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

My take on it

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by gunnergoz, Jan 9, 2011.

  1. m4gill4

    m4gill4 King

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2007
    Messages:
    772
    Location:
    CA
    I think ciV has plenty of depth. The problem is not that the game is shallow, it's that the game is tedious. Once you know the spastic AI will war with you randomly, it is never a surprise. Once you know that the AI cannot competently defend itself if you attack them, there is no suspense, no fun. Once you know how to manipulate the CS's and the resource trading, there is no need for even the barest economic infrastructure.

    If one plays to win, it's no fun after the first few times because winning is very formulaic, no matter the victory condition chosen. If one plays for immersion/roleplay, it's no fun because the AI breaks the immersion by doing idiotic things.
     
  2. JohnnyW

    JohnnyW Gave up on this game

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2010
    Messages:
    658
    Location:
    USA
    Solo4114, thank you for that very insightful post. Your thoughts sound pretty accurate to me.

    edit:
    This is very interesting information as well.
     
  3. Nares

    Nares Emperor

    Joined:
    May 2, 2006
    Messages:
    1,631
    CIV AI didn't have much of a memory either. You can argue that in some respect it did; it handled certain diplomatic events similar to how CS influence is managed in CiV. Further, they fudged tactical memory by giving the AI a hidden +2 sight range bonus on all difficulty levels. The AI didn't remember you moved your stack; it could plainly see where your stack was.

    What's interesting is that they never implemented such a sight range bonus in CiV, despite having greater need for tactical memory.
     
  4. Bibor

    Bibor Doomsday Machine

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2004
    Messages:
    2,948
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Zagreb, Croatia
    Once you know, things either become interesting or very boring. People who do very boring things and even go to such lengts to complain on a forum dedicated to the very game they are finding boring... well, it seems just like a huge waste of time to me. Life is too short to be spent on things you find not interesting or satisfying. Talking about it won't make it better.
     
  5. Solo4114

    Solo4114 Prince

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2002
    Messages:
    523
    I gave it another hour and started a new game. Another TSL game this time, again as Rome. I've determined that if you play a TSL game, Rome is basically screwed from the outset, even on a Huge map. You do not have sufficient land to work at the start to get anywhere, and strategically speaking (oh, and TACTICALLY speaking) you can't do squat. I shudder to think how bad the English have it, but frankly lack the patience to find out. Plus, given that the TSL mod doesn't work with an "advanced start" (since you can't actually LOAD the mod), you can't do balanced strategic resources, so you can end up with the strategic resource for your civ's UU located nowhere near you.

    And, of course, you can't play the Earth map the game shipped with if you want the civs to start in their ACTUAL locations (which, as mentioned, turns out to be no great loss, apparently, anyway, since the actual start locations can be pretty unbalanced on the Earth map).

    I suppose the game may play out better on randomly generated maps, but come on. A Civ game where you can't have an enjoyable game on an Earth map?? Previous Civ games had their issues with Earth maps, but this one just seems severely half-assed.

    There are other little things too that I just find irritating and tedious. I HAVE to pick a production project for a city, even if I have no more useful buildings to build and don't WANT to build a unit in that city, or else I can't advance the turn. I end up constructing buildings or units that I don't even care about or particularly want just so that I can click "next turn."

    Likewise, I can't advance my turn if an annoying city state has sent some demand that I kill yet another barbarian camp. Kill your own damn camps and leave me alone! Even if I don't open it, I still have to click through it to get to "next turn."

    Automated units move at the start of a turn instead of at the end of a turn AFTER you've clicked "next turn." Meaning that I have to catch them before I move all the other units that aren't automated, or the automated ones will just run off and do their thing...whether that's a good thing or not. I noticed this with some automated scouts that I wanted to have attack a barbarian camp. After I'd moved my other units, suddenly my scouts just took off before I'd clicked "next turn."

    At the same time, units and buildings take longer to build, while technologies are comparably MUCH faster. It can take the same amount of time to research a whole new technology as it does to train a military unit. In previous Civ games that would've been the result of clever and careful manipulation of your empire and cities, leveraging your commerce and science sliders, but in this game, it just seems like I can crank out new techs in 6-12 turns, while it takes me exactly the same amount of time to train a basic warrior. Just one. And oh, by the way, when you do finally build that one guy, he's the only guy allowed to stand on his tile (unless he's accompanied by a single non-combat unit, which also can't stack with other units of the same type). Yeah, you can't stack your workers to finish projects faster. You HAVE to do it slowly. Maybe I'm misremembering how previous Civ games handled early tech advancement as compared to early unit and building construction, but it seems like the tech moves very very fast, and the units are built very very slowly to start.

    Maybe it gets better, but I wouldn't know. Frankly, I got about 120 turns into this most recent game and just got irritated, bored, and quit. Admittedly, I was never a huge fan of the early game in any of the other Civ games, but it still could be worthwhile if you could manage an axe rush, found a religion, build a useful wonder (Oh, and as a former wonder junkie...boy did THIS game cure my addiction. The Pyramids make my workers build 50% faster? Oh be still my beating heart. :rolleyes:)

    Civ 5 just seems to me to be this weird mix of design decisions. Some stuff moves much faster in the game than in previous games, while other stuff seems to move a LOT slower. The UI is "streamlined" but simultaneously made more tedious due to the number of "Will you please just *$!#%@ing let me CLICK NEXT TURN, DAMMIT!!" clicks and decisions you have to make before you can advance the game. Combat is supposedly more tactical since you have to maneuver your armies in specific formations so they don't get slaughtered, but the Earth map at least is too small to actually field armies large enough to accomplish your goals. City states in the early game are roadblocks and not-worth-it moneysinks, and I gather in the late game are just farms for diplo votes and resources. The game comes off as a mix of new "features" (which themselves run the gamut from annoying to not really being an improvement but not really breaking anything) and not-enough-new features.

    Again, it strikes me as if the game is the combination of a lot of discrete decisions that just weren't particularly well thought through. That suggests to me that this product was rushed out the door and/or was operating on limited resources which were primarily focused on making the graphics pretty and accomplishing a checklist of "features" that had to be added, without regard for how they fit together as a whole game.


    And yes, you can mod it to make it better. But you know what? You shouldn't HAVE to mod it to make it better, especially when what you're modding are poorly implemented, poorly thought-out design decisions about the core game. Again, did people here pay for a tech demo and graphics overhaul, or did they pay for a coherent game that's fun to play and worthy of the Civ title? And as has been discussed elsewhere, ask yourself this: if the game had been shipped under a different title altogether, would you say "Wow! Great game!" or would you be saying "Eh, it's ok. Decent effort, I guess, but it's clearly just a knock off of the much better Civ series."


    Anyway, on this last game, I got about 120 turns in, got bored, and quit. This seems to be the common trend for me. This has also NEVER happened with a Civ game for me. Other Civ games, even with their tweaks and differences, were able to pull me in on my first playthru. Other similar 4X and strategy games grabbed me right out of the gate, in spite of their imperfections. GalCiv 1 and EU3 both held my attention and made me want to dig deeper. The only thing that makes me want to keep playing Civ 5 is the vain hope that "maybe it gets better," but you know what? My gaming time is too limited to be wasted on games that can't entertain me within the first five hours of play. Five hours into Civ 5 and I'm having to pep-talk myself into clicking "next turn" or firing up a new game. There's just no good reason why that should be the case here. Even with Civ 3, my least favorite of the Civ series up until now, it was still able to grab me and make me play through to the modern era once or twice. With Civ 5, I have to force myself to keep playing, and each time I do, I just ask myself why I bothered after I finally Alt-F4 my way out of the game.
     
  6. Solo4114

    Solo4114 Prince

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2002
    Messages:
    523
    Alternatively, such people may find complaining on the forum more entertaining and satisfying than playing the game itself. What does THAT say?
     
  7. Nares

    Nares Emperor

    Joined:
    May 2, 2006
    Messages:
    1,631
    Not talking about it definitely won't make it better. Talking about it might make it better.
     
  8. fed1943

    fed1943 Emperor

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2005
    Messages:
    1,185
    Location:
    Lisbon
    True. Because talking (I like this, I do not like that, that point works good or bad) can share ideas
    that people who knows behind the game there is a program (I'm not one of them) can take profit/inspiration to make a game better.
     
  9. Solo4114

    Solo4114 Prince

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2002
    Messages:
    523
    Or modders, for that matter, since I'd bet we'll get more mileage out of them.
     
  10. Rystic

    Rystic Turtle Wizard

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2008
    Messages:
    677
    Location:
    New Jersey
    Out of curiosity, what difficulty did you play Civ4 on?
     
  11. rschissler

    rschissler King

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2003
    Messages:
    788
    Location:
    So. Cal, USA
    Though a bit long-winded this is worth reading, as there are a lot of excellent points here. To summarize, key aspects of the CivV were made separately, without regards to how they affected other aspects of the game.
     
  12. Luckystrike77

    Luckystrike77 Prince

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2007
    Messages:
    549
    Location:
    Kingdom of Norway
    I do not agree that the culture system is deeper in Civ4. I would like that explained better. One of the great things with Civ5 is how you expand 1 tile per time (It's not good enough anymore to expand the culture just 2 times from each city), and how culture has importance for the social policies. It's also a harder choice to prioritze culture with the upkeep for buildings and longer building times. Wonders also gives less culture, so you really need those temples, opera houses and museums.
     
  13. Bibor

    Bibor Doomsday Machine

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2004
    Messages:
    2,948
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Zagreb, Croatia
    Oh yessss! Culture victory in civ4 was very deep:
    1. build 9 cities.
    2. build 27 temples (3 of each religion in 3 cities)
    3. build all culture buildings in 3 cities
    4. build 3 cathedral-level buildings in 3 cities
    5. put slider to max culture
    6. build hermitage in lowest culture city
    7. build wonders in spare time
    8. press enter for as long as it takes (sometimes over a 100 turns)

    Deeeeep!
     
  14. m4gill4

    m4gill4 King

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2007
    Messages:
    772
    Location:
    CA
    Actually it is a sad state of affairs that I find complaining about civ 5 to be vastly more entertaining than playing it. :crazyeye: And until voicing my opinions about it in relevant threads becomes against the rules at CFC I intend to continue doing so regardless of what you and dale and pawelS think about it.
     
  15. MaximumPain

    MaximumPain Warlord

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2008
    Messages:
    158
    Then you truly lead a very sad and boring life!

    Moderator Action: Please don't insult other members.
    Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
     
  16. JohnnyW

    JohnnyW Gave up on this game

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2010
    Messages:
    658
    Location:
    USA
    lol? His life is boring because Civ5 is so bland?
     
  17. m4gill4

    m4gill4 King

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2007
    Messages:
    772
    Location:
    CA
    :lol:
    Says the guy defending a game where winning is like beating a jar of mayonnaise in Trivial Pursuit.
     
  18. CivFanaticMan

    CivFanaticMan Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2009
    Messages:
    249
    Location:
    Charleston, SC
    Civ5 is the exact same, except you get to pick policies, starting out with the ones that give you culture, and then you begin completing the tree. Then you get to build a world wonder. Of course to maximise your culture gain you give city states gold, which means choosing policies that boost commerce before the less important ones. Then you build a wonder and win.

    There is the illusion of it being Civ5s victory being deeper than Civ4's but really, the depth of both games is about the same.
     
  19. MaximumPain

    MaximumPain Warlord

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2008
    Messages:
    158
    Then you need to turn up the difficulty level. Or try a strategy you didn't look up on the internet.
     
  20. cman2010

    cman2010 King

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2010
    Messages:
    740
    dead on
     

Share This Page