"More patches are on their way"

[SidMeierGroupy]

If Firaxis continue to issue patches free of charge, I would interpret it as an attempt by them to improve the game for those of us who already bought it and I would look kindly on them ... but this is an evil and corrupt world, and my guess is that any big changes now will arrive via DLC.

And if next year is going to be as depressing and awful as they say it will be, then I ain't got no more money for games.

Agreed on the financial note. I can't affored to shell out 50.00 on bombs for the new year. I don't hold out hopes for improvements for DLC's. All DLC's so far should have been original game content, but as it stands they're cash cows. The only time I've liked the DlC idea is with SC: Conviction, where they were free, numerous and weekly. Somehow I don't think there will be as many or as vigorous patches as there were for BTS.

<snip>

Moderator Action: Snippy personal comments delted.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[aziantuntija]

<snip>

Moderator Action: Snippy personal comments delted.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

But i must say this thing about civ5 pathces: I hope (belive) that they can fix most of the bugs from civ5 and maybe add some small content as well.

I also hope that with future expansions, even the ones that did not really care about civ5 will change their mind, even just a bit. At least im pretty sure that im going to enjoy civ5 future expansions.

EDIT: Fix these! Combat AI should be better, AI should build less anti-air units and instead build more infantry and tanks, also the game is still crashing here and there.

 

[cardassian]

@ aziantuntija for me it's the fact that multiplayer is an unplayable clickfest that really puts me off.
I also think the game is a bit simple and needs more variables along with better AI so that it is more of a challenge.
This is as I can play ciV at least 2 levels of difficulty higher than I could cIV and win comfortably.
Now some things like 1upt and hexes are good and I like as SOD's are stupid and boring imo but i think the AI needs to know how to use this better (I know it is better since the patch but still needs to be better) to prvide a challenging fun game.

 

[aziantuntija]

for me it's the fact that multiplayer is an unplayable clickfest that really puts me off.

Ok, i have never played multiplayer civ game so i dont know about its problmes, ive heard it doesnt work properly though.

I also think the game is a bit simple and needs more variables along with better AI so that it is more of a challenge.
This is as I can play ciV at least 2 levels of difficulty higher than I could cIV and win comfortably.

This is just my opinion, but I really think since they changed so many things in civ5 (civ hasnt never changed this much) they were afraid to stuff it too much with things but instead try and keep it simple. Im sure we will get more content with expansions. I agree on the AI though, im currently playing 1 level of difficulty higher than i did with civ4.

Now some things like 1upt and hexes are good and I like as SOD's are stupid and boring imo but i think the AI needs to know how to use this better (I know it is better since the patch but still needs to be better) to prvide a challenging fun game.

I agree.

 

[Dralix]

Hey no problem, and no hard feelings. Feel free to ask a site member to teach you how to use the search option and the forum in general to avoid redundant questions.

If I can play referee here, I believe the problem is that you keep telling aziantuntija that he can search the forums and find threads where people discuss the problems with Civ V, which is true. But what aziantuntija is asking is what YOU, personally, think the problems with he game are. This is a reasonable request, and saying "go search the hundreds of threads" isn't really answering his question.

If Firaxis continue to issue patches free of charge, I would interpret it as an attempt by them to improve the game for those of us who already bought it and I would look kindly on them ... but this is an evil and corrupt world, and my guess is that any big changes now will arrive via DLC.

I don't think they can release core gameplay changes as DLC, due to multiplayer. Now I know that people say multiplayer is broken and all, but as long as it's an option to play, the game rules have to be the same for everyone in a multiplayer game. It's one thing to release new civs as DLC and say that they can't be used in multiplayer games, but changes to the existing content, rules, AI, and whatnot, in my opinion, has to be released free to all. DLC should only be for things that are strictly optional.

 

[Carl5872]

I for one, like the patches I've seen so far. They seem to listen to the communities grievances. A large number of players disapproved that the game's prior mechanacics fostered the play style of "ICS", and they made changes to weaken that style of play.

They also included additional natural wonders which I liked.

As for glitches in the game I can't comment, because my crappy computer will freeze to black often anyways, so I cant be sure if its the game itself, or if its just my older laptop.

Key thing to remember is that the way to get what you want in the upcoming patches is by stating specifics and clearly. Just saying "it's broken" or "it sucks" doesnt get you anywhere. Say, "the loading movie takes too long and I can't just click through it"

Another thing, and I hate to say it, but spamming threads with specific requests will help. If they see multiple requests for an item, they will be more likely to grant it.

With that being said, I want to encourage those of you that miss Hotseat to join me in requesting it. I dont consider it a game element such as religion or 1upt, but as a way to play the game. This type of change belongs in a patch since it relates to the mechanics of the game, and not a preferential function. Imagine if they released the game with no multiplayer, I'm sure many would want that added, well I know I want hotseat, and im fairly confident others will too, so:

PLEASE ADD HOTSEAT IN THE NEXT PATCH

 

[SuperJay]

This is what i asked from SuperJay but he doesnt seem to be willing to answer me:

Hey, sorry guy - I have a job and a life outside the CFC forums, odd as that may seem given my post count. Plus, I'm not sure it's worthwhile to try and engage you in any kind of constructive discussion.

That said, I'll humor you since I'm a pretty nice guy. Here's some things I don't like about Civ 5 - just a few off the top of my head.

- You're punished for expanding
- You're punished for being successful in war
- You're punished for building an empire
- You're punished for remaining a small state
- Multiplayer is so broken as to be pointless
- Diplomacy is nonexistent b/c you're playing with insane AIs
- Build times are ridiculously slow
- Tech advances are ridiculously fast
- Each game feels very similar regardless of game setup variables
- The game's biased toward full-time war, but the AI sucks at war
- It's boring; there's not much to do anymore
- It lacks depth, complexity, and thus, replayability (to me)
- The game still crashes too often
- Global happiness is a clumsy, heavy-handed limitation mechanic
- Tile yields are lousy
- City placement has little significance
- ICS reigns supreme
- The patches are knee-jerk attempts to nerf strategies
- Games no longer feel like an "epic journey"
- Many buildings aren't worth their maintenance costs
- 1UPT isn't elegantly integrated into the rest of the game (I like the concept though)
- The AI and the human play completely different games
- AI unit building is off-balance
- DLC civs can't be used in multiplayer
- Turn wait time is ridiculous in late game and on larger maps
- Natural wonders are overpowered and depend on luck
- The challenge is in slogging through CoDs, which is not engaging and fun for me
- There's just not much to do in this game
- Internal mechanics don't work together effectively
- You can't build an empire to stand the test of time

Hope this helps. Gotta get back to work.

 

[Willowmound]

I'm inclined, after researching and reviewing my numbers, to admit I was mistaken in sales figures.

I can't prove that Civ5 has moved 1 million units.

Kapow! This is great. A discussion where both parties attempt to win by actually throwing down verifiable facts. That's rare round these parts. I approve

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Kapow! This is great. A discussion where both parties attempt to win by actually throwing down verifiable facts. That's rare round these parts. I approve

And when someone in da innernets can admit a mistake. I didn't even know that was legal. But it's very refreshing and I thank you all.

As for the patches, what does anyone think could be/should be added as patches in the nearish future? I don't know if we can expect anything as wide a scope as the last one or not--that was an unprecedented patch. I hope that some of the people who didn't like the game at first were able to play again with an open mind instead of deciding they didn't like it beforehand. It's been a pretty good time since the patch. Not perfect, but neither was CivIV, and I think people forget that.

 

[bryanw1995]

Professional (i.e., paid) reviewers for any company / group / magazine / website will almost automatically give a great review for any major company's new release. If they don't, then advertising money won't flow their way and they won't be reviewing any more releases from said major company.

It has been proven (statistical analysis) that such reviews will always trend to the high end of the reviewer's point / star / percentage range. It takes extreme, immediate failure right out of the box for reviewers to give lower values. Civ5 doesn't suffer from such failure; the problems it has are more subtle and start becoming evident after hours of play which reviewers generally don't have the time to give.

Further, in a 10-point scale, one would expect that 5 is average. Doesn't happen that way, though. If the game is average, it gets 8 or a bit better. Again, you can go looking and you'll find the studies that demonstrate this.





Are you sure you want him to, I dunno, put his sources down somewhere? Are you sure you don't want him to cite them?





You look at these numbers and see 340 games played. I look at these numbers (40, 46, 48) and see 3 people who've played 40 games against each other. If 5 people get together and play each other 10 times, is that 10 games or 50 by their website? I know which way I'd bet.

I will admit, 40 multiplayer games successfully completed is impressive (for low values of "impressed"), but does the website keep track of games completed, or games started? Statistical information such as this is next to useless; it's incomplete. It's as useless as the information cited in the other poster's missive.

you argue very well for your point of view, but your argument would be much stronger if we had something more than your word for it that 8 out of 10 is average. and a 1-10 scale average is 5.5, not 5.

Why would a lead developer stop working for his employer immediately after a successful game that is the latest installment in one of the most famous series ever?

In contrast, why would lead developer stop working for his employer immediately after a failed game that is the latest installment in one of the most famous series ever?

When you lack cold hard facts, reasonable inference is the best you got.

In this instance, the most reasonable inference I can make is that Shafer "left" because Civ5 has been recognized as being either a failure or imperiled. I'm open to any facts anyone has that would support or dispute that hypothesis. But with this set of observations in hand, I see little point in quibbling about much more ambiguous and complex matters such as sales numbers. The reviews by the big sites are meaningless to me.

soren was immensely popular/successful, but he left ~ 16 months after cIV launched. jon's leaving after 3 months is quite likely a response to the negative pr that has generally hit ciV, but it is highly likely that he was planning to leave within the next year regardless. he's a Civ lead designer, and there won't be another one for 5 years, so his best opportunities at least short-term involve leaving firaxis. also, take 2 hasn't exactly been a model employer of late, with takeover rumors/bk speculation/etc running rampant. and they didn't do anything to dispell their poor rep when they let 1/2 the dev team go 3 months before ciV launched.

Somebody asked for facts on the sales figures, so I tried to find some. First some info on Civ IV sales. Some recent advertisements for Civ V are claimng over 9 nine million in sales, but when you read the fine print this is for the entrie Civ series 1-IV. A press release on May 29,2009 indicated that the entire Civ seris I-IV (not including V) now exceeds 9 million in sales. Additionally, the press release from OCT 25, 2005 indicates that upon the release of Civ IV, 6 million copies of I-III where sold. This indicates that about 3 million copies of Civ IV where sold by May 2009. Another press release on Mar 17, 2010 indicates that as MAR 17, 2010 over 9 million copies in the Civ seris (I-IV) where sold - so probably over 3 million copes of Civ IV where sold by then. As of today, Amazon is claiming that over 6 million copes of Civ IV alone have been sold. Over 6 million for Civ IV by it self seems high, but that is what Amazon in claiming

Now Civ V sales: From the 2K WEB site on the source that tracks all sales of Civ V

Civilization V comparative sales including stream
You can observe comparative sales for all media (XBox 360, PS3, PC, etc.) here:

http://www.vgchartz.com/weekly.php?r...onsole=&maker=

Civ V sales
As of SEP 25th: 192,874 in the first week
As of OCT 2nd: 260,486 were sold worldwide (67,612 in 2nd week)
As of OCT 9th no longer in top 30 worldwide but still in top 3O in US
As of OCT 9th: 191,731 (25,919) in US only (#30 worldwide was 40,411)
As of OCT 16th: 210, 818 (19,087)in US only (#30 worldwide was 34,636)
As of OCT 23rd: 235, 171 (24,353)in US only (#30 worldwide was 42,670)

As of OCT 30th - Civ V no longer made the top 30 game sellers in US or WW
OCT 30th #30 - 35,919 (#30 worldwide was 64,794)
NOV 5th #30 - 33,368 (#30 worldwide was 64,386)
NOV 13th #30 - 30,474 (#30 worldwide was 64,784)
NOV 20th #30 - 40,959 (#30 worldwide was 70,116)
NOV 27th #30 - 81,203 (#30 worldwide was 128,484)
DEC 4th #30 - 65,065 (#30 worldwide was 133,807)
DEC 11th #30 - 99,264 (#30 worldwide was 167,859)
DEC 18th #30 - 131,913 (#30 worldwide was 218,726)

If CIV V was consistently just 1 unit below the #30 this puts the max sales at 1.29 million. Using the same logic for US sales indicates a max level of 753,328. Applying the average derived constant of 1.5 as as factor for WW sales indicates a max level of 1.12 million WW

Most likely, CIV V was not a consitent one unit below #30. If we say that US sales is half the #30 WW based on weeks OCT 9-16 (which would still be very good sales) and then apply the 1.5 factor, this just breaks the 1 million sales level WW. If the best case is just breaking 1 million in sales, then in all probability, the magic 1 million mark in sales for Civ V has not yet been reached. Based on the available data, a more likely estimate would be between 750,00-950,000 factoring in a Christmas increase in purchases.

excellent post.

btw, amazon is likely counting warlords and bts as separate "cIV purchase instances". I'm not sure how to count game sales, maybe an expansion should count as a 1/2 sale? probably best way is to just track total sales revenues, that keeps you from getting hugely inflated sales numbers 4 years after release when steam offers a game for 99c or whatever.

 

[rschissler]

Hey, sorry guy - I have a job and a life outside the CFC forums, odd as that may seem given my post count. Plus, I'm not sure it's worthwhile to try and engage you in any kind of constructive discussion.

That said, I'll humor you since I'm a pretty nice guy. Here's some things I don't like about Civ 5 - just a few off the top of my head.

- You're punished for expanding
- You're punished for being successful in war
- You're punished for building an empire
- You're punished for remaining a small state
- Multiplayer is so broken as to be pointless
- Diplomacy is nonexistent b/c you're playing with insane AIs
- Build times are ridiculously slow
- Tech advances are ridiculously fast
- Each game feels very similar regardless of game setup variables
- The game's biased toward full-time war, but the AI sucks at war
- It's boring; there's not much to do anymore
- It lacks depth, complexity, and thus, replayability (to me)
- The game still crashes too often
- Global happiness is a clumsy, heavy-handed limitation mechanic
- Tile yields are lousy
- City placement has little significance
- ICS reigns supreme
- The patches are knee-jerk attempts to nerf strategies
- Games no longer feel like an "epic journey"
- Many buildings aren't worth their maintenance costs
- 1UPT isn't elegantly integrated into the rest of the game (I like the concept though)
- The AI and the human play completely different games
- AI unit building is off-balance
- DLC civs can't be used in multiplayer
- Turn wait time is ridiculous in late game and on larger maps
- Natural wonders are overpowered and depend on luck
- The challenge is in slogging through CoDs, which is not engaging and fun for me
- There's just not much to do in this game
- Internal mechanics don't work together effectively
- You can't build an empire to stand the test of time

Hope this helps. Gotta get back to work.

Well, I'd say that sums it up rather nicely.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

excellent post.

btw, amazon is likely counting warlords and bts as separate "cIV purchase instances". I'm not sure how to count game sales, maybe an expansion should count as a 1/2 sale? probably best way is to just track total sales revenues, that keeps you from getting hugely inflated sales numbers 4 years after release when steam offers a game for 99c or whatever.

What we'd need to see for any kind of fair comparison is CivIV sales after one and after two or three months, both in numbers and percentage of the market.

 

[Kerosene31]

Civ V has consistently been one of the top games played on Steam.

http://store.steampowered.com/stats/

#7 most played right now on Steam behind all FPS games and Football Manager 2011. Civ games are never going to top FPS games in popularity, so that's pretty solid evidence that it has been anything but a failure. Being anywhere close to the Call of Duty games (which do require Steam) is impressive.

If it were a failure, we would not see more patches, and that would be a bad thing.

 

[Anthropoid]

Hey, sorry guy - I have a job and a life outside the CFC forums, odd as that may seem given my post count. Plus, I'm not sure it's worthwhile to try and engage you in any kind of constructive discussion.

That said, I'll humor you since I'm a pretty nice guy. Here's some things I don't like about Civ 5 - just a few off the top of my head.

- You're punished for expanding
- You're punished for being successful in war
- You're punished for building an empire
- You're punished for remaining a small state
- Multiplayer is so broken as to be pointless
- Diplomacy is nonexistent b/c you're playing with insane AIs
- Build times are ridiculously slow
- Tech advances are ridiculously fast
- Each game feels very similar regardless of game setup variables
- The game's biased toward full-time war, but the AI sucks at war
- It's boring; there's not much to do anymore
- It lacks depth, complexity, and thus, replayability (to me)
- The game still crashes too often
- Global happiness is a clumsy, heavy-handed limitation mechanic
- Tile yields are lousy
- City placement has little significance
- ICS reigns supreme
- The patches are knee-jerk attempts to nerf strategies
- Games no longer feel like an "epic journey"
- Many buildings aren't worth their maintenance costs
- 1UPT isn't elegantly integrated into the rest of the game (I like the concept though)
- The AI and the human play completely different games
- AI unit building is off-balance
- DLC civs can't be used in multiplayer
- Turn wait time is ridiculous in late game and on larger maps
- Natural wonders are overpowered and depend on luck
- The challenge is in slogging through CoDs, which is not engaging and fun for me
- There's just not much to do in this game
- Internal mechanics don't work together effectively
- You can't build an empire to stand the test of time

Hope this helps. Gotta get back to work.

I've seen at least 20 guys whose succinctness, post-counts and tone suggest to me that they are reasonable guys say pretty much the same thing. Probably more like 40 or 50 guys. Some of my best cyberbuds have said the same things.

Among the guys I know who are not all out critical, they are only giving it an 'its okay' rating. Obviously, there are players who are enjoying the game. But we don't need to get caught up in silly debates about whose perspective is more valid. The point to me is that, Civilization is one of the biggest game legacies ever. This was the fifth installment in that series. Past installments have both in the short-term and long-term been smashing successess that appealed to very large and diverse segments of gamers.

I see a lot of guys saying "Civ4 had the same negative response because people were stuck in a Civ3 mindset" but I don't agree. I always thought CivFanatics had an incredibly positive, and upbeat tone about the Civ games. The place has transformed these past few months. It is anecdotal I admit, I just don't have the time to do the narrative analysis to prove it, but it seems to me that there is a great deal of negativity about Civ5, much more than I ever remember about Civ4. Soren leaving Firaxis ~16 months after Civ4 was released seems to me to be rather incomparable to Shafer leaving ~3 months after. 16 months is enough time for a release to be fully patched and for expansions to be well underway. Three months seems very early.

I still have not bought the game, simply because it requires Steam, and that right there pisses me off. I read all of these negative assessments, and I admit, I have a desire for 2K/Firaxis, whomever is responsible for this situation to be sufficiently aware that either (a) the same mistake is not made again; (b) the current situation is rectified with expansions/patches whatever; or (c) Civ6 has some hope of being and of being done properly. I dont' see any of that as being mutually exclusive with you guys who say you love it enjoying yourselves, but in fact, maybe it is at odds with it.

If you guys love it just how it is, then why shouldn't Firaxis take it further in the same direction, eh? Why shouldn't the future of the Civ series follow the trend that you "lovers" prefer instead of that which we "haters" would've preferred?

Here is where the underlying theme of this thread becomes important and why it is not just "gossiping" and "speculating."

Civ5 is a product and it must make profit for it to continue. In order to make profit, it ideally needs to appeal to a broad audience, or at least sufficiently broad relative to the producers overhead that it returns a sufficient profit that it remains an appealing business proposition. The facts of the divisive atmosphere here at CivFanatics, combined with the fact of Shafer leaving this early after release, IMO do not bode well for the perceived profitability of the series, nor its long-term viability. That makes me sad.

 

[bryanw1995]

@ aziantuntija for me it's the fact that multiplayer is an unplayable clickfest that really puts me off.
I also think the game is a bit simple and needs more variables along with better AI so that it is more of a challenge.
This is as I can play ciV at least 2 levels of difficulty higher than I could cIV and win comfortably.
Now some things like 1upt and hexes are good and I like as SOD's are stupid and boring imo but i think the AI needs to know how to use this better (I know it is better since the patch but still needs to be better) to prvide a challenging fun game.

the ai is still stupid, but it is lightyears ahead of where it was 3 months ago. why? because they actually have playtesters now (since they fired all of them before the game was ready for actual playtesting) and we can tell them things that need fixing. some specifics:

1. ai now correctly focuses fire to eliminate units
2. ai correctly stations artillery in cities that are under attack
3. ai will rushbuy artillery/archery units to defend cities that are under attack
4. ai will rushbuy walls/castle/etc to protect cities under attack
5. ai will no longer suicide his warrior into your hill-fortified rifleman or 35 combat power city

in practical gameplay terms, pre-patch I beelined blitz with every single unit. post-patch i find that march/cover/city combat are typically better promotions or at least as useful as blitz. cover in particular is very useful now, I literally never took it pre-patch. generally, it is no longer feasible to ignore artillery unless you're willing to sustain major casualties during yor conquests, pre-patch you could conquer the world with 4 or 5 horsemen.

 

[City Raider]

So can you tell me your civ5 flaws?

In the meantime i will tell you my civ4 flaws:

I took this list from another thread where i writed this.

Brainless stack combat smashing, insane unit spam, square tiles combined with lack of ZoC so that enemy has lots of change to slip trough your good defence positions ----> go wait in the city for some unit smashing party, religion wich almost solely determined the diplomatic relations, the suicide siege weapons wich engaged in melee combat against other units, almost meaningless navy (at least much more meaningless than what civ5 has), road spam, missionary spam and executive spam (latter only in BTS), cartoony unit graphics and endless strategic resources.


Neither of us isnt of course right because they are just our own opinions, but still i would like to see what do you answer.

EDIT: Oh i forgot the useless espionage gimmick in Bts, well it wasnt really a flaw because you could just ignore it, so it didnt really bother me too much

I'll give it a shot. First off I'm not a Civ 5 hater, just a bit dissappointed. And just as a reference I also didn't like Civ 3 at first when it came out and I didn't like Civ 4 when it came out either. But I've grown to love Civ 4 and actually rank it second behind Civ 2 on my personal list of favorite Civ games.

And for further full disclosure, I'm an Empire builder player, definitely not a warmonger. I like an occassional civ game where its mindless combat, but about 90% of my games involve an early rush/war then simply build up from about 1000BC to ~1950AD with as little war/conflict as possible. I don't find warring with the AI to be particularly challenging (any civ game) so that is why I like the immersion, role playing, builder style of game.

Anyway, my issues with Civ 5 are:
(some may be patchable, some not. Not sure, I'm not a programmer)

- Tech tree - not enough to research. Too one dimensional, since you basically have to reasearch all the techs yourself, there is just no variety for me, or not enough.
(not necessarily a problem for just Civ 5)

- Tile yields - they don't seem special to me. Why are all food tiles just +1? Why all luxuries the same? Why are flood plains the same as grassland?

- Wonders - they don't seem special to me. I just don't care if I ever build a wonder. And that is weird for me since I'm totally a builder player and typically a wonder hog.

- Lack of slider - I know not everyone's favorite. But I miss it! I miss the control it gives you without too much micro. Now (Civ 5) if I want to alter my beaker output I have to go to various cities, check tiles, maybe move a specialist here or there. I'd much rather be able to +/- a slider for a turn or two. Side note I think a slider with Gold, Science, Culture (for Social Policies), Happiness would have been great for Civ 5.

- Diplo + AI combat - I don't think I need to into too much detail here, but basically all the AIs act the same. Even when they do pick fights they don't know how to fight. Why have the AI so focused on the aspect that it is weakest at?

- Obselete units/pace of game - many units don't get built or need to get built and the game can move too fast on standard speed. Linked to tech tree. (Note: this problem is not unique to Civ 5.)

- Specialists and Specialist Buildings - I don't like that an Academy (other buildings) is built outside the city and ultimately destorys the tile improvement. Settling a specialist should be a HUGE bonus, why take away the farm/mine etc? You need to make it worth while so it becomes a real tradeoff vs. bulbing. Note: I've never settled any other specialist or built their building, they are just too weak. I'd find it a much tougher decision if say you can settle an engineer in your city to build a factory that maybe gives you a 25% production boost. Now you have to make the call - rush a wonder or get a boost to all production for the rest of the game. Simply settling on some tile is just too weak to make it a viable alternative esp if you don't get specialists early.

- roads/railroads - I actually miss road/railroad spam. Come late game, I really don't want to have to worry about how I move my units from one side of my empire to another. I just want it done with one easy click. Shouldn't be an issue but with 1up it can bee since most units should take the roads.

- production times - you shouldn't really have to go out of your way to make a "production" city just to build units/buildings. As an example I've had coastal cities that take like 30-40 turns (or more) to just build destroyers. Ugh, why bother?
These are maybe size 8-12 type cities. Not huge cities, but come on, that seems a bit too long to me.

- Governments/Social Policy implementation - I like the concept of SP, but why is it so hard to get later policies? and why so hard for large empire?
I miss being able to switch governments and having real +/- decisions. All current social policies are basically good, just some better. I think there is a way to combine picking a gov't with social policy. IE if you are a Monarchy then Tradion/Order/Piety etc might do something good or bad, but under a Republic/Democracy/Communsim/etc they may do something better/worse.

I have other issues, some gameplay, some aesthetic, etc, but I think I listed some good ones.

And agian, I realize that some of thse are not unique to Civ 5 and may pertain to the whole series (ie units obselete too fast/pace of game), but my feeling is after 20 years and now 5 iterations some of these things should have been ironed out and I'm not sure why they are repeating mistakes made in previous games. But I have a feeling that civ 5 tried to do a little bit too much and tried to reinvent the wheel when it didn't need to.

EDIT:
Just saw Superjay's post. I agree with some of his issues as well.

 

[SuperJay]

Well, I'd say that sums it up rather nicely.

I've seen at least 20 guys whose succinctness, post-counts and tone suggest to me that they are reasonable guys say pretty much the same thing. Probably more like 40 or 50 guys. Some of my best cyberbuds have said the same things.

Thanks, and thanks. I should have noted that I don't "hate" Civ 5, I just don't think it's currently a worthy iteration of the Civilization franchise. I also enjoy some of the concepts and changes that Civ 5 introduced, I just wish they worked within the context of that game. I'd have fewer issues with it if it weren't labeled and sold as part of that franchise, because I'd have lower expectations for "Civilization: Tactics." (Ironically, that's one thing we keep being told - that the game is fine, but our expectations were too high. So we should expect mediocrity from Firaxis, that is the problem? Wow.)

Maybe it will be made great and awesome with time; I'm not as optimistic about that as some folks here, but I don't think it's impossible. Depends how much time and effort 2K and Firaxis are allowed to put into finishing the game. I just suspect it won't be much, but I'd love to be wrong.

I'm just one fairly casual player who is passionate about this series. This is all purely my opinion. I know that off-the-top list will be picked part and "disproven" by some vehement Civ 5 devotee or they'll demand "examples" and "proof," - and if they want to spend their time that way, that's fine. At the end of the day, I think we all want basically the same thing - for Civ 5 to be the best possible game it can be, and a worthy inheritor of the Civilization legacy.

 

[bryanw1995]

ciV is just crying out for an expansion that adds lots of "stuff". more/better bonus tiles for cities, more units, higher city production, additional CS options (+hammer and/or + happiness CS's would both be extremely popular), etc etc. I hope that we'll see this, but I also hope that shafer's departure hasn't delayed it significantly at least.

 

[Carl5872]

I still am not happy with diplomacy. Maybe this is an outlier, but I played a game where I just meet Montezuma and he askes me to DOW persia. I do it, but he still is neutral and it doesnt list going to war for him as a diplomacy modifier. He also wouldnt sign a defense pact or declaration of friendship. THe last two I can understand, because it may take more than responding to his request for war to want to be my buddy, but it should at least take that into consideration.

 

[aziantuntija]

Plus, I'm not sure it's worthwhile to try and engage you in any kind of constructive discussion.

Oh ok. Well if you feel like that you cant act constructively, then maybe you shouldnt try to engage in discussion with me. But you did answer to me so i will answer you back weather you liked it or not. And no you dont absolutely have to answer me back, thats perfectly fine by me.

But as for your list, I think I actually agree with two or maybe even three of your issues with civ5. But as I already told you, these bad things that we both listed about civ4 and civ5 are just our opinions and nothing more.

I should have noted that I don't "hate" Civ 5, I just don't think it's currently a worthy iteration of the Civilization franchise.

Its great to hear that you dont actually &#8216;&#8217;hate&#8217;&#8217; the game, who knows maybe someday you even might like it, at least maybe after some patches and expansions. I must say that imo, they have gone in the right way with civ5, even though it is not even nearly perfect and there could be more stuff in it but still its not a bad game by any means, at least I have enjoyed it after the patch. I think civ5 kind of reminds me of civ1, it reminds of it quite a bit actually, so i would say that it is very much a worthy iteration of the Civilization franchise. I personally see it as a fresh start to the series and once again we start adding interesting concepts to fresh civ game.


@City Raider. Im playing on marathon speed and I have not seen any problems with research speeds vs. building units. Diplo might be better (as always) so I do agree with you on that one and I also agree that the combat AI should be better.

EDIT: There are of course other things that i think also needs fixing in civ5 but im not going to post them on my every post