nvm

[timtofly]

One: How do we know people are voting on their experience of Civ 4 Vanilla?

Two: The Poll Results you have given already show that people liked 4 more than 5.

Three: This is a troll, since I am not part of "we the people" since I did not play 4 Vanilla.

 

[lschnarch]

Btw I wonder why there are so many threads and polls here with the sole purpose to prove that Civ5 is worse than Civ4. Why is is to important to you, what do you want to achieve by doing this?

Not letting the developers forget that they messed it up?

 

[Yngvi]

Before I go on, I must note: I have been a big, at times despairing, critic of Civ V, but the patch has helped considerably. Tweaked properly, this game has real potential.
Also, I have been a big fan of both Civ II and Civ IV.
Further, I do not seek to generalize, but I do see some trends that appear.
Which brings me to my point: what bothers me is this Civ IV ideation. Nobody seems to remember:
"I hate espionage. All Sitting Bull does is poison my water."
"I hate religion. It is just an exploit to make Izzy love you."
"I hate tech trading. Mansa Musa is a tech whore."
"The AI is stupid. They just get bonuses on harder levels."
"I hate SoDs..." well, you get the point.
And for anybody complaining, "You can just buy everything:" IIRC, you could buy everything on Civ II, also. On Civ IV, you could whip everything the first half of the game, and buy everything the second half of the game.
Civ V has serious flaws worthy of criticism, but some of the posts are over the top.
I voted +2, despite my fondness for Civ IV. Some call it boring and unengaging. I feel far more engaged in some ways to Civ V than IV now that (after the patch) my intelligence doesn't feel insulted.

 

[Capt Ajax]

My honest opinion....I like Civ 5 Better and think that, although it's got lots of kinks, it's a step in the right direction. Here's why:

- Religion was fun by ended up consuming CIV 4 IMO
- I HATE stacked units. The new combat system is WAY funner.
- I like the way culture affects policies
- I like the way policies are arranged and represent things like Religion..
- I LOVE the way Cities defend themselves even without any units there.
- I Like the introduction of City States.

I guess there are a lot of people who do not like these changes...but I do. I think these changes have made the game funner and added new elements to a game that I thought was already perfect.

What I do not like is the kinks and bugs that plague this game. I think there is something wrong with the AI reactions and the AI trade reasoning.

The ONLY change to the new game I DO NOT like is the whole trade system...there is no way of keeping up with the resources you have and / or have traded. There is no way of knowing exactly how the AI feels toward you.

ALL in ALL I voted +3 cause I think the foundation of the game is much better and after the bugs are worked out of it......it will be even better.

 

[Cosian]

...... Btw I wonder why there are so many threads and polls here with the sole purpose to prove that Civ5 is worse than Civ4. Why is is to important to you, what do you want to achieve by doing this?

It is the nature of those folks desperately seeking confirmation and affirmation that others feel as they do. Have you also noticed that most people that are enjoying the game don't post on these threads anymore, but rather, the usual suspects show up in force in these threads in a show solidarity for a position they also agree with.

Another thing I notice with user reviews is the propensity for people who don't like the game will show up in force to supply a low rating as opposed to those who like it and really don't care what other people think. People complain about professional reviews, but after reading user reviews you have to wonder ....... Note the plethora of user reviews which make statements like .....

"I hate Steam and didn't by the game so I gave it a big zero"

"They took religion out of the game so it gets a 5 from me"

"The game did not run on my PC. Zero"

Thats really not useful information but actually digging through user reviews you'll see all kinds of stuff like that.

At the end of the day you do your research as best you can, spend the $50, and then decide if you like or hate the game .... and no one elses opinion matters.....

I like CIV 5 and I am sure I will get my $50 worth!

 

[vincentz]

I have avoided a great deal of games based on bad reviews and comments, and never found a game that had massive critique fun.

I have hit my head against a wall even more times when I went out and bought a game that sucked despite reading the bad reviews (and stupidly ignoring them).

Hopefully people read both the 9+ grade paid "professional" previews AND the uncontent consumers comments.

I wish I never had bought civ V.

-4

 

[mattavich]

bored of stupid polls

 

[Capt Ajax]

It is the nature of those folks desperately seeking confirmation and affirmation that others feel as they do. Have you also noticed that most people that are enjoying the game don't post on these threads anymore, but rather, the usual suspects show up in force in these threads in a show solidarity for a position they also agree with.

Another thing I notice with user reviews is the propensity for people who don't like the game will show up in force to supply a low rating as opposed to those who like it and really don't care what other people think. People complain about professional reviews, but after reading user reviews you have to wonder ....... Note the plethora of user reviews which make statements like .....

"I hate Steam and didn't by the game so I gave it a big zero"

"They took religion out of the game so it gets a 5 from me"

"The game did not run on my PC. Zero"

Thats really not useful information but actually digging through user reviews you'll see all kinds of stuff like that.

At the end of the day you do your research as best you can, spend the $50, and then decide if you like or hate the game .... and no one elses opinion matters.....

I like CIV 5 and I am sure I will get my $50 worth!

I like Civ 5 but I disagree with your statement. I think that there are many valid complaints about the release of this game. I think that the true CIV FANATICS make up the vast majority of the people who frequent this forum.....not just casual passers by.

AND I believe that the loyal following (the real fans) have a right to be angry with all the problems with the release of CIV 5.

AND anyone who is not upset about this highly anticipated game's shortcomings is not a true fan........I mean, how could you be a loyal fan and not be disappointed with all the bugs and kinks.....and then being asked to PAY for new civs?? Whatever, I have come to expect better from Sid Myers and Firaxis.

 

[McLMan]

It is the nature of those folks desperately seeking confirmation and affirmation that others feel as they do. Have you also noticed that most people that are enjoying the game don't post on these threads anymore, but rather, the usual suspects show up in force in these threads in a show solidarity for a position they also agree with.

Well put. Right now there are 22,072 people playing Civ V (with Steam "online" no telling how many are off line). Are we to believe, by this poll, that 15,093 of them are having a bad time? Not hardly. Civ V is a good game.

 

[lschnarch]

Well put. Right now there are 22,072 people playing Civ V (with Steam "online" no telling how many are off line). Are we to believe, by this poll, that 15,093 of them are having a bad time? Not hardly. Civ V is a good game.

One of the "players" has been me, and actually the past 5 hours I have been visiting the forum, have been in the kitchen, had dinner and have watched a movie.

Now I am in the forum again, while in the background still the music is playing.

 

[Bad Brett]

I see city states as the only area with genuine potential. You could say that something like the UN has potential too but that's only because it's unbelievable simplistic at the moment. Most of the other features of the game need rework and repair before any potential can be released. Social policies seem a reasonable concept but even they need some readjustment before any extra innovation.

Completely new ideas can be brought in of course but if they're introduced into a flawed/bugged system they're likely to have a difficult birth. The designers also seem to like very simplified components (units with one combat value, buildings with one function, etc) so if they stick to that concept they're limiting what they can add to the game.

Exactly. And if you read the posts from 2005, very few people actually complained about these changes.

 

[Cosian]

I like Civ 5 but I disagree with your statement. I think that there are many valid complaints about the release of this game. I think that the true CIV FANATICS make up the vast majority of the people who frequent this forum.....not just casual passers by.

AND I believe that the loyal following (the real fans) have a right to be angry with all the problems with the release of CIV 5.

AND anyone who is not upset about this highly anticipated game's shortcomings is not a true fan........I mean, how could you be a loyal fan and not be disappointed with all the bugs and kinks.....and then being asked to PAY for new civs?? Whatever, I have come to expect better from Sid Myers and Firaxis.

Your spot on, there are many valid complaints. There are bugs and the AI sucks, but IMO the overall design decisions made are a breath of fresh air. Regretably it's not just CIV 5 that hit the streets of late with a laundry list of bugs. Further, what major strategy release has hit the streets with a less than stellar AI of late? It seems to be a problem with many of the game developers out there. Perhaps a better solution is for consumers to stop buying pre or early releases of new games if they are not willing to wait for patches and mods. Eventually devs will get the message ...

 

[Jediron]

If you call implementing a old "battle-mechanic" ala PG "fresh air" , so be it :crazyeyes:

What disturbes me the most is that after all these years, they could NOT bring out a CIV with a more balanced game system. The issue's are there, for anyone WILLING to see them. That's a difference, some people just don't see it. That does not mean the issue's are there ;-)

Mistakes in the past, are repeated again or; even worse. That's exactly why i dislike CIV 5. Is it too much to ask for a improved game, instead of a "new" game, with alot of the same mishaps as in previous CIV's ? I think not and this is the reason i am disappointed. Despite all the new, cool ideas. Which there is. Only if ....

 

[fantsu]

Why only -4?
I would give this game 3.5 or something in the present state.

 

[klokwerk]

Civ V > Civ IV in nearly every way.

Therefore I voted +4.

We didn't need another Civ 4 vs Civ 5 thread though, or another stupid poll. I guess somebody needs attention.

 

[vincentz]

Civ V > Civ IV in nearly every way.

Therefore I voted +4.

We didn't need another Civ 4 vs Civ 5 thread though, or another stupid poll. I guess somebody needs attention.

Lol. Make up your mind. Either you dont want polls (and therefore you ignore it and don't post in it) OR you do want it (in which case you would vote.)

 

[klokwerk]

I voted but those threads are boring now.