Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
You've hit b and left clicked and had a ranged unit move? I've never had that problem. 
Is Civ5 dead?
- Thread starter CraigBee
- Start date
dojoboy
Tsalagi
If it's an archer, then it will move if out of range. Cats et al require a movement point to be used when setting the unit to fire.
What a silly thread. I can't believe there are still supposed Civ fans crying about the game and suggesting it is dead. You guys seriously need to find another game ebcause no matter what you say, the truth is Civ5 is VERY popular. 15,400 players are currently playing Civ5 at the posting of this post.
Even now, it is the 8th most played steam game and it was in the top 5 for a long time.
http://store.steampowered.com/stats/
Even now, it is the 8th most played steam game and it was in the top 5 for a long time.
http://store.steampowered.com/stats/
glider1
Deity
In an interview are his release from Japanese detention, Bobby Fischer the greatest American Chess player of all time said that "Chess is dead and has been dead for 150 years". What he meant by that is that Chess is a bad game because it is destroyed by massive amounts of pre-game memorization (pre-arrangement) that is required to play it well. There is often confusion over "dead" and "dying" because if you are dying, it leads to death and so the two concepts are very similar. Bobby Fischer was saying that Chess is dying which to him means that it was as good as dead. This is why he retired from Chess after being one of it's greatest players and at the height of his career. Luckily Chess is saved by Chess960 (a great idea which he invented). Chess players do not yet see his great idea, because they are driven by habit.
For me, Civ5 is dying but not dead. The owners of the series are letting the game fall to better ideas. They have an effective monopoly on the concept but are getting very lazy and a bit deluded in their decision making for the series. I personally think that we will see alternative Civilization games from other companies using different concepts. Paradox Games are producing superb strategic games already that I think are already more satisfying than Civ5. You play games like EUIII and it feels like you are not wasting your time because you are learning a lot of things and the game is very very deep and takes years to master. This is not the case with Civ anymore.
A lot of what drives civ activity is simply two words......Habituated Fans (including myself). A person can be dying yet still partake in their old habits. Even new generations of kids coming into Civ are still driven by habit, because it will be their parents that convince them that Civ is a good game. This is what continues to drive the Civ series (habituated dedication).
Essentially it comes down to the tactical AI in the Civilization concept as we know it. If that cannot be fixed without a major breakthrough in artificial intelligence, then the game as we know it may well die because by the time such a breakthrough comes through, people's game playing habits may have changed.....I think you can read between the lines here. 1UPT is a nice idea but deluded to implement because there is no acceptable AI technology to implement it! A much better idea would have been to continue on the continual improvement concept of improving an already great game like Civ4 rather than re-inventing it. This is because essentially you are fueling a gaming habit. Notice the issue? When a company thinks that it needs to re-invent itself, does that mean it senses it's death or it's equivalent (that it is already dead?)
Let's hope that a genius one-in-a billion programmer like Bobby Fischer one-in-a-billion Chess player, is employed by Firaxis and is able to save the game with a challenging AI! As for multiplayer, unless there is a rating system for players like a Chess rating system, it is pointless to play multiplayer in the Civ series unless it is with pre-arranged friends in a social network. Even with a rating system or a social system, you still need a competent AI even in multiplayer! So one way to save Civilization, is to introduce a quality multiplayer system that actually works and that drives an incentive to want to keep evolving and learning the game generation after generation.
I think that is why Sid has gone for CivWorld.
Cheers
For me, Civ5 is dying but not dead. The owners of the series are letting the game fall to better ideas. They have an effective monopoly on the concept but are getting very lazy and a bit deluded in their decision making for the series. I personally think that we will see alternative Civilization games from other companies using different concepts. Paradox Games are producing superb strategic games already that I think are already more satisfying than Civ5. You play games like EUIII and it feels like you are not wasting your time because you are learning a lot of things and the game is very very deep and takes years to master. This is not the case with Civ anymore.
A lot of what drives civ activity is simply two words......Habituated Fans (including myself). A person can be dying yet still partake in their old habits. Even new generations of kids coming into Civ are still driven by habit, because it will be their parents that convince them that Civ is a good game. This is what continues to drive the Civ series (habituated dedication).
Essentially it comes down to the tactical AI in the Civilization concept as we know it. If that cannot be fixed without a major breakthrough in artificial intelligence, then the game as we know it may well die because by the time such a breakthrough comes through, people's game playing habits may have changed.....I think you can read between the lines here. 1UPT is a nice idea but deluded to implement because there is no acceptable AI technology to implement it! A much better idea would have been to continue on the continual improvement concept of improving an already great game like Civ4 rather than re-inventing it. This is because essentially you are fueling a gaming habit. Notice the issue? When a company thinks that it needs to re-invent itself, does that mean it senses it's death or it's equivalent (that it is already dead?)
Let's hope that a genius one-in-a billion programmer like Bobby Fischer one-in-a-billion Chess player, is employed by Firaxis and is able to save the game with a challenging AI! As for multiplayer, unless there is a rating system for players like a Chess rating system, it is pointless to play multiplayer in the Civ series unless it is with pre-arranged friends in a social network. Even with a rating system or a social system, you still need a competent AI even in multiplayer! So one way to save Civilization, is to introduce a quality multiplayer system that actually works and that drives an incentive to want to keep evolving and learning the game generation after generation.
I think that is why Sid has gone for CivWorld.
Cheers
Dead? No. On life support? Probably.
I recently played it again for a little while, and it was fun, but that only lasted for a few weeks before I got bored with it again. In part due to obscenely long turn-times in multiplayer - when you spend more time waiting for a game than you do actually playing it, it's time to find something else to do.
When Firaxis chose to continue releasing DLC civs and other paid add-ons despite the major problems in the game, it sent a pretty clear message regarding its priorities. The patches have fixed some of the problems that made the game such a trainwreck when it was released, but there are still a lot of issues with the game. Meanwhile, Firaxis just continues to nickel-and-dime their fans with low-quality DLC offerings. The impression I get is that they're trying to squeeze as much money out of Civ5 as they can while it lasts, and don't really have a long-term plan to sustain interest in the game for years.
I recently played it again for a little while, and it was fun, but that only lasted for a few weeks before I got bored with it again. In part due to obscenely long turn-times in multiplayer - when you spend more time waiting for a game than you do actually playing it, it's time to find something else to do.
When Firaxis chose to continue releasing DLC civs and other paid add-ons despite the major problems in the game, it sent a pretty clear message regarding its priorities. The patches have fixed some of the problems that made the game such a trainwreck when it was released, but there are still a lot of issues with the game. Meanwhile, Firaxis just continues to nickel-and-dime their fans with low-quality DLC offerings. The impression I get is that they're trying to squeeze as much money out of Civ5 as they can while it lasts, and don't really have a long-term plan to sustain interest in the game for years.
Dude, did you even read my post? Civ5 is one of the most popular games on Steam.
Today alone, Civ5 peaked at 15k players, more than DOTA 2, one of the most anticipated online games.
So how exactly is it on life support when it beats 99% of the games on Steam right now for active players?
I do not think he is unaware that the game is played by a lot of people. I think he is relating to the developmental side of CiV, which has been fairly subpar when it comes to addressing and correcting the games shortcomings. And I could be wrong, but I think he feels the game is dead, because he does not believe Firaxis and 2K will put more effort forth to fix the game properly in the future. If this is true, I hope he is wrong. I do hope they fix the game. I mean it isn't right to frustate and stress out, what is the number (?), 15,400 CiV players, with a half finished game. Based on that number Firaxis and 2K should realize they have a considerable fan base, and therefore should want to fix the game, so people feel better about the game and the developers as well. Also keep in mind that many people may play the game, but probably 75% give or take, of them have something bad to say about it.
What difference does it make to me, as a player, that other people are playing a game... in single player? It's not like this is an online FPS where matchmaking is a consideration. The number of other people playing doesn't improve (or detract) from my experience in the slightest.
Sure, it has lots of players. Great. So does Diablo II. Whether people are playing a game or not doesn't necessarily correspond to the developer's intentions for that game. I'm interested in Civ5 becoming a much, much better game - one worthy of the "Civilization" title. I think it's got a long way to go to get there. Like I said, at least it's not the hot mess that it was upon release, but it's still not all that compelling for me. The fact that Firaxis has made the release of cash-cow DLC more of a priority than improving the core game is disappointing as well.
That's just my opinion. Don't let it bother you too much.
What is means, is that Civ5 is one of the most played games on steam.
The metric which holds the most value to a games developer is "returning players" and Civ5 has a huge amount of regular players who play the game over and over.
So my point is, that you guys should stop scare-mongering and just admit the full fact that you might not like the game but it is extremely popular and hugely successful.
What happens when people get to the point where they are sick of the problems with the game, and how developers never fix them properly? Your going to see the popularity and pyrrhic success of CiV go right down the johnny flusher.
And why am I a scare monger? All I want is for the developers to fix whats wrong with the game. And for them to make it better. The developers should look at the complaints and do something about them. It is not just about the people who play, but the quality of the game that should be important. They already have turned away thousands more that cannot stand the game, because they refuse to fix it. Imagine the customer base they could have if they did things properly.
leckig
Chieftain
The Little One
Warlord
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2011
- Messages
- 274
No, it's not dead. Just because there are loads of people on the forums who can't seem to stop saying how much they hate it, doesn't mean that everyone feels the same. Most of the people who actually like it are playing the game instead of coming and telling people they've never met that they like Civ5...
What confuses me is why the 51 people who think it's dead and don't play it are even in the Civ5 forums...
What confuses me is why the 51 people who think it's dead and don't play it are even in the Civ5 forums...
A year on and Civ5 is still one of the most played games shows you are wrong. It is not even something you can argue about, it is a fact.
And why am I a scare monger? All I want is for the developers to fix whats wrong with the game. And for them to make it better. The developers should look at the complaints and do something about them. It is not just about the people who play, but the quality of the game that should be important. They already have turned away thousands more that cannot stand the game, because they refuse to fix it. Imagine the customer base they could have if they did things properly.
The thing is, this is all your opinion. I bet that thousands don't even see the problem you have, I know I don't. If the game needed fixing so bad, then why is it so popular still?
See what i'm saying?
So you think the AI is smart and it challenges you huh?
Well then you deserve the game in its current half done condition. All I can say is have fun.
spider1
Prince
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2006
- Messages
- 569
Is Civ V dead? Meh.......
Same ole same ole. Some folks like it, some don't. Yall don't really expect that to change do you? LOL
In the meantime, to me, Civ V is alive an kicking and a great game to play. There's a new version of Echos of Ages mod to download for my further enjoyment as well.
Same ole same ole. Some folks like it, some don't. Yall don't really expect that to change do you? LOL
In the meantime, to me, Civ V is alive an kicking and a great game to play. There's a new version of Echos of Ages mod to download for my further enjoyment as well.
storical
Prince
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2009
- Messages
- 535
I know a whole bunch of people who hate the game but still play it. Most are hoping that it will get better. Most have waited over a year like you said, for very slow progress towards that end. Maybe you play a different golden version of the game, but truly most people know of its deficits.
Is Civ V dead? Meh.......
Same ole same ole. Some folks like it, some don't. Yall don't really expect that to change do you? LOL
In the meantime, to me, Civ V is alive an kicking and a great game to play. There's a new version of Echos of Ages mod to download for my further enjoyment as well.
I know what you mean you have to use mods to enjoy it. Most people use several mods to try to have fun. That will get much better with the launch of the .dll The game is dead until they finish it.
Civ 5 User Score 6.8 out of 10 Mixed or average reviews
- based on 577 Ratings
User reviews
Positive: 91 out of 227 Mixed: 43 out of 227 Negative: 93 out of 227 This tells me a lot of people do not think it is all that great, but probably most play it still. Almost half of the reviews by users are NEGATIVE! That tells me this game needs major work.
Shogun 2 Total War User Score 8.2 out of 10 Generally favorable reviews
- based on 478 Ratings
Positive: 129 out of 160 Mixed: 13 out of 160 Negative: 18 out of 160 Only 18 out of 160 dislike Shogun 2. This shows me that popularity is not everything. Users love this game, hands down, no one is crying for it to be fixed, because IT DOES NOT NEED TO BE FIXED LIKE CiV DOES! Also not one critic gave Shogun 2 a bad review. However, I don't trust the critics, the users opinions are the important opinions.
- based on 577 Ratings
User reviews
Positive: 91 out of 227 Mixed: 43 out of 227 Negative: 93 out of 227 This tells me a lot of people do not think it is all that great, but probably most play it still. Almost half of the reviews by users are NEGATIVE! That tells me this game needs major work.
Shogun 2 Total War User Score 8.2 out of 10 Generally favorable reviews
- based on 478 Ratings
Positive: 129 out of 160 Mixed: 13 out of 160 Negative: 18 out of 160 Only 18 out of 160 dislike Shogun 2. This shows me that popularity is not everything. Users love this game, hands down, no one is crying for it to be fixed, because IT DOES NOT NEED TO BE FIXED LIKE CiV DOES! Also not one critic gave Shogun 2 a bad review. However, I don't trust the critics, the users opinions are the important opinions.
See my point there you have it in black and white!I know a whole bunch of people who hate the game but still play it. Most are hoping that it will get better. Most have waited over a year like you said, for very slow progress towards that end. Maybe you play a different golden version of the game, but truly most people know of its deficits.
Get over yourself. Like I said - it's my opinion, why are you getting so upset about it? Seriously, "scare-mongering?" Why does it bother you so much that someone doesn't share your adulation for a mediocre strategy game?
Where did I deny that a lot of people enjoy Civ5? Reading is fundamental. If you're going to respond to people, it pays to actually read their posts first. So yes, lots of people are playing it. We're all aware of that. Lots of people are listening to Justin Bieber and reading Twilight and watching Jersey Shore, too. Being "popular" doesn't mean much where I'm standing, but maybe that's the sole metric you use to determine quality. You must think The Wiggles are a groundbreaking musical ensemble stretching the boundaries of artistic expression, huh?
You seem to have me confused with someone who hates Civ5. I don't. I want it to be a better game. I want Firaxis to undertake some serious work in getting it there. They've had more than a year and yes, it's gotten better, but at a snail's pace - which tells you how much of a trainwreck it was upon release. Meanwhile, the DLC train continues along at full speed, nickel-and-diming players for content that should have been included from the beginning. I'd be happy to pay for a full-blown expansion, but this DLC crap is a rip off. It's clear that 2K's priority is not to improve the game, because there's no money there.
This bickering to me is irksome. I am glad the game is popular and a lot of people play. They should play civ. However just because some gamers do not require any real change in CiV, there are others that feel the game is lacking due to the developers taking tiny baby steps to improve inherent problems with AI, diplomacy, naval AI etc. Many us feel they are wasting time at our expense, throwing us bones to please us like a puppy, a big patch with little fix, or a dlc to wet our appetite, but the same old nagging problems with the game never get fixed. They continue to exist, it is indeed getting old. I especially feel this way when other game developers are truly making their games better and actually fix problems that come about, without having to be reminded by the gaming public, to do so.
Similar threads
