the expansion pack leaves many bugs and incoherences unadressed

[Jim Bro]

I just wanted to share with you guys my disappointment about gods and kings.

I can still see those blood stains. that bug has been known for two years. yet, it is still in the game. ugly.

I don't like the religion feature. it adds complexity but not fun.

why do we still have goddamn great persons with names that are irrelevant to the civ and why is there a demand option when civs never give in to threats?

it is beyond me.

also, no matter what, if i want some challenge of course, i'm always behind with my technology so to me having years is utterly ********. they should just measure the game with turns.

finally, WHEN ARE THEY GOING TO RELEASE A EARTH 1000 AD SCENARIO FOR HOTSEAT?????

 

[SammyKhalifa]

why do we still have goddamn great persons with names that are irrelevant to the civ

Really?

 

[AfterShafter]

Come on, secretly you're just mad that Quebec is just a city state


I think your complaint that the expansion is troublesomely buggy holds weight. Your choices of examples are kind of based on taste though. I like religion, and most of the great people I see have names I recognize as great historical figures.

In general though, the industry is moving in the direction of releasing what would have been considered betas a decade ago, and just relying on patches after the fact. I kind of understand it since people expect to pay the same money for products that cost more to make than they did in the past - I mean, no more three guys in a basement making a legendary game these days - but it still really bites.

 

[slyone14]

so dont play then, simple. most of us here love the game, its not perfect, but to me the exp is fun and reactivated my love for civ 5.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I just wanted to share with you guys my disappointment about gods and kings.

I can still see those blood stains. that bug has been known for two years. yet, it is still in the game. ugly.

I don't like the religion feature. it adds complexity but not fun.

why do we still have goddamn great persons with names that are irrelevant to the civ and why is there a demand option when civs never give in to threats?

it is beyond me.

also, no matter what, if i want some challenge of course, i'm always behind with my technology so to me having years is utterly ********. they should just measure the game with turns.

finally, WHEN ARE THEY GOING TO RELEASE A EARTH 1000 AD SCENARIO FOR HOTSEAT?????

I'm afraid that I can't really sympathize with any of your complaints.

 

[Randall_Flagg]

No idea what Blood stains you refer to, must have missed it.
I like the religion, it lets me tailor my religion to where i build. Kewl you do not, i was sure some people would not like it. *shrug* My one beef with religion is, it does not matter in diplomacy, when it really should.

You are rewriting history, this is not simulation of world history, you are the leader, the course of history changes every time you play. Never let this bother me, and hate to giggle at people getting upset over great peoples names,but it makes me giggle.

They do give in, if you are under the right circumstances, I make demands of several leaders, some listen and do it, some tell you to shove it. Like the real world, those who make demands with a very massive military are likely to get results.

The Civ game has always been in years, you start on 4000 bc and go to 2*** AD. And you suddenlly want them to ruin a big part of their franchise, that millions of rabid fans like me love? Easier for you to adapt I think. *by the way the turns and date both show in my games*

As for falling behind in tech, so what? Almost all of my games I am behind in tech, you build up and keep going, being behind is not an auto loss. It also might help to know what level and your strats are? Have you ever played any other civ game? It is an easy game to play, but so many ways to get from 4000BC to your win.

 

[AriochIV]

why is there a demand option when civs never give in to threats?

Well, this is certainly a good point. Half of the options in the diplomatic screen are completely irrelevant.

And it's disappointing that visual glitches like the red splotches are still in the game after two years... but there's so much more that needs fixing, it seems silly to fret over cosmetic issues.

 

[Jim Bro]

Come on, secretly you're just mad that Quebec is just a city state

looooooooooooooll maybe.

 

[kgoodrid]

OP, your critique is a bit incoherant as well, sadly. No offense. There are plenty of things that CiV didn't do well. I think G&K has made CiV into a much better game. However, there are still plenty of valid issues. Some are serious technical issues (I know some people are having massive MP problems, but I don't play MP), some are design issues (1UPT is better in G&K but still has some flaws), and some are just taste complaints (not liking the selection of Civs).

In general though, the industry is moving in the direction of releasing what would have been considered betas a decade ago, and just relying on patches after the fact. I kind of understand it since people expect to pay the same money for products that cost more to make than they did in the past - I mean, no more three guys in a basement making a legendary game these days - but it still really bites.

There is some truth to what you say, but I think we also tend to have a degree of rose-tinted goggles here as PC Gamers. There are plenty of classic games that had tons and tons of bugs. Just look at a game like Master of Magic, which is held up today as one of the all-time greats, even though it had some serious bugs and issues on release. The same is true of a number of other games.

As for 'three guys in a basement' not making legendary games anymore, I think you have failed to notice the explosion of the indie game scene in recent years. Lots of indie games are doing great. Kickstarter is starting to really ramp this kind of thing up. Sure, Minecraft hasn't outsold Call of Duty or World of Warcraft, but it sure did rake in some major $ for Notch. Same for a number of other indie games. I would rather put 100+ hours into a really original, creative, and fun $20 game made by 1 guy in a basement than 10 hours into a $60 game from a big studio.

 

[fury7]

About the demand part, what boggles me the most that demanding things from AI civ will never work (unless u beat them to pulp, but at that time u can demand at most 30 gold from them).

HOWEVER, AI can demand things from you without diplomatic repercussion (they call it "unfortunately things are not going so well here") when you made declaration of friendship with them. AI shenanigans to you will always go unnoticed by other civilization but when u lied once, the whole world denounce you.

*demanding equality between AI and human players*

lol, that aside, i like this game

 

[Babri]

I would suggest u to play CIV Realism Invitius if u want appropriate GP names & other realism stuff. That is not going to happen in unmodded civ anytime soon.

 

[AfterShafter]

There is some truth to what you say, but I think we also tend to have a degree of rose-tinted goggles here as PC Gamers. There are plenty of classic games that had tons and tons of bugs. Just look at a game like Master of Magic, which is held up today as one of the all-time greats, even though it had some serious bugs and issues on release. The same is true of a number of other games.

As for 'three guys in a basement' not making legendary games anymore, I think you have failed to notice the explosion of the indie game scene in recent years. Lots of indie games are doing great. Kickstarter is starting to really ramp this kind of thing up. Sure, Minecraft hasn't outsold Call of Duty or World of Warcraft, but it sure did rake in some major $ for Notch. Same for a number of other indie games. I would rather put 100+ hours into a really original, creative, and fun $20 game made by 1 guy in a basement than 10 hours into a $60 game from a big studio.

Interesting response Kgoo. You're actually right in a lot of ways. I look back on some of my old favourites - 1992 Darklands, which so so bug ridden as to be utterly ridiculous. Many other older games fit this bill. But what I do notice is that whereas this was usually a sign of budget running out or just plain sloppiness, we now get it almost planned in from the start. Developers go into developing with a release date knowing that the game will be released at a level which, on average, not as smoothed out as games used to be. I look at big FPS releases these days and they seem terrible bug ridden compared to, say, Duke Nukem 3D was upon its release. Gaming is a lot more competitive these days though, and it seems like people have made it clear they're willing to put up with bugs and patches if the game can boast three bazillion polygons per screen or whatever.

You're right about Indie games in general, but some of the specifics are questionable. Minecraft is an odd case (I'm an avid player and have been since fairly early). It definitely started as a small time thing, but Notch himself has even recently admitted that Mojang has become a... What were his words... A mainstream developer? Or something to that effect Once the basement gang made their initial effort and it got some interest and they got some people paying for it, they hired a few more people and worked on the game for years. Now the guy who started it admits that both the indie game and the indie game that made it have changed.

The difference is budget. Even some small development team, off the radar efforts like Braid (spectacular game, by the way) had a very significant budget. Then there are projects like To The Moon - I'm curious to know how big their team was, but I am betting it was more than what we thought of as an Indie crew before... Well, before the term Indie game came into existence, because tremendous portion of all PC gaming was kind of indie.

I'd be curious to know how Indie developers like this stack up in size and funding to, say, ID Software back when they made Doom. I think Braid actually had both a larger team and more money.

 

[mlund]

HOWEVER, AI can demand things from you without diplomatic repercussion (they call it "unfortunately things are not going so well here") when you made declaration of friendship with them. AI shenanigans to you will always go unnoticed by other civilization but when u lied once, the whole world denounce you.

*demanding equality between AI and human players*

This I can agree to. Diplomatically the A.I. should treat you exactly like another A.I. player.

- If they gang-pile on you for having the lead, they should gang-pile on the A.I. leader when you aren't in the lead.

- If they declare you a warmongering menace to the world for declaring war twice on the same Civ, then Isabella should have the warmonger perma-hate albatross around her neck for coming at me for a second time after I magnanimously permitted her to keep her little empire after the first failed invasion.

- If they break a promise not to settle, spy, or proselytize (even to another A.I.) I should get a notification that they aren't to be trusted and everyone should distrust them as much as they would distrust me if I did that.

- If I can see a military build up at my border I should be able to tell them to "stop hiding in the shadows like a child" and when they lie about passing through and declare war everyone on the entire planet should know they are scum.

All I really want from the Diplomacy mechanics at this point is complete parity between the A.I. and the Human player when it comes to modifier options and consequences.

- Marty Lund

 

[AfterShafter]

This I can agree to. Diplomatically the A.I. should treat you exactly like another A.I. player.

Marty, I get the feeling this is a "be careful what you wish for" type scenario. Ideally this would be the optimal course, but the fact is, AI's aren't people, don't act like people, and if you treat them exactly like human players, they'll probably stop functioning even as well as they do. If AI's got negatives as easily as humans did, if they got dogpiled in the same way, if they held each other accountable like they did the player, they would probably stop working together and the already somewhat flimsy manner in which they cooperate would fall apart.

 

[Andulias]

I just wanted to share with you guys my disappointment about gods and kings.

I can still see those blood stains. that bug has been known for two years. yet, it is still in the game. ugly.

Really? That's bad, can anyone confirm this? I personally have never had the problem on any of the two PCs I've played on

I don't like the religion feature. it adds complexity but not fun.

care to elaborate? Most people consider religion to be the most fun new aspect of G+K, myself included. It adds complexity AND fun

why do we still have goddamn great persons with names that are irrelevant to the civ and why is there a demand option when civs never give in to threats?

Because it's debatable of what nationality some great people come. Because every new DLC civ would mean adding tons of names, something that's just silly. Because Mongolia isn't particularly know for its great scientists. Neither is Austria for its Great Admirals. Is that really such a big deal?

also, no matter what, if i want some challenge of course, i'm always behind with my technology so to me having years is utterly ********. they should just measure the game with turns.

Uuuh, no. Just no.

finally, WHEN ARE THEY GOING TO RELEASE A EARTH 1000 AD SCENARIO FOR HOTSEAT?????

Oh yes, those caps really impressed me.

I'm sorry, but for a second after reading your post I honestly thought it was a joke.

 

[dexters]

Diplomatic symmetry is very high on my list of things for the development to work on.
What im afraid will happen is they will take the wrong lessons from GnK's strong reception. While fun elements helped the xp, the significant improvement in Ai performance is more important. Part of it is exploits being closed.

Short of it is we want well rounded changes and hopefully not a patch with a bunch more espionage missions for the fun part that the AI Canton handle.

Imho still hoping they patch in espionage diplo discussions around CS coups and election rigging

 

[Ahatokia]

also, no matter what, if i want some challenge of course, i'm always behind with my technology so to me having years is utterly ********. they should just measure the game with turns.

?

Why do we still measure time by the sun when atomic time is so much more accurate.

 

[BobDole]

I just wanted to share with you guys my disappointment about gods and kings.

I can still see those blood stains. that bug has been known for two years. yet, it is still in the game. ugly.

The "blood stains" haven't been an issue for me personally in forever. I think it's a video card issue on your end. That's my guess.

I don't like the religion feature. it adds complexity but not fun.

Most people would probably disagree. It can be quite a lot of fun if used right, IMO.

why do we still have goddamn great persons with names that are irrelevant to the civ and why is there a demand option when civs never give in to threats?
it is beyond me.

Great People's names not having to do anything with the Civ? Who cares? That's really nitpicky. As for demands, they work, but only in a few circumstances, which is OK.

also, no matter what, if i want some challenge of course, i'm always behind with my technology so to me having years is utterly *bleep* (I got a warning last time I quoted that word by accident in someone else's post and not making that mistake again, so you might want to edit it out yourself). they should just measure the game with turns.

No, just no. Even on high difficulties you can beat the AI in tech. Not as easily as you could in regular Civ V, but still. I've been playing Emperor in G&K and am definitely going up in difficulty because it's really easy to just run away with a massive tech lead and just load up on anti-espionage measures so that no one can catch up through tech stealing. Because of the tech lead, all of my wins have been blowouts so far.

finally, WHEN ARE THEY GOING TO RELEASE A EARTH 1000 AD SCENARIO FOR HOTSEAT?????

I don't know, and personally, most people probably don't care. I'm guessing that such a thing would probably cater to a few people since most people just play this game as a straight-up single player game, and don't touch anything multiplayer related.

 

[The_J]

why do we still have goddamn great persons with names that are irrelevant to the civ

[....]

also, no matter what, if i want some challenge of course, i'm always behind with my technology so to me having years is utterly ********. they should just measure the game with turns.

ah...Moderator Action: Rants to in the rants thread.
Closed.