Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by Mr_Wonka, Oct 25, 2010.
Yup - and whether or not past Versions had their shortcomings, which has been correctly pointed out they certainly did, it still has no baring on whether or not Civ5 has remained true to the Franchise Foundations of Empire Building. At present in my view, it has not, the main tenant of the game now is kill your neighbour, with a few add on's to play lip service to Empire Building.
Wargamers should try a tech or cultural victory and take a view, I suspect it will change.
This is the first time in 12 years of playing the Franchise I have seriously slammed a Version, usually its just a case of letting the Version settle with bug fixes tweeks et al, its a complex Franchise and time to settle a new version is always the case. Few months later we fly again.
Time will tell, but on present showing, we are a long way off "Building an Empire to stand the test of time", and well into "Kill off your neighbour to win the game".
This may very well be one of the most disappointing games ever released. I am not saying that in terms of content, add-ons, or modifications. What gets me (probably with everyone else who disagrees) is how can Firaxis take up a successful formula that made CivIV great and drastically change it to the monstrosity that is CiV?
A common term I use when such franchises pull such a stunt is a "Jump the Shark" moment. I bought the game a couple weeks ago, didn't even spend 10 hours on it. It's disappointing on so many levels that I truly think that we had a bunch of monkeys develop the game.
Sadly, I think the video game market is drastically changing. With the release of Black OPS yesterday, it's very apparent what this generation of gamers is addicted to. Straight up FPSers. As a person in his late 20s, I feel terribly ashamed. If somebody already slammed CiV for being a huge downer, I am going to go ahead and slam it once more.
There is a lack of content, variety, and down-to-earth gameplay strategies. Military is the sole power in this game. Managing your cities and trying to succeed in Diplomacy seem almost pointless. I only built three cities before I had a pretty good idea of what was going on. In BTS there was a lot of activity going on, so I carefully had to manage resources while hoping that Montezuma next to me isn't suddenly going to declare war and bring 20-30 units in a stack to take over my border city. That there was the challenge, trying to manage a big empire while your rivals weren't all going to declare war, eventually having to settle as a vassal state (which was pretty much game over).
AI now seems to favor war in place of diplomacy. I can't say enough with how bad and poorly manipulated the computer AI is. There is also a general lack of thought in the 'Civilopedia' section of the game. In past titles there was a lot to read about and I certainly felt entranced and pulled through with all the detail provided in the game. Here in CiV, it's just meh, who cares?
I can say more but most of it has already been said. If this marks the beginning of a downhill trend within the Civilization franchise, then we should admit that Firaxis Games made a huge mistake. It tried to be revolutionary and provoking. All it did was appeal to a newer, younger audience and receive a slap in the face for discrediting past titles.
Unfortunately a lot of gaming franchises I have come to see and cherish have taken a turn for the worse. A few years ago I had eagerly awaited Super Smash Bros. Brawl to come out after years of playing Melee. After that title came out, I was feeling awfully disappointed for knowing that the mechanics and gameplay that made the predecessor great were dumbed down for Brawl. Here in Civilization V, the same situation applies, but on a much larger scale because Brawl didn't turn out to have such subtle changes.
As for franchises like Sonic the Hedgehog, well, let's just say that that franchise succeeds in only to gain profit and keep the diehard fans waiting. MTV (Music Television) is nothing but a cesspool of reality TV shows that the new generation follows because they are too stupid and too ignorant to realize that the station played music videos at one time.
It feels as though there was hardly any beta testing for Civilization V. I've seen so many titles take a formula that worked well and completely demolish it, that is exactly what has happened in this title in the series.
I want my refund...
Civilization Series says, "Rumors of my demise have been greatly exaggerated."
That quote couldn't be better applied than the one here...
That's the main reason I stopped playing Civ V
I browse the forums once in a while to see if a patch or something is gonna fix this
Just to respond to the previous post about making axemen and swordsmen... when you whip... you could be literally forcing slaves to fight for you. You aren't making axes and swords... you are whipping the people into your military. That always made sense to me.
The patch sounds like it fixed a few things... and when/if it comes out, I'll give it another try. Someone said to eliminate city states... I agree. They are probably a big reason the game isn't as fun. They are a constant burden/obstacle/annoyance.
I don't get your post, you write the flaws of previous versions as something that justify the flaws of Civ 5.
You know the answer:
Just set their number to zero, when starting a new game. It's that easy!
I really hope (and I'm pretty sure, this hope will come true), city states will NOT be patched out, as I like them!
So different are personal tastes...
A post worthy of quoting. My overall view of the game is that I don't necessarily disagree with any of the changes, but I do end up very, very bored. Where is the fun?
One point not covered in Thorite's post is how landmasses end up unclaimed for so long - I like the slow build up, but at some point you have to have every square km of land claimed, surely???
Anyway - CivV is officially for me the only Civ game since CivI that has not hooked me. It doesn't enrage me or annoy me as much as it saddens me.
I don't think so. I think he was right, even tho I still have fun playing civ5. (sometimes)
Let me make an example. In the last years I have played diablo type games like sacred2, deathspank, titan heroes, and more I can't remember. I would absolutly play them over diablo2 now. And that doesn't make them better games by any means (seriously )
What I'm trying to say, is that a new game always has the advantage of time. So, even though many players switched to civ5, me included, that doesn't mean by any means that civ5 is a better game.
Like the player you quoted said, it was a decline in the franchite. BUT the game is new, with the advantages that this brings, new graphics, new things to try out, even some new gameplay features. And that's why it's still a cool game and I will play it instead of civ4.
But what we have lost in 4 games of development and lots of experience during it, is a lot
Well, you may have a good point there... certainly, comparing, Soren Johnson (a Stanford graduate) with Shafer (a "University of Life" graduate) might be similar to comparing a human with a monkey...
A little harsh...I don't like the game either but we don't need to call the guy a monkey.
yeah... you are right.
Monkeys deserve respect.
Moderator Action: referring to other human beings as monkey is rude and is unacceptable on the forums
I'd love to play the game that you created. Where can I buy it?
Where did you go to school?
Moderator Action: Comparisons of people to monkeys, comparing developers education, asking other posters education contributes nothing to the discussion. Stay on topic.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
This situation seems to repeat itself every time a new Civ comes out. I have been a Civ-man since the first days of Civ2. When Civ3 came out I didn't like it at all, and stayed with Civ2 for a long time until I finally switched completely to Civ3 (and loved it). Same thing when Civ4 came out, I remained loyal to Civ3 for a very long time until finally Civ4 won me over and I switched again. And now here we are back again..
And it is not like I'm the only one. Whenever a new Civ is out there are massive threads here about how much better the previous one was, and how rubbish this new Civ feels. But consider older Civs have been patched to kingdom come... Taking civ4 as reference the game improved significantly with BTS, and this was 2 years after the original game. But when civ4 first came out I was very disappointed: from the wonderful scale and complexity I was used to in civ3 the very simplified civ4 did not hold much of an appeal to me. But slowly with more content and features being released for civ4.. I finally uninstalled civ3 from my computer.
I don't like Civ5 as much as Civ4 right now (how odd!). In my case is mostly a case of historical inmersion, as somebody else posted in a previous post. I don't like the fact you cannot play real world 'scenarios' and I hate it that some basic civs are missing from Civ5 vanilla. The rest, for better or worse, is just a different game. I personally love the completely new city states feature (ok, maybe not completely new but a bit of an evolution from Civ4 vassal states), I am ambivalent about other things like single military unit/tile and limited strategic resources.
I will end up playing Civ5 only eventually, same as before, if only because of lack ot time. I will probably keep Civ4 installed at the very least until the first civ5 expansion (1 year from now?). I would expect that expansion to be sort of 'colonisation' themed, considering the missing civs in vanilla, and should include some cool real world scenarios. Probably new city state types as well. It could make me and many others cross over civ5 for good.
Alan, for every thing you can tell us that civ 2-4 lost from his predecesor, I'm sure we can tell you 4 things that civ5 lost from civ4
Separate names with a comma.