Who's to Blame for Civ V?

[Toady]

While we're on the topic of instructing others what to do, maybe you should follow your own advice. Unless you think being unable to finish a game because of one of several bugs, system requirements that do not match genre, and BASIC CONTROL FLAWS = "absolutely wonderful".

Maybe I missed the part where this was a joke thread, and what I'm quoting was meant as one. I should hope so, really.

Judging from his post history, i would say he was being sarcastic there mate .

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Judging from his post history, i would say he was being sarcastic there mate .

Fair enough, I'll admit to being less active around here than I used to be, so if that is the case I apologize for confusion XD.

 

[PieceOfMind]

and allows things like units FORCIBLY moving before giving commands

Just out of curiosity, what do you mean by that?

I share most of your criticisms of the game, by the way.

I definitely hope you are being sarcastic if you're not ... well, i'll keep my mouth shut to avoid getting a card from the mods

I hope you're being sarcastic, because his signature makes it pretty obvious.
Oh wait, he recently changed his sig. Still, um,

 

[Senethro]

Part of the problem is you, you being strategy gamers and long term fans. You've forgotten that many of the hours in previous games were spent with a quarter of the number of cities as the AI, with one defender per city and you always won by Space ship. You come into new incarnations of the series expecting to have as many new things to learn as you did previously, but now you're good at TBS games and you perceive there is less.

The AI is definitely poor and another month of QA without a downsized team would have been good, so complaints are justified. However, a lot of disappointment is due to people placing all their hopes on Civ for your strategy fix which is just silly. Theres lots among you who should really looking at games from independent and small developers. Two games I enjoyed last year were Solium Infernum and Dominions 3. The settings won't be to everyones taste but theres a lot thats interesting if you would just lose the fixation that being a civilization player is the start and end of being a strategy gamer.

 

[r_rolo1]

Part of the problem is you, you being strategy gamers and long term fans. You've forgotten that many of the hours in previous games were spent with a quarter of the number of cities as the AI, with one defender per city and you always won by Space ship. You come into new incarnations of the series expecting to have as many new things to learn as you did previously, but now you're good at TBS games and you perceive there is less.

The AI is definitely poor and another month of QA without a downsized team would have been good, so complaints are justified. However, a lot of disappointment is due to people placing all their hopes on Civ for your strategy fix which is just silly. Theres lots among you who should really looking at games from independent and small developers. Two games I enjoyed last year were Solium Infernum and Dominions 3. The settings won't be to everyones taste but theres a lot thats interesting if you would just lose the fixation that being a civilization player is the start and end of being a strategy gamer.

I was already a strategy gamer and a long term fan when civ IV got out and i haven't felt the same way with civ IV as I'm feeling with civ V. So that argument does not hold water because in your description I would had necessarily being displeased with civ IV in the same way I'm displeased with civ V ( BTW your argument looks awfully with a colective ad hominem attack )

Oh ,and civ is not my only strategy fix. Just at the moment I have installed in my PC:

-SMAC
-RTW
-MTW II
-ETW
-Civ IV
-Civ V
-Hegemony. Philip of Macedon ( a really nice indie game from Longbow games. 4,5 stars in my book ( not 5 because the game is pretty hard to master and sometimes hard to control ( the Ai is not as strong as that, but it is passable ) )

and some others I don't recall ATM.

 

[Sonereal]

Like a tumor...it needs removing, quick!

*waiting for the inevitable Revolutions mod*

 

[hclass]

Hi,

I am a true long-time Civ player (see my join date, I don't just join at the month when Civ5 is released in order to say something good about it).

I haven't bought Civ5, I dare not! (due to my past experience with Civ3 and Civ4 releases)
I am disappointed for bad thing keep repeating... and this time it seems to worsen to an incredible extend...

 

[wapamingo]

I am not sure whom is to blame, but Civ 5 is definitely a disappointment at this point.

I played Civ since 1, and as much as I want to give Civ 5 more time and I have tried, it is just not calling to me to be played. More or less the same occurred when Civ 4 came out and I took a break from it until BtS 3.19 came out. I got into the wonderful mods that have been created by this community. Last night, I must admit, I fired up WildMana 9.0 Beta 8 up and put away Civ 5.

Who is to blame? Who was to blame for MOO3? Does it really matter? I just hope they did not screw the core mechanics enough to prevent the wonderful mods that are going to be developed, developed.

Maybe they did the right thing to attempt to appeal to and draw in a new generation of players. Has our community stagnated over time? Did we get more members since Civ 5 game out? Well, the only thing one needs to do is compare sales of Civ 4 to Civ 5 and normalize for population growth to see if their new strategy had impact. Look at new registrations over the past 3 months at CivFanatics as another measure. Has it increased over and above a baseline case?
That said, however, Civ was never a mainstream game such as TheSims or WoW or Halo, and neither is EU3 for that matter, and it never will become mainstream IMO.

 

[Toady]

Part of the problem is you, you being strategy gamers and long term fans. You've forgotten that many of the hours in previous games were spent with a quarter of the number of cities as the AI, with one defender per city and you always won by Space ship. You come into new incarnations of the series expecting to have as many new things to learn as you did previously, but now you're good at TBS games and you perceive there is less.

The AI is definitely poor and another month of QA without a downsized team would have been good, so complaints are justified. However, a lot of disappointment is due to people placing all their hopes on Civ for your strategy fix which is just silly. Theres lots among you who should really looking at games from independent and small developers. Two games I enjoyed last year were Solium Infernum and Dominions 3. The settings won't be to everyones taste but theres a lot thats interesting if you would just lose the fixation that being a civilization player is the start and end of being a strategy gamer.

I play the game almost 90% of the time vs humans.

AI and Bugs are really non issues for me... most of the time bugs can be patched and i couldn't care less for the AI as we don't use it.

If i can get a decent multiplayer experience from a deep, rich and colourful game then i am a satisfied customer.

Even if i could ignore all the core concepts that are essentially broken (as design ideas, not because of poor coding) Civ 5 simply doesn't provide the immersive experience that the much more colourful Civ 4 BTS did.

All the way from the core mechanics to the tiniest detail Civ 5 just doesn't click.

P.S. If you think Civ 5 single player is a bit rushed then the multiplayer aspect of it must have gotten on release by accident.

 

[wapamingo]

P.S. If you think Civ 5 single player is a bit rushed then the multiplayer aspect of it must have gotten on release by accident.

I agree with you wholeheartedly. MP for Civ 5 is very rushed. Can't add AIs, can't adjust AI difficulty, AI = placeholder, can't play custom maps, can't load mods, have to rename save to AutoSave file in order to load MP save game... kaka

 

[SuperJay]

Eh, who cares about blame?

Firaxis and 2K Games decided to "revise the concepts" of the Civilization franchise. I'm assuming they decided to merge Civ Rev and Civilization into one product line for financial reasons, and Civ5 is the result. (Interviews with developers and producers commented on this, including that podcast with Dennis Shirk, but didn't go so far as to say "we've phased out Civ Rev.") They probably knew that they couldn't sell Civ Rev 2 to many of their veteran fans, so they labeled it "Civilization" on the assumption that many of us would buy it outright. And it worked, in my case, so maybe their ploy was successful.

The result is not something I'm personally excited about - after the first two weeks I just didn't have any real reason to keep playing the game - but they've outright said that this design change was a bid to try and reach a wider audience of "mainstream" players. It sounds like a profit-driven decision, pure and simple. And while I'm sure some veterans DO enjoy Civ5, I'm just not one of them.

My biggest problem is the bait and switch - using the "Civilization" name to sell a game that's not intended for Civilization players, but for Civ Rev players who want something a little more complex, but not too hard. But hey, caveat emptor, as always. It's my own fault for trusting Firaxis and the Civilization brand, but I won't make that mistake again.

I know Dennis Shirk says "keep your eyes on the future" (nicely bland, meaningless marketing-speak for you) but I can't help but wonder: how much more money would I have to pay to make Civ5 into the game I thought it was going to be out of the box, given the "Civilization" name? I'm already regretting the $50 I spent as it is - am I really going to jump at the chance to throw more money at Firaxis, given that I feel deceived about what I've already spent?

 

[dexters]

Haven't we been through this? Bending the producer's words (well your type of whiners could have put it in their mouths anyways) to create some sort of conspiracy does not serve your position.

Civ5 isn't CivRev2. Yes, they could sell a CivRev2 if they wanted to. There's nothing wrong with the brand and the game did 'OK' by console games' multi-plat sales standards.

It's funny that there's 2 very critical posts on Civ5 in this thread, one is yours, which is nothing but vague insults to the game and general anti-corporate consumerist rants, and the other talks about how Civ games never seem to truly get it right, including your beloved Civ4.

2 weeks ago, you were reasonable. But after your recent conversion, your posts are more broken than civ5.

 

[SuperJay]

2 weeks ago, you were reasonable. But after your recent conversion, your posts are more broken than civ5.

If you're referring to me... I'm heartbroken that you didn't enjoy my post. And it's kind of cute how you criticize me (I guess?) for being "unreasonable," and "a whiner" while simultaneously freaking out and attacking me over an opinion about a game. How's the hypocrisy treating you?

Seriously, guy: You're e-raging over a forum about a video game. It may be time to step away from the computer for awhile.

Good luck! I hope you're able to calm down a bit and be a little more reasonable in future posts.

 

[LegioCorvus]

"It's the responsibility of any simple -for kids! game player, console game lover and Civ Revolutions fanboy to stand up, silence the whiny little childish critics of this game (Civ V) even by force and yell that this game is totally awesome!!!."

I can't tell if your attempting parody or... I dunno. Are you being genuine?

I mean, I know the "always attack, never defend" approach works great for Scientology, and to a lesser extent political groups, but has it ever really changed someone's opinion online? I've seen it happened through reasonable debate, often enough here at CivFanatics, but the typical instinctual reaction to a "you're wrong!" statement is defensive. More than anything, it seems like your creed will have the opposite effect, and cause many people who are reacting negatively to this game on a base level to more deeply analyze exactly why they feel they way they do, and when their ideas are presented to people with your attitude only to face the same reaction of "you're wrong!" that they'll not only have more and better organized evidence of why their opinion holds water, but likely also develop the opinion that people with your opinion are combative, unreasonable, and clearly in the wrong.

Seriously... I can't tell if this is parody or not. I'm having a strong Poe's Law reaction here.

 

[DaveDash]

This has happened to so many gaming developers as far as I can remember playing games. I mean, look at what Total War started off as, and then became.

There's always other up and coming game developers that make awesome strategy games (that have a significantly smaller budget/staff), Paradox for example.

Having said that, how many of you have short memories?

Civ V is a MUCH more polished product upon release than Civ IV was, but that isn't whats wrong with the game.

 

[tommynt]

the argument that lot of here bring that other civs were more for the "hardcore" players is just dumb.
civ for allways a game for the masses of ordinary singleplayers who try have a calm evening. it was never for hardcore players - just see how few play mp.

The only "fraction" of player civ5 might get by dumbing it down are - I dont really know - its definatly not the trigger happy youngstars - even when I think they tried for em.
The point in civ5 is that it was just bound to glorry from "turn1" - they couldnt have made game that bad that no1 d buy it.
civ allone + sid mayer guarantees for some million of customers.

Thats why game was rushed and lacks much stuff - definatly not to cater a new type of players. less costs - same income = more profit - thats only reason why game is bad.

 

[cortic]

It was a collaboration by many to go for mainstream customers. Hardcore fans simply were not their target audience. They will improve and add to it via patches drm etc but those will be targeted to mainstreamers as well.. Civ is dead for those who don't like this edition essentially.. but there will be plenty of **NEW FANS to take our place. The fact that civ V is so bad isn't what saddens me.. its the fact that Civ has finally gone the way of putting mainstream money over the loyal audience that has supported the franchise for a very long time.

Edit for clarification since some people like to skew a message**

I don't understand why there needs to be a dichotomy between hardcore and general fans. A good game is a good game and should appeal to all types. I don't consider myself hardcore, civ IV was my first strategy game and I rarely played it on higher difficulties or devoted massive chunks of time to it, but I still found it fun. Civ 5 is just dull.

It's also less accessible than civ 4 in certain ways. For example, I could actually understand diplomacy in civ 4 and the consequences of actions and things you said to other civs in 4 but here i have no idea what is going on, and the end result is always the same.

 

[Reginleif]

Thou has no one to blame but thyself, purchasing a non-Nintendo game is like being Hitler or worse. Only through Nintendo xcan you hope to receive salvation!
Moderator Action: Off-topic to the thread, thus spam. Also a bit trollish.

 

[Fistalis]

I don't understand why there needs to be a dichotomy between hardcore and general fans. A good game is a good game and should appeal to all types. I don't consider myself hardcore, civ IV was my first strategy game and I rarely played it on higher difficulties or devoted massive chunks of time to it, but I still found it fun. Civ 5 is just dull.

It's also less accessible than civ 4 in certain ways. For example, I could actually understand diplomacy in civ 4 and the consequences of actions and things you said to other civs in 4 but here i have no idea what is going on, and the end result is always the same.

Ya I mean long time loyalists when i say hardcore fans.. not the level of difficulty they played on or how much time spent... if nothing else this thread has taught me to be more precise with my message

And yes a good game is a good game.. but many fans enjoyed(and took for granted) that each new civ kept a certain feel to it. yes they all had changes.. some minor some major.. but never before has it been such a complete revision of so many of the core mechanics. And regardless of the changes many playstyles continued to be supported well when going from 2-3-4.. where as civ V seems to drastically reduce/remove/or alter many playstyles to the point of them being no longer viable. I think the major issue is they forgot that there were as many different play styles as people.. and in removing alot of features and redesigning so much they have removed alot of those playstyles in the interest of streamlining and making it more accessible to a new market. Now of course not everyone is going to agree with me but hopefully i was a bit more precise in my words so that people will better understand what I was attempting (badly I guess) to say.

 

[timtofly]

Civ Rev is the "dumbed" down version of 4.
Civ 5 is not Civ 4 nor Civ Rev.
Civ 5 is a new start and like a new peice of clay can be molded into another great game.

Was it rushed? Probably. Can it be fixed? Probably.

I am hearing:

All you can do is wage war, and the AI are too dumb to attack me. It is too boring, the AI are always attacking me. It seems to me the more you give people the more they want. One person said it right, "With inflation, we should be getting more for our money." Or is that, "We are not paying enough for what we expect"? I just want to say thank you to all of the people who invested in Civ 4 so I could get two COMPLETE copies for only $80.00 US. Although I will not enjoy them if they sour me against Civ 5. While I cannot afford an up-to-date 8 core CPU and 16 gigs of memory that may cause the game to crash, I do enjoy Civ 5 on my less than minimum spec computer and refuse to be patched any more in case patches take away my ability to even do that.

Who to blame? those that try to please everyone and those who think they shouldn't. Or is that: those who try to please no one and those who

Spoiler :

Complain all the time

think the game is unfixable.

This may be a rant and a troll, but isn't that what throwing blame around is?

We can either take it for what it is worth and improve it, or let it die. I say long live CIV. The person typing this "add" is not responsible for its content since we all want to get our money's worth.