Why is Civ5 so unappealing?

Civ5 is unappealing due to many reasons.

First, and that can be noticed by any careful player, even if coming to the franchise right now, the main design elements don't work.
1upt doesn't work to an extent that even the developers has to allow for stacking (civilian and military units, airplanes). But since 1upt was the main "new" idea they still forced it, causing the many flaws in unit coordination. Next to this, even unit cycling (although allegedly already having been improved) is so weak that the coordination becomes tedious.
This is something which even a novice player notices immediately.

Second, Civ5 doesn't keep any promises being made before release. No, there aren't battles in the countryside. No, there aren't "fronts". No, there isn't a competitive combat AI. No, there isn't a meaningful diplomacy. No, there isn't any "accessible" UI. No, the engine doesn't scale properly with processing/GPU power. No, there isn't good mp support. No, you cannot use your additional civs in mp.
These things are obvious to anyone who listened to the marketing hype before release date, even the novice player. And they are still issues two months after release, clearly indicating that the release was not "rushed", but the game design was weak from the very beginning.

Third, Civ5 has removed more things from the predecessor than added new things.
What was added does not work properly. City States don't add anything in terms of strategy or diplomacy. They are just a means to drop your money and get some stuff in return. One third of them is completely unbalanced, what the designers shamefully have already confirmed.
Civil Policies are a completely failed design element, too. Because of the weak way of initial implementation, the designers even have to reduce options for the human player in their desperate attempt to save them. This is another point in which they are changing original design, thus acknowledging that their design ideas don't work.
They even don't have any influence on "international" relationships.
Naval operations in total are a joke. Starting with century-long "battles" between units, followed by the most silly way of embarkation and thus sending units into their annihilation, due to the way in which the 1upt rules have been set up for naval operations, cross-ocean operations are only possible to be performed in meaningful way for the human player, mainly because the AI is not able to counter this even on an area with NO terrain modifiers.
Diplomacy is not only a complete desaster as being pointed out above, it also always plays the same way, regardless with which other civs you have to deal.
To make the game even more easy, placing of cities is next to completely meaningless. This becomes even more obvious due to the fact how the growing of the city's radius works, which doesn't fit to research nor any focus of said city.

Yet, to be fair, one has to admit that Civ5 actually was successful in a certain way. It was clearly designed for the ones who are not so intrigued in having to think much.
It is a game for the player who wants to be able to understand the game in five minutes and being able to finally get beyond chieftain level.
And there it successfully recruites its fanbase.
It lives on the "whoooahhh!" effect. Now, some players are finally allowed to master even the warlords level, thus making it very appealing to them.
In short, it could be very well named "Civ: the Losers' Revenge"
 
I'm so tired of this "stop whining" nonsense. It would make sense if the "whining" didn't serve any purpose (For example, if your favourite sports team lose the finals, "whining" for two months serve no purpose).

But in this case, even though it's just a computer game, Civilization has been an important part of many peoples lives. By "whining" you can help preventing that more people buy this piece of garbage, and hopefully Firaxis realise how important it is to make the regular customers satisfied.

Do you think any successful revolution is executed overnight? Should the american rebels have given up when Boston Tea Party didn't have the desired effect? Would you have told them to "stop whining"?
 
But in this case, even though it's just a computer game, Civilization has been an important part of many peoples lives. By "whining" you can help preventing that more people buy this piece of garbage, and hopefully Firaxis realise how important it is to make the regular customers satisfied.
An important part of peoples lives? Isn't that overstating things a bit?

I think you've nailed why a lot of gamers do whine, it's a childish vindictive revenge with the aim of trying to 'hurt' the developer.
 
A lot of the problems look like they might stem from the game not being really finished by the launch date. It appears that this is the single greatest cause of the game's problems.

Many of the balance problems and missing features could have been addressed given enough time. Would they have been? Hard to be sure but it would seem like at least some of them would have been dealt with. It appears that several of the problems could actually be addressed in the present game format. It would take a lot of time and effort to do so but it seems within the realm of the possible.

I do not think that it is possible to predict exactly what this game's future will be. Only after several patches and the first expansion will it be clearly known whether this version will reach its potential.
 
An important part of peoples lives? Isn't that overstating things a bit?

I think you've nailed why a lot of gamers do whine, it's a childish vindictive revenge with the aim of trying to 'hurt' the developer.

If you are a creditable business then if there are enough people "whining" about the same things then there is some credence to it.
Example: The "whining" that diplo was too invisible and AI leaders seemed to behave like psychos is now leading to a diplo patch.

So you act as if gamers whining is childish but to a business those childish gamers are among the ones paying the bill too.
 
Not so much. Constructive criticism is great, but I see less and less of that on these forums every day. Whining is completely pointless.

I'm so tired of this "stop whining" nonsense. It would make sense if the "whining" didn't serve any purpose (For example, if your favourite sports team lose the finals, "whining" for two months serve no purpose).

But in this case, even though it's just a computer game, Civilization has been an important part of many peoples lives. By "whining" you can help preventing that more people buy this piece of garbage, and hopefully Firaxis realise how important it is to make the regular customers satisfied.

Do you think any successful revolution is executed overnight? Should the american rebels have given up when Boston Tea Party didn't have the desired effect? Would you have told them to "stop whining"?
 
Civ 5 is unbalanced. Playing Civ 5 reminds me of the few times I tried to create a custom map in several different strategy games only to discover that by stressing a certain element I felt to be important I would completely ruin the balance of the map.

Most people would agree that the combat system in civ5: 1upt, hexes is more interesting tactically then civ4. However it introduces unintended consequences, like http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=400489 the ones I pointed out here.

Other changes have also been discussed: Happiness mechanic causes one to raze every single conquered city, and provides huge incentives to ICS - something I am certain the developers have not intended.

Tile yields being uniform probably was designed to reduce micromanagement. Instead it causes city placement to be almost irrelevant.

High hammer cost was designed to encourage city specialization. Instead it encouraged building only 3-4 basic buildings...

It is also easier. I just beat Deity, and I am far from a great Civ player. Deity! I don't feel like I deserve it I guess - I couldn't even touch anywhere near that level in any previous civ version (to be fair I didn't read the forums at the time, but I played all other versions for far longer).

The game feels like a beta version of a very promising game, and I do mean that sincerely. I want to like Civ 5, I really do, it has some good things going for it (unlike most people here I love social policies for example). It just doesn't work as a whole... yet.

I guess I should do something else while it is being developed :)
 
If you are a creditable business then if there are enough people "whining" about the same things then there is some credence to it.
Example: The "whining" that diplo was too invisible and AI leaders seemed to behave like psychos is now leading to a diplo patch.

So you act as if gamers whining is childish but to a business those childish gamers are among the ones paying the bill too.
Don't confuse my comments around whining as an indication that I think people shouldn't post negative comments about the game. It's just a matter of how they are done, constructive criticism is generally welcomed by developers and can lead to open communication, whiny rants seem to scare developers away from forums and probably just get ignored.

Also the 'whining' isn't necessarily the reason for the diplomacy patch. Diplomacy was criticised fairly consistently in the reviews I read as well.
 
Shafer 5 is terrible.

We need to tell the developers that the game is completely unacceptable.

It's not too late for Civ VI.

If we want a quality game instead of a half baked mess then we need to make our

voices heard.

People who find Shafer 5 acceptable are settling for much less than we deserve. They

are happy with the crumbs under the table. The table scraps and leftovers.

Well, that's damn well not good enough.
 
Looking beyond the fact that the game was sold as an unfinished product and all the bugs; what did Fraxis do wrong.

They rushed through the end of development so there clearly wasn't enough time to polish the game, correct poor features, increase playability, and fix balance issues. The release version was of a quality fit for entering beta testing, not leaving it. Beta testing shouldn't be about fixing bugs, that's what system testing is for. Beta testing should be about making the system work as the user wants and that's clearly what's missing from the game.
 
Wait for expansion guys. They can change a lot in a single twist. Remember civ4 it was ok when vanilla came out and it took 3 years before BTS arrived, with warlord between them.

If we compare vanilla and BTS, we can see a lot of difference, both in complexity and AI's play.

The combat system is knew. The (prematuted)baby has not learned everything yet.

People wanted civ4 and an half, but it wasnt the plan.
 
There is no "one size fits all" answer. Everyone play(ed)s Civ for their own reasons. I believe much of the fuss is due to the increasing practice these days of taking offence just because someone does not like what another individual likes - bit like saying an individual is a dastardly heathen because they dont like strawberries and I do rofl, but such feelings merely stoke the flames.

What ignited the Bonfire itself, was the fundamental change they have made to the game. A massive amount was stripped out, and the balance of play and options changed drastically from the Traditional Civilisation Franchise foundations. Its far far more than ritualistic moaning over Version tweeks/changes, its at the very Core of the game. Its too contrite and knee jerk to say "people always moan between versions" and expect that simplistic statement to be a catch all excuse. The changes wrought for this Version are way beyond such simplistic thinking.

If an individual is a long standing player, and shelled out the cash pre release (a common 20 year practice in the franchise and its fans), and then discovers the very core nature of the game has been drastically altered with no prior disclosure, anger surfaces.

The game at its core in terms of design is shifting to mass market format to widen sales/marketing opportunities, not uncommon with long standing games, all usually do at some point - usual batch of exceptions - but most do, either that or they wither away.

The game as it stands now, is going to alienate a substantial proportion of Traditional fans - me included. However its also going to gain (eventually if they get the mass market format right) a lot more new fans. To say someone is nutty because they like one format or another is somewhat silly, we all have our tastes. What would be helpful however to cool it down is an overall acknowledgement that we do all have our tastes, and not take it personally if someone likes it differently.

Which way will it end up going .... well they started down this road, and I cant see them changing any time soon, so I guess I am on the search now for another Strategy game that I like, somewhat sad after 15+ years playing this one, but thats games these days I guess. Life moves on ;)

Regards
Zy

OMG this :eek:
 
There are literally hundreds of threads detailing what everyone dislikes about Civ V. Why create a new one? And for the record, whether you like or dislike civ V has nothing to do with your experience level, or time spent playing. There are people new to Civ that love Civ V, and there are people new to Civ that hate Civ V...there are Civ veterans that love Civ V, and there are Civ veterans that hate Civ V. To say that most of the older Civ players are outraged is completely inaccurate.

Exactly. I. for my part, should quite like to start a thread called: "Why can't people who hate Civ V leave those who like it alone?" However, that would probably be regarded as trolling, unlike the countless hate threads against Civ V that never seem to bother the junior moderators. And that really is the impression I have. I never saw an anti-Civ V hate thread closed down for "trolling", unless the defenders paid back the "We Want Civ IV.5" crowd in the same coinage.
 
This is a very accurate and well written assessment of what's going on with Civ V. I did want to comment on the portion I highlighted, though. Every aspect and feature of Civ V was known well before release, even the full manual was available for download. The changes from Civ IV were very well documented. There shouldn't have been any surprises for people who pre-ordered, except of course for bugs and technical problems. I got the exact game that was described.

Originally Posted by Zydor
There is no "one size fits all" answer. Everyone play(ed)s Civ for their own reasons. I believe much of the fuss is due to the increasing practice these days of taking offence just because someone does not like what another individual likes - bit like saying an individual is a dastardly heathen because they dont like strawberries and I do rofl, but such feelings merely stoke the flames.

What ignited the Bonfire itself, was the fundamental change they have made to the game. A massive amount was stripped out, and the balance of play and options changed drastically from the Traditional Civilisation Franchise foundations. Its far far more than ritualistic moaning over Version tweeks/changes, its at the very Core of the game. Its too contrite and knee jerk to say "people always moan between versions" and expect that simplistic statement to be a catch all excuse. The changes wrought for this Version are way beyond such simplistic thinking.

If an individual is a long standing player, and shelled out the cash pre release (a common 20 year practice in the franchise and its fans), and then discovers the very core nature of the game has been drastically altered with no prior disclosure, anger surfaces.

The game at its core in terms of design is shifting to mass market format to widen sales/marketing opportunities, not uncommon with long standing games, all usually do at some point - usual batch of exceptions - but most do, either that or they wither away.

The game as it stands now, is going to alienate a substantial proportion of Traditional fans - me included. However its also going to gain (eventually if they get the mass market format right) a lot more new fans. To say someone is nutty because they like one format or another is somewhat silly, we all have our tastes. What would be helpful however to cool it down is an overall acknowledgement that we do all have our tastes, and not take it personally if someone likes it differently.

Which way will it end up going .... well they started down this road, and I cant see them changing any time soon, so I guess I am on the search now for another Strategy game that I like, somewhat sad after 15+ years playing this one, but thats games these days I guess. Life moves on

Regards
Zy
 
Top Bottom