Not Happy with Lack of Animations

[crazy_achmed]

Right, games are not just the existence of mechanics, its the presentation of them too. And the immersion, i mean there are plenty of board games outthere, if someone do not want animations he could just play one of them.

 

[Cashew]

Semantics... You get the drift though don't you? What more do you want your royal haughtiness?

Uh, clarity?

Right, games are not just the existence of mechanics, its the presentation of them too. And the immersion, i mean there are plenty of board games outthere, if someone do not want animations he could just play one of them.

The expectation of the end user is the only issue when it comes to graphical presentation. Some people think the rivers in CiV look bad, some don't care. It's purely subjective how good or bad the presentation is.

As for "immersion," you're playing a strategy game, not an MMORPG or Dungeons and Dragons. If the single players want to go ahead and put on wizard hats then by all means go ahead, but the dedicated MP community hasn't ever asked for more immersion elements.

 

[crazy_achmed]

I just think you do not know what "game" means.
Without the leaders, and nations and unit types civ would be just stats and a set of rules. If you think there is no immersion in computer stragic games, why do not you remove all the grafics, not just the animations. Why do not you call the nations: nation 1, nation 2 and so on, or better give them more abstract names like: "nation class object 1".

You see there is immersion in all computer games. Without it would be less fun. Strategic efforts just legitimate and paying out if there is something to them for. and thats again immersion, the imagination of doing something important.

 

[Arrowhead]

Uh, clarity?

Way to answer a rhetorical question.

Was it really that confusing for you? You seem to know exactly what was being conveyed, but you choose to nitpick on the semantics like a little troll. Get over yourself.

I depend on MP, I cannot play it in its current state. I'll say it again, to me the game is BROKEN. Not literally if you want to get all technical and ignore the CTDs, dropouts, and turn freeze ups, but it may as well be utterly broken, because until it's patched, it's a waste of time to even play.

 

[Cashew]

I just think you do not know what "game" means.
Without the leaders, and nations and unit types civ would be just stats and a set of rules.

To me it is just stats and rules. I've never thought of myself as being the leader of a civilization; it's a game and I play it like one so I can win... Every competitive game is like that.

If you think there is no immersion in computer stragic games, why do not you remove all the grafics, not just the animations. Why do not you call the nations: nation 1, nation 2 and so on, or better give them more abstract names like: "nation class object 1". You see there is immersion in all computer games. Without it would be less fun. Strategic efforts just legitimate and paying out if there is something to them for. and thats again immersion, the imagination of doing something important.

The graphics are there to expedite the process of recognition. Beyond game elements being readily recognizable as what they're supposed to be I could care less how good the graphics are. The functionality of graphics does not equate to game immersion.

And the imagination of doing something important is an even more ridiculous argument. People like to win and the process of winning itself is exciting in MP. As long as the victory comes through your own efforts it doesn't need to be important to be rewarding. I've enjoyed Civ IV for years knowing I was wasting my life.

Way to answer a rhetorical question.

Was it really that confusing for you? You seem to know exactly what was being conveyed, but you choose to nitpick on the semantics like a little troll. Get over yourself.

I depend on MP, I cannot play it in its current state. I'll say it again, to me the game is BROKEN. Not literally if you want to get all technical and ignore the CTDs, dropouts, and turn freeze ups, but it may as well be utterly broken, because until it's patched, it's a waste of time to even play.

An interesting defense for your own failure to communicate. And honestly, I can really only guess what's going through you people's minds because a lot of what you're saying already seems patently ridiculous to me.

As for the mp sucking, yeah, I agree with that basic premise. I just don't agree that lack of animations is a part of that reason.

 

[Arrowhead]

An interesting defense for your own failure to communicate. And honestly, I can really only guess what's going through you people's minds because a lot of what you're saying already seems patently ridiculous to me.

As for the mp sucking, yeah, I agree with that basic premise. I just don't agree that lack of animations is a part of that reason.

There was no actual failure in communication as you and everyone else knew very well what message was being conveyed, I'm sure of it. All I see here is an issue/argument that was utterly fabricated by your prescriptive semantic attack that was seemingly meant more as a type of ad hominem to discredit the very real issues and feelings being expressed here.

Why not tell us about your own experiences in MP so far? Were your games mostly successful? How many turns did you get up to? Did the lack of animations never provide any source of confusion for you in large battles with regards to ranged bombardments and troop movements? They certainly did for me and many others, and that's all people are trying to express here.

 

[Cashew]

Ad hominem my foot, the argument itself is moronic. Forget the misuse of language then. Also, forget the general MP experience I've already admitted it needs a lot of work before it's acceptable.

Let's just look at what you people are suggesting: bring back combat animations.

First of all, the idea that not seeing attacks and movements is confusing is ridiculous. It's almost the exact same thing as the Civ IV no combat animations experience just with ranged added in. I can't see why you think the ranged part matters though.

Second, you're completely ignoring the reason the animations were removed in the first place which is the pacing issue. This game already suffers from enough flaws that make fast game-play impossible WITHOUT adding something that will slow it down even more.

If after the game is patched up and the MP experience is smoother you guys are still around you can have your animations then.

 

[Arrowhead]

Let's just look at what you people are suggesting: bring back combat animations.

First of all, the idea that not seeing attacks and movements is confusing is ridiculous. It's almost the exact same thing as the Civ IV no combat animations experience just with ranged added in. I can't see why you think the ranged part matters though.

Second, you're completely ignoring the reason the animations were removed in the first place which is the pacing issue. This game already suffers from enough flaws that make fast game-play impossible WITHOUT adding something that will slow it down even more.

If after the game is patched up and the MP experience is smoother you guys are still around you can have your animations then.

I'm afraid the absent of animations isn't simply a gameplay design choice afterall or it would undoubtedly had been a serverside option or something more reasonable.

Right now there is no way to play multiplayer with unit move and attack animations. There is a technical reason for this that is complicated (it's not just a checkbox they can throw in,) but the developers will be evaluating what it will take to allow animations in multiplayer in the future. No promises at this point, but I will pass along your comments.

http://forums.2kgames.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1136753&postcount=2

And no this isn't the same as Civ IV. This is Civ V and it has, as you know, 1UPT gameplay now. That means positioning of units has suddenly become much more important and it can be imperative in certain situations to know exactly where attacks come from. Without the animations, it can indeed be confusing! The people here aren't just making this stuff up to rub you the wrong way or something. No animations is hurting the gameplay for people and driving them away from even playing it!

Also, Civ V does not have the so called "stacks of doom" with the seemingly countless units which have to run through animations in battle and can indeed take forever. There are much fewer units fielded in a typical game now compared to Civ IV, which means that the wait times for the animations are naturally much shorter, even in late games.

These are complaints that I and many on here have developed through actual experience in MP! How is this "moronic"? Is what I said really too unreasonable? Is everybody stupid, and you're not? Who do you think you are? That's good for you if you have no problem with the absence of animations. Really, I'm happy for you. However, I wonder if you played the same game I was playing and how you figured everything out so easily. Perhaps I should envy you?

What I can strongly recommend you come to maybe realize, is that obviously not everyone feels the same way as you or has had such a positive experience with this system as is evident by all of the complaints. Furthermore, just because we feel differently doesn't mean our opinions are beneath you in some way (Moronic? Really?) and are deserving of your condescending scorn.

 

[Cashew]

I'm afraid the absent of animations isn't simply a gameplay design choice afterall or it would undoubtedly had been a serverside option or something more reasonable.
http://forums.2kgames.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1136753&postcount=2

I'm less opposed to it as a host-side option, but again as they already said there were technical problems I'd rather they spend their time fixing the problems we already have without going into this as well.

Also, I already knew having tried my hand at developing some basic games myself what a tremendous pain in the ass even seemingly simple things can be. Everyone just says, "well, throw this in too!" like it doesn't take time and resources to accomplish.

And no this isn't the same as Civ IV. This is Civ V and it has, as you know, 1UPT gameplay now. That means positioning of units has suddenly become much more important and it can be imperative in certain situations to know exactly where attacks come from. Without the animations, it can indeed be confusing! The people here aren't just making this stuff up to rub you the wrong way or something. No animations is hurting the gameplay for people and driving them away from even playing it!

The only reason it's any more imperative to know where attacks are coming from is that you can double move right now. Once they fix that it will be like it was in Civ IV. Plus, this is a symmetrical situation so it's kind of on you to take advantage of it rather than let more competent players use it against you.

Also, Civ V does not have the so called "stacks of doom" with the seemingly countless units which have to run through animations in battle and can indeed take forever. There are much fewer units fielded in a typical game now compared to Civ IV, which means that the wait times for the animations are naturally much shorter, even in late games.

No noob with combat animations on knew how to build a stack. That's not what I was talking about so you can forget that strawman right now. One unit attacking me is in itself a problem.

These are complaints that I and many on here have developed through actual experience in MP! How is this "moronic"? Is what I said really too unreasonable? Is everybody stupid, and you're not? Who do you think you are? That's good for you if you have no problem with the absence of animations. Really, I'm happy for you. However, I wonder if you played the same game I was playing and how you figured everything out so easily. Perhaps I should envy you?

I really get tired of the non-competitive players complaining about a lack of features that makes the game more like single player. No, it's not unreasonable, it's just redundant. Civ is killing off its competitive market and to me that's a travesty.

What I can strongly recommend you come to maybe realize, is that obviously not everyone feels the same way as you or has had such a positive experience with this system as is evident by all of the complaints.

Slow down there, buddy. 1) I never said everyone agrees with me, obviously there are a people that disagree or I wouldn't have to listen to this in the first place. 2) My experience with the SYSTEM has not been positive. I acknowledge there are many many fixes needed for this MP engine to function like it should. I am addressing combat animations and only combat animations.

Furthermore, just because we feel differently doesn't mean our opinions are beneath you in some way (Moronic? Really?) and are deserving of your condescending scorn.

The arguments themselves are moronic even if the opinion isn't. You two basically said it was ruining the game (if I understand what you mean by "game-breaking" which I guess I don't). To imply that this feature is going to ruin the game through its presence or absence is complete nonsense.

 

[Arrowhead]

I'm less opposed to it as a host-side option, but again as they already said there were technical problems I'd rather they spend their time fixing the problems we already have without going into this as well.

How you'd prefer the devs allocate their time is not the issue here. They already said they are working on it. Are you aware of just how many people are upset about this? Snoop around, there's a lot of us! I don't think they have any choice but to make this a priority if they care.

Also, I already knew having tried my hand at developing some basic games myself what a tremendous pain in the ass even seemingly simple things can be. Everyone just says, "well, throw this in too!" like it doesn't take time and resources to accomplish.

That's their job. That's why they get paid to do what to they do and why we pay good money for their products.

The only reason it's any more imperative to know where attacks are coming from is that you can double move right now. Once they fix that it will be like it was in Civ IV. Plus, this is a symmetrical situation so it's kind of on you to take advantage of it rather than let more competent players use it against you.

If you have multiple archers on your flanks, unless you're quick enough to catch the numbers floating over the units heads indicating an engagement, it's still not entirely obvious who attacked who sometimes. That's just from my experience. I can't stand it like this either way.

No noob with combat animations on knew how to build a stack. That's not what I was talking about so you can forget that strawman right now. One unit attacking me is in itself a problem.

Subjective. A few extra seconds never posed a problem for me, but if it did, that's why it's always nice to have options. Am I right? I agree though, it should be serverside absolutely. Not just like Civ 4. I'm not interested in ruining games for the competitive types who actually prefer it this way.

I really get tired of the non-competitive players complaining about a lack of features that makes the game more like single player. No, it's not unreasonable, it's just redundant. Civ is killing off its competitive market and to me that's a travesty.

Without a solid casual player base, the competitive player numbers are doomed to failure. Most people don't jump into games competitively from day 1. Again, options are the key. Competitive players can always play their super fast non-"redundant" games if they wish with eachother thanks to the options.

Slow down there, buddy. 1) I never said everyone agrees with me, obviously there are a people that disagree or I wouldn't have to listen to this in the first place.

Obviously. I think you have a tendency to take things too directly though, and that's the key problem here in this dialogue. What I intended for you to take from what I was saying, is that you appear to be acting like someone who doesn't realize that other people's different experiences can be just as valid as your own. You don't have to prove to me otherwise, you just come off as rather condescending. That was the indirect point I was making. Read between the lines.

The arguments themselves are moronic even if the opinion isn't. You two basically said it was ruining the game (if I understand what you mean by "game-breaking" which I guess I don't). To imply that this feature is going to ruin the game through its presence or absence is complete nonsense.

Again, this is all based on subjective experience. I'm telling you that it has ruined the game for me. I'm not playing it online until it's fixed and the absence of animations is a big part of it, there's no way around it. So yes, the game is effectively ruined for me, and for I'm sure many others. Why do you insist on dismissing this as "nonsense"? It makes sense to me, am I a moron? What's actually nonsense is you apparently thnking this shouldn't be a priority for the devs when so many people are complaining about it.

http://forums.2kgames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=87822
http://forums.2kgames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=88834
http://forums.2kgames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=87564
http://forums.2kgames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=86883
http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1439967
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=380146

The devs would be foolish to ignore this. Thankfully, they are not, so that's not the issue here either.

 

[Cashew]

How you'd prefer the devs allocate their time is not the issue here. They already said they are working on it. Are you aware of just how many people are upset about this? Snoop around, there's a lot of us! I don't think they have any choice but to make this a priority if they care.

Pfft, people are complaining about game crashes and all kinds of things. Using Civ IV as a time reference it'll be quite a while before any of this stuff is actually implemented. Meanwhile, we can argue about it

If you have multiple archers on your flanks, unless you're quick enough to catch the numbers floating over the units heads indicating an engagement, it's still not entirely obvious who attacked who sometimes. That's just from my experience. I can't stand it like this either way.

Out of curiosity, do you generally try to kill the ranged units first or the melee?

Without a solid casual player base, the competitive player numbers are doomed to failure. Most people don't jump into games competitively from day 1. Again, options are the key. Competitive players can always play their super fast non-"redundant" games if they wish with eachother thanks to the options.

I thought that's what single player was.

Again, this is all based on subjective experience. I'm telling you that it has ruined the game for me. I'm not playing it online until it's fixed and the absence of animations is a big part of it, there's no way around it. So yes, the game is effectively ruined for me, and for I'm sure many others. Why do you insist on dismissing this as "nonsense"? It makes sense to me, am I a moron? What's actually nonsense is you apparently thnking this shouldn't be a priority for the devs when so many people are complaining about it.

There's a goddamned MOUNTAIN of complaint threads and this is hardly the tip of the proverbial iceberg. There are slews of single players that are saying they want their money back. And, although not more fun in my opinion, it's definitely less buggy and gives you more control over the game. That said, I really question just how quickly multiplayer issues are even going to be addressed much less combat animations. I could be wrong, but we'll see I guess.

 

[Maxor127]

I'm not happy either. It's the last straw for me to officially piss me off about this game. I've tried to ignore all of the issues, but it's unavoidable now. 2K Greg should be fired for such a stupid design decision. At least Civ4 had actual options to change that sort of thing..

 

[malitano]

I love the game so far and played Civ multiplayer exclusively since civ3 but sweet baby jesus, I hope they can please change the animation asap.

This reminds of of one of the best turn based strategy games of all time called Birthright in the mid 90s. For some reason Sierra came up with the genius idea of dumbing down the terrain and unit combat to reduce lag into something that was simply unplayable. Back then it made a little sense because everyone played on dial up but they did not project plan correct and did not forsee that in only a year or two broadband would be more readily available.

 

[Parsleybill]

I too am utterly disappointed by the retrograde multiplayer experience compared with earlier versions of this proud franchise. So much so that I have joined the forum here just to make this point!

Friday night is 'civ night' and I regularly play team multiplayer against AI teams with my brother and friend. We chat on skype as we play and are in no rush to get through the game, simply saving and continuing the next week. A quick scan of this post and others on the 2k forums shows there are many who play the game like this. I cannot bring myself to continue playing multiplayer anymore in this impoverished state. I respect the fact that there are competitive players who want fast turns and would not want to remove this option for them, but I am disppointed that they have ignored the many who enjoy the journey!

 

[DonaldKipper]

the mind boggles that the thing you guys find to complain about with Multi-player is unit animations

seriously, you think that's the biggest issue?


if they do allow unit animations in MP (which they shouldn't) it HAS to be possible for the host to force animations off for the hosted game.

 

[Chiyochan]

As a multiplayer I dont see the problem with animations in civ 5, in fact, its sort of necissary to see whats going on. in civ 4. the camera was locked whenever something was attacked or was attacking. in civ 5, you can attack things simultanously, and often i will attack one barbarian, click the next unit button, and attack another, then hear the ching of gold from the first as he wins the battle and takes the hut.

if they dont give us any indication of who is attacking what they need to throw in some custom simpler animations if the game cant handle it.

 

[DonaldKipper]

have you actually played Civ V multiplayer?

i have at no stage had any trouble knowing what was going on

 

[Leiche]

99% of the time I play Civ in multiplayer with my wife and it really sucks that I have to play singel player to see the animations!
We play as a team against the AI, so nothing different to singleplayer except the animations.
So why they didn't build in an option to choose you rather wanna play with or without animations in multiplayer games?

This is so stupid ...

 

[Cashew]

As a multiplayer I dont see the problem with animations in civ 5, in fact, its sort of necissary to see whats going on. in civ 4. the camera was locked whenever something was attacked or was attacking. in civ 5, you can attack things simultanously, and often i will attack one barbarian, click the next unit button, and attack another, then hear the ching of gold from the first as he wins the battle and takes the hut.

if they dont give us any indication of who is attacking what they need to throw in some custom simpler animations if the game cant handle it.

That's not true. In Civ IV the camera wouldn't lock unless you set that in the options. It was completely unnecessary then and it's completely unnecessary now.

 

[Tridus]

the mind boggles that the thing you guys find to complain about with Multi-player is unit animations

seriously, you think that's the biggest issue?


if they do allow unit animations in MP (which they shouldn't) it HAS to be possible for the host to force animations off for the hosted game.

I wasn't aware that we were only allowed to talk about a single issue at a time.

But since it keeps coming up, clearly the animations matter to a lot of people. If they don't matter to you, feel free to move on to one of the many other issues that you care about more.