This Game Sucks

[Krill]

For what it's worth, yes, I do think that C4 is a better game, and likely will always be the better MP game unless Firaxis works on it solidly for about a year.

[DriXnaK]

It's a fundamentally flawed game. As I said, they never addressed the flaws that were there from day 1, and as they continually simplified the game those flaws became more important because they are the core of the game. Much easier to just reskin the game and take features out and then claim it's a form of new features than it is to actually add stuff into the game and deal with gameplay balance. Good companies like Blizzard do the latter, small, insignificant companies like Firaxis do the former.

[Al B. Sure!]

You play Starcraft, Drixnak?

And I played the demo of Civ... umm... why does nothing happen? I mean it's only 100 turns but still that takes you into the AD years yet nothing happens. I played a full 100 turns and nothing happened but some barbarians tried to attack one of my cities.

[Hauldren Collider]

@OP:
HI I AM A TROLL I AM TROLLING PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE FIREWALL HE IS JUST GETTING A RISE OUT OF YOU

[DriXnaK]

I actually didn't like Starcraft Al because it only has like 2 resources so it seemed kind of simple. I liked AOC the most due to its gameplay mechanics and the fact that it had 4 resources in addition to other things. I'd be far more willing to play SC2 though than I ever would Civ5. Also, yes, there is a seriously lack of action in this game. The game is just boring. How can't it be when they simplified it down to this point? You can only take so much out of the game before there's nothing left. Changing to hex tiles isn't an addition to the game, in fact I didn't even notice it and I question why it wasn't done long before now because it seems so natural. Also, the new battle system is poorly implemented. Getting rid of mindless stacked combat was a good idea, but you're supposed to follow it up with something better.

[Valkrionn]

Welcome to Apolyton.

Rather enjoying it. Discussions like this happen in my own forum regularly (albeit with less attacks of other players), but not in a main forum.

Well, I see two old posters who are credited as beta testers, Nikolai and Yin. Now that the game is out, please do tell whether you actually enjoy playing its final version?
This was the first Civ ever I thought sucked big time. Graphics are a step back, granted, diplomacy is a joke (even more than in the previous incarnation). 1UP is good. But the game is BORING. Nothing happens for ages. No one attacks me, we are just pushing a couple of units around, waiting for something to be built. And nothing ever is. I have no idea what is going on. The level is Prince, right out of the box, and I was not even trying to get a grasp on what was going on...
Epic fail, IMHO.
By the way, a special raspberry award goes to the 'streamlined interface'. So much for the jabs at Soren and Civ4. He did a MUCH better job even in vanilla version. This is worse than Civ3. The worst Civ in the series so far.

Count myself in that as well.

Honestly, this is the first civ that I have enjoyed playing for anything more than modding. I honestly did not like Civ4. I liked the platform that it provided me, but that is all. With Civ5, again, I am excited about the platform... But I'm enjoying the game as well.

I do not agree that graphics are a step back. Actually, I think it's quite a step forward; The game looks better IMO.

Diplomacy... Yeah. Quite a few of the testers will agree to that, and there are active discussions. It will be improved.

As for nothing happening, I'm of the opinion that the default settings have too few civs. For a huge earth map, I use 20 civs. Not 14. FAR more dynamic.

On the interface: What exactly do you dislike? On the whole, I prefer it to Civ4. No, it doesn't present as much info at any one time... But that's the whole point of it being streamlined. For the most part, that info is still perfectly accessible.

Honestly, how can someone have fun playing against an AI? Ok, maybe it was cool when I was like 12 years old, but after that? It will never cease to amuse me to see how grown men enjoy wasting their time playing against something that can't fight back. Also, I love how the idiots on here always say someone can't adapt to a game if they don't like it, completely throwing away the fact that I find the game to be easy.

I'll say it again, the game sucks. It has taken most the options out of the game and forced everyone onto a linear path on the same level. When a game forces equalization on players it's because it's trying to make up for fundamental flaws in the game, and those flaws have been there since Civ1. They became more pronounced over the years as they took more and more out of the game in their efforts to simplify it. When you take features and possibilities out of the game then you are left with only the core game, and if that core game has fundamental flaws in it then you see what we have here. I guess some people just aren't born that intelligent.

No, myself and others have criticized you for failing to adapt simply because you compare it to the 'glory days' of games you grew up with. I don't care if you dislike it, it is your attitude that irks me.

As an experiment, try making a cogent, non-insulting list of those points you dislike about the game. You may even find some (or many) of us agree, at least on specific points. It is also far more likely to have any kind of result than what you are doing.

I tried again. This time it was better.
Still, I reckon the most fundamental difference in the default settings is the vastness of the maps and the slow tempo of filling them out. I feel that the number of civs and minor states should be at least +50% on any setting to have any pressure on borders. I played standard and by 400BC none of us had more than two cities, with vast unclaimed lands inbetween. This is why the 'feel' of previous civs is absent, there is no landgrab and no incentive to go to war over some land. While this was surely exaggerated in some of previous iterations, current default settings are creating 'empty' worlds. This was on King.
So I guess 9 civs on small and 12 on standard might do.
Anyway, thank you for your polite reply. Please tell the guys in Firaxis that having wants/gives resource screen is a must (ala BTS).

Again, I completely agree. It's one of the things I dislike about it... But as a modder, I don't let that bother me. I can always change it.

To say that civ has a vast majority single-player base is like saying that china has mostly chinese people in its borders. The majority of the player base is a biproduct of the game design, not vice versa. IF the game had better multiplayer support, it would be a very strong multiplayer game, and frankly the multiplayer gaming community in general is extremely large and devotes much more time to gaming than single player casuals. Not to mention that a well balanced multiplayer game would still be as fun for singleplayer, while the opposite is not true in any way.

Trust me, I know. If I hadn't been arguing, I'd have agreed on some things.

MP improvements would be a good thing, as they lead to a larger player-base. However, better MP does NOT automatically lead to better SP.

C4 vanilla was actually pretty crap with the AI...but it was a step up from C3. I still remember the communal "D'oh" moment when someone massively abused the fact that horses were always visible at hte start of the game. I don't think C5 has a whole quite that large , but it still seems to have all of these nigly small ones that just seem worse than C4 did at the start. Sure, they can get ironed out, but I think you have further to go than C4 did to being polished...

Many of us agree with that statement, quite a few things being looked at. And have been for some time. All I can say, and even that is likely too much.

[Krill]

And that's the reason I'd never agree to be a beta tester again No way I'm stopping criticizing something that I see has flaws, just to keeper the massas' happy by dancing a little jig, yessir, nosir, here be your afternoon snack sir.

[yin26]

There's a difference between criticizing the game, which I have done, and revealing information about the testing process. There's also a difference between criticizing from the sofa and actually understanding a bit about game development. I say this, of course, having done way more than my share of sofa criticizing.

If you ever see me kowtowing, let me know. Trust me, it's not in my DNA.

[Krill]

You forget I've already done that job and seen the politics in it.

[DriXnaK]

It's far more fun to be confrontational, especially since I'm well aware that none of this is going to mean anything anyway. Just like I did with Civ3 and Civ 4 I simply won't play it and I'll just disappear again. There are bigger and better games out there if I want options. Lets face it, Firaxis is small time and always has been. The fact that they design the game from the ground up to be single player and are barely even able to ship a functioning MP shows just how small time they really are. No successful company these days ships a game or designs a game without the goal of building a huge MP community. Then again, most companies don't keep putting out the same game every few years with some features removed and then call it a brand new game.

As far as banning me as some have claimed should be done, take a look at the statistics on this thread. This is the most active thread this forum has seen EVER. Then again, all my posts over the years brought huge view and post counts, causing everyone to post over and over as they decried how bad the thread and my behavior was. Look around, this site isn't real active anymore, they should be paying me to do this **** and praying that I don't disappear again, which is inevitably going to happen since my time is too valuable to me.

[yin26]

You forget I've already done that job and seen the politics in it.

No, I haven't forgotten. I see no politics in being able to criticize the game but NOT reveal information about the testing process. Do you?

[Ming]

You've apparently lost your sense of wit over the years Ming if you find that to be funny. Not surprising since I must question the sanity of someone who would voluntarily live in Chicago anyway and become a moderator on a forum.

Some things never change... Unfortunately! You haven't gotten any better with your supposed insults

You were at least entertaining in the past... but now, it's just old. When you get some new material, let us know.

[DriXnaK]

And yet you continue to post and read this topic Ming. Face it, you're like a rubber necker on a highway looking at a car crash. You can't help but stop and watch. Do I not entertain you? You need me Ming, because without me all those topics and posts over the years wouldn't exist. Your post count would be half what it is without me.

[Krill]

Yin, you do understand that your second to last post was a non sequitur, right? I never talked about criticizing the testing process, I talked about criticizing the game (expansions, mechanics, balance etc).

[yin26]

Your implication is that you couldn't stand being a tester because you couldn't criticize the game, which I'm saying is patently false. It's entirely possible to be a highly effective beta tester AND be able to criticize the game. In fact, the best testers offer criticism all the time ... in fact, without it, they're basically not very useful. That said, neither is the tester who can't handle when the dev doesn't like his ideas.

[DriXnaK]

Obviously Yin you're either an idiot with no understanding of the fundamental flaws and problems that have plagued the game since Civ1 and how those are becoming more pronounced as the game becomes more simplified, or you weren't listened to at all.

[self biased]

I actually didn't like Starcraft Al because it only has like 2 resources so it seemed kind of simple. I liked AOC the most due to its gameplay mechanics and the fact that it had 4 resources in addition to other things. I'd be far more willing to play SC2 though than I ever would Civ5. Also, yes, there is a seriously lack of action in this game. The game is just boring. How can't it be when they simplified it down to this point? You can only take so much out of the game before there's nothing left. Changing to hex tiles isn't an addition to the game, in fact I didn't even notice it and I question why it wasn't done long before now because it seems so natural. Also, the new battle system is poorly implemented. Getting rid of mindless stacked combat was a good idea, but you're supposed to follow it up with something better.

now we know you're full of ****. you're taking Al seriously.

[Krill]

Maybe things change, but when a dev ignores criticism of unbalanced and plainly bad ideas - which you are contracted to provide, that's the whole point of being a consultant - there isn't any point in being there. When the dev only listens to those brown nosers who love everything he touches (including their arseholes sometimes), well, I'm not giving up my free time and bandwidth to work in that environment.

Unless you just want to play the early game builds instead of playing current released games. And I suppose there isn't an awful lot of difference when it comes down to polish.

[DriXnaK]

I was actually going to reply to you seriously too self biased, but then I read a little of your blog.

[yin26]

Maybe things change, but when a dev ignores criticism of unbalanced and plainly bad ideas...

Well, one must definitely settle for the fact that the dev has a vision that sometimes you influence and sometimes you don't. I personally haven't seen a dev listen to a "brown noser." I have, though, seen a dev turned around by really solid argument persistently and productively given. And I have also seen a dev so completely settled on an idea that no amount of solid argument turns things in another direction. That's particularly frustrating, but it's part of the process. I think the only way to develop the game you want is, well, to develop the game you want.

By the way, there's nothing wrong with not devoting time to beta testing. It's pretty grueling work at times, and when you have limited time to play games, it's something you have to be passionate about doing.

[asurob]

EON or Dri or whatever your name is today someone's really full of himself.

by the way, I remember back in the day when yin was raising a hell of a lot of hell with Civ. So, I tend to take his opinion of civ 5 pretty seriously.

That being said, I have enjoyed my first game of it so far.

[Sirotnikov]

beta testers, your replies to this:
http://www.1up.com/do/reviewPage?pag...Id=3181540&p=1
i feel strong about his misgivings about dumbing down civics and making it irrelevant, non-dynamic, and not letting it shine through
compared to say religions, or civ2 governments

[yin26]

That being said, I have enjoyed my first game of it so far.

For sure there is a lot of room to improve the game, and most of it is well within the grasp of the x-packs. I look back at my hell raising days (was your name asurob back then?), the main thing I feel positive about was "The List" we gave to Firaxis with highly-organized ideas from the forum about how to think about Civ3. Well, Civ3 ended up very badly, IMO, despite all that. In part you had a QA guy back then who thought that players actually enjoy talking about bugs more than they enjoy playing the game. That attitude from the lead QA guy was maddening, and I admit, in my more youthful days, to losing my mind a few times.

I will admit to not being able to see Civ5 with entirely fresh eyes now. How could I? So I think it's absolutely critical that the public post impressions and ideas for improving the game. Much of it, no doubt, will align with what the dev already knows, but some of it will be new, and, most importantly, some of it will seem a greater or lesser priority to get to the fans. And that's important for the dev.

[DriXnaK]

I'm seeing a trend here Yin. You started beta testing on Civ3, and Sid Meier took back over on Civ3. Looks like a destructive duo to me. Do the world a favor and stop beta testing because you obviously don't know what the **** you are doing.

[yin26]

beta testers, your replies to this:
http://www.1up.com/do/reviewPage?pag...Id=3181540&p=1
i feel strong about his misgivings about dumbing down civics and making it irrelevant, non-dynamic, and not letting it shine through
compared to say religions, or civ2 governments

I was impressed with this review, and other of Tom's reviews. He misses some important points, for example Social Policies do have competing branches, so switching to one cancels the effects of the other. This is a pretty important thing to understand if you are going to criticize social policies as perpetual no-brainers. Given that, it's hard to take the grade of "C" as entirely well-informed. But if we take "C" to mean that this is a game with a lot of room to get better, then I agree.

But this is the great thing we know about Civ. It absolutely WILL improve. I think a grade of A is entirely possible, similar to what people (not everybody, of course) thought by the time the final patches went in to BtS.

[DriXnaK]

The way you post Yin makes me think you are part of the Firaxis publicity department.

[asurob]

For sure there is a lot of room to improve the game, and most of it is well within the grasp of the x-packs. I look back at my hell raising days (was your name asurob back then?), the main thing I feel positive about was "The List" we gave to Firaxis with highly-organized ideas from the forum about how to think about Civ3. Well, Civ3 ended up very badly, IMO, despite all that. In part you had a QA guy back then who thought that players actually enjoy talking about bugs more than they enjoy playing the game. That attitude from the lead QA guy was maddening, and I admit, in my more youthful days, to losing my mind a few times.

I will admit to not being able to see Civ5 with entirely fresh eyes now. How could I? So I think it's absolutely critical that the public post impressions and ideas for improving the game. Much of it, no doubt, will align with what the dev already knows, but some of it will be new, and, most importantly, some of it will seem a greater or lesser priority to get to the fans. And that's important for the dev.

Yup it was and i remember those days well.

[EternalSpark]

So far, the reason why I think the game 'sucks' is that there's no ability, as far as I can see, to tell the game that I never, in any condition of things, want to see Barbarians. They aren't fun to fight, they aren't fun to be forced to put sentries around so they don't spawn, and I never want to see them.

[Valkrionn]

And that's the reason I'd never agree to be a beta tester again No way I'm stopping criticizing something that I see has flaws, just to keeper the massas' happy by dancing a little jig, yessir, nosir, here be your afternoon snack sir.

Actually, we criticize things all the time. And it has yielded results.

Despite how we've posted in this thread, we are far from toadies. The tone was simply annoying, which is pretty much how he intended it to be.

There's a difference between criticizing the game, which I have done, and revealing information about the testing process. There's also a difference between criticizing from the sofa and actually understanding a bit about game development. I say this, of course, having done way more than my share of sofa criticizing.

If you ever see me kowtowing, let me know. Trust me, it's not in my DNA.

Exactly. We are contractually obligated not to reveal details. However, we are also obligated to dissent when we see things we dislike, it's the whole point of us being there.

It's far more fun to be confrontational, especially since I'm well aware that none of this is going to mean anything anyway. Just like I did with Civ3 and Civ 4 I simply won't play it and I'll just disappear again. There are bigger and better games out there if I want options. Lets face it, Firaxis is small time and always has been. The fact that they design the game from the ground up to be single player and are barely even able to ship a functioning MP shows just how small time they really are. No successful company these days ships a game or designs a game without the goal of building a huge MP community. Then again, most companies don't keep putting out the same game every few years with some features removed and then call it a brand new game.

As far as banning me as some have claimed should be done, take a look at the statistics on this thread. This is the most active thread this forum has seen EVER. Then again, all my posts over the years brought huge view and post counts, causing everyone to post over and over as they decried how bad the thread and my behavior was. Look around, this site isn't real active anymore, they should be paying me to do this **** and praying that I don't disappear again, which is inevitably going to happen since my time is too valuable to me.

Sure, more fun. I don't think anyone in this thread would have posted were they not the kind of person to enjoy arguments. Even if the insults were quite juvenile.

A coherent list of issues would have the chance for real effect, however.

beta testers, your replies to this:
http://www.1up.com/do/reviewPage?pag...Id=3181540&p=1
i feel strong about his misgivings about dumbing down civics and making it irrelevant, non-dynamic, and not letting it shine through
compared to say religions, or civ2 governments

He missed a bit (as Yin said, policies DO oppose), but I can agree with him on many points.

I personally love social policies. But I can see where others would miss the dynamicism of civics. And I really dislike the removal of religions... May well be one of my first mods, adding them back. In some form at least.

Many of his other issues are being worked on already.

For sure there is a lot of room to improve the game, and most of it is well within the grasp of the x-packs. I look back at my hell raising days (was your name asurob back then?), the main thing I feel positive about was "The List" we gave to Firaxis with highly-organized ideas from the forum about how to think about Civ3. Well, Civ3 ended up very badly, IMO, despite all that. In part you had a QA guy back then who thought that players actually enjoy talking about bugs more than they enjoy playing the game. That attitude from the lead QA guy was maddening, and I admit, in my more youthful days, to losing my mind a few times.

I will admit to not being able to see Civ5 with entirely fresh eyes now. How could I? So I think it's absolutely critical that the public post impressions and ideas for improving the game. Much of it, no doubt, will align with what the dev already knows, but some of it will be new, and, most importantly, some of it will seem a greater or lesser priority to get to the fans. And that's important for the dev.

I agree. Feedback is always important, even when negative.

So far, the reason why I think the game 'sucks' is that there's no ability, as far as I can see, to tell the game that I never, in any condition of things, want to see Barbarians. They aren't fun to fight, they aren't fun to be forced to put sentries around so they don't spawn, and I never want to see them.

Actually, that exists. When setting up the game, click the 'advanced setup' button (or something similar, can't remember exact phrasing). There you will see quite a few options, the ability to toggle victory conditions, some extra map options, etc.

[Dinner]

I do like how cities can now shoot back even if no one is in them plus they get their own hit points. That's a rather nice new change.