Who else is refraining from hanging out in Civ forums?

[Buccaneer]

I am enjoying playing Civ5 and I am enjoying reading the many threads here.

 

[Bad Brett]

Obviously you can't criticise things anymore without being called a "hater".

Some people enjoy Civ V and I'm really happy for them. And you're right that Civ IV was buggy when it came out. But it doesn't change the facts...

Here are the facts:

- Today the game is full of bugs
- Today the game is unbalanced
- Today the "improved" UI has issues we haven't seen since Civ II
- Today the AI can't handle the new battle mechanics
- Today the game is poorly optimized (The graphics aren't that much more advanced than in Civ:Col, but even on a really good computer, the loading times are really long)

Whether or not Civ IV was buggy isn't relevant. These issues are so big and will not be fixed in a single patch. Also remember that Civ IV was the first 3D Civ games, so it was easier to understand back then that they had problems with some GPU's.

And finally, it's disgusting that they call a game "a big, sloppy, kiss to the fans" and then force the same fans to install Steam, a program that gains complete control over the game.

 

[stethnorun]

You're evading the question again. I also did read the thread, and I see a pretty mixed response to your post.

Anyway. You started a thread complaining about complainers (which is self-defeating in itself), making strong claims without providing any evidence, and when asked for evidence, claim that the person asking "didn't get your point" and that you're "not interested in a debate". Okay. So you don't want do discuss your claims, you just wanted to vent your dissatisfaction with the opinions currently prevalent in the forum. You're doing the same thing as the people you complain about. While other people vent their dissatisfaction about the game, you vent your dissatisfaction about their opinion, and at the same time complain that an intelligent discussion is barely possible.

As already said, it's a self-defeating position. It's perfectly okay that you like the game (good for you). It's understandable that you don't like constant criticism levied against something you like. I just wanted you to understand that you're doing the same thing as the people you complain about (while harshly criticizing them for their behavior).

Well I don't agree and I don't feel like debating the point. So, moving on...

 

[stethnorun]

Obviously you can't criticise things anymore without being called a "hater".

Some people enjoy Civ V and I'm really happy for them. And you're right that Civ IV was buggy when it came out. But it doesn't change the facts...

Here are the facts:

- Today the game is full of bugs
- Today the game is unbalanced
- Today the "improved" UI has issues we haven't seen since Civ II
- Today the AI can't handle the new battle mechanics
- Today the game is poorly optimized (The graphics aren't that much more advanced than in Civ:Col, but even on a really good computer, the loading times are really long)

Whether or not Civ IV was buggy isn't relevant. These issues are so big and will not be fixed in a single patch. Also remember that Civ IV was the first 3D Civ games, so it was easier to understand back then that they had problems with some GPU's.

And finally, it's disgusting that they call a game "a big, sloppy, kiss to the fans" and then force the same fans to install Steam, a program that gains complete control over the game.

This is a great example of why debate is useless. You don't want to be called a hater, but then use hyperbole to make a point. I'm not going to debate your points because they are extremely overstated and hyperbolic. I just wanted to say, the reason you are called a hater by some is because you do hate. You don't objectively, calmly evaluate. You bring disappointment and anger and hurt feelings into it. How do I know that? Because looking at the reviews across the board, they are way out of line with your views. Games that are horrible just don't get 90 on Metacritic. Even if 1 or 2 reviews are biased, you can't possibly make the claim that they are ALL biased. And if you had a shred of objectivity in you, you would see that while there are some polish issues, the game is solid, even if you don't like it.

There are plenty of games that are polished and I don't like at all. Street Fighter type games, Blizzard RTS games and WoW, etc etc. I really dislike these games, but I would never claim that they are poorly made. This is what separates a hater from a reasoned appraiser.

 

[zonk]

The most funny part is that most of the complains about Civ5 also apply to Civ4, but the critics often fail to notice that

I don't think that's really true --

The IV complaints were heavily weighted towards system requirements/initial misstatement of system requirements, with a fair smattering of the "AI is too dumb to do X" tossed in.

The V complaints are much more heavily weighted basic gameplay, with a lot of "AI is to dumb to do X".

The nature of the complaints in IV vs. V seems a lot different than III vs. IV.

 

[Beld]

No I haven't been avoiding the forums, I'm a civ fanatic after all!

I dont know... I mean aren't we all just used to this cycle of:

hype>anticipation>dissapointment>begrudging acceptance>patches>mods>expansions=LOVE IT!

Happened to me with all my favs (esp since broadband made it so easy to have a patch cycle, before that I just sorta dealt with it, like Ultima series or Civ1-2 and Colonization and all the other stuff in the 90s)

All I have to say is... I was looking forward to two turn based strategy games this year. Elemental really failed to hit the mark (I'll bet it will be good after some patches), but Civ5 has been more than worth the investment in time and money. I can't wait for mods that will fix all my gripes, and expansion packs that will add more functionality... but until then, it's just fine! Bugs are a part of PC gaming, but so is complaining about them. Maybe I'm the eternal pragmatic, but I enjoy the game... and the people who praise/poo-poo it are entertaining to watch. All part of the fun.

The only people I'm really confused by are the people absolutely INCENSED at the sheer GALL of the dev/publishers for doing this to THEM. Did you just crawl out from under a rock?

 

[SuperJay]

The only people I'm really confused by are the people absolutely INCENSED at the sheer GALL of the dev/publishers for doing this to THEM. Did you just crawl out from under a rock?

It's like you're reading my mind or something.

I tend to assume those folks are really young and pretty new to PC gaming, and don't have the context / experience / familiarity with how the software industry works. That's okay, obviously, but the hysterics and the "THIS GAEM IS TEH UNPLAYIBLE ABOMINATI0NZ!!!1!11one" posts are just utterly ridiculous.

 

[GambleFish]

I really don't like people who talk about a 'silent majority', no matter if they are speaking in favour of or against my views.

It didn't work for Richard Nixon. It STILL. Doesn't. Work.

Um, what? Nixon got elected in large part due to the "Silent Majority" rejecting the chaos, counterculture movements, and virulent public discourse of the 60's. The vast majority of Americans didn't share the opinions and concerns of the protesters around the country. Nixon used the phrase in a famous speech in 1969, right? Last time I checked, Nixon won 49 out of 50 states in 1972. Seems like vindication to me.

I would advise taking all the sound-bites from cable news with a grain of salt. Contrary to what they say, most Americans aren't preparing to storm the White House over health-care reform or bank bailouts. Most people are just concerned with getting / keeping a job, and taking care of themselves and their families.

 

[Bad Brett]

. I just wanted to say, the reason you are called a hater by some is because you do hate. You don't objectively, calmly evaluate. You bring disappointment and anger and hurt feelings into it. How do I know that? Because looking at the reviews across the board, they are way out of line with your views.

Obviously you don't know what the word hate means. Let me help you:

hate (ht)
v. hat·ed, hat·ing, hates
v.tr.
1.
a. To feel hostility or animosity toward.

Pointing out flaws in a computer game is not hate. I haven't even bought the game so I have nothing to be angry about. I don't play games very often and if I do, I would be perfectly happy with Civ IV. But at the same time, I believe that customers should demand much more than this. It's like some people don't get that it's all just business.

Oh, and yes, my opinions are as objective they can be, since I base them on my facts. As a Master of Engineering with deeper knowledge in visual ergonomics, product realization and programming, I know that A good UI for example is not a matter of opinion. There IS a right and wrong. For example:

This is wrong. It doesn't matter who did it or why they did it. It's wrong. And it doesn't make me hater because I've read enough to have that knowledge.

Civ 5 have some errors with the UI. I see them and I know that Firaxis would agree with them if I pointed them out. And there are ways to objectively evaluate this, by studying how much a person has to move his eyes across the screen, how much time and many clicks it takes to change production etc.

. Games that are horrible just don't get 90 on Metacritic. Even if 1 or 2 reviews are biased, you can't possibly make the claim that they are ALL biased. And if you had a shred of objectivity in you, you would see that while there are some polish issues, the game is solid, even if you don't like it.

Oh yes they would. Magazines sell numbers by writing early previews. In order to get early copies, they need to give high grades. Also, they earn a lot of money on ads. If a magazine would have given Civ V a 40% rating, 2k Games would most likely stop sending out early games to that magazine.

Secondly, the flaws in a game like Civ become more apparent the more you play it. If you haven't play the series before and play 2-3 games, you will most likely enjoy it.

 

[Brawndo]

Great idea! The atmosphere is really nice there. But I still think we should write a petition of some sorts to create a 'support & whine' sub-forum so that we can clean the place of the filth xD

See, crap like this is what ruins the forum. A forum is supposed to be a place of debate by its very definition, but what you want is a board clean of any opposing views to your beloved game.

It's all good and nice that YOU enjoy the game, but at least a third of us long-time Civ fans have legitimate complaints and issues with CiV, and this is the place to discuss them. Don't like it? Then don't enter the thread.

 

[Thormodr]

I don't think that's really true --

The IV complaints were heavily weighted towards system requirements/initial misstatement of system requirements, with a fair smattering of the "AI is too dumb to do X" tossed in.

The V complaints are much more heavily weighted basic gameplay, with a lot of "AI is to dumb to do X".

The nature of the complaints in IV vs. V seems a lot different than III vs. IV.

Exactly. cIV was terrible upon release because a large number of people couldn't even get the darn game to run at all.

ciV has moronic AI and severe balancing issues.

Very different situations.

 

[SuperJay]

Secondly, the flaws in a game like Civ become more apparent the more you play it. If you haven't play the series before and play 2-3 games, you will most likely enjoy it.

Right, exactly. And if you DID play the series before and HAVE played more than 3 games and you still somehow LIKE this abomination, you are a console kid who just playz on Settler and enjoys ezmode victories and wants every win handed to you.

AMIRITE GAIZ?!?!1

Moderator Action: Personal insults are uncalled for, please keep the discussion on the topic at hand.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Jester Fool]

It's all good and nice that YOU enjoy the game, but at least a third of us long-time Civ fans have legitimate complaints and issues with CiV, and this is the place to discuss them. Don't like it? Then don't enter the thread.

Amen brother. That IS why this site is called "Civilization Fanatics' Forums". And I having been gaming since 1977 (still remember playing on the Apple ][).

 

[boombaard]

Exactly. cIV was terrible upon release because a large number of people couldn't even get the darn game to run at all.

ciV has moronic AI and severe balancing issues.

Very different situations.

60-90s end of turn waiting times in a huge/epic game after 1300AD, 2 minute game loading times, and all the while only 1 core being used for calculations most of the time seems pretty badly optimized to me.. This bothers me a lot more than the fact that I've had alternating gems/furs 'we love the king day' in most of my cities for the past 400 years now.

 

[Bad Brett]

Right, exactly. And if you DID play the series before and HAVE played more than 3 games and you still somehow LIKE this abomination, you are a console kid who just playz on Settler and enjoys ezmode victories and wants every win handed to you.

AMIRITE GAIZ?!?!1

I'm having a hard time to see that a deity Civ IV player actually enjoys that the AI give away all their cities after a short time of war in Civ V.

 

[Ayt]

This is a great example of why debate is useless. You don't want to be called a hater, but then use hyperbole to make a point. I'm not going to debate your points because they are extremely overstated and hyperbolic. I just wanted to say, the reason you are called a hater by some is because you do hate. You don't objectively, calmly evaluate. You bring disappointment and anger and hurt feelings into it. How do I know that? Because looking at the reviews across the board, they are way out of line with your views. Games that are horrible just don't get 90 on Metacritic. Even if 1 or 2 reviews are biased, you can't possibly make the claim that they are ALL biased. And if you had a shred of objectivity in you, you would see that while there are some polish issues, the game is solid, even if you don't like it.

There are plenty of games that are polished and I don't like at all. Street Fighter type games, Blizzard RTS games and WoW, etc etc. I really dislike these games, but I would never claim that they are poorly made. This is what separates a hater from a reasoned appraiser.

Empire Total War. The AI couldn't even perform naval assaults. You could be England and declare war on everyone and they couldn't invade you. They couldn't move troops anywhere in a game about overseas expansion.

That doesn't even get into all the other major issues, but Empire was pathetic even after numerous patches.

 

[almeidaz]

Well, I am joining the "silent majority" here. And yes I read about how stupid this claim can be. I am joining them anywayz . I've been playing since the warrior was named militia (yeah, some of you know what I am talking about). And I like the game... So here are some interesting facts:

- Either 2K found a bug in reality, and attained an infinite stash of gold to pay for basically all professional reviewers, or those guys are serious when they give out almost perfect scores for Civ 5.
- To agree with some instability and bug issues presented here, I have to point out to the gamespot review, where the game received 9 and not 9.5, precisely cos the bugs and the AI. And that's the major point. When I saw a review here, a guy basically gives 1 plus for 1 tile limitation, and 1 down for something like rivers look bad (those are not in the same scale!).
- The game went a big way into simplicity, and that, in my view, is the major complain behind everything (but the bugs) I hear from ppl. Well, maybe I'm the only lifetime fan that liked the idea, tbh I found civ 4 too complicated, the build religion X cathedral, build religion Y cathedral, build religion Z cathedral bored me...

Rgs

 

[RX2000]

We hear a lot about the "silent majority" of players who are enjoying Civ 5. I've only posted a few things here and there, because basically, I can't stand all the negativity. The complaints that people have seemed either A) unfounded or B) "it's not Civ 4". It's hard to even have an intelligent debate with these people because of their strong bias. They throw around words like "2k fanboy" (not even realizing the 2k is the publisher, Firaxis is the developer) whenever someone says they are enjoying the game.

If most players are anything like me, they are simply waiting for all the whiners to get bored of ranting and just move on so we can have a laidback, fun community that plays this fun game.

I am the silent majority and I'm staying silent until it's worth talking about Civ again.

Couldnt agree more. I am really getting tired of the negative rants. I have noticed too that the majority of the posts boil down to "I think that it doesnt have as much stuff as Civ 4 + its 2 expansions had so therefore its dumbed down & therefore I dont like it." It never occurs to them to think of Civ V as a WHOLE NEW GAME.

I've actually started really just reading more stuff in the Civ V strategy forums on the 2k site. The haters mostly stick to the general discussions forums it seems. No use discussing strategy of something you hate right?

 

[SerialK]

I'm a lurker, usually reading strategy & moddings boards.

I like the game a lot, more than Civ 1/2/3 and basically the same as 4 for different reasons. I don't feel like posting another 25030th review of Civ5 nor arguing with "fanboys" and "haters" because it's pointless. There's way too many irrational statements on both sides of the argument anyway.

So instead, i play the game

Btw it must be a difficult period for the moderators in here

 

[Jarwy]

Another hater reporting in.

First post in Civ 5 forum section btw. I don't really like to beat them when they are down, but I just wanted all to know t'sucks. Civ players are generally intelligent folk and this is the fan forum, not easily located by random trolls like the official one, so devs and the support crew should man up and eat the critism like adults.