Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by adamsolo, Dec 28, 2010.
Fixed , thanks!
This was an argued issue even before ciV release you know.
Nice review although that's probably 'cause I agree with much of it.
The embarkation point though is interesting as I hadn't really thought of it that way and as some of the other posters said it initially seems a good idea. Now though I'd prefer to have transports back for the strategic options they present or at the very least some way of escorting embarked units. It gets boring continually losing units or having to move my invasion fleet one hex at a time in a circle of combat ships.
Quoted for truth. At the risk of inducing nausea in some of the more gentle readers here, I'm going to repeat my verdict (approaching the "final" status) that this is "Civ War", and as such pretty fun, but not "Civ V". Firaxis has made a game about destroying other people's empires, not building your own. It's nice, but it isn't Civilization.
The Sims is a very bad example for what you are trying to argue. It's true that Civ V stripped out a lot of what was added in EPs, similar to what EA did with the Sims 3 after the Sims 2. However, the core gameplay in the Sims is almost constant from iteration to iteration. You wanna raise hell in town, grow a family, kill your sims? You have those options and you do them basically the same way in every game. Expansion packs mostly just add content, bells and whistles and the like.
Civilization V, however, has shifted the very core of the series away from what a lot of fans enjoyed in its previous games. You Civ V loyalists even admit it when you constantly refer to it as "a new game" with a "new way of thinking." Yes, it is new. It is different. And the devs have used the promise of a true Civ sequel to slip their new different game under our unsuspecting noses. To return to the Sims example, it's like taking one of the Sims spinoff titles, say "The Sims 2: Castaway," and repackaging it as "The Sims 3."
Please elaborate. How has the core of the series changed?
Well, several fans seem to have liked the sandboxing/roleplaying/empire building sim aspect of the series which has been sacrificed for the raw strategy component as far as I can tell. Say what you will about how well the devs developed the strategy portion.
I still play a more sandbox/builder style, it's totally possible. I can accept that some may find it less enjoyable in Civ V than in IV, that's personal preference.
Exactly what I was thinking; Give the game a different name and it'd be playing the harmonica in the wire bargain bin in front of an EB door with the rest of the gaming has-beens in a month.
When it comes to Civ, due to it's legacy, I've sometimes felt guilty about being so critical of V, so I've re-installed it several times, thiking I've missed something. The most recent was after the last patch came out.
Nope, I was right. What a boring piece of garbage. The only things noteworthy were some of the wonder splash screens, and a bit of the art deco styling.
How are people saying the basic Civ mechanics have been sacrificed for raw strategy in Civ V??? While I agree that traditional Civ gameplay is missing in V, it also has absolutely ZERO strategy elements. It requires no strategic thought what so ever to zip through a Civ V game. The only reason a Civ V game takes so long on my rig is it's horrible optimizatiion and geratric lag... Strange, on a rig that runs Crysis, STALKER Pripyat, COD BO etc, on maximum settings with no rate drop.
The OP's blog review is reasonable.
I think it isn't possible to describe the differences that many people don't like without describing specific mechanics of gameplay. It doesn't boil down to vague descriptors of different styles of gameplay. It boils down to the nuts and bolts of the game -- for some its the clumsy UI, for others the fundamental mechanics such as global happiness, or for others its the various components that were removed, or its the incomplete civilopedia, or it's the poor AI, or the whacky diplomacy, or it's all that.
The point for many, I think, is that C5 is lacking in practically every area that C4 did not. Many feel that way -- not everyone, but.....Builders aren't happy because of build times and because it no longer is good strategy to be a builder predominantly -- building too much infrastructure is now a bad thing. Expansionists aren't happy because, even though the AI does it, and even though the mechanics promote it in many ways described above, expansionist humans lose out on SP advances, cultural victory opportunities, and NWs. Non-expansionists aren't happy because bigger empires are greatly advantaged in the tech, gold, and production race. Culture lovers aren't happy because to pursue culture victory means you're doomed to stay small, which can be awfully boring -- and there's no more cultural city-flopping. People who loved diplomacy aspects are disappointed by this empty and whacky diplomatic offering. Those who liked covert wars via espionage have nothing to do. People loved the religious side of things, but that's gone. Navy and airforce don't matter. Etc. etc.
I won't again describe the specific mechanics that make the above statements true -- you can read this guys review and a hundred others and a thousand threads and posts to begin to grasp the specific mechanics that people don't like.
An excellent summary, Atwork. Civ4 tried to cover a wide range of game playing styles. Some of them have proved better than others, but as long as the core concepts were implemented, that has given modders a whole lot to work with. But even unmodded, all of those concepts contribute to the local colour, the feeling that there is a little simulated world running.
It really feels that the Civ5 designers simply thought that there is only one true play style for Civ (and that's wargaming, even though the AI is rubbish at it). So the game just railroads players down the path that the designers approve of while preserving a few illusions of choice (like the SPs). This is bad game design (I think both Soren and Sid have both been quoted about the need to make the player feel they are making genuine choices - and lots of them) and it betrays a very poor, perhaps even cynical, attitude towards Firaxis' customers/fans.
That's why Sims 3 sucks so much...
As you have not tried multiplayer I think that you could have focussed more on the AI. The AI is blindingly stupid in combat, and that nullifies any singleplayer benefit of 1upt - the only real change in Civ 5. Once the player grasps the peaceful economic system of Civ5 singeplayer becomes boring.
Multiplayer I understand to be affected by stability and networking issues, besides the masses of minor bugs also found in singleplayer. I suppose multiplayer could be easier to fix than single, but fundamentally Civ is not suited to mp gaming because games last too long.
If you dont mind the occasional bug, and if youre new to the series or only a casual player, Civilization 5 could give you a lot of fun. However civfanatics will have to find a new hobby unless the game gets more attention. Patch 220.127.116.11 only chipped the iceberg of ai stupidity.
I didn't say it was impossible to play sandbox/builder styles. My very argument is that a lot of people find it less enjoyable, so I think you understand my point.
Aye, good post. I was only trying to speculate on a common thread between all the things you listed.
yet its fine to keep posting about a game you dislike , most people when they dont like a game move on . People who dont like civ 5 seem to keep playing it and then posting how bad it is . Trying very hard to convince everyone else to dislike it .
It's hard to move on from a game that you've been playing through its various iterations -- board game to C1....to C5 for pretty much your entire remembered life. In one form or another, I've been playing these games for 20 years. I want this franchise to enjoy continued success, but I feel that bad decision-making have lead to an underwhelming game, which may seriously jeopardize the long-term survivability of this franchise. And even if the franchise should survive, it seems that the decision was made to sacrifice depth and breadth of strategy in exchange for a more passive and casual fan base, which essentially excludes me from the target audience. But, I'd rather critique the game and support the modding community and those that desire depth and breadth as opposed to simply 'moving on.'
Basically Civ went from being an empire builder, to a raw turn based strategy game. Thats why the AI plays like a human, thats why the game is more predictable, thats why I am disappointed.
Indeed, the removal of civilization diplomatic blocks, formed by common religion and values, killed this aspect. They are now formed by raw self interest, and clearly hang around for the minimum amount of time they can get away with.
Also, Civ4 was very "quaint" about a lot of things. Perhaps that's why they were removed though. The techs that found religion, and the abilities civics provided could be construed as political statements by the developers.
I dont get why so many of the civ v fan boys always say you cant compare civ 5 to bts, civ 5 is the sequal its like they make a sequal to say madden then leave most of the features people liked from the previous version out. The review is good, civ v is trash right now hopefully an expansion and more patching to fix the other patches that broke the game even more will come out.
also it should be noted some people just check the forums once a week, or at downtimes during work.
Separate names with a comma.