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. SuperJay

    SuperJay Bending Space and Time

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2010
    Messages:
    3,273
    Location:
    Shacklyn
    With all due respect, how many of those threads have you:

    (A) found the duplicates of in the forum
    (B) copied the URLs of the existing threads
    (C) reported the newer duplicates and pasted the URLs so a moderator can easily merge them?

    I agree that duplicate threads on any topic can get annoying, but rather than just complain about it, try taking some action to help resolve the problem. I'm sure the moderators would appreciate the assistance.

    (And like Peregrine said, it's not the same handful of people starting all the duplicates - in many cases it's brand new CFC members posting new threads. Still causes unfortunate duplication, but it's not deliberate or calculated by some shadowy group of "The Haters.")
     
  2. sketch162000

    sketch162000 Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2010
    Messages:
    221
    This is good to hear. I applaud you on exemplifying the things that make debating constructive.:goodjob:

    However my gripe is when you find people (in this very thread, no less) who seem to come into critical threads with the sole purpose of sniping at people and lamenting the amount of Civ V hate.

    That's not directed at you BTW.
     
  3. Aristos

    Aristos Lightseeker

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    3,575
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Deep inside...
    ... for free.
     
  4. Zydor

    Zydor Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2005
    Messages:
    1,120
    We have two factions in broad terms without rivaling War & Peace in the length and detail of their definition - and they are irreconcileable, its impossible to do so:

    - The broad Traditional Civ Fan, very much into the deeper end of the Strategy Genre, anything less than the deeper end is viewed as boredom personified

    - The Civ Fan, many long standing players, who enjoy the game and played without use of the more deeper strategy elements, but none the less found it engaging and fun.

    Along come the Civ 5 Dev Team, with one Primary aim (given by the Chief Designer) of "widen the fanbase" - not increasing, widening. The latter is Huge in Marketing. They also stated loud and clear they are (have) stripped out large swathes of the game, and even the most ardent supporter cant deny that. They have, in effect, dumbed it down and simplified it to appeal to wider fanbase - by their own stated intentions, lets not get hung up on "dumbed down", its a fact, not a derogatory term.

    So, we now have a Civilisation game, that can only loosely be called "strategy", really only so for marketing purposes, it really is too much a stretch for anyone to seriously claim its still a Strategy game.

    And the two groups defined above? There is more chance of the current Barbarians caturing a City than those two groups agreeing on what are the good and bad points of this saga are, as they have fundamentally different requirements, and argue to achieve different ends. Agreement? - not gonna happen.

    So lets be honest with ourselves, the split in the Community as we knew it is real, permanent, and will not change. What will happen is the new members to the Franchise and the new game as it stands will take it forward in its new direction. That direction will not change, its driven by a Business Aim, not a gaming whim. Its also true to say, if they get it right, they will gain more members than they lose, they are now shooting at a wider group of potential customers.

    A Rolls Royce has many really good telling points over a family compact, but even a family compact has its vertues over a Rolls Royce. They are however as different as chalk and cheese. So, Hate? Its not hate, its fighting for what individuals believe their flavour of the game should be. No surprises there. What is new on the scene is the massive shift in design that makes up Civ 5, of such a size and depth thats never been seen before - thats a shock to a lot of people, me included. That design shift puts the two groups above in an irreconcileable position - each want a fundamently different design. The latter can be argued for a decade and it will never reconcile, just go in circles.

    But Hate? no - its not hate. IMHO, we have done this one to death, it will never reconcile and the thread should close.

    Regards
    Zy
     
  5. Peregrine

    Peregrine The Swift

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2001
    Messages:
    440
    Location:
    The Nether Regions
    Zydor,

    Agreed on the irreconcilable differences observation. Good call. But I do disagree on the probable direction the next version will take, and that's why I'm here posting. My reasoning is precedent; III was not as much of a disaster as V, but it wasn't good, was clearly perceived as such by the designers, and the attempts made to produce IV support this idea. III didn't last long. IV came out almost before I realized it, even though there were things I knew about IV long before release. The fact that IV was designed in such a way argues that the designers DO pay attention to the fanbase and their criticisms, DO change the game if fans call for it, and better, improved versions, though not inevitable, are likely, especially if a version doesn't receive substantial approval by the fanbase. If you have the gold ed. of IV, try viewing the "making of" disk--the lead designer states that, initially, the new design began with more realistic tile borders, but as the feedback came in, they realized that clarity of tile borders was much more important than they had first supposed, and changed these to the present condition. I can paraphrase, not quote, but the statement went like this, "we first thought of civilization as a turn-based game, but we discovered through feedback that a better way of describing it was that it was a tile-based game." (paraphrase, not exact quote) This gives me hope that the failed experiment that is V will be improved vastly with VI--IF the designers receive SUFFICIENT FEEDBACK. (my purpose here)

    Just because V is a catastrophe doesn't preclude the possibility of VI being another masterpiece. Not a sure thing, but it can happen. Why on earth shouldn't I do what I can to ensure that?
     
  6. nody

    nody Emperor

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2004
    Messages:
    1,168
    Location:
    Noviomagus, Batavia
    Stacks of Doom cost a lot of your resources and are only pointed at one city. It is more intelligent to spread your units of you want to attack another civ.
    However, you must be able to use the SoD strategy. Like some real-life people (Hitler, Hirohito, etc.) did and ultimately lost.

    If the 1UPT rule is implemented only to counter the Stack of Doom builders I find it very poor reasoning to turn the game into an evolved chess-game.
     
  7. ezwip

    ezwip Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2006
    Messages:
    389
    It goes like this:

    Civ IV, Warlords, BTS
    Colonization
    Civ V, DLC

    Now do you believe Civ VI will be a masterpiece?
     
  8. Peregrine

    Peregrine The Swift

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2001
    Messages:
    440
    Location:
    The Nether Regions
    I don't believe anything. It's a "possibility."
     
  9. LordTC

    LordTC Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    241
    Location:
    Toronto
    I think the combat engine in Civ V is much more complex than that in Civ IV, even if it has many flaws. You don't see the advantages of it because the combat engine is so complex that the AI can't play properly with it at all so the game becomes easy. But combat has certainly not been dumbed down at all, In fact it's been made more complex with greater terrain differences (penalties to defender in open terrain), 1UPT (doom stacks don't play out in any interesting way), flanking and non-suicidal ranged attacks.

    Also, you are comparing a 2nd expansion of a game with all sorts of developer hours, and practice to a brand new game. Most of the complicated concepts in IV get put in by expansion after people get used to the base game. Civ V will also introduce new things after people have time to adjust to the existing changes.

    I also think that if you recognize a game is no longer targetted at your demographic the solution is to find a mod that is, or encourage the development of a mod that fixes the problem, or even participate in developing a mod that fixes the problem.

    And as for Civ being the deeper end of the strategy genre I strongly disagree. Variants of Europa Universalis, and Total War are strategically deeper and tactically deeper. Civ has always been a game about playing through the moments when a Civilization first settles, right up to past the modern era. It's impossible to represent this 6000+ years in a game that would be playable in a reasonable timeframe for the average gamer in a kind of strategic depth that rivals games which play out a specific era. Sacrifices are routinely made to enable covering all of time. For instance, military units move less in 40 years than a worker can commute in a day from the city. I find it ridiculous that a unit so far away from a city that a military unit in the city can't reach it in one turn without help from roads can still prevent a city from working a useful tile. And I don't think there is much strategic depth to stacks of doom either, or requiring catapults to suicide in order to bombard units. I agree that adding the nuances of combat would make the game more tactical than some of us would like, but I don't think that removing tactics makes the strategy better.
     
  10. ezwip

    ezwip Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2006
    Messages:
    389
    Sure, all they need is Peyton Manning as lead designer and I'll buy it.
     
  11. Peregrine

    Peregrine The Swift

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2001
    Messages:
    440
    Location:
    The Nether Regions
    I'll cross my fingers for you.
     
  12. OneFootInThe...

    OneFootInThe... Warlord

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2002
    Messages:
    134
    Location:
    kuzelj
    this should have been a poll
     
  13. SMA333M

    SMA333M Warlord

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2003
    Messages:
    148
    Location:
    Romania
    I don't hate the game.. but I feel like it's a beta game or something.

    Anyway, I always liked future era combat (after you have all techs). I like it in Civ 5 too, ofc without the GDR :p. The mod to remove GDR was the first I downloaded. BUT, in Civilization 4 BTS, as in Civilization 3 Conquest, I could achiev global power! In Civ 4, I was making 3 naval combat groups, each with enough ships + carriers & jet fighters + enough transports for each group. Each group had it's own troops for invasions. So, when I was invading an AI, I was coming from 3 sides, showing my superior military power. Sometimes it was not superior, they had more units and that made this tactic even more interesting. I was conquering a civ which had 8-9 cities in like 5 turns, even if that civ had much more units than me, and I was loosing only few units. I was destroying at least 100 units while invading but I was loosing like 5-6 max (sometimes not even 3 units). ! It was a great tactic.

    I had units with various promotions, for every step of the fight. I had ships specialised on fighting other ships, on bombing, medical ships, the ground troops had troops made for city combat, for land combat, for defending land, my SAMs, some were for fighting helicopters, others for intercepting airplanes, I had Marines for invading directly from water,etc, etc ... I believe it was a perfect strategy and fun one. Really tactical fight because my objective was not just to conquer, but to have a low number of casualties.

    Now I play Civilization 5. I have an empire again. I want to achiev global power ! Can I ? Well not really. First of all, you can't keep too many defense troops because that will cost you a lot. You can't make too many attack troops either. It's funny because I'm playing with America and I like to have many Carriers with many Jet Fighters, just like them in RL, but you can't in Civ 5 ! I need ships to defend the Carriers too... bassically, instead of making like 3 powerful Aircraft Carrier Groups (with all types of ships), I managed to make only 1... and even for that I have only few ships. No way to make 3 attacking groups either.. because my "huge" invading army as an empire only has like hm.. 5-6 units ? 2x Modern Armor, 1x Helicopter, 1x SAM, 1x Modern Artillery (or whatever it's called now)... and maybe a 6th but I don't remember which.


    So what I want to say is: YES, I understand we can make less units now... and I even agree with that, it's better to have less units but more powerful ones, but NO, the way it is now it's just wrong ! Also I don't understand why units can't have a fixed maintenance ! We need more units for fun !
     
  14. CivFanaticMan

    CivFanaticMan Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2009
    Messages:
    249
    Location:
    Charleston, SC
    Civ5 has potential but its just not there and will not be where it needs to be unless the developers make some well thought out changes (that have nothing to do with them getting paid more). For those of you who like Civ5 at the moment go play civ4 bts. Get over the fact that Civ5 graphics look more natural and Civ5 has hexes. To be truthful, going back to square tiles isn't that bad.
     
  15. charon2112

    charon2112 King

    Joined:
    May 8, 2009
    Messages:
    990
    Location:
    Massachusetts USA
    So, have you actually played Civ V yet? As of the other day you admittedly had not. You have many opinions of it for someone who has never played it?

    Moderator Action: Everyone has been told to stop discussing each other. So stop it.
    Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
     
  16. sketch162000

    sketch162000 Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2010
    Messages:
    221
    This! This! A million times, this!

    It's the most damning thing about Civ V, IMO. For all the talk about building the game from the ground up and viewing the game on it's own merits, some of the more head-scratching decisions make it seem like the devs were trying so hard to make Civ V simply *different* from Civ IV--to counter exploits in Civ IV--that they forgot to make a game that makes sense in context and stands on its own. They were so busy trying to take a different direction from IV that no one took a step back to ask if it all made sense.

    Think about it...almost every new decision can be explained as a mere "fix" for something in IV, instead of a feature that stands on it's own merits.

    Is religion absent from Civ V because religion didn't have a large impact on history...or is it because it was an exploit in IV?

    Are SP's permanent because it makes sense to have a theocracy for 6,000 years...or is it because switchable civics were exploitable in IV?

    Does it make sense to have global happiness instead of, say, global food? Does it make sense that a Coliseum can make citizens living 9000 miles away happy..or are those just different than what was in IV?

    Is it more logical/fun/immersive to only be allowed a solitary unit in an area the size of Texas? Is it better to have that unit be capable of firing for miles...or are those just different things than what was in IV?

    Different =/= better.
     
  17. Ajidica

    Ajidica High Quality Person

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2006
    Messages:
    19,564
    Civ5 has many good design decisions, but many poor ones (I'm looking at you, whoever removed religions!). Many new additions are good, but were implemented in a round about way (ie: trying to merge strategic gameplay with units and tactical combat). Many of my gripes with Civ5 are simply balencing issues, something that will be fixed in:
    a)Expansions
    b)Patches
    c)Modders.
     
  18. bonafide11

    bonafide11 Worker

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    3,177
    Location:
    STL
    Civ V has many flaws, but I'm surprised to see so many people complaining about the 1 UPT. That's perhaps the biggest improvement Civ V in my opinion. War in Civ IV really bored me, especially in the late game, when you had to go through your enormous SoDs one by one and find the best unit to attack with. Turns took forever! I played Civ IV a ton, but war was never one of its strong points.

    If you want to complain about Civ V for tiles becoming less unique and important and the lack of city specialization, I'm all ears. That's where they really hurt the game in my opinion. Deciding where to settle a city doesn't have the same importance as it did in Civ IV, and that's what really bothers me.
     
  19. SuperJay

    SuperJay Bending Space and Time

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2010
    Messages:
    3,273
    Location:
    Shacklyn
    I agree about SoDs, and I too really looked forward to 1UPT because I thought it meant slightly more tactical battles rather than just stacks crashing into each other. Now, I think the problem with 1UPT isn't that stacks were better, but that the rest of the game wasn't designed to effectively integrate that feature. I hope Pi-R8 doesn't mind me quoting him, but he explains it far better than I could in the RB3 - Daring Deity with Ottomans succession thread, which I recommend if you want to read some excellent detailed analysis. Massive quote incoming:

    Spoiler :


    I think 1UPT has potential, but I don't know if this particular iteration is going to see that potential realized for the reasons pi-r8 pointed out; it effects so many other design decisions that it would be a tough knot to unravel via patches.

    As it stands, Civ 5 feels like a lot of potentially interesting systems and ideas that were just thrown into the same game without being designed to play well with one another.
     
  20. bonafide11

    bonafide11 Worker

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    3,177
    Location:
    STL
    See I don't know if I agree that 1 UPT affecting research and the economy so much. I think it has more to do with global happiness, boring tile improvements, and disconnecting science from gold. Now they need to keep population relatively low because of the high amount of research each citizen can contribute.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page