Why didn't like you civ5?

[Manco Capac]

I disliked Civ5 because others said so. Nothing is better than relativism to ground its own justification. I never tried the game actually.

 

[mynystry]

If I could venture to guess at his view of 'challenge' and 'fun', he finds the SoD to be intuitive and that simple fact makes combat intrinsically more enjoyable. We could get into the pros and cons of these different approaches and their implementation. But the abandonment of the SoD is a hard change to swallow when a series fan is exposed to Civ5.

Indeed

The way 1UPT is implemented in Civ5 destroys the very essence of warfare as we knew it from Civ1-Civ4. Unfortunately the replacement is much inferior. As many have pointed out it is as if they tried to mix Civ+Command & Conquer, and it just doesn't work at all.

I remember an old game (in the 90's) called "Lords of the Realm"... I think the guys of Civ5 should have done their homework and studied such approach, because if that's what they wanted to do, they've lost against an "oldie" in the genre.

Those "thus"es make no sense. Why does being realistic (which it's not) make it challenging?

Maybe it makes no sense from your perspective, but it does from mine. One thing I always liked about Civ, is that it is one of the best (if not the best) turn based strategy game (until Civ4) out there, and the reason for this is that it mimics a lot from reality, of course it is abstract, so don't come with "yeah sure gigantic archers defend cities" or silly comparisons like that. What makes the game realistic is that the player is given choices, from which you obtain logical consequences, including a bit of uncertainty (if you want to call it luck) which also happens in real life. (few people get hit by lightning, but still there are "few").

The Warfare system of Civ5 is broken because the "doing formations fun" doesn't fit the rest of the game. It's like if you want Knights in Chess running away from battle when facing the attack of a Queen. Such things don't belong to chess. (By the way, chess is another terribly 'realistic' game)

Finally the meaning of "fun" is subjective, so what is maybe fun for me, maybe is not for you, still that doesn't make it less fun for me. I find 'complexity' and 'logic' in games to be fun, and sadly, I am missing those in Civ5, (at least not in the level that Civ4BTS has).

 

[mynystry]

And civ4 is not cartoonish? Now that I think of it, civ3 looked really good, especially with some modes it looked like a map that you see in the books.

Actually this is true, I remember it took me a long while to switch from Civ3 to Civ4 because when it came out I hated the graphics, by now I think I am just very used to and I don't care anymore.

Actually I quiet liked the map in Civ5, of course if you select all information to be displayed it will look cluttered, but the same happens with Civ4.

Anyway, overall my favorite graphics were those of Civ3, and I also miss the videos, the advisers from Civ2 and building your palace in Civ1, also it was fun to see your army marching when a city was taken

 

[Rusty Edge]

Actually this is true, I remember it took me a long while to switch from Civ3 to Civ4 because when it came out I hated the graphics, by now I think I am just very used to and I don't care anymore.

Actually I quiet liked the map in Civ5, of course if you select all information to be displayed it will look cluttered, but the same happens with Civ4.

Anyway, overall my favorite graphics were those of Civ3, and I also miss the videos, the advisers from Civ2 and building your palace in Civ1, also it was fun to see your army marching when a city was taken

Yes! I didn't hate IV graphics, but I do consider them cartoony. III was more like a painting. CivRev looks like an arcade videogame. V is a beautiful world, but it morphs into a boardgame look.

Yes again! Give me a Civ I palace & announcements, Elvis the adviser, a Civ Rev throne room, Civ III siege elements ( randomly destroying population or improvements instead of enemies and defenses , etc.), era change graphics, and civ traits such as seafearing, IV gameplay, From V- hex map, multi-core use, natural wonders, the culture spread approach, self-defending cities.

 

[jarhead_leif]

What I dislike from ciV is that I couldn't play it on my computer.

 

[SyntaxError]

Ever since I got Civ 5 along with everything else (DLC and expansion), I never got past the first 100 turns in Normal speed. At least I didn't pay full price for it.

 

[alancsilver]

I have played this game since civ2 and this game is just so not fun.

I will preface this by saying that I haven't played civ 5 since maybe November after launch. I probably put in around 90 hours although it seemed like 40 or so. There is not much I liked about the game other than the move to hexes.

First off was how freakin slow the game played. The time between turns was insane. I wanted to poke my eyes out. And yes I had above recommend specs. I have to clue how a tbs game can be so slow. Especially in the early game.

The tiles werenot that exciting. The trading post vs cottages are less interesting. And less resources seemed to be that city placement was not as important.

And those building times were excruciating. Ughhhh

I just kept hitting end turn. It just wasn't fun and it didn't feel like building an empire.

Tech tree was smaller and less decision making.

Finally, I know most people like it, but I thought the graphics were horrible. Hard for me to differentiate tiles. Just didn't like it at all.

I do listen to polycast to keep an ear on the ground. And besides madjinn's enthusiasm for the game, it still does not seem like a good game.

So I have stuck to bts happily and am now looking at other games like EU3 and CK2.

 

[damerell]

^ Why is that such a sticking point?

It doesn't follow. "X is more realistic therefore it is more challenging and more fun" is not a conclusion that is justified - lots of completely unrealistic things in videogaming are also extremely challenging and fun.

 

[MilesBeyond]

It doesn't follow. "X is more realistic therefore it is more challenging and more fun" is not a conclusion that is justified - lots of completely unrealistic things in videogaming are also extremely challenging and fun.

No, it follows, it just doesn't work as an absolute. Having something be more realistic can often make it more challenging and more fun. Similarly, having something be unrealistic can easily make it less challenging or less fun. For example: If Civ were to have the human player start off with 10 ICBMs. That would be completely unrealistic, the game would not be challenging at all, and aside from the initial novelty of, it wouldn't be all that much fun, either. Blowing crap up is fun for a bit but then you want to actually play the game.

Now, if he had said "Nothing can be fun or challenging unless its realistic," then you'd have an argument. But he didn't say that. He said "It seems to be more realistic, therefore I find it more fun and challenging." And that's not all that hard to imagine. It's certainly not fallacious.

 

[Camikaze]

"not optimally"? Try "actively playing poorly" . Buildings, while they don't cost in IV, carry a tremendous opportunity cost and the decision of whether to build one at all, and when, is a critical point to doing well vs poorly. "Going through the list" is sufficiently bad that you'd suffer less by automating workers. Seriously. I can win at immortal with auto workers from turn 0. That is not nearly as viable if you just go down the list of buildings.

I don't mean I literally went through the list in the order it was presented, just that I found the choices much less situational, and much less interesting as a result, such as that I just went through my build orders as more of a reflex at the beginning of every turn, rather than an intriguing part of the game.

 

[damerell]

No, it follows, it just doesn't work as an absolute. Having something be more realistic can often make it more challenging and more fun.

Having something be less realistic can also make it more fun and more or less challenging. For example, in most first-person shooters, being hit by a single rifle bullet does not end the game. This is not very realistic, but the game would not be fun without it (although it would be more challenging). In Civ, every civilisation has a roughly even start, where in reality accidents of geography or time of human colonisation gave different civs an enormous leg-up. This is unrealistic, but makes for a fun game - and a challenging one, rather than an unstoppable kerb-stomping by one predetermined civ.

For example: If Civ were to have the human player start off with 10 ICBMs. That would be completely unrealistic, the game would not be challenging at all, and aside from the initial novelty of, it wouldn't be all that much fun, either.

That's not bad because it's unrealistic, but because it's unbalanced. As I note above, a more realistic start than the standard one would provide an equally overwhelming advantage for one civ.

 

[mynystry]

For example, in most first-person shooters, being hit by a single rifle bullet does not end the game. This is not very realistic, but the game would not be fun without it (although it would be more challenging).

As I said, "fun" is subjective, maybe for some it would be more fun that if you get shot once you die, it reminds me of old X-Com game, if during your first move, an alien reacts and hits your transport with a Blaster bomb, ALL of your soldiers are dead. That difficulty was a factor that made that game a classic in the genre.

BUT that wasn't my point, you are taking my opinion out of context (which as you may know it is called the "Straw Man Fallacy"). I was referring precisely to the 1UPT feature, which is unrealistic and illogical in relation to the scale of the game, and it affects negatively the game play, unsuccessfully combining a "tactical map" (think of age of empires) with a "strategic map" (think of chess).

That's what my comment was about, and of course, it is MY PERSONAL OPINION to say that the more realistic a game is, the more fun I (yes, me) find it.

For example, I find very fun the way not all civs have same start situation in RFC mod. Yes, I like that realism, but that doesn't has to do with 1UPT.

 

[mynystry]

Now, if he had said "Nothing can be fun or challenging unless its realistic," then you'd have an argument. But he didn't say that. He said "It seems to be more realistic, therefore I find it more fun and challenging." And that's not all that hard to imagine. It's certainly not fallacious.

Yeah, that's the idea.

 

[Dr. D]

I have played this game since civ2 and this game is just so not fun.

I will preface this by saying that I haven't played civ 5 since maybe November after launch. I probably put in around 90 hours although it seemed like 40 or so. There is not much I liked about the game other than the move to hexes.

First off was how freakin slow the game played. The time between turns was insane. I wanted to poke my eyes out. And yes I had above recommend specs. I have to clue how a tbs game can be so slow. Especially in the early game.

The tiles werenot that exciting. The trading post vs cottages are less interesting. And less resources seemed to be that city placement was not as important.

And those building times were excruciating. Ughhhh

I just kept hitting end turn. It just wasn't fun and it didn't feel like building an empire.

Tech tree was smaller and less decision making.

Finally, I know most people like it, but I thought the graphics were horrible. Hard for me to differentiate tiles. Just didn't like it at all.

I do listen to polycast to keep an ear on the ground. And besides madjinn's enthusiasm for the game, it still does not seem like a good game.

So I have stuck to bts happily and am now looking at other games like EU3 and CK2.

Sadly, much of what you say is true... building times were terrible, wonders were especially pathetic, and yes, it didn't feel like building an empire. Compared to IV, it was boring. That being said, issues have been addressed and it feels much more like a complete game. I'm not saying you'll like it better than IV, but it's no longer the steaming pile of crap that you remember. While it's fair to judge the game at release for what it was, it's unfair to judge today's game based solely on its disappointing vanilla release. It's a shame Firaxis alienated a chunk of its fan base by giving us a disappointing beta release.

Also, regarding the V screenshot that was posted and how ugly it was, keep in mind that this is a zoomed out picture with the intention of conveying as much info as possible for a message board community in one shot. Surely I would get a headache if the game looked like this at all times, but when zoomed in appropriately, the icons are scaled down much smaller in size. Those tile yield icons also make for a cluttered gaming experience and I would never play with them on.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I don't mean I literally went through the list in the order it was presented, just that I found the choices much less situational, and much less interesting as a result, such as that I just went through my build orders as more of a reflex at the beginning of every turn, rather than an intriguing part of the game.

And then I'm almost certain you're better off automating workers. There are quite a few times where simply electing to build something in a city puts you significantly behind. Do that 100+ times a game and the difference is staggering.

In Civ, every civilisation has a roughly even start

I don't think this is a fair and/or defensible claim. It's fair to say that they sort of tried to make roughly even starts, but they didn't. Dry rice + 1 FP vs 2 riverside corn + 2 gems + better land to expand into is not "roughly even". This (or plains cow) is also a fairly common scenario. The latter civ gets +8 yield off at 2 pop against pop cost of working tiles, compared to +4 from the rice start. It then gets to grow faster onto commerce tiles that allow massed expansion and teching.

Ultimately, the advantage culminates in dozens of turns...the kind of thing that is completely insurmountable in a game between evenly matched players (even players who are significantly weaker could win very easily with such a discrepancy). Such a big variance in the early game in a 4x title is rather jarring. I wish they had at least done a "total yield" requirement of some variety.

That difficulty was a factor that made that game a classic in the genre.

Fake difficulty surely is pretty classic. I'm not sure an alien bombing is the best example of "realism can be fun" however.

Also, most "casual" players, as far as I am aware, do not list things that constitute "fake difficulty" among the things they consider fun. Actually, people generally dislike fake difficulty and complain about it, even if they don't know the trope as such.

I'm not sure what you're talking about listing an RTS as "tactical" in comparison to a TBS and saying chess is a "strategic" level game .

1UPT is definitely unrealistic from a scale point of view, but so are city sizes and movement on the map in general. A person could *walk* all the way from Portugal to the Chinese coast and back many times over in the time it takes for a single early game civ turn to advance...but in civ your army can't even make it to France once, let alone back.

Realism may or may not add fun, but gameplay balance/depth is generally more fun than shallow/luck based games, at least over the long term.

And those building times were excruciating. Ughhhh

People claim turn times/engine aren't an issue...but if we had faster turns played by computer and human turns were more responsive, would we really see complains like this? Who cares if something will build in 20-30 turns if that's actually only 1-2 minutes from now?

But in civ V, if you literally do nothing at all and just spam end turn as much as possible, it woud still take a very long time to reach the 1900's. Civ V has no excuse for that. It's not doing anything that needs that kind of time, especially DURING the player turn. It will take a while though.

 

[Pangaea]

I suppose they re-used a lot of the code, as civ IV have the same problems in that department.

Given that likely scenario, I doubt it will ever drastically improve.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

It might ---> Civ VI made by someone other than Firaxis, 2k sells Firaxes to someone else, or some other major changes are made in there that makes such a huge shift in policy plausible.

A lot can happen in ~5-7 years.

 

[Pisskop]

Oh dear Lord, is that how long I have to wait to see another chance at happiness? [shivers]

 

[Pangaea]

I was thinking more about improvements in V, but yeah, a lot can happen in the next game. Hopefully for the better rather than even worse.

 

[MilesBeyond]

Hey, look at it this way:

Age of Wonders 2 was an unbalanced, stripped-down mess of a game. One could scarcely believe it was made by the same company who did Age of Wonders 1.

Age of Wonders: Shadow Magic, which was functionally a stand-alone expansion pack, took everything wrong with it, fixed it, and made it one of the greatest TBS games ever made.

So there's always hope.