Who else agrees that Civ 5 has been dumbed down?

[PieceOfMind]

Welcome to the forums. You seem to understand the situation perfectly.

The game has been dumbed down/watered down/streamlined for the mass market. The console version is coming. We all know it.

I'm just curious. Apart from welcoming a new member, what is the purpose you are trying to achieve with posting that sort of thing?

 

[Saarud]

People already complain about the time it takes the Pc have to "compute" things. How much longer should they wait when they make the AI smarter ?
I think alot longer, if you want to give any "real intelligence" at all. Take Chess, for example. The "smarter" you want the computer chess machine to play, the longer you have to wait for a turn; each turn. And that's just another reason why we don't gonna see a smart AI in games like this. Not unless you are willing to wait 15 minutes or so.
So it's not only a matter of "if they code the AI well", the time it takes to process "this enhanced code" is just as important.

Well Massive Assault has somewhat similiar combat system as CIV 5 and the AI performs superbly. Many times better than CIV 5 and I am certain that the CIV 5 AI will be enhanced alot in the future. When it has been enhanced (and balanced some more) people will see that the game actually has been smarted up from CIV 4.

Check Massive Assault out.

 

[fathertuck]

As I wrote in another thread, a name doesn't make the game. It seems that many forum members think they HAVE to like ciV just because of it's name. Civilization1 became popular in the first place because it was a good game, and that is the reason why the name civilization got it's reputation. But that doesn't mean that whenever a gaming company puts out a new game with civilization in it's titel, it's automatically going to be a good game. This is probably the main reason to all the negative comments about ciV, people thought the name would make the game. Well, it didn't.

 

[Thormodr]

I'm just curious. Apart from welcoming a new member, what is the purpose you are trying to achieve with posting that sort of thing?

I welcomed him and agreed with his assessment of the new product. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Thormodr]

As I wrote in another thread, a name doesn't make the game. It seems that many forum members think they HAVE to like ciV just because of it's name. Civilization1 became popular in the first place because it was a good game, and that is the reason why the name civilization got it's reputation. But that doesn't mean that whenever a gaming company puts out a new game with civilization in it's titel, it's automatically going to be a good game. This is probably the main reason to all the negative comments about ciV, people thought the name would make the game. Well, it didn't.

Spot on. I like that phrase, "A name doesn't make a game."

 

[PieceOfMind]

I welcomed him and agreed with his assessment of the new product. Nothing more, nothing less.

You're doing more than just agreeing with someone. You're making a statement of your own. Surely you are able to see that? It's in regards to your statement that I'm trying to work out what it is you want to achieve.

As I wrote in another thread, a name doesn't make the game. It seems that many forum members think they HAVE to like ciV just because of it's name.

It seems that many forum members think they HAVE to hate civ5 just because it's not as good as civ4.

 

[SidMeierGroupy]

Well, I was trying to explain to you why your remarks were perceived as insulting. Given that this just triggered another snide reply, I can only guess you're either not all that interested in bringing your thoughts across in a constructive way, or simply enjoy the battle that you're fueling by insulting a whole customer group. I'll keep trying though - there's always the odd person out who's willing to question his former behavior, and to take a step back even when in the middle of a heated battle. Which makes the attempt worthwhile.

First of all: shut up. Really, you don't need to -and aren't able to- explain anything to anyone about what people post. This is a fourm for a videogame franchise, not psychoanalysis. Second, go back to the original thead topic. Any more rubbish will be reported.

Moderator Action: Flaming
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[tom2050]

You're doing more than just agreeing with someone. You're making a statement of your own. Surely you are able to see that? It's in regards to your statement that I'm trying to work out what it is you want to achieve.

I think it's pretty obvious what Thormodr was getting at, Thormodr thinks that a console version of Civ 5 is on the way, as Thormodr stated.

One may ask, what are you trying to achieve by asking why someone thinks a console version is on the way? It's very possible, Console's are a cash cow just waiting to be tapped. And since 2K seems to like being in financial woes, they would love to console'ize Civ 5 to reap the unearned rewards (2K's unearned rewards) of Firaxis effort (earned rewards).

-----
If Civilization 5 was made by another company and the game was called 'People of Earth 1', it would have IMO received far inferior review scores than it did, and would have been rated a good looking but unfinished game with MP problems, bad AI, unpolished and rushed release.

Much of the high review scores, as was brought up by others, was based solely on the name Civilization itself, by the name SID, and not on the game's merits.

 

[Bataknese]

getting hotter and hotter...

i haven't try Civ 5. usually i will buy the game after several months. it should have been patched for some degree...
currently still modding with Civ 4

 

[Kadath]

People already complain about the time it takes the Pc have to "compute" things. How much longer should they wait when they make the AI smarter ?
I think alot longer, if you want to give any "real intelligence" at all. Take Chess, for example. The "smarter" you want the computer chess machine to play, the longer you have to wait for a turn; each turn. And that's just another reason why we don't gonna see a smart AI in games like this. Not unless you are willing to wait 15 minutes or so.
So it's not only a matter of "if they code the AI well", the time it takes to process "this enhanced code" is just as important.

What i am saying is; suppose they could "fix" it, they still can't use it because there are only a handfull of people patient enough to wait several minutes every time the pc-player have to compute things. So while they could do "something" , it will never be good enough. That's my point.

And yes, fighting it out in the old SOD-stack way is not what i am waiting for either. What i prefer is a new system, with the option to park more units on a tile (like a army = 1 unit = multiple units). It ain't SOD , the old way. It should be new, refreshing. TW-style Army's. Not exactly Like that, but someting in that direction.

This is no doubt a relevant factor to take into account, you're absolutely right. However, as Saarud pointed out, it's absolutely achievable. I don't know Massive Assault myself, but it's pretty clear CIV5 AI is more or less the old one (or at least it was done with a much similar approach) suited for stacks, not for 1upt.
Also, I might be one of the few it seems, but for me CIV5 turns are MUCH FASTER than CIV4 ones ever been, by a long shot. Which is kinda obvious when there aren't 2.000 units around the world, but only one hundred or so. Standard maps are always fast, even in the modern era (they slowed down for me in CIV4), and huge ones are still playable, even if a bit slow, something I never had the chance to play past the Middle Ages in CIV4.

Now, what could be the realistic issue in enhancing the AI so that it takes into account more variables to field its army in a more believable - and fun - way? Longer turns because the engine actually makes these considerations for every unit everywhere in the world. In the typical fantasy TBS/tactical game (or in the total war series), instead, the tactical combat is portrayed in a whole standalone environment, with world map battles just emulated, so that they don't put any strain on the system. While in CIV everything happens in the world map (a coherent but rather overambitious design imho), it wouldn't be impossible to make it so that what happens under the fog of war stays under the fog of war: aka, is calculated in a much simplier way. As you can't form alliances that constantly keep foreign territories revealed, only engagements done by the player (and possibly some allied city states) would call for the full process. No need to consider unit movement, terrain advantages, formations and so on when the battle is between two AIs on the other continent, just quickly emulate 'em with rules like the ones used now, if not even more streamlined. No one is going to notice, anyway, when he's not personally involved.


That aside, no doubt I still like the Age of Wonders approach a lot more. Limited stacks, and a whole separate environment for DEEP tactical combat. But this has never been the CIV way of thinking about battles, so one has to reason within the boundaries of an engine which is not, honestly, optimized for that kind of gameplay.

 

[CornPlanter]

It seems that many forum members think they HAVE to hate civ5 just because it's not as good as civ4.

It certainly seems this way. And it does no good for Civ5, because (1) legit criticism is lost in the sea of hate/whining and (2) many people don't bother with posting legit criticism/complaints/questions because "there's enough hate already".

 

[PieceOfMind]

I think it's pretty obvious what Thormodr was getting at, Thormodr thinks that a console version of Civ 5 is on the way, as Thormodr stated.

One may ask, what are you trying to achieve by asking why someone thinks a console version is on the way? It's very possible, Console's are a cash cow just waiting to be tapped. And since 2K seems to like being in financial woes, they would love to console'ize Civ 5 to reap the unearned rewards (2K's unearned rewards) of Firaxis effort (earned rewards).

-----
If Civilization 5 was made by another company and the game was called 'People of Earth 1', it would have IMO received far inferior review scores than it did, and would have been rated a good looking but unfinished game with MP problems, bad AI, unpolished and rushed release.

Much of the high review scores, as was brought up by others, was based solely on the name Civilization itself, by the name SID, and not on the game's merits.

Sorry tom, but I'd prefer to rely on Thormodr's answer to the question I asked him.

It certainly seems this way. And it does no good for Civ5, because (1) legit criticism is lost in the sea of hate/whining and (2) many people don't bother with posting legit criticism/complaints/questions because "there's enough hate already".

Indeed. This is why I'm asking Thormodr about what he is trying to achieve.

 

[Guardian_PL]

Reply to Guardian_PL and Kadath:

Spoiler :

I guess Fallout makes the Polish people remember how Poland was after WW2, how bad can be a war. Forgive me if I'm saying something stupid.



Well, I think Civ V is as much different from Civ IV as Fallout 3 is from 2. Firaxis is not a different software house, but I doubt Sid, the creator, has taken any part at Civ V.



Fallout seems to me Oblivion with guns named fallout. Not that I dont like Oblivion, but they shouldn't name it Fallout. As the new Panzer General is not so bad game, but they shouldn't name it as Civ V.



I hope so, but I remain skeptical.

Sorry for the offtopic, guys.

Spoiler :

No, it's actually quite plausible that WWII thing, might also explain why WWII games/movies are very popular in here. Where're you from? Very interesting observation of yours...

...You keep talking about Fallout3, please stop giving me hope

Any game that comes from Bethe$da serves only one purpose - to earn as much money as possible at the least work involved. It's 90% marketing, 10% game design.
I gave up on Oblivion when I had to spend whole afternoon installing various mods only to make this piece of junk mildly playable for couple of weeks

Indeed, sorry for offtopic, it stops now.

And not that I like to put the oil to the flames, but I think that Thormodr is right - his criticism that vanilla Civ5 is a "good foundation" like JS said indicates to me that all this streamlining is preparation to port the title on consoles. I don't really mind that - I mean, the more civfans, the better but my only gripe is that I'm a PC player, I've paid money for a finished product (heh, even for the "deluxe" edition, with which I can't even play online with anybody ) and I hadn't got it.

Streamline all you want, just make the game (put random curses in here), not a modding platform!

 

[Senethro]

Sorry tom, but I'd prefer to rely on Thormodr's answer to the question I asked him.

Indeed. This is why I'm asking Thormodr about what he is trying to achieve.

Surely you've been moderating for long enough now to see that the mindset doesn't want to achieve anything and is just seeking sympathy and validation in their petulant raging against a chosen bugbear. This can be 2K, Jon Schafer, the beta testers, the games industry, or how nostalgia isn't as good as it used to be.

There's a bunch of modders out there dissatisfied with the game who are trying to improve it. That's productive.

There's people making detailed analysis of balance problems or of the game experience. This also is productive.

I don't quite see what Thormodrs snide one-liner posts in every thread aim to achieve. I assume he's just addicted to rage and enjoys posting angry.

Moderator Action: Please don't personally insult other members, keep the discussion to the topic at hand. Thanks.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Horizons]

Civ4 with ranged bombard and Civ5 would have been completely unnecessary

 

[n0rse]

I did not mean to open a can of worms here but from what I have read Thormodr is equally frustrated with the release of V as am I .

That said, nothing can really change the state of V from what it is. The only thing in my eyes which can somewhat better the game is the modding community, which in the end is somewhat reassuring but still does not justify the product that has been released. How long this will take who knows.

Also in this moment of time I currently regret having purchased V solely with the assumption that the game being based on the civ series. Usually in a franchise or series you try to better a product taking things from previous releases and polishing them and making them better. To me from what I have played they are trying to reinvent the wheel here. I know from experience that if we did this at work with our code/product and service line it would be a disaster and we would not have any customers left. I just do not get it , and this seems to be an ongoing trend with game developers and publishers across the board these last few years. Others have stated a name doesn't make a game and in this case rightfully and regrettably so (imho).

The other technical issues can only be worked out by firaxis. I have had the game almost 3 weeks now and it is still not playable in its entirety on a nvidia 8800. Seeking help in the 2k tech forum has brought nothing but frustration and flames from other users their, now to the point where I just gave up and will wait until something happens ie. patch or whatever.

Anyways to sum it up I am glad to have found this page and currently I am having more fun with bts and the mod from this forum " a new dawn", than the half game of V I just purchased for 50 €.

Just for kicks I bet if half the users who played these mods donated 50€ to the modders, the community would have a better product than the product they just bought from 2k for 50€.

This was not meant to be a flame or anything of the like, it is just my opinion.

 

[afa2000]

Reply to Guardian PL:

Spoiler :

I'm from Brazil, but I used to interact with PLs playing MMOs. I've seen even a PL guild named FALLOUT . I usually like (actually, the word is something close to identification, but my poor english doesn't let me express the way I want) the culture and the people from eastern europe because of the sensibility (again, dont know if that's the correct word) and the strong social criticism that have been developed after years of pain. That's why I like some of the writers who come from there: Dostoyevsky, Tolstoy, Bauman, etc.

/offtopic.

Surely you've been moderating for long enough now to see that the mindset doesn't want to achieve anything and is just seeking sympathy and validation in their petulant raging against a chosen bugbear. This can be 2K, Jon Schafer, the beta testers, the games industry, or how nostalgia isn't as good as it used to be.

There's a bunch of modders out there dissatisfied with the game who are trying to improve it. That's productive.

There's people making detailed analysis of balance problems or of the game experience. This also is productive.

I don't quite see what Thormodrs snide one-liner posts in every thread aim to achieve. I assume he's just addicted to rage and enjoys posting angry.

That "psychological analysis" of a particular CFC member, trying to manipulate the moderators against him, does not seem productive to me either.

 

[Thormodr]

You're doing more than just agreeing with someone. You're making a statement of your own. Surely you are able to see that? It's in regards to your statement that I'm trying to work out what it is you want to achieve.




It seems that many forum members think they HAVE to hate civ5 just because it's not as good as civ4.

By agreeing with someone you are generally making a statement. You are making a mountain out of a molehill.

ciV sucks, is a disgrace to the series and has been dumbed down. There's a few more statements that I'm sure many will agree with. Likely a majority.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Plus once again an apologist misses the mark completely.

People don't hate ciV because it's not as good as cIV. (Even though it isn't)

People hate it for many reasons which are completely justified. As tom2050 said, the only reason it got good reviews at all was because of its name.

It's a half finished, bugged, unbalanced, boring game not worthy of the name Civilization.

 

[Charvel1]

ciV sucks, is a disgrace to the series and has been dumbed down.

No it doesn't; no, it's not; no, it hasn't.

 

[Krall]

No it doesn't; no, it's not; no, it hasn't.

So why is Firaxis now in the process of fixing it?

Seriously, people hate on the complainers, but if they didn't complain would Firaxis/2K be doing anything to improve what they released into the wild?