this game is boring

[charon2112]

I agree that they are pretty disappointing numbers.

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

 

[Sadan01]

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...

I could have been one of those 19,000 as I playing Civ V for about 15 minutes last night before quitting. That total number does mean nothing as 15,000 of those could have been playing Civ V like I was for 15 minutes just as you checked

I'm happy to be corrected but as AFAIK, if you are online in Steam, and then open a game through Steam, you're considered playing it while Steam is online. You don't have to be playing multiplayer yourself to be included. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Aristos]

I agree that they are pretty disappointing numbers.

Thank you for enriching my signature.

 

[Surgeon]

Waiting for work to finish so I can go home to play Civ5 is boring.

Currently traying for a culture win using the french, Im managed to snag an awesome starting spot (3 silver+lots o river) 4 cities, 3 puppets. 3 major enemies left, all of equal size, Im ahead in tech but that will fade as the larger powers consolidate. Only 2 maritime CS's exist and are not liekly to last. What will happpen?! cant wait to find out.

 

[Jolly Rogerer]

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!

I take your point, but it's hard to forgive Fireaxis in this case. They had a good budget and a game series of excellent quality to build upon. But instead they designed a game that squandered that heritage and made a number of unforgivable design errors. They may well have been trying to expand their base by simplifying the game. That's not always bad, Risk and Diplomacy are excellent simple games. Civ5 is no classic beer and pretzels title though, it's a fail in that regard. It is also a failure as a continuation of the series, taking a multi-faceted empire building game with some combat and turning it into a poorly executed combat game with some building.

 

[Aristos]

...taking a multi-faceted empire building game with some combat and turning it into a poorly executed combat game with some building.

Exactly.

 

[ori]

Moderator Action: I deleted a lot of posts that were either trolling or sniping between users or spam - any more off-topic posts, any more troll posts and any more sniping will lead to infractions. Further: Public Discussion of Moderator Actions is strictly off-limits on these forums, if you have a problem with a specific moderator action, please take it up with the moderator in question via private message, if you have a problem with policy you are welcome to post in the Site Feedback subforum about it or discuss it with an administrator.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[MSGT John Drew]

Great, more on the fact-opinion thing.

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%.

to add:

"Is Civ5 salvageable?" - 38% says yes. Not even half. It's painful to me that 30% says no. I voted 'possibly' (32%).

The Civ5 forum at poly is possibly dying. Reading up on the regulars - one of the reasons may have to be 'this thread's title.'

The 2K Civ5 forum is filled with negative threads as well - and no I'm not talking about bugs - I'm talking mutinous talk.

And even CF has not escaped the dissension in the ranks. Too many negative threads. I've never seen such even during the early years of CivIII.

In the end you just can't escape what might be the truth - that the OP may have been right.

But what can we do about it? We are the fans. They sell to us. If we're not pleased, they won't make enough to make Civ6 (no more preorders means bad press). We should all just solidify our stance and say 'No' to this farce. 'No' do not expect the modding community to do the work for you. And please, please address the concerns of the users ASAP or they may not have a base to fall back on.

 

[zonk]

I take your point, but it's hard to forgive Fireaxis in this case. They had a good budget and a game series of excellent quality to build upon. But instead they designed a game that squandered that heritage and made a number of unforgivable design errors. They may well have been trying to expand their base by simplifying the game. That's not always bad, Risk and Diplomacy are excellent simple games. Civ5 is no classic beer and pretzels title though, it's a fail in that regard. It is also a failure as a continuation of the series, taking a multi-faceted empire building game with some combat and turning it into a poorly executed combat game with some building.

Oh, I'm not forgiving them for anything --

I most definitely DO view CiV in the context of the franchise, in the context of its history, and in the context of Firaxis -- regardless what they slashed budget-wise -- still having what... twice? three times? the development resources of any other shop publishing similar titles.

V is my least favorite of the series and I get as much as anyone why people are upset about it (I am, too).

I'm just saying that's my tortured explanation for why the review scores were so much higher than the fanbase reception....

...that and payola!

 

[Akka]

And even CF has not escaped the dissension in the ranks. Too many negative threads. I've never seen such even during the early years of CivIII.

Yep. Some die-hard fanatics still insist that no, it was the same for each new Civ and that Civ5's reception is nothing special. Prepare yourself.

But what can we do about it? We are the fans. They sell to us. If we're not pleased, they won't make enough to make Civ6 (no more preorders means bad press).

The countless threads about how bad Civ5 is make it very clear that it's the low quality of the game that is driving people off, not that there isn't a market for Civ anymore.
Unless they are blind and braindead, they should understand they still can make a lot of money if they bother to do an actually good game.

Though when looking at the state of Civ5, you can wonder if they aren't, in fact, blind and brain-dead...

 

[MSGT John Drew]

...The countless threads about how bad Civ5 is make it very clear that it's the low quality of the game that is driving people off, not that there isn't a market for Civ anymore....

Checked the figures and 1/3 of the total sales for this product were made in the first week. That would include preorders. Preorders and sales due to overhype by the gaming 'journalists' and 'reviews'. 90% as the lowest rating?! Oh yes, payola does come to mind, thank you very much.

While they may have had made enough to develop the expansion, they should now be fully aware that unless they make up for the vanilla big time, that expansion and all successive titles will take a big hit in sales. A time for reckoning will come.

 

[Zydor]

Though when looking at the state of Civ5, you can wonder if they aren't, in fact, blind and brain-dead...

They have allowed developer personal preferences overcome common sense and ignored the very Foundations of the Franchise, the core reasons people buy the game - those reasons are wide and varied (the traditional strength of Civ). In a nutshell the warmonger camp of the developers have run riot.

In the pre release days many of the comments of the devs in the Polycasts sent shudders down my spine. One memorable one was an individual when questioned over Giant Death Robot, replied "I've always felt the game needed something different, and always wanted a chance to put in a GDR." So we end up with this refugee from many fantasy wargames poping up out of the blue. There are far more important things wrong at present, but that incident illustrates the principles behind where it all went wrong.

They ignored the fact that they are developing for a Franchise that appeals across the board - from ultra peaceniks through Builders to extreme warmongers - and they let their personal preferences get in the way of the job they were there to do. One even claimed proudlly "we locked Sid in a cupboard for this one".

Time to let him out the cupboard and take back the reigns of this mess first hand.

Regards
Zy

 

[MSGT John Drew]

...One memorable one was an individual when questioned over Giant Death Robot, replied "I've always felt the game needed something different, and always wanted a chance to put in a GDR."...

Zy, was your impression - that he felt the game was bland and the GDR was the 'fix'? - or was it that he felt the franchise needed the GDR on the whole?

 

[Zydor]

My impression was he had made his mind up that a GDR would be shoe-horned in somehow, and he saw his chance to do it, and did .... he was definitely in the warmongering camp, and seemed to have little feel for the Peacenik and Builder needs - latter comment maybe a little unfair, it was just a quick interview, but that was the impression he gave. His motivations for GDR were definitely personal, you could see his eyes light up and his whole demeaner shifted, more animated when talking about the GDR.

You might say he took the "initiative", and I would hear where that comes from. However to do such a radical thing - something totally unconnected with the game flow - is a little crass, and the fact that no QA picked it up in a conceptual sense .... the latter speaks mountains.

Now, GDR or no GDR is hardly the core of current issues, and thats not the point. The point is that personal developer preferences overcame their role as Franchise developers, indicating poor QA with no cross check that what was being built was true to the Franchise core values. The latter resulted in decimating the games of peaceniks and Builders, and focusing maniacally on warmongering. The latter word chosen carefully, as Civ will never be a WarGame, it does not have the structure or core direction to be so, let alone its core fanbase makeup is not wargamer as a complete entity.

Regards
Zy

 

[JLoZeppeli]

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.

Ahahah you are avoiding the Football Manager statement focusing on Left 4 dead 2...

And Charon speak of FPS as if they need Steam (only Counterstrike and Team Fortress, because they are made by Valve) to be played. Sure, Call of Duty needs Steam.... Not speaking of unknow things is a good way to gain respect...

 

[Aristos]

I agree that they are pretty disappointing numbers.

Now this is interesting. Maybe you don't even notice, but this sentence speaks a lot about a particular mindset. You are disappointed AT THE NUMBERS, and judging from your posts, you seem to fail to acknowledge that those numbers are only a result of a bigger, "core" disappointment... as if you think that the low numbers are "the fault of blind, dumb gamers that fail to reckon the huge quality of the game"...

Well, in any case, I'm sorry man, but it is the other way around. The numbers just reflect the overall disappointment of what appears to be a considerable, silent mass of gamers from me long term fanbase, which is also considerable.

 

[jsjazz]

I've bought and played to death all the CIVs, right from CIV1 on the Amiga.
I even bought Civ Rev on a DS- I was disappointed by how shallow it was, but assumed that was due to it being a console version.
I have been playing CIV5 for almost three weeks, giving it every chance, thinking it is a different game and will time to get used to. However, as many others have said, I am pretty disappointed by it. Where is the empire building? What is the point of buildings that take forever to build yet provide little benefit? Technology flows freely, but apart from military techs, what is the point of researching other techs? Wonders take ages to build yet the benefits again seem limited. Great persons / generals- limited options. I could go on, but others have already detailed the issues.
The game seems dumbed down, limited options as to what you can do, limited fun unless played as a war game. There are plenty of other war games; Civ was the best Empire building game.
I do remember when playing Civ3, 4 for the first time there was a learning curve, adapting to the new changes, frustration that old strategies didn't work anymore- but there was still a pull that made you want to keep going and eventually the rewards came and the addiction kicked in again- not for Civ5 so far.
I hope future patches may improve matters, but if this is the direction the developers wanted to take the game, I am not hopeful. I suspect we will have to wait for the community to provide modpacks to make this the game we expected- but why should I pay for a half finished kludge?
I am glad I found this thread- it is reassuring to see that I am not alone in finding this unsatisfying. Also, I took the advice of downloading the Rise of Mankind A New DAwn and have gone back to that- superb!
Are there any modpacks for Civ5 that people can recommend?

 

[Stiefel]

to add:

"Is Civ5 salvageable?" - 38% says yes. Not even half. It's painful to me that 30% says no. I voted 'possibly' (32%).

The Civ5 forum at poly is possibly dying. Reading up on the regulars - one of the reasons may have to be 'this thread's title.'

The 2K Civ5 forum is filled with negative threads as well - and no I'm not talking about bugs - I'm talking mutinous talk.

And even CF has not escaped the dissension in the ranks. Too many negative threads. I've never seen such even during the early years of CivIII.

In the end you just can't escape what might be the truth - that the OP may have been right.

But what can we do about it? We are the fans. They sell to us. If we're not pleased, they won't make enough to make Civ6 (no more preorders means bad press). We should all just solidify our stance and say 'No' to this farce. 'No' do not expect the modding community to do the work for you. And please, please address the concerns of the users ASAP or they may not have a base to fall back on.

tru fax

 

[bitula]

Are there any modpacks for Civ5 that people can recommend?

Fall From Heaven and Fall Further if you like fantasy theme. The second one has more content and more features. Despite the theme, regarding complexity it beats ROM, there is a whole new direction called magic (spells) implemented with promotion techniques. I never played any other mod since I found it

 

[ori]

that would be for civ4 though