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

Why do people hate this game?

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by lordsurya08, Oct 22, 2010.

  1. King Rad

    King Rad Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    274
    Location:
    Pensacola, Florida
    I played IV, BTS and now V, and i enjoy them all. There are some things in V that could be improved, and there are some things that, IMO, are greatly improved. I have always thought the hexes were the way to go, simply because it makes movement more realistic. I didn't like the stacks of doom, although I used them as most did. I really didn't like spies or corporations (and usually didn't use them), but some people did. I like the better strategy requirements for combat in V, although I don't usually try to win a domination victory. I must be the only person who has played a V game where the AI didn't try to attack me at every turn (although they did war among themselves a great deal - I did have a nice location with some strategic choke points for several entries into my territory whihc made it difficult to attack me). I think that the tile production needs some work, causing the trading post spam that many have referred to. but with all that said, I'd rather have V out now, with everybody playing and suggesting improvements, than to have it being played only by beta testers for another 6-12 months. It's not perfect, but no game is; and I expect it will continue to improve. It's definitely a different feel than the IV and BTS versions. Some will like one, some the other, which doesn't make either necessarily better or worse; just different. If there's a problem for most people, I think it's that the game did not live up to their expectations. The Civ series has set such a standard in the past (at least after final development), that it's almost impossible to do. If someone expects something to be a 6, and it's a 7, they're happy. If they expect a 10 and it's an 9, they're disappointed, even though they got something better than the person expecting the 6. I think that's ultimately what happened here. And as the suggestions are aired and modifcations made (even as in the release today), the game will almost certainly more closely approach the ideal that everyone had in mind from the beginning - and set the stage for everyone to be disappointed when/if Civ VI comes out!
     
  2. TheMeInTeam

    TheMeInTeam Top Logic

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    25,921
    V gets no pass until it runs properly on recommended specs on at least a standard size map and has the interface able to keep up with the human player.

    Other features can use brushing up (esp AI and its hidden diplo + intelligence limitations), the patch addressed many of the inexcusable game-ending glitches.

    However, simply being unable to play a game in less than a few hours because you HAVE to wait between turns for an eternity makes this game 100% unplayable to people who play civ games quickly. I could beat a standard BTS game around my level in under 2 hours sometimes...and yet even if I full auto everything and slam on end turn as much as possible while not giving cities build orders, fighting very few wars, games take nearly twice that amount of time now, maybe more.

    Is that learning curve? No, it is not. It is me sitting there, waiting to do something, which is about as fun as staring at a wall or doing deep nasal excavations (probably less fun than the latter, which at least has a chance of making you feel better).

    When the game actually allows input, it can actually be pretty fun, especially if the tactical AI improves. But right now? Lump on the hate for a game that essentially misleads us about recommended specs.
     
  3. JLoZeppeli

    JLoZeppeli Prince

    Joined:
    May 11, 2009
    Messages:
    598
    I think you miss the point, Civ V "now" is a 6...
     
  4. Bushface

    Bushface Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2005
    Messages:
    2,550
    Location:
    Torquay, England
    But all too clearly suffering from a severe case of radiation poisoning. Let's hope it dies soon.
     
  5. NBAfan

    NBAfan boss

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2007
    Messages:
    3,351
    I have not played a minute of Civ5 or the demo, but this I what I can gather from what everyone says. It seems Civ5's basic problem is that the epic Civ feel is missing. Barely being able to build up your cities due to useless and expensive buildings or not so amazing wonders. Or the strange tech tree which doesn't require robotics for GDR, or Iron for Knights:confused:. There is also the boring terrain that doesn't make a differance. It seems you more worried about building a war machine to eventually conquer every one else. There does not seem to be much of the building your empire aspact that the other Civ games had.
     
  6. MeatUnit2

    MeatUnit2 Warlord

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2010
    Messages:
    174
    Why does this game have such high system requirements - well above those needed to run Civ IV? It is slower, the AI is laughable, the game mechanics have been simplified. It requires all that computing power to make it PRETTY, something that long time Civ players have never cared much about. It was always about game play, not pretty. Not that I don't like pretty, but game play should trump pretty in a Civ game and in this iteration it did not.

    Had Fireaxis released a gussied up version of Civ IV with all these great graphics and with more civilizations and some interesting new future techs I believe the older fans would have said "Ooo! Ahhh!" and gone nuts over the game. Had they spent their time and money making the AI more intelligent and devious, making a new victory condition or two, you know, IMPROVING something that already worked, then I think that would have been more in line with their past performance and the expectations the Civ fans had for this game.

    I believe Fireaxis should have at least have issued a caveat that this game was designed to appeal to a mass market and was not going to be the next generation of the more complex Civ IV. I feel a little bit ripped off, and I have learned a lesson: Don't buy a game when it first comes out, because I and many others were mislead into believing this game was in fact going to be Civ V, not a slightly more complex version of the console game.

    I am hopeful that in a year or two patches and mods will be developed to improve this game to the extent where I will find it fun and challenging to play, but as of this writing it is not worth the disk space it occupies. It is not, in my opinion, the fifth game in the Civ series, but some odd and ill conceived deviation from the series.
     
  7. Roxlimn

    Roxlimn Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2005
    Messages:
    3,526
    Most people are angry because of two things:

    1. It is not enough like Civ IV. It does away with many of the things Civ IV had, and introduces concepts that are foreign. The new and the strange do not have many friends, so players like to bash Civ V just because it's new. You can easily see this from the forums, where players bash Civ V for being too simple and being too complex and for having too many options and too few options.

    2. It is too much like Civ IV. Players who loved going up the ranks in Civ IV wanted a new game that was more complicated, more options, more of everything. They wanted Civ V to challenge them in ways that they found familiar. Instead, they got many of the things they already mastered in Civ IV, and that made Civ V relatively easy to remaster. They are disappointed that they did not get the game they wanted, though it should have been obvious that that game would have been nearly impossible to make profitable.
     
  8. Bridog7

    Bridog7 Little Monster

    Joined:
    May 29, 2007
    Messages:
    263
    I don't hate the game. The onyl thing i hate is the bugs but that can be fixed. When i run it on Direct X 11 is screws up everytime so i run it on Direct X 9. it screws up the rare time.
     
  9. evrett37

    evrett37 Prince

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2008
    Messages:
    346
    I hate it for the HUGE changes (for the worse) to the market and community forcing Steam will make and I hate it because its a sloppy release with tons of bugs and missing content.
     
  10. Pantastic

    Pantastic King

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2006
    Messages:
    922
    I didn't link anyone's posts together, or claim that they are all valid, or steal anyone's posts. I summarized many of the arguments put forth for why Civ5 is bad, and listed them in a way that I think is most informative for the OP. The fact that simply listing complaints together generates such a response from people is pretty telling about the real merit of the complaints. It's also amusing how a post goes from a valid complaint about a 'horrible' game to a uninformed/possible troll post as soon as it's inconvenient to list the content of it.

    The tone of the material I responded to was rather angry, in general if someone says something like "the same nonsense in every thread" about something done in one thread, their gross exaggeration of the frequency indicates strong emotion. It's amusing that you post an obviously irate response, then try to claim that your denied anger indicates that the post was against forum rules.
     
  11. Sonereal

    Sonereal ♫We got the guillotine♫ Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2008
    Messages:
    14,897
    At least the interface isn't lying to us.

    Then again, there isn't much interface anymore. :lol:
     
  12. Pantastic

    Pantastic King

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2006
    Messages:
    922
    So SuperJay, you seriously wrote the material quoted from you in response to the post quoted directly above it from ricardojanns? Because the very post you're responding to is a good example of someone using extremely inflamatory terms and resorting to personal attacks. It makes it hard to believe that you've seen a lot of overreactions when you reply to a vicious attack on the game's supporters with a comment about how people overreact to non-insulting posts that are just people discussing their perspectives, it's like you're completely oblivious to the extremely nasty insult someone just barely finished typing.
     
  13. TheMeInTeam

    TheMeInTeam Top Logic

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    25,921
    Don't speak too soon!

    If you're playing quickly, you can get the UI to tell you that you can't move to a perfectly valid tile for several attempts.

    Then it lets you move there...so technically...........................:rolleyes:
     
  14. Aristos

    Aristos Lightseeker

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    3,754
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Deep inside...
    there you go! told you so...

    mass psycology.
     
  15. Sonereal

    Sonereal ♫We got the guillotine♫ Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2008
    Messages:
    14,897
    The game punishes you for trying to play too fast by triple-checking that all your units don't need orders first. It's less about the game lying and more about it feeling like its double or triple checking to make sure you can do anything fair....like moving into terrain outside the blue borders. :rolleyes:

    I'm pretty sure its lying about unit maintenance but I can't peg that one yet.
     
  16. TheMeInTeam

    TheMeInTeam Top Logic

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    25,921
    I haven't seen any problems with unit maintenance, except for the obvious fact that it is 1) a game rule and 2) how it works is somehow not public knowledge :sad:.
     
  17. Fistalis

    Fistalis Prince

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2009
    Messages:
    373
    A jumbled mix of opposing views is some how an informative post?

    You seem to have a problem understanding english. I stated that you mixed together posts which consisted of uninformed posts, informed posts and troll posts. Your continual attempt to skew peoples messages is rather sad.

    Again either your intentionally skewing my words or simply not comprehending. I stated that if you were attempting to inflame people that would be against the rules.

    Discrediting every complaint simply because you can find one that out of context seems to oppose it? Maybe you would like to explain what you were trying to accomplish with that particular post. You know form an idea and share it rather than simply grabbing small bits of other peoples ideas and taking them totally out of context, then putting them together into opposing statements and claiming that its something other than nonsensical.
     
  18. Öjevind Lång

    Öjevind Lång Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2005
    Messages:
    2,371
    I agree with all this. I was disappointed with many things in Civ V, but I do believe it has the makings of a great game, and I don't hanker for holy old Civ IV. It contained any number of exploits and bizarre AI behaviour - the predictability when sharing the same religion for example. And then it became overburdened because the designers piled on all kinds of stuff such as corporations and the terrible spy system in BtS. It became cluttered up.

    Of course, I know that if one writes things like this, one will inevitably be accused of being a "Civ Rev noobie" and a "Rexer". I'm neither. I do think Civ V needs to be less tilted towards constant war and give more to us who enjoy the journey more than the end of the game, but please stop this constant crooning about wonderful, incomparable, inimitable Civ IV. Go back and play it and shut up about Civ V, if that's how you feel about it. Instead of doing everybody that favour, the Civ IV fundamentalists keep posting flamebait about "the simplistic and boring Civ Rev players" and "fanboys".
     
  19. ChevalierdeJstn

    ChevalierdeJstn Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2010
    Messages:
    60
    First post on the forums, long-time follower of the Civ 4 threads.
    Midway through first game of Civ 5 @ Prince / Standard / Continents. Completely unrelated random fun comment: Dudes, Wu Zetian is HOT. Kudos to whoever made that art.

    Is this forum moderated? Could we please have blocked/deleted/banned the tired, tired comments of "You just don't like change and want it to be like Civ 4". No, I own Civ 4, I like it, I still play it, and I bought Civ 5 because, actually, I liked the idea of the new game.

    We're all posting here because we bought the game and want it to be better, so we're taking time out of our days to offer constructive criticism in what seems to be a common forum. Frankly, those making such tired accusations are trolls and should be banned from this forum. If all I wanted was Civ 4, I would return 5 and get my money back.

    I absolutely love the Direction in which Firaxis took the game. It is a great new twist on a great franchise. No problems there.
    The problem is that the Implementation is horrendous.

    1) UI is complete garbage. Five times now in this first game I have clicked to buy a tile or move a unit and apparently clicked on a completely different tile than I thought the mouse was selecting. No, this is not MY problem. The difficulty of the game should not be in figuring out where the pointer is. This is a fatal design flaw. A popular gaming magazine recently ran a column condemning game designers for not making games more accessible and this is exactly such a case. My 65-year-old father with mild glaucoma is a fan of the Civ franchise: if I can't even see which tile I am selecting, how much fun is it going to be for him to be peering at the screen? I am almost tempted to play the rest of my game in Strategy View, which seems like a waste when so much time, effort, and money went into making the normal view so pretty. I find myself searching for cheats, not because the game is too hard, but because it's going to take me 10 turns to make back the gold so I can buy the tile a WANTED to buy as opposed to the one that, apparently, the game thinks I clicked.

    2) More design garbage: the colored resource spheres. Color recognition is a rather late-stage evolutionary development; mammals (humans included) much more readily recognize differences in shape. My guess is it takes me at least twice as long to "read" a Civ 5 map as it would if, oh, just hypothetically, some easily-distinguishable icons such as bread, hammers, and coins had been used. By the way, was anyone even remotely involved in this design project at all color blind? Mmm-hmmm. Personally, I would fire anyone who let such a freshman-level design error make it into the final product. Harsh? No, I don't think so.

    3) It's not a serious resource hog, at least on my machine. It just...takes...freaking...forever. I don't play nearly as fast as TMIT but when I play a game, I want to play the game: not watch a stupid worker walk up a stupid hill. I really hope a "quick move" option is a priority in the next patch. I've ended up building more roads than I really need. I don't care about the income/maintenance, I just like that now it takes half the time for my units to move around in my empire. Not half the time as in movement points, half the time as in waiting for the darn icon to move so I can click "next".

    4) Finally, It's a Video Game Not Real Life. Yes, realistically, it makes sense (for example) that AIs don't want to freely trade for luxury resources on a 1:1 or 1:2 basis. However, this seems like an obvious example of the team saying "Hey wouldn't it be cool if...". Yes, it's a cool idea, but coolness does not always equal Fun. This is just one example of decisions which decreased the overall strategic aspect of the game in the name of making it more "realistic". If I wanted realistic I wouldn't be playing a turn-based strategy game.

    And to sum up an explanation, from my perspective, of why it is so easy to compare this game unfavorably to Civ 4. It has nothing to do with game play: it's because 4 was well designed. The UI was easy to use and understand for anyone at all familiar with previous Civ incarnations. The rules made sense and were, no not realistic, but understandable. The AI "cheats" on higher difficulties? OK, that's simple to understand, and makes the game more difficult in a manner that is actually fun to beat by discovering various "exploits". Could it have been better? Certainly. But the point is it at least worked, and made sense. This was, I think, why 4 was so well-supported by the modding community: the basic design of the game was logical and easy and fun to use. It seems to me that 2K/Firaxis released Civ 5 expecting the modding community to edit and improve the core game rather than add on to what was already a finished project. You know what, that's called "open source design" and you really shouldn't charge 50 bucks for that sort of thing. Do I want Civ 5 to play like Civ 4? No. But you've proven time and again you can make a game without glaring design flaws, and that's what I'd like to see in Civ 5 as well.

    PS - I did almost return the game unplayed when, after inserting the disk, installing Steam, and installing Civ 5, Steam told me it was going to take another 36 minutes on my high speed line to "update" before I could play. Seriously guys, Micros__t is not even that bad with the updates. If the next "update" takes another half hour before I can play, I will seriously consider returning the game and asking for my money back, end of story.
     
  20. TheMeInTeam

    TheMeInTeam Top Logic

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    25,921
    There are merits to the vast majority of design decisions in civ V.

    The same can not be said for their implementation - if you look at V in a vacuum rather than comparing it to IV (which, by the way, is loaded with bugs, control and UI problems, fake difficulty, broken mechanics, and shoddy patch decisions even in 3.19), you still see a lot of holes:

    - balance of warfare/expansion vs teching w/o them
    - attack/defense balance (ROI of war)
    - city state balance
    - tech and movement vs unit production
    - hidden gameplay rules (this is an AWFUL design decision in ANY game. Rules should *not* be hidden. Ever.)
    - Performance requirements (this game should not be taking up WAY more machine resources than modern shooters and RTS)
    - UI lag, ability to play the game at a reasonable speed (humans should not be able to *easily* outplay the speed at which the interface can keep up, turns should NOT be longer for the AI than the human).

    Etc. These things have nothing to do with civ IV, they are straight up flaws in V when looked at in isolation. They are serious issues and their existence prevents this from being a good game. Some of them, in fact, still exist as problems in civ IV, but that is irrelevant when looking at whether or not V is a good game. It is not, because it has these problems, not because it is not IV.
     

Share This Page