The Final Analysis?

[LDiCesare]

There's a single thing that I think is wrong in the article:

Tech trading was axed entirely from Civ5, removing the single biggest incentive to work together from past games.

Tech trading has been replaced by Research Agreements, which are a bigger incentive to work together (post-patch) than tech trading since they require to stay at peace for 30 turns.
(Unfortunately, an ai will gladly waste his 250 gold by declaring war against you on turn 25 out of 30)

The following however:

But the game just felt so... boring.

I totally agree with. For me it sums as "No decision to pick on most turn, no challenge".

 

[JohnnyW]

I haven't finished reading it yet, but I agree with 99% of what I've read. I don't play MP so I didn't realize how horrible of a state it was in; that's even more disheartening after watching the Soren Johnson interview on how Civ4 was developed first as a MP game, which made testing gameplay significantly faster.

I used to think this game had major flaws but a lot of potential (I was hoping)....after reading a well-written summary of exactly all the flaws and how major they are in the game I am slightly less optimistic about the game's future. I'll still continue planning and working on my mod.....but now my expectations for the base game have dropped dramatically.

How can a game series of this prestige been created in such an amateur manner?

 

[Clement]

I had only heard of Sulla briefly here and there on these forums before the OP posted that link to his site, after reading what he had to say on the game i wish i had done so earlier, it describes how i feel about Civ 5 very well, his disappointment with the game's diplomacy above all i understand, as it is the biggest factor that contributes to my own disatisfaction with Civ 5.

 

[blind biker]

I am not sure if this thread is about Sulla's analysis of the patch only, or his overall analysis of the game, but I have the impression that it is also about the latter. And I must say, Sulla made a great analysis of Civ V and why it's a piece of crap. His insight is spot-on and I hope his detractors would at least argument their disagreements.

 

[ClarenceSeedorf]

<snip>

Moderator Action: Let's not get personal, and please stay on topic, which is not other posters.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Horizons]

<snip>

Moderator Action: Let's not get personal, and please stay on topic, which is not other posters.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Namaspamus]

Agree with most of the article.

About the long time to produce anything: I am not a good understander of game mechanics but is really the long time needed to produce units the limiting factor of armies size? Seems to me that it's rather the exponential maintenance costs (a very questionable and counter-intuitive system too, but he doesn't talk about it, or I misread)

And about buildings: If it's so long to produce them, it's in part because many of them were removed from IV to V. Health and religious ones mostly. With fewer buildings, they had to make the others longer to build. Or do I remember badly Civ IV?

If we hit "next turn" so much it's also because the game was over-streamlined and many things we used to do, and local decisions we used to make each turn are now gone.

 

[blind biker]

About the long time to produce anything: I am not a good understander of game mechanics but is really the long time needed to produce units the limiting factor of armies size? Seems to me that it's rather the exponential maintenance costs (a very questionable and counter-intuitive system too, but he doesn't talk about it, or I misread)

The authors of Civ V decided to make units slower/harder to build, in order to have less of them on the map, in a misguided way to avoid the Carpet of Doom and other (many other) issues.

 

[Ulyaoth]

I didn't follow anything about the game, thought it'd be good, was really just annoyed at the DLC but didn't really know anything about the game itself other than the hex tiles and military changes. I got it for Christmas like I expected, but tried the demo first just now. HATED it. So boring, so dumbed down, and combined with dumbed down frustrating since all the informative interface things were taken out. I had no preconceived notions of the game being bad but, granted from a short play, have come out very negative. I'll be returning it and playing 4 more.

 

[Namaspamus]

The authors of Civ V decided to make units slower/harder to build, in order to have less of them on the map, in a misguided way to avoid the Carpet of Doom and other (many other) issues.

But how the AI, who's the real Carpet of Doom maker, can produce and afford it? Do they have production bonuses? Or maintenance? I read mostly about their happiness bonus, but how can they get such armies?

 

[cwaugh]

I've played the Civ games since Civ 2, but only picked this one up recently. I haven't given up on it entirely, but I have to say I'm shocked at the extent to which the fun has been sucked out.

I just never get that feeling of needing to play one more turn...

 

[blind biker]

But how the AI, who's the real Carpet of Doom maker, can produce and afford it? Do they have production bonuses? Or maintenance? I read mostly about their happiness bonus, but how can they get such armies?

At higher difficulties, the AI can. That's because they are given all sorts of bonuses against the human player.
EDIT: besides, with ICS, even a human player can create a CoD. I never tried it, because I can't go back to Civ V anymore, but am sure some seasoned Civ V player will confirm. The reason why a human player wouldn't want to make a CoD is obvious - you still want to be able to move around.

 

[aatami]

I agree to a lot of what he said.
However, a lot of things he complains about are questions of oppinion. I do not share his, or anyone elses view of this game not having a lot of potential. Yes, radical and important things are wacky and need to be fixed, but when they are fixed, what's to complain? I do not agree with his view of 1UPT. The game isn't rotten all over, and I do not think the only way to save it is to make it a cIV with better graphics, not at all... Sorry to say I think it's very pessimistic.

Edit: And by the way, before you start complaining "STFU mister registered this month", I would like to inform that I have been playing civilizations since civ II, and have also been here for a long time. Just haven't had the need to register.

 

[Brau]

I began this thread to show my thanks for everything I've learned and to ponder what could be Sulla's final word on Civ. Whether you agree or disagree about specific design elements, we all share a similar passion for the concept of Civ. I'm sure that most Civ fans have their idea of the perfect Civ. For some it's an evolution respectful of the lessons learned by previous designers, for others its a re-birth that takes new chances. Others are somewhere in the middle. I doubt we'll ever agree on Utopia, but all of these discussions can get us closer to it.

 

[trivilization]

I agree to a lot of what he said.
However, a lot of things he complains about are questions of oppinion. I do not share his, or anyone elses view of this game not having a lot of potential. Yes, radical and important things are wacky and need to be fixed, but when they are fixed, what's to complain? I do not agree with his view of 1UPT. The game isn't rotten all over, and I do not think the only way to save it is to make it a cIV with better graphics, not at all... Sorry to say I think it's very pessimistic.

How do you think it can be fixed though? Anything short of revamping the game's core mechanics would only seem to be a splash of paint to cover the flaws. See the latest patch on how they are going about this. Yes maybe they can "fix" the flaws by nerfing things but in the end would it really be as fun as say, Civ4. That's the main thing I take away from Sullla's article.

The article is quite clear on how screwed the base game is. You can't fix one thing without drastically changing the ideals of the game which is 1upt, global happiness, and smaller empire sizes. The gameplay's full of opposing ideas.

 

[Roto-Router]

Sullla is spot on about the ineffectiveness of Global Happiness as a brake on ICS strategies. It doesn't work, and leads to perverse outcomes, like a war of conquest increasing income, science and happiness (if you capture some luxuries). "unlike Civ4 where planting additional cities will increase your costs and slow down science (at least initially), in Civ5 the exact opposite takes place. Your gold and research will go up from having more cities, regardless of the quality of the terrain involved. There is no tradeoff between expansion, warfare, and research."

I wonder if there is an off the shelf engine out there which could be used to bolt the good aspects of Civ4 rules (the happiness model, the city maintenance model etc.) onto a NxUPT combat system with hexes like in Civ5. Wait for the SDK I guess.

 

[Dale]

Whilst I understand Sullla's points, and agree with some of them, I just want to point out to Sullla that Civ 5 was never intended to be Civ 4 BtS v2. This is a totally different game, same as Civ 4 was not Civ 3 Conquests v2.

 

[Solver]

Civ 4 was not Civ 3 Conquests v2.

... thankfully

But really, while I disagree with some of Sullla's points, especially the criticism of 1UPT, I find that most of the article I can agree with.

 

[JohnnyW]

I do not share his, or anyone elses view of this game not having a lot of potential.

You are incorrect, he says that Civ5 does have potential. Please read this quote if you missed it or didn't finish the article:

At the same time, Civ5 will now have to go forward without its head designer in charge of the patching process, which would seem to indicate that further changes and improvement will be minimal. Civ5 will remain a game of great "potential" - which by definition means that it was never actually very good.

As for this:

Yes, radical and important things are wacky and need to be fixed, but when they are fixed, what's to complain?

I believe you must change the text to read:

Yes, radical and important things are wacky and need to be fixed, but if they are fixed, what's to complain?

And also, playing a broken game for months after its official release (and potentially more) is worthy of whatever complaining people feel to express.

 

[Arsenic Steel]

<snip>

The link to Sulla's page on CiV is one of the longest reviews and critiques on CiV I have read. It can not be just chalked up as complaining. There are problems with the most current patch that still need improvement.

Edit:Changing my post because the quote is no longer viewable.