Utter disappointment

This just seems odd to me... First of all this game wasn't meant to be a replacement for Civ 4, or just some new iteration with new graphics and a new feature here or there... It is a rather intensive re-working of the game.

As I play I have not found anything in the game that surprised me in any extreme way. The information on the net about this game pretty well prepared me for what to expect. So, it seems to me that you either failed to read the available information, or chose to ignore it, because considering how easy it is to see how the game is probably going to be, you should have known you might not like it and thus waited to play the demo before paying for it. So, really, you have only yourself to blame.

As for me, I loved Civ 4, and I'm loving Civ 5.
 
I think the makers are just trying to reach and move with a new audience. Sure they want to keep the old players happy who have grown up with the game, but they also have a new generation of players who have probably never played it before.

If the game doesn't suit your playing style at the moment, that's OK. It will be modded in no time, so it's OK to shelve it for a while until someone brings out a mod that is more up your street. It'll still be worth the money you paid.
 
How many of these obnoxious "THIS GAME ISN'T CIV IV!!!!1!!!" rants are we going to have to see?

Mods, can't you just create a general "IF YOU DON'T LIKE CIV V, POST IT HERE" thread for all the whiners? Do we really have to tolerate the spam, especially when most of the criticism is either shallow, incorrect or entirely subjective?

Including your post whining about the whiners? When did expressing a contrary opinion in a public forumn become whining? Oh that's right any conflicting opinion grates on you and makes you want to have a little tizzy.

Here is a little tip to help you out brudda'. If you don't like the post...don't read it. And if for some horrible reason you hear something that you don't agree with...well then just let it go dude. To listen to you you'd think reviews were objective and that you were the sole arbiter of depth. What you rail against...Shallow, incorrect and subjective is exactly what your post is. Now that's obnoxious.
 
Between the simplification/ruining of civ itself, the unnecessary and frankly offensive requirement to use 3rd party bloatware for no practical reason whatsoever, and the completely ridiculous, amateurish errors in the demo, this is obviously not a franchise that is being taken seriously anymore. It's just an easy cash cow every 4 or 5 years. Even if only 75% of the previous users buy it, it's still money in the bank.
I'll be throwing it away, and spending more of my time at the animal rescue I run, working in my local town council, and putting more work into my short films. In other words, no loss to me whatsoever.

The only thing I've read in this forumn in weeks that sounds real. Nice.
 
There is a pretty important reason to add feedback if you don't like a new entry in a long-standing series: if you want better games in the future you don't heap praise on things which don't deserve them.

yet another snide chirp from the cheap seats. I can't believe how many of you are a truly nasty lot; seemingly always willing to jump on the back of somebody you don't agree with.

Dude was dissapointed with the game. it's O.k. really. His desire to express that is also O.K.(or is it?) Your desire to spread ugly little billious comments also O.K. but really little man, what was the point? Do you feel cool? Better about youself?

Thank you - you folks understand both the reason for complaining(to see improvements in the future) and the democratic nature of the internet; in particular, message boards. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, whether others agree or not.
 
If you don't like the game, don't play it?

No. You just have to wait 18 mos. for the people who work for free to fix it.

Got to admit Sid has figured out a better mousetrap. Sell a bloated box of hype and nostalgia and leverage the apparent undying love for the franchise into thousands of hours of free coding to provide a game that actually works. Can you say Civ IV?

And what's worse...many of you accept it. How many of you would accept this junk in your real lives? I can just hear you now."... Hey honey, I'm home. Come on outside and look at the new car. Isn't she great? Now all i have to do is dump in a few hundred hours turning wrenches and she'll be as good as the one I had five years ago." How did this become O.K.?
 
No. You just have to wait 18 mos. for the people who work for free to fix it.

Got to admit Sid has figured out a better mousetrap. Sell a bloated box of hype and nostalgia and leverage the apparent undying love for the franchise into thousands of hours of free coding to provide a game that actually works. Can you say Civ IV?

And what's worse...many of you accept it. How many of you would accept this junk in your real lives? I can just hear you now."... Hey honey, I'm home. Come on outside and look at the new car. Isn't she great? Now all i have to do is dump in a few hundred hours turning wrenches and she'll be as good as the one I had five years ago." How did this become O.K.?

Bravo, I was thinking the same thing. Except this is our real lives.
 
I played the game a bit over at my parents' house (it was my neice's third birthday) and I have to admit, I got bored pretty quickly. I was going to continue to play/mod (mostly mod I guess) Civ IV for a while before getting into Civ V because I expected there would need to be patches (I noticed a lot of strange behavior, like graphic glitches for instance), and there will probably be expansions (I think there are already two you can DL for the Celts and something else), so I wasn't going to buy the game right now anyway. But what little experience I have with it so far was not good, I hope they improve it. And why are there no Mongols? What's up with that?
 
Oneluv, how can you tell people not to disagree with someone, because they have a right to an opinion too, huh? You may love reading negative comments about the game, but not everyone feels the same way. It does get tiresome seeing thread after thread of "Civ V Stinks". Why not all post in one thread? Save some the headache, follow forum rules, give the unhappy crowd their space too. Win win!

Good thing there is still the Civ IV forum, now you guys get it out of your system, then run along back there. Say hi to everyone in the 3, 2, and 1 forums also. They likely did the same type of posting when the other games were released, and never made the switch. Just goes to show that you can't please everyone, but you'll please some and get some new. You could say to fill in the ranks, but don't worry, we won't miss you! We'll be too busy having fun!
 
Including your post whining about the whiners? When did expressing a contrary opinion in a public forumn become whining? Oh that's right any conflicting opinion grates on you and makes you want to have a little tizzy.

Here is a little tip to help you out brudda'. If you don't like the post...don't read it. And if for some horrible reason you hear something that you don't agree with...well then just let it go dude. To listen to you you'd think reviews were objective and that you were the sole arbiter of depth. What you rail against...Shallow, incorrect and subjective is exactly what your post is. Now that's obnoxious.

There's a big difference between offering substantial criticism of genuine issues of the game and the hysterical negativity that you and the OP engage in. To have it spamming the board and taking up room that actual constructive, informative threads could be occupying is my complaint. You're free not to like it, that doesn't mean we have to tolerate a bunch of empty rants from people who have only played the game for a DAY.

But I can see you're not interested in even trying to enjoy the game, so I'm wasting my time with you.
 
A lot of people seem to be spending more time here defending what a great game it is rather than actually playing it.
See above where I said the company would have its employees posting phony positive reviews online...
 
I just registered on this forum to start a topic like this :D

I agree with the original post. It's not as if Sid owes us anything or we deserve anything. And maybe we are all just whiners. But I've been excited as :):):):) for this game since I heard about it in February. This game is just like civilization revolution for xbox. I'm going to add a few points to the original list:

Things I really like:
Hex tiles... don't we all?
Archer 2-tile range.
Purchasable tiles.
Extended area to work tiles (instead of 2 on each side live IV).

Things I really hate:
Construction is extremely slow. Forget buildings, units all the way or die.
2 Swords per iron resource...
No civics, no strategy.
Half the units.
Half the resources.
Leader traits are too specific and impotent to matter.
No one has the patients to play this: 2.5hrs in still with my bows and horses and everyone quits.
Graphics are milky, anyone else got a headache?
3-8 second lag on every action. They could upgrade the server though.
Cities have health.
No chance calculation. Only indications on success are "You're going to do super well!", "You're going to do preeeety gooood!"- stfu, nerds need statistics!
Gold is used way too much.
Just... generally... boring... :S

It's a good mainstream version.
 
There's a big difference between offering substantial criticism of genuine issues of the game and the hysterical negativity that you and the OP engage in.

What's really interesting is that I (and many others) actually listed SPECIFIC issues that I had with the game and people continue flaming about how the criticism of Civ 5 is just a bunch of whining and spamming. I actually had items that I consider to be in need of fixing to make this game worth playing (and worth the $49.99 I paid for it).

Substantial criticism included:

It's a reduction of all the Civ 4 concepts and it feels like Civ 4 For Kids. What exactly is new here besides additional restrictions? You can move in fewer directions; you can't stack; you can't build as many units because you can't stack; they removed religion. Oh, so they added city states.

This is factually true. There is almost nothing new in this game except for cute window dressings and mini-civs. It's been a wholesale reduction of features and gameplay elements.

The Great Wonders? Not wonderful... actually pretty boring with little overall gameplay effect.

I think it's safe to say that the Great Wonders are not especially compelling to invest the time to build. Of course we could have an actual conversation and make the point that one shouldn't be overly reliant on them to being with. But that would be an actual discussion... is that what's happening here?

The interface is absolutely terrible to manage all the numbers and metrics with your civ because they hide all the buttons and numbers that were in Civ 4. Really though... aren't all the numbers and readouts all part of the fun of this game??

Does anyone really disagree that games like this are all about the numbers and balancing different priorities like food/growth, gold, etc? Oh, wait, I guess I'm just bitter because having those values accessible and organized was just an "exploit" in prior versions. Are you seriously saying, you'd rather click down a tree of menus to find something that was once obviously displayed? Is it really preferable to gut the interface and then blow up the buttons that are left behind to 5 times their original size? It's like watching a movie through a magnifying glass. I think it's a pretty valid criticism.

There's so little thought or strategy needed to play this. Every unit is it's own transport, so the ocean is just one big highway for all your units since most can move faster (or as fast) over water.

I don't even know why there is an ocean. Once you get the Optics tech, it really doesn't matter anymore that something is overseas. It might as be on the same continent.

There's no sliders to shift funds from the treasury to research. Expansion simply causes unhappiness, which is easily fixed and it slows down your social progress... snore!

Factually true. There are no sliders and so there isn't as severe a punishment to growing too quickly like there used to be with your research bottoming out. Yes, expansion affects happiness, but it's much easier to generate happiness (build things) than it is to generate money. Also, social progress upgrades are really just small bonuses. They're nice, but not essential. I heard it somewhere else too that with social progress upgrades, it really doesn't matter what you pick beacuse there's really no negative attribute to any of them.

I think I was pretty specific in the ways that the game has been overly simplified and different concepts abstracted and aggregated out in ways that make this release feel like Civ For Kids.
 
I don't know if the game will be better than Civ IV, because I haven't been able to play more than 15 turns without the damned thing crashing to desktop...:mad:
 
I've seen people on here comment that "oh, everyone said this about Civ 4." No, actually, I didn't. Civ 4 was far, far superior to Civ 3 and I never felt like Civ 4 overly simplified the core experience of playing a Civ game. The expansions did add a lot to it, but it was a great game right out of the box. I love Civ games and must say I was obsessed with playing Civ 4 for years now. I could never look at Civ 5 again and not look back.

What a disappointment! An utter disappointment. I've been waiting 5 years for this? Civ For Kids? Really?? :confused:


CivIV Vanilla in inferior to Civ5. CivIV+BTS+Any mod>CivV but them are usually the brakes.

I wasn't here for the release of CivIV but I've been there for the release of a lot of major games outside the genre (Call of Duty, Battlefield, Making History, etc) and its marvelous to see that there are just as many, if not more, whiners here than in those places. At least in those places people come up with different, if not all pretty stupid reasons to hate the game.

But CivV whiners keep repeating themselves. "They changed it so now it sucks" is what it pretty much comes down to.

Hell, I'm complaining about things in the game actually broken. Like me not even being able to ask the AI how they feel about another civilization.
 
I have mixed feelings about the game and this rant... although as expected there are people complaining about certain failings of the latest Civ iteration, I couldn't disagree more with some issues the OP has, especially the first few.

Let's face it... nothing was added to this game. It's a reduction of all the Civ 4 concepts and it feels like Civ 4 For Kids. What exactly is new here besides additional restrictions? You can move in fewer directions; you can't stack; you can't build as many units because you can't stack; they removed religion. Oh, so they added city states. I like the "Independents" in Rhye's and Fall much better. The city states just end up being conquered... eventually.

You started off with less directions to move in? Seriously? The Hexagonal system is one of the largest IMPROVEMENTS made in this game over the last. The 8 tile system was unnatural, looked ugly as hell compared to this, and most importantly, made controlling territory a pain when units would slip by diagonally. I'm glad it's gone.

Your second complaint is also ironically something which targets a major improvement. Stacking equated to one of the most boring combat systems in strategy games to date. My only issue with the single-unit system is that it sometimes results in traffic jams and gives me a bit more hassle when moving units around.

The third complaint in this list is only true in the sense that the player has more trouble getting his or her units to the front of the battle, and perhaps the addition of limited units per resource. My unit production was just as fast as it was in Civ 4.

Religion I can see as a legitimate complaint about lost features. However, I didn't care much for the Civ 4 version and feel they could implement it better.

I never played much of Rhye's and Fall (crashed my old computer) so I can't comment much about Independents vs. City States. I will agree that they aren't as interesting as they could be.

The Great Wonders? Not wonderful... actually pretty boring with little overall gameplay effect. The interface is absolutely terrible to manage all the numbers and metrics with your civ because they hide all the buttons and numbers that were in Civ 4. Really though... aren't all the numbers and readouts all part of the fun of this game?? There's so little thought or strategy needed to play this. Every unit is it's own transport, so the ocean is just one big highway for all your units since most can move faster (or as fast) over water.

I sorta agree with you that the Wonders are lackluster. They're okay, but I wasn't quite as motivated to pursue them as I did in earlier civs.

The readouts do suck in comparison to earlier Civilization games and I was particularly annoyed by the lack of clear diplomacy feedback. Not knowing how my actions are effecting diplomacy didn't exactly improve my gameplay experience. Also the occasional rankings when somebody writes a book? Totally not funny or witty. They were annoyingly droll.

As for the Embark thing... HATE HATE HATE IT. I knew it would be a problem when I heard about it and even in my first game, in which I was largely land-locked, it resulted in a few instances where the enemy unit would ignore a channel because he could walk right over it. It's also a pita not having ANY travel between land-masses for my land units until the Embarkation tech.

There's no sliders to shift funds from the treasury to research. Expansion simply causes unhappiness, which is easily fixed and it slows down your social progress... snore!

I didn't really miss the tech/wealth/culture sliders too much. They hardly added anything and ended up eating a lot of my time as I'd try to maximize wealth or tech each turn.

What I really really hated, beyond the Embark thing, is how the save feature and other important options were ******ED, in multiple senses of the word. I can't understand how somebody could have decided to remove save sorting and then that saves should be listed alphabetically of all things. I'm still floored by the stupidity of that decision. It's a 'simplification' that makes the game more tedious for crying out loud. Freakin' DUMB.

... Seriously. Un-freakin-believable.
 
Lol nothing was added? They added combat to the game, not mindless spamming of units. Also being somewhat competitive as a small civ vs just mindlessly spamming cities is very nice.
 
I think it's no coincidence the people who like this game more are also the people not able to express their opinion outside of snide insults ;)

Seriously though, I'm a bit disappointed because I expected it to be a sequel to Civ 4. Its not a bad game on its own, the combat is more fun that Civ 4, but without the depth, I'm already kind of bored of it. I just don't see it being that hobby sort of game that 4 was. It's just plain for a different crowd, and that crowd is not me, which has me disapointed. Some people, casual people, will like it a lot more, people who were really in to tinkering with 4 will not like it as much.

Neither group is 'right'. It's the essence of stupidity to try to argue some objective 'X is better than Y'. People have different preferences and some people will like one better and some the other better.
 
Top Bottom