Play Civ 5 for its merits?

[jdp29]

Why can't people just play Civ 5 for its merits? People complain about it being something it is not supposed to be.

It is not supposed to be a micromanagement intensive game.

It is not supposed to be a game where you stack units.

It is not supposed to be a retread and rehash of Civ 4. If you like Civ 4 better, play that.

As a wise man once said "Those days are gone forever, I should just let them go." Don Henley.

 

[Fistalis]

It is not supposed to be a micromanagement intensive game.

translation=It is not supposed to be civilizations but if they didn't attach the name they wouldn't have sold as many copies.
If they wanted to make a new game fine.. then they shouldn't have attached the civilizations name to it. Simply because there are certain expectations from long time fans when it comes to what a Civilizations game is. If they woulda named it "civ tactics" or some such silliness there wouldnt be an issue.. but they made a SEQUEL which is expected to play like a SEQUEL not a brand new game. I mean come on.. if they made a new HALO or COD and it was a RPG instead of a shooter people would be pissed. I'm sure there would be people like you saying "oh play the new halo on its own merits" but wtf people bought it cause they thought it was a SHOOTER not an rpg.

 

[Akka]

Why can't people just play Civ 5 for its merits? People complain about it being something it is not supposed to be.

Hello, it is called Civilization 5, as such it's pretty normal that people have expectation about it.
If they didn't want for people to expect Civilization, they should have chosen another title.

It's baffling that we have to explain this to you, seriously.

 

[jtwood]

It is not supposed to be a micromanagement intensive game.

What game have you been playing for the last decade?

Because that's exactly what I expect from Civ games.

 

[Abegweit]

What, pray tell, are these "merits" you speak of?

 

[Tridus]

It's not supposed to be a game where the AI has the slightest clue of how to use it's units in combat, or realize that air and naval units exist?

It's not supposed to be a game where multiplayer has animations or tolerable amounts of lag?

Okay... just what IS it supposed to be?

 

[DripInc.]

translation=It is not supposed to be civilizations but if they didn't attach the name they wouldn't have sold as many copies.
If they wanted to make a new game fine.. then they shouldn't have attached the civilizations name to it. Simply because there are certain expectations from long time fans when it comes to what a Civilizations game is. If they woulda named it "civ tactics" or some such silliness there wouldnt be an issue.. but they made a SEQUEL which is expected to play like a SEQUEL not a brand new game. I mean come on.. if they made a new HALO or COD and it was a RPG instead of a shooter people would be pissed. I'm sure there would be people like you saying "oh play the new halo on its own merits" but wtf people bought it cause they thought it was a SHOOTER not an rpg.

^My thoughts exactly. If you're going to keep the name of the game in the sequel, you should keep the majority of the basic fundamentals that made the game great. Now I'm not saying I don't like the hex tiles of the 1upt, I just fail to see the need for such large changes.

 

[charon2112]

No ones making you guys un-install Civ IV, go play it. I still do. V is supposed to be a completely fresh start, which this series needed.

 

[zonk]

Why can't people just play Civ 5 for its merits? People complain about it being something it is not supposed to be.

It is not supposed to be a micromanagement intensive game.

It is not supposed to be a game where you stack units.

It is not supposed to be a retread and rehash of Civ 4. If you like Civ 4 better, play that.

As a wise man once said "Those days are gone forever, I should just let them go." Don Henley.

First, I guess I'd say -- since when is a Civilization title NOT supposed to be a micromanagement intensive game.... Did someone give Revolutions the civilization throne and crown when I wasn't looking?

Second, Don Henley? I hate the <snip> Eagles, man...
/Lebowski

Moderator Action: Swearing is not allowed on these forums, thanks.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Fistalis]

No ones making you guys un-install Civ IV, go play it. I still do. V is supposed to be a completely fresh start, which this series needed.

Then why call it civilizations? To get US to buy it.. which we did only to find out they sold us a lemon. If the series had ran its course why would you make another? You wouldn't unless you just wanted to milk the name.

 

[JoxerNL]

Then why call it civilizations? To get US to buy it.. which we did only to find out they sold us a lemon. If the series had ran its course why would you make another? You wouldn't unless you just wanted to milk the name.

HAHA that's funny, you know you could have gone onto steam and have a little taste of said lemon right?
It's called a DEMO for a reason, next time maybe you will try a demo before blindly buying a game.

 

[CrimsonEdge]

Then why call it civilizations? To get US to buy it.. which we did only to find out they sold us a lemon. If the series had ran its course why would you make another? You wouldn't unless you just wanted to milk the name.

?

So you're saying that the core of this game is such a drastic leap away from Civ 1-4 that it shouldn't be called Civ?

Are we playing the same game? Have we been playing the same games?

 

[charon2112]

Then why call it civilizations? To get US to buy it.. which we did only to find out they sold us a lemon. If the series had ran its course why would you make another? You wouldn't unless you just wanted to milk the name.

Because it absolutely IS Civilization. It just feels right to me, even with it's changes...

 

[zonk]

HAHA that's funny, you know you could have gone onto steam and have a little taste of said lemon right?
It's called a DEMO for a reason, next time maybe you will try a demo before blindly buying a game.

Can't speak for that poster --

But I agree with the sentiment.... There are a few titles that I buy sight unseen, without even bothering to know what's in the next iteration or expansion. Don't care about the reviews, don't care about the features list -- I've come to "trust" certain titles. Ever since Civ I became Civ II - Civilization has been on that list... It's not, as of this release... and I got over the Civ III PTW expansion (which was essentially $20 for a dozen scenarios) really quickly and easily.

But, ultimately, you're right... there was a demo... and perhaps blind trust should no longer be operative.

I think what irks a lot of us -- we feel like our loyalty to the nameplate got taken advantage of... They most definitely pushed the "evolution", the "next iteration in the legendary Civilization series" pretty hard... but ultimately, the game just seems more tailored to the casual gamer who sees Civilization as just another title in a large games library.... rather than the jewel that outshines all others.

I guess we'll see how that works out for them, ultimately... Take2 isn't doing especially especially well financially and "casual gamers" are pretty notoriously fickle/meh about expansions -- it's the hardcore title fans who make expansions a success or failure.

I suppose, a year from now, we'll find out.

 

[Fistalis]

HAHA that's funny, you know you could have gone onto steam and have a little taste of said lemon right?
It's called a DEMO for a reason, next time maybe you will try a demo before blindly buying a game.

Which reminds me.. they didn't release the demo til the same day as the GAME. Knowing full well half the fans who ordered pre-releases would have cancelled if they did. Thank you for furthering my point that they simply wanted to milk the name for sales.

 

[JoxerNL]

Can't speak for that poster --

But I agree with the sentiment.... There are a few titles that I buy sight unseen, without even bothering to know what's in the next iteration or expansion. Don't care about the reviews, don't care about the features list -- I've come to "trust" certain titles. Ever since Civ I became Civ II - Civilization has been on that list... It's not, as of this release... and I got over the Civ III PTW expansion (which was essentially $20 for a dozen scenarios) really quickly and easily.

Since you took the time to write a good post i'll do a proper reply for you.

Think back a few months, Command and Conquer 4 was announced, The Final Chapter of the Tiberium chronicles!
Everyone was zomg must have!

After release everyone was disgusted with what they were playing, that game has the name but was not like Command and Conquer, the whole core mechanics were actually altered to a diffrent games mechanics, good or bad that's beside the point.

But would anyone ever imagined a "bad" command and conquer game existed?

I was smart and just waited to try it out or actually be able to see some from it, i decided later against it, not my type of gameplay at all.

Basically what im saying here is : Alot of Companies are trying diffrent things, some people will like it, some wont.

Give it a try in these days before buying, you will spare yourself alot of money by not buying things you wont endup liking.
And hey who knows, maybe a few months later you can buy it for cheap and give it a try anyways

 

[mrt144]

HAHA that's funny, you know you could have gone onto steam and have a little taste of said lemon right?
It's called a DEMO for a reason, next time maybe you will try a demo before blindly buying a game.

It's really unfortunate the demo was released the same day as the game though.

 

[JoxerNL]

Which reminds me.. they didn't release the demo til the same day as the GAME. Knowing full well half the fans who ordered pre-releases would have cancelled if they did. Thank you for furthering my point that they simply wanted to milk the name for sales.

lesson learned i suppose?
No more pre-ordering!

Im refusing to on the new fallout title, as they aint posting the specs needed.

 

[Cueball]

HAHA that's funny, you know you could have gone onto steam and have a little taste of said lemon right?
It's called a DEMO for a reason, next time maybe you will try a demo before blindly buying a game.

Unfortunately you're right... I didn't feel like taking the time to download it and instead just trusted the reviews. I loved Civ IV and figured Civ V would only improve on that. I guess next time around I won't make the same mistake.

 

[jdp29]

When I posted that, "It is not supposed to be a micromanagement intensive game" I meant Civ 5.

All my statements referred to Civ 5, not the Civ franchise up to 4.

That is why I said play Civ 5 for its own merits.