Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by cman2010, May 6, 2011.
It's entirely accurate. You just have a different opinion. That's fine.
You conquered cities. You crushed civs. You're a warmonger. Every conqueror says, "yeah, but see, they really deserved it!" or "it was self-defense!" Why should the AIs pay any more attention to your propaganda than anyone else's?
France declared war on Germany in 1870. When Otto Von Bismark had Prussian troops march on Paris and annexed Alsace-Lorraine, did anyone consider Germany warmongers? Certainly, history hasn't called it a defensive war, regardless of who started it (although I suppose it doesn't help that he intentionally altered diplomatic correspondence to provoke France).
The diplo A.I. in this game is laughable and acts, only coincidentally, as how I percieve a rational human might act.
The A.I. does do a great impression of a paranoid schizophrenic though. Could this be what you meant by acting human? Human like: Gadaffi or Manson or John Boehner?
The next patch will focus on trying to fix what is widely regarded as a major, perhaps even game breaking, flaw. The lousy diplo A.I. (among other things)
To extoll the virtues of the diplo A.I., and to then do so with a straight face, severely strains the bonds of credulity and canon.
Were it not for the tone of your post I would have assumed you were just having a go. You know, trying to get a rise.
If so.. then thanks for the laugh. You got me.
Advise to the O.P.: If you've managed to wait this long, i'd wait a little longer to play. I came back about 3 weeks ago and I wish i had waited longer. A lot longer.
Mostly the game still sucks eggs and your time would probably be better spent hitting yourself in the face with a trout.
It's cool that people have different opinions on the AI diplomacy. In my opinion, it's pretty good, although I think it can still be better. Other people have other opinions. That's fine. It's just a computer game. We can all have our own opinions on it.
Oneluv, have you tried to play after the patch that came out a few days a go?
Okay, I can see how people can not like that game, but you're making it unbearable. What's so unbearable about it?
This thread is great. I too am coming back now, and I quit around the same time.
Save_ferris While it is honorable to defend the game I gotta take sides with Oneluv. I bought the game and it was broken. I HAD the shelf it. Saying "the game sucks eggs" ("I'll teach your grandma to suck eggs" -happy happy joy joy) is a dramatic improvement over "The game is broken."
I don't want to completely dis civ 5 because they are trying to add some very dramatic things to the franchise, a desicion that has killed soooo many series in the past, but the changes are GOOD, sadly whether it was a funding issue, or logistics/communication issue, the game came out unfinished, and terribly sloppy, but hey they are working on it, slowly but surely.
I was really hoping for some big diplomacy fixes by now, but I am hapy enough that I can sell buildings, and cancel trade agreements. It sounds to me like I can play the game once more, and that is a big, big deal. I'm very excited to get to try the game again with the patches!
Civ 4 is a far better game, but what can I say? I love hex, I love the looks, and I love the one unit per tile combat mechanics.
All you can do is say I'm wrong? I have given crystal clear reasons that (since they're true) show that the AI behaves more closely to a simulation than a human player.
You gave the OP misleading information, and given the points presented afterward it's looking pretty dubious that you can say "it's entirely accurate" (to the point where it could actually inconvenience the OP). In countering your assertion, I provided clear examples to show why your post was misleading to the OP. Unlike what you have provided, those examples are not opinions.
Can you provide any actual support for your argument, or is your strategy on this thread to ignore any supporting arguments on the opposing side and dismiss counter-points as "opinion"?
Moderator Action: It's fine to have disagreements with other posters, but you shouldn't bring their motive/debate strategy into the discussion.
The game still fits the dictionary definition of broken, though...a quick look at any online dictionary will demonstrate why that is.
On the other hand, some people like trout. Fish is pretty healthy and it tastes good when prepared well.
I've basically decided that Civ5's flaws outweigh the monotonous stackbuilding in all the previous games.
The easiest answer is to just try it again, instead of listening to a bunch of us nuts on the internet shouting our opinions at each other.
I'm not dismissing your opinion. You're fully entitled to your opinion that you dislike Civ 5, just as I'm entitled to my opinion that I quite enjoy the game.
I don't know how a broken SP heavy game can be 3~6th most played game on steam though. Many find Civ 5 broken but a lot of people find it a fine game despite its flaws.
That makes statements like "Civ 5 is broken" hardly objective imo.
Diplomacy is still atrocious- aside from exploiting research agreements to drive yourself far down a tech tree, there's absolutely no reason to interact with the AI players. Their behavior, if slightly less autistically sociopathic than before, is still autistically sociopathic. Basically, their opinions on you change at the flip of a dime, seemingly for no reason.
That's not to say the game hasn't improved. It has. I came back about a month ago in a fit of boredom, having quit about three weeks after release due to it being a horribly broken game. There have been a lot of updates that make building less pointless than before, that have improved the policy trees, and have altered production to be slightly more interesting. The game runs a bit faster, though it is still a needless resource hog.
Of course, IMO the flaws still outweigh the cons. Diplomacy is broken. MP is broken. The early game is boring and the late game frequently has crashes. The civs themselves are deeply unbalanced. The interface is the interface. And there are gameplay flaws that just can't be fixed- I agree with Sulla's analysis that the game's design itself had poor decisions, which allowed ICS and numerous exploits or flaws. The programmers are trying to fix things around it and doing an admirable enough job of it, but when the foundation itself is bad there's only so much one can do.
Basically, if you're looking for a good game you should keep on waiting. If you're looking for something to kill the time with because you've grown tired of all the other games you have, I suppose Civ 5 is passable.
Nope, your opinion isn't relevant to the discussion of the game being broken. It is broken by definition.
Moderator Action: While this can be seen as an argumentative statement, it can also be seen as trolling. All posters are allowed in the discussion, so please don't state someone else's opinion isn't relevant. They have just as much right to participate as anyone else.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
If the game meets even one of these definitions (and it does), it's broken. No hiding behind opinions on this one. Hiding behind opinion in the face of fact is really tiresome; you chose to ignore the previous post where I said it fits the dictionary definition of the word. You're wrong and it is objective, "not IMO".
Nono, of course you're not , just the arguments that support it.
BTW, just as a linguistics clarification (mods, if this is out of line given the tone of the thread, let me know), I assume you're going with the "incomplete" definition of broken? I read it as broken as in breaking a bale of hey. It doesn't mean broken as in damaged, it's an act of taking something once full and breaking it into pieces. It doesn't have the same connotation. If you mean it in that context, it might help clarify the disagreements.
Are you referring to this? "5: not complete or full <a broken bale of hay> "
The word 'complete' has subjectivity in it. The definition of complete might be
"1 a : having all necessary parts, elements, or steps <a complete diet>"
Which then leads to the definition of 'necessary':
"2: absolutely needed"
What are 'absolutely needed parts' then? Well, your opinion comes here.
Sometimes the 'propoganda' has enough merit to generate - at the very least- mixed opinions. For example, Israel's occupation of the Gaza Strip after the 6-Days War.
There's also the concept of Reciprocation: when Alex has plans on annexing Persia, it's not really in his long-term interests to be calling others out for having done what he's about to do.
Given that you're not actually addressing the "opinion" he's stating in this thread, I think it's fair to presume that you have, in fact, dismissed that opinion.
Likely under the rationalization of "just a hater."
Moderator Action: Just a warning that this thread is devolving into attacks against other players, if this continues the thread will be clossed
civ v also have problem like units not move properly and bad hotkey and the ui is pretty rough right now and definitely multiplayer doesnt work while in singleplayer the ai does nonsense all times
Separate names with a comma.