Refined Poll: your standing with the game

[sketch162000]

I would argue it's the one feature that has been implemented fairly well, save for the AI's inability to comprehend it thus far. It greatly enhances the military aspect of the game by making it far more involved and strategic than slapping together the bigger SOD.
The only reason it gets criticism is because other aspects of the game have been marginalized and/or are currently poorly-executed. But the one doesn't lead to the other.

I disagree. For one, stacking was never "just slapping together the bigger stack." In any case, 1upt has caused many more problems of it's own, the most obvious of which is that it is dysfunctional with the AI. How this is an "improvement" over Civ IV stacking is beyond me.

Second, the combat AI in Civ V dosen't appear to have changed drastically, which is precisely why we are seeing problems. It's a (conceptually) old AI trying to adapt to new rules.

Third, 1upt wasn't even implemented with some common sense rules at launch. Pre-patch you couldn't stack civilians and military units. AFAIK, you still can't stack with allied troops, which is just frustrating. Points two and three are evidence that 1upt was just kind of shoehorned in.

Fourth, there are other features that were implemented without major issues. Social Policies, while possibly not adequate replacements for civics, are at least functional new ideas that don't clash with the rest of the game.

 

[Rooftrellen]

I am a bit torn on how to vote, but I voted that I dislike the game and am still playing because...

I like the overall game.

I like the new diplomacy, which forces me to consider who I am talking to, how they speak to me, and what has happened in the past between us, our friends, and our enemies.

I like 1UPT. I much prefer that to a huge SOD, where the big strategy was remember not to attack with or upgrade the medic spearman.

I do miss some of the old things, of course. I would like espionage to come back, and particularly with the current setup of diplomacy, having a way of waging war behind a veil of friendship seems fitting. Religions would be welcome back, particularly as they would make an interesting diplo scene mixed with city-states, which have dragged me into plenty of wars already. Most of all, I miss having the complete game. Having to pay extra for DLC rubs me the wrong way.

What I dislike is the constant crashing. I am now playing maybe 10 turns a day, and giving up after my first crash. My computer has the specs to handle the game. The fact that it crashes with minimum settings (the auto settings try to make me go to a higher setting, as well) is...disappointing and ruins the fun of the game to the point that I will say I dislike it.

If it is not fixed in the somewhat near future, my vote will change...I will end up saying I dislike the game because of the crashes and uninstalled to get rid of Steam.

In fact, that last issue has already guaranteed (with the DLC adding important parts of the game, like more civs) that CiV is my last purchase with Firaxis or 2k.

I'm just crossing my fingers that they can fix the crashing so that it can avoid being a total disappointment, but seeing as people have had problems long before I got the game, I guess I had best not hold my breath.

 

[SuperJay]

For whom do you think Civ5 was created?

Interesting (sort of) anecdote - just this week, a friend and his wife asked me about Civ 5. They remembered me being really gung-ho about it back in September (just prior to or just after release, I think it was) and since he's neck-deep in League of Legends all the time, she was looking for something new to play on her PC. She apparently had loved Civilization: Revolutions, so she was excited to try Civ 5. So they asked me if I thought it would be a good purchase for her.

This was an interesting moment for me. I don't personally enjoy Civ 5, but for her? It seemed like a good decision. For someone brand-new to 4X games, who played and enjoyed Civ Rev and wanted something a little deeper? According to Dennis Shirk (producer of Civ 5), that's precisely the target audience they were aiming for. So I bit my tongue and said yeah, she'll probably like it, go for it.

They picked it up and she's loving it so far. "It's just like Civ Rev, but more realistic!" "Yep!" I said, leaving the "...and that's my problem with it!" unsaid. I'm glad she's getting into Civ, and am always happy to assimilate another new Fanatic, but it's hilarious how her experience and excitement is unwittingly highlighting my own problems with the game.

 

[Nares]

the most obvious of which is that it is dysfunctional with the AI.

The AI is quite dysfunctional all on its own. Some of the AIs deepest rooted issues would be even more problematic with stacking.

Try reading through the tactical AI XML. It's mind boggling to think that's trying to "win the game." It was obviously tailored to the AI's previous intended role as a roadblock to the human players' victory, with no real threat of challenge.

 

[PieceOfMind]

Interesting (sort of) anecdote - just this week, a friend and his wife asked me about Civ 5. They remembered me being really gung-ho about it back in September (just prior to or just after release, I think it was) and since he's neck-deep in League of Legends all the time, she was looking for something new to play on her PC. She apparently had loved Civilization: Revolutions, so she was excited to try Civ 5. So they asked me if I thought it would be a good purchase for her.

This was an interesting moment for me. I don't personally enjoy Civ 5, but for her? It seemed like a good decision. For someone brand-new to 4X games, who played and enjoyed Civ Rev and wanted something a little deeper? According to Dennis Shirk (producer of Civ 5), that's precisely the target audience they were aiming for. So I bit my tongue and said yeah, she'll probably like it, go for it.

They picked it up and she's loving it so far. "It's just like Civ Rev, but more realistic!" "Yep!" I said, leaving the "...and that's my problem with it!" unsaid. I'm glad she's getting into Civ, and am always happy to assimilate another new Fanatic, but it's hilarious how her experience and excitement is unwittingly highlighting my own problems with the game.

i.e. Ignorance is bliss.

Thanks for the story.

 

[CivFanaticMan]

interesting there is a majority that dislike the game and no longer play. Aslo a large number of people who liked the game but no longer play.

 

[xxhe]

Have played it for 150+ hours. But a couple of weeks ago I stopped playing and waiting for the next patch(or a overhaul MOD)

 

[sketch162000]

Some of the AIs deepest rooted issues would be even more problematic with stacking.

You are probably right about reading the XMLs because, as I said, this sentiment escapes me entirely. In Civ IV, the AI didn't have any strokes of genius like, say, actively countering my UUs. But at the very least, I had the real challenge of overwhelming numbers most of the time.

OTOH, In Civ V I'm just decimating the enemy at chokepoints with a handful of troops. The leaders are going from laughing at my military weakness to praising my strong army after I build, like, two more archers. And I will be the first to tell you that I really suck at Civilization. I honestly don't deserve this kind of success. How on Earth stacking was the worse of two evils is just unfathomable to me.

 

[Brian Shanahan]

Some people didn't like the fact that all you had to do was build up 100 units, half siege and keep them (nearly) current to win the world. So they instituted a system where you build five horsemen (later swords) and win the world.

 

[Mathalamus]

even with 100 units, i still lost the war. the enemy was just smarter than me.

 

[Truthy]

I have many complaints with the game. The biggest problem is that the AI are ******** and the diplomacy is poor. But I still regularly play and believe it is the best strategy game around.

 

[lschnarch]

We have crossed the 400 border now. Another look at the results so far (all values rounded):
30% enjoying and playing (-2)
50% disliking the game (+2)
61% no longer playing (+3)

So, it seems to be safe to say that at best 1/3 are still enjoying and playing the game.
Around 50% are disliking the game.
The majority doesn't play it anymore.

Remember, we are talking about a Civ game.

We have crossed the 500 border now. Another look at the results so far (all values rounded):
29% enjoying and playing (-1)
50% disliking the game (unchanged)
61% no longer playing (unchanged)

Trends seem to be quite stable now.

Remember, we are talking about a Civ game.

 

[Sparthage]

We have crossed the 500 border now. Another look at the results so far (all values rounded):
29% enjoying and playing (-1)
50% disliking the game (unchanged)
61% no longer playing (unchanged)

Trends seem to be quite stable now.

Remember, we are talking about a Civ game.

Or if you want to look at it in simple like/dislike, you have...
47.63% Like the Game
49.41% Dislike the Game
2.95% None of the Above

Of course, 18.5% of those who like the game have found a reson not to play anymore (myself included). That's not good for a fairly new Civ game.

 

[Achilleslastand]

Civ 5 is a horrible mess of a turn based strategy game. Whats even funnier is the new issue of PC gamer has Civ as the strategy game of 2010....lol what a joke.
I guess 2K lined their pockets with even more swag to get this as well as the high game review back in Sept.

 

[artyom]

i still play this crap cuz I believe there will be improvements . i dont understand what the heck these developers were doing. civ 5 adds very interesting elements but so many basic things are removed. (like you gotta click soo freaking much compared to civ 4 to do the same exact moves, and my "space tab" doesnt end the turn, etc)

 

[jacyp]

Interesting (sort of) anecdote - just this week, a friend and his wife asked me about Civ 5. They remembered me being really gung-ho about it back in September (just prior to or just after release, I think it was) and since he's neck-deep in League of Legends all the time, she was looking for something new to play on her PC. She apparently had loved Civilization: Revolutions, so she was excited to try Civ 5. So they asked me if I thought it would be a good purchase for her.

This was an interesting moment for me. I don't personally enjoy Civ 5, but for her? It seemed like a good decision. For someone brand-new to 4X games, who played and enjoyed Civ Rev and wanted something a little deeper? According to Dennis Shirk (producer of Civ 5), that's precisely the target audience they were aiming for. So I bit my tongue and said yeah, she'll probably like it, go for it.

They picked it up and she's loving it so far. "It's just like Civ Rev, but more realistic!" "Yep!" I said, leaving the "...and that's my problem with it!" unsaid. I'm glad she's getting into Civ, and am always happy to assimilate another new Fanatic, but it's hilarious how her experience and excitement is unwittingly highlighting my own problems with the game.

And then, in about an year or a few months, when she come back to you asking what would you suggest for a deeper gameplay experience, you can suggest "play Civilization 4 with Beyond the Sword", she'll follow your suggestion and the friendship will be over.

She'll be like "why did you allow me to play that game instead of suggesting me this on right away!?"

 

[SuperJay]

And then, in about an year or a few months, when she come back to you asking what would you suggest for a deeper gameplay experience, you can suggest "play Civilization 4 with Beyond the Sword", she'll follow your suggestion and the friendship will be over.

She'll be like "why did you allow me to play that game instead of suggesting me this on right away!?"

I know, right?? I already dropped a hint to the effect of "if you get to the point of wanting some more depth or more stuff to do, the previous iteration might be worth considering..." but for now, she's happy with Civ 5. And I can't blame her; if I was playing my first 4X game ever, I'd probably enjoy it too. I wouldn't know what I was missing!

Given this meaningless little anecdotal example, Firaxis made the right choice for Civ 5, if their intent was to appeal to brand-new players rather than old-school fans. I have mixed feelings about the whole thing - I'm always happy to see new players get hooked on Civ, but I got left out in the cold so they could get their Fisher Price: My First Civilization (tm) game.

 

[Brian Shanahan]

Problem I see with that strategy though, is that for Firaxis to get the most money out of a Civ title they need it to be deep and immersive, OK make it easy to get a handle of for noobs, but the current game (aside from all the gameplay problems) is just very, very shallow, and boring after the first few gos. You have a one guaranteed way to win, that always works, and everything else is a variation on it.

No matter how much they sell on the original release the most of the profit will be coming off DLCs and Expansions, and unless you get new players hooked on the game (and for a 4X game that means immersion, and many victory paths using new and different strategies) and playing it consistently over a large period of time. Civ V does not have that level of depth to it, it is a game you play you win a couple of times, you go up the difficulties, and you shelve, at best. It is not a game where no matter how good you are there is a new trick to find, a new way to discover or a new idea to be beheld.

A lot of the new players will disappear between now and the next big release pertaining to the game.

 

[Humakty]

I wait for patch, launch a game, play 200 turns, quit, rinse repeat....

I was holed in a terrible position, against three time as many units, and squashed them 'cause they kept throwing thier chariot archers into melee. Ofc they all charged right to my nearest city, ignoring the flank move of my grandiose 2 cavalry units which won the war.... Couldn't a superior IA seek the destruction of your forces rather than to take a mere city ? I think it would avoid some dumb victories.

Military is 90 % of my actions in game (not much to do else) and fighting is just chaining stupid traps even a TW IA wouldn't fall in

 

[QuantumProjects]

It's unfathomable to me why they've made a game aiming the casual audience, sticking to simplification strategies, and then released downloadable content that will only appeal to diehard fans.

It seems much more smarter to design a game aiming the already established fanbase, and put in the game options to disable most of the "complicated features", something they actually did in Civ4 BTS.