Utter disappointment

[digitalcraft]

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.

Play 4 on something higher than settler please

 

[groogfish]

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.

What on earth are you talking about? You are the only one with a specific problem? Being able to ask the AI how they feel about another civ is a gameplay element, not something that is broken. Just like we all are talking about GAMEPLAY ELEMENTS.

 

[heliostellar]

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.

My point on the hex system, units, and religion was that in general it seems that all they did was take stuff out of the game. I am also in the camp of people that didn't like the stacks of doom. I'm not really sure how I feel about how units are handled with them consuming resources each turn etc. The hex system is better in that it creates more strategic choke points, but I don't think that improvement alone makes this game worth playing. There are so many other glaring problems.

To be fair, I also did like that they don't force cycle you to each of your cities that needs new build orders at the beginning of the turn. This would always drive me crazy in the late game in prior versions when I'm involved in some big war and the next turn comes and I have to set stupid build orders which isn't really the first thing on my mind at the moment.

Overall, these small improvements came with a number of other much larger problems. I'm not sure that a patch or expansion is going to fix these issues. They don't change the interface much with those releases and I would say that's probably the biggest issue.

 

[Gorey]

I roll my eyes everytime someone says "remember vanilla civ 4".

When civ 4 came out... my civ 3 went in the garbage. Everything was better. The interface, the game mechanics, the whole shebang. They took what sucked in Civ 3 and made it better in Civ 4 and added lots of new stuff ontop of it. Sure there was some bugs at first, but it was infinitely better than 3 right out of the gate for me.

I can't say the same about 5. They removed half of what made Civ 4 great, changed things that didn't need changing, ripped out some more stuff, slapped on a gigantic ugly interface (see city screen) and then appended a "V" on the end of it. It's not even civilization to me anymore.

I can give a massive list of what's wrong with Civ 5. Bit in a nutshell: Civ 5 is half the game Civ 4 was at launch.

Really about all 5 has going for it is hexes and new combat system, everything else feels inferior.

 

[Kayak06460]

I've played Civilization since day 1. Each new entry added more than just pretty graphics. Pretty graphics grow old fast. Civ 5 has no added complexity or new complexity. Your now have much less control over "your" empire. The new combat is new to civ, but let's face it, it's the same as Panzer General, a game that's how old? And I need a quad core cpu and $300 gpu to play it? Panzer General was an amazingly fun and challenging game on a computer that was lower tech than my telephone. The game thumbs it's nose at all the loyal following to the Civ series. I suppose, that now that the U.S. is behind Lithuania in education this is what happens to our games.
I wonder what they're playing in Lithuania?

 

[ArcadicGamer]

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:



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.



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?



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.



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.



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.

With the exception of the interface, all of you complaints are core features to the game. You're not able to let go of what your used to with Civ 4. You WANT it to be a copy/paste job. Its not and your upset??? I mean this kind of transformation is unheard of in todays industry. Too many other franchises are STALE and unimaginative release after release. I commend Civ 5 for breaking the mold AGAIN to present a new fresh way of playing Civ.

And this game is far from over simple. Its not CIVREV where anyone with any CIV sense can win on diety day 1. I don't understand the complaint about social policies having no downside, Civics really didn't have much of a downside. The ocean actually gets used now. How about instead of playing 3-4 games and crying, you give it a deeper chance? I didn't think i'd like 1upt, but i am starting to love it due to the strategic value city placement now has due to terrain, beyond "settle on a hill".

 

[Bill Bisco]

I can give a massive list of what's wrong with Civ 5. Bit in a nutshell: Civ 5 is half the game Civ 4 was at launch.

Really about all 5 has going for it is hexes and new combat system, everything else feels inferior.

I'd like to see that list. I'm curious at how many of the same things that bother you, bother me.

 

[D!CK_VII]

hmmm Civ4 PBEM game anyone?

 

[zonk]

Mixed feelings thus far...

I think someone upthread that mentioned the comparison needs to be against VANILLA IV has a very good point (though, I think most of the early IV complaints were more performance - the gameplay itself, I think, generally draw WOWs). I've been playing ROM/AND so long I'd forgotten what it's like to play without a choice of 50 civs, half a dozen leaders, and buildings/units/wonders coming out of my ears.

It's far, far too early to make any hate it (or love it, frankly) pronouncements... I will say this - I'm trying to think of a good excuse to skip a half day of work tomorrow to experiment some more....

My good/bad based solely on just ~6 hours of play... FWIW, I'm very much a nester/builder and I'm also a cardinal sinner when it comes to focusing too much on wonders.

The Good
1) Thank you, thank you, thank you for the "abundant"/resource allotment map setting... I swear, I've been wanting this ever since that old, old Civ rip-off (Call To Power, I think?) had the option. I know map mods eventually took care of this, but it was a long overdue map option.

2)City States seem fun - though - gotta be honest here, this sort of feels like a RoM/AND (apologies, forgot whose mod it was) ripoff... I'm glad the concept was included in V - but it feels a little shallow that it's one of V's big new features when modders came darn close to nailing in IV.

3) The map is beautiful - eye candy has a limited appreciation shelf-life though.

4) Social Policies are nice - haven't quite decided if I like essentially replacing governments with them, though... I think they might make a better addition than replacement

5) I haven't quite learned to use it right, but I think I'm going to like the hex/1 unit per square thing... I always hated stacks of doom - and I'm not at all sorry to see them go. I'm suspecting that especially for my style of play - this will end up being my favorite part of V.

The Bad

1) I miss religion. I don't understand why it was removed and I'm dearly hoping it comes back

2) The mechanics of combat itself, I think, still peaked with Civ3... though - RoM/AND (can you tell I love that mod/mod-mod?) came damn close. The lack of the combat percent chance, actually, I kind of like -- it's not like historical leaders knew down to the hundredth of a percent, the chance of attack -- but the reason I put it under the bad is that I haven't gotten a sense of the critical unit type distinction yet, beyond bombard vs. melee.

3) It's probably just me - because I can appreciate its elegance - but not a big fan of the interface thus. Feels... consoley... frankly - and I'm PC strategy gamer, and thus - hard-coded to believe anything that I even suspect of being console-based, console-influenced, or ever once winked at a console must automatically be a dumbed down toy for dullards.

4) I worry that we've lost some complexity... granted - this one is probably unfair at this point, as I've been playing on very easy levels to learn the game and I'm pretty much romping

5) CTDs... I really want to complain about this, but I guess - as I also play a lot of Paradox titles and quite love them, even with the usual "beta-as-gold" releases - I've just been trained to accept it as inevitable at this point. Still -- I've had 3 CTDs in just 6 hours... not good... I also have this weird situation where the main interface doesn't come up properly and I have to alt-tab between the desktop and game to get it to 'pop'.


All in all?

I think it's wwaaaayyyy to early for any sort of "utter disappointment" pronouncements. It's new, it's different, it deserves a chance.

 

[bonch]

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.

Absolutely nobody cares about your animal rescue, town council, or short films. Your post is one of the nuttiest, most self-absorbed things I've read on this forum in a while.

People complained about Civ IV when it came out, complained about Civ III when it came out, and complained about Civ II when it came out. Hardcore Civ fans have become infamous for their crippling resistance to change. Everyone else is having fun.

 

[nody]

I haven't bought the game yet, but I hope Rhye will give me a reason to play Civ V in the future. There is already discussion about RFC for Civ V.

If it wasn't for RFC I wouldn't be playing Civ IV BTS as much as I do now.

For people who like realism and historical re-enacting gameplay: http://forums.civfanatics.com/forumdisplay.php?f=204


BTW, @ those people who say 'stop whining and play Civ IV': Stop defending yourself and happily play your dumbed down Civ V...

 

[Likes_Civing]

Not everyone.

I agree with the this is simply CIV 4 light. I mean we all know it.

I love the counter arguments. They are either well compare it to civ 4 vanilla or you don't like change.

When the people list something specific it's you can't handle change. When it is just a complaint, it's civ 4 vanilla sucked.

I don't see anyone liking the game giving good counter arguments to this 5 sucks.

This game has LITTLE replayability right now. Can we agree it has LESS than 4? I mean the first turn I see you can pick 4 techs, at least in all my starts. 4 techs, EVERY TIME.

I hate that. With 4 there were a TON of ways to go. Do I chop. Do I cottage. Do I x y z. Here it is 4 to start with.

I have not seen folks complaining about the tech tree's start.

Why did they make this so stupid? Global happiness? Are they trying to get us to buy into the NWO?

Civ is details, this is a wargame in campaign mode. I loved Squad Leader and Panzer General. But man this guy took civ backwards. I loved someones post about how old PG is.

They took stuff out and replaced it with less new stuff versus reworking what rocked and adding more.

Sad.

 

[mangxema]

I'm trying really hard to like it. My main criticism is this... I've started two games so far (one yesterday, one day) and played each for about five hours after work, and I still don't feel like I've really done much. The first was on the defaults, which had the civs way too spread out. Okay fine, that happens sometimes with random maps. But even on a pangaea map, my 'neighbors' are really far apart, and even several hours in, were still really small. I finally got close to my nearest neighbor, and invaded out of sheer tedium. The combat was actually pretty cool, but on the whole the 10 or so hours of gameplay I've already put in leaves me remarkably unfulfilled.

 

[Brawndo]

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.

This.


Civ 5 isn't necessarily bad, it's just very different. Civ 4 could be played peacefully, but I find that Civ 5 gets boring without engaging in war and combat (which is very good, I might add). Without war, I'm mostly hitting "Next Turn" over and over, partly due to the LONG production times and very low tile/resource yields, and waiting for culture points to rack up so I can buy another Social Policy.

 

[-PET-]

People need to stop living in the past. What the topic started said was just crap. Nothing real.

YOu have no sliders? WHHY do you want that? You don't build armies because you can't stat armies?? Well use the damn brain and try to control your armies better.

I think you actually feel "real mature" because you played Civ IV for "all this years" and since you are "real mature" you expected 3D graphics, Ground Level Zoom and OMG same thing as Civ IV.

 

[heliostellar]

People need to stop living in the past. What the topic started said was just crap. Nothing real.

YOu have no sliders? WHHY do you want that? You don't build armies because you can't stat armies?? Well use the damn brain and try to control your armies better.

I think you actually feel "real mature" because you played Civ IV for "all this years" and since you are "real mature" you expected 3D graphics, Ground Level Zoom and OMG same thing as Civ IV.

No, I'm not living in the past. I bought this thing expecting it to be a good edition to the Civ line and ya know what? It isn't!

I tried to lay out some specific things about why this game was about as detailed as playing Solitaire and I'm not the only one that thinks it's that boring and generic.

 

[gatorbate_09]

Like someone else said I'm trying really hard to like it.

I just hate how Firaxis can go from a 3.19 patched CIV:BTS to this. BTS was perfect, V is meh. I don't give a damn how bad vanilla IV was on release. I hate how they went from 3.19 BTS to THIS. I wanted this to replace Civ IV as my current PC game of choice, instead it's making me go back to IV.

I do like the hex tiles, social policies, the way the culture works, city states, the leader scenes and that they speak their native language, and the way the minimap looks (easier to see who's where). The one unit per tile thing is going to have to take some getting used to.

However, the diplomacy is complete garbage (I'm talking a little above Civ Rev level). I want to see how my decisions affect the other leaders and how their decisions affect each other. Hell I had a Pact of Cooperation and a Research Agreement with Gandhi one game, but had roughly 10 Pacts of Secrecy against him and I never once saw that he was angry at me. Civ IV made it easier to keep up with global politics by checking their relationships with one another. I can pretty much turn down every single offer thrown at me and it'll never make the AI mad.

The building/unit production is terribly slow and makes it seem like almost nothing is getting done and I'm progressing slowly. What I just described was on standard speed, so I don't even want to attempt epic or marathon. Now I've lowered to quick because it gives me a sense that things are getting accomplished. It just feels like a slower game in general which in turn makes it boring.

I love building buildings, but the slow production + the new building maintenance pretty much ruins that for me. As someone else said earlier in the thread "Forget buildings, units all the way or die.". That would kill me because I am in no way militaristic, so I rarely build up a military unless it's for self defense, but because of the aforementioned problems I'm left the decision "Why build a building when I can possibly build two units in the same amount of time I can for that building?"

The city screen could've been much better (right now I prefer Civ IV's city screen) and I hate that there's no research slider too.

I loved the corporations and espionage, but alas those were taken out.

I would've also liked a direct link to the Civlopedia at the main menu.

I had so much hype built up for this and I feel let down. I REALLY want to like the game, but it makes it hard for me to. I can safely say that this game was not worth the $50 I paid for it. That being said I'm still going to play it for the sake of adjustment and who knows maybe I'll start to like it.

I'm praying for a *quick* patch in the next month or two.

 

[Rhygar]

None of the things the OP complains about are broken features or actual problems. He also completely ignores a number of brilliant changes. The tone of the thread is extremely self centered and negative. If you make such an unbalanced post you will be critized.

A lot of what he doesn't like are just changes in features and I think they are great such as no stacking (hated that in Civ 4, but I didn't make these stupid threads back then), less units, embark, happiness is crippling if you don't develop while expanding etc.

Things I would like to see; diplomacy can be expanded more on the City-state side, espionage etc. There will be some balancing etc. Natural process.

Why do people expect new versions to be exactly like the old one? Why even bother making a new one?

 

[Womf]

Sitting here in the UK not able to play ; I loaded up Civ 4 BTS last night. To be honest it was a totally boring experience. I have played it to death and speaking for myself I am looking forward to something different.

Civ IV got very old very quickly. Lots of detail but quite easy to beat.

I would have been very disappointed with a re-hash.

Looking forward to a change.

 

[Yakka2]

BTW, @ those people who say 'stop whining and play Civ IV': Stop defending yourself and happily play your dumbed down Civ V...

This is the Civ V forum... why are you here?