Why do people take it personally?

[Thormodr]

Move on? MOVE ON?!?

You're not a true Civ fan if you EVER MOVE ON. Never forgive. NEVER forget.

(This humorous parody was brought to you by the letter J and the number 42.)

Hell hath no fury like a Civ player scorned.

 

[tom2050]

Firaxis does listen to it's fans, but sometimes they listen to the wrong ones... there are already those coming in and saying they want Civilization series to be eliminated from the PC market, and moved to facebook game only. What the hell!?!? I would say "That will happen the day hell freezes over"; but then I think about it, and hell might freeze over sometime in the near future for all we know.

I've heard some mention to get rid of workers and settlers completely. I've heard some want it to be real-time strategy. I've heard all kind of non-sense. This is what Firaxis will hear more of as they bring in non-turn based gamers. "Make it a FPS!". And Firaxis would probably end up doing it; which is what I'm afraid of.

 

[SuperJay]

"Make it a FPS!". And Firaxis would probably end up doing it; which is what I'm afraid of.

Oh, my god.

Where's Tupasic?? We need screenshots of Ghandi with a BFG 9000 facing off against Alexander (with chaingun) and Washington calling in some UAV and an airstrike. STAT.

 

[Jharii]

What puzzles me how some view this kind of "regression" of game as a good thing?

I just don't think we can make a judgement on whether the actual game has regressed yet because our "opponents" are not making proper use of the proper strategies.

The AI... yes, it has regressed. But a new game means a new AI, which means that *hopefully* they will be greatly improving on it.

Elemental is going through the same pains with AI as well. Unfortunately, a lot of its mechanics are flawed or broken, which makes AI programming impossible.

 

[AlpsStranger]

Settling for this crapola just vindicates what Firaxis and 2K Games have done.

This is a rewording of exactly what I am accusing you of. I'd advise the moderators to take note: the goal is actually to make the Civ5 general discussion forum intolerable. It couldn't be put any more plainly than this. Why is this not considered mass griefing the Civ5 general discussion forum? Why is it permitted?

 

[PickledDictator]

It's much easier to make a tool than to be a craftsman. I.e. it's much easier to incorporate a solid mechanic into a game than it is to program an AI to use it. Again, I think many of CiV's issues will be resolved when the AI is improved upon. Currently, it feels like a 5 year old child, just moving things around the game board because it's cool to. Horsey neat! The 5 year old doesn't know it's strategic benefits, he/she just likes making whinney noises.

The more complexity that you introduce into a game, you increase the complexity that is needed for the AI immensely, even exponentially. This leads me to believe that CiV has the *potential* to be a *very* complex game. It's just too hard to tell at this stage since we're still playing against 5 year olds.

What they need is to code a memetic AI to play CiV, that *learns* how to play CiV as it plays, and improves along the way. That learns from what it does, as well as from what human players do.

I agree with what your saying, I don't think we are in disagreement. I want complexity, I am that guy who wants to micro manage my empire. As it stands now, I either don't get to, or don't have to.

So lets look at diplomacy: Currently other than some cheeky speak, its hard to actually quantify how the AI feels towards you. Inevitably no matter what you do, they will come for you. This is not about it not being polished, this is about a concept being only half done.

this is one of many concepts "not finished". If expansions packs are the new way to give us a completed game, it means a true "polished" game will cost over 100 dollars.

A video game was always a finished product, where the money was collected after the game was released. Its not a house, where you pay the plumber half his money just to show up and the other half when he's done.

This is a disturbing trend which does not sit well with me

 

[AlpsStranger]

means a true "polished" game will cost over 100 dollars.

You know, you could probably get a niche "Civ4 but more complicated" *if* you were willing to pay $100 for it. People want a game that makes no concessions to appeal to a wider audience *and* costs what PC games did in 1999. All expansions and additional content should be free as well.

Yet I'm the fool here for some reason.

 

[Jharii]

I agree with what your saying, I don't think we are in disagreement. I want complexity, I am that guy who wants to micro manage my empire. As it stands now, I either don't get to, or don't have to.

So lets look at diplomacy: Currently other than some cheeky speak, its hard to actually quantify how the AI feels towards you. Inevitably no matter what you do, they will come for you. This is not about it not being polished, this is about a concept being only half done.

this is one of many concepts "not finished". If expansions packs are the new way to give us a completed game, it means a true "polished" game will cost over 100 dollars.

A video game was always a finished product, where the money was collected after the game was released. Its not a house, where you pay the plumber half his money just to show up and the other half when he's done.

This is a disturbing trend which does not sit well with me

Yeah, I think we are on opposite sides on the same coin. It's just so hard to tell what is "broken" in the game when it's hard to play the game with any modicum of challenge. I suppose I could try multiplayer, but I really am scared of wasting hours on a game against people exploiting the *actual* bugs and imbalances that are present (yes, I know they do exist ). I also remember the good old days when increasing difficulty actually meant a smarter opponent, not the dumb or average opponent with resource cheats.

For instance... I would love to have an actual reason to build walls and castles, but as it stands, it's completely unnecessary because my cities are never a priority when I have a couple of units hanging around. I've literally had one archer unit in and adjacent to a city, it was one hit away from falling, and 3 full health enemy longsword units FLED! Doesn't the AI know that just by occupying my city for one turn that it can really severely impact my economy and productivity?

And I agree with the diplomacy. It all seems... a bit hollow. And there are some basic things missing (why can THEY cancel Open Borders but I cannot?).

FYI, seeing where Civ 4 started and where it ended up after all of the expansions, I was glad to shell out my money for the complete experience. I'm willing to gut it out for Civ 5, too. But yes, it feels like it took one step back. But for me, it's because of the silly behavior of the AI.

 

[PickledDictator]

At AlpStranger


I don't have a problem with paying more for quality....I realize quality costs money in real life.

I don't like someone telling me this game is worth 60 bucks when its clearly not. I buy all the expansions and have no problem with that stuff, that is how it is in the gaming industry.

I don't want civ 4.5 and I don't want civ rev 2 which is what we got.

What made civ so great in the past was the fact they understood the strategy gamer's needs. Now they are trying to appeal to the first person shooter player (which is fine if you do it for the console) and still give the PC gamer what they want too.

Do we want civ 2010, 2011,2012 etc like Tiger Woods golf... I Hope not

 

[ShuShu62]

I think there have been mentioned 2 very reasonable explanations as to why people are so upset.

• The game was released unfinished, thus they, the customers, have payed good money for a product that is, in its current state, not worth that money.
  Since they payed for the product, they're entitled to complaints. Those complaints may be a bit more vocal than if they bought for example a new piece of dissatisfactory hardware, because they could give that back and get a refund, which seems to be impossible with software.
• Players, especially those that grew up with Civ and have played since cIvilization, feel emotionally attached to the name Civilization and what it represents and don't find it in ciVilization - for various reasons, most prominent amongst which seems to be the "streamlining."
• (belongs to the second point really)Players expected a better product because they can't see while standards should be lowered from cIVilization to ciVilization.

Somewhere someone argued in favour of the "streamlining" aka "dumbing down" with a comparison between Mahler and Peter Glass - that's spot on:

If you're a fan of Mahler and his complex compositions you'd probably be utterly shocked if he composed something like Glass (minimalistic music) (and vice versa). Just like that, many fans of the earlier civs are now pissed that complexity has been taken out of a game. They expected this complexity, deepness etc. pp. because it's been composed by Mahler, not Glass ... sorry, been published as Civilization, not Civilization Revolutions or Panzer Generalization or something.

Its interesting to be quoted to make a point opposite to the original intention, but it is a valid point. If you go to a concert expecting a Mahler Symphony and are treated to a Phillip Glass Concert, you will definitely be pissed.

To the OP's point, If you go expecting a Mahler Symphony when the adds are for a Glass concert, the Marque says Phillip Glass, The music heard before buying the tickets sounds like Phillip Glass, and the ticket clearly says Phillip Glass, why are so many folks still pissed off that it is a Phillip Glass concert?

The Impression that I get from all the initial hype, and the more reasoned posts (both positive and negative) is that the first movement is a REALLY GOOD Phillip Glass concert, unfortunately the rest of the movements fall flat.

Those who like Phillip Glass, can take heart that the remaining movements can be fixed. Those who dislike Phillip Glass or for whom Phillip Glass is a taste yet to be acquired, it is a travesty that Mahler is dead, and Phillip Glass is not composing the way good ole Mahler used to.

 

[AlpsStranger]

At AlpStranger


I don't have a problem with paying more for quality....I realize quality costs money in real life.

I don't like someone telling me this game is worth 60 bucks when its clearly not. I buy all the expansions and have no problem with that stuff, that is how it is in the gaming industry.

I don't want civ 4.5 and I don't want civ rev 2 which is what we got.

What made civ so great in the past was the fact they understood the strategy gamer's needs. Now they are trying to appeal to the first person shooter player (which is fine if you do it for the console) and still give the PC gamer what they want too.

Do we want civ 2010, 2011,2012 etc like Tiger Woods golf... I Hope not

No, I certainly don't want Civ to be dumbed down either, and the truth is I am not even close to content with the current state of Civ5. My largest issue right now, however, is with the forum warriors that are, for some reason, freely allowed to engage in a griefing campaign on what is supposedly a moderated forum.

I'm alt-tabbing to Civ4-BTS between posts for what it is worth. Despite my apparent Civ5 defense I haven't actually played it for a week. My issue has a lot more to do with forum etiquette and the potential future of Civ5. I agree that the current game is borderline indefensible.

 

[PickledDictator]

Yeah, I think we are on opposite sides on the same coin. It's just so hard to tell what is "broken" in the game when it's hard to play the game with any modicum of challenge. I suppose I could try multiplayer, but I really am scared of wasting hours on a game against people exploiting the *actual* bugs and imbalances that are present (yes, I know they do exist ). I also remember the good old days when increasing difficulty actually meant a smarter opponent, not the dumb or average opponent with resource cheats.

For instance... I would love to have an actual reason to build walls and castles, but as it stands, it's completely unnecessary because my cities are never a priority when I have a couple of units hanging around. I've literally had one archer unit in and adjacent to a city, it was one hit away from falling, and 3 full health enemy longsword units FLED! Doesn't the AI know that just by occupying my city for one turn that it can really severely impact my economy and productivity?

And I agree with the diplomacy. It all seems... a bit hollow. And there are some basic things missing (why can THEY cancel Open Borders but I cannot?).

FYI, seeing where Civ 4 started and where it ended up after all of the expansions, I was glad to shell out my money for the complete experience. I'm willing to gut it out for Civ 5, too. But yes, it feels like it took one step back. But for me, it's because of the silly behavior of the AI.

See this is the kind of discussion I like. Someone who can admit that even their side of the coin is flawed. I really appreciate that because for one, its more civil, and two it actually helps us find common ground with the same goal in mind.

I remember the outrage over Civ IV as well. I guess expectations were so high after BTS that we all forget some games humble beginnings.

My fear is that Civ V is more like Civ Rev 2 and not staying true to the franchise. I question this new direction and what it truly means for a franchise that IMO is the best out there of all video games.

 

[PickledDictator]

No, I certainly don't want Civ to be dumbed down either, and the truth is I am not even close to content with the current state of Civ5. My largest issue right now, however, is with the forum warriors that are, for some reason, freely allowed to engage in a griefing campaign on what is supposedly a moderated forum.

I totally hear what you're saying. On the flip side, there are many fanboys who are just so blinded by the newness that they cannot even see past the flaws.

so there is two sides

Speaking out either for or against is important, the key is to do it constructively and without personal insult.

We can't all possibly agree on the same thing

 

[AlpsStranger]

My fear is that Civ V is more like Civ Rev 2 and not staying true to the franchise. I question this new direction and what it truly means for a franchise that IMO is the best out there of all video games.

Nah, I've played rev and I don't think the games have the same conceptual DNA.

I think what we're looking at is a lot more like a new Civ1. This is a franchise reboot and it is still fairly barebones. Those bones will eventually have plenty of meat on them, but for now the pickings are a little slim.

 

[PickledDictator]

Nah, I've played rev and I don't think the games have the same conceptual DNA.

I think what we're looking at is a lot more like a new Civ1. This is a franchise reboot and it is still fairly barebones. Those bones will eventually have plenty of meat on them, but for now the pickings are a little slim.

Really think its a reboot? Was Civ IV the end of that era, to me it seemed as if there was so much more that could have been done.

Am I the only one who likes micromanagement?

 

[AlpsStranger]

Really think its a reboot? Was Civ IV the end of that era, to me it seemed as if there was so much more that could have been done.

Am I the only one who likes micromanagement?

I'm torn about micromanagement. I can see the appeal but it gradually saps my will towards the end of a game of Civ4. I'm not opposed to it in principal but I think it becomes tiresome in practice.

Do you know what my favorite Civ5 feature is? You can lock a tile while letting the governor handle all of the *other* tiles, and the lock isn't lost if an enemy unit crosses the tile. Pretty obscure, I know, but I think that's the kind of subtle feature that increases playability a lot.

 

[Jharii]

See this is the kind of discussion I like. Someone who can admit that even their side of the coin is flawed. I really appreciate that because for one, its more civil, and two it actually helps us find common ground with the same goal in mind.

I remember the outrage over Civ IV as well. I guess expectations were so high after BTS that we all forget some games humble beginnings.

My fear is that Civ V is more like Civ Rev 2 and not staying true to the franchise. I question this new direction and what it truly means for a franchise that IMO is the best out there of all video games.

Agreed.

I just try to keep in mind that even when I buy nice new shiny dinnerware, I still have to wash them before I eat off them.

Yeah, the same thing happened with Elemental, too. Expectations were through the stratosphere. It was just a bit different with it being an entirely new IP and the holes were glaring.

Here... we have expectations because of the groundwork laid before us. Big expectations. Did they meet them? At first glance, no. I really want to give them the benefit of the doubt on this one, though. I *think* they have earned that from their reputation.

I guess I am of the mindset that when a game is released, what is the potential of that game? This day and age, with such diverse users and technology, it's impossible to release a bug free, perfectly balanced game of any complexity. So when I load it up for the first time, I'm thinking "am I going to play this game 1/2/5 years from now?" So far with Civ 5, I'm saying "Yes!" just like I did with Civ 4 (and just like I am with Elemental, btw ).

So yeah, there is a lot of work to be done. I think we can help tremendously by being critical, yet civil, and not storming the Firaxis castle with pitchforks and torches.

 

[PickledDictator]

I'm torn about micromanagement. I can see the appeal but in practice it gradually saps my will towards the end of a game of Civ4. I'm not opposed to it on principal but I think it becomes tiresome in practice.

Do you know what my favorite Civ5 feature is? You can lock a tile while letting the governor handle all of the *other* tiles, and the lock isn't lost if an enemy unit crosses the tile. Pretty obscure, I know, but I think that's the kind of subtle feature that increases playability a lot.

No I love this little ability, I think made easier b/c tile yields have a lot less variability than in previous releases. I wish it had been in previous ones as well, I mean, you never took your worker off a whale in Civ 2

admittedly moving 100 engineers in civ 2 was tedious, but micromanagement IMO has always been something that I enjoyed, besides that only happened in building games

 

[Jharii]

No I love this little ability, I think made easier b/c tile yields have a lot less variability than in previous releases. I wish it had been in previous ones as well, I mean, you never took your worker off a whale in Civ 2

admittedly moving 100 engineers in civ 2 was tedious, but micromanagement IMO has always been something that I enjoyed, besides that only happened in building games

Same here. Same with locking manual vs. automatic specialist. I definitely love the city management in this game.

 

[AlpsStranger]

No I love this little ability, I think made easier b/c tile yields have a lot less variability than in previous releases. I wish it had been in previous ones as well, I mean, you never took your worker off a whale in Civ 2

admittedly moving 100 engineers in civ 2 was tedious, but micromanagement IMO has always been something that I enjoyed, besides that only happened in building games

I tend to have a heavy production tile locked down in most of my cities without regard to what their focus is otherwise.

And yeah, I'd kill my own grandmother to have this tile-lock feature in Civ4.

They really need to spice up the tiles though. The yields are far too boring and too uniform and health resources need to be far more useful.

As I said, Civ5 is deeply awful in many ways and truly grand in others. I'm still very optimistic about patched/expanded Civ5 and I think rightly so.

Diplomacy, building diversity, AI competence, tile yield variety and the tech tree are all disappointing to awful.

1upT(discounting the AI), hexes, city management and many of the more fundamental aspects of gameplay are reasons for at least cautious optimism.