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. lschnarch

    lschnarch Emperor

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2010
    Messages:
    1,296
    That's something what I will never get.

    How can criticism, may it be justified or not, spoil one's fun with the game?
    If the game were good and the criticism were not justified, so what?
    If the game were good and the criticism were justified, where is the problem?

    Well, it starts looking differently if we'd assume the game were not good...
    Then I could understand your notion. It clearly is no fun to get this fact presented all the time.

    Another point: seems to me that the ones who always mention Civ4 are the "defenders".
    As soon as somebody says anything which could be understood as criticism, out of a sudden a lot of people "remember" that the allegedly year after year played Civ4 was so much worse.
    Actually it seems to be a major part of the "defenders" who should go to the Civ4 forums.

    Civ5 mainly gets criticized because it is a weak game, to say the least. And this has nothing to do with Civ4, this is based on its own flaws and faults. That the best selling game of the franchise so far get's used as a reference is not very astonishing.
     
  2. ThERat

    ThERat Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2004
    Messages:
    11,363
    Location:
    City of one angel
    I recall when Sullla first wrote his analysis of Civ 5 and it wasn't positive, I felt a little like, why does this guy put down Civ 5 so much, when I want to like the game. I think this negativity against people who don't like Civ 5 has a lot to do with that underlying fear that the game is really not that great and these threads might get you out of your dream.

    If the game were that awesome, why would people be in forums trying to defend it in such a futile situation. Civ 5 has clearly failed on so many account and the majority of hardcore fans is disillusioned.

    Btw, I am someone who prefers Civ 3 over Civ 4 (yes, it does happen) and I still think Civ 5 is a horrible game at the moment.
     
  3. PawelS

    PawelS Ancient Druid

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2003
    Messages:
    2,803
    Location:
    Poland
    Maybe I shouldn't have used the word 'prove'. Those who give relevant reasons are not the problem, I meant those who 'prove' it by using irrelevant reasons and personal attacks, like "Shafer is incompetent" or "this game is not for the thinking people". "Nicknaming" the game is highly annoying to me as well.

    I can't speak for Öjevind, but for me it doesn't spoil the fun with the game. It spoils the fun of using the forum though.

    Well, I think it's natural to compare the game to the previous one in the series. I don't see Civ4 criticized at this forum often (I think I'm the one who does it the most), usually it's idealized as a "pinnacle of TBS games", and most of the Civ5 critics say that it should be more like Civ4, even to the degree of admitting that they would prefer a Civ4.5. These are the people who I think should rather go to the Civ4 forum instead of expressing their frustrations here.
     
  4. Akka

    Akka Moody old mage.

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2001
    Messages:
    13,289
    Location:
    Facing my computer.
    Be assured that posts blindingly defending the game, ignoring facts and repeating endlessly the same strawmen are just as tiring and rude.
     
  5. Slowpoke

    Slowpoke The Mad Modder

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2010
    Messages:
    1,321
    While that's true, it's always done in defense. You find people blurting out how much they hate the game in dozens of spammy posts, but people don't just randomly say "I love this aspect of the game!!!" over and over, and you don't have any "Civ 5 is awesome" in signatures, depite the fact that many people believe this.
     
  6. Öjevind Lång

    Öjevind Lång Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2005
    Messages:
    2,371
    If that comment referred to me, let me tell you that I have made many critical posts about Civ V. However, I do react against posts which are clearly intended to achieve nothing except annoy those who enjoy Civ V, despite its flaws. Why are such posters still in the forums for Civ V anyway? What do they think they contribute? Why do people who hate Civ V still bother to read this particular forum at all? And why do they stalk people like Pawel S., who has indeed, just as he says, said many severe things about the game in various posts?

    Something is wrong when a poster consistently designates himself "Civ V Relentless Critic" or uses the game's quotation of Antoine de Saint-Exupéry as part of his signature in order to insinuate that actually Jon Shafer left nothing in the game or can't resist making ad hominem attacks such as "LOLOL you people have no brains" or "You must be in the pay of Firaxis". The "Civ0.5" crack is also getting somewhat old.
    Moderator Action: Flaming
    Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

    One intended insult I often see is that those who like Civ V are "REXers" or "newbies" or people who like Civ IV Revolutions. Well, I am none of those things. Sullla's criticism of the game is quite valid, which I realized when I finally played an aggressive domination game; I am a builder, not a REXer, so it took me some time to see how much the game favours endless city spamming and puppeting. However, once Sullla had written his critique, he stopped writing about Civ V. He didn't take it upon himself to endlessly haunt the Civ V forums and try to sabotage all discussion of the game. When I write discussion, I mean discussion, not name calling. There are some of us who think the game still has merit and can become stunning. Much of the stuff listed in the patch announcement sounds very promising indeed.

    Of course, Civ V shouldn't have been published half finished. They shouldn't have to work on a massive patch that clearly shows that the designers are aware that the game that was rushed out in its present form (on God knows who's instructions) is badly flawed. But saying that is somewhat different from shouting: "Grab your pitchforks and torches! We'll go to the mill and kill the monster!"

    P. S. I finished a very entertaining session with Civ V yesterday. Of course, while doing so, I kept pining for the patch.
     
  7. PawelS

    PawelS Ancient Druid

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2003
    Messages:
    2,803
    Location:
    Poland
    To be honest I don't want to be treated as a victim and I don't feel being "stalked". There aren't posts directed specifically at me, it's just that I take some posts personally, like "if you give Civ5 more than 2 stars out of 5, my intelligence is higher than yours" ;)

    Btw what does "REXer" mean?
     
  8. Slowpoke

    Slowpoke The Mad Modder

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2010
    Messages:
    1,321
    For all intents and purposes, REXing is ICS.

    But specifically, rexing is where you explode with settlers from the start of the game and only slow down enough for skeletal defense. It doesn't necessarly imply packing the cities tight, but in practice it always really does.
     
  9. Öjevind Lång

    Öjevind Lång Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2005
    Messages:
    2,371
    Sorry. I shouldn't have mentioned you by name. REXer apparently means someone who loves to expand rapidly, filling as much of the map as possible with cities and then proceeding to attack other civs to acquire even more cities. Among the AI personalities, Washington suffers from a bad case of REXism ("manifest destiny"). Hiawatha is almost as bad in a similar way, though with him we are at least spared the constant "I hope you are a friend of liberty" guff. Who taught George Washington to talk? Long John Silver's parrot?

    One flaw in the game which has often been commented upon is how passive the AI is about exploring and colonizing other islands and continents. It's as bizarre as their fondness of founding absolutely worthless cities with no resources or rewards at all. (The special food and hammer resources in Civ V really *have* to be made more important. There they did take away too much.) Of course, the AI engages in mindless expansions because as currently implemented, the game rewards it.

    The developers have promised to make the AI more active about colonizing other continents in the upcoming patch. I very much wish they would also restore some of the importance of special resources. However, I think they got it right with horses and iron, and I don't miss the absence of bronze on the map very much. That was one "get this resource or die" feature too many, in my opinion.
     
  10. SuperJay

    SuperJay Bending Space and Time

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2010
    Messages:
    3,273
    Location:
    Shacklyn
    I've thought this very same thing as well; that's the only way I can explain the rancor towards people who just don't share the same perspective on a video game. On the one hand, we have critics describing the problems that detract from their enjoyment (people commenting on the game, which using the forum as intendeded) and on the other, you have people commenting on other people, not on the game at all - which is not the intented use of the forum, as I understand it.

    However, there are extremes on both ends. People get too personal and angry and insult each other on both sides, and that has no place here.

    I do have to say, that if you let someone else's posts on a video game "spoil your fun" - like actually interfere with your ability to enjoy that game - you probably shouldn't be reading those posts or participating in a forum in the first place. It's not the critics' fault if some person grants their opinions and words so much power that it ruins Civ 5 for that person.
     
  11. migkillertwo

    migkillertwo Prince

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2010
    Messages:
    404
    There's a lot to love about Civ V I agree, but there is one huge black mark on Civ V, and that is how SLOW the early game is. I think some Civs should get a worker instead of a warrior like in Civ IV, especially now that barbarians can't actually seize cities, and that cities have their own military defense. Either that, or monuments and workers should be way easier to build.

    But once your civ discovers gunpowder and can build factories, it is insanely fun.

    One guy commented on the neurological basis for this contrast between Civ IV and Civ V. Civ IV provided a steady stream of rewards in the early games. It wasn't slow, and you didn't just sit around waiting and clicking "end turn" for minutes at a time, you actually did stuff and got rewarded. in Civ V, the rewards dont come until the industrial age, where you can just pump out unit after unit from your cities and start waging respectable continental wars.
     
  12. vandyr

    vandyr Prince

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2007
    Messages:
    351
    This is full of win. My personal favorite insult for daring to like Civ V is being on the "no brain train".

    Moderator Action: Calling other users haters or telling them to get a life even by quoting such a post and reaffirming it is unacceptable.
    Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

    Lets be honest here - most of the insulting and name calling are coming from the camp that dislikes Civ V. I've seen more people who defend Civ V called braindead, idiots, noobs, and everything else under the sun than any one else here, not to mention the broad generalizations that get attached to the game by certain posters labeling anyone that likes it as being of less than average intelligence.
     
  13. jowww97

    jowww97 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2010
    Messages:
    13
    For me it's simple and clear enought.. I hate civ 5, won't buy neither expansion pack neither civ and what more can come.

    so f... 2K for this game...

    Moderator Action: Inappropriate Language
    Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
     
  14. BigDH01

    BigDH01 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2010
    Messages:
    2
    I highly doubt they can fix this. And it's not because of incompetence, it's because doing this kind of AI programming is extremely difficult and highly computationally expensive. Think about how slow the turns are now and imagine turns involving even deeper decision-making processes. The turns are quite slow on my machine (an i7), so I'd hate to imagine what they are like on, say, an "average" machine that's probably a mid-clocked dual core. They might be able to fudge the "weighting" a bit, but the underlying algorithms will probably remain untouched.

    And think about what a difficult problem this is. Not only does the AI have to make formation decisions based on incomplete information, it has to find a way to get everything in place. Meanwhile, humans and other AI are constantly moving and thus redefining the optimal position. And all those computational cycles you just spent trying to figure out how to get unit A "in front" of unit B are potentially wasted. It's really a very difficult problem.

    This isn't a simple chess game. In chess, all units are essentially equally powerful with different rules defining their movement. You also get perfect information. And because chess has been studied so extensively, for at least awhile you have a database with optimal movements. In Civ 5, you have multiple opponents, imperfect information, larger strategic goals, complicated movement schemes, and units with varying abilities, strengths, and range. In other words, you're not going to see a tactical AI that will be as smart as just playing AI in chess, at least not without waiting a couple of hours between turns.

    This was somewhat masked in cIV as a computationally "easy" strategy, that being stacks, was also a valid gameplay strategy. Stacks work on a strategic level to take and hold territory. You could "fake" good AI. With 1UPT, you can't fake good AI. It has to work competently or it will be completely destroyed by any human who can think. Having a suboptimal formation is entirely game breaking in favor of the human. This is why people are just leveling the AI on diety. This kind of AI is extremely hard to do, if not impossible on consumer hardware, and we've seen that humans are doing a very good job pounding the AI into the ground.

    I know people are expecting the AI to "get fixed" with patches and updates, but I seriously doubt it. You may see it not make the same obviously stupid decisions, but it will still be easy to exploit in one fashion or another. The mechanics of the game are complicated enough that a good algorithmic solution would take an unreasonably long amount of time to find, especially as they are trying to make the franchise more accessible, which presumably means making it run on a wider spectrum of hardware as well.

    This is why I feel that 1UPT was not a good design choice for this style of game. It will never work in a way that we feel the AI is competent, and it also limits that strategic choices for players who are only minor warmongers are empire builders. They built an empire-building game on a mechanic that, imo, will never work satisfactorily. Coming from a Total War background, they got around this problem by separating the strategic and tactical gameplay, allowing you to stack armies (and basically stack units on the tactical level). It also separates the AI into strategic and tactical components. It doesn't need to worry about setting a tactical formation here to protect a city or pillage an improvement. Strategic AI makes a decision about what to put in the stack and where to put it, tactical AI decides how to deploy and fight with it. This is the most reasonable compromise, IMO, to achieve a somewhat competent AI and not have 2-hour long turns. And although the Total War AI still makes some bone-headed moves, it is a vast improvement over ciV AI.

    I suppose I commend the ciV for trying this, but at the same time they should've realized that it wouldn't be reasonable in the final product if you wanted a strategic game that was as involved as the tactical. IMO, they would've been wise to modify the rules a bit in testing to allow for limited stacking. That would not only appear to make the AI more competent, but it would open the strategic game as well. I largely agree with other posters that limiting the number of units any civ can realistically build and manage to 5-10 drastically alters the empire-building game. Out of necessity, you basically have to increase build times for units, which means lower build times for everything else (unless you separate civilian and military shields). Again, this is just my opinion, but if they wanted to get tactical, they should've taken a Total War type of approach. Limit the stacks and separate strategic and tactical decision-making. Now we're left with a game with pitiful tactical gameplay and broken empire-building.
     
  15. SuperJay

    SuperJay Bending Space and Time

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2010
    Messages:
    3,273
    Location:
    Shacklyn
    No, it's coming from a very small handful of people who choose to violate the rules with personal attacks. You should report those posts rather than painting every criticism of the game with such a broad brush.

    We can all agree that Civ5 has flaws and was obviously pretty rushed, can't we? (You don't have two major patches like we're getting for Civ 5 if the game was released in the state that it should have been.) People commenting on those aspects of the Civ 5 launch aren't hurting anyone by doing so.

    And yes, it does happen both ways. You know this. ;)

    Good points all. There's been quite a lot of discussion about this recently, and a few folks have come to the same conclusions that you have. (Unfortunately I can't remember the thread where that took place.) But yeah, suffice to say there's some agreement on this issue. (Before anyone freaks out, nobody is trashing 1UPT, just discussing how it fits in to a Civilization game.)
     
  16. Öjevind Lång

    Öjevind Lång Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2005
    Messages:
    2,371
    And you edited away the entire content of your previous post, the one I responded to, which was probably prudent of you. So we can both congratulate each other.

    I might tentatively agree that Civilization is just a stupid game. The question then arises why we are here. We should be discussing chess instead.
     
  17. Moss

    Moss CFC Scribe Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    May 1, 2002
    Messages:
    6,584
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Moderator Action: Thread closed.

    For those of you that cannot post without insults (veiled or open) please don't post at all.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page