Why is Civ5 so unappealing?

[Öjevind Lång]

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.

Most of the things you lament the absence of in Civ V seem to be eye candy - pretty movies and the like. For my part, I genuinely prefer the pastel illustrations in Civ V to the generally rather indifferent "wonder movies" in Civ IV. Anyway, wonder movies are a minor issue. Don't you agree?

The Stack of Doom was moronic, and I'm glad it's gone. Trying to invade efficiently with a scarcity of roads makes fighting more interesting, in my opinion. It's a pity, though, that the game designers didn't manage to make the AI better at handling the new war system. You've got a very good point there. Apparently, there are other games with a similar war system where the AI is quite competent at using it, so there is no real excuse for the poverty in this regard that Civ V suffers from.

They tried to improve the rather primitive diplomacy from Civ IV and failed because of bad programming, which I suspect was caused by them not given enough time to finish their job by the suits.

I do think they went a bit too far in their ambition to strip the game of nonessential fluff. It was probably a reaction against the way BtS was filled to the bursting point with extra goodies.

Those are only my opinions, of course, but opinions underpinned by facts or observations are, as you say, meaningful up to a point. Naturaly they can never constitute some kind of ultimate truth, but I'm so glad we can agree on a lot of things, or at least see where the arguments of the other party come from. I must admit, though, that I am completely puzzled by your statement that you miss the road spaghetti from Civ III and IV. Ugly and rather silly. Finding the money to build enough roads and railways can be a problem in Civ V, but we like solving problems, don't we?

Speaking of eye candy, there have also been complaints (not, to my knowledge,from you) about the introductory movie. Someone stated he "wanted to sock the old man on the jaw", which feels like an overreaction to me. And anwyay, introductory movies are usually rather boring. After having seen them a couple of times, you never want to see them again. An exception is the wonderful "Baba Yetu" introduction in vanilla Civ IV. But apart from that, what do we have? An illustrated lecture in evolution and early human history. A tower that gradually, as the camera rises higher, becomes modern. Fascinating the first couple of times, and then a ho-hum. A man being crowned king in a cod-Roman city. An elephant jumping up and down on a mountain to turn it into a plain where you can settle. Where's the fun in watching that?

 

[Venereus]

The eye candy I dislike the most are the Leader screens. So much work and resources thrown at something I rarely take the time to watch. That was the problem with Wonder movies, and now they've made it worse thinking they fixed it.

 

[Öjevind Lång]

The eye candy I dislike the most are the Leader screens. So much work and resources thrown at something I rarely take the time to watch. That was the problem with Wonder movies, and now they've made it worse thinking they fixed it.

I agree. And since the leaders have only been given a few spoken lines each, their talking becomes an irritation very swiftly. George Washington uses the phrase "I hope you are a friend of liberty" for just everything from "I'd be positive to a trade agreement" to "I'm pissed off at you" to "I don't want to buy your filthy gems". That's only a slight exaggeration. Ashari, for his part, only seems to know how to grunt or say: "Zamzam!" It would have been better to just let them say "Hello" and then perhaps indicate by their facial expressions, together with the written text, how they feel about you. That's how they did the advisors in Sim City III.

Still, anything is better than the ridiculous dances the ambassadors performed in Civ II. I loved that game but not that particular feature.

 

[JLoZeppeli]

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.

Blah, blah.

I passed from Cv I to IV without any problem, so i don't understand you first statement... Why do i think Civ V is quite the mind-game test for monkeys then?

It's the first iteration of the game to make me feel stupid playing it...

Also your points are so strange to me... The first thing that come to my mind about Civ V is straightforwardness. A total linear gameplay. Chosing SP, chosing techs (that are not more interwined, so it's possible to jump over entire branches), building only what matters at the time ( when you need happiness, you just bought an happyness building... And you build in every city gold increase building).

Then i can add to the total the awful AI... That make the game a pain in the ass and easy for everyone who has not burned his own brain by cannabis...

 

[ohioastronomy]

Most of the things you lament the absence of in Civ V seem to be eye candy - pretty movies and the like. For my part, I genuinely prefer the pastel illustrations in Civ V to the generally rather indifferent "wonder movies" in Civ IV. Anyway, wonder movies are a minor issue. Don't you agree?

The Stack of Doom was moronic, and I'm glad it's gone. Trying to invade efficiently with a scarcity of roads makes fighting more interesting, in my opinion. It's a pity, though, that the game designers didn't manage to make the AI better at handling the new war system. You've got a very good point there. Apparently, there are other games with a similar war system where the AI is quite competent at using it, so there is no real excuse for the poverty in this regard that Civ V suffers from.

They tried to improve the rather primitive diplomacy from Civ IV and failed because of bad programming, which I suspect was caused by them not given enough time to finish their job by the suits.

I do think they went a bit too far in their ambition to strip the game of nonessential fluff. It was probably a reaction against the way BtS was filled to the bursting point with extra goodies.

Those are only my opinions, of course, but opinions underpinned by facts or observations are, as you say, meaningful up to a point. Naturaly they can never constitute some kind of ultimate truth, but I'm so glad we can agree on a lot of things, or at least see where the arguments of the other party come from. I must admit, though, that I am completely puzzled by your statement that you miss the road spaghetti from Civ III and IV. Ugly and rather silly. Finding the money to build enough roads and railways can be a problem in Civ V, but we like solving problems, don't we?

Speaking of eye candy, there have also been complaints (not, to my knowledge,from you) about the introductory movie. Someone stated he "wanted to sock the old man on the jaw", which feels like an overreaction to me. And anwyay, introductory movies are usually rather boring. After having seen them a couple of times, you never want to see them again. An exception is the wonderful "Baba Yetu" introduction in vanilla Civ IV. But apart from that, what do we have? An illustrated lecture in evolution and early human history. A tower that gradually, as the camera rises higher, becomes modern. Fascinating the first couple of times, and then a ho-hum. A man being crowned king in a cod-Roman city. An elephant jumping up and down on a mountain to turn it into a plain where you can settle. Where's the fun in watching that?

I listed eye candy because it should be something that we can agree on; I guess not. I was going for objective things - you know, stuff that used to be there (and was there in all prior versions) and which got removed. Some people liked things like the end of game review of the rise and fall of civs, and it didn't hurt you *at all* if you didn't like it and just skipped it. That's just a dead loss. Ditto the wonder movies (which you could skip) or the end of game movies.

Look - I was going for things that were clearly broken in the new game, or options which were removed. Losing such options doesn't matter if you didn't choose them, but it does if you liked them - again, thus a clear net negative for this game and an objective one.

Re the roads: I'm sorry, but the poor timing of the change isn't a matter of opinion. By switching to no stacking the designers created a terrible pathing problem - e.g. they made it harder to move units around. By removing roads they made those pathing problems much, much more of a nuisance. It's just bad design not to realize that the two things had undesirable game-play consequences (to the point where it's even a nuisance to move workers around). And it is motivated by an utterly subjective aesthetic consideration - I find it ridiculous that workers in the mid to late game are expensive and useless, for instance, so it's even poor strategy to prune the roads because it means that your units have nothing else to do.

 

[Titan357]

Why is this game so unappealing to a large part of the civ fan community. Looking beyond the fact that the game was sold as an unfinished product and all the bugs; what did Fraxis do wrong. They obviously went wrong somewhere in the design of this game; most of the older civ community is outraged. I don't have the game yet but I have read enough on the forums to know some of the issues. Planning on buying the game (or getting it of 'shareware' if it really sucks). Before I am sold I want to know what it feels like to play civ5, and what the devs did that makes this game lack.

I really like the game, but this is also my first civ game that I am srs bizz about too.

Anyway, I enjoy it. I have spent a bit of time on it, and got the game blind on a impulse buy from steam after hearing my friend talk about it.

Some things I don't enjoy is the way older units can hold up to new units, and I think the naval combat is very lacking.
The only thing I found my battleships (oh how I love battle ships) good for is bombarding A.I city's.
I wish combat was slightly different, but meh. Maybe a patch will change it, maybe not.

Might be my first civ game, but not my first strat game. I loved to play M.T.W and E.T.W. as well as many other games over my short (10+ years) of gaming.

 

[JLoZeppeli]

Medieval 2 Total War and Empire are the worst Total War games ever..... It's because they went so arcade that the fans were upset, Empire was a big letdown... But we TW fans know very well who's the fault (SEGA)....

They partially repaired with Napoleon. At least it recreates better than Empire the tactics of napoleonic warfare... But i heard of superheroes in Shogun 2...

And they made a huge step back in modding too...

 

[lschnarch]

The Stack of Doom was moronic, and I'm glad it's gone. Trying to invade efficiently with a scarcity of roads makes fighting more interesting, in my opinion. It's a pity, though, that the game designers didn't manage to make the AI better at handling the new war system. You've got a very good point there. Apparently, there are other games with a similar war system where the AI is quite competent at using it, so there is no real excuse for the poverty in this regard that Civ V suffers from.

Actually, I have to disagree.
The SoD is much more plausible for most of the ages depicted. It does indeed make it much easier for the AI to organize their troops.
The main "disadvantages" as far as I see it have been the fact that still the underlying combat model was 1-on-1 and that it took quite some time to learn how to successfully fight a SoD. Suicide siege weapons and missing zones of control clearly contributed to this weak experience.
All this could have been improved by limiting stack sizes and allowing for real combined arms combat. But ok...

That the scarcity of roads makes invasions more interesting I cannot see. In fact, it only reduces the speed of units. The effect in terms of deployment are the same, it only takes longer. And not as if the game wouldn't already take long enough...

Now, slowing down an attacker might be useful, but typically either side only brings like 6 units into the battle (and the defender even less).
The promised "fronts in the countryside" are just non-existant at all, so the whole management of troops comes down to move them one or two hexes at a turn (thanks to the open terrain penalty, you are more or less forced into the rough terrain).
Real flanking (I am not talking about the so-called "flanking" bonus) rarely takes place, as cities due to the scale of the map are much too close for this to happen and units in total are just too slow.

Once again, the (missing) roads don't add to the tactical challenge, they just make it more tedious.

They tried to improve the rather primitive diplomacy from Civ IV and failed because of bad programming, which I suspect was caused by them not given enough time to finish their job by the suits.

Actually, I don't see "bad programming" in the diplomacy, I just see missing ideas.
Whatever you do, except for trading goods and declarations of war seems to have no effect. The many discussions about this topic so far only have resulted in wild guesswork.

This is not "bad programming", this is missing elements and content of the sub-system.

I must admit, though, that I am completely puzzled by your statement that you miss the road spaghetti from Civ III and IV. Ugly and rather silly. Finding the money to build enough roads and railways can be a problem in Civ V, but we like solving problems, don't we?

The "road spaghetti" was merely a visual problem.
In fact, it seems to be quite plausible that roads (delivering movement bonuses to the defender) depict better knowledge of the terrain by the defenders.
Furthermore, I find it much more plausible to have to connect cities and resources to share said resources than having them magically "beamed" from one place to the other.
In Civ5, I can literally place a city (actually a village) at the end of the world, place an improvement on a resource and get its gains in the whole empire, without ever having built a single road (aka: connection).
This seems to be much less immersive than having ugly "road spaghetti".

 

[Titan357]

Medieval 2 Total War and Empire are the worst Total War games ever..... It's because they went so arcade that the fans were upset, Empire was a big letdown... But we TW fans know very well who's the fault (SEGA)....

They partially repaired with Napoleon. At least it recreates better than Empire the tactics of napoleonic warfare... But i heard of superheroes in Shogun 2...

And they made a huge step back in modding too...

I also own and play R.T.W and S.T.W.
I prefer M.T.W 1/2 because I like that time, I love the era and I often used quite a few mods.
Rome total war is pretty good though too, I also like that era, those are the first two that came to mind.
I despise Age of empires.

Sins was also a good game and so was G-Civ.

Anyway O.T.

I like the Diplo screens looks, but I don;t spend much time there. They seem very simple and lacking. Its hard to tell what the A.I really wants, and what kind of deal they would like.
I often get insane deals, like the time I was stomping the A.I yet he wants 1/2 of my city's and most of the L.R to make nice. WTF?

Why does my battleship suck against a wooden boat?
How can a level 1, tech 1 barb brute even get close enough to minute men to hurt them?
Why is the A.I so stupid?

But for some reason, despite all the little things, I like the eye candy and I enjoy the game.
And thats what matters, as long as I enjoy it, I know others may not and I can understand that.