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. BigChiefLizzy

    BigChiefLizzy Warlord

    Jul 17, 2007
    Not sure about single player games, but for MMO's and Multiplayer games (Or single player games with a multiplayer component) then there's a very good reason why the number of subscriptions is kept quiet....

    The developer/publisher of the game may have spent upwards of $100+ million to bring the game to market, then add on tens of thousands in server hosting fees (per month)... it gets bad enough if they get a bad launch, not that ever happens to an MMORPG ;)

    Then some bad reviews online, and bad comments in forums.. so do you:-

    a) Admit that you only have 50,000 subscribers, but to break even and keep the servers running you needed at least 500,000? It's a multiplayer game - who is going to buy it when they know (from you!) that nobody will be online to play with?

    b) Say everything is going ok, (maybe you will get some more suckers to part with cash for the game and even a few more months subs), and keep the -sinking- ship afloat a few more months and get back some of your capital :)
  2. tat501

    tat501 Warlord

    Jul 6, 2012
    I too don't like where deep strategy games are going - but when you think about it, "longevity" isn't really that good for developers. They want you to get bored so they can bring out an expansion pack/dlc/new game for you to buy.
  3. johnnybaseball

    johnnybaseball Chieftain

    Aug 12, 2014
    New York
    I'd just like to chime in on behalf of those of us who are not deity level players. This game is not as easy for everyone else as you guys think it is! :)
  4. persisT

    persisT Chieftain

    Aug 9, 2014
    OKay since everyone is expressing his opinion about why civ is a good or bad game, i am gonna get abroad on the train too and express my opinion (merely an opinion, more like facts.).

    As i said i like Civ5, i like it more than civ4, but lets face it, it is jut a decent game (considering gameplay and not graphics etc.) and nothing more ( i am not even comparing it with other civ games). Why am i saying that ? Here is why; first of all the game has some serious balance issues. Some civs, social policies, ideologies, buildings, units etc. are way too good and imba while others suck big time and their existance only serve as a question to why exist (i expressed sth deep and philosophical right here). And no guys it's not up to "how you play the game", "or personal style of play" and other crap like these justifications. It's as simple as it can get; some stuff in the game are op while others are a no-go. And that is true both in singleplayer (although in lower difficulties you may win making bad decisions concerning stuff in the game that suck, thus you may not be punished from your choices,but still that doesn't change the fact that some they suck) and in multiplayer thus making the gameplay linear and repetitive.

    One more disadvantage in this game is the AI. It is extremely poor, making bad and dumb decisions while always being easily predictable due to low depth of actions being made by it. Add to that the (maybe) worst diplomacy that was designed and included in a game that scored an average of ~85 +/100 and you have a terrible singleplayer experience considering your ai opponents and your interaction with them. And if you want to play multiplayer with others, good luck with crashes,dcs and stuff like that, that occur quite frequently.

    At least with the 2 expansions (especially BNW) the developers over at firaxis changed a lot stuff to the better (excluding religion) providing something refreshing, challenging and way more interesting than before (i am looking at you culture). I do hope, that they will realise where they have failed both here and both at the upcoming CivBe and develop not just a better civgame than the previous ones, but a better game in general.
  5. Drakarska

    Drakarska Epic Dadness

    Jan 4, 2010
    Twilight Zone
    Ninja'd.. My thanks.
  6. nokmirt

    nokmirt Emperor

    Feb 14, 2009
    Iowa USA
    When CiV came out it had a lot of issues. I had some complaining to do. However, now with BNW and certain mods, I have a pretty decent experience. Granted it's not perfect, but what game is?
  7. Countmonte8242

    Countmonte8242 Warlord

    Oct 25, 2005
    I'm going to give give Civ 5 one more try before Beyond Earth comes out. I was pretty much in the same boat as the OP and many others. The release of Civ 5 bummed me and bored me so quickly that I haven't given it another shot since.

    Civ 1 was a masterpiece. Civ 2 perfected Civ 1. Civ III was disappointing. Civ IV added some very fun new elements to the game, with a few flaws, but overall was a great game. Civ V, instead of trying to improve upon a great game in Civ IV, went back to the drawing board way too much, distanced itself from the rest of the series, and as a result was even more disappointing (at relase) than Civ III.

    I hope I can find some more fun on this second go, will see.
  8. Mckertis

    Mckertis Chieftain

    Mar 3, 2010
    First post since 2011, ha !
    After a long period of not wanting to get into Civ5, i was gifted a copy, so i kind of felt i had to, and yes, you are quite right, i am bored out of my skull. The game presents no challenge whatsoever. Out of interest, i played a pangea game on Deity, and didnt build any military units apart from a starting unupgraded warrior...AI didnt care. I didnt get extorted, or threatened, or attacked, all the way through, science victory.
    I understand they tried to make it more of a game for builders, but this is ridiculous. I can just pick a high-end unit from the research tree, build up at my leisure, then rush out and kill everyone (which i did a couple of times).
    At least when in Alpha Centauri i didnt win the race to aviation - i got stomped.

    Not sure what you are going on about. More important ? In Civ4 all your secondary points were derived from gold, without gold you didnt have anything. In Civ5 you can be poor as a church mouse, yet still be the smartest, happiest, most cultured and pious nation in the world.
  9. jekke

    jekke Warlord

    May 29, 2014
    foreign core area
    In principle, I tend to agree with the topicstarter. On the other hand, I would not call CIv V a bad game; it's only bad if you have played previous civs for a certain amount of hours and, more importantly, have certain expectations.

    Af ter thinking of this for a while I realised that this brings me to an interesting point. Has anyone else got the feeling that after each civ firaxis fires all the stuff, hires new people and tells them, now that we've got Civ N, go create something different (Civ N+1)?

    Civ III was a very good game. What could have been done is simply adding some final touches, like religion, nation flavours etc (it had "regions", like mediterranian, european, native american etc), social policies and there we go. But no, civ IV was completely different game, starting from totally different graphics.
    However, Civ IV was also a good game. Together with some fantastic mods (RFC, mainly) it could have evolved into a jewel, wit its own historical realism, nice promotions system, cottage ecomony etc. But no, Civ V had to be a brand new game.
    Interestingly, Civ V is also a good game. But I can't help thinking that if it didn't have to be rewritten from scratch, it could appear much earlier and get much better. Just look at the text fonts in IV and V. They're not just different; the font and text style in V looks like it was designed to be totally different from that of IV. If you're still not convinced, look at the mouse cursor.

    Having played Civ IV (and II and III), we could expect Civ V to be great because we knew which things were already good, and which things needed some work. Unfortunately, it failed to meet our expectations; everything has been changed.
  10. Sarxis

    Sarxis Chieftain

    Nov 18, 2005
    darkyxinhow, I agree with what you say. CiV has its moments though - I've had some great times in specific games. But once those are over, the game tends to start showing its shortcomings. The UI has some real problems. Why did Firaxis never incorporate a hotkey for the quick-button above the mini-map? Stuff like that just makes the game more of a chore than it has to be.

    But I still play it every so often because I do have some fun despite the problems.
  11. Dethmare

    Dethmare Chieftain

    Sep 6, 2014
    The main design philosophy is different in Civ4 and Civ5: Civ5 is like a Board game and Civ4 is more of a Sim game. In Civ4 you have a whole living planet with the climate changes. I'm not so sure that they've implemented the Global warming concept in result of Nuclear War in Civ5... or maybe they did just I've never seen any effects of it.
    And the Religion in Civ4 feels more natural the way it spreads, the timeline and the effect it has on the diplomacy. In Civ5 although there are some good ideas to me feels artificial and it's menu choice point-and-click and make your own concept is ridiculous.

    Both games are good but designed for different type of gamers.

Share This Page