1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

What Is Your Opinion of Civilization 5 As of Today

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by Akasen, May 15, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. PhilBowles

    PhilBowles Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2011
    Messages:
    5,258
    I think this is the best summary on the thread of the game's current state, although a month and a half before a major expansion is probably a premature time to make this kind of thread at all. A few points I'd make:

    1. Religion. It strikes me less that the system is gamey and more that some of the options are. The idea of a faith system is good, and it's nicely-done that many religious effects relate to increasing faith, which increases plausibly religious effects such as missionary generation, temple construction, crusader recruitment (Holy Warriors) and religious tithes. Having the ability to manage the way your religion spreads is good.

    In general it is more realistic that you can have cities with dominant religions, and that cities within a civ may have different ones, than it is that all religions are represented equally (as in Civ IV), or that however far your religious influence spreads in another civ, you'll be equally hated if that religion happens not to be the state religion.

    The downside is effects like science, food and production from effects with quasi-mystical descriptions, faith-buying of Great People, and faith healing is a worse offender still - this is where it seems "gamey". And while Civ V's follower system more dynamically represents religious representation within cities than Civ IV's system, Civ V's binary approach to religious effects (a city only benefits from the effects of the dominant religion) is too simplistic. The most interesting unique in Brave New World in my view is the Indonesian candi, which generates an amount of faith that varies with the number of religions represented in the city. More effects of that kind would be a welcome addition to the system.

    Religion is certainly not as irrelevant to diplomacy as is often made out. Spreading religion to a civ with its own religion is frowned upon, and this system could be expanded (greater penalties for sending missionaries to holy cities, say, penalties for competing for the favour of city states with religious spread to them, and diplomatic sanctions by civs that have adopted a religion - as the system stands, only civs that actually give birth to a religion object to you spreading yours to their territory). The 'different religion' penalty and 'shared religion' bonus exist, but don't often come into play because they rely on converting the majority of cities in a civ, and the diplomatic reward by itself is not worth the investment needed to convert so many cities. This lack of religious tension isn't as unrealistic as people often perceive it, but simply in game terms the diplomatic effects of spreading religion should be more pronounced to reward religious expansion and penalise 'losing' the religion game.

    2. City states. Late in the game espionage is a key player in keeping CSes. If you invest in them for long enough and focus on keeping them on-side with both quests and regular election rigging, those late-game coups that frustrate people simply don't happen because you have too much influence. Conquering them (or declaring war while allied with them) also removes the ability for others to turn them against you with gold. The AI also knows most of these tricks, and I've had games where some have actively conspired to try and capture my city-states by force in advance of a UN vote (unfortunately the AI's near-complete inability to capture cities in the late game is a barrier to success). My most engaging late games in Civ V have often been contesting control of city-states.

    In isolation this would be true, but unlike Civ IV maintenance happiness is not just a constraint on ICS, it's also a constraint on population growth within cities - so you have to juggle favouring one vs. the other depending on context. Civ V hasn't succeeded in making tall empires fully as viable as wide ones, but it's come a lot closer than earlier Civ games. The "spam colosseums and theatres" trick worked to control unhappiness in Civ IV as well. There's also the less-appreciated flipside, that Civ V happiness is not a pure management mechanic which exists to set a penalty, there are also rewards for playing in a way that gives you excess happiness (i.e. golden ages). In Civ IV, all you wanted to do with either happiness or maintenance was ensure that they weren't negative, you got no particular benefits from a positive happiness score or (for most of the game) a positive income.

    Although I agree that there are too many options for happiness management with G&K. If you don't use Ceremonial Burial or go heavy religion, managing happiness can still be an issue limiting city growth.

    This is true, but the extent to which it's a bad thing depends on your perspective. Less instant adaptability means a greater emphasis on long-term planning. In Civ V, if you have a struggling or nose-diving economy it's because you've overstretched on building too many buildings (and therefore probably too many cities) or too many units too fast. This is also generally the case in Civ IV, but has a "quick fix", albeit a fix that may cost you in the long term if you don't resolve the underlying issue.

    Which is probably the same answer you'd have been given at the same stage in Civ III or Civ IV's life cycle.
     
  2. pilot00

    pilot00 King

    Joined:
    May 21, 2013
    Messages:
    917
    I know people who would buy lollipops that taste crap. So what? Sales are not the only medium with which you compare success. There have been games that today are considered the epitome of their genres and at their time they were ignored.
    Yet now they are considered all time classics. Nothing to do with sales at all.
    A flawed product is a flawed product no matter its sales. And CiV 5 was and continues to be flawed.
    Also I dont say that the fact that it needed the expansion is what made it flawed, I am saying the fact that it needed the expansion and 100 patches to fix the mess is what it makes it flawed.

    Pretty easy to wrap it all on the 'you dont like the game' but I am sorry to say that you are making an erroneous assumption :D
    I am a fan of CiV since the 1st and I pretty much play this one on a daily basis. That doesn't mean I am blind though.

    Obviously not quoted fully for saving space.

    Or we are not on either of those boats and we just understand that there have been flaws/mistakes over three years on the game we like. Yet we are willing to support it, but that doesn't mean we will close our eyes.
     
  3. PreLynMax

    PreLynMax Your Lord and Master

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2008
    Messages:
    1,325
    Location:
    In the depths of computer hell...
    The lack of sliders is what gave Civ 5 an advantage, and I rather build a market than getting to 0%, and inevitably, lose the tech war. The slider system is what BROKE Civ IV, and should never, ever, EVER be implicated in future Civ games.
     
  4. Ninakoru

    Ninakoru A deity on Emperor

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2002
    Messages:
    658
    Location:
    Madrid, Spain, Europe
    The game was released much like a beta version, too much bugs and poor streamlined mechanics, but they tuned the game quite well on G&K. At current state is fine, but there's plenty of room for improvement (I guess they have purposedly waited to such improvement for the new expansion). To put if briefly:

    The good
    ---------
    - Hex system, love it and graphics look better with it.
    - 1UPT system is great
    - Great diversity and pretty good work in the mechanics (resources, religion, diplomacy)

    The bad
    --------
    - Diplomacy is horrible. You end up ignoring diplomacy with AI and work with CS witch won't backstab you.
    - 1UPT comes with stupid AI, specially stupid on water and air warfare.
    - Ranged units own the game badly.
    - Difficulty bonuses are just letting the com spam units and buildings with all kind of bonuses and without happiness restrictions. They should have worked it a little bit more, Deity is plain unfair to play and you have to play one specific abusing every trick available to get your win.
    - Game is worked in a way the win is mostly decided by medieval era, little room for surprises.
     
  5. EMT

    EMT Hated by the Spaniards(?)

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2009
    Messages:
    467
    Well, I think Civ V has the potential to top IV, but it's nowhere close to that yet.

    Pros:
    -Civ V's hex tiles are superior
    -The combat is superior in most ways to IV
    -The game is a lot more synergistic overall
    -The early game is a blast

    Cons:
    -The late game is boring as hell, tech tree is all war techs in the late game
    -The AI/Diplomacy in this game is still mediocre at best
    -No culture wars for tiles
    -It lacks Civ IV's many paths to victory; there's more or less a route that you should always follow, while in Civ IV there were things such as the specialist economy, cottage whoring, etc.
     
  6. blackcatatonic

    blackcatatonic Queen of Meme

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2012
    Messages:
    3,332
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    UK
    Good to know it's not just me!

    Yes, I've seen this situation many times. I've often seen the AI do this even when it physically cannot get its units to the enemy's territory! :crazyeye:
     
  7. pilot00

    pilot00 King

    Joined:
    May 21, 2013
    Messages:
    917
    The slider system was in every civ though, such as the citizen management (not allocation) and they were working fine IMHO. I am in favor of buildings generating percentages of gold and science but those are not news, they existed before.

    The slider allowed you to customize your empire and sacrifice x for z. Now its not like that, you don't have the option and IMHO not having options is a bad thing.

    I agree its much more simpler but I would like my sliders back to be honest :mischief: at least as an option checked before a game start.
     
  8. tomtom5858

    tomtom5858 Prince

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2013
    Messages:
    320
    No way. There's another way you can sacrifice x for z: build buildings of that type. You won't develop in the others as quickly. You seem to think that you should just be able to flip your empire around on the tuurn of a dime--NO. All this does is encourage bad planning, and that's a bad design decision. Plan for the future, and only build the buildings that you need. This way, sliders are not necessary. In addition, it reduces pointless micromanaging to find the most efficient distribution of gold and science.
     
  9. Justice1337

    Justice1337 Sofa King

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2008
    Messages:
    365
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    Yeah, sliders are bad design.

    They don't really give you any options when the best thing to do with them is ALWAYS emphasize tech. What they really do is give you the option of turning inferior inputs into tech, which allows a player to make up for bad decisions in empire planning. This actually gives you fewer options because no matter what you do, you're going to be pushing tech with whatever you built, and so your only option is pushing tech. In Civ V you're not only held to the decisions you make, but there are also ways to win that don't involve just pushing tech.

    On the metric of sales as success, I wasn't trying to suggest that any game that sells is good, or that any game that doesn't sell is bad. I'm just emphasizing that most people "like" the game, but most people don't have a fanatical fervor for it.

    So satisfying the few at the expense of the many isn't a leap forward in design. Sometimes I think that certain people aren't going to feel satisfied with the game unless there are two dozen sub-menus replete with graphs, the spaghetti monster diplomacy screen of Civ IV, a combat system that takes a college-level course to understand, etc. Most people just want a game that they can play as it comes out of the box. And Civ should be made for the many, not the few.
     
  10. pilot00

    pilot00 King

    Joined:
    May 21, 2013
    Messages:
    917
    Not at all. I have yet to play a game where I cant manage every building I need. There is a very specific build path. The only thing that can force you to deviate from it are two things: Terrain (tiles) and how much you care for faith. Once you deal with both of those the recepie is the same. Sliders provide more options. If you want to play the game in a non relaxed way/power play all the decisions have been made for you as it is now.

    Because now we don't emphasize tech? Or did I miss the memo and there is better way to play? Which is the victory that doesnt involve tech?
    As for the many vs few argument. Turn 180 victory and micromanagement-> few
    Turn 300+-> Many. :D
    If you don't want to touch the slider you don't have to. Just like everything else that is been micromanaged in the current incarnation.
    You don't need to worry though, it will never be implemented, its just my opinion that it should have been there as an optional.
     
  11. DarthSheldonPhD

    DarthSheldonPhD Warlord

    Joined:
    May 20, 2013
    Messages:
    202
    Like many here, the fact that I'm still playing civ5, and exclusively so, this long after its release says quite a bit about it. Then again, when a proportional amount of time had passed since civ4 came out, I was playing that exclusively as well, and IIRC I was having more fun doing so.
    The accolades and complaints have already been listed. Hooray for hex tiles, but they were really only necessary to accommodate 1UPT. Espionage bombed - it's funny how G&K adopted two major elements, religion and espionage, and one worked so well and the other so poorly Oh well, easily fixed by turning espionage off. Dice-rolling diplomacy is obnoxious.

    In an alternate universe where civ4 came out after civ5, I think it's conceivable to view Civ4 as the next generation of Civ5, improved technology (graphics, etc) aside. The same probably couldn't be said for civ3-civ4.

    To make a Star Wars anaology, Civ4 was Empire and Civ5 is Revenge of Sith. Great battle between Anakin and Obi-wan but really? Doesn't stand up to Empire. For the record, civ1 = new hope, civ3 = jedi, and colonizations= the other movies not worth mentioning.
     
  12. adwcta

    adwcta King

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2012
    Messages:
    889
    Location:
    New York City, USA
    Diplomacy in this game is actually pretty good.

    I'm a huge game theorist and love screwing with the AI to manipulate it to ultimately aid my victory (by offering it logical short term gains for seemingly neutral "costs", which I design to create a web in which I come out far ahead overall when all other AIs are considered).

    I think this game strikes a brilliant balance between an overall hyper-logical structure (that characterize most game AIs), a small % of random decisions (much like rolling a 1 on a 20-sided dice; to keep things fun), and hints of transparency with deception, rather than 100% transparency or opaqueness. It's quite frankly imo the best part about this game. It's manipulat-able, but each interaction is a huge puzzle wrapped in a mind game where you have to analyze each civ's past actions, current positions, the hints you get about its current/future actions (love intrigue), etc., each time you make a move. And, if you do it exactly right, you can still bend the overall AI to your will and get 50+ turn notices of what the AI is planning to do 95% of the time. But if you mess up, or analyze wrong, the AI can really screw you. The problem people have with the AI diplomacy is that the AI is too GOOD at it (i.e. better than you, screwing you over), the opposite problem as with the AI's military strategy, which is simply awful (i.e. worse than a 5 year old, screwing itself over).

    Some of the diplo weights are a bit off kilter in terms of how they reflect reality (or at least my perception of it), the warmonger mechanic is heavily broken with city-states (but that can partially be justified by the game's desire to keep CSs alive), and AI still doesn't take %chance to war into account in its trades, but the overall structure is wonderful for replay-ability if you don't mind paying attention.

    Although, I can 100% see how someone who's not good at game-theory analysis, or playing the game very fast, or not observing the AI's actions (and diplo text) in relation to its past actions AND other civs, thinking that the system is much more random/finicky than it actually is. If you ignore the tools the game gives you to conduct diplomacy, then you're just not very good at diplomacy. In CivV, diplomacy isn't optional unless you're a total warmonger.... diplomacy is vitally integrated into every other play-style and victory condition, and most people just do not pay it the attention/respect it deserves and suffer for it as a consequence.
     
  13. Luziadus

    Luziadus Warlord

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2011
    Messages:
    269
    the new expansion will save Civ V and will bring more people to the game.
     
  14. pilot00

    pilot00 King

    Joined:
    May 21, 2013
    Messages:
    917
    Save it might be a rather....harsh word. Its a decent game (right now). It got saved by GKs. Making what it was supposed to be but maybe.
     
  15. jjkrause84

    jjkrause84 King

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2010
    Messages:
    959
    Location:
    UK
    I have no plans on playing Civ 5 again, and very likely will not buy the expansion pack. I was a huge Civ 4 fan (still play it with mates) and I think Civ 5 took too many things out of the game without adding in enough to replace it. It still feels hollow to me. I think more and more games will feel this way in the coming years. We're past the golden ages of gaming where games were made for gamers, by gamers. Now it is just another large entertainment industry which means growing budgets (which is good!) and shrinking standards (not so good). Oh well...at least EU4 is coming out soon!

    Side note on sliders: I never understood why anyone would dislike them (Except to say that they could have been more granular and given more options). What it did was simultaneously give you short-term and long-term planning ability. In Civ 5 this is gone: there is ONLY long-term planning. Not only does this mean that small mistakes can be very difficult to correct, but you lose a whole range of interesting choices (i.e. do I pour all my money into research, do I pull back a little and slowly hoard up gold, do I forsake research for 2-3 turns so I can quickly amass a fortune and upgrade my units, etc.)
     
  16. Funky

    Funky Emperor

    Joined:
    May 26, 2012
    Messages:
    1,290
    Furthermore, every game which deals with managing an economy, be it SimCity or Civilization, should have a budget (or slider) to manage the distribution of resources into the various economical fields, depending on strategy and preference. It's probably the most intrinsic, core feature of the entire genre. That Civ 5 left it out is nothing but appalling, and it indicates shockingly the design team's serious lack of understanding the genre they are working in.
     
  17. neilmeister

    neilmeister Lentils have feelings too GOTM Staff

    Joined:
    May 4, 2007
    Messages:
    6,491
    Location:
    Australia
    i know i am a civ4 fan, but i would like to see a few more people than those with 50 posts state that civ3/4/5 is the best.

    I have played Civ for 20 years, through 1, 2 and 3 (got stuck on 3 for a while) and eventually 4. Civ5 looks like watching a movie knowing that the plot is hollow.
     
  18. rschissler

    rschissler King

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2003
    Messages:
    788
    Location:
    So. Cal, USA
    What he said! :goodjob:
     
  19. gingerbill

    gingerbill Prince

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2005
    Messages:
    335
    I think CIV5 might be my favourite single player game of all time , i love it. I'm holding off playing till the next DLC , hard to resist starting up a new game.

    CIV4BTS and CIV5 both great games , CIV5 impresses me as they managed to change it a lot and not just make the same game all over again , it was brave to make so many changes.
     
  20. strijder20

    strijder20 Wallowing in irony

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    Messages:
    5,047
    Location:
    In Dystopia
    Improved a lot from the beginning, still slightly worse than Civ4 BtS. Exp might change that.
    Religion has been changed from a dull system (which was still a net gain over no religion though) to something really interesting and fun.

    Combat in the late game has been changed into one huge slogfest, and it was already micro-intensive in Civ4, so despite the merits of 1UPT, that's a large flaw.

    Diplomacy has been improved, but only just barely. The AIs have been changed from logical, consistent computers to some kind of chaotic semi-humans.

    Sliders was better than the current system, IMHO (more depth and possibility for changes), and weird as it sounds, the building maintenance really shouldn't have been implemented like this. I rather have an invisible system like Civ 4's inflation than something like this which continually reminds me that I'm paying money for building those fancy universities and amphitheatres.

    Tourism sounds really fun, Espionage has been made less complex (using the positive meaning of complex) but also less micro-intensive.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page