Actually there were more powerful cities in Civ4, especially on OCC. National wonders, world wonders and civics can boost the capital much more in Civ4 than in Civ5. In Civ5 there's nothing like +100% GP born rate from National Epic, +100% beakers from Oxford University, +100% hammers from Ironworks or +50% raw hammers and commerce from bureaucracy.
Is it really that bad?
- Thread starter Alex53
- Start date
- Status
Actually there were more powerful cities in Civ4, especially on OCC. National wonders, world wonders and civics can boost the capital much more in Civ4 than in Civ5. In Civ5 there's nothing like +100% GP born rate from National Epic, +100% beakers from Oxford University, +100% hammers from Ironworks or +50% raw hammers and commerce from bureaucracy.
Hi, long time creeper of these forums, and new poster as of today.
Honestly, I'm tired of the know it all's speaking for everyone, and the ton
of folks on here speak as if they're professional designers. Where did you go to school at? The above statement is some thing you learn in design school, and you don't understand it at all. I know, because I'm paying a fortune for it right now, and real close to finishing.
As for folks going on "who this game was designed for" really? once again, how many of you all are professional designers?
I understand folks who don't like the design. I think your entitled to speak your mind on the design, and what you don't like. I have played civ since 386 DX days, and I notice now we have hardcore gamers and casual. Because I like Civ 5 I'm casual?
I have never played Civ Revolutions, and never will. So will you all re-frame from speaking for people, or act is if you are professional designers please?
Last thing, If you don't like the game, then don't support please. Even speaking bad about it on a day to day bases still helps to support it.
P.S. Please excuse grammar, and spelling errors, it's 8am, and I'm still waking up.
builer680
eats too much Taco Bell
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2010
- Messages
- 525
Welcome
Up until a couple of months ago I too was a (very) long time lurker but non poster here.A couple of things...
Some of us... while having no experience designing games, feel very strongly about what makes good, fun games. Similarly, I know what a good football team is even though I've never coached one. Certainly others have different opinions, but we absolutely have the right to criticize and suggest how things should have been done differently. Just as others have the right to praise how things were done.
Only time will tell who is "right," inasmuch as Civ V sales justify continued patching, expansion, and another sequel. Personally, I think Civ V sank the ship... sure we'll get a bunch of DLC... but I think everything "new" for the franchise from here on will be Facebook bunk. Easier to implement, cheaper to design, and marketed to a demographic that doesn't have the attention span to see or care about fundamental flaws (more opinion sneaking in).
In any case, I haven't seen 2k release any major sales milestone numbers at all yet, though many will say it "must be way over a million by now." It might be... but what were the expectations for this point after release and does it project to meet expectations down the line(?)... The fact is, no one really knows until they actually tell us. Until then, expect to see more from both camps of "know it alls."
DavidPBacon
Chieftain
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2007
- Messages
- 97
Sorry, but you don't have to be a pro designer to understand that Civ 5 is baddly designed, you just take a look at what the patches are correcting and the game main problems and you'll see they have not think about what they were doing.
And the sentence quoted cannot be applied to civ franchise cause what's useless to you(can be removed) may be fun to another. In civ, since I, you have a lot of ways of playing it. An aspect that you may not use or like migth be fun for others.
What was done in V was alienate a great chunk of an already estabilished userbase. This a bad design decison, even for a non professional.
I learned the quote and never went to design school. I didn't need to pay a fortune to understand the quote either, regardless of whether you tell me I understand it or not.
Are you a professional game designer? Have you designed anything profitable in the market? No? Then you're in the same boat as everyone else here.
Obviously, and that is what some of us are doing when we say that we think the removal of religion was a poor design decision. Because we've done this you've attacked us saying we don't understand quotes and are dismissive of our opinions because we didn't go to design school.
These two sentences don't seem to have any relevance to one another.
You can not like something and hope for it to get better. Also, I will do as I please, not as you tell me. I obviously can't speak for others.
This.
One person does this and receives infractions for it. You should both keep from stretching the truth.
It's not an isolated incident. Almost every thread that I have opened up have had someone show up and say either something valid, and insult people who disagree- or they'll show up and say something invalid, and then may or may not insult people who disagree.
Subtle hate isn't any better than obvious hate. Someone was having issues getting their Civ5 to stop crashing, and I told them that what helped me was to close out programs in the background and free up some memory (since apparently, Civ5 is a resource hog even with 8GB of RAM). Someone joined the conversation to add "You would free up more resources if you closed [Civ5]!" Their contribution was of no relevance, no helpfulness, and honestly held no humor value. If I was hooking up surround sound, it wouldn't be acceptable for someone to run up and interject "You could use less wires if you didn't hook it up! LOLOL!"
The person went out of their way to read the thread, and then contribute something of absolutely 0 worth. The entire intent of their comment was to make it obvious that he didn't like the game, and wanted us to know.
It's not hyperbole by any means. It's one thing to read that someone dislikes something that you like. It's actually nice to read WHY someone dislikes something, sometimes. It's an entirely different thing to read that someone dislikes something, and then they give a reason that was obviously pulled from someone else.
That phenomenon is why I made the comment that Civ5 is the George W. Bush of Civilization games. There were people who legitimately didn't like the guy; and there were people who did like him. However... there was also a sizable group of people who disliked him, and then would quote the news... or would quote their friend... or would just say "because he's dumb".
There are a lot of people that like the game- I'm one of them. I enjoyed Civ2 & Civ4, probably being some of the best games that I have ever played. There are also people who dislike the game, and have legitimate reasons for it. It's all a matter of taste. However, there is a large group of people that seem to dislike the game because it's "cool" to dislike Civ5. If you disagree with this group, they insinuate that you are too simple to enjoy a "real game"; or they accuse you of being too stupid; or they tell you that you may as well go play in a sandbox; or the entire demeanor of how they relate to you changes, and from that point on they talk down to you.
I'm not accusing anyone of this, but it is a trend that I have observed.
I don't recall you to write such emphatic postings when finding others claiming "You just wanted Civ4.5", "Adjust yourself to modern times" and whatever helpful comments have been given here. I wonder why?
Did I quote you right? Wow! I stated, I just woke up, and good chance of mistakes.
Also, I never said I went to school to learn how to use FORUM BASED quotes. Thank you for adding some thing to the subject we weren't discussing to make yourself appear smarter then you are.
Sorry, I have designed things, that have been sold, and have made money, but thank you for ASSUMING and then pointing how I'm wrong.
No where in my post did I state that you couldn't complain about the design. What I did state, was the fact you telling folks, the game was designed for lesser folks implying if you like the game, you're not in to hardcore strategy games, and there fore less person compared you hardcore Civ4 folks.
Another thing, please point out where I said religion was bad design in my post? or how I'm attacking you with quotes? You made a quote and told the other person how it was misused when you have no idea yourself. I have at least studied on the person you quoted.
People are free to complain and say the game was designed bad. It seem unfair though to condemn people who like the game and assume the game was designed for different people on the basis that you don't enjoy the game.
I'm sorry, I've been up for 18 hours and haven't even eaten yet, so I'm slipping in and out of "operating in the dumb". (Woo! Night Shift!) I don't know if I should take that as sarcasm, as a statement of fact, or an actual question. So I'm going to just respond to each possibility.
Statement of Fact
Spoiler :
Question
Spoiler :
Sarcasm
Spoiler :
sketch162000
Warlord
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2010
- Messages
- 221
All sarcasm aside, Ischnarch has a point that we've been over many times before. The mudslinging comes from both sides. The frustrating thing is that every time a Civ V fanatic complains about the anti-Vs, they act as if we are in isolation--conveniently omitting all the examples of rudeness from their home team. This is exactly what happened in your post, esemjay.
For every potshot taken at Civ V during a positive thread, I can name a poster who read an entire obvious rant thread just to snipe members there. For every instance of derogatory name-calling or parroted talking points, I can rattle off the ones from your side. You get the idea. Let's not play the blame game.
*Edit- I just realized our parallels to U.S. partisan politics [/mindblown]
This is completely unrelated to anything and an attempt to make me look foolish. I was speaking of the quote "A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." Perhaps you are still in a slumber and didn't realize that.Did I quote you right? Wow! I stated, I just woke up, and good chance of mistakes.
Also, I never said I went to school to learn how to use FORUM BASED quotes. Thank you for adding some thing to the subject we weren't discussing to make yourself appear smarter then you are.
I never said you were wrong, look again. You are putting words in my mouth. Also, you said you are in design school so I assumed that meant you were not a professional game designer - which would put you in the same boat as the rest of us.
I never said such a thing and I dare you to find any quote where I have. Perhaps you can write that off to slumber again?
If your intelligence is so far beyond everyone else on this board regarding that particular quote perhaps you could shed some light onto its elusive meaning and bring all of us one step closer to your brilliance on the matter?
Again, I never did such a thing and you seem hellbent and claiming I did.
Your entire post is just flat out incorrect and you've left quite a negative impression on me with your first two posts. Your entire stay on these forums so far has involved nothing but attack me by putting words in my mouth and stating flat out untruths.
That is very true, and very sad. The thing is, if the people who do not like Civ 5 want to make progress in fixing the things they don't like, they should direct it at the people who made the game. Just because I like the game, doesn't give people the right to assume what kind of person I'm based on a game I like. I didn't make the game, and have no control of it's future nor it's past.
Sniping people who like the game, just makes enemies, and makes the progress towards their goals harder. I jumped in here to point a misuse of a quote from some who clearly has no clue in what they are talking about. the mud slinging in my opinion is the Internets trend that has never died.
I agree That my first two post aren't very positive, and honestly I didn't mean to attack you. The misuse of that quote just drove me up the wall. These forums have turned into a cesspool of hate towards civ 5 in my opinion.
As for the quote, I shall "try" to explain it. Most designers start out with the problem of trying to cram every thing they can into one space so to say. This is not balance that designers are suppose go after, cause in the end the users or audience can get confused, and not understand the content. So the balance is achieved when things are easy and fun and interactive to the audience. Not by a ton of things rather the more simpler it is the more folks have an easier time with it which is the goal of the designer.
Sorry Johnny for attacking you, but please reread your post, and then mine. I know rereading mine, I see a few problems that I wrote that weren't on point, and good part of yours is too.
My post was meant to point out how folks are condemning Civ 5 players, and making statements and not opinions on civ 5 player base. I only wanted to point out for the misuse of the quote, which in your post, you informed the other person that they had misused it. I was not trying to tie you into the rest of my complaint, and for that I'm sorry, that was my fault.
To the - mod Moss
Sorry, I didn't know we couldn't debate on these forums. I see a ton of it every where, so I thought that was the standard around here now days.
If you reread more carefully what I wrote you will see that I did not misuse the quote. I'll explain below:
Here Deussu uses the Antoine de Saint-Exupéry (ASE) quote to express his opinion that the removal of religion from civ5 fits with the philosophy of ASE.
I state this because I have seen this quote misused to argue for the removal of innovative ideas that would add good gameplay simply for the sake of removing things. This would appear to fit under the ASE philosophy if one doesn't think more deeply than "ASE says to remove things." I expand on the idea that removal for the sake of removal is not what the ASE quote is meant to express:
Obviously this is an absurdity, but it illustrates the point that the ASE quote is not just about removing things, but removing things which have no purpose, or that add more negative than positive - which can be very subjective.
On the last note I realize that Deussu believes religion to fall under the "adds more negative than positive" distinction, so I address that with the next part of my post:
Now yes, I say the removal of religion was stupid, but it is not an attack on Deussu - I have in fact noted that we merely have a difference in opinion on the matter. It is instead an attack on the developers for taking the cowards way out by removing religion entirely instead of reworking it in a way to be usable in the new version of civ.
Religion is a crucial part of history - a part of history we didn't have in civ prior to civ4. Once it was added it seemed, to me at least, to be ludicrous not to have it. They finally tackled a major part of history, and I thought they did it well. I had never heard of any controversy of whether or not it should be included, only that it was not implemented properly.
Because of this I found it odd to use the ASE quote to justify the removal of religion from civ5 in particular. If you notice I did not comment on the removal of corporations or espionage, because I frankly didn't see them adding much value. Therefore their removal would fit with the ASE philosophy, and I did not debate against that.
Hopefully this clears up what I think you misread. May I suggest a good cup of coffee before posting next time?
blind biker
King
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2009
- Messages
- 609
@JohnnyW Your industriousness and perseverance awe and frighten me. I sure as fudge wouldn't have the patience and work ethic necessary to create such posts, with quotes from various posts and respective explanations and connective text.
I just hope your effort isn't all in vain.
I just hope your effort isn't all in vain.
I don't presume to speak for anyone else, or on behalf of a group. I don't view the forum as a division of "Pro5" vs "Anti5" groups of people; so much as individuals who make either substantial or insubstantial arguments, either in favor of or against Civ5 and/or it's fans.
My point was that I have seen more stereotyping of Civ5 fans as being simple or uneducated; the insinuation being that Civ5 is too simple for anyone with any intelligence to enjoy. That if you were truly intelligent, you would go back to Civ4.
There are people who talk about the games as if Civ4 is Rocket Surgery, and Civ5 is a coloring book. Granted, Civ5 is a lot simpler than Civ4, and it does seem to lend itself to a different overall feel than the previous installations... just because you enjoy it doesn't make you an idiot. Just because someone likes playing Civ5, does not mean they automatically dislike playing Civ4.
For all I know, people who dislike Civ5 get hated on as hard as the people who like it. I just know that I have received more snide remarks, and seen more random and useless bashing, in the past few days than I have seen in a while on here. I assume that the reason I've seen more of the people who like Civ5 getting bashed is because there's a worse stereotype that's developed for those of us who like the game. With some posters, it's almost as if I'll admit that I like the game- and they assume that I automatically have no taste in 4X games, I must be either an idiot or a child, and I must have had no experience in the other Civilization games.
I have stated that Civ5 isn't a perfect game. I've went out and pointed out that it's major shortcomings are in the AI. That the AI is awful at handling lateral grouping of units; and that the diplomacy seems like the AI remembers things they dislike forever, and don't remember things they liked at all.
Everything else that Civ5 removed is semi-acceptable to me, because at least you can add it back in. At least it seems like they're trying. BUT! The combat AI, from what I can tell, is the same AI from Civ4 where each and every unit moves around independently; any grouping is merely because the AI knows that stacks work better and they have the same "move" code. The diplomacy AI, in my experience, is bipolar and you're better off just talking to City States for bonuses and leaving the other Civ's alone until war is declared.
- Status
Similar threads
