Raving reviews but poor feedback on Civfanatics?

[Bad Brett]

I am still willing to keep playing it but I can't help feeling it is going to the same place that Civ4:Colonisation did, to the back of my drawer in favour of the older version.

I did exactly this. I really enjoy the original Colonization and was so excited when I heard that they were going to release a new one... But I was so disappointed. Somehow they managed to take away all the fun of exploring and settling a new continent. In the original Colonization, you wouldn't even think about declaring independence until 1650, in Civ4:Col, you wouldn't stand a chance against Tory if you played that way. The battle of independence was a very small part of the original game, it was more of a final test. In Civ4:Col, everything was about that battle, which I always find rather boring anyway.

 

[Jediron]

My impressions is that it's not a casual vs. hardcore issue, but more down one's preferred playstyle. Roughly -- and with a very broad brush -- the Builders are disappointed and the Fighters are happy.

It goes beyond that; because i like warmongering just as much as the older Victory conditions , and i still not like CIV 5 ; not even as a warmongerer. Especially as a warmongerer; i hate it.

Warmongering is easier then ever, that's why i hate it.

No, the biggest difference is 1upt vs SOD. Alot of people disliked the SOD ssytem, and therefor LOVE CIV 5 for its 1 upt system. I can perfectly understand this, because i confess; it was painfull and annoying to move around 400+ units. But for me; thé problem lied purely in the bad UI to control alot of units.

When i play TotalWar for example, it's a breeze to control 400+ units. Why? Because they have implemented the controls to do so much better.

Add to it, that the battle-AI is just as DUMB in CIV 1. Only now, the AI have much less units to make up for his losses (and foolishness). That's another reason i dislike 1 UPT.

Now there is no more fun in warmongering; atleast, not for a average/more sophistaced player.
Only "warmongerers" who actually have no clue how to fight, will enjoy it. Everyone with a brain, will be disappointed. Because it is way too easy now to finish of the AI and Win the game.

 

[Officerjackboot]

Big fans of anything always buck when there is change. It will be all good after a few patches.

 

[lschnarch]

Big fans of anything always buck when there is change. It will be all good after a few patches.

After a few patches?

Seems that the "changes" haven't been that great then, no?

 

[Murky]

I don't believe that Firaxis "bought-off" reviewers, at least not directly.

There is this sort of, "You scratch our backs, we scratch yours." type of thing that goes on with how the various gaming magazines/websites get their income.

Most of the income for people that review games comes from advertisements for games. Obviously, game companies are more likely to pay for advertising on sites that help them sell product (by giving favorable reviews) so there is this built-in conflict of interest between giving honest reviews and selling advertisements.

 

[gingerbill]

I´ve played through every Civ game since Civ 1 but haven´t bought Civ 5 yet. My computer is not powerful enough to handle it and reading about the new features, I´m not sure I´m that interested to buy it. However, I´m a bit puzzled about the feedback to Civ 5.

http://www.gamerankings.com/pc/938528-sid-meiers-civilization-v/index.html

The reviews have mostly (just as with earlier games) been overwhelmingly positive, but it seems that the response here among the fans have been more lukewarm. Is it an accurate judgement then that more casual gamers prefer Civ 5 but that the hardcore Civ-fanatics (like myself) prefer Civ 4? Or are you just more whiny?

I'd say buy it , loads of hardcore players enjoy this game. They just have better things to do (like playing the game) than to monitor a forum.

Most of the reviewers who rated this game highly also rated previous CIV game highly . So either this game is good or they are all part of some secret conspiracy ,which makes more sense?

This game is diffrent than CIV4 , alot of changes everywhere , some people hate change , some people will hate CIV5 because its not CIV4.

As with every CIV game theres some problems that need fixing , i assume like other CIV games they will be fixed. Personally i prefer this game to vanilla CIV4 .

 

[silentknight111]

I´ve played through every Civ game since Civ 1 but haven´t bought Civ 5 yet. My computer is not powerful enough to handle it and reading about the new features, I´m not sure I´m that interested to buy it. However, I´m a bit puzzled about the feedback to Civ 5.

http://www.gamerankings.com/pc/938528-sid-meiers-civilization-v/index.html

The reviews have mostly (just as with earlier games) been overwhelmingly positive, but it seems that the response here among the fans have been more lukewarm. Is it an accurate judgement then that more casual gamers prefer Civ 5 but that the hardcore Civ-fanatics (like myself) prefer Civ 4? Or are you just more whiny?

Personally, I like the game and think that score is what it is worthy of. I've seem the complaints here, just as every other game in the world seems to have. whenever a game is released all the forums on that game devolve into complaining drivel. I don't know why it happens. My best assumption is that it's because mostly the people who have problems or dislike the game for some reason are the only ones still posting new threads for awhile.

I wouldn't be posting here myself if I wasn't bored at work....

 

[r_rolo1]

This game is diffrent than CIV4 , alot of changes everywhere , some people hate change , some people will hate CIV5 because its not CIV4.

As with every CIV game theres some problems that need fixing , i assume like other CIV games they will be fixed. Personally i prefer this game to vanilla CIV4 .

Bah, have you considered that there are people that do not dislike the game, that do not want a civ IV made in 2010, but that have conscience that the game has issues to solve, some of them being quite serious , maybe serious enough for them to consider this a not so good game ?

I really hate manichaeist views ....

 

[silentknight111]

Bah, have you considered that there are people that do not dislike the game, that do not want a civ IV made in 2010, but that have conscience that the game has issues to solve, some of them being quite serious , maybe serious enough for them to consider this a not so good game ?

I really hate manichaeist views ....

There are those people, and that's fine.

I think what most of us get tired of seeing, however, are those people who post "crap" about the game being the worst game ever, and unplayable, and completely broken, and worthless, and an insult to everyone who ever played civ, and a complete ruining of the series.

It gets tiresome fast, and every game has those vocal few who rally a few more into being vocal, and then make it seems like everyone hates the game because the forums become plagued by those threads.

 

[Venereus]

There are those people, and that's fine.

I think what most of us get tired of seeing, however, are those people who post "crap" about the game being the worst game ever, and unplayable, and completely broken, and worthless, and an insult to everyone who ever played civ, and a complete ruining of the series.

It gets tiresome fast, and every game has those vocal few who rally a few more into being vocal, and then make it seems like everyone hates the game because the forums become plagued by those threads.

As time goes by, the "hate threads" have not only become more numerous, but also better thought-out, some of them even remain unchallenged, as fanboy speech can't fight some of the terrible things we're discovering while playing. We know more now, and the more we know, the more bad things we know. The good ones you get in your first playthrough, after a few games, the awful reality sinks in.

 

[Berious]

I remember being flamed over at Apolyton for saying nice things about Civ 4. Some people just hate change and/or are very unforgiving about bugs. Don't forget 4 has had years of modding too, who here still plays the base game? I wouldn't have loaded it up in a long time if it weren't for FF2H etc.

If in a few months if Civ 5 isn't considered the definitive version I'll be very surprised.

 

[ohioastronomy]

I remember being flamed over at Apolyton for saying nice things about Civ 4. Some people just hate change and/or are very unforgiving about bugs. Don't forget 4 has had years of modding too, who here still plays the base game? I wouldn't have loaded it up in a long time if it weren't for FF2H etc.

If in a few months if Civ 5 isn't considered the definitive version I'll be very surprised.

The list of basic flaws is so long that I'm afraid it will be extremely difficult for it to become even average. It's more likely that it will be shelved and the next version will look very little like it.

The core happiness concept is broken. So is the diplomatic system. So is the combat AI and even unit movement. The various victory conditions aren't balanced; neither are the different map sizes, speeds, or civilizations (especially important for multiplayer).

And this doesn't include implementation issues - such as the AI problems with navies, planes, or horses; missing end game summaries, bizarre scoring algorithms, and various outright bugs and glitches. And pacing issues - such as a slow early start, uneven tech development and a poorly implemented technology tree.

You'd have to change so much to make this a good game that it'd be a completely different one once you finished.

 

[NZV]

This game just feels like another Empire: Total War. Fantastic reviews, and really fun for the first few hours.

Then you realize that the AI is trash and the other new features are pretty dull and shallow. I'm pretty bored of Civ5. Guess it's back to Civ4 and Medieval 2. What a shame.

 

[Thoughtful Thug]

I´ve played through every Civ game since Civ 1 but haven´t bought Civ 5 yet. My computer is not powerful enough to handle it and reading about the new features, I´m not sure I´m that interested to buy it. However, I´m a bit puzzled about the feedback to Civ 5.

http://www.gamerankings.com/pc/938528-sid-meiers-civilization-v/index.html

The reviews have mostly (just as with earlier games) been overwhelmingly positive, but it seems that the response here among the fans have been more lukewarm. Is it an accurate judgement then that more casual gamers prefer Civ 5 but that the hardcore Civ-fanatics (like myself) prefer Civ 4? Or are you just more whiny?

More whiny is definitely the most accurate way of saying what goes on in this forum than the other ones you see in sites that discuss Civ 5.

It is best to upgrade your computer if you want to continue to be a pc gamer in the future. The trend now is that you have to have a good GPU and CPU, as well as getting an upgrade for your OS (there's still buttheads out there that still uses the Windows XP 3) if you want to play a game in average or great setting.

You never want to feel safe being in the not so wonderful world of "meeting minimum requirement."

 

[SuperJay]

There are those people, and that's fine.

I think what most of us get tired of seeing, however, are those people who post "crap" about the game being the worst game ever, and unplayable, and completely broken, and worthless, and an insult to everyone who ever played civ, and a complete ruining of the series.

It gets tiresome fast, and every game has those vocal few who rally a few more into being vocal, and then make it seems like everyone hates the game because the forums become plagued by those threads.

For the first week, I was where you are now - pissed off at the "haters" who "couldn't adapt to change" and "wanted Civ 4.5" and wished they would just shut up or go someplace else with their "whining."

And then I played Civ5 for 30 more hours. And I got bored quickly. And the game that I had been so excited about is sitting unplayed for the last week.

Now I get it.

Keep playing. If you don't see any problems and you find the game perfectly enjoyable in its current state, more power to you. If you can play game after game and you feel that the replayability is as high as its ever been, that you could continue to enjoy this game for years and feel engaged and challenged by this AI, that's awesome. If you don't encounter game-breaking bugs, or have any crashes, or corrupted saves, or MP matches plagued by problems - that's great too. I really hope you can manage all that, and no, I'm not being sarcastic. I'm not exactly optimistic about your chances, but I certainly don't actively want other Civ fans to feel same sense of loss and disappointment that I do.

 

[Grimberht]

Don't forget that people who are used to something always, on the whole, dislike a new version of it. Fans of Civ IV will, proportionately, dislike Civ V more than the average player. This happened when Civ IV came out too (we still have the Civ III people complaining about it). So that will skew the reception of the new game on a site like this quite apart from whether it really is better or worse.

I see where your going with it... 90% of the time I would agree. People like more of the same and there's no doubt about it... ask the Stargate: Universe about it and god knows how many more series...

But in this case, its nothing like it.... I dont blame the team... I believe they never intended to sell a beta game, but 2k deserve the heat it get.... at this point I would rather see them go bankrupt then getting the patches this game need in order to be "decent".

 

[LegioCorvus]

More whiny is definitely the most accurate way of saying what goes on in this forum than the other ones you see in sites that discuss Civ 5.

It is best to upgrade your computer if you want to continue to be a pc gamer in the future. The trend now is that you have to have a good GPU and CPU, as well as getting an upgrade for your OS (there's still buttheads out there that still uses the Windows XP 3) if you want to play a game in average or great setting.

You never want to feel safe being in the not so wonderful world of "meeting minimum requirement."

Oh, do be quiet.

The link Danielos provided is to a collation of game reviewers scores, not unlike Metacritic, which people have pointed out time and again is based on limited play. Someone might as well re-post the Metacritic score and claim, "This changes everything!"

All the Civ communities are up in arms. I don't even visit the Firaxis website, as it's next to impossible to get a real debate going on in there unlike here. WePlayCiv has the same exact lists of complaints, bugs, and disappointments like here. Heck, if you go to any of the generic gaming websites, you'll see that the predominantly Civ-centric communities are engaging in the most debate and not just "whining" as you'd like to put it.

In fact, I'd love to see an argument on your behalf why this game is so great. We've backed up our complaints. We've listed egregious bugs, broken gameplay mechanics, and charted the developing lack of enthusiasm in playing this game. Jon Shafer, the lead designer of Civ5, just as well admitted that the game need a major overhaul in his announcement of a major patch coming soon that will work towards "several things which we are looking at improving with Civ 5."

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=390661

I won't get into it all here, but he practically apologized to people who've already bought the game:

Thanks to all who have purchased the game - the plan is definitely to continue improving the experience for everyone playing. The game isn't perfect, but we feel good about the foundation laid so far, and expect Civ 5 will stand up with every other game out there and continue to get better over time. I can ensure that I'll be working on Civ 5 as long as I'm able to.

Jon

I think it's pretty obvious at this point that people with legitimate complaints about this game (and not pre-determined hatred) are right to feel the way we do.

 

[Thoughtful Thug]

Oh, do be quiet.

The link Danielos provided is to a collation of game reviewers scores, not unlike Metacritic, which people have pointed out time and again is based on limited play. Someone might as well re-post the Metacritic score and claim, "This changes everything!"

All the Civ communities are up in arms. I don't even visit the Firaxis website, as it's next to impossible to get a real debate going on in there unlike here. WePlayCiv has the same exact lists of complaints, bugs, and disappointments like here. Heck, if you go to any of the generic gaming websites, you'll see that the predominantly Civ-centric communities are engaging in the most debate and not just "whining" as you'd like to put it.

In fact, I'd love to see an argument on your behalf why this game is so great. We've backed up our complaints. We've listed egregious bugs, broken gameplay mechanics, and charted the developing lack of enthusiasm in playing this game. Jon Shafer, the lead designer of Civ5, just as well admitted that the game need a major overhaul in his announcement of a major patch coming soon that will work towards "several things which we are looking at improving with Civ 5."

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=390661

I won't get into it all here, but he practically apologized to people who've already bought the game:

I meant whiney in a good way. Meaning that we in this site do more complaint than in other sites due to our fanaticism of this game, and what it stands for. Also, I meant it (us whining) taken from the perspective of people who are solely responsible of this mess that they had created.

I am on your side as much as the majority.

 

[LegioCorvus]

I meant whiney in a good way. Meaning that we in this site do more complaint than in other sites due to our fanaticism of this game, and what it stands for. Also, I meant it (us whining) taken from the perspective of people who are solely responsible of this mess that they had created.

I am on your side as much as the majority.

Yeah, I completely misread your post. I started to read the comments to what Jon Shafer posted, and saw a number of yours in there.

My bad.

 

[Bad Brett]

Alright, shall we sort some things out, shall we?

First off, there are not "a few" people who are disappointed. As we speak now, 777 people on this forum voted that the game has "been dumbed down". Even the ones who really enjoy the game admits that "while the game has great potential, there are many things that needs to be fixed." In fact, I've never seen so many complaints on a new game.

Secondly, people didn't felt the same way about vanilla Civ IV. People were upset that ATI cards didn't work and yes, there were some AI bugs and memory leaks. But the complaints about the actual game were mostly about the civilopedia having icons instead of text and other minor things. Of course there were a few people who prefered Civ III, but in general, most users here were rather excited about the new version. If you don't believe me, check the topics from 2005 and compare them with the topics today...