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 does everyone hate CIV5?

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by ProudAmerican, Nov 26, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. mva5580

    mva5580 Warlord

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    127
    I don't "hate" Civ V, but I can certainly understand why the "hardcore" members here do.

    As someone who played Civ IV a TON, absolutely was in love with it, and often got my butt handed to me, I'm beyond amazed at how easy Civ V is. Playing on the same difficulty levels I absolutely DOMINATE the CPU, I mean the game is not even close to the point of boring. At the demographics screen at the end of the game, I was so far out in front of every statistic, it was laughable. And I am by no means someone who is great at this game, at all. I'm someone who could barely win on Warlord in Civ IV, and yet on Warlord in Civ V, I absolutely mop the floor with the CPU. I mean it's not even close. So I could probably win multiple levels ahead of that in V, where as I'm not sure I would even attempt it in IV at this point.

    There just doesn't seem like there are many "important" decisions to make in V. If you're even somewhat competent in how Civilization works, you should win pretty much any way you attempt to.

    I'm re-downloading IV on Steam as I type this, I'm going back to it for a little while. Maybe permanently. If they can fix the issues this game has, great. But it seems to me like this was the intention; to make it much more accessible for the masses. But for those of us who want a challenge, who want to feel pushed, I'm just not sure there's much that can be done w/ this game.
     
  2. charon2112

    charon2112 King

    Joined:
    May 8, 2009
    Messages:
    990
    Location:
    Massachusetts USA
    I just look at them as two separate games, I still play both. Probably IV a little bit more right now.

     
  3. SerriaFox

    SerriaFox King

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2008
    Messages:
    751
    Location:
    Texas
    Total War Rome load times for tactical battle is long enough that it is an annoying game-breaking slow. A person has a chance to get bored every battle, which at some point get the game turned off.

    Don't have the other total war titles.
     
  4. Venereus

    Venereus This Is Streamlined!

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2010
    Messages:
    1,026
    For what it's worth, I did have fun coming up with the stack composition and choosing the attacking order of the units. Simple, yes, but it required strategy and tactics, I actually had to think.
     
  5. zedd0740

    zedd0740 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2008
    Messages:
    6
    I wasn't aware that Civ veterans considered Civ 4 to be a complex member of the series. I found Civ IV to be excessively stripped down, especially regarding changes to economic development of your civilization.

    Civ use to be part of the 4X genre... for the type of players that could handle the Master of Orion series, or Galactic Civilization 2 (arguably the most solid recent game in this genre).

    I came here today looking for some honest reviews of Civ V before I wasted $50, and I know that only the original civ players could do that. Thanks guys =)

    If Civ V is being called a step down from the simpleton Civ IV, then I will definitely save my money.
     
  6. charon2112

    charon2112 King

    Joined:
    May 8, 2009
    Messages:
    990
    Location:
    Massachusetts USA
    I agree with this 100%.
     
  7. zedd0740

    zedd0740 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2008
    Messages:
    6
    Perhaps an RTS is something you want to play? From what I'm reading, they've removed the reward for developing solid infrastructure and cashflow. Resource tiles now have a unit limit. And the hex's themselves hold one unit. They did all of these to achieve one element in the game - tactical battle deployment.

    In other words, there is a scarcity on what you can have, and how you can use it, at the expense of Civilization's most prized game mechanics.

    Uh yeah...you win. :goodjob:
     
  8. markantony

    markantony Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2010
    Messages:
    205
    Rome Total War takes less than 30 seconds to load the battle screen. The load time is even shorter if you are not fighting with large armies. If you get bored in that amount of time, then I can`t really help you.

    You must be bored out of your mind clicking the "end turn" button on Civ 5..........
     
  9. SerriaFox

    SerriaFox King

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2008
    Messages:
    751
    Location:
    Texas
    Yeah, I thinks that part of the reason I've stop playing.
     
  10. Gorenox

    Gorenox Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2010
    Messages:
    5
    I just don't understand, why they didn't make a map were u accually start in true locations. i mean they should have a choice were you can switch between TSL or not TSL.
     
  11. markantony

    markantony Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2010
    Messages:
    205
    Now you see Gore, thats what I`ve been saying. To my mind it makes perfect sense. Firaxis see to dissagree.
     
  12. Sonereal

    Sonereal ♫We got the guillotine♫ Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2008
    Messages:
    14,809
    Limited resources are a strategic element, not tactical.

    A country with solid infrastructure and cashflow still does better than a backwards civilization anyway so what's your point?
     
  13. TheBlackAdderBG

    TheBlackAdderBG Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    56
    Location:
    Back in Bulgaria
    And your computer can run Civ V?If it can ,then max 5 sec. loading time for Rome,max 10 sec. for Medieval 2 ,3-4k troops on map with max graphic settings.I have average PC and loading tactical map is faster then animation in CiV.
    Maybe system like in Dominions 3 would have been great improvement over Civ IV.
     
  14. Gorenox

    Gorenox Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2010
    Messages:
    5
    no offense. but i think the reason why there slacking on all of this stuff is because they are letting all of the moders do there work. Like TSL maps they were to lazy to put the accual location of that country/City-State. They accually put a moding data base were you can get them. I think personally the moding people do more balance to the game, then civ5. sorry if i upset anyone.Also, i think they just spent a cheap time on this like about 6 months or something and didn't put much comitment to it. For example, if you had ever played legends of revulotions, its much more real like and makes sense, like if your city gets upset or is so far away from your capitol it declares its independents. I would think they would add more realism to the game like Legends of Revulotions. They could of added a whole much more to the game instead of graphics and strategy.
     
  15. Öjevind Lång

    Öjevind Lång Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2005
    Messages:
    2,371
    That is a very valid point. I'm confident that the programmers will address this issue because it is so obviously makes the game less enjoyable than it very easily could be.
     
  16. Öjevind Lång

    Öjevind Lång Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2005
    Messages:
    2,371
    There were no city states. What are you talking about? The barbarian cities? You couldn't trade with them. The puppets are very different from the vassal states in Civ IV, as you perfectly well know. The ambition to improve diplomacy is very manifest, though they have so far made a miserable job of implementing it. Removing crap such as religion the way it worked in Civ IV is an innovation for this particular game. And you simply HAD to build a zillion troops in order to survive in Civ IV. As for the rest, I'm not interested in who originated anything (cultural borders, for example, first appeared in "The Settlers"); I'm talking about innovations in Civ V as opposed to previous versions of that particular game.

    One brilliant innovation I forgot is the Civics. No longer can you choose to have a smorgasbord of civics whenever you choose (Communism plus religious freedom, forsooth!); you have to take the consequneces of previous decisions about which direction you decided to take your civilization in.
     
  17. Akka

    Akka Moody old mage.

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2001
    Messages:
    13,291
    Location:
    Facing my computer.
    Nice evidence you never bothered to read the actual criticisms.
    Which seem to be a very common trend in Civ5 most ardent defenders - they argue against points that they are the only ones to make, and ignore the actual real points that are brought up.

    Maybe that's why these forums seems to run in circles.
     
  18. Hormagaunt

    Hormagaunt Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    205
    So you couldn't trade with the barbarian cities? So what? They were still independent city-states that grew (and worked together). Every iteration of the game has had things that were in the prior version, carried forward into the new version, but changed in how they worked. Civ4 had city-states that grew substantially and worked with each other (building roads, for example, from city to city). Civ5 modded these to appear right at the beginning, allowed them to trade with players, and allowed limited diplomacy with them. Same thing, just changed somewhat.



    So? Again, something's come forward with changes. Instead of taking an entire country on as a puppet, you grab individual cities and puppet them.



    Doing a lousy job of something is not innovative. Look at Microsoft. They've done it many, many times.



    So it was innovation to add religion, and innovation to remove religion? No. Removing things is *not* innovation.



    Umm, no. I've survived and won quite happily in Civ4 with relatively few troops. Usually around 2 troops per city; sometimes fewer. I focus, of course, on science / culture. I've won religious victories by simply putting enough troops in my cities to protect them from betrayal then opened my borders to everybody and swamped them with missionaries. One Apostolic Palace later, voila!



    Copying something someone else has done is, again, not innovation. Also again, look at Microsoft.



    What's wrong with Communism plus religious freedom? That "opiate" dreck? Marx had a bee up his butt about religion. He was wrong about many other things, why couldn't he be wrong about that, too?

    And please show me a civ in the real world, any civ, that's A) survived a long time and B) has NOT changed how it does things. Maybe then I'll believe that "once selected, always selected" is a reasonable thing. (By the way, "a long time" is, say, 10 generations or more.)
     
  19. WimpyTheWarrior

    WimpyTheWarrior Warlord

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2003
    Messages:
    294
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    Anyone remember Imperialism and Imperialism II? Not bad games (IMHO) that implemented this nicely. Strategic map was area movement, but battles were resolved on a hex-based tactical map, loosely based on the terrain and fortifications of the area. 1UPT in the tactical map, but unlimited on the strategic level. You built tactical units, but assembled them into armies for movement on the strategic map. And combined arms were rewarded in most battles. Units gained experience and recovered if not killed on the battlefields.

    I recommend picking these up if you see them in a discount bin anywhere. Random maps revealed as you explore, minor countries, research, etc. Imperialism II added the New World and indian tribes you could trade with or conquer.
     
  20. warhead66

    warhead66 Warlord

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2008
    Messages:
    127

    Whether marx was right or wrong about religion and government is not a factor in civ, at all. Civs traits and features isn't based on what could have been, that's you're job. Civs role is to provide gameplay and features which are as historically accurate as possible (hence why Russians have a Krepost and Germany has the Landsknecht). The part about changing history is your job. You can choose a map where Russia is borded near the Iroquis and you can choose a naval based Russia who only worked with democracy, but the fact remains that you can't change democracy into something that works with fascism because democracy is a predefined term. it's that simple.

    As for countries that havent changed. first of that on its own makes no sense because you can indeed change your government in CiV. you can race for monarchy and later evolve it into communism, you can switch of branches too. But what remains a factor is that you can't radically alter things immediately like in Civ4. This is both historically accurate and logical. Take Russia s an example. the country is 1000 years old yet things that came with Ivan The Terrible are still factors of todays Russia: Strong attachment to nationality, Strong attachments to religion, despite 100 years of war against it. Oppressive state yet today a democracy. However Russia suffers from a lot of corruption and according to other western countries there are claims that their government aren't living up to standard human rights. (this isn't a history lesson but part of a point, mind exaggeration) These democratic faults are part of a developing democracy meaning since Russia is a new democracy, many things from Soviet times still play a huge factor. To put this in CiV perspective, the branch isn't finished.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page