The fact this release is so polarizing tells you something is wrong
- Thread starter civhawaii
- Start date
AlexandrosV
Chieftain
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2010
- Messages
- 31
It's a great game already, i don't complain but really demand for MP fix, no animation it's really a no-sense, exp. in LAN. Could be better and it will, I ithink, like civ IV.
It's not surprising people complaining: it's the change.
I think that polarizing is good, too, sometimes.
It's not surprising people complaining: it's the change.
I think that polarizing is good, too, sometimes.
valamas
Prince
When the Red Hot Chili Peppers changed their style, it was polarizing too. I like their style and I like CIV 5.
Isikien
WHOA
- Joined
- May 7, 2008
- Messages
- 299
The only legitimate complaints are ones of hardware, which, as it stands, seems to be pretty bad for a lot of users.
And the most common complaint is the AI.
Otherwise, it's just people griping here and there. Personally, I find some of the sound effects jarring to listen to. Am I going to post a five million year long thesis about why? No, I'm going to play and occassionally come on the forum and discuss fun stuff and games with people who are also playing it
And the most common complaint is the AI.
Otherwise, it's just people griping here and there. Personally, I find some of the sound effects jarring to listen to. Am I going to post a five million year long thesis about why? No, I'm going to play and occassionally come on the forum and discuss fun stuff and games with people who are also playing it
anti_strunt
Warlord
- Joined
- May 27, 2005
- Messages
- 180
Eh, I felt the tempo of the story was hampered by having a more dispersed crew to gather (and loyalty missions, although fun, didn't help in this regard), in 1 they were all just hanging out at the Citadel and you could get on with the main plot immediately... And scanning was a terrible chore. But better in most ways, sure.
Wait Civ it's a game, right? I hear good things about it!
jjkrause84
King
Dude, I agree 100% but please....DO NOT go into the whole "no history revisions this time" bit. To historians, statements like this about "revisionism" are painfully groan-worthy.
All we do is revise! If our understanding and interpretation history were written in stone there would be no historians (or at least...not many).
Sorry for the blatantly off-topic rant. I'm not trying to pick on yo uand I know exactly what you meant....it's just a symantics thing that kills us.
thunderlips
Chieftain
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2010
- Messages
- 6
HOI3 had plenty of defenders, actually. That game sold really poorly, lots of people still mad at Paradox over it, and that's a company famous for buggy releases (but making them awesome later). HOI3 was particularly bad, and still isn't great. However their newest, Victoria 2, is a reversion to (their awesome) form.
But HOI3 had many advocates, even though it was a (somewhat mitigated) disaster.
katipunero
Prince
i don't think the whiners have established a substantially good claim that civ v is broken. to date, no civ has ever met unanimous approbation on the first days of release. the same is what we're seeing with civ v, some birthing pains before it matures to the status of bts and civ3 complete.
Drago Askani
Warlord
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2007
- Messages
- 293
Really? Well take off your rose tinted goggles and realize we went through the EXACT same things with the Release of Civ 4. People crying that it wasn't as good as civ 3, that it had been dumbed down, etc. History always repeats itself.
TommyVern
Chieftain
Every poll I've seen since release has had a majority vote of support for ciV. All the people who enjoy it are playing instead of spending 2 hours writing out these absurd and lengthy complaint threads.
If you dislike the game wait for it to be patched or don't play it.
Sorry, that's the best I have for you.
-TV
If you dislike the game wait for it to be patched or don't play it.
Sorry, that's the best I have for you.
-TV
To me personally every civ that was released i quickly could say hey its better then the previous one. Now here comes civ 5, the singleplayer is good except for a few things (AI requesting rediculous things but this happend in civ 4 aswell).
But the MP o god no, how could they mess it up this bad. The amount of options how you want to play the game have been reduced the whole save option is a joke and i already had problems getting everybody in a game since they were stuck in the staging room. O and dont forget the lacking animations in MP.
Before people start saying yeah but you can save with ctrl+s yes i know but if someone can tell me how exactly i can load it up without just seeing my autosaves i say the system is bad. Infact even if it worked its still bad, it has been simplified to a point it feels like they were out of time when putting it in. Then little things like when a game was in progres everybody could join in and take over a AI and still play with us without having to restart the game. If someone disconnected we just had to wait for him to come back without restarting or reloading the game. All these things made civ 4 a great MP experience because everything was taken care of. All in all civ 5 in terms of gameplay is good its diffrent but i think i can really get into it. However it does feels simplified, probably to get more people to play it. I really hope they do take a good look at the MP section and brush it up because right now it does not feel like its where its suppose to be. Well atleast thats how i feel about it.
O and quick match in civ5 in mp still takes a very long time infact twice as long as a game of civ4 on quick and that was already a few hours long.
Greetz Nata
But the MP o god no, how could they mess it up this bad. The amount of options how you want to play the game have been reduced the whole save option is a joke and i already had problems getting everybody in a game since they were stuck in the staging room. O and dont forget the lacking animations in MP.
Before people start saying yeah but you can save with ctrl+s yes i know but if someone can tell me how exactly i can load it up without just seeing my autosaves i say the system is bad. Infact even if it worked its still bad, it has been simplified to a point it feels like they were out of time when putting it in. Then little things like when a game was in progres everybody could join in and take over a AI and still play with us without having to restart the game. If someone disconnected we just had to wait for him to come back without restarting or reloading the game. All these things made civ 4 a great MP experience because everything was taken care of. All in all civ 5 in terms of gameplay is good its diffrent but i think i can really get into it. However it does feels simplified, probably to get more people to play it. I really hope they do take a good look at the MP section and brush it up because right now it does not feel like its where its suppose to be. Well atleast thats how i feel about it.
O and quick match in civ5 in mp still takes a very long time infact twice as long as a game of civ4 on quick and that was already a few hours long.
Greetz Nata
That doesn't mean it's a great game. It could just be 44,000 kids who like the simplification.
Most people don't think it's all THAT bad. There's 44,000 people playing Civ5 right this very minute, and there's what, a couple hundred complainers?
Seems the majority is quite enjoying themselves in the game.
I would be too, but I'm at work. Civ tonight.
I don't mean to burst your bubble but this is specious reasoning. I'm not completely satisfied with the way Civ 5 is designed and I'm still playing the game. I should note that I'm not dissatisfied because it's not like Civ 4, it's because there are design decisions that would make perfect sense for Civ 5 that are not part of the game (cottages and diplomatic relationship status/info) and parts of the game that are not fully developed (City State mechanics and diplomacy).
Really you have to account for the percentage of people that are interested in forums, then you have to account for those that want to post but don't, also those that don't care enough to post.
If there are a couple hundred complainers and you account for how many copies were sold you could estimate anywhere between 2 and 5 thousand unsatisfied customers. Really it's all subjective speculation on the estimate but it can't be assumed that every person who is not happy with Civ 5 is going to actually post.
buffbutler
Chieftain
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2010
- Messages
- 4
Yes, something is wrong. The AI. It's terrible.
It's incapable of dealing with choke points, embarks within range of multiple artillery pieces, is absolutely clueless about naval units, and even turns down beneficial deals apparently for the sole reason of spiting the human player. It also completely collapses and degenerates into utter uselessness during the medieval period, never seeming to progress past Longswordmen, and that's if it's feeling especially competent.
After rolling through Jaguars, Legions and Crossbowmen with Infantry and Helicopter Gunships on Immortal, it's clear to me that even if there's a good game to be played here, it's irrelevant, since the player is stuck competing against an opponent with the intelligence and forethought of a toddler.
All of the other issues (such as how completely ridiculous happiness is on anything other than small-sized maps) can be easily addressed with mods. The braindead AI, not so much. The inclusion of difficulty settings beneath Prince is just laughable. You can basically do whatever you want on Prince and win. I think you'd have to be completely devoid of human intelligence to lose on Chieftain or something.
Looking at the reception of Civ4 is a load of tripe. Civ4's release was problematic, but that game's AI is capable of presenting a challenge. Civ5's presently is not.
It's incapable of dealing with choke points, embarks within range of multiple artillery pieces, is absolutely clueless about naval units, and even turns down beneficial deals apparently for the sole reason of spiting the human player. It also completely collapses and degenerates into utter uselessness during the medieval period, never seeming to progress past Longswordmen, and that's if it's feeling especially competent.
After rolling through Jaguars, Legions and Crossbowmen with Infantry and Helicopter Gunships on Immortal, it's clear to me that even if there's a good game to be played here, it's irrelevant, since the player is stuck competing against an opponent with the intelligence and forethought of a toddler.
All of the other issues (such as how completely ridiculous happiness is on anything other than small-sized maps) can be easily addressed with mods. The braindead AI, not so much. The inclusion of difficulty settings beneath Prince is just laughable. You can basically do whatever you want on Prince and win. I think you'd have to be completely devoid of human intelligence to lose on Chieftain or something.
Looking at the reception of Civ4 is a load of tripe. Civ4's release was problematic, but that game's AI is capable of presenting a challenge. Civ5's presently is not.
Krall
Warlord
I think that's rather short sided. People are a curious bunch and like to toy around with new things even if they are different. To say I'm not liking Civ V right now because it's new or rather foreign to me is preposterous
I pre-ordered V pretty much blindly based on my love of the franchise, I knew things were going to be radically different from hex game play, ranged attached, 1 unit per tile, etc, etc yet I still bought it. After installing it for whatever reason i find myself for the first time in my Civ playing history not able to succumb to the mantra of just one more turn. In fact I haven't been able to stomach an hours worth of game play yet before exiting out.Let me preface my post with, i love Civ V.
It's happening it with <insert game company here>, and most game developers/publishers. Profit. We live in a world of profit. You can't get around it. The companies that made the games we love have found a new way to relieve us of our disposable income. Release game with bugs-then sell XP/patches for more.
The companies, could, make a complete game, and then create all new content, then sell that, but that eats into your costs. You take a finished game, remove some content, which probably adds the bugs, then release XP that fixes it all. Win-Win for shareholders and executive bonuses, lose-lose for the consumer. But, this is the world we live in. Company execs know that gamers aren't gonna unite, march on 2k games and start a revolution, cause it's a freakin video game.
Having said that, I think V is a complete enough game. I'm enjoying the hell out of it. And I think Civvers should be thankful the modding community will come up with plenty of stuff we can play with, for free.
I certainly don't agree with the OP. X group thinks Y is great. Z group thinks Y is junk, therefore Y is junk. There must a be a logical fallacy in there somewhere....
It's happening it with <insert game company here>, and most game developers/publishers. Profit. We live in a world of profit. You can't get around it. The companies that made the games we love have found a new way to relieve us of our disposable income. Release game with bugs-then sell XP/patches for more.
The companies, could, make a complete game, and then create all new content, then sell that, but that eats into your costs. You take a finished game, remove some content, which probably adds the bugs, then release XP that fixes it all. Win-Win for shareholders and executive bonuses, lose-lose for the consumer. But, this is the world we live in. Company execs know that gamers aren't gonna unite, march on 2k games and start a revolution, cause it's a freakin video game.
Having said that, I think V is a complete enough game. I'm enjoying the hell out of it. And I think Civvers should be thankful the modding community will come up with plenty of stuff we can play with, for free.
I certainly don't agree with the OP. X group thinks Y is great. Z group thinks Y is junk, therefore Y is junk. There must a be a logical fallacy in there somewhere....
