'm the self-immersion kind of Civ gamer, to the extreme. My favorite part of Civ IV was RFC which came in BtS. Basically a Civ 4 rendition of history, it was my dream come true. When I got bored of that, I found happiness in working with the mods based on RFC. When I'm not playing Civ, I like the other kind of game too, but this thread hits the nail right on the head in stating that Civ 5 really doesn't feel like either kind of game. It's boring. Well, why restate all that everyone else has said time and time again? It's clear what needs to be done with this game but I don't see it happening. I played with Spain more than any other Civ in Civ 4 by far, but I probably won't be getting the DLC that comes out on Thursday. I wish it was better, I really do. I miss that "Epic Journey"

 

[CivFanaticMan]

Just played through my first test game, as Japan. As you could guess I was warmongering most of the game, but I still kept a few city state allies.

I actually had an enjoyable time playing the game. I really liked how the AI and other city states responded to my warmongering. It was really cool to see the AI contact me when I had units massing near his borders. The social policy tree, although its not flexible, actually made sense and gave some immersion into the game (I would still like to see the civic system alongside the social policy system though). However durring the gameplay I only felt contented, unlike when I first played Civ4, where I was thrilled durring my first whole game.

While I was playing I felt empty though. The game just felt too gamey. Its like I wasn't trying to build a civilization, but instead I was trying to win at a game. The way you achieve victory becomes something you decide at from the beginning of the game.

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.

In Civ5 I decide right at the start and follow through with that plan. Theres no game changing moments. There is a major lack of re-playability because of this!

So will I be playing another game? No. I enjoyed it while I played it, but I have no motivation to play another game.

 

[joyous_gard]

So will I be playing another game? No. I enjoyed it while I played it, but I have no motivation to play another game.

But you'll stay on the boards to give us all your deep insight on the game though, right?