1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

The most hatred-filled review you'll come across

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by Andulias, Jun 18, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Sarda

    Sarda Diety

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2006
    Messages:
    88
    Intresting. All 7 of the civs I was against, Austria included, had atleast 4-8 cities each. Not one of them had left their holy city. AI bug then? Who knows
     
  2. Andulias

    Andulias A Stranger on a Train

    Joined:
    May 26, 2012
    Messages:
    508
    I have personally seen quite a lot of people on this sub-forum who have been around for years before Civ V came out and they seem to think the expansion is a noticeable improvement, not just a bag of new features. I can not talk about the expansion itself, being European and all but I can say that your 4. isn't correct, at high difficulty settings it is possible to spam a lot of cities, but by no means is it the dominant strategy; the tech tree has been revised for the better and generally seems to have more branches; and stating civics had trade-offs is misleading. Out of 25 only 2 had actual negatives - Mercantilism and Pacifism, all the rest have only bonuses, proclaiming civics have trade-offs when only 8% of them do isn't IMO correct. And SPs being inferior is a matter of personal opinion, I actually like both, although I would have liked if there were civics in Civ V in addition to SPs.

    I do agree though, G+K was never intended to make Civ V all of a sudden convert. After all, this is an expansion, and it does exactly what an expansion should be doing - tweaking and balancing the core game while adding new features. As such G+K seems to have done a good job.
     
  3. markusbeutel

    markusbeutel NiGHTS

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    1,976
    Location:
    Vancouver BC Canada
    All of what I posted was merely meant to convey the general opinion of players that didn't, and still don't for that matter, like vanilla CIV V or G+K's, none of it's meant to be taken as fact. And I'm sure there were/are players on the fence that see this expansion as an improvement that gets them back into Civ, but playing devils advocate, there's also a plethora of entire Civ forums that are now basically dead, (WePlayCiv, Apolyton, Civforum, etc).

    I'd argue that ICS, in CIV V more than ever, is the best overall strategy to take, solely because population = science. As long as these two are tied together, more is better. Sure, you can grow 4-5 monster cities with 25 population each, but if another player or AI can manage 15-20 with 10-15 population each, (which isn't difficult at all now that there are so many more luxuries + the happiness from CS's), that player will absolutely steamroll the competition. No argument.

    As for the tech tree, it is better, in the sense that there are more options/routes to take - but a detractor will just point you to the CIV IV, (or even the CIV III) tech tree, as there are invariably more routes to take, along with dead end paths and either/or deviations. Compared to the vanilla CIV V tech tree, the G+K's version is "better," but with respect to the amount of options it represents, it still falls short compared to previous iterations, (where religions were actually unlocked through techs adding an additional layer of strategy). Although I'm not advocating that CIV IV did religion better, just that it added to an an already feature rich tech tree.

    When I talked about trade-offs, I meant that by choosing certain civics, you'd invariably cancel out others, not that each civic had specific positives and/or negatives. Again, detractors will point to this and compare it to the current policy system, which instead functions more like a skill tree in WoW, (which is what the devs explicitly said they were going for in the official podcasts leading up to the release of vanilla CIV V).
     
  4. Andulias

    Andulias A Stranger on a Train

    Joined:
    May 26, 2012
    Messages:
    508
    What general opinion? So far I haven't seen anyone complain about the expansion on the forums here, and yes, I did check the rants thread and I have read the whole First Impressions one as well, nothing much going on in terms of heavy criticism, just some bugs here and there, nothing out of the ordinary.

    There seems to be a general consensus that the AI has been improved, which I didn't really think would be the case. Seems I was wrong. Notice that I said "improved". Perfect apparently not, but better than vanilla. Even players who had no idea the AI would be tweaked have noticed it.

    Can't talk about the expansion pack, but in vanilla you can just about forget about an ICS tall empire. And of course a huge empire will steamroll anything else, last time I checked same goes for every Civ game ever made.

    The expansion pack came out YESTERDAY. I don't know if you honestly believe you can give out such definitive judgements about the tech tree, but I know I don't. The buzz has been pretty positive so far though.

    Your whole argument about the civics goes as well for SPs. You choose one, you lock yourself out of the rest. I kind of miss your point.

    I don't know how dead (or alive) Apolyton and WePlayCiv are, I am not that much of a forum guy, one is enough. I can definitely say this one is anything but dead, and WePlayCiv have put up a positive review. And listing dead forums hardly means the actual community is dead. Both Civ IV and V are among the most played games on Steam, with Civ V right now taking the number 2 spot and in almost two years never leaving the top 10. The Civ forums there are in fact really, really lively. Maybe the community is shifting? :) Generally speaking fan forums aren't as popular as they used to be, pretty much only those of old franchises (World of Gothic, CivFanatics, UESP.net) remain. Times change. But for a broken game the Civ V forums certainly have plenty of activity going on. You look at Civ Rev, it's dead. Not this one though, one has to wonder...

    EDIT: Just thought I should give a heads-up - I have played every Civ game, although I did start with 2. And while I still think IV with TBS is the best one, I certainly like Civ V a lot and can't wait for the expansion. I don't know when it became a rule to like only one or the other, I like both for different reasons. Go figure :p
     
  5. OrsonM

    OrsonM Our man

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2011
    Messages:
    555
    I'm sad to agree with Tom a bit there, at least on one thing... they were a bit sloppy with the religion Pantheon menu (I'm not even going into how bloated it looks).

    It seems like a pretty fun concept at first sight, yet they could had worked a few graphics here and there to make it a bit more in line with the rest of the game.

    It reminds me a lot to the Neverwinter Nights skills menu... except they didn't even tried to add anything resembling any graphical aid there. You literally have to read them one by one.

    Knowing Firaxis, if a graphic wasn't added at release, it'll probably never be added. A shame really, as the rest of the game is very graphic heavy and then you get this ugly menu with just a lot of descriptions there.

    I still have lots to play in the game, but the menu was kind of a big let down (but then again, that's just me).
     
  6. markusbeutel

    markusbeutel NiGHTS

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    1,976
    Location:
    Vancouver BC Canada
    Granted the games only been out for a day, but the "general opinion(s)" that I'm inferring from are based more on the first 100 or so pages in the Civ V General Discussion forum. The reasons I gave, are more or less the main reason why people, at that point, didn't like the game - and seeing that those points remain unchanged, (you could argue on the tactical AI, but the main difference, going through the xml's, is just HP), those points remain relevant.

    Obviously, most of the people that didn't like CIV V to begin with, aren't going to stick around. People still active on this forum predominately enjoy the game, (at least that's the general impression I'm getting, as I don't see a G+K's rants thread). ;)

    If the AI was drastically improved, that would have been near the top of all advertising campaigns, as that was vanilla CIV V's main vice. Firaxis chose to focus on adding content, nothing wrong with that, and while the AI probably got tweaked here or there, it's still bad in respect to how it handles 1UPT, (even if it's slightly better overall).

    And you're right, ICS has always been the strongest strategy in Civ games, but at least in IV there was distance maintenance cost for cities that needed to be factored into the equation. Sure, eventually you could overcome this detriment to your economy, but initially it provided an extreme deterrent - a deterrent that doesn't exist in CIV V, and ICS, combined with global happiness, combined with extra happiness luxuries, combined with additional free happiness from City-States, means that it's stronger now than it's ever been in a Civ game to date to go for an ICS strategy.

    And as for Civics, I guess what I was trying to get at, was that you could adapt them to your play-style throughout the game, while they're locked into place in CIV V. This, I should mention, is another reason element of CIV V that a certain portion of the fanbase disliked: being that permanent policies cater more to a play-style that shoehorns you into long-term goals, whereas civics allowed you to adapt your play-style throughout the course of the game.

    I'm not saying any one system's better than the other, just that, based on the reaction to CIV V when it first came out, these were all reasons given as to why people were disappointed with the game, and most of these reasons are still relevant after the release of the expansion.

    EDIT: And the CIV V forums are definitely still alive and well, just like the CIV IV forums. Although it'll be interesting to see if the CIV V forums are still as active as the CIV IV forums in 10 years.
     
  7. TomChick

    TomChick Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2002
    Messages:
    27
    Religion spreads automatically within 10 hexes. And since Great Prophets pop automatically, of course you're going to see those. But I don't think I've seen the AI using missionaries or inquisitors. I don't know if this is because it doesn't know how -- which wouldn't surprise me -- or because those units are borderline useless given how religion is modeled, but I think Sarda might have a point about the AI not actively pushing religion.

    -Tom
     
  8. Andulias

    Andulias A Stranger on a Train

    Joined:
    May 26, 2012
    Messages:
    508
    Plenty of people disagree about the AI. I already linked a thread where almost every post states it has been considerably improved.
    One doesn't have to do with the other. I don't remember if there was one here, but there certainly was a rants thread for Civ IV as well. Hardly means the game is bad or people didn't like it. There are most certainly issues with G+K, but if it was a bad expansion, as Chick has let us to believe, the Impressions thread wouldn't have been buzzing so positively. And it's Tom Chick's job to review the expansion. He seems to have failed to even mention a lot of changes.
    Again, read the posts I linked. HELL NO, they are not going to make it one of their biggest points, are you crazy?! Whenever a fan question came up asking about the AI, the devs would go on to say they have rewritten a lot of the AI as well as the diplomacy. "Enhanced Diplomacy" was in fact one of the selling feature. But "Fixed AI"? How do you think that will look on the box? You don't market a product like that, you don't openly admit something was wrong to begin with, even if there was. You market what's NEW, not what's FIXED, the fixes you put in there for fans to find. Have you seen Mercedes market the new A class as: "The new A class - it doesn't go wheels up the way it did on its first test-drive!" People won't buy a product like that.
    That would have been the case an year ago, after that summer patch happiness is a lot harder to come by. Granted, I am not a 1337 player, I played Civ IV mostly on Emperor, but ICS is very hard to do on higher difficulty settings in Civ V.
    Well, it's all about personal opinion. I've found that as the game goes on, the first SP trees lose their significance. Yes, the bonuses are still there, but they don't matter so much, and that free worker/settler/GP you got? Well, it ain't coming back. And the first SP trees are basically making you decide if you want to rapidly expand, grow a tall empire or be a warmonger. Then, when you know where you stand on the map, you have to choose between culture, city states or money-making. And at least I personally was already planning for which VC I was going for at that stage in Civ IV. So in that sense you can certainly tailor it to your playstyle. Yes, it's not as flexible, but it's more customizable, I really can't say which I prefer.
    Well, the AI doesn't seem to be that relevant, as for the rest - we of course! Did Warlords or BTS fundamentally change anything about the game? No, that's not what an expansion does, I most certainly know Civ III die-hards who never change their mind aboout CIV, BTS or no BTS. That's not what an expansion does after all.
    EDIT: And the CIV V forums are definitely still alive and well, just like the CIV IV forums. Although it'll be interesting to see if the CIV V forums are still as active as the CIV IV forums in 10 years.[/QUOTE]
    But Civ IV didn't come out 10 years ago..? In any case, 2 years after launch V doing OK, we'll have to wait and see.
    Now you are just trying to grab the closest straw. I watched a G+K walk-through and I saw a couple of missionaries. Might have been a bug, who knows. Probably some civs love to spread their religion, others don't.
     
  9. Sarda

    Sarda Diety

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2006
    Messages:
    88
    Are you kidding me? BTS had major changes to the base game. With 4's espionage you could cripple an entire country, render entire cities defenseless, win entire wars with nothing but espionage. It changed the entire way navies functioned with stealth ships, nuclear subs with tactical nukes, ect. We got random events, advanced start (still waiting on 5's version of this.) Diplomatic wins in the medieval times, tons was changed. I've won games by bankrupting people with junk corporations, can't do that in the base game.

    Lastly, your wrong about civ3 people never changing to 4, I didn't like 4 when it came out, I personally didn't like it until BTS came out, and when it did I finally gave up 3 for 4. It took expansions to 3 to get me to go to 3 from 2, thats why I hope, tho it seems its not going to happen, that 5 will get a expansion to be somewhat good.
     
  10. Camikaze

    Camikaze Administrator Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2008
    Messages:
    27,227
    Location:
    Sydney
    This is not the case. The AI does actively spread religion (my experience tends to indicate the Songhai, for instance, are a bit of a missionary spammer). Though they won't in all circumstances, just as any human player won't in all circumstances. It would actually seem a better indication that sometimes the AI does spread and sometimes it doesn't, than if they were to half-heartedly spread all the time. It indicates more focus.

    I obviously disagree with the review, but I guess it's entirely valid. If you have never liked Civ5, the expansion may not be enough to suddenly turn you onto it. Then again, for some people it might add the depth and improve the AI (the point here being that the combat AI has been significantly improved, as a lot of people have noticed when attacking cities (though there is still a lot of work left to do)) to the extent that will get them interested in what they previously were not enjoying.
     
  11. Andulias

    Andulias A Stranger on a Train

    Joined:
    May 26, 2012
    Messages:
    508
    I find it amusing that you think espionage was the base game or corporations completely changed the way we play CIV. Spying was a small and unbalanced gimmick in vanilla, which they finally fixed, hardly "core-changing". G+K also entirely changes how navies function with new embark rules, unit stacking and Great Admirals, on top of that it changed the ground-based combat as well with the new 100 HP system, and adds 2 new systems. So by your logic G+K fundamentally changed Civ V as we know it.

    BTS brought ENHANCEMENTS AND FIXES. It didn't change the core of the game at all. Great People functioned and spawned in pretty much the same way, sliders were still there and were the same (it added a new one, big deal), the combat system, the whole approach to diplomatic, micro- and macro-management, religion and teching, THOSE are the fundamentals of Civ IV. They were NOT changed, just tweaked, enhanced and improved.

    BTS didn't make a new game out of CIV. It just made a better one out of it.
    Did you miss the part where I said I have friends who never switched over? I am most certain I'm not wrong about that. I seriously doubt you know my friends or why they disliked CIV. :p
     
  12. Sarda

    Sarda Diety

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2006
    Messages:
    88
    I never said Espionage was base, it was BTS,which I figured would be implied since I was talking about BTS... And yes they did completely change the way you play civ4 or you played on a very easy difficulty, ignoring espionage was a garunteed loss at the highest dif levels, corporations on large maps could easily be game changers.

    Considering I find the entire concept of unit embarking bad, seeing it improved is still bad. GA's are hardly worth mentioning, their little more then single use medics. All the new 100 hp system did was increase the busy work hunting down barb camps, now it takes 4 archer volleys instead of 2. Deep.

    I'll admit 3 had some neat things in it like trade embargo's that I wish 4 had, but to me atleast, BTS was better.

    Edit: This is really getting off topic.
     
  13. Andulias

    Andulias A Stranger on a Train

    Joined:
    May 26, 2012
    Messages:
    508
    No, it didn't completely change anything. It was just another slider, I rarely had to toy around with it too much. Corporations were just plain dumb and were put in for the sake of needless complexity, they didn't profoundy change the game either. There is way too little to stop me from branding corporations as religion 1.5, a system that was already in vanilla, in fact Soren Johnson himself said that corporations use the same system. You also seem to miss that this is peripheral, the actual core was the same. I already even defined what exactly that core is. FYI I am not a gigantic pro, I play on Emperor with the occasional Immortal game.

    To me it seems you are quite biased. BTS most certainly didn't reinvent CIV and nothing you will say will change that. And, like I said, by your logic G+K is on the same level. Dismissing the enhanced Embarkation is exactly along the lines of what Tom Chick is doing - ignoring something just because you happen to dislike it. Not because it's a broken or bad mechanic, just because it doesn't suit your taste. The influence it has on the game is left out in the cold because you don't like it. I am sorry, but that's plain silly.

    As is the rest of your post. GAs have been changed in G+K, how nice of you to ignore that as well. The new 100 HP system seems to change noticeably the flow of combat, and so far not a single person here hasn't said it has a significant impact for the better. How nice of you to ignore that as well.

    The truth is, you don't really even seem to have any idea what the expansion does, and yet you already have a strong opinion of it, which doesn't make you look very good. One has to wonder what you are doing here on the CiV forums in that case, since you obviously don't want to like the game. Just play CIV and forget about it.
     
  14. BobDole

    BobDole American Leader in Civ VI

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2010
    Messages:
    811
    Yeah, I can't comment on missionaries/inquisitors yet; I haven't played enough, and my one complete game involved me chilling on my own continent since I killed my neighbor, crazy Attila, very early (everyone else was on the other continent). Just sharing that they do spread religion with prophets at least. I've seen missionary units, so I'm guessing the AI at least knows how to buy them. I'd like to think that they actually know how to utilize them as well.
     
  15. Sarda

    Sarda Diety

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2006
    Messages:
    88
    Because if people like Tom, me, Soren, or the other half the Civ community didn't post here, and no one said anything but praise (that it doesn't deserve but people like you give it), we'd end up with another poorly designed joke aka Civ6 designed around Civ5, instead of a Civ6 designed around Civ4 that we want. :goodjob:
     
  16. petey

    petey Prince

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2002
    Messages:
    569
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA, USA
    Ya, I'm glad for negative reviews which point out the flaws. I remember when CiV first came out, all the reviews I read were about how it was the greatest game of the year and all that crap and then I went and bought this buggy and unplayable piece of garbage which couldn't hold a candle to its predecesor. If someone takes the time to point out the flaws in the game, it means that he's actually taken the time to play it which most of the reviewers that I based my original purchasing decision on don't seem to have done.
     
  17. Andulias

    Andulias A Stranger on a Train

    Joined:
    May 26, 2012
    Messages:
    508
    As a fan of both IV and V, I do NOT want a Civ 4.5. There is this thing called innovation, if I wanted to play CIV, I will play CIV, it already exists, doesn't it?

    And there is nothing wrong with criticism, there is with making up reasons to hate, which I listed in my last post and which you chose not to address. Poorly designed joke? Is that why it's so successful then? And please don't come up with the "it's just console kids" argument, that audience plays a game for two weeks and never comes back, CiV has been in the top 10 Steam games since release. Maybe it's not so poorly designed after all? Maybe it has some ideas that make it worth playing? I can immediately think of several actually terribly designed strategy games that all tanked because nobody liked them (from MoO 3 to Stronghold 3). Considering there are people who like CiV, maybe there is something to it?

    What you are doing isn't constructive criticism. It's nitpicking and desperately trying to find a reason to hate the game. Pretty much what Chick did as well. And I don't think Firaxis will take that into consideration. At least so far in this thread I haven't seen you come up with any constructive criticism that would help them designing a potential CIVI.

    EDIT: Can you please give a link to a post of Soren bashing the expansion. I would much appreciate it.
     
  18. Buccaneer

    Buccaneer Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2001
    Messages:
    3,562
    Oh god, no. Civ6 needs to be a much better version of Civ5, not going backwards to a design that had many broken elements and poor implementations. If they can get the AI to do better at traditional wargaming (hex-based 1upt), then that alone would be far, far superior than any previous combat models, esp. the awful SoD.
     
  19. Sarda

    Sarda Diety

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2006
    Messages:
    88
    Irellevant. The few people I know who play 5 simply never turn it off because they say it takes to long to reload.

    Because loads of people who liked 4 got suckered and padded its sales, that makes it good? That would be like calling Avatar a good movie because it sold alot of movie tickets. This is one of the most broken base causing game releases I ever seen in over 20 years of gaming.

    Yah, its because its easy and panders to the modern casual gamer. Its the Call of Duty of turn based strategy games.

    Really? Lead designer got fired. Pretty good so far.

    Pretty sure everything that can be said about that already has been said, and it basically comes out to dump the entirety of Shafer's influence, start back at civ4, and fix the things that were broken and leave the things that weren't broken alone. Yes the alot of us want Civ4.5 over "Civ5 - CivRev 3".

    I'm sure it'll be out soon if hes bothering at all, I don't know why you'd care unless you expect the man who panned the original to deliver a glowing review.
     
  20. Andulias

    Andulias A Stranger on a Train

    Joined:
    May 26, 2012
    Messages:
    508
    Very relevant. People play the game in the tens of thousands daily. Keep on ignoring anything that doesn't suit you.
    Again, Steam statistics state otherwise. If all the buyers got burned, why is it in the top 10 ALL THE TIME? And Avatar was a good movie. This comes from a person who is an avid movie geek, has a library of currently around 3200 movies, and most certainly has the necessary movie culture to judge that. But of course, let's all hate what's new and cool
    Haven't seen a single Call of Duty getting played for 2 years without any signs of slowing down
    He left alone. Just like Brian Reynolds and Soren Johnson. Are you going to argue that Alpha Centauri and CIV was failures that got their leads kicked out of the company? Please stop making a fool of yourself.
    Who is "the alot of us"? How do you even presume to think you have any idea what the general consensus is? How do you know what Shafer's influence was on Civ V? Were you at Firaxis at the time, do you have even the slightest idea about what their working process might be like? Have you actually ever PLAYED Civ Rev btw? FYI, it's closer to CIV than CiV. Yes, it really is.
    I would like a link to said panning.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page