"The Bad Sequel": Sullla's Analysis of Civ5

[ThisIsDennis]

Clearly, both Carpets of Doom and Stacks of Doom are bad and well-hated. So what is the only logical resolution of this? Limited numbers of total units without 1upt. Would this not be possible to implement in a nice way that satisfies the whole community?

 

[DeathReborn]

First of all I hate these kind of topics, my mind works oddly & proceses about 20 different things to mention at the same time & 17/8 of them just get forgotten & thrown in whenever so there really is no train of thought to get fromn this post...

The flaws in the basic games mechanics (diplomacy, AI, UI etc) can't be solved with patches or mods, they can only be solved by looking at what made Civilization the great series it has been for decades & making Civ 6 instead of 2/3 expansions for a game that they can't fix.

Both me & my dad still play Civ 2 & 4 because we can actually enjoy them, we don't mind if we lose or one of us kills the other off it brings us together for a few hours a week just having fun. Neither of us have touched or Civ 5 games since early October we're that disillusionerd with the path they've taken. Neither of us will be buying Civ 6 until we've seen the fun & the MP mode restored to something like the previous games.

As far as the "hype factor" goes most of the hype was driven by fans BUT then most previous Civ gamers would expect Civ 5 to be Civ 4 improved (whether by hexes, 1UPT or whatever) not to see things stripped out & not replaced by something similar (MP). I suspect that even 2 extra weeks of testing by fans (not internal puppets) would have picked up most of the issues people saw a within days of release & maybe even delayed the game long enough to fix some issues but not too long to upset too many people. I may despise certain companies "we'll release it when it's done" bullcrap but I do appreciate that sometimes a delay is necessary to fix problems found in testing. Day 1 patches are becoming the norm nowadays which is a shame because an extra week or 2 in development/testing could stop bug rideen or unbalanced titles coming out every week.

PS: In patches since 07-10-11 made the Mod browser window (one pet hate) actually use up some wasted space so mod information fits better?

 

[Balderstrom]

I've explained repeatedly how 1UPT makes the combat engine much more difficult. There is no magic "improve the AI 10-fold button", the game breaks because the AI problem for 1UPT is much harder, so the combat AI is much worse!

Attempts to bring production rates closer to Civ IV levels result in bogged down impossible to move armies. For all the complaints about doom stacks, at least you didn't have to move units 1 at a time!

1UPT is a spectacular failure and I hope Civ VI gets away from it. I think the best plan for the future is a CTP like 9UPT system or failing that a return to no tile-limits, and AI's that can move units in the order they look at them without penalty!

I used to play a flash game Tactics 100, basically a chess board combat pseudo-RPG combat game. Humans obviously play better than the AI, but the AI is at least competent. As well there are many chess-game AI's that can play competently. The fact that CiV's AI can't deal with combat is solely a problem with the game and it's developers.

If CiV had of incorporated a "tactical" combat round, reduced the number of units you can build (somewhat), left stacking as normal, and brought back zone-of-control then I believe everything would of been fine. This is what I was looking for with CiV - tactical combat (that opens up outside of the main map) - not 1UPT --- which to me is a gimmicky broken mechanic that feels like a mechanic and ruins the feel of the game. You are constantly reminded it is just a game when you repeatedly run into issues dealing with the 1UPT restrictions: 1 unit in a city, auto-attacking cities, pathing issues, etc. On top of it making absolutely no sense given the scale of all of the Civ games.

NOTE: Minimally, I was expecting the ability to create "armies"/join units like in Civ:Rev.

Tactical combat, moving individual units could even be optional, combat could play out like an RTS-style within a sandboxed area - allowing for retreat. Games have successfully done this since the 80s - e.g. Defender of the Crown.

Another option would be stacks that you can organize, and the game would default them for you - allowing changes if you preferred:

[A]
[A] [W]
[A] [W] [K] [C]
[A] [W] [K]
[A] [W]
[A]
A: Archer, W: Warrior, K: Knight, C: Catapult.

Even a slowed down Rise of Nations RTS-style (by Brian Reynolds) could of worked.

 

[Tarkhan]

I think the biggest reason I am sticking to Civ 5 is because god damn building stacks in like 20 cities was freaking tedious.

that being said I agree with the article. Though I am saddened by its failure because I was hoping for a revival of the succession game forum, which was so fun to read during early Civ4.

 

[Caeserportugal]

I have just finished reading the whole article and god damn it I am totally with Sulla here I mean CIV 5 was the most easy game I have ever played which is annoying. I mean the game wasn´t chellanging as far as I am concernerd

 

[Jatta Pake]

I purchased Civ 5 a couple weeks ago. I have played five games and none to completion. I quit some time in the Ren era. Not because I'm losing, but more because I grew tired of clicking End Turn over and over with no new challenges emerging.

Sulla's article was spot on. After a couple games I was already interested in the "patches" and thinking about the "potential".

There is a lot I love about Civ 5. I love the reduction in tedious tasks. I love the hex tiles. I just can't love this game.

Can a mod overhaul the game?

 

[tom2050]

@Balderstrom: If you want Civilization to be like Flash games, RTS, and Civ Rev (a civ spin-off, like CivBook); it won't be a Civilization game anymore, and 2K will destroy the franchise once and for all.

They need to stick to the original foundation of Civ and make improvements.

 

[Sir Sam Vimes]

The pattern that Sulla is seeing is very accurate, but people remember that is describes an effect of some other cause. It does not actually explain the cause itself and thus it can only tell us what went wrong, not how to truly and fundamentally fix it.

In that sense it misses the point. We gamers miss the point. If we want to fix something, we must get to the cause. What is the cause? Whenever there is a issue, look to the cause not the effect and the problem will be resolved it is that simple. But what is the true cause?

Yup. If bugs were the only problem with CiV, I would have played it a few times since November. Both Civ III and IV were buggy as hell upon their release, but I played them during their sketchy "unpolished" periods because the underlying structure of the game was still entertaining. CiV is bland and simple, and I don't think Firaxis is going to fix it - I think they intended it to be this way. Maybe not bland, but definitely simple.

Hardcore strategy gamers aren't very numerous and will never bring in the kind of cash you see in franchises like Call of Duty or WoW (I don't like either of these games; I'm just using them as examples). I think the objective with CiV was to simplify the game to bring in more customers; customers who don't have the patience to learn a game as complex as the earlier entries in the Civ series. Unfortunately, what they failed to take into account is the fact that strategy games without complexity don't have any strategy. Thus, it bores the aforementioned hardcore group quickly. New customers might be drawn in, but these people have a short attention span anyway and will move onto another game within a few months.

Essentially, it's up to the modding community to make CiV appealing. Given some of the stuff produced for CivIV, I don't doubt that they can do this, but it's going to take a while I think.

As my computer is too old to play anything beyond Civ 3 or the demo of Civ 4, I don't know how qualified I am to discuss this issue, but I will anyway...

So CiV came out, was buggy and got patched pretty quickly. That happens to most strategy games, but in this case there were more bugs than usual and the patches (EIGHT ALREADY? Lunacy!) appeared very quickly. To me, that suggests a rush-release. Why? Two reasons spring to mind: 1) demand from gamers and more importantly 2) the recession. Gaming is going like cinema went in the latter half of the 20th century; a few huge titles are made with massive budgets, genius advertising and apparently groundbreaking new techniques/technologies (Call of Duty springs to mind...) and there is a proliferation of indie titles that are mostly rubbish with a few gems thrown in, but which always do well economically because they cost very little to make and sell relatively well because they're cheap to buy or trendy to play. In the middle are popular, expensive to make games that don't have mass appeal on the scale of Modern Warfare and its ilk (CiV, Empire Earth, etc) and they have to compete or go bust. Especially in a recession when sales are down and they haven't had a new title for several years.

Lok on it this way:
1991: Civilization
1996: Civ 2
1998: Alpha Centuri
2001: Civ 3
2005: Civ 4
2010: Civ 5

so it took 10 years to get from 1 to 3, which represented a massive change in graphics, game engine, etc. Civ 4 can't be too much of a step up from 3 game engine wise or the demo wouldn't work on my computer, but we know that CiV IS a big step up. Therefore, they tried to achieve another big leap in the technological standard of the game, but this time in less than 5 years. No wonder there are issues...

frankly, even if i won a brand-new high-end PC tomorrow, I'd wait till Mastertronics do the inevitable 'gold' or 'complete' edition of CiV... thus getting all the patches and any expansions. But yes, despite the huge leaps in tech trees and so on, the games seem to be getting simpler. I've played 4 and its way easier to win individual battles, particularly using stone age units, than it is in 3...


Modding is key. I love Civ but I'd be fed up of being stuck with Civ 3 were it not for the members of this community, who have made so many great scenarios and mods for it, and now I've joined this communtiy to try to do the same for others

 

[mamba]

As my computer is too old to play anything beyond Civ 3 or the demo of Civ 4, I don't know how qualified I am to discuss this issue, but I will anyway...

answer : not all that much, but this doesn't stop anyone else either

So CiV came out, was buggy and got patched pretty quickly. That happens to most strategy games, but in this case there were more bugs than usual and the patches (EIGHT ALREADY? Lunacy!) appeared very quickly. To me, that suggests a rush-release. Why? Two reasons spring to mind: 1) demand from gamers and more importantly 2) the recession.

not sure what the recession has to do with this (might just miss the point you are trying to make). Why does this force more frequent patches on Civ ? (I tend to agree with the rest of the paragraph, i.e. best-sellers, indies and Civ being in between)

Civ 4 can't be too much of a step up from 3 game engine wise or the demo wouldn't work on my computer, but we know that CiV IS a big step up. Therefore, they tried to achieve another big leap in the technological standard of the game, but this time in less than 5 years. No wonder there are issues...

actually Civ 4 is a lot closer to Civ 5 than Civ 3 as far as the graphics engine is concerned (which in essence drives the resource requirements).

But yes, despite the huge leaps in tech trees and so on, the games seem to be getting simpler. I've played 4 and its way easier to win individual battles, particularly using stone age units, than it is in 3...

I wouldn't extrapolate from single battles to the overall game

Civ 5 is a simplified Civ 4 however, they got rid of some features (I do agree with the cuts of religion and espionage btw)

 

[Sir Sam Vimes]

answer : not all that much, but this doesn't stop anyone else either



not sure what the recession has to do with this (might just miss the point you are trying to make). Why does this force more frequent patches on Civ ? (I tend to agree with the rest of the paragraph, i.e. best-sellers, indies and Civ being in between)



actually Civ 4 is a lot closer to Civ 5 than Civ 3 as far as the graphics engine is concerned (which in essence drives the resource requirements).



I wouldn't extrapolate from single battles to the overall game

Civ 5 is a simplified Civ 4 however, they got rid of some features (I do agree with the cuts of religion and espionage btw)

the recession forces rush-releases because companies need to make money, basically

yes, the Civ 4 graphics engine is probably nearer to CiV, but in terms or play... this may just be me, but I felt that while Civ 4 was a logical extension of 3 (with graphics that were starting to look like Rise of Nations) CiV is like an oversimplified Civ Rev... y'know, its a turn-based game for RTS fans ... and that requires a major rejigging of the actual mechanics of the game. I mean, DICE ROLLS?!?...

I have played a friends version of Vanilla Civ 4 right through from start to finish. My difficulty level in 3 is Monarch or Emperor, depending on the scenario... it was immortal on 4 and i won a domination victory

and yes... I'm not entitled to discuss CiV, but a friend of mine tells me that for him the only redeeming feature was the hexagonal combat, and he's going right back to civ 4

 

[Jatta Pake]

I believe Sulla should re-visit Civ 5 after this patch.

Civ 4 has more "meat" but that's because we've seen several years of expansions and patching. I now believe Civ 5 was meant to be a stable platform from which to build more "meat" through expansions and downloadable content.

Civ 5 has the unfortunate circumstance of having to compete against itself AND be more profitable than its previous successful iterations. The new patch has made Civ 5 fun though, and I kept taking "one more turn" long after I should have gone to bed.

Also, Sulla needs to address the critique that the "Carpet of Doom" picture was created using a modded version of the game. I would like to see if anyone else can repeat the "Carpet of Doom" using the new patch.

Civ 5 is meant to be played differently than the Civ 4 unit bum rush.

 

[Bibor]

I believe Sulla should re-visit Civ 5 after this patch.

Sulla's notes were never just about Civ5's flaws.

 

[KungCheops]

Yup. If bugs were the only problem with CiV, I would have played it a few times since November. Both Civ III and IV were buggy as hell upon their release, but I played them during their sketchy "unpolished" periods because the underlying structure of the game was still entertaining. CiV is bland and simple, and I don't think Firaxis is going to fix it - I think they intended it to be this way. Maybe not bland, but definitely simple.

Hardcore strategy gamers aren't very numerous and will never bring in the kind of cash you see in franchises like Call of Duty or WoW (I don't like either of these games; I'm just using them as examples). I think the objective with CiV was to simplify the game to bring in more customers; customers who don't have the patience to learn a game as complex as the earlier entries in the Civ series. Unfortunately, what they failed to take into account is the fact that strategy games without complexity don't have any strategy. Thus, it bores the aforementioned hardcore group quickly. New customers might be drawn in, but these people have a short attention span anyway and will move onto another game within a few months.

Essentially, it's up to the modding community to make CiV appealing. Given some of the stuff produced for CivIV, I don't doubt that they can do this, but it's going to take a while I think.

I think this post says it all. I really hope from the bottom of my heart and soul that the developers release the code or mod stuff (or whatever, I'm not that good at modding, I just adore the people who mod) so the modders can do their magic and fix this game.

 

[Balderstrom]

I think one need only look at Amazon for some very telling info about Civ4 and Civ5...(and even Civ3).

Civilization V -- average rating just barely above 2 stars, 629 review/ratings.


Civilization IV: The Complete Edition -- avg. 3.5 stars (61) [Includes BTS+Warlods+Colonization]
Civilization IV: Complete [UK Import] -- avg. 4.0 stars (42) [Includes BTS+Warlords]
Civilization IV: Game of the Year Edition -- avg. 3.0 stars (387)
Civilization IV: Gold Edition -- avg. 4.0 stars (61) [Includes Warlords]

Civilization IV Beyond the Sword -- avg. 4.5 stars (95)
Civilization IV: Warlords Expansion Pack -- avg. 4.0 stars (57)

Civilization IV: Colonization -- avg. 2.25 stars (75)


Civilization III Complete -- avg. 4.0 stars (81)
Civilization 3 -- avg. 3.5 stars (516)
Civilization 3 Gold -- avg 4.0 stars (19)

Civilization 3: Conquests (expansion) -- avg. 4 stars (54)
Civilization 3: Play the World (expansion) -- avg. 3 stars (80)

You can extrapolate all kinds of information from this. Primarily though, Civ4 and Civ3 range between 3 and 4 stars --- even if you don't count the expansions (even higher when you count them) AND Civ5 has almost as many ratings/reviews as all the others combined, 302 1 star, 112: 2 stars, 215: 3-5 stars. Two thirds of Civ5 review/ratings rank it below 3 stars.

Interestingly a lot of people have claimed that this always happens when the next CIV is released, there is a backlash against it and people don't like it. While this is true, in CIV5's case the backlash and distaste for the game is overwhelming.

Note: Civ2 ranks between 3.5 and 5 stars.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Civ 5 has the unfortunate circumstance of having to compete against itself AND be more profitable than its previous successful iterations. The new patch has made Civ 5 fun though, and I kept taking "one more turn" long after I should have gone to bed.

If you actually read Sulla's post, you will realize how few of the most glaring issues in the game have been corrected. MP is still broken, 1upt collision on maps is still there, the tactical issues with roads, bad controls, long turn times (if somewhat reduced they're still bad), and questionable balance of expansion vs alternatives all remain issues, to scratch the surface.

Interestingly a lot of people have claimed that this always happens when the next CIV is released, there is a backlash against it and people don't like it. While this is true, in CIV5's case the backlash and distaste for the game is overwhelming.

Indeed. The reason for this is debated. Many are of the opinion that it's due to design choices like hexes and 1UPT. I feel very strongly it has a lot to do with basic gameplay 101 things like UI, controls, play time, etc and the execution of certain design choices.

Firaxis is writing on the wall by selling additional content to an unfinished game for extended periods. I do understand that different programmers have different competencies, but nevertheless the priorities are made clear here and long-term reputation/quality isn't one of them.

 

[Jatta Pake]

The Multiplayer aspect of Civ 5 remains broken but I think other issues have been addressed. Turn time has been significantly sped up with the latest patch and the AI functions more competitively.

I think the window for fixing the remaining issues in Civ 5 is closing but I believe they will be addressed in the next patch or the patch after.

 

[Cruel]

I did not like civilization V. No patch changes much a game. I expect an expansion (if there) fix this game.

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

a lot of people didn't like Civ 4.

 

[Smauler]

As my computer is too old to play anything beyond Civ 3 or the demo of Civ 4, I don't know how qualified I am to discuss this issue, but I will anyway...

So CiV came out, was buggy and got patched pretty quickly. That happens to most strategy games, but in this case there were more bugs than usual and the patches (EIGHT ALREADY? Lunacy!) appeared very quickly.

8 patches is not meaningful. Most of those patches were small fixes, and changed nothing about the mechanics a lot of people here were complaining about. Upon release, I had no problems running and playing the game, as did most of the players.

To me, that suggests a rush-release. Why? Two reasons spring to mind: 1) demand from gamers and more importantly 2) the recession. Gaming is going like cinema went in the latter half of the 20th century; a few huge titles are made with massive budgets, genius advertising and apparently groundbreaking new techniques/technologies (Call of Duty springs to mind...) and there is a proliferation of indie titles that are mostly rubbish with a few gems thrown in, but which always do well economically because they cost very little to make and sell relatively well because they're cheap to buy or trendy to play. In the middle are popular, expensive to make games that don't have mass appeal on the scale of Modern Warfare and its ilk (CiV, Empire Earth, etc) and they have to compete or go bust. Especially in a recession when sales are down and they haven't had a new title for several years.

No - not really. The games market has been fragmented for ever. Medium sized businesses have _always_ been the ones most vulnerable, because they have relatively high overheads and no ubercorp to back them. Small businesses have nothing to lose, and you hear about the successes, and not the failures.

Lok on it this way:
1991: Civilization
1996: Civ 2
1998: Alpha Centuri
2001: Civ 3
2005: Civ 4
2010: Civ 5

so it took 10 years to get from 1 to 3, which represented a massive change in graphics, game engine, etc. Civ 4 can't be too much of a step up from 3 game engine wise or the demo wouldn't work on my computer, but we know that CiV IS a big step up. Therefore, they tried to achieve another big leap in the technological standard of the game, but this time in less than 5 years. No wonder there are issues...

Technological leaps aren't the issue here - game design is. Civilization 5 has numerous deliberate design changes not related to the technology. No one is complaining about the graphics, here. 5 is an unbalanced, poorly though out mess compared to 4.

frankly, even if i won a brand-new high-end PC tomorrow, I'd wait till Mastertronics do the inevitable 'gold' or 'complete' edition of CiV... thus getting all the patches and any expansions. But yes, despite the huge leaps in tech trees and so on, the games seem to be getting simpler. I've played 4 and its way easier to win individual battles, particularly using stone age units, than it is in 3...

You're obviously very confused in one way or another. Individual battles? What are you talking about?

Modding is key. I love Civ but I'd be fed up of being stuck with Civ 3 were it not for the members of this community, who have made so many great scenarios and mods for it, and now I've joined this communtiy to try to do the same for others

There are massive mods for civ4 that are games in themselves. I suggest you buy a computer (or pick one up from corporate trash) which can run it. Seriously, it's not that demanding.

 

[Smauler]

Indeed. The reason for this is debated. Many are of the opinion that it's due to design choices like hexes and 1UPT. I feel very strongly it has a lot to do with basic gameplay 101 things like UI, controls, play time, etc and the execution of certain design choices.

The number one thing that pisses me off more than any other is the AI happiness bonuses, which allow it to spam cities everywhere. It doesn't spam cities everywhere, but that's because it's completely stupid. Then it pops up in your face telling you that your citizens are unhappy.

Thanks a F****** lot dip****, now **** off you **** for brains idiotic ****ing AI.
Moderator Action: *snip*
Watch your language.

I don't mind production bonuses for the AI. I don't mind gold bonuses, or science bonuses. Happiness bonuses warp the game - the AI is a failure.

Just MO.