Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by kelmen, Jan 20, 2011.
option D... streamlined gameplay and very boring. Game lacks depth and AI's diplomacy is lame.
A) I like the game.
Though I think this poll is a little weak... we're looking at a sample size of what.. 200 people.. give or take and something tells me the sample group isn't that great either. I mean, I've worked in the survey industry.. you're essentially polling only those players who are members of this forum. That's it. So even if people didn't purchase the game.. they could still vote... this poll says nothing.. really concrete other than : about half the forum goers at Civfanatics don't like Civ5. That is it. Nothing more, nothing less. But hey... some people need these kind of things to "make their point"... whatever works I guess.
Still enjoying it.
Enough weird strategies to try out and keep me busy.
It's said before, but it's not Civ IV, it's a different game.
If Firaxis' goal was to make a more accessible game for noobs, they succeeded.
AI is lacking for experienced players though.
Oh yeah, and on my pretty good desktop turns take long, very long.
Apart from that, i enjoy self-defensing the AI to death
Nice reminscence of Civ2, where a city's happinced always rised after a unit built at that city was killed.
Are you sure about that? Actually while Civ IV has infinitely more strategical depth, it isn't so unaccessible for noobs. You can automatize almost anything and lowest levels are easy to anyone without any knowledge about game mechanics.
I'm actually quite surprised how many noobs and "casual gamers" (like game reviewers) seem to like this game. There's no obvious reason for that. While lacking all depth, the game seem also to be dull and tedious as hell from the casual gamer point of view (long waiting times between turns, nothing happening, long building times, games take longer on normal speed than Civ4 games on epic etc.). It's not like some light weight RTS with a lot of action.
I dislike the game and do not play it because...
The game is very boring.
The game killed my will to play it by requiring that we fight the GUI every step of the way, wait for it to process actions, hmm.
No, the list would be extensive. Sulla summed it up very very nicely and I agree with virtually everything he said about the game's flaws. MP is SHATTERED TO PIECES by end turn = can't make any actions (As a RTS player with a good connection I can probably double move almost anyone, but it's a lot more fun to win with that kind of thing in an actual RTS). The game plays slowly. The game uses misleading advertising for DLC (can't use it in MP). Even well above recommended specs, it's virtually unplayable with much of the map settings.
Even if you like some of the fundamental changes, the implementation is so poor the whole thing is like a sick joke. THIS is a AAA game? I've seen similarly good hex fighting tactics from the likes of Dark Wizard (an obscure but good sega CD game)...which was at least as complex .
For this game to become good it has to balance earlygame options, offer some depth to strategic approach, refine AI combat ability SOMEHOW, and fix MP. Instead, we have situations like "ranged attack = move and not attack" months into the game. While civ IV retains major problems with its gameplay, at least all of its advertised features work in some fashion....
This is the first game I've played in the series (didn't play 1) where pretty weak players can win reasonably high difficulties. The lack of depth is a big equalizer.
. You should know better than to even bother with this kind of criticism if you're used to doing surveys/market research. It's not controlled, and the medium is going to create ridiculous bias (how many out of the total population of civ players post regularly enough on the forum to notice this and vote in it? I bet those that do are not a representative sample!). Nevermind the options themselves or demographic data...
Most people who make polls on forums do it to elicit discussion; it's unrealistic to attempt to use it to draw any actual conclusions.
I do wonder which person/donkey was in charge of gathering input/decision making for the UI though. A newer game should not be requiring double to triple the inputs of an arguably inefficient earlier iteration.....!
I want to like this game and I want to play it. But in it's current state I cannot even say I like it. It is not fun and a chore.
That's something I can explain.
Game reviwers are just forced to express to like the game. Otherwise they would lose the "direct contact" to the publisher, the many "pre-release 'information' " and quite some invitations to meetings, conventions and whatnotever.
And they run the risk of appearing as a "noob". How could a Civilization game ever be "simple", lacking options, not being well designed, have badly implemented options and so on? What, if the information-hungry crowd outside would not agree with such a statement?
No, as a game reviewer you are forced to like "major titles". Regardless if you're right or wrong, the fans wouldn't forgive you any major criticism (before release).
And how could you say afterwards: "Sorry, guys, now that you know, I have to admit that the game was crap all the time. But thanks for having clicked our page/having bought our magazine!"
And a real "noob" sure is prone to like the game, too.
Doesn't he beat the s**t out of the AI, solely due to his magnificent skills?
Doesn't he rule the world with his unstoppable armies of - in some cases - up to ten (10!) units?
And I mean, you've even got an arrow (AN ARROW!!!) pointing to where you are going to bombard....
And finally there are the noobs who are visiting forums. They learn that the game is lame, as many point out where it is flawed, where it cannot compete with prior releases and where it still (four months after release) has bugs.
But they learn as well, that the game has "potential". I mean, you've paid good money for it, but after all, there WILL be patches. Ok, there already have been some without really fixing anything, ok. But hey, the ones to come, THOSE will be patches!
And don't forget about the modders!
And finally, don't forget about the expansion packs. Ok, you will have to pay again for those, but hey, they WILL improve the game. After all, it has potential, hasn't it?
And now regard the alternative: you've paid for the game and it doesn't pay back in terms of qualitiy, depth of options, entertainment. Uhm. No, can't be.
Much more likely it is that the game has POTENTIAL!
Don't be so impatient. How can you expect quality when buying? Adopt yourself to modern times!
Or maybe many of the so called hard core players can't figure out the depth making them the noobs? Waiting times between turns aren't any different than a computer in 2005 used for Civ 4. If you can't manage to get production out of your cities, I guess you kind of prove the point. Games takes about the same time as they did in Civ 4. Maybe a bit shorter since you don't have to build 100 units per turn to add to your stack of doom. (But I guess that's what you mean by having stuff to do?)
I'm actually quite surprised how many "hard core gamers" seem to try to defend Religion/Espionage/Slavery/Liberty race/stack of doom and other really simple game concepts as something deep and involving that makes Civ5 a game for noobs and Civ4 a game for the hard core. But I guess if you keep visiting a forum about a game you don't get, several months after release, that's the easiest (only?) way to do it.
Really? It's called poor programming. See here:
Civ5 has some good things but it fails when compared to civ4bts. Yes, civ4bts.
If I had the time I could whip up a picture that says "Civ IV, where slavery makes happy."
Because how is it any different or worse than a game where you make cities happier by adopting slavery and then beating your slaves to death? And, in fact, this is the best strategy in early game, and a strong strategy throughout the entire game? Anytime you have a game where population creates unhappiness, an odd quirk is going to be that a "tragedy" that kills your population will make the happiness go up, this isn't new. There's a thousand reasons to criticize V, but this is definitely not one of them.
D: It's buggy and unbalanced. Pluss MP don't work. Mostly though it's unbalanced.
If you want to blame Civ4, why don't you go to the Civ4 forums?
Nuking cities makes people in the nuked country happier: that's NOT A REASON TO CRITICIZE THE GAME? Are you freaking kidding?
Yeah, gotta call that one out. You can feel free to criticize the whole "Whipping slaves makes people happy" angle for Civ IV, but you can't use that to excuse Civ V making people happy if you turn a city into glowing radioactive slag and the population of that city into little more than shadow-outlines on a wall. Both are fairly flawed.
Although, in defense of the slavery mechanic, consider that you are operating in a government structure that uses slavery. Ergo, the people being whipped are...slaves. Why would the rest of the population care about a slave? Eff him! He's a slave! Hell, whip him HARDER if it'll get that temple or marketplace built faster! Then we'll be REALLY happy since we'll be able to pray to the gods and enjoy all these fine furs, spices, and dye.
Not a perfect argument, of course, and sort of a post hoc, ergo propter hoc defense, I grant you. But it does offer at least SOME "in-game" explanation. I challenge folks to come up with a remotely convincing narrative for why nuking a city makes your population happy. (IE: "Bah! Who cares? I never liked Denver anyway....stupid omelets...")
First of all, just because GameX had a flaw, that does in no way justify GameY's flaw, especially when GameY (Civ V) flaw is so utterly contarded!
That said, yeah, you are right about the slaves. In antiquity, they weren't considered citizens. Occasionally, they could become (there are cases of slaves eventually becoming citizens of Rome) but it's extremely rare. And then those new citizens were extremely happy to have slaves of their own Those slaves were like the Miele home appliances - who wouldn't want one?
Have I ever told you that I thoroughly enjoy your posts? I don't recall seeing you much around here until the last couple months, but I find that you always make good points in an even-handed manner.
On-topic: Getting nuked shouldn't make your people happy. Losing wars shouldn't make your people happy either, but they can't stand winning them.
You can make all kinds of cases to rationalize the more far-fetched nonsense that occurs in any game. But when you find yourself into rationalizing some counter-intuitive facet of any game, you have to recognize that there's something inherently contradictory going on. Another example is that whole fiasco that happens when you win a war, make a peace treaty, are gifted cities from the AI, and you immediately go from +happiness to revolt in one turn.
Can you explain that if you try hard enough? Sure. But should you have to? No, not at all - winning a war and making a peace treaty shouldn't expose you to some sort of time-bomb that will destroy your empire. That's a totally contradictory experience to the player.
Agreed, I think the thing that makes nukes in Civ V a bit problematic is the idea that happiness is global i.e. "Screw Hiroshima! Everybody likes Nagasaki better anyway..." Like, you could probably explain that the slaves likely come from some minority demographic that does not exist everywhere in the empire. That might work before mass media, at least. To boot, don't you get a happiness modifier for slave rushing? Something like "We will never forget your cruelty!!" -10 happiness.
And I have to say that I find both of you rather lovely and agreeable. Seriously. Man-hugs to both of you.
Separate names with a comma.