Why does everyone hate CIV5?

[charon2112]

Civ 4 is like chess, Civ 5 is like checkers.

A more accurate analogy would be Civ 4 is like Risk (with stacks of units), and Civ V is like chess.

 

[Aristos]

A more accurate analogy would be Civ 4 is like Risk (with stacks of units), and Civ V is like chess.

your fanatism is out of this world... is it that hard for you to accept that you are playing a subpar game? I understand you are not from the mass market, as you also value GalCiv2 and other truly strategic games... (or so you say). What is it with civ0.5 that you cannot let go?

Moderator Action: Please be respectful to other members.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[PawelS]

your fanatism is out of this world... is it that hard for you to accept that you are playing a subpar game? I understand you are not from the mass market, as you also value GalCiv2 and other truly strategic games... (or so you say). What is it with civ0.5 that you cannot let go?

Is it that hard for you to accept that some people can have a different opinion about the game than you?

 

[jowww97]

hello, neighbour across the river (I'm in Langley),

yes, it was not made for the thinking man (or woman). If you are one of those rare specimens, well, bad news for you, this is not your train. This is a train without a brain.

Moderator Action: Trolling
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

rare specimens? i think that u are one of them

 

[Aristos]

rare specimens? i think that u are one of them

Yes, indeed I am. You did notice that I was referring to the thinking man, right? Thank you for the compliment.

 

[Aristos]

Is it that hard for you to accept that some people can have a different opinion about the game than you?

Honestly, in this case: YES. It is so obvious to me that this is a mediocre product that it is hard for me to understand the contrarian opinion, specially when it comes from people that show signs that they don't belong to the mass market.

 

[PawelS]

Honestly, in this case: YES. It is so obvious to me that this is a mediocre product that it is hard for me to understand the contrarian opinion, specially when it comes from people that show signs that they don't belong to the mass market.

OK, but it would be nice if you can refrain from insulting those heretics that don't share your only and true faith by depreciating their intelligence.

 

[charon2112]

your fanatism is out of this world... is it that hard for you to accept that you are playing a subpar game? I understand you are not from the mass market, as you also value GalCiv2 and other truly strategic games... (or so you say). What is it with civ0.5 that you cannot let go?

Really? This:

A more accurate analogy would be Civ 4 is like Risk (with stacks of units), and Civ V is like chess.

...equates to fanaticism?

Okay.

Honestly, in this case: YES. It is so obvious to me that this is a mediocre product that it is hard for me to understand the contrarian opinion, specially when it comes from people that show signs that they don't belong to the mass market.

It's so obvious to me that Civ V is a great product, and I can't understand the contrary opinion. As to who is in the minority, look at the reviews of the game. They speak for themselves.

**Seriously, why does it bother you so much that some people like Civ V? You seem to take it very personally.

 

[vandyr]

Nonsense. Although the stacking model of previous civs is perhaps the biggest (only?) weakness of civ4, it is still far superior to the "new" 1upt model that does not fit the strategy genre, as has been discussed, argued and proven many times in this forum.

Keep in mind, the above is your opinion, and not representative of the Civ playing community. I, for one, despise SoD warfare and thoroughly enjoy 1upt. Most of the arguments against it come down to 'realism', which has no place in any discussion involving any version of Civ, and tedium, which is personal choice. Proven? I think not.

 

[Aristos]

As to who is in the minority, look at the reviews of the game. They speak for themselves.

That I know. Look at my signature.

 

[The_J]

Moderator Action: Stop picking out single posters. We disapprove discussions about single persons here.

 

[Aristos]

:d ....

 

[zerotwo]

I was defending YOU

I totally misread that. I thought it was (and apparently a mod also thought it was) "you are on the no brain train." Your wording was very tricky!

My mistake.

 

[Öjevind Lång]

I was defending YOU, Mr... read carefully. Since the launch of Civ0.5, this place is full of... everything. Don't let them confuse you. You said "it is for somebody else", and I answered that: it is for the mass market. If you don't like the "game", chances are you do not belong to that group. Read carefully; defending your point got me more infraction points than fingers, but I won't shut up. Hell, they can kick me out of the forums if they want... they would only prove the point.

That critics of the game are not welcome anymore.

Well, after three months posts one can get tired of posts that contribute nothing new, that have no other purpose than to declare that Civ V is braindead, as well as those who say something good about it. Such posts can feel a little rude too.

 

[lschnarch]

Well, after three months posts one can get tired of posts that contribute nothing new, that have no other purpose than to declare that Civ V is braindead, as well as those who say something good about it. Such posts can feel a little rude too.

Care to explain what would be the difference between repeating why one doesn't like the game and repeating why one does like the game?

Furthermoe, care to explain why you would be entitled to complain about the one action and not about the other?

Both are valid expressions of what one feels about the game. I really don't see why the one action "becomes boring" and the other one not.

Furthermore, talking about "rudeness" ...
I take your word that you express your uneasiness with each repetition of the term "hater" in an equal way.

 

[PawelS]

Care to explain what would be the difference between repeating why one doesn't like the game and repeating why one does like the game?

Furthermoe, care to explain why you would be entitled to complain about the one action and not about the other?

Both are valid expressions of what one feels about the game. I really don't see why the one action "becomes boring" and the other one not.

Furthermore, talking about "rudeness" ...
I take your word that you express your uneasiness with each repetition of the term "hater" in an equal way.

I haven't seen anyone at this forum lately "repeating why one does like the game", but there are lots of people that have nothing interesting to say except things like "Shafer 0.5 is braindead" etc.

If you read the other threads at this forum you can find my posts about various subjects, including critical ones. The same applies to other people that like the game more or less. But some people (I won't specify who, because the mods won't like it), really do nothing more than bashing the game. Every single of their posts has the sole purpose of proving how "subpar" the game is. I agree with Öjevind Lång that it's boring and doesn't really contribute anything of value to the community.

 

[sketch162000]

But some people (I won't specify who, because the mods won't like it), really do nothing more than bashing the game. Every single of their posts has the sole purpose of proving how "subpar" the game is.

This should not be a problem...If someone is REALLY critical of the game but gives relevant reasons then their comments are perfectly valid since perfection is impossible. There is always room for improvement, and as a new title Civ V lacks polish to begin with.

Now, you could take issue with those who just say that the game sucks and nothing more. But you did not say that--you specifically complained about those who continually try to "prove how 'subpar' the game is." The truth is that Civ V disappointed a lot of people on this forum. It speaks to another issue when critical posters are attacked by fans that are simply tired of hearing criticism, no matter how valid. Not saying that you are one of those fans...

 

[Iranon]

There are a many things about the design decisions that seem highly questionable without even a need to play the game.

When I heard about 1UPT and more focus on tactics, I was immediately sceptical. Tactics have never been a strong point of civ AI, and it sounded difficult to implement well in a game with strategic scope and multiple sides. Ok, that was just a hunch... I know nothing about programming let alone AI so maybe they can pull it off.

More worryingly, I just didn't get some of the mechanics.
The availability of raw bonuses (rather than percentages) suggested that an ICS - always in danger of becoming a degenerate strategy in the series - would be unusually attractive. Global happiness looked incapable of checking this given that filler cities could just build the most economical happiness buildings (and stifle growth if necessary). At best, it would force 2nd generation filler cities to support the original ones if you want to build them up... ok, probably a moot point but I didn't know that then.
Less variation in terrain usefulness made the matter worse. I don't really know enough about Unique Abilities or Social Policies to be certain, but some seem suitable for abusing already strong strategies and others don't.

When I prodded Civ4 economy mechanics with a stick, I found them very inelegant... but most of the time, they at least appeared to do their job, sometime surprisingly well.
Civ5 makes me wonder whether the designers lacked any intellectual rigour or simply didn't care about the product as a 'game' rather than 'entertainment product' - i.e. 'will it work as a pure challenge after you take away spectacle and immersion?' The difference between what's intuitive and what's possible if you go out of your way to break the mechanics seems huge and unintended.

 

[Öjevind Lång]

Care to explain what would be the difference between repeating why one doesn't like the game and repeating why one does like the game?

Furthermoe, care to explain why you would be entitled to complain about the one action and not about the other?

Both are valid expressions of what one feels about the game. I really don't see why the one action "becomes boring" and the other one not.

Furthermore, talking about "rudeness" ...
I take your word that you express your uneasiness with each repetition of the term "hater" in an equal way.

Your rejoinder is not as impressive as you seem to think. It's perfectly legitimate to post criticism of the game, but that's not what the posters I refer to do. They don't make interesting points of view about the game, positive or negative. They really have nothing to say about the game except that "it sucks", and your attempt below to show that you can deliver constructive criticism does not constitute an exception from that phenomenon. The Civ V haters (yup, I said haters) simply hang around here to tell everyone that the game sucks, preferably with some personal attacks on those who like it ("braindead", "proof that democracy doesn't work" and so on) thrown in. That is not constructive, it simply constitutes trying to spoil other people's fun. No one who had anything worthwhile to do would spend months on such futile exercise. They would do soemthing else. Post about Civ IV in the Civ IV forum, for example. Pr get a life.

Moderator Action: calling other users "haters" is unacceptable, telling them to get a life is not acceptable either.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[charon2112]

I think I love you.

Your rejoinder is not as impressive as you seem to think. It's perfectly legitimate to post criticism of the game, but that's not what the posters I refer to do. They don't make interesting points of view about the game, positive or negative. They really have nothing to say about the game except that "it sucks", and your attempt below to show that you can deliver constructive criticism does not constitute an exception from that phenomenon. The Civ V haters (yup, I said haters) simply hang around here to tell everyone that the game sucks, preferably with some personal attacks on those who like it ("braindead", "proof that democracy doesn't work" and so on) thrown in. That is not constructive, it simply constitutes trying to spoil other people's fun. No one who had anything worthwhile to do would spend months on such futile exercise. They would do soemthing else. Post about Civ IV in the Civ IV forum, for example. Pr get a life.

Moderator Action: you are responsible for everything you post this includes agreeing to troll posts.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889