Bill Bisco
Callous Calling
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2007
- Messages
- 590
You've just proven my point 
this game is boring
- Thread starter Mr_Wonka
- Start date
charon2112
King
It's quite all right. Nothing infuriates Civ V 'detractors' more than someone who actually enjoys the game.
I did. Unfortunately, the "constructive" postings of yours seem to have been archived somewhere where I don't have access. What a pity.
Don't give up, I'm sure you have access to the rest of it!
Just scroll all the way down and click on the rest of the pages!
If you have any more problems, just ask and I'll be glad to help you out!
Bill Bisco
Callous Calling
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2007
- Messages
- 590
It's called Tireless Rebutter It's when you can't let anything in a forum go and have to tenaciously respond to every post.
As far as warnings go, the moderators are very inconsistent. Often posters responding to charon's posts will get warnings under a vague "don't troll" message, when charon engages in the same exact behavior in posts right next to them.
For this forum, in general, Mods will let some posts go on as fine, yet let others of the same calibur go unwarned. Oh well, at least it's not as bad as some forums Moderator Action: Public discussion of moderator actions is in general not allowed here.
If you have a problem with a moderator action, then discuss it via PM with the mod and not in public.
And if you see problematic posts, then report them. We can't act on anyhting which we have not see yet.
As far as constructive and unconstructive criticism goes. Both are needed and serve their purposes, and it is never a *waste* to use either of them, and this forum has provided plenty of both.
I already did and you had to admit to not being able to be of help.
I've never admitted to not being able to be of help, in fact I've been trying to help you here! See, there are more than one pages of back posts. You were probably only looking at the first page. Keep looking, and you'll see em.
Believe in yourself, and don't give up!!!
Oh, I know what it means, but you specifically cited him in your post, and anyone would respond to something like that.
How is unconstructive criticism helpful to anyone but the person making it?
If I sent a letter to Pepsi saying their product is absolute garbage, do you think they'll actually take the letter seriously or just throw it in the garbage?
Shiggs713
Immortal
Don't call him monkey. He deserves respect.
If only that were true. He's taken the most successful pc gaming franchise and turned it into a steaming pile of dung (no pun intended).If it were only you, it wouldn't bother them at all.
If it were 10.000, it would make a difference
Assuming they actually read this forum, which given the general quality of the threads here I highly doubt. It'd probably also be a mistake to base much on the opinions here, for a whole host of reasons.
You figured out how to view posts yet?
*raises hand*
CivIV was great, but the series needs to grow.
Civ2 was a brilliant game, but if the developers had taken that philosophy then CivIV wouldn't have been anything near as good as it was.
I don't like all of the changes they've made, but even leaving in only the ones I approve of the game would still be unrecognizable from CivIV.
Mathalamus
Emperor of Mathalia
that is still growth. why is it people think that redesigning a perfectly good game from scratch is a good idea? that actually harms the series.
It isn't, but IMO some of the changes they've made (which I favor) required vast redesigns, redesigns that have left the game very different from CivIV.
Mathalamus
Emperor of Mathalia
well yeah, some redesigns should be there, like hexes or multi-core support, but other than that, it should largely be the same, with lots of graphical changes. and take out some options, civilizations, and some game concepts and save those for expansions, etc.
and make that an expansion. of civ4.
and make that an expansion. of civ4.
Eskel
Warlord
Let's look on subject from the other side: what were the weakest parts of Civ4 (despite what Shafer said, it is NOT the peak of Creation)?
For me, most frustration in the Civ 4 game came from SOD's and very random combat results.
I think SOD's were actually bad not because of stacking nor simplicity, but because there wasnt' any method of succesful defense in case of sudden, sneak attack.
Problem with random combat results is quite obvious: when you launch 4 attacks with probability of success of 75% or more, and LOOSE all attacking units (though expected shoud be 1 unit lost), sth isnt right. Most people probably reload game in such moments.
Why in case of Civ 5 devs just didnt stop with fixing issues that I pointed above? I am pretty much sure that would satisfy a lot of people. More over, If they'd taken out religion and espionage or (which would be better solution) included them in some very simplified form, just to make game "more accessible" to new players, but made a solid promise that such content will appear in one of the expansion packs, most of currently dissatisfied gamers would just patiently wait. Maybe, if I knew before buying that it is "lite" version of my favourite product, I wouldn't be so disappointed with it.
So, it is devs behaviour, self-contentedness and lack of information, which led me to feeling of being ripped of.
For me, most frustration in the Civ 4 game came from SOD's and very random combat results.
I think SOD's were actually bad not because of stacking nor simplicity, but because there wasnt' any method of succesful defense in case of sudden, sneak attack.
Problem with random combat results is quite obvious: when you launch 4 attacks with probability of success of 75% or more, and LOOSE all attacking units (though expected shoud be 1 unit lost), sth isnt right. Most people probably reload game in such moments.
Why in case of Civ 5 devs just didnt stop with fixing issues that I pointed above? I am pretty much sure that would satisfy a lot of people. More over, If they'd taken out religion and espionage or (which would be better solution) included them in some very simplified form, just to make game "more accessible" to new players, but made a solid promise that such content will appear in one of the expansion packs, most of currently dissatisfied gamers would just patiently wait. Maybe, if I knew before buying that it is "lite" version of my favourite product, I wouldn't be so disappointed with it.
So, it is devs behaviour, self-contentedness and lack of information, which led me to feeling of being ripped of.
I think I'm beginning to understand why I like Civ5 and many people here don't.
There are many things in Civ4 that I don't like. I hate SoDs, I think sliders are a bad idea (they add some micromanagement, make the distinction between gold and science less important, and make it easy to get large amounts of gold quickly when needed while not adding anything interesting to the game), the Civ4 diplomacy is really annoying to me ("refusing to trade with their worst emeny" and "to help during wartime" again and again isn't fun), combat results are too random and so on. So I think the changes in Civ5 are going in the right direction, even if there are many things that should be improved.
On the other hand, those who think Civ4 is the best thing since sliced bread are disappointed with many of their favorite features removed or changed. But I think they should express it in a more cultured manner, instead of insulting those who like civ5, calling them "juvenile", "fanboys" (usually spelled wrong), "console generation", "paid by Firaxis" etc.
I don't think that so many assume Civ4 to be the best since sliced bread.
The flaws which you mentioned are there, hurting the player more or less, depending on his personal preferences.
Yet, it's the game as a combination of all of the individual parts, and there Civ4 is vastly superior.
Religion may have been badly implemented, but there was something which spread across nations, having whatever kind of influence on their attitude towards others.
Espionage may have been badly implemented, but there was something which could be used to harm your opponents in some kind of covert actions.
The implementation of the RNG was really bad, I would be last one to deny that. But large numbers to a certain degree could make up for it.
SoD's were weak, too. But they were helpful for the AI after their production bonusses ticked in.
War declarations from nations which would need 50 turns to reach your borders or asking you to go to war against nations on the other side of the world were bad, no doubt.
But these things could have been fixed.
Instead they were completely scratched or replaced with functionalities,which don't work.
And that is what the complaints are about.
If you really go and replace something, then make sure that the replacement works!
But if the replacement is even worse, and for combat AI and diplomacy this can hardly be denied, then be prepared for getting flak.
