1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Is Civilization V the worst game of the series?

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by Caeserportugal, Feb 17, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Zyxpsilon

    Zyxpsilon Running Spider

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2009
    Messages:
    3,107
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    On Earth
    ENOUGH.

    1) Warlords, Beyond the Sword, Complete Edition, many Mods.
    2) Rivers are stock blueishlike or properly diffused as cyanish if modded (by even just me) to mold smoothly within coastal areas.
    3) They dump off the coast as they should.
    4) Chopped or left as is.
    5) Overlayed texturing rather than pixelized sprites ala--80's Pacman arcade stuff.
    6) And your point being? Symbolic referencing with a checkmark in boxes should be eliminated as well. What about Civ Logos -- too colorful? Iconed buttons, Notifications... all too much to handle?
    7) 3D modeling has its advantages even if modern video_hardware can't keep up with true talent from artists.
    8) Any solid card can suffer through 110C+ for months without bulging a single transistor *UNLESS* you let dust clug into cooling fans as anything else on a Mobo.
    9) Graphics are either done right or interpreted by someone as being ugly for lack of a better word. Matter of personal taste or not.
    10) Tactical options aren't Civ features *only*... they are War driven probabilities rationalized by Centuries worth of reality. Coding that much knowledge and experience would take 1000's++ of Super-Crays and counting.
    11) What argument? Mirror, mirror tell me what i'm watching.
    12) Here's the true statistical figures: 0 to 100%. Your agenda is clearly aiming to bring it all the way up to 95% and more... with as much illogical gameplay bashings as you can -- regularly, constantly, insistantly, anythingly.

    Six months? By that time, i'll still stand at the 0% mark and nothing good or bad, shared or written in posts will ever change that fact.
    Playing a better game might put me at 1% (+/- .421). That can only happen with Firaxis patches which i already paid for.

    So... long.
     
  2. 501st Legion

    501st Legion Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2009
    Messages:
    107
    After 100 hours of playtime, I gave up on Civ V. Here was a game I was expecting to play non stop for several months, yet I stopped playing by new year's eve. It really lacked, in my opinion, that "just one more turn" aspect that the previous civ games had, which made it just plain boring. Coupled with other issues such as an "AI playing to win", Civ V went back on the self. Well at least the artwork and music are great; the music especially is great when playing Paradox Games.

    If I'm not mistaken the majority of Civ IV's issues were technical - in particular I recall the problem with ATI graphics cards - and not on the gameplay aspect.
     
  3. DaveGold

    DaveGold Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2009
    Messages:
    1,058
    Please stop making excuses for the poor game. If at any time the user has to act to discover that the information on the graphical display is misleading then the graphics are failing.

    If there's an incomplete farm plot then the decision I need to make is to move the worker to the plot and do some work, any work. Any decision based on seeing a farm in the plot is flawed as the farm is not actually there. Therefore the game interface should clearly indicate the plot is incomplete, without having to mouse over every damn hex in an empire.
     
  4. Necrotaur

    Necrotaur Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2011
    Messages:
    69
    Finished my first game today (at marathon pace, been playing it for the better part of a week) and have been staring at the game setup screen trying to decide who to play next. The problem is, I don't really see any I want to play as, as some of my favorite civilizations have been cut, and the rest seem so lackluster. Also, I don't really like many of the major changes like city-states or policy branches with no consequences.

    I think the game is fine on its own, but compared to others in the series it comes up short.
     
  5. eraofdiversion

    eraofdiversion Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2011
    Messages:
    63
    I just quit playing my last game due to the graphics and everything being so slow and cluttered looking....it starts to get tedious trying to manage tile improvements with lots of your units standing all over the place. I really think the graphics in 4 looked much better.
     
  6. sketch162000

    sketch162000 Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2010
    Messages:
    221
    Something tells me that if the Civ V board was stuffed with positive threads we would not hear the same kind of complaints out of some people.
     
  7. Julian Delphiki

    Julian Delphiki Anton's key

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2006
    Messages:
    2,738
    Location:
    Helsinki, Funland
    Inca were not ind/fin when Civ IV came out.
     
  8. ruskyandrei

    ruskyandrei Warlord

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2009
    Messages:
    143
    Your insight is truly legendary.

    There are issues with CiV5 but it's a good game and I enjoy playing it occasionally (modded or not). I also feel the patches are steps forward making the game better and am looking forward to any expansions.

    It does get tiring opening the forums to see what people are talking about and seeing a veritable SPAM of threads like these. Please stop.
     
  9. sketch162000

    sketch162000 Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2010
    Messages:
    221
    At the risk of infraction, I'll tell you the thing, though. People are disappointed with the game. You want to know what people are talking about? That's it. That's the reality. Maybe you disagree with the opinions stated here and in other threads and that's fine. But like it or not, people are complaining about the game right now. And it's not like the same three or four members who are starting rant threads everyday. Apparently, the OP hasn't been here for a while and decided to open a thread. I'll admit, there have been a lot of similar threads by lurkers, and absent members who have come back to open negative threads. But that just shows that the discontent is buzzing now. Maybe it's a coping mechanism. Maybe it will die down, soon. I don't know.

    In the OP's defense, people are basically coming in here and scolding him for not talking about what *they* want, even though it's his thread and he's not breaking any rules. There's a beauty to forums. If the conversation doesn't interest you, go elsewhere. Here's a thought--open your own thread. Instead of doing that, some people feel the need to post in threads that they fundamentally are annoyed with and start an argument.

    The elephant in the room is that this is not an isolated thing. For months now, it seems like every time somebody makes a negative thread, a Civ V fan feels the need to jump in and tell him to shut his face about it already. This makes no sense in the first place since the reply will bump the thread, but even more, it's just begs the question of why someone who claims to be tired of the criticism would even step into an obviously critical thread? Why? Just because you feel like being contradictory? Hell, at least fans have a new game to play. I'm here all the time because it's more fun than Civ V, IMO. What's your (not you in particular, rusky) excuse?

    This thread, for one, becomes even more ridiculous when you realize that it's not inherently negative. "Is Civilization V the worst game of the series?" is a yes or no question--an inflammatory one, but still. For some reason, post number ten derails it when the writer decides to lump it in with "rant" threads. Cue the argument that I am shamelessly participating in now. Ai-ya...

    To counter callahan's observation, I see an "obnoxious and a crappy trend in about every game forum these days," where people feel the need to whine about the whiners.

    Look, I'm not telling people to stay out of complaining threads and to leave complainers alone. By all means, engage, debate, disagree, and discuss the topic. I'm just saying, take a little responsibility, yeah? Don't read a negative thread and then complain about reading negative threads. That's like skipping work and then complaining that you don't have any money. Rolling in toxic waste and then complaining about the cancer. I'm sure everyone here is smart enough to know what they are getting into when they click on the title and especially when they are about to post.

    Sheesh, now I'm whining about the people whining about the whiners. I'm like post-whine at this poiint.
     
  10. Teperi Blaze

    Teperi Blaze Warlord

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2010
    Messages:
    225
    CIV1 will always be the best, it started it all.

    When I walked from the shopping-centre with the box almost 20 years ago, I never would think what it would do to me. You, who grabbed the box first time, you know the feeling?

    Civ2 and SMAC was fun, almost brilliant, but at that time I found RPG's and missed out a little of the feelings.

    Civ3 gave us the succession games era, UNBEATABLE FUN!!!! Crush your enemy on Deity with tinkering of every resource you have, in your 3 city empire. So wonderfully fun even beating the AI on SID, with some of the best players on the board. I used a different name back then and played with the best and was one of the better. Even Sid Meyer mentioned one of my crazy games in an article. So just for feeling, civ3 is just love.

    Civ4 original stumped my interest for a good 2 years, but it is a good game and I play it now and again, but I just hate the stumpy movements of my troops now, compared to 5. Fantastic , but a fair few bugs was never sorted out. Great game anyways.

    Civ5 is a game with visions, but not good at this moment. I've clocked 500 hrs nearly. so don't diss me for not being dedicated!

    What I fear the most, is that they won't get rid of the boredom aspect in the game.

    If that doesn't happen, I'm gone too.
     
  11. squadbroken

    squadbroken King

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    Messages:
    716
    Right, because a handful of polls on a board that has turned into a cesspit of negativity and whining are really indicative of the entire playerbase.
     
  12. lschnarch

    lschnarch Emperor

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2010
    Messages:
    1,296
    You may want to have a look at the Amazon critics, too.
    Or even the 2K forum, where >50% state to have not played anymore for more than a month and 47% being unsatisfied.

    And finally, what may be the reasons for a Civ *Fanatics* forum to turn into a "cesspit of negativity"?

    It's the game's poor quality in almost each and every aspect.
     
  13. Jolly Rogerer

    Jolly Rogerer Prince

    Joined:
    May 16, 2008
    Messages:
    402
    Chess is the gold standard for "meaningful combat" now? I wonder why no war games look like chess at all then? Just failure to execute?

    Chess is an excellent game. As a combat simulation it leaves a lot to be desired. I'd rather play a hand of poker to simulate combat, it would be just as realistic and would be over a lot more quickly.
     
  14. Saarud

    Saarud Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2004
    Messages:
    113
    I've been a chess player for 30 years now and to me chess represents the ultimate strategy game. However as I do want variation I play other strategy games as well including the games of the Civilization series. From my point of view I belevie that Civilization 5 really stepped up as a strategy game (and took a hit as an immersive simulator game) from earlier iterations. This put more demand on a good AI which Civilization series always has been very bad at from Civ 1 to Civ 4. A bad AI and a streamlined design makes the game seemed dumbed down.

    Back to OP question. I think Civilization 3 was the worst. The reason for that was that I were frustrated that the developers didn't develop Civ 3 as a new game and instead built it on Civ 2.
     
  15. Cilpot

    Cilpot Pretentious Schmuck

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2001
    Messages:
    2,095
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Oslo, Norway
    Having played all Civ games through the years I have to say that V is the first one that felt like a step backwards.
     
  16. Bandobras Took

    Bandobras Took Emperor

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2007
    Messages:
    1,922
    Location:
    Orem, UT
    Yes, but this happened with Civ 3 after playing Alpha Centauri, so Civ 5 can't be the worst.

    Actually, you are mistaken. There was no point in building anything but siege units, there was a tremendous disparity between the strength of Financial and Expansive, you could vault far ahead in the tech tree by blocking key techs, Slavery was broken and overpowered (that one was never fixed, by the way), Riflemen came later than their counter, and Catapults upgraded to Cannon with no "in-between" unit, to name a few.

    Thank you! Most people who claim that vanilla releases were better than civ 5's Vanilla release have actually completely forgotten what the Vanilla releases were like.

    So Civ2 and SMAC bordered on brilliant, while Civ 3 was only fun if you happened to know that Civfanatics and succession games existed?

    This. I've noticed people complaining when I remarked that Civ 3 was worse that Civ 5, and they fail to bring any valid points to light. Most of them are remembering Civ 3 as a better game because they happened to like it, and not because they're remembering what Civ 3 was like on initial release (and if there was ever a game where patching failed to fix things, it was Civ 3 . . .)

    Having played Alpha Centauri, Civ 3 was so many steps backwards I still can't understand the people who sing its praises.

    Civ 5 is not the worst Civ game ever because the patches are radically shifting gameplay each time. Civ 3 was lousier to start with, and its patches never actually fixed its core problems.
     
  17. SuperJay

    SuperJay Bending Space and Time

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2010
    Messages:
    3,273
    Location:
    Shacklyn
    Really good point. I see the same handful of people complaining regularly about the fact that other Civ fans express their disappointment in a forum about Civilization games. The underlying theme seems to be this perception that anyone who is disappointed in Civ 5 is just trying to "ruin your fun." (I actually had someone tell me that a while back.) In this very thread we have people complaining that someone else's disappointment is "ruining the party."

    Guys, the reality is that Civ 5 left a substantial portion of the fanbase on CFC severely disappointed. It's a legitimate point of view. These forums are intended to discuss our perspectives and experiences with Civ 5, and that's one aspect of many fans' experiences with this game. Until and unless those posts break rules, they're accepted here - and there's no rule that we all must post cheerleading for Civ 5 or be locked. If the existence of threads discussing disappointment really does "ruin your fun," make you upset, or interfere with your ability to enjoy the game, then don't read them.

    That said, if you're one of the Civ fans who's disappointed in Civ 5, be reasonable about it. Don't derail threads with your complaints. Don't insult people who DO like it. State your opinions calmly and clearly, and don't attack people who disagree.

    Again, we are all Civilization fans here. We're all on the same team. Why is it so hard to actually treat each other accordingly?
     
  18. vandyr

    vandyr Prince

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2007
    Messages:
    351
    I'll be honest with you, you and Isnarch and a couple other people are one of the main reasons I rarely visit this subforum anymore. You guys are in every single thread badmouthing the game, and have been since september.

    on topic - Civ 2, 3 and 5 have been my favorites, so 4 vanilla was the worst of the series to me.

    Moderator Action: Please don't make negative comments about other posters.
    Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
     
  19. twansalem

    twansalem Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2005
    Messages:
    276
    Possibly, but I can't draw any solid conclusions for two reasons:
    1. I never played Civ I.
    2. I've only played the demo for Civ V.

    Maybe V just takes more time to get interested, but 100 turns of it in no way made me want to purchase the full game. It was slow paced, and the early wonders at least didn't have that "ooh and aah" factor of previous franchises. I'm a builder, and at least from the demo, I didn't get the impression that this was much of a game for builders.

    II was great. III may have been flawed, but was still engrossing from the very begining. IV was great once again, and I loved it within under 50 turns. But 100 turns of V was not enough to make me pay for the full game.
     
  20. Caeserportugal

    Caeserportugal Prince

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2010
    Messages:
    526
    Location:
    Portugal
    Wow so many different perspectives but from what I can see the forum is divides 50-50. With the majority of the older players hating it and the new players to the series licking it. Well for right now I stand by my earlier posts. Will the patch improve CIV V? Should Firaxis just advance on with the series and just release a new CIV to relaunch the series? If they do that I seriously hope someone from Firaxis look at the ideias Sulla gave. In case you haven't seen here it is http://www.bitmob.com/articles/the-bad-sequel-how-the-civilization-series-and-i-grew-apart
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page