The Final Analysis?

I pretty much agree with what most people have already said, and I think Sullla did a great job analyzing Civ V's faults. Although I'm hopeful this game can be saved, I haven't played it for some time. One thing that has been mentioned (and really annoys me) is that the designers specifically said they wanted a game where the player would not build a large empire. Fine, but in the game itself, that is the exact opposite of what you want to do unless you want to have a cultural victory. The idea of the conquest victory (take over all the capitals) is extremely annoying and maybe even close to impossible, because you can't raze the capitals.

 

Read Sulla's article. Not played the big patch yet but I got a good impression of what to expect. Now follows my Civ5 Final Analysis.

First a small intro

I played all Civ games (more Civ3 and Civ4). I consider Civ4 BTS the best game I've ever played.

What is really different in Civ5?

Apart from some details, different interface and different graphics what is really different in Civ5?

Answer: 1UPT and city states.
I agree with Sulla's point that while the 1UPT was a good idea at first it may have been the downfall of the entire game. Because as he explained everything seems to derive from that central design decision, and things didn't worked quite well. City states are a good addition (good job!).

Now, what made the game less fun for me

Although there are many minor issues I could point out about the game I will only address the major issues, since there are as many other minor positive issues that help balance the bad. The major issues I have with the game are:

1. Global Happiness
I didn't liked it from the start. Its not intuitive. Why does a Coliseum built in a city influences my entire empire happiness status. I liked to micromanage happiness in cities in Civ4, it added depth and more things to do.

2. Long building times, tech advances too quickly
I always played Epic in Civ4, now I always play Standard in Civ5 and even there I feel things take too much time to build. I tend NOT to build many structures (ever). In the other hand tech advance is faster now. The result is an unbalanced pace of building stuff vs tech advancement. This seems to derive from 1UPT.

3. Diplomacy problems
I will not bother to enumerate diplomacy problems as these have been addressed in tons of threads. I will just say that Diplomacy and AI behaviour feels erratic. I don't know if that is more realistic, it is just not fun. I can't believe the game passed play testing without any one saying "Hey .. diplomacy seems a bit awkward".

Now the biggest problem for me:
4. Nothing to do (boredom).
They removed random events, increased building times, removed local happiness management, removed tech trading, removed religion, removed espionage, removed health, foreign trade and map trading. What are we supposed to do between turns?

Conclusion
I'm not afraid to say it. I would prefer Civ5 to have been Civ4 BTS with better graphics, improved MP and improved performance (I can never seem to be able to play a huge map civ game with many civs).

In the process they could have improved the AI, provided more civilizations, improved diplomacy, solve the suicidal siege attacks, provide campaigns, etc etc.

Next time please hire a renowned game designer (if Sid cannot do it himself) to lead the design team and hire mod creaters, play testers and fans only as consultants and developers, not as design leaders.

Overall, and this is not a suprise to anyone, Civ5 is a worse game than Civ4 BTS.

 

Current technologies and AI understanding mean it is impossible to have a competent AI in a 1upt environment without more development than is feasible for a computer game. So while a lot of people may like the idea of 1upt but hate the AI incompetency, they are going to have to accept that the problem and mechanic are one and the same.

 

Dale I think you are honestly letting your fanboyism cloud your judgement here. Moderator Action: Fanboy is still a derogatory lable, please don't insult other posters. It is clear from his writings that Sullla a) didn't like BtS that much (he actually preferred vanilla Civ IV) and b) had stopped playing BtS a while back (except for some multiplayer). So my guess if they released BtS v2 he would have been equally as scathing. The fact of the matter is that Sullla has spotted many problems with the game, and through his industry experience (as a tester I know) he has outlined where he sees the problems coming from. Now I know you'll have to dig deeper than just the linked article to find some to the info pertaining to his ending with Civ IV, but you can't just jump to conclusions.

And finally I have to say their are only two possible conclusions to the way you posted such an ad hominem attack is that either a) you can't see that the game is broken or b) you know deep down that the game is broken but for whatever reason (none of them good) you cannot now admit it. Either critique a position on it's merits or keep schtum. By attacking people based on falacious assumptions you are just making yourself look bad. And please note that I would still make this same point even if I disagreed with everything Sullla said about Civ V.

 

Well this is certainly the spin one gets from Firaxis (IIRC some of the devs floated just this line in an interview not too long ago.)

But I have to call BS on this. Jon Shafer always pointed to Panzer General (1994) as his inspiration for the combat mechanic. I played PG and its various sequels to death and can confidently say the AI was infinitely better than in Civ V. PG was a hell of a lot of fun to play. I'd play it right now if I could.

SO if they could make an enjoyable tactical 1UPT-er way back when, then all this junk about how you can't put in the resources to do so in 2010 is disingenuous, insulting, and a cop-out. Also self-defeating, in that they seem to be conceding the issue from the get go and working entirely from the free AI goodies/human nerfing design standpoint.

Gee, Panzer General kept its artillery back behind the front lines. And IN 2010 it is impossible to put out a game that can even manage THAT on a consistent basis? Please.

Now that said, I have enjoyed V more than a lot of posters, I think. But I'm also losing interest and starting to drift away. There have been fun stretches since the recent patch but the lack of a competent AI, the damned global happiness crap and ridiculous build times just suck the fun out of it once you get to the modern era.

 

It seems there are quite a few different reasons why people are unhappy, this quote from Sulla's article describes the biggest reason why i am disappointed with Civ 5 better than i could have done so myself:

"The latest patch has added a little bit of transparency to the process, while keeping the same underlying system in place. (Note that this is essentially an abandonment of the original design goal of "surprising" the player.) As I said above, the problem is that this transparency reveals the AIs to be totally nuts. They get mad at you for expanding. They get mad at you for settling near them (or not - sometimes they say this when you aren't even remotely close!) They get mad at you when THEY settle next to YOU. They get mad at you for building wonders. They get mad at you for having a large army. They get mad at you for having a small army. They get mad at you for going to war. They get mad at you for not going to war to support them, and then they get mad at you again when you do join them in their conflicts. They get mad at you for trying to win the game, and in fact the AI is specifically programmed to dogpile the human player when he/she gets close to victory"

It's true that i have i have read more complaints about the way the AI moves units and fights, so it may be that i am in a minority when it comes to not liking the way the AI's leaders goals have been designed, resulting in it's style of diplomacy which i find so frustrating.

 

Great writeup, Sullla. I think this kind of thing can really help players articulate what they find lacking in Civ5.

RE: Civ4-BTS versus Civ5 and the "you just wanted Civ4, part 2" responses... isn't that line getting a little old by now? It smacks of an apologist position when you won't or can't respond to the criticisms and instead just dismiss the whole analysis as "it's a whole new game."

Er, okay, yes, it IS a whole new game. But how does Civ5 being a brand-new game make its design flaws somehow fun? A game whose internal mechanics don't work effectively or behave as intended (and whose developers play whack-a-mole with band-aid fixes to effective strategies rather than addressing the design issues that cause those problems) is not likely to be fun regardless of whether it's the first game in a franchise or the fortieth.

 

See? That is exactly what I mean. People may like 1UpT, but can't accept what Civ V has become, because of it. And they shouldn't.

 

So his saying that I am "suggesting some most absurd and apologetic reasons for crashes and bugs" is NOT calling me a liar? Interesting. If anything, it's an attempt at a cheap shot at myself, rather than at my point.

I refer you to post #37 of this thread where I say both a) that the game is broken, and b) that I can admit it (reposted for conveniance: "Whilst I understand Sullla's points, and agree with some of them"). I am not attacking someone but expressing my opinion that to me his writings across his whole website sound like he wants BtS v2. And since I haven't been infracted for anything in this thread (surprisingly I've have been very restrained) the mods agree.

Moderator Action: To be clear, lack of moderation action does not mean agreement with any position, it only means that a poster has not been infracted or warned.

 

That's correct, saying that you are suggesting some most absurd and apologetic reasons for crashes and bugs is not the same as calling you a liar. Calling you a liar would be something much more serious - a completely different level altogether.

EDIT: therefore, there is still a chance for you and islet to kiss and make up.

 

PG maps had something that C5 lacks: space. PG lacks a lot of the complexity that C5 contains, at least as metacomplexity, such as diplomacy, economic growth (tile yields, population, buildings, settlers/workers), which is what allows 1upt to work in that game but not in C5. That quote from Luddite that Sullla used in his review explains this in great detail.

That's cherry picking, over the past 8 months, and in RBPB2, Sullla constantly explains why he feels that several implementations of BtS are dumb

 

So now you want Islet murdered by my wife? You're not a very nice person are you, and I denounce you!

 

The problem with this "most amazing idea" to make them feel real and mysterious is that you can speak with real persons, have a conversation where you discuss your problems... You can't do that with a computer game AI leader, obviously. You'd need to have a real "artificial intelligence" for that (aka terminator, cylons etc). That's why those visible (+) (-) modifiers are needed. It's the only way. That's not "one way of doing diplomacy in a strategy game", it's the only one (reasonable & working at least). You can't just make an insane AI, hide the modifiers and call it "mission accomplished".

So yeah, it's definitely mysterious alright. Mysteriously insane & random... So "mission accomplished" on that. Not so much on it feeling more real...

I wonder how stoned were the people behind that idea...

 

You are wrong: I am a really, totally and truly nice person.

 

You say "Friendly" yet you are friends with leaders I've denounced, and you covert the fact I don't get any Civ5 crashes at all. Hmmm.....

Let's make a trade deal (so I can pillage the tile later and re-offer it to someone else).

 

Read above posts about how games in 1994 could handle 1upt, kthx.

 

It is of my personal view that although Sulla is mostly correct, he is putting way too much time in providing an analysis which may fall on deaf ears. We may all agree with his analysis, but obviously gamespot didn't (civ5 one of the top 10 games recently?), and obviously the sales figure will dissuade anyone who is in position of doing something to the game about the validity of his claim.

 

Those games were played on a relatively larger map, compared to army sizes.

He is saying that the current Civ mechanics of city building, tile improvements/yields, citizen placement, and units occupying tiles of this size relative to the rest of the map, that these things all together cannot coexist "properly." I think it's quite correct, too, after reading Luddite's quote in Sullla's writeup.

Assuming they did copy the combat AI from one of those games, the problems extending from this army size --> tile size --> map size relationship would still persist.

 

The game's clearly unfinished, but I disagree that 1UPT is the main issue. It's definitely fairly workable.

 

I played those games, too. I still do, from time to time. You play a time-limited scenario with limited and known goals and the hexes WAY outnumbered the units. Do you see some difference between that and a Civ game? If you still think it's the dame thing, let me ask you: could you, or the AI player, make a carpet of doom?