Reasoning behind divide among civ players

[Ringo Kid]

My reasoning is simple, my old slow system wont run Civ 5. So I play civ4.( I had to upgrade my machine when 4 came out.) Seems like 1998 was a long time ago in computer terms. Back then my machine and I were both faster and more modern.

I have enjoyed all the games in the series, so I will probably like civ5 if I ever have the big bucks needed for a new computer.

I still love Alpha Centauri (SMAC), for the game play and strategy. I dont care about the antique graphics.

 

[Rusty Edge]

Did they ever put text in the Civ V Civilopedia? I stopped paying attention.

 

[King Kalmah]

Did they ever put text in the Civ V Civilopedia? I stopped paying attention.

This right there is a great point...although CIV4 had a few funky text issues with the Civlopedia...it wasn't anywhere as incomplete as CIv5's upon release...

 

[gps]

Well the fascination playing Civ for me always (and I played them all) was it felt like a alternate history world simulator. My little box of wonders where I could be king, chat with Ghengis Khan or Napoleon if I was in the mood and rule the world for an hour or two. Despite all the simplification, generalization and the "board game" style rules most of the situations and scenarios it created made a lot of sense in historic context and could happen (or actually did happen) in the real world. Based on the that the decisions you could or had to make felt real, serious and relevant. That level of serious and relevant decision making for me is totally lost in Civ V. I don't see it in dealing with the ridiculous and autistic AI, I don't see it in the 1UPT troop pileups, I don't see it in winning diplomatic by buying all the city states (the whole city state mechanic is unrealistic, artificial bogus), I don't see it in the static social policy trees and I don't see it in surreal limitations like the global happiness mechanic. I have to admit I am not the most intense strategy gamer ever, but the way strategy was presented in games like Railroad Tycoon or Civ really got me hooked for the reasons mentioned above. It was not strategy for strategies sake, it felt real and relevant. Civ V for me doesn't...

 

[Iranon]

I generally push my games quite hard. I look at mechanics, analyse them, look for ways to break the game.
If a game doesn't have viable variations in playstyle it doesn't interest me. If true decisions are few and far in between and "skill" means "patience to do all the busywork" it doesn't interest me. If a game requires bending over backwards to keep from "exploiting" the mechanics or AI in a way that renders the game unfun, it doesn't interest me.

Civ4 survived my heaviest prodding for years... some things were clumsy but hey they worked and overall it was the richest "fair" game I played (as opposed to gleefully unbalanced ones that rely on sheer volume of content to have emergent dominant and niche strategies, with a balance of cheese and their counters at the top).

Civ5 didn't survive the first read of the manual. At release it wouldn't have needed playtesters to tell you it's hopelessly broken. Just someone to think it through - an ability I'd expect a game designer to have.
Everything after was band-aids on severed limbs.

 

[UnforcedError]

I also feel Civ 5 was a waste of money. (Bought it right on the day it came out ) Apparently they were aiming for a bigger audience so that even 10-year old beginners could win Deity (this is not bad, but a radical change to the previous games which aimed to give you a challenge even after years of playing) and they tried to implement some sort of a tactical combat system, which instead became an endless boredom of unit micromanagement. Besides, the AI sucks at it, so your tactics will always be superior. (Tactical combat was never civ's strong suit but if they really wanted to do something like that why didn't they look at the countless great war games with tactical combat?)

As Karadoc said all you have to do is decide early what VC you will pursue and your research / civic choices will be totally trivial. I always hated the diplo system in civ4 but diplo in civ5 is just ridiculous. In fact it's so bad you can only laugh. The only thing I like about the AIs is the fact that they actually pursue a VC.

Instead of making a deeper, better game they nerfed it to death. If that was the original intention, well done

 

[shakabrade]

I was disappointed the very moment I heard there will be 1UPT restriction. I expected and got this:

http://images.search.conduit.com/Im...n=true&PageSource=Results&SSPV=&start=0&pos=5

Game was so easy I didn't know what and why was I doing when I achieved my deity win in 4th game. Because it didn't matter, obviously. Also, interface is tiring, nothing is smooth (my computer was a monster back then BTW), you can't navigate easily, like it was made for controller, diplomacy WTH, city states as yet another RNG element, diplo victory, lol, puppet states, lol, research agreements, lol. Total betrayal for someone who played all instances of civilization. Only good thing about civ5 for me, was realizing how great civ4 was and I got my motivation to dig deep all the way to deity and, surprisingly had so much more fun with civilization 4 than ever before.

 

[UnforcedError]

ionly good thing about civ5 for me, was realizing how great civ4 was and i got my motivation to dig deep all the way to deity and, surprisingly had so much more fun with civilization 4 than ever before.

+1

 

[gps]

only good thing about civ5 for me, was realizing how great civ4 was and i got my motivation to dig deep all the way to deity and, surprisingly had so much more fun with civilization 4 than ever before.

+2

 

[Funky]

only good thing about civ5 for me, was realizing how great civ4 was and i got my motivation to dig deep all the way to deity and, surprisingly had so much more fun with civilization 4 than ever before.

+3

 

[AdamCrock]

This "hate" talk is very unsettling. Now I am very sure and confident that Civ 5 is obviously waste of money. There are better things to buy. I am suprised to say that about a Civ game but considering all the facts and opinions about Civ 5 it just doesn't cut in with the legendary series. What is disturbing me the most is ofc 1 unit per tile restriction making it "tactical" instead of "strategic". To make things worse and add salt to the wound the diplomacy have been reworked from "getting better with each civ game" to "childish reasoning" with the AI. This two things alone make it look very bad. (Not to mention other flaws of Civ 5).

Conclusion: I will not be buying flawed product. Will wait however till the Dev's wake up and make it up for hardcore Civ fanatics like us however

 

[DavidPBacon]

+3

+4

ps.: I didn't get to deity, but I discovered the Mod world. Great!

 

[Disgustipated]

Ì do like some things in Civ5, and was kinda sorta enjoying it. But the lack of a score at the end bothers me (it prevents me from finishing games to try to get on the hall of fame). 1upt is horrible to say the least. The only thing it really has going for it is the graphics. Although the river graphics are so horrible, I almost don't want to play.

But after starting a game of Civ4 with ROM A New Dawn, it just blows away Civ5 in every way conceivable. Until Civ5 becomes that modable, it won't ever be the game Civ4 is.

Like I said, I just 2 days ago started A New DAwn ROM, and this mod is amazing. How can I ever think about playing Civ5 again?

 

[Disgustipated]

You don't have problems with global happiness, global happiness is the problem. It is a step far back from the system in civ 4.

I don't mind this too much in civ5. It's not as bad as it seems. There are far more worse things in civ5.

 

[calibur]

I don't mind this too much in civ5. It's not as bad as it seems. There are far more worse things in civ5.

Compared to the realistic system of civ 4 which was manageable, but not a pushover? Building a circus in one city to pacify the recently conquered and starving city across the world?

 

[UnforcedError]

Compared to the realistic system of civ 4 which was manageable, but not a pushover? Building a circus in one city to pacify the recently conquered and starving city across the world?

The people living in the distant city got happier as soon as they heard there was a new circus in the capital... And you're calling this unrealistic?

 

[Funky]

Not to mention your people don't mind if you fight a war for many centuries, but as soon as you are victorious and capture a city your whole nation gets pissed.

 

[Dukkha]

For me the biggest problem with CiV was the lack of map impact. All buildings that produce food and hammers and the small effect the recourses have removed most of the need for cityplanning and the way each new game of civ IV offers new challanges and opportunities.

The diplomatic system and the AI's incompetence when it comes to war also bugs me. And each time an AI walks up to my border, put's down a settler and then complain about me settling to close to his borders I get really annoyed.

 

[Lemon Merchant]

The people living in the distant city got happier as soon as they heard there was a new circus in the capital... And you're calling this unrealistic?

Of course they're happy. They don't have to listen to that stupid circus music in the capital.

 

[UnforcedError]

For me the biggest problem with CiV was the lack of map impact. All buildings that produce food and hammers and the small effect the recourses have removed most of the need for cityplanning and the way each new game of civ IV offers new challanges and opportunities.

City planning is out anyway unless you're willing to pay for extra tiles. The governor can make really stupid decisions about grabbing the next tile