The fact this release is so polarizing tells you something is wrong

[Crezth]

Nah, setting aside your blatant smartassedness, there are issues besides the gameplay itself that could suggest a rushed release/incomplete game. Small graphical issues like pyramids and other buildings being built in the ocean, red spots appearing on tiles, an error filled Civilopedia, technical issues with DX11.

Look we all love Civilization; we wouldnt be here if we didnt. Some of us just expected more, and in my belief rightfully so.

Absolutely, and by all means keep making a fuss. But don't be surprised when your comrades finish tapping out a post which essentially says "Civ V is dumb and if you like it, you're a ******ed monkey" that a terrible battle breaks out.

I maintain Civ V is a better release than Civ IV, and that's all I really expected from it. It has not disappointed me and I look forward to quality expansions and mods.

It has been said that buying Civ V with a desire to play mods and expansions, if not just the vanilla, is enough to make somebody a sheep who is enabling the developers to pull crap where they release a half-finished product and put off the finishing touches for a few years.

Those who say this fail to remember that this is basically how it works with the Civ series. It gets expansions, and it gets updated. Age of Empires certainly works like that - in fact, so do Blizzard games, which are lauded for their quality. Civ III was not complete until, well, the Complete edition came out. Neither was Civ IV. Civ IV was woefully incomplete, and Warlords didn't really appease it. Beyond the Sword was the blessing that made it a great game.

In the meantime, however, why did so many play Civilization IV? A good bet is that they played it for Kael's Fall from Heaven series. I know that's why I still play Civ IV, and you can't say FfH2 isn't one hell of a big-deal.

This could make me a strategy noob, and individuals who can see nothing else to criticize may freely call me such. However, we have come to the point, people, where Civ games are no longer just about the product. It's about what ramifications are involved, and it seems abundantly clear to me that Civ V has so many of those. And this is because it's a really great foundation.

Some people have compunctions about paying $50 for a foundation, which is fine. You don't have to buy it, after all, and you may wait. But I thought that Civ V looked good, and I played it, and felt that it was a thoughtful take on the series - the same way I felt when I first booted up Civ IV, and Civ III years before that. I don't regret any of those purchases because playing a Civ game for the first time is a magical experience. And if I maybe have to skip out on seeing two movies this fall to pay for it, well, hell, there's nothing that great in the theaters this fall anyway.

 

[digitalcraft]

This is a forum for civ(4) enthusiasts. Its understandable that these people will not like Civ 5. The game is made for a more general audience.

The thing is, Civ 4 was a direct heritage of the civ line. People complained because it was super buggy at launch, but the actual game design was all civ. Civ 5 is not super buggy (maybe diplomacy) but the reason people are upset is because they took a whole new casual direction when people on this (civ FANATICS) board are in to the empire emulation game and this is not that.

 

[RX2000]

As mentioned above, it was the EXACT same thing when Civ 4 came out & people were still really attached to Civ III. Some people just dont like change & always bash anything new.

 

[Crezth]

This is a forum for civ(4) enthusiasts. Its understandable that these people will not like Civ 5. The game is made for a more general audience.

The thing is, Civ 4 was a direct heritage of the civ line. People complained because it was super buggy at launch, but the actual game design was all civ. Civ 5 is not super buggy (maybe diplomacy) but the reason people are upset is because they took a whole new casual direction when people on this (civ FANATICS) board are in to the empire emulation game and this is not that.

You're very wrong, and there's no way I can impress this upon you than you exhort you to play Civ III again. Civ IV is radically different from III, and that was always at the crux of complaints about it.

 

[digitalcraft]

I think there's no way you can empress upon me because I'm right and you really really super don't want me to be.

I loved Civ 3, and I liked Civ 4 much better (after I was able to fix the blackscreen bug). There was no question. Keep trying but unfortunately for you I remember the release of Civ 4 very well, so you can't pull the wool over this one. No history revision this time, sorry.

 

[Crezth]

I think there's no way you can empress upon me because I'm right and you really really super don't want me to be.

I loved Civ 3, and I liked Civ 4 much better (after I was able to fix the blackscreen bug). There was no question. Keep trying but unfortunately for you I remember the release of Civ 4 very well, so you can't pull the wool over this one. No history revision this time, sorry.

I question your memory.

 

[ahmedhadzi]

I do play game a lot, and I only plan to give my opinion in 10 days or so. I find it amusing to see how many people don't like the game, and I can't but not agree with them (at least in some concerns).

I also don't like it for now, I'm waiting that the game grows on me like civ IV did after civ III (I DID not like changes back then at all). I do think also, that game needs more work, but it does have some rather interesting mechanics.

So people who are so vocal about expressing their mind without any critical thinking shouldn't be taken seriously (thread count aside).

 

[digitalcraft]

I question your memory.

Oh yes, hmm a thread from way back in... yesterday. I can see how that gives a good picture of history. especially MY opinion.

FIAL

 

[Theodorick]

Oh yes, hmm a thread from way back in... yesterday. I can see how that gives a good picture of history. especially MY opinion.

FIAL

I see that your memory is as bad as your reading comprehension.

 

[RX2000]

Oh yes, hmm a thread from way back in... yesterday. I can see how that gives a good picture of history. especially MY opinion.

FIAL

The thread is from yesterday, but if you actually READ it, it lists titles of threads that were made on the Civ 4 boards right after it came out....

Reading "fial?" Heh

 

[digitalcraft]

Ok, point out which titles I personally wrote. I'll be right here waiting

 

[digitalcraft]

And then you can explain how selectively pointing out silly complains for Civ 4 categorically excuses all issues with Civ 5! most people will call bullsh*t on that lame argument, but you seem to think its great so lets hear it!

 

[Mallipeep]

Its the exact opposite. All great things cause polarity.Especially at the beginning.

For some people take time to realize how after getting used to change, its way better then doing it the old way.
For some people they just dont like some stuff, even when 99% think its great.


(not that Civ5 is one hundred percent perfect - but imho aside from few bugs its awesome in every single way)

 

[ElephantRider]

It's always like this for new releases of anything, movies or games. People love the one they're used to so much that if it changes in a newer version they feel ripped off. Sometimes, I honestly believe that people would rather pay for the exact same game again than to have developers try something different. That said, I think Civ V has a great foundation, it just needs more added to it, much like Civ IV was before Beyond the Sword came out.

 

[Mrhorseshoe]

Civ players hate change. Same thing happened when Civ IV was released.

 

[RD-BH]

Re: play
Civ IV is more like SMAC/X than Civ III. (IMO)

 

[Crezth]

Oh yes, hmm a thread from way back in... yesterday. I can see how that gives a good picture of history. especially MY opinion.

FIAL

Did you actually read what the thread was about?

And then you can explain how selectively pointing out silly complains for Civ 4 categorically excuses all issues with Civ 5! most people will call bullsh*t on that lame argument, but you seem to think its great so lets hear it!

The argument here is that Civ 4's release was controversial, just like Civ 5's. Nothing else. Stop straw manning and deal with the argument head-on, like a man. Seriously.

Also, the gentlemen who posted those complaints way back at Civ 4's release would NOT consider their complaints silly, and you would do well to respect their opinion - especially since you seem to regard your own as a holy gospel that must be cherished and loved and dadgumit if we all don't bow down to you for them.

 

[squadbroken]

not really, this is exactly the same as it was 5 years ago when Civ 4 launched. It turned out to be a pretty nice game in the end.

To expand on that, this is the same thing that happens whenever ANY SEQUEL to ANY GAME comes out and it isnt 99% identical to the previous one.

 

[Gunship_Down]

To expand on that, this is the same thing that happens whenever ANY SEQUEL to ANY GAME comes out and it isnt 99% identical to the previous one.

Yeah, take Mass Effect 2 for example. People were crying and declaring that the world was ending when it came out and it became apparent they had changed the RPG aspects somewhat.

Or, as the whiners put it, ''simplified'', ''dumbed down'', ''stolen the soul of'' and of course the old favourite, ''console-ized''.

I ended up liking Mass Effect 2 a whole lot better that the original, because it's superior in every way.

So yeah, I tend not to worry to much about whiners on forums shortly after a big release. What one person considers ''crap sellout consolized blah blah'' I may end up considering ''great, superior in every way and GOTY''.

 

[Q cumberR]

The reason for the polarisation is not because the game is bad, but because it's so much different than the previous iterations. People generally dislike change, and the fact that we're comparing Civ5 Vanilla 1.0 to Civ4+Warlords+BTS 3.19 isn't really helping matters.