
    Dismiss Notice

Why does everyone hate CIV5?

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by ProudAmerican, Nov 26, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. shadowplay

    shadowplay (boss music)

    Nov 6, 2003
    The game isn't addictive. Civ is supposed to be addictive. Hence this just doesn't feel like Civ.

    I knew something was wrong early on when "just one more turn.." wasn't kicking in :(
  2. Venereus

    Venereus This Is Streamlined!

    Aug 8, 2010
    I've always suspected 1UPT was, for all it's good intentions, part of the problem.
  3. Warspite2

    Warspite2 Prince

    Feb 10, 2003
    Yes he should own the game. You think its fair if I post some false and misleading comments on games I don't own?

    Moderator Action: Again: stop discussing each other, you are welcome to discuss the game.
    Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
  4. Öjevind Lång

    Öjevind Lång Deity

    Aug 22, 2005
    I think you make excellent points. IMO, Civ V is not a "dumbed down" version of Civ; they just wanted to take out some excess things ("fluff"), as well as a lot of things that actually "dumbed down" the game or made for micromanagement of an unenjoyable kind. I'm particularly glad the diplomacy-breaking religions and the Stack of Doom and the locust-like spies are gone. You couldn't take a rival to task for sending in spies that constantly poisoned your cities and blew up buildings and destroyed improvements, and cleaning them out was about as satisfying as constantly having to clean up pollution in Civ III. In other words: Not fun. Unfortunately, they went a little too far in removing fluff, possibly because they were not given the time they needed. There are things in the game files that indicate they meant to include a lot of stuff that wasn't included. Furthermore, neither were they given enough time to properly test their (in many cases brilliant) innovations.

    Some people miss the science slider enormousy. I don't; I always disliked it, and I don't care how much some gamers love it because they were adept at manipulating the slider for the maximum number of beakers or money and so on. In fact, that feature could very easily be termed "dumbing down" your economy and research management.

    Still, they should restore the overspill of beakers and hammers from one research project and building project to another. I'm amazed they didn't bother to do that.

    Give them time. One thing I want them to do is to once more make the food resources and different terrain types important, so that choosing where to settle becomes something one must actually give some thought to. And they should make city spamming less inviting. That's primarily something to deal with in terms of economy and happiness, but a good start would be to simply increase the mandatory distance between two cities from two to three tiles.

    Mind you, it is perfectly valid to make settling by a river an excellent choice. That is how things work in the real world. Most major cities in the world are situated on a river, and not by coincidence. And having that feature increases the fun in deciding where to found a new city.

    To the question "Why does everyone hate Civ V?" I can only reply that many people do not hate it, but just about everybody is irritated by the sloppy execution of the game, and some are so much in love with Civ IV that they won't accept any replacement. Still, I am certain that with proper bug-fixing and some rather momentuous tweaks, Civ V will become even more fun than it is now. (Yes, there are quite a few people here who think Civ V is fun.) They need to make the AI better at handling the more challenging diplomacy and warfare that have been introduced, and they should make the difference between the difficulty levels real instead of pretty much a fiction.
  5. Öjevind Lång

    Öjevind Lång Deity

    Aug 22, 2005
    I don't see why people who enjoy playing Civ V should go and play Civ IV Beyond the Sword instead. What a curious suggestion.
  6. Crispin

    Crispin Chieftain

    Sep 28, 2005
    Ah well it could always be releasing a poor product, then releasing stupid dlc's to grab even more money from us. For heaven sake, fix your god damn game first. Never seen such a bad company ruin such a good game by lousy decision like this before. I hope they crash and burn.

    About the 1pt, its a good change in theory, I don't think it works as well as it should, it definitely needs work, but they are on to something. But this should ofc been tested more before release. Another STUPID moment in video game history.
  7. Öjevind Lång

    Öjevind Lång Deity

    Aug 22, 2005
    My thoughts exactly.
  8. AnonCiv

    AnonCiv Chieftain

    Nov 11, 2010

    1. 1st Civ game (1 thru 5) that can be won all the time at the highest difficulty levels after only 4 or 5 practice matches.
    2. AI Unit Lemmings that will, for instance, lose dozens of Cossacks or Foreign Legion troops to a couple of antiquated wooden exploration ships hanging around the coast. (I once defeated a 15 city French empire on another continent with 1 tank, 1 piece of artillery and 2 destroyers because over 20 or 30 turns the AI insisted on sending 1 or more unprotected units into the water to try and flank me; I was hiding behind an allied City-State that the French decided to to attack)
    3. AI Civilization Lemmings that commit diplomatic suicide by building the UN without controlling a sufficient number of votes to ensure victory or, at least, ensure not losing.

    Which brings me to the biggest complaint; several unstoppable strategies to victory that the AI refuses to implement. Look no further than the case above where in this late state the AI will typically have dozens of cities producing 800 or more gold units per turn and often have 50,000 plus in savings.

    Once you or the AI can count the turns to having the UN built it is easy to calculate what you need to control the diplomatic vote until the end. Simple no way to loose strategy; align yourself with 10+votes and declare war on the opponent. Maintain war until the vote...unless the opponent can conquer enough city-states in the time remaining victory is yours.

    Having never lost to this AI I cannot be sure but I don't think the AI in CIV 5 can win except by domination... And, as many have noted, with so few units in this version it does not know how to do battle well enough wipe one off the map...

    I really do not see how you can lose to in this version; which was never the case in Civ IV.
  9. markantony

    markantony Warlord

    Nov 19, 2010
    The 1upt is a game breaker, imo. The Civ map is strategic, not tactical. Battles really need to be played out on a seperate tactical map, Total War style.
  10. JoxerNL

    JoxerNL Warlord

    Oct 2, 2010
    And yet the 1UPT was announced all over the web prior to release, if you dont like it it's your fault for buying it and not trying the demo.
    Not slagging on you just being realistic here, i tried the demo beforehand cause i wassn't sure if 1UPT would be a success or not, in my case i enjoyed it.
  11. jonnyp

    jonnyp Chieftain

    Sep 29, 2010
  12. ohioastronomy

    ohioastronomy King

    Dec 14, 2005
    We didn't know that they'd fail so spectacularly with the concept, and you can't tell that from a 100 turn demo in a game where the beginning has been slowed down so drastically.

    I actually think that the lack of stacking was the fatal flaw that brought the whole game down. It's a classic example of over-reacting to earlier mistakes (stacks in the prior game were too big..so remove them completely!) It could actually have worked well if they used something similar to 1upt for a tactical map and had an auto-resolve option. But they didn't have the wisdom to adjust their design in the face of obvious problems.
  13. JoxerNL

    JoxerNL Warlord

    Oct 2, 2010
    I'll just say... I miss Alpha Centauri.
    Wish they would come with a part 2.
  14. Hormagaunt

    Hormagaunt Warlord

    Oct 3, 2010
    They shouldn't have removed spies. They should have *added* consequences. For instance, someone's sending spies into your land? Each time you catch one and *publicize* the catch, the opposition takes a penalty with other civs for stirring up trouble. Eventually, he sends enough spies, others stop trading with him or go to war with him.

    Same thing with religions. Instead of removing religion, they should have added things. For example, like spies, missionaries could enter other countries, but you'd only see the single hex they were in / had gone through. You'd never have an area view around them and they'd never give you information about the city that they settle in. Further, each 10% of the opponent's land that they exposed would give, say, a -1 to relationships and eventually your missionaries would be treated as the spies they are.

    Those are examples of ADDING stuff, rather than dumbing down by REMOVING stuff.

    Also, this is stuff that should have been in Civ5 from the beginning. If they add it now as pay-for DLC then it just proves / demonstrates / suggests that they removed the stuff in the first place simply so they could charge more for it later. And that will stop me cold until 6 months after Civ6 comes out.

    They were given 5 years.

    (By the way, what were these innovations?)

    Why? Isn't it better, more accurate management to tune your cities at the end of a research cycle to not have any overspill? Or at the end of a construction cycle?

    I prefer using the sliders and having rollover. You (first paragraph) apparently prefer fine-tuning your cities. The overspill can simply be handled by tuning your cities at the appropriate times.

    Having seriously differentiated terrain types was just fluff, I assure you. And having the terrain dictate where you'd build a city? That was definitely hampering your choices. Sure, you could still do it, but it had seriously negative consequences if you didn't choose correctly. Now you can choose anywhere and be assured that it's a reasonably good choice.

    I've not seen anyone on this side of the argument so far. But then, I've not read all of the posts on the forum, either.

    If you think it will just take bug-fixing and "momentous tweaks", you've got a much higher opinion of their design skill and a much lower belief in the pervasiveness of the problems than I have.
  15. Lone Wolf

    Lone Wolf Deity

    Dec 4, 2006
    From my understanding, Öjevind Lång thinks that overflow should be restored, but that the slider should not.
  16. sketch162000

    sketch162000 Warlord

    Oct 12, 2010
    To be clear, I do enjoy 1upt. But as the novelty wears off, I realize that it was a hamfisted way to fix SOD's, especially considering that the AI can't figure out how to use it effectively. Once you realize that, you start to see that same problem EVERYWHERE. I feel like some fans are so blinded by hatred of the annoyances and exploits from CIV IV, that they are simply satisfied with any solution, even if the fix is like killing a cockroach with a shotgun.
  17. markantony

    markantony Warlord

    Nov 19, 2010
    Riiiiiiiight................it still breaks the game. Whether or not I knew about it before or not makes little difference.

    Do you see?
  18. lschnarch

    lschnarch Emperor

    Oct 7, 2010
    I am curious about what "innovations" would be "brilliant"?

    Apart from this, they have said to have worked on Civ5 for at least 2 years.
    Not talking about the game engine (which is quite weak based on the ROI), what did they achieve during 24 months?
    They have given us an UI which hides information, if available at all.
    They have given us an UI which provides mouse travel values only to be measured in miles or kilometers to perform obvious tasks (new production orders, anybody?)
    They have given us "diplomacy" which nobody understands, the AI even less.
    They have given us "diplomacy" in which the one side (AI) can do things, which the other side (human player) can't do (termination of pacts).
    They have given us city states which add exactly as much to diplomacy, as your next visit to the local supermarket would do.
    They have given us an overall AI, called to "play to win" and being unable to pick even the most easy victory condition.
    They have given us a combat AI which is so braindead that it hurts (and this was one of the most advertised features - the core of the hype)

    In total: they have given us a game which sucks at ANY of the advertised features.
    No, it is not "just decent", which would be a disappointment already.
    No, it is not "just a bit weak", which would be a big disappointment.

    It is just plain completely unable to do anything in a meaningful way.

    So, once again, what would be the "brilliant features"?
    And how much time would they have needed to make at least some of these things work in only a decent manner?

    This is one of the most funny statements ever.
    With the slider, you did have the chance to balance your income against your research. Neither of the both was an automatic, as it is in Civ5.
    You just cannot avoid research, as it is an automatic function of population (that way making ICS so strong).
    You just cannot avoid making money, as trading posts are a complete no-brainer.

    And even when you really mess up with the game, and go into the red, finally it only reduces ..... oh, your science. Wooohooo!
    In fact, the slider is just some kind of another (yet hidden) automatic now.
    After 24 months of development.
    After having a very successful example at their hands, how to do such an "overspill".

    One could really be tempted to ask what they did not overlook.
    This wouldn't change anything.
    It would just reduce the number of cities due to ICS, but it would still encourage ICS.
    Once again, that wouldn't change anything.
    It would only mean that the first cities of your ICS strategy are founded at the rivers. It might cause a slightly different layout, but it would even propel ICS.

    The problem still is that the combination of design elements in this game calls for maintaining ICS.

    You will need a complete overhaul of the whole game, meaning to touch each single element of the game to make ICS invalid.
    You may finally succeed in doing so, but no longer will you have Civ5. You will have a completely different game.
    Just two letters: BS

    Many people went the whole way from Civ1 to Civ4 and each time they were confronted with changes, adopted their playstyles to said changes and sometimes were even happy with the changes.

    It is not that people are against changes. Actually, they welcome changes.
    Yet, they frown upon *bad* changes.
    They frown upon changes only performed to limit options.
    They frown upon changes only to have things changed, without improvement.
    They frown upon changes which lead to current diplomacy, current battle "tactics", current battle "performance" of the AI, current "diplomatic enhancements" like city states, current dominant "strategies" like ICS.

    The changes in Civ5 make for a more simplistic, completely reduced gameplay.
    And that is the reason why people prefer Civ4. Not because it was called Civ4, but because in total it still is a superior game.

    Well, I have just quoted another poster claiming that the developers would have needed more time.

    The weaknesses of 1upt were discussed here in this forum months before release already.
    Many people pointed out that 1upt wouldn't work at the scale of an earth map (and finally, all maps in Civ games are earth maps).

    That 1upt does not work, that the AI is not able to understand it and to perform accordingly is not the fault of the customer, it is the fault of the developers, as the problems were obvious from the very first moment on.

    Civ5 in this aspect is like a convertible with a leaky roof.
    What you are doing is blaming customers to not have been waiting for a summer thunderstorm to test, so it would be the customers' fault not to have known this in advance.

    And you're wrong. The leaky roof is not the fault of the customer, it is the fault of the manufacturer.
  19. Öjevind Lång

    Öjevind Lång Deity

    Aug 22, 2005
    Exactly. The one makes sense, the other is, in my opinion, a rather stupid and primitive feature that had been around since Civ I but was no better for that. A truly "dumbing down" contraption.

    (To another poster:) As for not removing spies but introducing consequences, that might have worked. But they should also have made spies more expensive to produce. As it was, in BtS the AI produced them and used them up like peanuts. Insane.

    (To yet another poster:) brilliant innovations: City States, one unit per hex, hexes themselves, more sophisticated diplomacy (once they make it work), religion removed as a factor in diplomacy (could be introduced again for culture and happiness, perhaps also for money), no Stacks of Doom, the gamer can't build a zillion troops, the AI realises that you are amassing troops for an attack (of course, there the AI needs to be tweaked against the "I'm scared because my borders have moved closer to your scouts" paranoia), no longer possible to build things by slicing down your citizens like bacon, no leaderheads looking like space aliens or the Playmate of the Month, no need to station troops in cities, puppets, no dumbass map trading, research agreements instead of tech trading ("Give me the secret of Pottery or I'll kill you!"), city expansion is slower and less regular - oh yes, quite a few things.

    I do wish they'd reintroduce such things as marble being specially useful for building certain Wonders and stone for others et cetera, the spontaneous growing up of woods in unused areas, more meaningful food resources, an image of the space ship being built, the Throne Room from Civ II, more buildings having more than one function, and the like. They did strip the game a bit too bare.
  20. kaysea

    kaysea Chieftain

    Oct 22, 2005
    I played civ 5 twice and went back to civ 4 bts + rise of mankind.The depth wasn't there, maybe in 4 years after patches and mods, but right now civ 4 is better.

    The one thing that disappointed (disappoints) me was the optimization. The amount of slow turn times in the mid to late turns is ridiculous taking into consideration the required system specs. I want to play a game with the largest map, all the civs and have little to no wait time without needing to have an insanely powerful computer. MAKE YOUR GAME MORE EFFICIENT!.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page