Why is Civ5 so unappealing?

[Arsenic Steel]

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.

I was taught to expect that the end user more likely than not will not be able to properly express the problems with a piece of software. It would be the job of the programmer/developer to take end user issues and determine what can or cannot be done.

So gamers complaining about diplo is not necessarily the reason for the diplo patch and in the reviews you read they criticized diplomacy too. Is that your way to saying reviews were necessarilty the reason for the diplo patch or is it just two unrelated statements that happen to be in the same paragraph?

As I see it the devs are taking the concerns of gamers without the discerning greatly between so called "whinning" or constructive criticism and are trying to make CivV more appealing.

 

[Öjevind Lång]

Every new version of Civ (except for Civ II) has been a drastic overhaul of the game. Otherwise, why bother to make a new Civ at all? Everyone who has played Civ for some time knows that, whether they admit it or not. It's just that BtS has apparently generated a species of fanatical sect which won't accept anything exept a new Civ IV BtS with bells on. That's their problem, nobody else's, and certainly not the fault of the developers, who in my opinion committed only one really bad error: the admittedly momentuous one of delivering the game before it was fully worked out. And that, as we know, was probably not their decision. (I'm not talking about bugs and balancing errors; Civ IV Blah Blah Youtoo and Beyond the Sauce were full of them too.)

Think it over. Some peope who post in these forums speak as if if Civ V were the equivalent of raping their sisters. That shows very clearly that they are not being rational.

For the record: I loved Civ IV. There are lots of pople like me. People who think that that does not automatically man one can't enjoy Civ V as well. Not least for its changes, which are very good indeed in some cases. Getting rid of the Stack of Doom and the moronic "Religion reigns supreme in diplomacy" items, to mention but two.

I returned to these forums to post something constructive, but the hegemony of the negative clan has discouraged me.

 

[cf_nz]

Is that your way to saying reviews were necessarilty the reason for the diplo patch or is it just two unrelated statements that happen to be in the same paragraph?

No, my point was that we don't really know what the catalyst for the diplomacy patch was, thus it cannot be specifically attributed to the 'whining' on the forums.

 

[nokmirt]

This game is alot of fun. It may not be perfect, but it is still new. I am amazed at the amount of negative posts on these forums. Especially, from people who have not even played the game. I love CIV IV BTS, but BTS is the second expansion, and it needed patching big time. Give this new version of civ some time to evolve, then complain if it is not up to snuff.

 

[Venereus]

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.

The balance issues, like the awful long building time of buildings, wasn't known before release. Even if you had access to the demo before buying (a nice marketing trick on America by 2K), you probably figured it was a game speed problem or a bad hammer output because of your lack of experience with the new game. Most balance problems like this couldn't have been noticed until a few hours play with the full game.

On the other hand, the Manual is full of mistakes, and also didn't document the game design issues at all. It didn't provide enough theoretical information to figure out the game wouldn't feel right while playing it.

And that's just the more objective aspect, because it would definitely have been nice to know Civ V was really boring compared to Civ IV, but some people call that having different taste.

 

[Öjevind Lång]

And that's just the more objective aspect, because it would definitely have been nice to know Civ V was really boring compared to Civ IV, but some people call that having different taste.

Regarding a game as boring or exciting is a matter of taste. There are no objective criteria for whether a game is good or bad. That means that you are not wrong in despising Civ V, but neither are the people who like it wrong.

I have only one further comment:

 

[lschnarch]

I have only one further comment:

I completely agree.

This dead corpse of a game can't be beaten enough.

 

[Arsenic Steel]

No, my point was that we don't really know what the catalyst for the diplomacy patch was, thus it cannot be specifically attributed to the 'whining' on the forums.

Yeah people complaining about diplomacy and 2k making diplomacy changes that removes an intended feature of transparent diplo are two occurrences that makes it hard to define a cause and effect relation.

 

[charon2112]

That's not a balance issue, it was a deliberate design decision. Because of it, you no longer have the option of building every building in every city, like in Civ IV...so you need to think more about what you build, each building is more valuable now.

Some like this decision, and some don't. I happen to like it.

The balance issues, like the awful long building time of buildings, wasn't known before release.

 

[Venereus]

Regarding a game as boring or exciting is a matter of taste. There are no objective criteria for whether a game is good or bad. That means that you are not wrong in despising Civ V, but neither are the people who like it wrong.

I have only one further comment:

I know, it's what I said.

That's not a balance issue, it was a deliberate design decision. Because of it, you no longer have the option of building every building in every city, like in Civ IV...so you need to think more about what you build, each building is more valuable now.

Some like this decision, and some don't. I happen to like it.

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.

 

[Wulf38]

That's not a balance issue, it was a deliberate design decision. Because of it, you no longer have the option of building every building in every city, like in Civ IV...so you need to think more about what you build, each building is more valuable now.

Some like this decision, and some don't. I happen to like it.

Smart Civ4 players didn't build every building in every city because it's a waste of hammers, and you'd be better off building wealth than a building that's not suited to the city. I am tired of seeing people say Civ5 "forces you to think more about what you build". Civ5 just made most buildings in the game inefficient and not worth building in ANY of your cities, which actually removes interesting decisions from the game.

 

[Harald]

That's not a balance issue, it was a deliberate design decision. Because of it, you no longer have the option of building every building in every city, like in Civ IV...so you need to think more about what you build, each building is more valuable now.

Some like this decision, and some don't. I happen to like it.

The problem though is that buildings aren't much more valuable just more expensive to construct(production) and maintain(gold).
High cost != High value.

 

[charon2112]

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.

I didn't straw man anything, why don't you settle down and stop being so defensive. I quoted you, you said that the longer building times were one of the balance 'issues', and I disagreed because they implemented a change in the build times deliberately. It's not an 'issue' that needs to be corrected.

You're response to my well thought out post was this?

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.

I don't know why I'm surprised, this is the kind of nonsense posts you Civ V "detractors" have been spewing since release day, usually whenever you get hit over the head with actual logic.

 

[Me_Myself_I]

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

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.

 

[Me_Myself_I]

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.

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.

 

[SuperJay]

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.

I think I like you. Let's be BFFs?

(Seriously, welcome to CFC, hope you brought you Kevlar vest!)

 

[Ikael]

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

- ******** 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.

- ******** 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.

 

[Siran]

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.

Somehow nobody mentioned before release that you would be waiting 30 seconds for one turn even in the first few turns of the game and nobody mentioned that I would be pressing enter a lot more in this game than in the last one. Nobody mentioned that the game would be boring.

Don't get me wrong, I read the new things, I liked 1up, I liked hexagons, I liked AI with their own agenda, I liked units able to shoot two spaces. Somehow I liked most of the things I read before release and despite that the game is terrible. So don't tell us, we, who don't like the game, were to stupid to read previews.

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.

I'm pretty sure I won't be buying an expansion for a game that has been a waste of money.

 

[Me_Myself_I]

Somehow nobody mentioned before release that you would be waiting 30 seconds for one turn even in the first few turns of the game and nobody mentioned that I would be pressing enter a lot more in this game than in the last one.

One thing that may help reduce the lag is reducing your graphics settings. As far as I recall, lowering terrain detail from high to medium and changing fog of war to minimum sped up turns for me.

 

[Siran]

One thing that may help reduce the lag is reducing your graphics settings. As far as I recall, lowering terrain detail from high to medium and changing fog of war to minimum sped up turns for me.

I tried that. I even played a game completely in strategic mode. That did reduce the time but it still wasn't really good.

And somehow I'm not really satisfied with a game I have to play with reduced graphic settings although I'm over the maximum system requirements.

Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU Q 720 @ 1.60GHz, 4,00 GB RAM, ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5850