Refined Poll: your standing with the game

[Shaka II]

I love it! Sure, it has issues as did previous releases, and hopefully some will be addressed in future patches, and perhaps some interesting mods will emerge.

Civ II was where I began, an amazing game all around, the AI, the strategy, the replay value, the total immersion. I think this game plays very well, the AI needs improving (as always), some of the mechanics need improving, like happiness, but I understand that is introduced as a limiter like corruption was in the previous version.

I really like the 1UPT. It can get tight when there are a lot of units, but that can be dealt with. I much prefer it over the stack of doom. I remember being invaded by 160 rifleman, I think it was Civ III. Well, that was scary all right, and I lost that game, but 160 units is probably too much.

Anyway, I think 1UPT is the way to go. And the hex layout is great. I prefer the earlier era game play, so the 1UPT is almost never an issue for me, and the upkeep of units generally discourages having armies that are too large. In the modern era, waging mass invasions, 1UPT can be a challenge, but understanding the limitations, I think it works.

In general, I think the game tends to run a bit too fast and probably slowing down the tech pace would be best. I'd prefer to end the game before stealth technology or nukes (I like the ground game), so adjusting tech rate for that might be nice. For Conquest that is. I enjoy most the game play before the modern era. But Civ IV also ran too fast. So, running epic seemed to provide the best experience for me. I haven't played epic yet, but I expect to soon. Still enjoying vanilla settings.

The music is outstanding as always, and allows an immersive experience. There are many strategies, and many Civs to try, and I have only tried a few, so I expect to log many more hours of play. It's not so much about the winning (though I much prefer that ) as it is about having fun and challenging play, a meditation of sorts, and Civ has always done that for me.

 

[cccv]

Nuking cities makes people in the nuked country happier: that's NOT A REASON TO CRITICIZE THE GAME? Are you freaking kidding?

Yeah, that's NOT A REASON TO CRITICIZE THE GAME, and I'm not freaking kidding. Not unless you're consistent and are equally critical of all civ games, because again...

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.

So IV is actually crazier. In V if you get nuked, your empire overall gets happier. In IV if you get nuked, that specific city gets happier.

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...")

The reason it makes the empire happier is the reason the increased population makes people more unhappy. More people=more crime, less resources and opportunities, more crowding, more alienation. Lower the population, no matter how, and you lower those problems. no one is going to say "yay, we were nuked" and they'd be less happy in the short-term, but in the long-term, they'd benefit from the effects of a lower population whether or not they ever relate it to an attack. Not necessarily a perfect argument either, but it's not completely without reason that the game works this way. And again, this game, the last game, the game before it (probably, I never played III), two games before it, and three games before it (again, probably. My memory of I is a bit hazy). Anyway, you don't have to like it and you don't even have to accept it, but to act like it completely ruins V for you while deifying previous civs that did the exact same thing (or even crazier things, as shown above) is obviously a case of "I can ignore a flaw if I like the game, but if I don't like the game that flaw is suddenly the worst thing ever." Of course, this is all assuming there isn't some "we got nuked!" unhappiness penalty in IV huge enough to counteract the unhappiness drop that I'm unaware of, in which case just call me an idiot and be on your way >.>

 

[Grimberht]

D: And I dont even know why I havent uninstall it yet... hey it will be done in 10 mins.

Why? 1 upt mainly but not exclusively, its just a boring game overall.

 

[cavilier210]

I play when I'm bored w/ my other games. So I haven't gotten bored w/ CiV yet

 

[heliostellar]

Actually, Minesweeper is more fascinating and has more replay value than this travesty of a Civ game.

This about sums it up. Dislike and not playing this anymore. It still want my goddamn money back!

 

[jtb1127]

I like the game and I am still playing it. I just dislike the autistic AI.

 

[SuperJay]

And I have to say that I find both of you rather lovely and agreeable. Seriously. Man-hugs to both of you.

Aww, gee! And here I thought you hated me after that comment I made about people crucifying Jon Shafer in some other thread, years ago.

 

[PawelS]

B, because I'm playing other good games, lately it was mainly EU3 and (as always) Age of Wonders: Shadow Magic (PBEM games). Also I'm involved in the development process of the unofficial patch for AoW:SM, which became much more active lately, so it takes some time from me.

I think I'll go back to Civ5 after the promised hotseat/pitboss patch. I got bored with EU3, and now I'm going to go back to Wesnoth for some time (currently I'm trying to compile the latest version after making a change in the source code that makes combat deterministic).

 

[BjoernLars]

I dislike the game, no longer playing it, because building giant wonderful strong cities are no longer reasonable, fesiable nor enjoyable.

 

[sketch162000]

Ahh, PawelS! Strangely, I kind of missed reading your posts on this board even though I usually disagreed with you. Welcome back, mate!

 

[Ashwind]

Not to take anything away from the poll and the comments in this thread. But you do realise that to the devs, you already paid for the product and hence, in a way, it doesn't matter. Yes we can argue that it will potentially reduce sales for future releases etc but really, execs nowadays come and go all the time. Who really cares about 5 years later unless you are in for the long haul? Which isn't that many people, at all.

 

[cccv]

.

not to take anything away from the poll and the comments in this thread. But you do realise that to the devs, you already paid for the product and hence, in a way, it doesn't matter. Yes we can argue that it will potentially reduce sales for future releases etc but really, execs nowadays come and go all the time. Who really cares about 5 years later unless you are in for the long haul? Which isn't that many people, at all.

dlc.

 

[JBConquests]

Not to take anything away from the poll and the comments in this thread. But you do realise that to the devs, you already paid for the product and hence, in a way, it doesn't matter...

I'm a developer of a product that get sold (not civ) and know that in that situation most dev's take pride in their work. Dev's want people to enjoy their software. If us developer had our way then we would spend an eternity making the software absolutely perfect and thus it would never ship. It's usually management at some level that is pusing to release it. In the case of buggy software usually against Dev's wishes. You might be surprised to learn that companies that ship buggy software usually offend their own developers as much if not more than their own Customers. Because to the masses who aren't familiar with the software development process, the Dev's usually get incorrectly blamed.

Maybe not every development shop is like that since I obviously don't have experience with them all but the ones I have had experience with are.

 

[blind biker]

Not to take anything away from the poll and the comments in this thread. But you do realise that to the devs, you already paid for the product and hence, in a way, it doesn't matter. Yes we can argue that it will potentially reduce sales for future releases etc but really, execs nowadays come and go all the time. Who really cares about 5 years later unless you are in for the long haul? Which isn't that many people, at all.

It's just one of the aspects of corporate psychopathy, running rampant and unpunished.

Good to see someone with their eyes open - that alone was worth this thread.

 

[Deussu]

I'm a developer of a product that get sold (not civ) and know that in that situation most dev's take pride in their work. Dev's want people to enjoy their software. If us developer had our way then we would spend an eternity making the software absolutely perfect and thus it would never ship. It's usually management at some level that is pusing to release it. In the case of buggy software usually against Dev's wishes. You might be surprised to learn that companies that ship buggy software usually offend their own developers as much if not more than their own Customers. Because to the masses who aren't familiar with the software development process, the Dev's usually get incorrectly blamed.

Maybe not every development shop is like that since I obviously don't have experience with them all but the ones I have had experience with are.

QFT.

In today's world you always got to have someone to blame.

 

[genecageman]

I don't like Civ5 but I am still playing it, simply cze there is no alternative......

The game itself is not that bad. But since I started playing civ from I, it is so obvious to me that Civ5 is way to simple except I am afraid just the graphic comparing to I-IV. Its not just the AI, The UI itself is also very disappointing. There are so little information avaliable to make decisions; how are the other civs performing?, what pacts (like free of passage) other countries signed with each other? I feel like I am playing with my eyes covered, and swinging the sword in the dark to make sure that I will survive.

I hope other companies will see this opportunity and creat a decent civ similation to chanllenge 2K. I think we need some competition to maintain the quality.

sori for my english. just another daily angry comment abt Civ5

 

[lschnarch]

Its not just the AI, The UI itself is also very disappointing. There are so little information avaliable to make decisions; how are the other civs performing?, what pacts (like free of passage) other countries signed with each other? I feel like I am playing with my eyes covered, and swinging the sword in the dark to make sure that I will survive.

Hey, you get all the information needed:

 

[Teperi Blaze]

I still like this game, i Just wish I could turn off Research Agreements, it makes the game too fast paced

Don't use them yourself then, will make the challenge harder on you?

 

[blind biker]

Aww, gee! And here I thought you hated me after that comment I made about people crucifying Jon Shafer in some other thread, years ago.

Oh that was you?

I take that manhug back!

 

[Teperi Blaze]

Stop it lovebirds.