Was there this much backlash for previous Civ games?

[Evie]

He is very clearly not saying all criticism of the game is wrong. He literally says it's a mediocre game.

I suggest you reread my post slowly and carefully.

Hint: there were *two* criticism in there. You missed one.

 

[GoneFishingX]

(no religion, espionage, UN, ideology, archeology, great works, tourism and trade routes)

Wait, did civ 5 on release really have no trade routes? I played it day 1 and I guess I totally forgot that. Man that game was even more half baked than I remembered. IIRC the sentiment was this is disaster, but they have a vision so be patient but vocal with complaints, and let them cook. It was worth the wait, Civ 5 ended up really solid.

 

[UWHabs]

Civ5 on release was a DISASTER. But Steam was in its infancy back then, so it was spared reviews it had deserved - I genuinely think it could get even more roasted than civ7. It got beaten up for:
- messed up performance and bugs
- messed up balance (obviously OP policies and units, like early horsemen and liberty tree) (I remember policy trees being rebalanced every patch because every time devs made another one OP and other useless lol)
- very barebone experience when compared with how rich late civ4 was, with the common complaint being fairly accurate observation that there is nothing interactive to do except for building cities and waging war
(no religion, espionage, UN, ideology, archeology, great works, tourism and trade routes)
- truly catastrophic AI, I'm talking "it doesn't know it needs several units to take a city, sends lonely ones on the suicidal charges" or "attacks only with 10 ranged units, obviously can't take a city at all, they all slowly die"
- horrible "diplomacy" with AI being able to and willing to backstab and attack you at any given moment, with literally no way to have any substitute of alliance or stable friendly status, and inexplicably always finding a reason to be hostile

Hence games devolving into the misery of having nothing to do in the barren, unbalanced, crashing game, except fight the entire warhammer 40,000 world of traitorous psychopathic AIs who also make release civ6 AI look like Alexander the Great with their braindead coma level military tactics

Like seriously, I know immediately who had been there in this time by the insistence that civ7 release is some unprecedented situation, early weeks od civ5 on these forums was like a battle of Stalingrad lol, Soren Johnson left Firaxis blaming himself for the game's state and the first Mongolian DLC got changed into FLC as an apology for the state of release

Honestly compared to the utter trainwreck that was civ5 release civ7 is significanty more conductive to optimism because far less of its fundamental mechanics are roasted by the playerbase

I've played every civ game since civ 1. More coincidence than anything, I have basically bought a new laptop right around the time each major civ game has released. I could not tell you how many hours I put into civ 4. And yeah, civ 5 on launch was absolutely trash. Like, to someone who was eagerly waiting for it for years, I played a handful of games and then had to put it away for like 6 months because of how utterly horrible it was. And the biggest problem of them all? I actually loved the hex grid/1upt, so much that I tried to go back and play civ 4 after, but I just couldn't, because I missed those new features.

I have a form of respect for 5, but I just never got around to liking it (although I never really got into Vox Populii, so maybe had I discovered that I would have grown fonder). But yeah, I think if life back then was like how things are today with a polarizing society, it would have been as bad or even worse.

 

[kaspergm]

I like districts to an extent in theory, but not in how they were executed.

While I don't agree with you on your overall opinion, I can understand this to a certain extent. What aggravates me most is there is one single tag that would save many of Civ6's district problems, but which is not in the game, namely the tag to force a district be adjacent to city center. We have a tag that forces a district not to be adjacent to city center, but not the opposite. And since they never gave access to the dll files, it can't be added through a mod either.

 

[AD1730]

While I don't agree with you on your overall opinion, I can understand this to a certain extent. What aggravates me most is there is one single tag that would save many of Civ6's district problems, but which is not in the game, namely the tag to force a district be adjacent to city center. We have a tag that forces a district not to be adjacent to city center, but not the opposite. And since they never gave access to the dll files, it can't be added through a mod either.

To me a few changes would have been helpful. For one, allowing you to effectively build two districts in your city center would have been helpful. It doesn't make much sense that the densest part of your city would hold so little. I would have also had some wonders be built in the city center or within certain types of districts. One of my biggest problems with the game is that the necessity to have wonders and districts on tiles makes wide far and away the best way to play the game.

 

[trev1972]

I've played every civ game since civ 1. More coincidence than anything, I have basically bought a new laptop right around the time each major civ game has released. I could not tell you how many hours I put into civ 4. And yeah, civ 5 on launch was absolutely trash. Like, to someone who was eagerly waiting for it for years, I played a handful of games and then had to put it away for like 6 months because of how utterly horrible it was. And the biggest problem of them all? I actually loved the hex grid/1upt, so much that I tried to go back and play civ 4 after, but I just couldn't, because I missed those new features.

I have a form of respect for 5, but I just never got around to liking it (although I never really got into Vox Populii, so maybe had I discovered that I would have grown fonder). But yeah, I think if life back then was like how things are today with a polarizing society, it would have been as bad or even worse.

This thread has encouraged me to reinstall 4, while i actually enjoyed 5, like you i spent a disgusting amount of time playing 4. I think i played more of 2 than 4, but that was because i had more free time.

 

[KayAU]

I guess a major problem with Civ 5 is that all the things it can lay claim to, Civ 6 also has. It has nothing unique going for it, and that causes it to be held back by what it doesn't do right.

Civ 4 lacks all those things you mention compared to the newer games, but it has a more sophisticated tech tree, a better expansion limiting mechanic, stronger AI, more strategic improvement decision-making, et cetera going for it. Meanwhile Civ 5 has... I'm tempted to say leader screens but when I booted the game up last year I wasn't actually all that impressed by them. I can't think of any other positives it can boast that no other Civ game has, though.

I respectfully disagree. Civ 6 built upon a lot of what Civ 5 introduced, yes, and it has most of the features Civ 5 had. The most succesful continuation for me was of Civ 5's focus on unique civ abilities, and the civ designs are probably my favourite part of Civ 6. The most notable features which are in 5 but not in 6, are probably the "Social Policies" bonus tree, the ideologies, and the cooperative projects, all of which I like. But in terms of having the most features, Civ 6 definitely wins. I don't think that makes it a better game though, as in my opinion, many features and systems are poorly implemented, and detract from the experience more than they add. Religion for example, is more involved than it was in Civ 5, but is it more enjoyable? I'm sure to some it is, but I found it added a lot of micro for relatively little reward. Another example is the World Congress. Civ 5's implementation was not advanced, but it worked. Civ 6's World Congress, in my opinion, is terrible. It takes up more of your time, but gives you less agency, and smaller rewards. You can't influence which resolutions are voted on, or even fully control what you yourself are voting for, due to the ridiculous separation of what action to take, and what the target of the action should be. Furthermore, in Civ 5, the actions you took in World Congress would affect your relationships with other civs, as they would understand if you were helping or hurting them there. In Civ 6, they do not. I feel like the lack of integration between systems is a general problem with Civ 6, which to me seems to have features more or less haphazardly piled on top of each other, each adding more micromanagement, as well as more things which the AI can not utilize properly.

And then, as I mentioned earlier, Civ 5 has Vox Populi, which is a tremendous upgrade to an already very good game. Yes, it's not official content, but I feel it is prominent enough that it deserves consideration. It is also my understanding that Civ 6 could not have a mod of this caliber, due to technical restrictions.

 

[KayAU]

This thread has encouraged me to reinstall 4, while i actually enjoyed 5, like you i spent a disgusting amount of time playing 4. I think i played more of 2 than 4, but that was because i had more free time.

Civ 4 was great, and my second favourite in the series after 5. I don't know if I could go back to vanilla Civ 4 now, but I do kind of miss the Fall from Heaven modpack, which transforms it into an awesome fantasy game with more unique factions and a sort of idelogy system, in the form of D&D moral alignments. If you aren't already familiar with it, I highly recommend it.

 

[KayAU]

For me, I'm a Civ 5 person because I generally don't like any of Civ 6's additions to the game. I'm actually struggling to think of a single thing that Civ 6 added that I liked. I found most of Civ 6's additions to simply be more complexity for the sake of complexity rather than actually improving gameplay. I like districts to an extent in theory, but not in how they were executed.

I like districts in the early game, but think the implementation breaks down somewhere around the middle of the game. In the early game, finding that perfect spot for a campus or commercial hub, and figuring out where to put everything relative to each other is enjoyable to me. I also think it is quite rewarding and impactful.

I think I feel similarly to you about many of Civ 6's additions. A few features I do straight up like, though:
* Unique great people
* Unique city state abilities
* The city loyalty system

 

[Marla_Singer]

Civ5 on release was a DISASTER. [...] Soren Johnson left Firaxis blaming himself for the game's state

That was Jon Shafer (Civ5 lead designer) who did so. And I kind of respect him for that as he told it wasn't his intention to change the game so much. That shows a form of integrity.

Soren Johnson was Civ4 lead designer and he left Firaxis in 2007.

 

[theadder]

It’s worth noting that Shafer now has a string of failured and unreleased but ended projects.

 

[VGT]

That was Jon Shafer (Civ5 lead designer) who did so.

My main memory related to him and civ5 is that if I recall correctly, he wanted to bring multiplayer like experience to single player game. That you would feel that you play with real people instead of AI. Main thing I remember from that was AI players being unpredictable, showing as friends and declaring surprise wars later, which made building diplomatic relation pointless and I hated that coming from civ4. I think this part was toned down during civ5 lifetime.

It’s worth noting that Shafer now has a string of failured and unreleased but ended projects.

From time to time I followed his project "At The Gates" after he left Firaxis, but then forgot about it. Now looking for it again I see it's on Steam, but with negative reviews.

And I see full name of the game is "Jon Shafer's At the Gates". Kinda tiny bit cringe mimicking Sid Meier naming convention.

 

[Marla_Singer]

Hexagons, for example, made the map so much more organic. The time of rivers only turning in right angles was gone.

I know that's a very unpopular opinion in this section of the forum, but I see multiple problems in hexagons: beyond the fact that they contibute to reduce the freedom of movements (only 6 available directions rather than 8), that they lead to much less detailed and interesting maps, the core problem is that they can't be subdivided into smallers hexes (whereas squares can).

As we couldn't subdivide hexes, Firaxis never explored that solution for instance to manage the buildings within a city. Maybe that explains why we end up with Civ7 with an Empire that it's just a large continent-sized urban sprawl. I know some people appreciate but that's not how I perceive a believable world. Now another solution would be to manage elements smaller than a hex without any sub-grid. Maybe that works...

As for rivers, if they would be set in the middle of tiles (as they apparently rightfully are in Civ7), that would mean they could be made with 45° angles in a square map.

 

[Cymsdale]

It’s worth noting that Shafer now has a string of failured and unreleased but ended projects.

At The Gates is disappointing because there seems to be a good game underneath but development died before it came out.

 

[Marla_Singer]

At The Gates is disappointing because there seems to be a good game underneath but development died before it came out.

Yeah he lacked fundings so he developed the game all alone and was forced to release it almost as a prototype. He couldn't finished the project as he would have liked.

 

[ThERat]

Soren Johnson is a great lead designer, none of the games he is/was involved in, are bad or perceived as such. He was the one who elevated Civ3 to C3C, my most favorite iteration of the franchise.
When they developed Civ4, they had a formidable team supporting them, many of them coming from civfanatics. Not sure, what happened internally, but the lead choice for Civ5 was really questionable. Looking at Civ7 at its state at launch, one has to wonder what they did for 8 years. Did they recruit the help of fanatics for their beta testing? Or was there simply not enough time thanks to 2k?

 

[King Flevance]

Looking at Civ7 at its state at launch, one has to wonder what they did for 8 years. Did they recruit the help of fanatics for their beta testing? Or was there simply not enough time thanks to 2k?

I gotta say, I suspect Firaxis is treated like a bastard stepchild of 2K because even though they are market leaders in their field, they are dwarfed by the Rockstar title sales, 2k's huge sports game titles, and Borderlands. Additionally, Bioshock was pulling higher numbers a while back. Civ sales have improved but Civ will probably never pull sales like sports games do. Or sales that GTA and shooters do. Civ fans argue over whether the Phoenicians traveled around Africa, or debate the best historical figures to pair with a civilization. Not which gun is more fun or looks cooler. Some of us still enjoy that, but we are falling into the larger demographic. That larger demographic doesn't often wander into Civ style gameplay. Unfortunately, I think we will always get whatever scraps 2k has left over after prioritizing their major money makers. But on the bright side, 2k seems to have been pretty liberal with Firaxis from what I can tell. Be happy EA isn't the parent company.

 

[Bast]

I gotta say, I suspect Firaxis is treated like a bastard stepchild of 2K because even though they are market leaders in their field, they are dwarfed by the Rockstar title sales, 2k's huge sports game titles, and Borderlands. Additionally, Bioshock was pulling higher numbers a while back. Civ sales have improved but Civ will probably never pull sales like sports games do. Or sales that GTA and shooters do. Civ fans argue over whether the Phoenicians traveled around Africa, or debate the best historical figures to pair with a civilization. Not which gun is more fun or looks cooler. Some of us still enjoy that, but we are falling into the larger demographic. That larger demographic doesn't often wander into Civ style gameplay. Unfortunately, I think we will always get whatever scraps 2k has left over after prioritizing their major money makers. But on the bright side, 2k seems to have been pretty liberal with Firaxis from what I can tell. Be happy EA isn't the parent company.

That's helpful. I never doubted Civ itself or Firaxis but obviously other factors are at play here and it's good to know.

 

[Auraiz]

Using steam metrics to compare Civ 5 vs Civ6 vs Civ7 is about as useful as comparing any of them to Civ3. Apples and oranges. Different times. Different internet culture. Different way people use steam and the reviews themselves.

If Civ 5 was released with today's ecosystem transported to back then, I'm pretty sure the reviews would be between 40% and 60%. 1UPT was super controversial, for both hysterical emotional reasons ( I fell into this group) as well as legitimate ones. It was super unbalanced. The game was super bland. 2 or 3 horse archers could beat diety ai. Embarked units couldn't stack with naval units (hard to explain how frustrating this was given how log jammed the map felt already as it was)

So yeah. Theres also millions of more Civ players now, and more people around to complain, in a social media and internet landscape that literally turns negativity into money.

 

[AD1730]

I know that's a very unpopular opinion in this section of the forum, but I see multiple problems in hexagons: beyond the fact that they contibute to reduce the freedom of movements (only 6 available directions rather than 8), that they lead to much less detailed and interesting maps, the core problem is that they can't be subdivided into smallers hexes (whereas squares can).

As we couldn't subdivide hexes, Firaxis never explored that solution for instance to manage the buildings within a city. Maybe that explains why we end up with Civ7 with an Empire that it's just a large continent-sized urban sprawl. I know some people appreciate but that's not how I perceive a believable world. Now another solution would be to manage elements smaller than a hex without any sub-grid. Maybe that works...

As for rivers, if they would be set in the middle of tiles (as they apparently rightfully are in Civ7), that would mean they could be made with 45° angles in a square map.

Hexes were a good change, but they've run their course. I am surprised that tile shape wasn't changed for Civ 7.