To Those Wishing For The Demise Of Civ 5

[SuperJay]

Honestly, by all appearances the only people unhappy with Civ V are diehard Civ IV fans. V seems to be selling very well, and people that have enjoyed the series as a whole seem to be enjoying the newest addition.

Ahh, yes. The much-anticipated "You only wanted Civ 4.5" argument. I was wondering when it would rear its ugly - and I do mean UGLY - head.

So the flip side of that coin is "the only people happy with Civ 5 are those that hated Civ 4." We know such an absurd remark is ridiculous, but somehow the folks that accuse any critics of "just wanting Civ 4 re-skinned" don't seem to recognize that their own remark is just as ridiculous. It's a cheap, lazy way to try and discredit or minimize any criticism, nothing more.

At least come up with something more inventive that can hold water. Oddly, I'm guessing that nobody here - fanboys included - would say that Civ 5 is perfect, right? We can all probably agree that it has some issues that we'd like to see patched? (AI and Diplomacy, I'm looking at you.) So why, given that we can all recognize those things, do responses like this keep cropping up in every thread that discusses criticisms? Why do we keep getting these continual, disingenuous attempts to discredit any critique with "You just wanted Civ 4 again" rather than engaging in actual discussion?

Is this just drive-by sniping for some Internet lulz? If so, spare us your attempts to derail every thread into spineless mud-slinging from the safety and anonymity of your computer screen, and just skip over the stuff you can't actually contribute to.

 

[PawelS]

I don't think Civ5 is perfect, and I have some issues with it. But I have even more issues with Civ4, even after all patches and expansions. I think there is some truth in the arguments that those who really liked Civ4 don't like Civ5, and vice versa.

 

[ori]

Moderator Action: and now everyone will stop the sniping at each other and return to civil[ized] discussion...

 

[vandyr]

Ahh, yes. The much-anticipated "You only wanted Civ 4.5" argument.

Its pretty obvious. And its not intended as an insult, just an observation.

 

[ohioastronomy]

Its pretty obvious. And its not intended as an insult, just an observation.

I operate by a pretty simple principle. If the people that I'm talking to tell me that I'm distorting what they say, I adjust what I'm doing. Instead, there seems to be a determined cadre here repeating stock answers in these threads which demonstrate no interest in understanding the words that folks are actually typing.

If someone says "gee, I wish this game just had been a tweaked version of civ 4" then it's reasonable to respond according to their stated intentions. It is not acceptable to brush people off with a canned dismissal; characterizing all criticism in that way is simply sniping. It'd help quite a bit to restrict that particular brush-off to the places where it actually matters.

 

[da_Vinci]

The recurrrence of criticism has two origins, I think.

1. The same old flaws (if you think they are flaws) are being newly discovered by folks who have not posted, and then they post their take on it (which then becomes the new battleground for the debate among the continual posters on the topic). New discovery comes from either discovering late in one's play that there are problems, or being a later purchaser of the game. This could go on for quite a long time ...

2. An apparent reluctance for Firaxis or 2K to really come out and admit there were problems. When you say to a 2K rep that beta must have been weak, and they respond by saying how rigorous their QA is and now large and long the beta testing is, one starts to think it will take beating them over the head continuously with the issues for them to finally "get it".

dV

 

[vandyr]

If someone says "gee, I wish this game just had been a tweaked version of civ 4"

Its easy to say that without using those exact words. If this game were just like Civ IV with new graphics, would you be complaining?

All I've seen is people (mostly the same people) wanting the Civ IV UI, the Civ IV economy model, the Civ IV diplomacy, the Civ IV combat model, etc. So what could possibly lead me to that conclusion.

 

[Akka]

Its easy to say that without using those exact words.

It's even easier to twist everything said to fits one's agenda.

 

[vandyr]

It's even easier to twist everything said to fits one's agenda.

And to cherry pick for quoting.

 

[gilmore606]

Its easy to say that without using those exact words. If this game were just like Civ IV with new graphics, would you be complaining?

All I've seen is people (mostly the same people) wanting the Civ IV UI, the Civ IV economy model, the Civ IV diplomacy, the Civ IV combat model, etc. So what could possibly lead me to that conclusion.

What you see is people saying "X is bad in Civ V", and all they have to compare it to is...Civ 4. We're not saying "it has to be just like Civ 4", we're saying it has to be, well, at least as good as the game we already had! It's fine if it's different, it just has to be interesting and fun. And it's not. If we were all pro game designers we could imagine a new Civ 5 that's at least as good as Civ 4, but different. But we aren't, so we can only compare to what we have. You can't blame people for that.

 

[vandyr]

What you see is people saying "X is bad in Civ V", and all they have to compare it to is...Civ 4. We're not saying "it has to be just like Civ 4", we're saying it has to be, well, at least as good as the game we already had! It's fine if it's different, it just has to be interesting and fun. And it's not. If we were all pro game designers we could imagine a new Civ 5 that's at least as good as Civ 4, but different. But we aren't, so we can only compare to what we have. You can't blame people for that.

Its all subjective. I do find it interesting and fun, and many of the changes to Civ V I prefer over IV, such as diplomacy, combat, empire management, etc. When unit strength values were changed in IV, everyone claimed it was a terrible idea, and the more vocal detractors proclaimed IV to be the downfall of the series. Surprising.

All of those things mentioned above are different than IV, but, lets be honest here, how much less engaging are they, really? What did you do in IV that was so much more fun...spam religion all over the map?

 

[Mutineer]

Well, I would not go into deep psychological analysis, I will just give me memories of 2 games I played, one using Pit Boss, other was online.


Game one, Civ 4 vanilla, Every one getting commercial leaders, game creator playing england ofcouse, commercial/philosophical with redcoats.

Russia, creative commercial with cossacks is taken too instantly.

Well, I choose Germany, creative/philosophical. No tech trade, as usual online.

Pangear, large map.
I spawn in south, near tundra, centre of main continent, have 5 neibors. I say main continent, because even it is one continent, a bit smaller one connected only by narrow choke and contain only 3 people.

Russia is my neibor. Well, I have not mach food, but what to do, connect marble and stone with second and third city and went to wander building. Farm everything.

Attacking early was inefficient because of distances, but I made a few scouting chariots to warn me and scout borders.

Russia was expanded into my direction and took double gold I wanted.
well, I needed to guard this border and this gold, so when I got GA(Great artist) I bulb Music (I was sure Russia was researching it as way to cossacks.)

I settle city near gold and culture bomb it same turn.

So, Now I have 60% defense city.

Mass axe production issues. he declare war and mass axe start to accumulate. HIs stack was slightly bigger then mine but not big enough to take city.

My scout see stream of axes coming from direction of neibor, too many to be produces by cise 1 city he had here. As I understand later 2 neibors were gifting him axes.
(I had highest score).

I whip/chop axes as creasy, had to bulb Metallocasting using GE so I can whip forges for bonus and happiness.

I run 20-30% cultural slide to stay afloat, was in -20 gold with 100% taxes, but was gettign fail gold form national wanders and global wanders.

He got Cats bring figth 2 and start to bombard my city. But my mass whipping finally payed off, I bring hidden behind city stack and just barely whip his. I used my first cat, did not had time to wait or he would be attacking first. (got constriction using fail gold.)

(Power graph was immediate at that stage, power drop was spectacular for booth of as, his stack was fortified on hill.).

after healing I beat up his reserve stack and took his neiboring city.

At that moment neibors which give him axes declare was on him.

He got ungry and tell me that he will stop resisting me, but send all his armies to whip neibors. (My stack was still like 25+ axes).

At that moment I see cats/elephants stack going form other neibor (Sentry chariots are good, they can shadow stack with out been seen).

So I had barely time to move my highly promoted axes + 4 cats and hit this stack first, by building road to his position. Stack dead.. H sue for peace, which I accept. additional +3 war wariness on top of my whipping ....

and fair game finish.

Game organized kick out Russian player and replaced it with his friend with out telling anyone. (Other initial player was just replaces by AI when he left and I do not believe Russian left).

So, Suddenly I see Russian pillaging all cottages just befor I taking his cities and brign his army from neibors to his single city (On hil with lot of defence) actions absolutely not in line of his feelings(I talk to him) that how I discover that there now a new player managing Russia.

Player which seems to the only goal it to slow me down. I am sure it was actually game organizers, as previously all reft players were managed by AI's. I protest, he kick me out..


Well, I probably look dangerous, and big, but I was at -6 in all cities, with no forest and no cottages, have 10% research with -2 gold/turn.

I check game later (England - organizer won LoL, how he can put any value in that win?)

Still I was enjoying game until that point.


Second game online.

I was plying Egypt I think. at start one player get army and went taking capitals of his neibors. I can not let him do it or he will become too big, so I whip army and crash him, was able to keep only his capital and on other side of map.

then on other neibor finally got a lots of Kenshic, I hold him off with a lot of spears.

I was too busy fighting, not mach expanding, lul in combat. I used my Bulb economy to run to Liberalism, took nationalism and research gunpowder.

One guy was left alone, expand on place of dead neibors and become huge. declare on my and come with a big stack of medieval army.

what i am to do? Draft Muskets every turn. I still lost by best city with 5 wanders or soo (My gp farm). But mass drafting payed of, I kill his stack and retook city.
He still had like 15 of his own to my 6. I was at 60% culture slider to maintain my draft. He left the game... LOl, believing he lost..

still was a great fun, bought time my opponents believe I am in mach better position then I really was.

Now, are such stories possible in civ 5? No, No and no. It you crash person initial army = you won. that it, that is all game.

so, no wander civ 5 is boring.

 

[vandyr]

It you crash person initial army = you won. that it, that is all game.

so, no wander civ 5 is boring.

No different from any previous Civ. Seriously? You're trying to hard to hate it and not trying at all when playing it, from the look of things.

 

[Mutineer]

No different from any previous Civ. Seriously? You're trying to hard to hate it and not trying at all when playing it, from the look of things.

There is no point argue with you, you did not even read the post....
In civ 4 it was possible to produce army fast enough on need to base so you can beat opponent after loosing initial encounter. That was all point of the post.

So, I have to assume you did not read it.

 

[Hormagaunt]

Its easy to say that without using those exact words. If this game were just like Civ IV with new graphics, would you be complaining?

Yes, I would. If it were just Civ4 with new graphics, I'd be ticked off at wasting my money.

All I've seen is people (mostly the same people) wanting the Civ IV UI, the Civ IV economy model, the Civ IV diplomacy, the Civ IV combat model, etc. So what could possibly lead me to that conclusion.

I want the Civ4 UI because the Civ5 one presumes that I'm a moron (Hi! It's 1450 AD and you're still playing Elizabeth! Hi! It's 1460 AD and you're still playing Elizabeth! Hi! It's 1470 AD and you're still playing Elizabeth!)

I want some aspects of the Civ5 economy AND some of the Civ4 economy. (Paying road maintenance is good. Having developed resources automatically netted in is good. Trading posts suck swamp water.)

I'd rather the Civ4 diplomacy where someone's angry at me and I know why than the (stereotyped) female diplomacy of Civ5 (I hate you! Why? If you don't know, I'm not gonna tell you; you know why!)

I want the hex board, because I'm an old-school wargamer and it works better.

I want the ZoC, because it's better for combat.

I'd prefer the Civ5 combat model, if they made some sanity changes (For example, single units off-road, unlimited stacking on roads and in cities, but only one unit can defend; if that unit dies, everybody dies. Or maybe limited off-road stacking {2 to 3 units}.)

I'd prefer the Civ5 ranged units, if they understood that Riflemen, Infantry, Tanks, et cetera *are ranged units*. Who cares if a tank is an upgraded knight; it's still now a ranged unit. EVERY modern unit is a ranged unit.

 

[PieceOfMind]

Ahh, yes. The much-anticipated "You only wanted Civ 4.5" argument. I was wondering when it would rear its ugly - and I do mean UGLY - head.

So the flip side of that coin is "the only people happy with Civ 5 are those that hated Civ 4."

This is a bit of a logical fallacy. If I say that PC gamers are the only people who can hate consoles. It doesn't imply that the only people who can love consoles are those who hate PCs. There's no logical connection. You can argue one or the other statement without having one imply the other.

Anyway, let me repost my argument from a long time ago, because it's still perfectly applicable IMO.

2nd September:

I am curious how many of you are familar with the abstract phenomenon of "regression to the mean".

I was wondering why it was that many civ3 players were disappointed with civ4 and preferred civ3, and now with civ5 on the way, inevitably many civ4 players are going to be disappointed with civ5 and prefer civ4. I think the above phenomenon plays a big part in that.

People like myself who were impressed with the game civ4 are simply going to be more likely to be less satisified with civ5 because our satisfaction with civ4 was above normal. Conversely, and maybe it's obvious, but the people who were not impressed with civ4 are more likely to be more satisfied with civ5.

More generally, it goes some way to explain why sequels of great games are often perceived to have failed to satisfy the players of the original to the same level. Of course, it goes with sequels to other things like books and movies etc. Consider that if a game doesn't sell well and is considered to be a flop by its players and producers, it is less likely to receive a sequel and so the regression towards the mean resulting in a better sequel never gets experienced. It's perhaps ironic that the better a game is, the less likely it is that a sequel will live up to expectations.

My advice to anyone who enjoyed civ4 a lot would be that they should do the best they can to treat civ5 as an entirely different game. If you bring expectations over from civ4 or make too many comparisions between civ5 and civ4 when you play civ5, you are more than likely going to be disappointed with civ5. Maybe a slightly depressing thought but statistics pretty much guarantees it... Also consider that probably most of the people preordering civ5 or who buy civ5 quickly after release are doing so because they enjoyed civ4. That could result in a bias in "first reactions" to the game - the most fanatical of fans are the group who are most likely to perceive civ5 as being lesser quality than previous games.

Disclaimer: This doesn't attempt to explain away the legitimate criticisms of civ5. There are some generous assumptions to be made for this model too. I mainly mention it because it's useful to consider this perspective when considering the fan reaction to any sequel but particularly sequels to popular installments.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

There is no point argue with you, you did not even read the post....
In civ 4 it was possible to produce army fast enough on need to base so you can beat opponent after loosing initial encounter. That was all point of the post.

So, I have to assume you did not read it.

You are actually giving some examples of pretty bad games. A game where a player gets kicked for doing well? I'm afraid that can't be counted as a "good" outcome, or a fun one.

Both are examples of the player's ability to sacrifice everything in favor of military. Do note, however, that in each of these instances, the all-in focus on military did not lead to a good outcome of the civ doing it...just to a mistaken belief by the offensive player that he couldn't win...quite a rookie analysis on his part ^_^.

Your stories each also indicate a fundamental, long-standing PROBLEM with civ games in general; military is always priority #1, and other victory conditions are not generally plausible in MP...the best nation militarily wins ever time despite there being numerous VC's. That is the epitome of strategic balance, and you

 

[Zydor]

Disclaimer: This doesn't attempt to explain away the legitimate criticisms of civ5. There are some generous assumptions to be made for this model too. I mainly mention it because it's useful to consider this perspective when considering the fan reaction to any sequel but particularly sequels to popular installments.

The main point you made in the preamble to my quote is well made, and many times that can happen as a response to anticipated improvements. However when those improvements do not come forward, and the whole emphasis of the game shifts ever more towards military victory the response by some, me included, is going to be firm and uncompromising.

Despite contrite expressions by some that they can actually read my mind better than I can, after 450hours logged play with Civ V, I find it ridiculous in the extreme that many who push back on criticisms of Civ V fall back on the tired knee jerk response "oh its just cos you want another Civ IV - you need to play it not make assumptions" yaddie yadda. Its as much an annoying response to criticisms, as it approach's moronic. In trying to illustrate what individuals mean its hardly surprising they will use comparisons to Civ IV, it was the last Version, what comparisons should they use, World of WarCraft or some other grand title, its silly.

Its ostrich like for individuals to deny it has shifted even more towards military and "kill thy neighbour" when the developers themselves clearly stated they have stripped out what they considered to be unnecessary baggage/fluff. As not one thing they stripped out of any real consequence (baring the much hated stack of doom) was military in context or consequence, its not rocket science to work out the shift in the game balance. They want to shift it towards a shoot-em-up kill they neighbour, thats fine, their privilege.

Its also my privilege to push with criticism and downright annoyance that having paid my $50 for a new Civ Franchise game, they shift the nature of the beast away from any semblance of balance of strategies to a military biased model. Thats fine for some, and more power to their elbow, happy for them - its not for me, and its dishonest in the extreme for the current developers to claim its an updated Civ. It cannot be in its current form of extreme shift to the military victory - that will never be true to the Franchise Foundations.

And before we get more knee jerk responses - no its not winging or moaning (another very tired response). Like many, I have bought every Version, Every expansion pack since the whole Franchise started, and my response to new versions and Packs has always been, "well, lets let it settle". For the most it has and I never regretted buying. Civ V (as it stands at this moment in time) is a different proposition. I find myself, for the first time in 15+ years, in posting firm opposition to what they have done.

If an individual is military orientated and likes the shoot-em-up elements, thats fine, enjoy. However that is not what the Franchise was about in isolation, and they have - deliberately to grab for a wider market - changed the nature of the Franchise, and done so without full disclosure. The latter is blatant dishonesty, and kicks in the teeth a very large section of the Fanbase who loyally bought this version expecting it to be true to the Franchise Foundations. Barring the possibility that changes will occur over the next few patches, and the first expansion - a possiblity I will watch with genuine hope - they have killed off Civilisation as it was Traditionally known, and will loose a substantial portion of the fanbase in the long run.

Regards
Zy

 

[JLoZeppeli]

The funniest thing is that some fans are telling us that Civ is in the Steam top 10 games ranking... But amongst these games no one is a Steam exclusive (civ V is a Steam exclusive)... And also Football Manager 2011 have now far more players... And it is not Steam exclusive... A peak of 27k versus 19k of Civ.... And the fanbase is quite happy of the game, as a fan i haven't any complain about it and so the majority of players as everyone could see in the fan forums... That's the main difference between Civ V and Football Manager 2011.

PS i'm quite sure Football Manager is more a nicke game than Civ V, thinking of the Asian and USA markets as totally out of range...

 

[SuperJay]

This doesn't attempt to explain away the legitimate criticisms of civ5. There are some generous assumptions to be made for this model too. I mainly mention it because it's useful to consider this perspective when considering the fan reaction to any sequel but particularly sequels to popular installments.

I understand what you're getting at, but none of that excuses the drive-by thread sniping. Even if nobody mentions Civ 4 at all, we have folks like Vandyr dropping in to make some kind of snotty "well, you just wanted Civ 4.5, better learn to play Civ 5" remark. While insulting people you disagree with pretty much reveals you don't have an argument to begin with, don't you think that sort of behavior is detrimental to constructive discussion? On the one hand, you have players discussing a game - the latest game in the series that this site was built to discuss - and on the other, you have folks taking shots at other members, not discussing the game at all. Since when was that acceptable?

Like I said, if you can't control yourself long enough to make a constructive contribution, just skip the thread altogether. It's really that simple.