Jpalmer1967
Chieftain
I'm sure Steam will have it on sale within a couple months. Pick it up then. All new games seem to go on sale at Steam within 6 months.
Why I will not, ever, buy civilization V
- Thread starter Neomega
- Start date
- Status
Ignorant Teacher
Emperor
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2009
- Messages
- 1,467
If a city populated with millions of people can fit in a tile (as in 5), I don't see why such a stack couldn't. No deal-breaker at all.
That's a very big if. I doubt they will as you can see that all of their devs and prs have magically disappeared after release.
HiroProtagonist
Chieftain
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2005
- Messages
- 86
You saying that "loved all the other ones" just give me a idea why you did'nt like: All the others Civs, in comparation to Civ V, have a HUGE difference. Everything changed.
You can even say that "no, because the other ones really changed too and I did'nt complain", but this is totally different. Your old strategies disappeared, that featuring you just loved was no longer there. But on my opinion, you need to try to play the game without comparing everything with the later versions ("Oh, this unit is just crap now.", "This featuring sucks compared to that other one").
You can even say that "no, because the other ones really changed too and I did'nt complain", but this is totally different. Your old strategies disappeared, that featuring you just loved was no longer there. But on my opinion, you need to try to play the game without comparing everything with the later versions ("Oh, this unit is just crap now.", "This featuring sucks compared to that other one").
CivIVMonger
Emperor
OP:
Honestly, nobody wants to hear you, or anyone complain. Nobody wants to help a flamer who won't even take the advice of someone who actually spent their $50 and played the thing. Rather, than someone who never did, and only read reviews. Even what you said, people have different opinions, and maybe you should find your own by playing the game instead of masking yourself with someone else's.
If you did, however, like virtually all releases of the game up to 'V, than why would a game by the same people dissapoint you so bitterly? And if you are so happy with all of the others, why not play Civ IV or a used Risk board? Play with those and quit complaining here on a forum for a game that you never played.
My take on things for this game are mixed, taking that I actually played about 15 or so hours of the game, and years of previous releases, my opinion is from experiance, not solely reviews.
I believe this game has several flaws, but I give some breathing room to a game that is not even a month old. Concerning those, 'bugs' that were mentioned, (including AI, mechanics, and gameplay issues) patches will fix those undoubtedly in some time. Even more into the future, I would predict expansions will add replay, leaders, concepts, units etc.
Basically, the game will definately improve, given time. Just as Civ IV was, not exactly complete, Vanilla release.
Now concerning permanent concepts and major gameplay changes, some things irritate me, some discourage me, some are good, but I obviously tolerate all of them as the game is still fun and I play it a lot. For instance, the one unit per tile rule was horrifying at first, but I've learned to tolerate it. It is not something that I like, but it does have pros along with its cons in my opinion. It does emphasize strategy and placement. Best units in front, softer or ranged behind isn't the only thing to consider in combat of this game. There is terrain, city/naval bombardment, ranged attack extremely fast movement speeds, air attack and even more to challenge your attack plan, while all of this might change as you are still executing a strategy, having to rethink, and redo, winning under these circumstaces is rewarding and fun.
Now for the graphics; this game is extremely intensive. If your computer is not up to date, that is a sole reason not to play it until your computer is better. Not swaying trees, bad rivers, etc. is a pathetic reason to complain for a game that you should be thankful even works. Also, the game will not be very fun if your computer is slow anyway, it would take too long to wait for turn endings or laggy graphics. My machine is not sufficient, I am lucky to play dx9 full graphics with a good frame rate through the game.
Gameplay wise; you do know that it is probobly impossible to field a unit in every tile of your empire right? And even if you could get past the immense amount of production and time that would take, it would be so expensive you couldn't afford it for 1 turn most likely. It would also restrict all movement so that would be stupid in the first place. People make screenshots like that to impress people, not accurately reresent the game.
As for loss of health, religion, tech trading and more major gameplay concepts, I am not pleased with this, yet they added in some good and bad new concepts that will be improved greatly over the next few years. For instance, I love the new diplomacy menus, the new UI is good, hex tiles was a major improvement and many more thgnis to count your goodies with Civ V. They totally reconstructed the game, giving a fresh feel to it and making it different. If you like Civ IV more, (I might just like it a margin more myself, though for nastolgic purposes), you can play that.
And please, do us all here a favor at CivFanatics, and play the game before you bash it, okay?
If you did take the time to read what I wrote for you, and you still feel the need to complain, (about a game that you aren't going to play anyway? Wth?
)
Then please do so to your 'friends' playing Risk and rolling dice.
Honestly, nobody wants to hear you, or anyone complain. Nobody wants to help a flamer who won't even take the advice of someone who actually spent their $50 and played the thing. Rather, than someone who never did, and only read reviews. Even what you said, people have different opinions, and maybe you should find your own by playing the game instead of masking yourself with someone else's.
If you did, however, like virtually all releases of the game up to 'V, than why would a game by the same people dissapoint you so bitterly? And if you are so happy with all of the others, why not play Civ IV or a used Risk board? Play with those and quit complaining here on a forum for a game that you never played.
My take on things for this game are mixed, taking that I actually played about 15 or so hours of the game, and years of previous releases, my opinion is from experiance, not solely reviews.
I believe this game has several flaws, but I give some breathing room to a game that is not even a month old. Concerning those, 'bugs' that were mentioned, (including AI, mechanics, and gameplay issues) patches will fix those undoubtedly in some time. Even more into the future, I would predict expansions will add replay, leaders, concepts, units etc.
Basically, the game will definately improve, given time. Just as Civ IV was, not exactly complete, Vanilla release.
Now concerning permanent concepts and major gameplay changes, some things irritate me, some discourage me, some are good, but I obviously tolerate all of them as the game is still fun and I play it a lot. For instance, the one unit per tile rule was horrifying at first, but I've learned to tolerate it. It is not something that I like, but it does have pros along with its cons in my opinion. It does emphasize strategy and placement. Best units in front, softer or ranged behind isn't the only thing to consider in combat of this game. There is terrain, city/naval bombardment, ranged attack extremely fast movement speeds, air attack and even more to challenge your attack plan, while all of this might change as you are still executing a strategy, having to rethink, and redo, winning under these circumstaces is rewarding and fun.
Now for the graphics; this game is extremely intensive. If your computer is not up to date, that is a sole reason not to play it until your computer is better. Not swaying trees, bad rivers, etc. is a pathetic reason to complain for a game that you should be thankful even works. Also, the game will not be very fun if your computer is slow anyway, it would take too long to wait for turn endings or laggy graphics. My machine is not sufficient, I am lucky to play dx9 full graphics with a good frame rate through the game.
Gameplay wise; you do know that it is probobly impossible to field a unit in every tile of your empire right? And even if you could get past the immense amount of production and time that would take, it would be so expensive you couldn't afford it for 1 turn most likely. It would also restrict all movement so that would be stupid in the first place. People make screenshots like that to impress people, not accurately reresent the game.
As for loss of health, religion, tech trading and more major gameplay concepts, I am not pleased with this, yet they added in some good and bad new concepts that will be improved greatly over the next few years. For instance, I love the new diplomacy menus, the new UI is good, hex tiles was a major improvement and many more thgnis to count your goodies with Civ V. They totally reconstructed the game, giving a fresh feel to it and making it different. If you like Civ IV more, (I might just like it a margin more myself, though for nastolgic purposes), you can play that.
And please, do us all here a favor at CivFanatics, and play the game before you bash it, okay?
If you did take the time to read what I wrote for you, and you still feel the need to complain, (about a game that you aren't going to play anyway? Wth?
)Then please do so to your 'friends' playing Risk and rolling dice.
Bill Bisco
Callous Calling
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2007
- Messages
- 590
He doesn't need to buy the game to bash it; several negative threads on the forum are enough to know that it's a very risky buy.
Ignorant Teacher
Emperor
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2009
- Messages
- 1,467
CivIVMonger, of all people, you're the last one who should be complaining about people's posting behavior. Just saying...
Red Wegener
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2002
- Messages
- 64
I never whine.
I played the demo.
I agree with the OP.
It may be a good game but it is not Civ.
Anyone know the release date of Civ 6?
I played the demo.
I agree with the OP.
It may be a good game but it is not Civ.
Anyone know the release date of Civ 6?
I never whine.
I played the demo.
I agree with the OP.
It may be a good game but it is not Civ.
Anyone know the release date of Civ 6?
You do realize that the people who will make Civ VI will most likely be composed of the people who made the previous game, right?
Caring about other people's reviews is just idiotic. Play the demo, decide by yourself.
Red Wegener
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2002
- Messages
- 64
I rarely reply to replies to my posts but you answered before I refreshed the page to check my spelling
I doubt that since they failed so badly on this one.
Ignorant Teacher
Emperor
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2009
- Messages
- 1,467
If that were remotely true, Civ5 would have been an enjoyable game.
shinkicker
Warlord
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2010
- Messages
- 130
I already suggested that perhaps this board isn't really for you. Copycat
I still haven't figured out why you felt it necessary to post about a game you have no intention of buying, just to say you're not going to buy it. And your assumptions about the game, based on hearsay evidence on the internet and from devs talking about their game concepts, are largely not even accurate.
So what exactly WAS your point again?
I think I'll run over to the Audi boards and tell everyone over there that I don't plan to buy an Audi. That'll teach 'em!
Ignorant Teacher
Emperor
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2009
- Messages
- 1,467
Let's go back to basic logical interpretation:
-You implied the developers of one version would remain on the same
-Hence Civ 6 would be a disappointment for the ones who don't like Civ 5
I said that's not true because:
-Civ5's development team changed a lot compared to Civ 4.
-A lot of people who enjoyed Civ 4 a lot loathe Civ 5.
-The same can happen to Civ 6.
Adam7Eight
Emperor
Thanks for the info, but what does this have to do with anything?
I must say, I don't think I am flaming.
And as far as taking the advice of people who have payed $50....
I have read hundreds of posts here now. It has been critical to my decision. I mean, I was a little wary after reading the design philosophy, but decided I would wait to see what the community has said. And they keep saying things that just make me cringe even more.
and its not the bugs, its not the imbalances, its not the stupid AI. I knew those things were inevitable, and even warned so in the civ V thread when people were saying that most importantly it needed a good AI. i warned it is impossible to have a good Ai until the game has been played for years.
I'm not bashing it. I am just explaining to Firaxis, most of all, why I am not buying it, and why I am not even bothering with the demo. I'm not even saying it's a bad game. It's just not a game I am interested in, and explaining why someone with 10000+ posts at civfanatics forum, that has been here for 8 years, who has made an extensive mod for civ III, and who beta tested for Civ III...
...is not interested in this newest version.
read above.
Do you want a cookie or something because I fail to see the point in this whole thread.
Moderator Action: <snip>
If you want Firaxis to know why someone of your awesomesauce is not buying their game feel free to write them a sternly worded letter. Posting on the forums is just asking for attention.
Moderator Action: Mod Warning - calling other posters a troll is considered trolling on these forums use the report button
Moderator Action: <snip>
If you want Firaxis to know why someone of your awesomesauce is not buying their game feel free to write them a sternly worded letter. Posting on the forums is just asking for attention.
Moderator Action: Mod Warning - calling other posters a troll is considered trolling on these forums use the report button
Ignorant Teacher
Emperor
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2009
- Messages
- 1,467
If you don't see a point, why posting?
- Status
