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

This game is bad (not a hate post)

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by darkyxinhow, Aug 29, 2014.

  1. darkyxinhow

    darkyxinhow Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2007
    Messages:
    34
    Location:
    Brazil
    I hadn't logged in civfanatics for a very long time, actually something like 3 or 4 years. The reason for this is simple: although I've played civ since I was a kid (I started with civ2 when I was about 10 years old), I felt like civ5 was just plain bad; the more I played, the less I liked it. I don't know how long this site and forum have been up for, but I do remember visiting it ocasionally in search of new game content, along with other old (perhaps even older) civ fansites, such as Apolyton. The reason I am writing this right now is because after a few years I've decided to try civ5 again with its expansions and with some considerable time for balancing and making the game more enjoyable after its release, and after a reasonable amount of games played, I just can't really enjoy it. And that really disappoints me because I consider myself a pretty hardcore civ fan and I would be lying if I told people I don't have an emotional connection with the Civilization brand. Civ4 and civ2 are probably the games I've spent most time playing during my life (I'm 28, right now, if anyone is wondering), and by far (civ3 was a bit disappointing too, IMHO, but not like civ5).

    When I first read the changes upcoming for civ5, I got really excited. Some of these changes were long anticipated by people of the community and friends, such as the change from the traditional square game board to a hexagonal, the impossibility of unit stacking, the addition of 'real' ranged combat to the core game and others, amongst changes that sounded really interesting. The first time I laid my hands on vanilla, though, my first thought was immediately "Don't people playtest these games?!". The game flowed in a rather boring rhytm, the combat system was simply too annoying, the AI didn't know how to take proper advantage especially of ranged combat (and was too easy to beat), so I decided to take a break from civ5, go back to civ4 and take a look at other strategy games.

    That's when I found out about Paradox, Europa Universalis 3, Hearts of Iron 3, Crusader Kings 2, the then upcoming Europa Universalis 4 and other titles of the company. They've been great companions during this period, and something I realized about then when comparing Europa Universalis 3 and 4 is that even though they're obviously expanding and making their games more "user friendly" (I hate eufemisms, I wanted to say "newbie friendly", but it could sound too agressive), and investing more in the design details of their games (graphics, sounds, soudntracks, interfaces, auto-explanatory menus and panels, expanded explanatory texts and panels, all kinds of stuff, even spelling checks), they manage not to compromise the quality of the core game. Even though their games are getting really pretty for the eyes and really newbie friendly, they don't compromise the core content of the game, its complexity, its immersion capacity, or the intelectual capacity of the final consumer. Another thing is that they really listen to the community (Paradox's forum is very probably the best one in the community and the developers actually pay close attention to the feedback from the users). However, as much as my fondness for Paradox's games has grown, I've also felt it was time to give civ5 another chance.

    I don't really know where to start with, so I'll start by what I found most disgusting: the religion system. I remember reading a Sid Meier's interview in which he said that he changed civilization from a real time strategy game that you would direct the cities production and watch them grow to the turn based classic everyone knows and loves 1 week before the global shipping date of the final game (for the younger boys and girls out there, physical distribution of software was the rule in a pre or bad internet world), and in that same interview he stated something like "adding too much content can make a game too complicated, and simpler can be better". These two statements really marked me, "it is never too late to change a game" and "simpler can be better". That's not the case in civ5's religious system introduced with G&K. Religion turned into some sort of secondary money that provides minor bonuses (although it can be used to produce some really powerful combinations, depending on the case), while it worked very interessantely as a major player in civ4 (what makes sense, to be honest). Even the more recent possibility of founding 'protestatism' before 'orthodoxy' or 'catholicism' makes me feel stupid. I understand that is a way to try to balance some completely useless flavour that the civilizations have (favorite religion), but it just makes absolutely no sense, even for a game like civilization. As the immersion of the game bases itself on building alternate timelines, doesn't it make more sense to scrap out the favorite religion flavour than to actually break one religion into 3, one of them making absolutely no sense without the existence of another one for about 1.5 thousand years? Turning faith into a resource also makes the religion reasonably too controlable, and it shouldn't be. Religiosity flows more freely, and civilization5 makes it too square, it just doesn't seem to fit in the game.

    The combat system. Unit stacking could really spoil the fun of the game sometimes, but the way the problem was solved isn't good. The overvaluation of the units in civilization5 makes it boring. The units move too fast for the board. The overall feeling is that there is less space in the board with the 3 hexes city range and with the multiple city states. And even though there is less space, the units are able to move faster and they might take multiple turns to die, which also tends to kind of overcrowd the game map even with fewer units if in comparison to other civ games. The AI doesn't know how to properly use ranged combat, it tends to stack multiple ranged units in nearby hexes and to target not the biggest potential threat to them, but an unit that will actually die if fired at, even if they all die on the following turn. The combination of ranged attacks with the 2 hexes default move also doesn't feel good, it adds too much flexibility to some units that shouldn't be too flexible. I gotta admit that that I really liked the hit points and firepower systems of the cities, though. Finally early sieging feels like what it should.

    Gold. I like the fact that gold is more important in civ5, but it shouldn't be directly generated as a resource, it should be generated as an outcome of exploring other resources, and this shortcut civ5 has taken, although valid and theoretically interesting, is also dangerous. It is dangerous because it also to an overweighting of gold. Gold can surely buy pretty much anything, as long as it is for sale. And it can't do miracles (which it pretty much does in civ5, much more than faith). The old system of commerce and direction to the investments it allowed seemed more realistic than the new too plain budget system, something should be worked out in between those two. I also like the fact that science is now an independent resource per se, but this indepence is, too, exaggerated - it makes sense that a ruler, specially a godlike one, such as is the case of civ, should be able to direct its investment in science (if any).

    I really got to go now, but I will continue this post later, and I hope someone discusses this feeling with me, because I got really disappointed with this game.
     
  2. Sherlock

    Sherlock Just one more turn...

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2009
    Messages:
    1,208
    Location:
    Eagle, Idaho
    Well, I've played CiV for over 600 hours and think it's the best game I've ever played.

    I play the game that's there. Not the fantasy game in my head I think it should be.
     
  3. Crudgington

    Crudgington Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2013
    Messages:
    29
    Location:
    Swansea
    :lol:

    Shove that in your pipe and smoke it.
    :goodjob:
    Moderator Action: Please do not troll in the forums. This does not add to the discussion and focuses on the OP instead of on the subject of the thread.
    Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
     
  4. docbud

    docbud Emperor

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2012
    Messages:
    1,518
    I'm sorry you don't like CIv V. Some folks like it and some folks don't.

    I'm in the camp that does.
     
  5. lordofcivs

    lordofcivs Lord of The Civilizations

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2005
    Messages:
    167
    Location:
    Civland
    Well, anyone can like any game. It's not about liking actually. Problem is that Sid Meier's has strayed away from the track for what it was famous. Eventually, it will gather a new fan-base. But what about the previous ones, which they had gained in 2 decades (from Civ 1 to 4)? They are going to lose more then 70% of those. And the people posting these comments are actually the ones who had been greatly attached to this series, and now they are being greatly upset on what had been one of the major part (for entertainment) in their lives. Well, I'm one of them. And he's one of them. So sad that I'm never going to buy another Civilization game. For me, the game ended at Civililzation IV. And the success of Civilzation V clearly shows that Sid Meier's series won't revert to that track anymore. In terms of profit, I don't think 2K is going to lose much (may be they will gain in the end). However, I think the new method won't bring them 'fanatics', the way we had been.
     
  6. DarkestOnion

    DarkestOnion Prince

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2014
    Messages:
    533
    I think that you have what I once had and called Romantic Elitism for Grand Strategy Games. What I mean is that you seem to think all Civ players must be highly intellectual and capable of understanding very complex game mechanics, which is an Exclusive Philosophy imho. I am not trying to call you out for being selfish mind you, only to point out that you may be unaware of how your words may sound.

    I used to feel as you do until I chose to instead look at Civilization 5 with an Inclusive Philosophy. Isn't it better to bring new people into Civilization than it is to only serve long time fans of the franchise in your opinion?

    You also display a preference that Civilization should cleave very close to Historical Continuity in this post. I am curious as to whether you choose only to Research Techs in the order they were developed historically? Do you take issue with having Cannons in 1200AD in a game where you are doing well? What I am asking is how far does your desire for Historical Accuracy go? Do you have a general problem with Abstracted Concepts (like Religion) where you would prefer more Concrete Concepts?
     
  7. Helmling

    Helmling Philosopher King

    Joined:
    May 2, 2004
    Messages:
    1,677
    I play both.

    For way more than 600 hours (to my everlasting shame) I've played CiV, thinking all the time, "I would mod this in and this out and do this and that."

    It's sad, really.
     
  8. Nares

    Nares Emperor

    Joined:
    May 2, 2006
    Messages:
    1,631
    Theoretically, yes.

    In practice, it's been an abject failure, and not just in this genre.
     
  9. Uzael36

    Uzael36 Prince

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2012
    Messages:
    551
    How was it a failure? Aren't there more Civ 5 players than there ever were Civ 4 players?

    I will agree that it has destroyed the MMORPG genre, at least in my opinion, though there are more people playing, it seems the longevity of players has shortened.
     
  10. [to_xp]Gekko

    [to_xp]Gekko QCT junkie

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2005
    Messages:
    7,942
    Location:
    Seyda Neen, Vvardenfell
    OP, did you try Fall from Heaven 2? That one is still the pinnacle of TBS gaming imo.
     
  11. civ54lyfe

    civ54lyfe Prince

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2012
    Messages:
    563
    OP, you tried real hard to rile up some stuff with "this is a bad game" in your title. it doesn't matter to me. you are missing the point that C5 hits most of the marks for a casual grand strategy title.

    virtually all of your points, other than 1UPT, are simply incorrect. 1UPT is ALWAYS up for debate at this point only because old players are bored to debate anything else but simply for the sake of debating it.

    i would admit that Religion DOES carry a more ... incidental, and therefore less pivotal role in the game, i do admit that.


    regarding EU3/CK2... dude ok whatever. we all know the Paradox games require long term attention span and severe attention to detail in order to play properly, but you are missing forest for the trees. the same man or woman can enjoy Civ5 as a very well polished casual grand strategy game, and still also alternate those other 2 games...
    ... it is NOT mutually exclusive, and in fact the games complement each other very nicely and YOU should probably play those Paradox games more and you will DEFINITELY see those games' shortcomings. and what's the big deal anyway that any one game has its own shortcomings? Civ5 does damn well for what it sets out to do.


    talk to us when you get sick of seeing a giant blob or Catholic/Orthodox Christianity and your CK2 game is pretty much f'ed, and you spend 80hrs on it. i've been there.
     
  12. Nares

    Nares Emperor

    Joined:
    May 2, 2006
    Messages:
    1,631
    Are there? I don't see evidence of them, and Civ4 still has more units sold.

    It's the same everywhere.

    The "streamlined" experience isn't even what brings in more players; it's the massive ad campaigns.

    Meanwhile, longevity takes a nosedive.

    You're right that it's more pronounced in MMORPGs, but subscription fees prompt a more definitive response as to whether you'll continue playing or not.
     
  13. Illianor123

    Illianor123 Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2014
    Messages:
    290
    Silent majority logical fallacy. "I don't like it, and so the other long term fans mustn't." Of course the fact that the sales are better doesn't mean much to you cause it can ONLY be new blood, and not the old fans like yourself.

    Also bringing Paradox games into this, I lurk on their forums a lot (I play eu4 and ck2) and there is a whole lot of ignored complaining there about how they don't listen and what's wrong the game (see the ever present AE and coalition threads, that there isn't anything to do outside of war etc). If you want historical simulators then play those games, they give you an accurate map, and care about things like manpower, trading and dynasties and stuff.

    Though yes, religion is pretty much a sideshow in this, 2k seemed to want to avoid backlash by just throwing in some historical names and some mix & match bonuses.
     
  14. werothegreat

    werothegreat Warlord

    Joined:
    May 19, 2013
    Messages:
    290
    Location:
    Virginia
    I'm sorry, but religion in Civ IV is BOOOOOOOOOO-RIIIIIIIIIIING. "Oh, look, I discovered Masonry, I'm Jewish now." Yay, I can build Temples. Yay, if I get a Great Prophet I can get money from it. All it was was a little sticker that got stuck on your city. The only reason why I wanted to found as many religions as possible was so that later on in the game I could squeeze money out of them. Compare to Civ V's religion system, which actually gives some depth to it. Sure, simpler can be better, but too simple is boring. I can't say that I ever sent missionaries outside of my civilization in IV, or if the AI even cared if I did - why would they? But the majority religion mechanic makes religion far more interesting diplomatically. Spreading it means more bonuses for me, but if I step on someone else's ecclesiastical toes, I might have a war on my hands. Yes, it can be frustrating when Maria Theresa throws her Great Prophets at your Holy City, but it's much more *interesting*.
     
  15. killmeplease

    killmeplease Mk Z on Steam

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2007
    Messages:
    2,794
    Location:
    Samara
    you are wrong.
    civ4 - ~3.5 million
    civ5 - 5.9 million



    how may hours played, compare to the closest competitior total war
     
  16. killmeplease

    killmeplease Mk Z on Steam

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2007
    Messages:
    2,794
    Location:
    Samara
    btw it was a poll quite recently, very most of civ5 players are old ones, playing since civ2
    and i dont think it makes any sense to discuss these hater "arguments" over and over again, there were dozens of such topics already.
    i only wish ai was smarter, or just a better MP :)

    Moderator Action: There are players that have legitimate gripes about Civ5, as there are some that have issues with Civ4. Calling them "haters" is trolling, please stop using that word to describe others.
    Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
     
  17. Acken

    Acken Deity

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2013
    Messages:
    5,635
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    QC, Canada
    This is so 2010.
     
  18. persisT

    persisT Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2014
    Messages:
    30
    Location:
    Greece
    I love Civ 5 more than 4 but i do kinda believe that many fetures of 5 still suck even after the 2 ecpansions. I was really hoping to see a civ 6, even better than 5 (hopefully at realease and not after 2 years of updates and dlcs) but instead we are getting beyond earth. Well there is nothing more to do than either playing civ 5 as it is (with ot without mods) and keep waiting or play other games similar to civ series
     
  19. killmeplease

    killmeplease Mk Z on Steam

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2007
    Messages:
    2,794
    Location:
    Samara
    They did Colonization after Civ4 so its ok. Its too early to make Civ6 yet.
     
  20. Teproc

    Teproc King

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2013
    Messages:
    835
    Location:
    Lyon, France
    You're free to dislike the game and prefer games that are more about historical simulation, but please don't imply that this is Civ "dumbing it down". Civ was never about historical simulation.

    As for whoever said that CiV is making veterans go away from the game : I've played every big Civ game since the first, and CiV is the one that made me come to this site, the one that has made me sink the most hours, and in my opinion the best, by far. So you know, don't generalize.
     

Share This Page