Why is Civ5 so unappealing?

[ohioastronomy]

The lag is intrinsic to the game itself, and just gets worse for larger maps.

You always hit "enter" a lot in prior civ games. In this game the elapsed time is just much, much longer. I get 10 seconds for civ 5 in the early part of a large map game, for example, and perhaps one or two seconds in civ 4. Add in everything taking twice as long to make, and you're talking about 10x longer staring at the screen.

That's a pretty good example of why a lot of people don't like this game - everyone should be able to agree that spending a lot of time waiting for the computer to act is objectively worse in this game than it was in any prior versions, and that this is a bad thing.

Claiming that our computers stink is pretty laughable, given that mine runs all other current generation games effortlessly (mass effect 2, dragon age origins, oblivion/fallout 3, starcraft 2.) And Civ 4 is lightning fast.

Granted, if you run small maps for Civ 5 the speed is better (but still slower than other versions.) But you really shouldn't be selling a game where a lot of the settings are effectively unplayable - they'd have been better off shipping it without marathon speed and huge/large maps than shipping a game where those settings create lousy game-play experiences.

 

[PawelS]

I think the main reasons why Civ5 doesn't appeal to many fans of the Civ series are the following:

1. The "regression towards mean" phenomenon, as described by one of the moderators in another thread - those who really liked Civ4 didn't feel the need for any big changes, so most changes are viewed by them as "dumbing down", "removing the features that made Civ4 great", "it's not a Civ game" etc.

2. Problems with the AI - the change to one unit per tile increases the complexity of the warfare aspect of the game, which makes it harder for the AI to manage it (creating a SoD and moving it towards an enemy city isn't very challenging intellectually, so it's easier for the AI as well). I agree that Firaxis should have done a better job in adapting the AI to the new rules, although I don't think it's as bad (or nonexistent) as some people here say.

3. Exploits (my "favorite" ones are ICS and the "four horsemen"), which make the game too easy for those who use them. This is one of the reasons of people saying that the game is not challenging enough. Hopefully these exploits will get fixed in patches, but it's interesting that when some of the exploits are going to be fixed in a patch (like delaying the social policies and unit promotions), it causes a wave of criticism from those that got used to use them.

4. The interface looks somewhat similar to console games, which makes some people think that it's a "game for kids" etc.

5. Steam (I won't go into details here, there are many threads about it).

6. The influence of the opinions of some loud Civ5 critics on others.

Edit: some more reasons that came into my mind:

7. Demand of realism - it's not a very realistic game (I mean things like archers shooting range, and area occupied by one unit), so those who want realism are disappointed.

8. Technical issues - too long turn times etc.

9. Happiness system or "Why am I being penalized for successful gameplay? When I conquer everything in sight, people should love me!"

10. Minor problems with the game exaggerated by the critics - uninteresting resource yields, problems with moving large armies, diplomatic victory that should be called "gold victory" and so on.

 

[sketch162000]

Disclaimer: all opinions based on my observations of the board...

I think the main reasons why Civ5 doesn't appeal to many fans of the Civ series are the following:

1. The "regression towards mean" phenomenon, as described by one of the moderators in another thread - those who really liked Civ4 didn't feel the need for any big changes, so most changes are viewed by them as "dumbing down", "removing the features that made Civ4 great", "it's not a Civ game" etc.

Actually, I think people are more upset with the fact that Civ V simply has less features. Civ V seems to have eliminated a lot of things that added to the "immersion" factor of the game. Beyond that, many of the big changes don't quite work as well as expected. Many people didn't like the way stacks were implemented in IV, but they don't like the way V's AI handles 1upt either, for example...

2. Problems with the AI - the change to one unit per tile increases the complexity of the warfare aspect of the game, which makes it harder for the AI to manage it (creating a SoD and moving it towards an enemy city isn't very challenging intellectually, so it's easier for the AI as well). I agree that Firaxis should have done a better job in adapting the AI to the new rules, although I don't think it's as bad (or nonexistent) as some people here say.

Agreed. However, what reason do you have for doubting how bad the AI is for some players, other than your own experiences?

3. Exploits (my "favorite" ones are ICS and the "four horsemen"), which make the game too easy for those who use them. This is one of the reasons of people saying that the game is not challenging enough. Hopefully these exploits will get fixed in patches, but it's interesting that when some of the exploits are going to be fixed in a patch (like delaying the social policies and unit promotions), it causes a wave of criticism from those that got used to use them.

More that the game is easier in general. Prince players are now beating the game on Deity. The game seems to encourage longer term strategy as well (read: "swim lanes,") which makes exploits obvious, instead of the need for rapid adaptation that was a possibility pre-Civ V.

Please note: This is a major distinction, the game is easier, yet restrictive.

4. The interface looks somewhat similar to console games, which makes some people think that it's a "game for kids" etc.

Some of the interface choices are clunky. (Why is "fortify" not a main command?) Only a minor annoyance AFAIK.

6. The influence of the opinions of some loud Civ5 critics on others.

What do you mean by this? That Civ V critics are causing people to dislike a game against their will?

7. Demand of realism - it's not a very realistic game (I mean things like archers shooting range, and area occupied by one unit), so those who want realism are disappointed.

Not realism per se, just better abstraction. There are several features that made some sense in previous versions and have been changed radically. It causes a break in immersion when people have to use new creative reasoning to explain something that was understandable before. Happiness buildings are an example, Permanent Socials are another...

8. Technical issues - too long turn times etc.

9. Happiness system or "Why am I being penalized for successful gameplay? When I conquer everything in sight, people should love me!"

Happiness follows with my point above.

10. Minor problems with the game exaggerated by the critics - uninteresting resource yields, problems with moving large armies, diplomatic victory that should be called "gold victory" and so on.

This is all very subjective. You enjoy the game so you don't notice/excuse problems as minor. When someone spends money on a game only to be disappointed, these things grate on him/her. In any case, Regardless of whether you feel the complaints are exaggerated or not, the problems are there and are worth mentioning. It's troubling that many pro reviewers did not even hint at several problems at all...

 

[hardcore_gamer]

It just seems like that because the people who don't like it are more vocal than the people who do like it. It's actually very much the opposite!

No, if almost half the forum population lamements the game then the devs did something wrong.

Its not just the handful few that are complaining.

 

[Öjevind Lång]

I know, it's what I said.


The building times were just an example of many well documented unbalanced features in Civ V. Why don't you reply my point instead of strawmanning the example?

Don't answer, it's a rethorical question. I don't fight lost causes.

My comment wasn't necessarily aimed at you. I'm afraid your response has deprived me of any desire to address your point. Anyway, a great many posters have made that point before you. All I could really have said was: "Yup, that's a common complaint."

 

[Öjevind Lång]

Oh please.

Any system can be objectively evaluated. Just because something is called a "video game" doesn't mean it's in a mythical realm where no one can evaluate it.

I disagree. One can't prove that Shakespeare was a good playwright or that Mozart was a good composer. All one can do is state one's own position and why one holds it. That's basic epistemology. Really.

 

[Me_Myself_I]

One can't prove that Shakespeare was a good playwright or that Mozart was a good composer.

Incorrect. Take a course in music theory and you'll see that music is a system, too. That system can be understood objectively. If your premise were true, one would not be able to differentiate between Mozart and the work of a total amateur. Similarly, literature is systematic and can be evaluated.

"Everyone has an equal opinion and truth is just a matter of whim" are opinions that just aren't very accurate.

All one can do is state one's own position and why one holds it.

What would the point of that be, given your premise? It would be a waste of breath because it would have no effect.

 

[charon2112]

Somehow nobody mentioned before release that you would be waiting 30 seconds for one turn even in the first few turns of the game...

this hasn't been my experience at all. In the early game, my turns take 2 or 3 seconds, in the late game, maybe ten seconds at most.

I would probably be pissed if this happened to me, though.

So don't tell us, we, who don't like the game, were to stupid to read previews.

I never said this.

 

[Öjevind Lång]

Characterizing criticism as being inherently "hateful" is itself potentially hateful. While it's true that some topics use the word hate, others, like this one, don't.

Criticism is just as valuable as praise.

True, but criticism with no other purpose than implying that "Civ V sux and u peeps who enjoy it suck 2" is not helpful to anyone. I'm not saying you post in that manner, but you only need to look at some posts in this thread (or practically any thread) to see that after almost three months, the Civ V forums are still swarming with people who have no other ambition than to state that they hate the game and long for Civ IV.5. It makes some of us others a bit restive. I played Civ Iv for five years and loved it too, but now I'm beginning to take a scunner on it because of the fanatical sect that apparently performs human sacrifices before its image.

I can't make a post saying something positve about Civ V without at least two people launching personal attacks on me for it. Before you call me oversensitive, you might look at my posting history. And I am emphaically not the only poster here who has had that kind of experience.

Do I think there are flaws in Civ V? YES. A study of my posting history would reveal that shocking circumstance too. Now let's get back to discussing Civ for, its good points and flaws and the sloppy execution of much of it, in a constructive manner.

 

[Me_Myself_I]

Before you call me oversensitive, you might look at my posting history.

Ok:

There are no objective criteria for whether a game is good or bad.

This alone demonstrates a severe lack of critical perspective.

 

[Öjevind Lång]

Incorrect. Take a course in music theory and you'll see that music is a system, too. That system can be understood objectively. If your premise were true, one would not be able to differentiate between Mozart and the work of a total amateur. Similarly, literature is systematic and can be evaluated.

"Everyone has an equal opinion and truth is just a matter of whim" are opinions that just aren't very accurate.


What would the point of that be, given your premise? It would be a waste of breath because it would have no effect.

People from cultures which don't adhere to the western musical tradition would regard your claim as nonsense. All you are saying is that Mozart is a good composer if you accept a given system, and even that is debatable. To mention my other example, Leo Tolstoy declared that Shakespeare's plays were rubbish, and there is no way of truly refuting his statement.

I'm not talking of scientific truth or historical truth (where historical truth is often very questionable and uncertain anyway). I'm talking of "aesthetic truth". There ain't any such animal.

 

[Me_Myself_I]

People from cultures which don't adhere to the western musical tradition would regard your claim as nonsense. All you are saying is that Mozart is a good composer if you accept a given system, and even that is debatable. To mention my other example, Leo Tolstoy declared that Shakespeare's plays were rubbish, and there is no way of truly refuting his statement.

I'm not talking of scientific truth or historial truth (where historical truth is often very questionable and uncertain anyway). I'm talking of "esthetic truth". There ain't any such animal.

There is a difference between understanding that there are degrees of imprecision (subjectivity) inherent in the critical process and throwing the baby out with the bath water by claiming that things exist in a special magical realm where criticism cannot legitimately take place.

I'm bored with this point. It's clear enough. All systems and all things can be objectively evaluated, if someone is rational. Everything else is "magic".

 

[Öjevind Lång]

It is unappealing mainly because its lack of replayability, and lack of strategic decisions, which makes for quite similar playtroughts:

- ******ed warmongering AI ensures that every game you play will be a domination victory and removes diplomatic decisions

- Global happiness and lack of health system effectively removes city management and city differenciation all in once sweep

- "All tiles are created equal" in terms of yield removes city placement decisions and further homogenizes cities. More balanced? More like more boring and unrealistic.

- ******ed city growth system promotes ICS

- Extremely long building times ensures lack of building decisions

- Removal of city assimilation removes culture mongering. Coupled with the removal of Religion, that ensures that the only way to dominate a civilization is trought military means. Then again: less strategies avaible for the player = more games similar to each other

- Wonders having generic bonuses ("+X extra happiness") contributes to make every game similar and substract even more flavour from the game

In short: there's no gameplay style on this civilization, there's almost no replayability and any aspect outside of war has been botched because is was deemed as "too boring", turning an empire building game into Advance Wars lite. Great job, geniouses.

You make some good points here. I agree, for example, about the idiocy of making all tiles practically identical in value, and of nerfing cultural assimilation to such an extent. And yet I like the game as a whole, or would if some very necessary tweaks and balance adjustments were implemented.

 

[Öjevind Lång]

There is a difference between understanding that there are degrees of imprecision (subjectivity) inherent in the critical process and throwing the baby out with the bath water by claiming that things exist in a special magical realm where criticism cannot legitimately take place.

I'm bored with this point. It's clear enough. All systems and all things can be objectively evaluated, if someone is rational. Everything else is "magic".

No. Aesthetic systems can't be objectively analysed. Of course, that does not make it meaningless to discuss them - up to a point.

Aesthetics = subjective, despite the system structures erected around them.

Science = tenable theories.

Two different kinds of cat.

Now let's get on with posting about what we like or don't like and would like to see in this game. The majority opinions are likely to prevail.

 

[Siran]

this hasn't been my experience at all. In the early game, my turns take 2 or 3 seconds, in the late game, maybe ten seconds at most.

I would probably be pissed if this happened to me, though.

I confess 30 seconds is exaggerated, but I wait a lot longer than 2 or 3 seconds. Your late game experience is what I have from turn one and it doesn't get better. So I sit and wait. It doesn't help that it takes forever to build buildings or improvements. I grow too bored of the game before I really get into the game. Normally I conquer my first city and after that I stop playing.

Maybe you're right and the game is great if you get to the middle and end game. But I'm bored to death before I even get there. Every civ game until now had that "one more turn" feeling for me. In Civ V it's totally missing. It's more like "do you really want to play another endless turn with nothing much happening? and a lot of other endless turns till something does happen?". Would you play Civ if that was your game experience?

I never said this.

You imply it although maybe not intentionally. If I got exactly the game that was advertised and every thing was known, it is my own fault if I don't like the game, isn't it? Because I either didn't inform myself about the game before buying or I didn't understand that I wouldn't like the game with those features.

 

[ohioastronomy]

No. Aesthetic systems can't be objectively analysed. Of course, that does not make it meaningless to discuss them - up to a point.

Aesthetics = subjective, despite the system structures erected around them.

Science = tenable theories.

Two different kinds of cat.

Now let's get on with posting about what we like or don't like and would like to see in this game. The majority opinions are likely to prevail.

There is an art to game design, e.g. one can identify features of successful and unsuccessful games. It's a very weak (if typical) defense of this game that flaws which people identify are "simply opinion".

For example, relative to earlier games in the series it takes longer for each turn to process (regardless of hardware), and longer to build things. This makes the game pace slower. These are facts; if you dispute them, then you're either playing on very small maps/settings or you're just blindly defending this game.

Now, unless you believe that there is some benefit in staring at a screen while the computer figures out what to do, this is a feature which makes this game worse than previous ones. There is no subjectivity about it - this is a negative.

Of the victory conditions, culture has been reworked to be a small empire only one, and diplomacy has been removed and turned into a money win. This means that, in any meaningful sense of the word, you have fewer options for how to win the game. Again, this is a fact. A number of major mechanisms, popular in prior versions, have been removed (foreign trade, meaningful alliances, religion, espionage). You may not care about the missing or reduced options (just as you may not care about the missing game ingredients)...but, again, when you have fewer ways to experience a game it isn't surprising that people find that it lacks depth.

I also think that there is a very clear lack of what game designers used to call "chrome" - things like wonder movies, end of game movies, viewing the history of the game, seeing where units are going, and so on. The in-game information is very buggy and frequently wrong. I could give a very long list along these lines.

And, on the subject of design, there were a lot of high-level poor decisions. For example, pruning the road network at the same time they switched to no unit stacking was a stupid combination. A sparse road network wouldn't have mattered in Civ 4 much, but it makes it much harder to get around friendly turf with these rules. They put in a mechanical global happiness limit without thinking through the infinite cities problem (quite clearly zillions of tiny cities isn't playing as intended.) The city states are not balanced; the different civilizations are not balanced; multiplayer functions quite poorly according to numerous accounts. The tech tree is quite limited, with large chunks which are irrelevant for the victory that you're doing and inconsistent pacing (lots of things going on followed by long dry stretches.) Again, the drastically reduced options here are not a matter of opinion.

I also think that the no-stacking concept failed in execution and is a bad one at this scale - in fact, that trying to make it work caused all of the other problems - but there are long threads dedicated to that point. And there are also quite a few about the nasty diplomatic model (which is apparently being revised under a firestorm of criticism.)

In short, there are objective reasons why this game is a step backwards, and a litany of defects in it that can again be quantified. There is a reason why the reception on fan forums and user reviews is so negative. After all, some products are just plain not very good, even though others get unfairly criticized.

 

[lschnarch]

(...) the Civ V forums are still swarming with people who have no other ambition than to state that they hate the game and long for Civ IV.5.

Funny enough, it seems that it is mostly the defender to mention Civ4.
Which is understandable to a degree since Civ4 is widely known and can be used as a yardstick for improvement.

Many people complain about Civ5 losing this contest with its predecessor, and they correctly adress their complaints here, because this is the forum for Civ5.

And the accusation of "you only want to have a Civ4.5" is mainly a helpless defense attempt, as "defenders" of Civ5 typically don't have any arguments when it comes down to discussing single elements or the way in which they work with each other.

Well, execpt of course for the second ultimate response: "But *I*, *I* like it. I cannot invalidate any of your arguments, but because *I*, *I* like it, *you* have to be a hater!"

So, fine, you like it. Actually, I couldn't care less. That's completely fine with me.
But defending a game for what is not there, or for what may come sometime in future is just pointless, since the discussion is about the current state of the game.

 

[Venereus]

I disagree. One can't prove that Shakespeare was a good playwright or that Mozart was a good composer. All one can do is state one's own position and why one holds it. That's basic epistemology. Really.

Actually, that's quite advanced epistemology.

 

[ori]

Moderator Action: @all, except those that are already discussing the game :
Stop discussing how you feel others are discussing the game and return to discussing the game, please.

 

[Öjevind Lång]

I confess 30 seconds is exaggerated, but I wait a lot longer than 2 or 3 seconds. Your late game experience is what I have from turn one and it doesn't get better. So I sit and wait. It doesn't help that it takes forever to build buildings or improvements. I grow too bored of the game before I really get into the game. Normally I conquer my first city and after that I stop playing.

Maybe you're right and the game is great if you get to the middle and end game. But I'm bored to death before I even get there. Every civ game until now had that "one more turn" feeling for me. In Civ V it's totally missing. It's more like "do you really want to play another endless turn with nothing much happening? and a lot of other endless turns till something does happen?". Would you play Civ if that was your game experience?

I don't suffer from long game intervals - well, they do become a bit slow towards the end, but that was also true of Civ IV. What irritates me is how long it takes to load a saved game. That simply should be avoidable if a game has been designed by competent people.