Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by hussar, Nov 14, 2010.
If you don't like the game, mod it until you do. That's my philosophy.
That's what I'm doing too (not that I don't like it, but I'm modding it to like it even more )
We have paid money for this game, so we have every right to complain if we wish. Who are you to forbid that
And maybe, if enough people "take of their fanboyism" hat and tell truly what they like and dislike and what they would like to see; the dev's pick something usefull information out of it.
Also, while i like mod's and played some, i never needed ONE to have a good game. The patched, vanilla version did that quite well. I don't feel this is gonna happen with CIV 5, because to me, some basic elements are there that i don't like and it needs MOD's to give me some satisfaction.
The poll should've been multiple choice. I think Firaxis should work on Civ 5 expansions and I like fruit loops.
Civ5 has good potential, I don't see why it would be good to go straight to Civ6. Such a move would mean further development of Civ5 would be less likely, wasting the potential, and would also mean that a lot of the cool bits of Civ5 that are being tried out here would most likely have to be scrapped (if they were going to go straight to the next version, this would seem the most likely course of action).
What I am pretty sure about is that neither (Expansions or Civ6) are going to be bought as much as CiV anymore. Fireaxis lost a lot of blind trust at their pre-CiV-fanbase. No matter if they are working on an expansion or Civ6 - the most important issue is to get that trust back.
Anyway, I voted for Civ6 as I think their are too many elemental flaws with CiV.
What makes you think so? There are some people that bash Civ5 constantly at this forum, but it doesn't mean that a large portion of Civ fans lost their trust in the series (but, of course, such opinions at the forum "help" reducing the sales and the probability of making future expansion packs and sequels).
I think the opposite, Civ5 removed some elemental flaws of the series, like SoDs snd sliders.
What I dont understand is why someone other software developer hasnt jumped at the chance to steal Firaxis monopoly. No we dont want Firaxis to make civ 6 becasue that would be the same team that brought us civ 5. Why dont people get they need to change the people in charged unless they want more of the same?
With all the out of work IT people you'd like a few would get together in garage and hammer out some competition out school style.
@Pawel: I think you agree that the percentage of disappointed fans is hard to estimate.
Subjectively I say that it is very large, based on the fact that all of my long-term civ-contacts (about 10 people) have stopped playing CiV after a month latest and all of them feel like this.
Also, please see that I said "blind trust". I still love Civilization (the series) but I'll not preorder any title anymore as I did with CiV. I'll wait for player-reviews first.
Yes, such written opinions might indirectly reduce the propability of new expansions or Civ-games but you can't ask us to swallow our frustration and stay silent (see signature). We love the series too much to do that.
You're right, but I think for the quality of the discussion it's better if the criticism is more constructive, and not overly harsh, so I think it's better to avoid such expressions as "completely unacceptable" Do you really think the game is so bad that it deserves such words? I can't believe it. It's a matter of proportions - really bad opinions should be reserved for really bad games.
About your civ contacts: the fact that you are in contact makes it possible that you influence each other's opinions, so the bad opinion about Civ5 in the entire group can be an example of "groupthink".
Edit: Btw your signature implies that someone who doesn't think that it's "completely unacceptable" is not a true Civ fan. I have to disagree.
I think Firaxis is about as likely to abandon this game for Civ6 as they are to abandon games entirely and become an automobile company. Imagine Civ6 hits the (virtual) shelves next summer and everybody goes "why should I buy Civ6 when Firaxis will just stop supporting their game at a moment's notice!"
I enjoy the game at it's current state ((thanks to the help some of my modding friends(thanks Thalassicus)). However, I don't think anyone would argue that there is a lot of room for improvement, and true depth is definitely lacking. I think that things are on the right track with the upcoming patch. I would also like game balance to be fixed. I, as a casual gamer, should not even be thinking things like game balance. I would also like to see an x-pac that features things like, a more in depth interaction with city states. I also miss things like espionage, religion, and corporations from cIV; and I would love to see these things added in the expansion. If they were to just leave the game in its' current state, I would feel let down, and there is no way I would buy civ6. However, if ciV is made into the game it could be, I would be perfectly happy to give civ6 a try.
Firaxis should work on Civ 5 expansions - the best way to make this game as good as Civ4
V still needs a lot of work IMO, so not really looking forward to a VI any time soon.
@ skwink: just outta curiosity, what's the opening bid for Poland, and does it include fruit loops?
I sincerely doubt they will come along again with crap of the caliber of Shafer's V.. ever!
I cannot speak for Gismo, but I for my person do think that "completely unacceptable" is a very correct and perfectly fitting statement.
This game doesn't keep any of the promises which have been made pre-release.
Weren't we told to get something with a powerful 4-lvl-AI?
To me, it looks like the AI is failing on all 4 levels. It cannot fight battles (tactical), it cannot allocate troops according to their needs (strategical), it cannot win even a diplomatic win (which is just bribery).
The concept of continents seems to be just unknown to the AI at all.
Weren't we told to get some kind of living diplomacy? Wasn't that the whole point behind these animations?
Now, diplomacy is just a joke. They even have to try to fix is somehow.
Weren't we told about accessibility?
Well, information which would be needed is just hidden. Nobody really knows how unit maintenance is calculated. Nobody has a chance within diplomacy to check anything.
Even entering the city screen means to have to manually open the most important information in that screen.
Weren't we told about this brand new "art deco style" user interface?
You get a production notification or a research notification on the right side to have to move to the left side to do your selection.
You don't get the chance to see all unit promotions in the case of having more than 9 of them (the "wonderful" red and golden triangles count here as well)
Selecting individual units is a major pain, not to mention that these units which are meant to stay with you for ages cannot be named (except for the moment when they are promoted, and even then the names are not shown in the lists).
Sometimes it takes more than one second for the engine to manage the transition from one unit having done it's turn to the next one.
Similarily, it takes almost one second for pathfinding over such big distances as 2 hexes.
Weren't we told about the game's scalability? Didn't they announce to have written a brandnew graphics engine especially for their needs and purposes, being so much better adjusted for their needs?
What we've got is a system which in comparison to Civ4's graphics shows quite less, yet consumes much more processing power.
Being in the player's turn and running the "strategic view" (even in the 80ies, games provided a much better display than that one, btw), the game consumes the computing power of 2 of 4 (i7 920) cores up to 40% each. On the "normal map" it is around 50 - 55% each.
The game is so badly "optimized" (in other words, it is not optimized at all) that it hurts.
Weren't we told that the 1upt system was inspired by Panzer General?
Well, everything which made the PG combat system successful has been drowned for Civ5: no retaliation fire, no supportive fire when under attack, no things like support and refreshing units.
The scale in terms of distances and time is completely messed up. Land combat takes place on the strategic map, thus making the tactical combat effectively taking place on a densely covered bushland map with quite some elevations.
There is a clear mismatch between archery range and firearms/artillery type units.
Naval "battles" take literally ages for no gain.
In fact, even Firaxs themselve learned that 1upt was a no-go. Therefore, they had to partially allow "stacking" for civilian and military units, or for airplanes.
Which literally means, the core idea of the whole game did not work even for them.
And it still doesn't work.
Moving a unit by a "go to" command through a city with another unit in it makes the moving unit stop without notification.
Don't let me even start talking about City States.
Or the "social policies".
Or the magical beaming of resources across the whole planet.
Or the cultural based extension of borders which avoids getting the right resources or anything related to production as long as possible.
This game is a major design flaw in almost each and every aspect.
If they would have *tried* to make it unpleasant to play, they couldn't have had more success.
Whatever they have advertised has fallen flat on the nose.
*I* call this "completely unacceptable".
*You* may close your eyes before the many flaws and plainly deny them being present, but that doesn't make them disappear.
And the desperate hope that somehow, somewhen, somewhere a mod or an expansion may change something to the better not only is quite unlikely due to the design flaws, it even doesn't help a bit.
My money has been spent for here and now, and not for something which "may" happen in an unknown future.
I perfectly understand your disappointment. You've spent money for a game you hoped to be good, to be at the same level as its predecessor.
Now you are confronted with the bitter truth and even worse, there are people who keep telling you about it.
It is so much more convenient to just close the eyes and to deny the flaws of the game. Because not looking at them magically makes them not being present, right?
No one is approaching or asking " what led to it being crap" so why would you expect anything different from here on out ? People are more concerned with hurt feelings and the perception of being impolite that the production of a quality game.
The game doesnt make promises - people do. Its easy to blame software but what about the devs and the testers and the media?
I give up after reading Ricci's post, which is a perfect example of constructive discussion
lschnarch's points are worth discussing, but I'm exhausted
Poll after poll after poll has shown that 30% to 40% of Civilization fans have a very bad opinion of Civilization V. Is that not a large portion of Civ fans?
Don't bother answering Pavel, you're 100% predictable.
You're right, I won't bother answering, and I think about leaving this forum entirely.
Yes, this is regrettably true about a game, it is what such a stubbornly divided fan base generates.
Pawel, I am sorry to have finally exhausted your arguing energies. I promote and have endured reasonable conversation always in this same forum, after a while of reading once and again such vague argumentation and absurd comparisons with cIV I allowed myself some idiotic, exaggerated grunt on my count. It's somehow fun and it seems to have become common currency as well. Please keep posting if you might..
Separate names with a comma.