We were lied to, pure and simple.
The game was sort of a bait and switch /false advertising.
It's no wonder so many long time fans of Civ feel ripped off.
this game is boring
- Thread starter Mr_Wonka
- Start date
We were lied to, pure and simple.
The game was sort of a bait and switch /false advertising.
It's no wonder so many long time fans of Civ feel ripped off.
benjdm
Warlord
Add me in as another who is going back to Civ IV for now...
Great, more on the fact-opinion thing.No one's trying to convince anyone it's a good game or otherwise (at least I'm not), I'm just pointing out that saying CiV is boring is an opinion, not a fact.
We are on the CiV board. Fans of CiV would logically post on the CiV board.
Never trust Shaka.
At what point could anything, anybody says become a "fact" that would satisfy you. Can we go with a series of polls?
"Worst Civ ever poll': Civ5 took it with 43.88% despite the fact that Civ Revolutions was also a selection (27.92%).
"Which game do you prefer poll" 26.83% for Civ5 against 68.29% for Civ4
"How do you rate Civ V (after 4 weeks)" More people think its a total failure compared to those that think its excellent. More people think its a total failure or below par than those that think its good or excellent.
"Do you enjoy Civ5: As a game in and of itself, do you enjoy the game and the experience that Civilization 5 provides?" True 59% said they did, however, given its predessor, that isn't great and certainly not worthy of its name.
"Best Civ Ever". Vanilla to Vanilla Civ4 takes 46% while civ5 takes 27%.
In essence, it is a fact that the majority of us find this game very boring and certainly not worthy of its name.
Since your opinion goes against the grain I hope you'll continue to use "in my opinion" when telling us that Civ5 is a good enough game while we continue to make statements that imply fact while knowing it really just reflects the majority opinion.
Peace.
Sadan01
Conical Flask
I'm going to play that guessing game and guess what those folks are going to say to this: Civ-Fanatics, like any other forum, isn't representative of the playerbase of Civilization as a whole. Which is actually technically true. However, Civ-Fanatics has been around for a long time and is the destination to go to for Civ resources on the 'net. Most of the hardcore crowd are based here (and also at Apolyton), to which we are the most vocal and are also a group that Firaxis sources ideas and fixes from. We do have an expectation that each Civilization will not only improve on the last, but will, I guess not attempt to remove those features that set Civ out from the rest of the games out there - complexity and [a little] micromanagement. For me, Civ V doesn't carry these over from prior games and for that reason, I am disappointed because it is an expectation I have. Civ V just doesn't feel like Civilization, imo. And pfft. I dealt with the changes from Civ II to Civ III. And then again from Civ III to Civ IV. But from Civ IV to Civ V, or even from Civ III to V, there is too much "streamlined"; I feel they have removed what made Civilization games of the past great from Civ V [1upt and hex tiles I think do work. There is a LOT of potential there].
So don't worry about satisfying them. Nothing will unless you completely change your mind and come out and say you love Civ V, like they do. I give Vordeo much more leeway here as he/she is able to come up with posts that are constructive.
A couple of pages ago, they were trying to derail the thread to get it locked, arguing semantics. That should tell you all about ignoring them as this thread's topic does not match what they're saying and arguing semantics is a great way to get the mods to shut this thread down.
I am entitled to my opinion on these forums as much as anyone else so if I do not like Civ V, then I can say I do not like Civ V. It's the same for those that do like Civ V. I do agree with one thing that was mentioned - I have seen in threads that are about discussing the merits of Civ V, people go in there and try and bring the thread down with negativity.
i think the game is utter rubbish. it has no depth, no subtlety, no strategy, no nuances. it is nothing compared to 4.
i don't even think it's fixable because the poverty of the gameplay is such that they'd never be able to balance the game if they imported factors like religion, commerce, diplomacy wholesale.
HA! there's a civ game out in 2010 and it has no religion, no commerce, no diplomacy! would you have believed that 5 years ago?
guys the next game that is better than civ4 will come, it will come from somewhere else, it won't be a civ game, and it will come in the next maybe 3 years purely because there's a gap in the market. the developers of civ5 will plug away making updates to try and fix this while the fans pay their salaries for the next two or three years.
what i did learn in this debacle was that game reviewers are worth less than nothing. they basically lied to us or were comprehensively misled.
i don't even think it's fixable because the poverty of the gameplay is such that they'd never be able to balance the game if they imported factors like religion, commerce, diplomacy wholesale.
HA! there's a civ game out in 2010 and it has no religion, no commerce, no diplomacy! would you have believed that 5 years ago?
guys the next game that is better than civ4 will come, it will come from somewhere else, it won't be a civ game, and it will come in the next maybe 3 years purely because there's a gap in the market. the developers of civ5 will plug away making updates to try and fix this while the fans pay their salaries for the next two or three years.
what i did learn in this debacle was that game reviewers are worth less than nothing. they basically lied to us or were comprehensively misled.
Akka
Moody old mage.
Gotta say that the disconnect between game reviews and actual quality of the game was purely unbelievable.
I have to agree with you, i was going to fire up a game of Civ 5 today but when i think of the upcoming patch and just how many large changes there are going to be to the gameplay what's the point?
The changes are so large they make the current rules of the game pretty much pointless, the best part of eight weeks on and the game is still obviously very much unfinished.
It's not "actual quality". It's your opinion.
Aristos
Lightseeker
I can attest to that, they have been using that "tactic" since the beginning of the "quality wars". I have seen many powerful threads closed that way. One I remember clearly was the "Dumbed Down" poll: in the beginning, the poll "favoured" their view, but as soon as the percentage of people voting for Yes surpassed the 50% mark, they started to insult everyone and everything and managed to close the thread.
I guess it's a tactic they learned in the deepest civ iteration of them all...
Moderator Action: Your signature is too large, please adjust it.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
In a way, I can kind of understand why, though - I thought the game was really cool for the first 10-20 hours I played it, and generally most reviewers aren't even going to get that long. (Even though they should have to, in order to write a comprehensive review.) The problem on my end was that I assumed (silly me) that I was only scratching the surface in those first few games; in the end, it turned out I'd seen most everything there was to see in the first 10+ hours of gameplay. Based on my prior experience with games that cannot be named, it seemed like a given that there'd be more depth to it. Granted, that doesn't excuse a professional reviewer, who should ideally have the time to provide a meaningful, comprehensive review based on plenty of experience - but I thought it'd be great at first, too.
So yes, it was all my own fault, because I had incorrect expecations and failed to see the new direction in the series that would have been apparent if I would just look at it differently.
Akka
Moody old mage.
That Einstein was more intelligent than the average idiot is also based on "opinion", doesn't make it any less a fact.
Anyway, REGARDLESS of the "opinion" about the quality of the game, even the most fanboyist of the fanboys must admit that it's a very controversial game, and actually, even among the players who love the game, many recognize that it's a game with at least some flaws.
The fact that all the reviewers save a handfull gave stellar ratings without reserves is showing a serious problem.
Even if all the guys somehow unanimously loved a game that sparkled such a controversy is already extremely doubtful (how come only the reviewers were spared the difference of opinions ?), there is no way they could also have so completely missed any of the problems that lead to the controversy. Even if they mysteriously ALL really loved everything, they couldn't fail to notice that many changes would not be liked by everyone.
All this debacle shows there is seriously a big problem in how online reviews work. It's not the first time that a controversial game harvest spotless reviews while causing a war among the fan. This should make it obvious.
revengeofmakno
Eclectic Enigma
If true, that is a truly great post.
In a way, I can kind of understand why, though - I thought the game was really cool for the first 10-20 hours I played it, and generally most reviewers aren't even going to get that long. (Even though they should have to, in order to write a comprehensive review.) The problem on my end was that I assumed (silly me) that I was only scratching the surface in those first few games; in the end, it turned out I'd seen most everything there was to see in the first 10+ hours of gameplay. Based on my prior experience with games that cannot be named, it seemed like a given that there'd be more depth to it. Granted, that doesn't excuse a professional reviewer, who should ideally have the time to provide a meaningful, comprehensive review based on plenty of experience - but I thought it'd be great at first, too.
So yes, it was all my own fault, because I had incorrect expecations and failed to see the new direction in the series that would have been apparent if I would just look at it differently.
Part of the Review vs. Fan breakdown, I think, is also due to different grading scales...
I put V aside for a few weeks, tinkered with a few other games for a while -- and I'll say this...
Toss CiV into the common 4x pool -- grade it against other titles in the genre -- and it's really not a bad game, perhaps even one of the better ones amongst its non-nameplate peers.
If I weren't a longtime player that grades each new release and expansion solely against the series -- I think I'd have probably given it a strong 80-85.
However - I'm not that... I think I've played every 4x and empire builder under the sun and even liked quite a few, but each in its own time stood head and shoulders above the rest.
Did III have its faults? Sure - but only if you held it up against SMAC or II... There wasn't any other title out there that could hold a candle to it.
Was IV perfect in the vanilla release? Nope - but even though it probably faced stiffer competition than other Civilization release (Galciv2, TW, etc), it still managed to make them all look like pretenders that were completely outclassed. I mean - I loved and still like very much the Galciv series, but put it next to Civ IV, to say nothing of the final expansions of both -- and it's just no contest.
This is the first release that I would say doesn't stand head and shoulders above the competition.
Doesn't make it a bad game... not my cup of tea...
I think the Simpsons coined the term -- cromulent... I think Civilization V is a perfectly cromulent title.
If there were no such thing as the long and storied history of Civlization and we didn't have nearly 20 years of memories -- I suspect the story would be much different.
Of course... if it weren't for those 20 years and that long/storied history -- there wouldn't be a "Civ Fanatics", either!
Mozzington
Prince
The thing I cannot accept is the that all the mods see fit to close all the negative threads as spam.
I've resisted posting negative comments so much but at the end of the day if you ask people to pay £30.00 as it was in my case and then release utter rubbish you must be expectant and accepting of negative feedback.
So many threads I come across and see things like this:
"Moderator Action: I guess no one will disagree that this thread is spam.
Closed. "
Had it from release day and I've only been able to play this game for....wow, 9 hours and I don't want to even think about starting it up again for the next 12 months and two or three patches/expansions.
Back to Civ4 for the last month...a game that dangles a carrot every single turn.
I've resisted posting negative comments so much but at the end of the day if you ask people to pay £30.00 as it was in my case and then release utter rubbish you must be expectant and accepting of negative feedback.
So many threads I come across and see things like this:
"Moderator Action: I guess no one will disagree that this thread is spam.
Closed. "
Had it from release day and I've only been able to play this game for....wow, 9 hours and I don't want to even think about starting it up again for the next 12 months and two or three patches/expansions.
Back to Civ4 for the last month...a game that dangles a carrot every single turn.
I don't think that's really much of a problem at this point. (They've left this one open, and directed others to it, and this thread's title isn't exactly flying under the radar.)
What I think they try to do, and rightfully so, is consolidate duplicate threads to the degree possible. The content of those threads is only significant insofar as it's used to identify whether it's a duplicate or not; they don't scan for "hate" threads and close them outright. In my experience here, the moderators are pretty fair and do what they can to keep constructive, on-topic discussion in the threads and eliminate those that contain only (or devolve into) flaming, baiting, trolling, and blatant personal insults.
EDIT: Btw, just a tip - if you guys get tired of the same people posting the same drive-by sniping without any constructive contributions in various threads, just put those folks on your ignore list. It's pretty helpful and can clean up the forums quite a bit.
JLoZeppeli
Prince
- Joined
- May 11, 2009
- Messages
- 598
Do you realize that a Steam exclusive game as Civ has less players now than a nicke game like Football Manager 2011?? And don't forget that the peak today was 19k, very low number compared to some games like Left 4 Dead 2, that had a peak of 13k (and it has an year on its shoulders)... I was wondering how many players of Football manager 2011 are playing it, if just on Steam the peak was 26k.....
That's the measurement of the failure of the game, after the 500k and more sales... 19k only after two months...
Do people playing the game in offline mode show up on that count though?
Also, comparing TBS games to FPS games doesn't make sense, as FPS have a much bigger market AFAIK. And in this case people kinda need to be online to play L4D, whereas they don't for CiV.
charon2112
King
This is true, any primarily MP game, like an FPS will show much bigger numbers because they're always played through steam, where a strategy game isn't.
Zydor
Emperor
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2005
- Messages
- 1,120
Playing the numbers game is always a Black Art of course, however they are weak numbers. If we supposed (to be kind) half the Sales were "drive by" [ie not serious buys, the crazies who buy because its the latest big game release then just tinker and ends on their shelf after a few days - rinse and repeat for the next big title] then we are looking at 250,000.
Lets say each of those had a session once in ten days - and thats a bit thin for the Franchise that Coined the phrase "one more turn" only two months in from a Major release - that would make 25,000 a night on average, and it looks like 19,000 in reality?
Whichever way its spun, there has to be some clever - real clever - spin doctoring to get round those numbers. They are thin, and there is little doubt they will give rise to more than a passing thought at 2K/Fireaxis.
Regards
Zy
Lets say each of those had a session once in ten days - and thats a bit thin for the Franchise that Coined the phrase "one more turn" only two months in from a Major release - that would make 25,000 a night on average, and it looks like 19,000 in reality?
Whichever way its spun, there has to be some clever - real clever - spin doctoring to get round those numbers. They are thin, and there is little doubt they will give rise to more than a passing thought at 2K/Fireaxis.
Regards
Zy
