Is CiV up to snuff yet?

[gps]

I like Civ 4 BtS, but after going back to it I find that it is more or less TOO complicated, and a successful playthrough requires top-level knowledge of the tech tree, units, and other small points.
CiV G&K, on the other hand, is nicely streamlined ...

That's exactly what a lot of peope call dumbed down. And I guess you can't blame them if the are used to and favor the comlexity of BtS...

 

[Funky]

Have a look at the old civ5 bashing threads, read carefully and you will find that 90% of replies are "It's not Civ4, how dare they". Loads of the arguments are based on emotional attachments to the game and the lack of willingness to open up to a different type of playing. That is especially in regards to the AI.

Excuse me please. Don't you guys get tired of this constant nonsense aka "the bashers just wanted Civ 4.5", "they can't handle change" etc? It is disrespectful und insulting. Take a closer look at the threads you mention. Over the last two years, hundreds of users have laid out in thousands of forum pages the problems that Civ 5 has, often going into great depths to explain how many of its core concepts work poorly for a civ game. The most famous analysis is by Sullla, but that shouldn't dismiss the countless other people who have shown very analytically and convincingly that the game has serious problems that stem directly from its core design. It was, and it still is highly annoying to hear as a response this BS that "we can't handle change" or that we're "emotionally attached too strongly to Civ 4" or whatever variations the people who cannot counter our arguments bring up. To this day I have not seen a single post or article which proves that the core design features of Civ 5 actually work well for a civ game.

The AI of this game is bad. Very bad. If that's not a problem for you, good for you. But it doesn't change the fact. Global happiness as a ICS limiting function does not work. Furthermore, it's counterintuitive, leading to absurd and ahistorical situations like your people becoming happy when they lose a city and getting angry when they are victorious. The game has moved a far way in the direction of a tactical wargame, which makes the empire building side less relevant, and indeed the empire management part of the game is a lot less sophisticated than any other civ game. If you like tactical wargames, then you won the jackpot. But please, please, have the decency to acknowledge these changes that bother so many of us so greatly that we cannot imagine even playing the game anymore, which, as the new iteration of our favorite series, we hoped would keep us occupied for years.

Again, all the power to you for liking the game. But why be dishonest about it by denying its problems or insult those who bring up valid criticsm? Describe openly what the game is and what it isn't, and people like the OP can decide if they want to invest their money into it or not. Or does it make you feel good if you can trick someone into buying a game he won't like? I don't get it, to be honest.

 

[Funky]

I like Civ 4 BtS, but after going back to it I find that it is more or less TOO complicated, and a successful playthrough requires top-level knowledge of the tech tree, units, and other small points.
CiV G&K, on the other hand, is nicely streamlined

This, for example, is a fair post, which describes one of the differences between the games accurately. Those who found Civ 4 too complicated might prefer Civ 5 a lot more, which is fine. Those who like to aquire top-level knowledge in order to win the game on the highest levels would be better off with Civ 4. Notice how this notion is neither dismissive nor insulting to either game and allows the potential reader to draw his own conclusion.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Excuse me please. Don't you guys get tired of this constant nonsense aka "the bashers just wanted Civ 4.5", "they can't handle change" etc? It is disrespectful und insulting. Take a closer look at the threads you mention. Over the last two years, hundreds of users have laid out in thousands of forum pages the problems that Civ 5 has, often going into great depths to explain how many of its core concepts work poorly for a civ game. The most famous analysis is by Sullla, but that shouldn't dismiss the countless other people who have shown very analytically and convincingly that the game has serious problems that stem directly from its core design. It was, and it still is highly annoying to hear as a response this BS that "we can't handle change" or that we're "emotionally attached too strongly to Civ 4" or whatever variations the people who cannot counter our arguments bring up. To this day I have not seen a single post or article which proves that the core design features of Civ 5 actually work well for a civ game.

The AI of this game is bad. Very bad. If that's not a problem for you, good for you. But it doesn't change the fact. Global happiness as a ICS limiting function does not work. Furthermore, it's counterintuitive, leading to absurd and ahistorical situations like your people becoming happy when they lose a city and getting angry when they are victorious. The game has moved a far way in the direction of a tactical wargame, which makes the empire building side less relevant, and indeed the empire management part of the game is a lot less sophisticated than any other civ game. If you like tactical wargames, then you won the jackpot. But please, please, have the decency to acknowledge these changes that bother so many of us so greatly that we cannot imagine even playing the game anymore, which, as the new iteration of our favorite series, we hoped would keep us occupied for years.

Again, all the power to you for liking the game. But why be dishonest about it by denying its problems or insult those who bring up valid criticsm? Describe openly what the game is and what it isn't, and people like the OP can decide if they want to invest their money into it or not. Or does it make you feel good if you can trick someone into buying a game he won't like? I don't get it, to be honest.

Surely there are problems with V, but isn't that the case with IV as well? Do we just gloss over those things in defending the game, or do we not even see them? I think the issue is that all of the previous versions ALSO had major issues, which some seem to forget or want to diminish.

• Although a new and welcomed concept in CivIV, do you really think that Religion was implemented well in four? Well I don't--doesn't mean I hate CivIV though.
  
• Do civics/social policies and religion not have more in "complexity" than the BtS counterparts? I do--to be honest I think that a lot of the "complexity" of IV is an illusion--though of course that's all a matter of opinion.
  
• Do you think Stacks of Doom were awesome? The AI isn't great at handling 1UPT, but do you really think the old stack method was the best way? If so, the people who like V more aren't the only ones being dishonest. And heck, there was a mod getting rid of 1UPT available before anyone even played through an entire game (which sounds a lot like wanting Civ 4.5).

This, for example, is a fair post, which describes one of the differences between the games accurately. Those who found Civ 4 too complicated might prefer Civ 5 a lot more, which is fine. Those who like to aquire top-level knowledge in order to win the game on the highest levels would be better off with Civ 4. Notice how this notion is neither dismissive nor insulting to either game and allows the potential reader to draw his own conclusion.

You don't think that saying one game requires "top-level knowledge" and is "complicated" while implying the other is "dumbed down" (hate that meme) is dismissive or insulting? I do (I also happen to think it's incorrect, but again YMMV).

I do agree that many people are dismissive towards the people who brought up issues about CivV, though.

Just like anything else, if you go in wanting to think the game's bad (or good), you're going to find out you're right and have plenty of facts backing it up. I'm a builder, not a "tactical wargamer" or whatever, and see plenty of reasons to like V.

 

[Civking5]

Sulla's analysis came out when game was released and it is narrow minded aim to bash the game showing prespective of people like funky who cannot handle all the changes in game. Also after all the changes in civ5, sulla's article is totally obsolete now. I played hundreds of hours of civ5, and never saw carpet of doom. Those who don't like civ5, should stop referring to an obsolete article.

 

[Donaskme]

Don't you guys get tired of this constant nonsense aka "the bashers just wanted Civ 4.5" ... To this day I have not seen a single post or article which proves that the core design features of Civ 5 actually work well for a civ game.

With all due respect, you undermine your own contention here. "Work well for a civ game" presumes that there's a particular formula that you consider valid. One might imagine that formula is Civ 4, and thus what you're seeking is a Civ 4.5. This tends to validate the observation of those who consider you to be bashing.

The notion that a hundred people sharing your view makes the argument correct is a logical fallacy. Not only is it quite possible for the majority to be wrong, but those who are comfortable with the game are unlikely to comment in the numbers those who are displeased will. In the final analysis, if you find the game unpleasant there are other games to play including Civ 4 itself, and little profit in bashing it. Particularly on a fan forum.

 

[gps]

Sulla's analysis came out when game was released and it is narrow minded aim to bash the game showing prespective of people like funky who cannot handle all the changes in game. Also after all the changes in civ5, sulla's article is totally obsolete now. I played hundreds of hours of civ5, and never saw carpet of doom. Those who don't like civ5, should stop referring to an obsolete article.

Well, this is what Sullla wrote regarding SoD...

As he said, Civ5 absolutely has to limit the number of units on the map, or else they begin to clump up together and form traffic jams, getting in one another's way uselessly. When this system breaks down in the lategame, or when playing on high difficulty level, the result is the infamous "Carpet of Doom" scenario (pictured at the top of this section), with a unit on every tile and 90% of them standing around in the back completely uselessly. So the game must limit production, therefore crippling tile yields compared to Civ4 and making all units/buildings vastly more expensive than in prior versions. But this isn't fun either, because it takes forever for the player to build anything, and anyone who is not going to war is going to be bored out of their minds.

And I don't really see anything wrong or "obsolete" about it.

 

[Donaskme]

And I don't really see anything wrong or "obsolete" about it.

A rant, which is what Sulla wrote, remains a rant no matter how dispassionately written. That "carpet of doom" screenshot was obviously contrived. I've never seen anything approaching that, have you? The most common annoyance I have is when a single guy is blocking a one-tile mountain pass.

What is the motivation do you suppose, that makes a person like Sulla spend so much time and effort, and so very many words, to say "I don't like this"? And what compels those who don't like a thing, to spend so very much time and effort trying to convince others that their personal tastes are objective fact? It's pointless, and can accomplish nothing constructive.

To those who consider Civ 5 a great game, all of that commentary is tedious at best.

 

[Civking5]

Well, this is what Sullla wrote regarding SoD...

As he said, Civ5 absolutely has to limit the number of units on the map, or else they begin to clump up together and form traffic jams, getting in one another's way uselessly. When this system breaks down in the lategame, or when playing on high difficulty level, the result is the infamous "Carpet of Doom" scenario (pictured at the top of this section), with a unit on every tile and 90% of them standing around in the back completely uselessly. So the game must limit production, therefore crippling tile yields compared to Civ4 and making all units/buildings vastly more expensive than in prior versions. But this isn't fun either, because it takes forever for the player to build anything, and anyone who is not going to war is going to be bored out of their minds.

And I don't really see anything wrong or "obsolete" about it.

People who r constantly refering to carpet of doom are those who dont play civ 5 otherwise they would have known it never happens in game. I am saying this as a fact and after playing hundreds of hours of civ5. The carpet of doom scenario and picture in sulla' article created artificially to exaggerate a problem. That makes the article misleading ( beside being obsolete.)

 

[gps]

People who r constantly refering to carpet of doom are those who dont play civ 5 otherwise they would have known it never happens in game.

Well, you're the one constantly refering to CoD. Sullla clearly states, that the game has to limit production to avoid SoD - which leads to other negtive effect (like boredom). Not quite sure what's so hard to understand here, or why your constantly trying to devaluate Sullla's articel by rejecting things he never said...

 

[Donaskme]

Not quite sure what's so hard to understand here

Try understanding that "boring" is purely subjective, and has no basis in objective fact. Thus, Sulla's premise is false, in that it assumes his personal tastes are demonstrable, repeatable, measurable fact.

I find fishing to be the depths of morbid boredom. My solution is to be glad that so many people find such joy in it, but to never do it myself. I waste no time going to fishing blogs, and insulting folks with long-winded "factual" rants explaining why fishing is boring. And I find it incomprehensible that anyone would do so, be it a game or any other pastime.

 

[seancolorado]

I'll never know what it is that's wrong with Civ 5 in relation to older civs. It's the first Civ I've played - wasn't a huge gamer beyond Zelda in my younger days - and I enjoy everything about it. For all the issues being discussed, the Civ series can comfortably say it's won a new fan (me) despite what you guys are talking about

Basically I measure the success of a game based on how much time I spend playing it. I have logged in a ridiculous amount of hours on civ.

I particularly despise the remarks that civ is 'dumbed down' - we're playing video games people, not solving a cure for disease. I think what people mean to say is 'fewer options' or 'simplified gameplay' but there is nothing 'dumbed-down' about making a game more accessible to everybody.

Edit: hate the term dumbed-down, not the idea behind it

 

[Donaskme]

I particularly despise the remarks that civ is 'dumbed down'

I really hate my dumbed-down Mercury. Cars were better when you had to manually crank-start them from outside. You had to be really strong to pull a u-turn, and if your knee doesn't swell up from using that non-power brake, you aren't really driving at all. It's just boring.

 

[Civking5]

Well, you're the one constantly refering to CoD. Sullla clearly states, that the game has to limit production to avoid SoD - which leads to other negtive effect (like boredom). Not quite sure what's so hard to understand here, or why your constantly trying to devaluate Sullla's articel by rejecting things he never said...

Limit production that leads to boredom? Since u dont even play the game, You have no idea what u r talking about just repeating others' misleading opinions.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

People who r constantly refering to carpet of doom are those who dont play civ 5 otherwise they would have known it never happens in game. I am saying this as a fact and after playing hundreds of hours of civ5. The carpet of doom scenario and picture in sulla' article created artificially to exaggerate a problem. That makes the article misleading ( beside being obsolete.)

It's also from like 10 patches/updates ago. Civ5 wasn't in good shape "out of the box," and some people haven't wanted to move beyond that. It still has its shortcomings but SO DID EVERY OTHER ITERATION. It doesn't stop people from playing or liking them, though. People are harsher in their criticisms of 5.

Personally, I don't see how this "Carpet of Doom" is any better or worse than turning war into a contest of who has the biggest pile of catapults to break apart against the opponent's city.

 

[nokmirt]

CiV is dumbed down. We've discussed this time and time again. Most traditional players like myself would agree.

However, I say who cares. I like the game, all in all, and what they have done with it. There are still some things that bug me, but GnK has really brought the game forward. CiV has a ways to go before it is completed. Let's judge it at that point. I'll bet that when all the updates, DLCs, and a 2nd expansion are all added CiV will be a civ game to reckon with.

Does anyone here play Victoria II? I am curious about how many people who love civ also play that. lately, I have to say it has been immensely fun. Especially with AHD aded. Sorry for being off topic just curious.

 

[Adjuvant]

I like to "carpet of doom" especially with persia or germany.

When civ5 released it was kinda junk, with the bad AI and ultimate horses=win. Things have changed over time, and in addition to better AI routines, the game's a bit more balanced. I personally feel civ5 was good before G&K, G&K made it better, and I'm comfortable recommending it to others especially after the last patch... just in time for it to be really cheap on steam sales.

 

[manu-fan]

The OP says his biggest concern is a decent AI, and nobody gives an honest comment on this matter? This is downright misleading. Like Civ 5 or hate it, but that the AI is a total catastrophe isn't opinion, it's fact. It's so bad that it is basically impossible to lose, regardless of difficulty. Enemy units dance around your cities till they get shot to pieces, settlers, workers and great generals get sent to the front line, naval combat is non-existant; there is no resistance from the combat AI on any meaningful level. That's not even going into how the AI can't win strategically either, because it hoards its gold instead of going for the so-called diplomacy win, doesn't build spaceship parts when it could and a domination victory is obviously out of the question.

If you like the game, fine and good. But at least be honest enough to mention the problems it has, especially to someone looking for advice who asks specifically about these problems and how they matter to him.

You seem to be talking about Vanilla Civ 5 AI. Are you sure you've played G&K?

Cheers.

 

[jjkrause84]

All other Civ games looked at history and tried to build a game out of it. Civ 5 tried to make a game, then fit history around the game. In Civs past food was the most important consideration when founding a city, followed by strategic resources (from Civ 3 on) and luxury resources. This, largely, makes sense. It feels 'right'. Civ 5 has flipped this on its head to the point that luxury resources are the most important consideration when planning your initial expansion....food resources are at the bottom of your list of priorities.

This is just one example, but there are many.

 

[jjkrause84]

CiV is dumbed down. We've discussed this time and time again. Most traditional players like myself would agree.

However, I say who cares. I like the game, all in all, and what they have done with it. There are still some things that bug me, but GnK has really brought the game forward. CiV has a ways to go before it is completed. Let's judge it at that point. I'll bet that when all the updates, DLCs, and a 2nd expansion are all added CiV will be a civ game to reckon with.

Does anyone here play Victoria II? I am curious about how many people who love civ also play that. lately, I have to say it has been immensely fun. Especially with AHD aded. Sorry for being off topic just curious.

I'm more of a EU3 (soon 4!) man, myself....