Maybe I *have* been thinking of Civ5 the wrong way!

[Zydor]

..... but I do wonder how confident longtime fans will be in future offerings from Firaxis.

Thats the crux of future activity over the coming weeks and months. There is a huge reserve of benevolance towards the game built up over 25 years. Thats a valuable asset from Fireaxis viewpoint. Much of that benevolent Capital has been expended - whichever way its looked at. They can pull the fat out the the flames if they come clean and keep the faith with its fanbase, at present they are not, the spin doctors are trying - unsuccessfully - to steer events (there's more to success than a financialy acceptable Version launch).

As has been pointed out there are remedies, but its all finance/risk driven. I think a good well crafted second bite at this could work if the overall aim of everything is known by the fanbase. I genuinely believe the fanbase would do all in its power to help, the loyalty to a phenominal 25+ year run is huge.

Just dont play us for cannon fodder again, it wont wash, it will put the Franchise into Terminal decline. If its finally to be two versions, great I have no doubts the majority will pitch in to help in any practical way they can. If its really irretrieveably mass market, ok, say so, at least we can all ease it there gracefully and all go our separate ways.

This is the Civilisation Franchise - not a theoretical marketing training exercise. I await the next few patches and first expansion with interest but on current track record, deep forboding.

Regards
Zy

 

[Thormodr]

I think that explain better why civ V is not so good...

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/2454-Easy-Games

Great video. Thanks for that.

 

[Surgeon]

Guys, please go onto steam and look at the % of people that have the immortal/diety steam acheivement. Cries of 'OMG immortal is too easy' don't really wash when the % of people that have those acheivements are in the single digits. If the game was designed specifically for the hardcore civ fans who play at teh top levels it would be a complete flop financially (I do differentiate between long - time fans of civ and 'hardcore' fans).

Or you can go back to generalised statements like 'people who like Civ5 are only low skilled players' or 'people that like Civ5 are casual gamers'. These kind of statements just alienate you from the developers as they then resort the the label 'rabid fans who won't be happy with change'

 

[gilmore606]

Guys, please go onto steam and look at the % of people that have the immortal/diety steam acheivement. Cries of 'OMG immortal is too easy' don't really wash when the % of people that have those acheivements are in the single digits. If the game was designed specifically for the hardcore civ fans who play at teh top levels it would be a complete flop financially (I do differentiate between long - time fans of civ and 'hardcore' fans).

Or you can go back to generalised statements like 'people who like Civ5 are only low skilled players' or 'people that like Civ5 are casual gamers'. These kind of statements just alienate you from the developers as they then resort the the label 'rabid fans who won't be happy with change'

Half of your post ("few people have the Immortal/Deity achievements") argues that Civ 5 was not made easier. The second half ("if the game was too hard nobody would buy it") seems to admit that it was, in fact, made easier. You should make up your mind before you post.

"This food is terrible, and the portions are way too small!"

 

[Roghar]

I’ve been playing Civ since the original, and am very positive about Civ5, once some initial glitches are gone. I don’t think they have made it easy, they have made it simpler, which isn’t the same thing. Excess complexity does not improve design. A lot of the best strategy board games you can learn in 20 minutes, but that doesn’t make you anywhere near competent enough to have much chance against experienced players.

Most of what has been removed was superfluous and tedious, what has been added is tactically interesting. The best games are always the ones that are quick to learn but challenging to be good at. There is a whole lot of talk about how easy this game is, but I’ll bet anything that once MP is working properly it will be much better than previous editions.

Most players talking about beating the top difficulty levels seems to be using exploits against a stupid AI, such as trading Open Borders and fortifying well placed rough terrain and watching the AI sacrifice units. Alternately they utilise nonsensical bugs like saving up Social Policies. The dominant strategy is ICS

These won’t hold in multiplayer, other players won’t pay you gold for your Open Borders as soon as you meet them. They won’t let you sprawl like crazy. They won’t come piecemeal at your fortified Mech Inf with 3 artillery waiting behind you. The tactical combat especially will become very interesting, along with the strategy to support it. In particular the battle for strategic and luxury resources will be more fierce than previous editions, it’s a fantastic change.

AI will never be really good in this kind of game, although the relative simplicity lends to the AI eventually becoming better for Civ5 than for Civ4. Wait for MP to judge, I anticipate enjoying thatmode much more than in Civ4

 

[kiwitt]

The intrinsic problem we suffer is that everything is becoming "Dumbed down" in order to appeal to a greater audiance.

I have to agree.

As a long term observer of trends in entertainment this is so. The entertainment has got more flashy. As an example of the dumbing down re: TV Detectives. In the US the popular "Colombo" series, you already were informed about who the "killer" was, whereas in the UK, you still had real "whodunits" and you could pick up clues yourself and determine who the killer was. However, even in the UK this aspect has gone now too and while you often do not know who's dunit until the end, the clues in the program a so infrequent (and maybe even cut out for commercials), making it less interesting. Even the newer US ones are similar now. More flash, but less involvement.

I liked the fact that you could work through a program with the detective and maybe solve it before he does. All that is now gone.

 

[Buccaneer]

Time will tell, of course - but I do wonder how confident longtime fans will be in future offerings from Firaxis.

There is already precedent, it was called Civ3. If Firaxis can survive that fiasco and go on to make Civ4, then there is hope.

 

[SuperJay]

I’ve been playing Civ since the original, and am very positive about Civ5, once some initial glitches are gone. I don’t think they have made it easy, they have made it simpler, which isn’t the same thing. Excess complexity does not improve design.

Of course it doesn't, or it wouldn't be "excess" would it? Again, nobody said "complexity automatically equals better."

I don't think you can genuinely say that Civ 5 is just as challenging as Civ 4; it seems pretty common that most of us who played both games can beat Civ 5 much more easily on higher difficulty levels. That's not inherently bad, necessarily, but it definitely has a bearing on the reception of the game by players.

But again, for me the problem is not that the game is too easy; that's just part of it. It's that it's so boring and lacks replay value. Every playthough felt like I was just repeating the same game over and over. Can you guys honestly say that you see yourselves playing Civ 5 for the next three to five years? Not with patches and expansions and mods, and no, not in multiplayer (assuming it ever works). This Civ 5. Do you want to play this game for years to come?

 

[Roghar]

I got bored of Civ IV Vanilla pretty quick in SP, it was only mods that kept me interested for a time. Ultimately strategy games can’t be wholly satisfying for long against a computer opponent. If they don’t get MP working properly the I agree the game is a disaster, but I believe the game design lends itself to MP much more than previous editions, and the reduced micromanagement should definitely speed up said games, which I found a major barrier with Civ IV. In particular the ridiculous number of units one had to handle in late game Civ IV dragged turns out endlessly

As an aside, there are some elements where the level of content has improved, particularly leader traits. These are far more unique and can substantially affect playstyle. I also think that the permanent nature of Social Policy decisions leads to more strategic planning and variety in play style, than the previous civic system where one could change so easily.

 

[SuperJay]

I got bored of Civ IV Vanilla pretty quick in SP, it was only mods that kept me interested for a time. Ultimately strategy games can’t be wholly satisfying for long against a computer opponent. If they don’t get MP working properly the I agree the game is a disaster, but I believe the game design lends itself to MP much more than previous editions, and the reduced micromanagement should definitely speed up said games, which I found a major barrier with Civ IV. In particular the ridiculous number of units one had to handle in late game Civ IV dragged turns out endlessly

As an aside, there are some elements where the level of content has improved, particularly leader traits. These are far more unique and can substantially affect playstyle. I also think that the permanent nature of Social Policy decisions leads to more strategic planning and variety in play style, than the previous civic system where one could change so easily.

Fair enough, I can see your point - I personally didn't play much MP with Civ 4 and I actually did find it pretty engaging (I'm no pro or anything) to play against the AI opponents, and enjoyed doing so on and off for several years. And there's definitely elements of Civ 5 that I like, no question; I certainly don't feel that the entire game was a failure in every aspect.

 

[alpaca]

I got bored of Civ IV Vanilla pretty quick in SP, it was only mods that kept me interested for a time. Ultimately strategy games can’t be wholly satisfying for long against a computer opponent. If they don’t get MP working properly the I agree the game is a disaster, but I believe the game design lends itself to MP much more than previous editions, and the reduced micromanagement should definitely speed up said games, which I found a major barrier with Civ IV. In particular the ridiculous number of units one had to handle in late game Civ IV dragged turns out endlessly

As an aside, there are some elements where the level of content has improved, particularly leader traits. These are far more unique and can substantially affect playstyle. I also think that the permanent nature of Social Policy decisions leads to more strategic planning and variety in play style, than the previous civic system where one could change so easily.

The problem is you cannot finish MP games in a timely fashion unless you play with a severely restricted subset of the whole game (for example starting in the modern era): The game just takes too long. The only alternative to that is to play with people you know, either in real life or over the net, on a regular level.

If I had four or five friends who enjoy playing Civ5 and are of a similar skill level instead of maybe one whose computer can't handle it, one who is worse than the others and one who has no time, I might try playing MP

Then again, I like to play boardgames when I play MP, because you can finish a large number of games in three hours, without one of your friends having to sit around twiddling their thumbs for half of the game because they were defeated in war.

 

[shozum]

The problem is you cannot finish MP games in a timely fashion unless you play with a severely restricted subset of the whole game (for example starting in the modern era): The game just takes too long. The only alternative to that is to play with people you know, either in real life or over the net, on a regular level.

If I had four or five friends who enjoy playing Civ5 and are of a similar skill level instead of maybe one whose computer can't handle it, one who is worse than the others and one who has no time, I might try playing MP

Then again, I like to play boardgames when I play MP, because you can finish a large number of games in three hours, without one of your friends having to sit around twiddling their thumbs for half of the game because they were defeated in war.

I enjoy CiV. A lot. Even an avid fanboi like myself has found some seriously frustrating issues.
I am one of those players that has 4-5 friends who played CIV BtS constantly in MP and migrated to CiV upon release. We generally run nightly games of 3-4 hour sessions and we load a different game depending on who is up for playing that night. Should someone get eliminated, we put that game on hold until the eliminated player is unable to play. This worked well in CIV BtS, but is causing some issues in CiV due to the poor save/load options or the fact that it's pretty much nonexistant. We're having to migrate save files after a session to preserve them so that the autosave doesn't overwrite the file as we create a new game based on a new combination of players.
Imbalance is an issue but it's not one that is as glaringly obvious as the save/load fiasco I mentioned. Greeks are ridiculously OP when compared to most other Civ choices, Babylonians will be also once/if they get enabled for MP. Great scientists are OP compared to all other Great people, etc... These things are normal in my opinion however and will be fixed as time goes on and the community feedback helps steer Firaxis to where it should be. That or our modding community will correct it.
I feel that the system requirements should have been higher, the game should have been tested on a ton more PC configs, and that it was rushed which shouldn't suprise anyone who has been following the non-Blizzard game industry of late. Again though, these areas are being addressed and hopefully each patch will bring it closer to perfection.
I don't really play single player often, haven't even finished a game yet in SP, but I do notice HUGE differences in the way the AI contacts you and such between SP and MP. I don't think the AI EVER contacts me in MP except to tell me there will be war. No pacts of secrecy, no warnings to not settle somewhere, nothing, nada, zilch.
Where are my animated leaderheads in MP? I can understand and sympathize with both sides on animated combat but leaderheads? C'mon now....
I'm in a rant Let me stop for now. CiV is great, Harry Potter sucks monkey testicles through a rusty crack pipe, D&D 3.5 for teh win, and hopefully one day, CiV Complete will flesh out the game and make it a worthy ADDITION to the series.

 

[dguichar]

Basically either you haven't played 4e very much or you houserule so much that you aren't even playing by the game rules to begin with or are just plainly lying here. 4th Edition D&D is a very different game from the editions that came before it. It is precisely because of this arrogant decision to throw away the innovations of 3.5 and build anew rather than refine, improve, and innovate on the game that was already there is the D&D fanbase divided even more such that Paizo's Pathfinder game neck and neck in sales with 4E.

It felt the same for me, because i don't mind the rules be either official or house. I enjoy roleplaying, that´s enough for me. I've played a lot in every edition and the spirit of D&D is still there.
I don't find that reducing the number of skills or basing them on level rather than purchasing with slots it's a huge difference at all, the progression it's the same. And, after all, it doesn't affect in anything my roleplaying even if the progression should've been modified.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

That said, I don't want to keep turning this into an "us vs. them" situation. People like the game. Lots of them. That doesn't make them the enemy.

They kind of are though, because they're supporting objectively bad/shortcut game decisions directly. Every person who is "fine" with civ V right now is a person who is "fine" with a hefty % of game time fighting the UI to do something that's reliably been done in 1-2 inputs in the past. "fine" with the game being advertised one way and playing another. "fine" with a game that doesn't even run smoothly...on machines above spec.

Players like that have done real damage to gaming as a whole, and it isn't just limited to civ.

 

[Peregrine]

ABSOLUTELY AGREE w/the post above. Assigning responsibility for V's shortcomings solely to the designers isn't valid. If the civ community accepts it, then WE are also just as responsible for substandard releases.

 

[SuperJay]

They kind of are though, because they're supporting objectively bad/shortcut game decisions directly. Every person who is "fine" with civ V right now is a person who is "fine" with a hefty % of game time fighting the UI to do something that's reliably been done in 1-2 inputs in the past. "fine" with the game being advertised one way and playing another. "fine" with a game that doesn't even run smoothly...on machines above spec.

Players like that have done real damage to gaming as a whole, and it isn't just limited to civ.

ABSOLUTELY AGREE w/the post above. Assigning responsibility for V's shortcomings solely to the designers isn't valid. If the civ community accepts it, then WE are also just as responsible for substandard releases.

It's probably obvious that I agree with both of you on this topic, or else I wouldn't still be here. Contrary to popular belief (and as you both know) critics don't just come to the forums to dump some haterade all over every thread and ruin the party. Those are just fringe benefits.

My remarks about treating people who like the game as "the enemy" had less to do with the substance of Civ 5 and whether or not passive acceptence enables shoddy design, and more to do with just treating each other with a modicum of maturity and common courtesy regardless of our differing opinions. Almost all of us are capable of making our points clearly without personal attacks, and once those attacks start, these threads tend to spiral directly into the crapper. Locked threads don't usually accomplish any tangible results, that's all I was saying.

 

[Aristos]

They kind of are though, because they're supporting objectively bad/shortcut game decisions directly. Every person who is "fine" with civ V right now is a person who is "fine" with a hefty % of game time fighting the UI to do something that's reliably been done in 1-2 inputs in the past. "fine" with the game being advertised one way and playing another. "fine" with a game that doesn't even run smoothly...on machines above spec.

Players like that have done real damage to gaming as a whole, and it isn't just limited to civ.

One of the most precise posts I have read since this whole debacle started.

Some of us fail to deliver that message even if that is exactly what we think, so thank you for putting clear words to our "rebellion"... some of us may be aggressive sometimes, but only because we are trying to emphasize that this piece of mediocrity is NOT ACCEPTABLE.

And yes, another word to define "being fine with a mediocre product" is MEDIOCRITY. Like it or not.

Thanks, TMIT...

 

[Jarwy]

On DND: Roleplaying dissapeared upon release of 3.0. Since then the game has become nothing more that a tabletop miniature combat system where only one unit per tile can fight...........uhhhhhh......crap.

Halflings should totally stack since they are small creatures, I mean, can you imagine the power of stacked halflings in a 5 feet wide corridor? Overpowered!

@Peregrine: Epic post on page 1. If those ideas had been implemented to CiV instead of what we got, it would've been a great game.

 

[Peregrine]

Thanks.

 

[J. Hercules]

SuperJay
The Last Gunslinger

I like the avatar change. Great books! Stephen King's magnum opes proves he is still a master word slinger.