The Final Analysis?

I liked Civ 3 better than Civ 2, because Civ 2 lacked replay. Sorry, but replay is big with me. One of the most satisfying moments during the game.

 

Sorry if I wasn't clear. Your solutions, if you really want to give the game a chance, are to either start a new game or reload from a save before you got in the happiness problem and adjust your play based on what you learned. This is a new game, and as such, you might need to play it differently than Civ IV. For instance, you might need to have a decent amount of surplus happiness before making large conquests.

 

Great analysis by Sulla and I agree with nearly all of it. In particular I agree with his assignment of many of the fundamental problems with the game to the 1UPT decision. This version of the game was doomed once that poor design decision had been made. Strangely I knew it, instinctively, as soon as I heard 1UPT was going to be the basis of the combat system, but could never quite explain why that would be so

Hexes are great but 1UPT is just not suited to a strategy game stretching over 1000's of years and encompassing the whole world, it is suited for small scale tactical battles based around scenarios. 1UPT does not scale with the range of difficulty levels that a game like Civ has always used to accommodate a wide range of player abilities. Unlike a combat system based on a SoD (or limited stacking) the game can't be made more difficult militarily by simply increasing the AI players production levels as only 1 unit per hex soon runs out of space and becomes useless. That's probably why so many players of mediocre ability can beat Deity Civ 5 and still lose to Emperor on Civ 4 BtS

The SoD had its problems but it could not have distorted and wrecked the whole game like 1UPT has. The solution to the problems with the SoD were limited stacking and a much improved combat interface. It's a pity Firaxis didn't explore that avenue for Civ 5, hopefully the expansion will follow that route.

Several other siren voices, besides Sulla, have given good criticisms of the choice of 1UPT, explaining why it is so bad for this game, but Sulla here has given a complete set of reasoning and I've bookmarked his article for future reference.

 

Please, don't gimme that "it's another game, you have to learn how to play it..." condescending tone, it's offensive....

I blame the game design, having a large conquest (especially on prince) and being on the victor side should be possible without being THAT painfull... I won a war, have my opponent get to accept outrageaous victory conditions and basically, my whole empire cease functionning except for gold and science, whereas in IV, these were precisely the two aspect only affected by expansion through the slider.
I may be the only one to think like that, but if the USA were to invade a country(legitimately or not), i doubt NY would cease to function except for Wall Street, Berkeley and Columbia...what would happend that it would cost a lot of money to the USA federal state and maybe credits devoted to science and education would be cut...
The penalty is on every cities, not on the full empire, which is wrong to me and that's why i proposed the following change to unhappiness mechanism:

I would also welcome comments on my others points

 

Sorry if you thought I was being condescending. It wasn't my intention, nor did I think I was being so, up to this point.

Sorry, I thought you said you wanted to give the game a chance. If you do, then you might need to adjust your gameplay. If you just want to blame the game for not being what you think it should be, that's fine, but I can't help you. Maybe you can find a mod that will "fix" the "happiness problem" for you.

 

well, when a say ive a chance to the game, i meant Civ V...
That particular game with Japan is almost over with suleiman running away in the futur era when i'm stuck at the beginning of modern era.I'm still number two on points...

And by saying "I blame the game design...", i mean that the game design is bad on this point. And yes, I have to play according the rules, but it's surprising that being the victor of only one civ (and only the 3rd one on the continent) and accepting the term of reddition proposed by the loser would make me lose the game...

 

While I agree with almost everything that Sulla said, I don't think Civ5 is doomed. Firaxis can still make it a great game. Of course it will take time, balls of steel, and a radical change in game design lead, but the game can be fixed.

I will be giving Civ5 a fresh try after each new patch, and in the meanwhile I will just play other games I guess.

 

? At least in Civ 2: Test of Time you had the replay.

 

Wow... finally reading that review makes me not want to play this game at all. How depressing. While I agree there are flaws, is it as awful as he says?

I suppose that it is because you'd think that developers trying to make the next great Civ game would test play the hell out of it. You get a few Civ geeks together playing this game... and there is no way they'd call it good enough to release. Just the basic game mechanics that are mentioned in this article are way too awful to allow.

Thanks for sharing... but sad. So sad.

 

That is IF they decide to change the game, which I have my doubts on

 

If you want to be a game reviewer and post reviews for the world to read then they should be written professionally. Professionally written articles will be taken far more seriously than rants, raves, and silliness. That is a fact.

Yes, developers/designers/modders might read these boards so use every post you make to try and help them by giving them a vision. Comments like those that follow this quote make people dismiss your arguments as ridiculous rants. Any fool (I'm not calling you a fool - I'm quoting somebody whom I work with and respect) can complain about something - always back up your complaints with solutions.

Obviously I would prefer if the game is fun as released by the developers but if the modders make it fun then I will play it and enjoy it. I don't care who makes the game great!

The jury isn't in on that yet.

 

Read Sulla's article...

Skipped the rest of the arguement.

I agree with pretty much Sulla's assessment. Having followed the news of CiV since announcement, I rushed to get it on the first day.

MONTHS later.. I completed a total of ONE game.

*And I used to play CIV 4 at the rate of one game per 2 days.*

 

Folks getting upset with how others review a reviewer is more than a bit ironic.

I actually look forward to the mods. Rather than assuming that mods that improve Civ V are part of the problem, I actually think the great modders of the past versions were key to the success of the franchise. This isn't a bad thing, it's a great thing.

 

I've got the Gold ed. No replay here

Can you check that ToT really does have replay? I searched the web, but no word to confirm or deny it.

 

And how is sulla's article any of rants, raves and silliness? His is the best clinical dissection of Civ5 gameplay thus far and shouldn't be taken seriously because you deemed it NOT written professionally?

Please. Don't try to be a grown up.
Moderator Action: Please don't insult other members.

Might? Are you somehow grasping for the off-chance that the developers will grace these boards and picked up on your -oh so well crafted - contribution? You know, for all you know the faerie god mother MIGHT decide you need a new look. Or a new brain.

Let me explain the quote to you, which is in itself a great quote. When you are working together with other people on something, the quote tells you it is always better to offer a solution to a problem instead of just complaining about the problem.

Which is NOT applicable in our case. We are not working WITH the developer to make Civ5. We are consumers, and our duty is to hold the developer accountable, not take over their job.

IF the developer wants to pick our brains and find out if there is any brilliant ideas among the fans, it is THEIR JOB to make their presence felt and ASK the community for ideas. They should also preferrably roll out the red carpet and credit each and every idea they adopt from the fans and award the originator of the idea. THAT is the proper way to do things if the dev is sincere about get community FEEDBACK. Otherwise, we'll simply assume they have things under control and hold them accountable when things turn out otherwise.

Fans = customer = GOD. Do not take us for granted.

Can any comment be any more selfish then this? Of course you don't care who makes the game great!!! You are just sitting there waiting for fearie dust to fall over you while you pretend to be nice and dandy.

As I have repeated elsewhere, firstly, the modders are you FELLOW gamers (please get that into your head, please, have some thinking capabilities). If a game is released in a beta state, you and they are both being exploited. And somehow, you expect them to fix the game for you?

I'll tell you a very simple difference between how I treat a fan developed mod and a commercial product. And why I care who is making what. When I received a great mod, for free, I am thankful beyond words for the effort and thoughts the modders put into their brainchild. When I get a bad mod, I chalked it up to my bad luck.

The game is different. When I PAY and buy a game, I expect it to be good. If it is good, it is money well spent, and I consider the game studio a quality one, BUT I am not beholden to them. However, if I PAY and get an unfinished product, I raise hell.

Lastly, there are things a mod just cannot fix.

I am honestly tired of having to explain what is a difference between the duty of the game studio and the community and why we shouldn't take modders for granted. But get this: Bad games don't have (many) modders working on them. Period. And I firmly place Civ5 in the category of bad games.

Well, don't hold your breath.

 

People seem to believe that Sulla's statements are nothing more than a mere rant. People need to distinguish a reasoned argument from a rant. Sulla gives a thorough analysis leading to each of his conclusions -- this is argument. Thus, ultimately, it is the soundness of Sulla's analysis that is important to the discussion.

That Sulla's analysis exposes fundamental weaknesses with the game's design cannot be denied. Maybe some people think that Sulla stretches his conclusions farther than the analysis allows, but that is a question of degree. Others think that the weaknesses aren't significant, but again that is a question of degree. In the end analysis, all that anyone should be concerned about is having the best game possible. The flaws and oversights exposed by Sulla demonstrates that C5 is not the best game possible.

It is a positive that many people are having fun with the game. But, it is possible to have fun with a flawed game. Sulla had a role in C4's development and is obviously a very skilled player. It would be unwise for the community, or Firaxis, to ignore Sulla's keen observations. In the best interest of the franchise's future, it is important that the community not eat its own -- and that the flaws continue to be exposed and published -- and that the flaws be corrected.

 

Which is unfortunate. Because the reality of our modern society is that professionals are paid... handsomely... by...

Give a man a million dollars to call a white cat black. Most men will yield.

 

Pretty good article, with a bit too much exaggeration about Civ 5's fault and homerism for Civ 4.

What I *really* want to see is Sulla doing a detailed critique of Civ 4 Vanilla. For example, he talks about how Civ 4's system diplomacy was a vast improvement over Civ 5. What about WFYABTA? Hidden pluses and minuses (thankfully solved by mods)? Civs voting for Civs that they are Pleased with over ones that they are Friendly with? Half the Civs declaring war at Pleased? Worst enemy not being that important in war declarations?

Or how about this (re: maintenance)?

Whereas when he talks about Civ 4 maintenance, he says:

So when talking about Civ 5, he lambasts the designers for penalizing players for expanding. But when talking about Civ 4, he praises the designers for penalizing players for expanding .

My favorite thing is when he talks about war and peace, where he says:

Well geez, who knew that I was just dreaming when in Civ 4, in order to combat early rushes:

* Horses not revealed until Animal Husbandry
* Forests chopping got reduced
* Slavery got hit over and over (and over...)
* Infinite anarchy exploit was patched out
* The BTS AI was explicitly programmed to be able to whip units on defense

And who knew that conquest gold WASN'T enough to get to Alpha--> Lit --> Philo --> Liberalism?

And even then, Civ 4 warmongering was so good that players were able to beat Immortal without any civics....

 

So a good game which does exactly what it says on the tin is the problem? That the current game is being shown up as severely lacking as it's five year old predecessor? No mention of the problems Sullla had of various mechanics in Civ IV he had a problem with (a lot of them in BtS)? Or the bugs he thought were holding many other, good, mechanisms back?

I think your problem with Sullla's posts on the game are more to do with him disagreeing with you than anything he has actually pointed out in the game.

 

There's still a couple of the Franky group who bother to visit this board any more, we do in fact take the best ideas back to the devs and tell them about it (it's a part of what we do for Civ 5).

And there's no need to be insulting, easy enough to make a point without insulting him.