Sullla Discovers the Major Fault Behind Civ V: The Death of Civ?

My father, playing civ, won on Prince in his first game (He has finished just now)... Then he said: -maybe is way to easy on Prince... I will try higher levels...- He played without knowing the bases of the game, at some point he asked if the social politics popping out were granted like the casual event......... I was embarassed to explain him that was the culture value to grant them...

He didn't grasp half of the mechanics and won...

I don't know what to say or think....:(
 
<I>He didn't grasp half of the mechanics and won...</I>

I'm curious, how did he feel about that? Did he enjoy his victory?
 
My father, playing civ, won on Prince in his first game (He has finished just now)... Then he said: -maybe is way to easy on Prince... I will try higher levels...- He played without knowing the bases of the game, at some point he asked if the social politics popping out were granted like the casual event......... I was embarassed to explain him that was the culture value to grant them...

He didn't grasp half of the mechanics and won...

I don't know what to say or think....:(

You could say that Firaxis and 2K Games seem to have succeeded in watering the game down for the mass market and casual gamers. It's a sad day indeed. :(
 
<I>He didn't grasp half of the mechanics and won...</I>

I'm curious, how did he feel about that? Did he enjoy his victory?

Satisfied, he plays to relax, on civ IV he has played on noble as his personal highest level... He plays offline because i share with him my steam account (and with my brother)..:)
 
The game plays fairly well when you avoid using all of the broken mechanics.

This is a sensible approach, so much so that I couldn't help taking it one step further: I avoid the entire game, not just its broken mechanics. To me, the game looks as its best when I don't play it at all. I just watch the intro and the nice leader animations.
 
Satisfied, he plays to relax, on civ IV he has played on noble as his personal highest level... He plays offline because i share with him my steam account (and with my brother)..:)

Sounds like Firaxis has succeded as far as he's concerned. This is the reality; the small minority of strategy nerds does not matter to their bottom line. Did you ever wonder why there are so few games like Civ? Now there is one fewer...Civ itself.
 
Sounds like Firaxis has succeded as far as he's concerned. This is the reality; the small minority of strategy nerds does not matter to their bottom line. Did you ever wonder why there are so few games like Civ? Now there is one fewer...Civ itself.

Yes, it's a pity that i bought the game he is playing...:lol:
 
Sounds like Firaxis has succeded as far as he's concerned. This is the reality; the small minority of strategy nerds does not matter to their bottom line. Did you ever wonder why there are so few games like Civ? Now there is one fewer...Civ itself.

That's just it and it's only going to get worse. There simply aren't enough people like us that enjoy a deeply satisfying, immersive game to satisfy Firaxis or greedy 2K Games.

3 million in sales sounds fantastic (for cIV) but it really isn't in the big picture.

Unless we as Civ lovers stand up for what we believe in and fight for a quality game then this franchise will just get simpler and simpler.

It'll be watered down to absolutely nothing to satisfy the ADD riddled teenagers who want instant satisfaction and don't want to have to earn anything by actually thinking.

That's their target audience and the game will sink to the lowest common denominator.
 
This is a sensible approach, so much so that I couldn't help taking it one step further: I avoid the entire game, not just its broken mechanics. To me, the game looks as its best when I don't play it at all. I just watch the intro and the nice leader animations.

Well that's your choice then. What do you want me to say? You could have waited a few weeks after release to see all the complaints on this forum before buying the game. Instead you rushed it like a sucker and are now blaming Firaxis. I chose to buy right away, enjoy the good parts, and wait for a patch.
 
We blame FireAxis, cause they made the game-mechanics to make it possible. They have set the bounderies, not us. As it should, don't you agree ?

Really, this is getting sillier by the day.
 
Well that's your choice then. What do you want me to say? You could have waited a few weeks after release to see all the complaints on this forum before buying the game. Instead you rushed it like a sucker and are now blaming Firaxis. I chose to buy right away, enjoy the good parts, and wait for a patch.

You misunderstand me. I do enjoy the good parts too, namely the intro and the leader animations. The bad parts don't bother me at all: at this early stage, I just refrain from playing.
 
It sure sounds strange to hear about people using a core mechanic like city states to their advantage and it being called an exploit. :crazyeye:
I have actually been thinking about that issue. As a Veteran GOTM player in Civ 4, where we ban exploits, I was thinking that banning exploits in Civ V will mean banning the game! :eek:

dV
 
That's just it and it's only going to get worse. There simply aren't enough people like us that enjoy a deeply satisfying, immersive game to satisfy Firaxis or greedy 2K Games.

3 million in sales sounds fantastic (for cIV) but it really isn't in the big picture.

Unless we as Civ lovers stand up for what we believe in and fight for a quality game then this franchise will just get simpler and simpler.

It'll be watered down to absolutely nothing to satisfy the ADD riddled teenagers who want instant satisfaction and don't want to have to earn anything by actually thinking.

That's their target audience and the game will sink to the lowest common denominator.

I think there are plenty of people. Past sales of Civ prove it well enough. Let's avoid crying and making ourselves into an abused minority just because a flawed Civ game was released. If it wasn't Civ 5, then it would happen with Civ 6, 7, or 8. Every now and then they'll release something kind of messed up that needs a lot of work (no developer is perfect).

Secondly, if we are too small of a market, then no amount of "fighting" is going to change the economics. Also, I don't think people who didn't care much about the depth were bothered at all by previous Civs, considering they just played at a lower difficulty.

Thirdly, I have ADHD, so I don't appreciate people stereotyping those afflicted with this disorder. It's nearly more annoying than the disorder itself when some random person decides to blame things on people with ADHD. Beyond that it represents a severe lack of understanding of how ADHD works and what the people with it are like on your part -- and please don't try to back up your views with crappy anecdotal evidence that is inevitably going to be extremely biased by how your receive and notice the information.

Rather than try to pretend this is some kind of attack by greed, marketing, and the majority (or a minority in the case of people with ADHD) of the populace against you, maybe you should try a more realistic outlook. The game was rushed out the door, it wasn't tuned or polished well, and hence it lacks the enjoyable play of previous Civs. It also has one or two somewhat poorly thought out mechanics, but those could have been polished to a decent level so that they wouldn't have been too much of a burden. The game will undoubtedly get better with mods, patches, and expansions though. Civ 6 will probably be better still.

So, I guess you can take all of that into consideration, or you can act like THIS IS THE END OF GAMING AS WE KNOW IT. Your choice.
 
Thormodr, your only contribution to the discussion has been to rant about how civ5 sucks and about how no fix to game mechanic would be good because of the bad AI.

Game mechanics come before AI.

It would be awsome if you directed your anger at showing and explaining exactly how civ5 could be made better, I think.
 
Game mechanics come before AI.
True. However, some things are not going to be fixed while it is obvious
that those game mechanics are, by design chosen.
So yes, they can tweak it here and there and balance things better. Does that solve the underlying problem ? I think not but i am sure that there are others, who think otherwise because they don't see it as a problem or actually like it.
-to me the tactical warfare is flawed. So that's a "game mechanic" that will never be fixed. Because i don't talk about balancing issue's, it goes beyond that and i know, they won't change that much if any to this "game-mechanic" aka (tactical warfare on a CIV-Map scale with 1 utp)

So one way or another, CIV 5 will never be totally "fixed" to my liking. The only hope that's left is a good mod that is closer to what i think CIV should be.
 
Thormodr, your only contribution to the discussion has been to rant about how civ5 sucks and about how no fix to game mechanic would be good because of the bad AI.

Game mechanics come before AI.

It would be awsome if you directed your anger at showing and explaining exactly how civ5 could be made better, I think.

Civ 5 will not be made better. They quite clearly have no intention of fixing the flaws. I have some hope for an expansion or for contributions from the MOD community once the SDK is released. But if you think that Firaxis will ship out a patch which will fix the myriad design flaws in this abomination, you are simply dreaming.
 
Agree with most of what Sulla says ( especially about terrain/improvements! ) and its great to see imbalances and flaws pointed out in a clear way. It will help the game improve. A shame the game had to be sent out the door without a few more months of polish and testing.

However I think of this in another way: this game is a straight up reboot of the series.

I think 1UPT, hexes and the combat system are the solid foundation that will be built upon for multiple expansions to come. Expect to see things like espionage, corporations, religion brought back but in baby steps once they get things balanced and working properly. Expect to see some of the current systems corrected and possibly redesigned. I'm actually really excited about where this game is going if they can get the damn AI up to snuff. And thats not a given, AI is tough stuff.

And yes, DEFINITELY made to be more accessible. I guarantee the word accessibility was one of the key goals at the top of the design doc. And why wouldn't it be? The goal of every sequel is to expand the player base.

Also, to clear up a common false equivalency: accessibility does not mean the same thing as dumbed down...chess is accessible and deep as hell. You can have deep meaningful choices with simple mechanics. Is dumbing stuff down an easy way for a production group to claim accessibility to execs? Hell yes, and thats why you see it so much in the current mess that is the gaming industry. But I don't think thats the case here, I still trust these guys.
 
Civ 5 will not be made better. They quite clearly have no intention of fixing the flaws. I have some hope for an expansion or for contributions from the MOD community once the SDK is released. But if you think that Firaxis will ship out a patch which will fix the myriad design flaws in this abomination, you are simply dreaming.

I don't understand why anyone would assume this, Civ IV had a variety of patches fixing things even after the game was done (How long did 3.19 come out after Beyond the Sword, 2008 or 2009?)
 
Back
Top Bottom