Announcement

Collapse

Welcome to the New Server!

Apolyton.net is now pointing to the new server. Please let us know if you spot any oddities or have any suggestions for what to add to the site!
See more
See less

This Game Sucks

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 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.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by DriXnaK View Post
      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.
      I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.
      [Brandon Roderick? You mean Brock's Toadie?][Hanged from Yggdrasil]

      Comment


      • 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.
        You just wasted six ... no, seven ... seconds of your life reading this sentence.

        Comment


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

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Krill View Post
            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.
            I've been on these boards for a long time and I still don't know what to think when it comes to you -- FrantzX, December 21, 2001

            "Yin": Your friendly, neighborhood negative cosmic force.

            Comment


            • 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.

              Comment


              • 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

                Comment


                • Originally posted by asurob View Post
                  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.
                  I've been on these boards for a long time and I still don't know what to think when it comes to you -- FrantzX, December 21, 2001

                  "Yin": Your friendly, neighborhood negative cosmic force.

                  Comment


                  • 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.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Sirotnikov View Post
                      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.
                      I've been on these boards for a long time and I still don't know what to think when it comes to you -- FrantzX, December 21, 2001

                      "Yin": Your friendly, neighborhood negative cosmic force.

                      Comment


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

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by yin26 View Post
                          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.

                          Comment


                          • 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.
                            It's a CB.
                            --
                            SteamID: rampant_scumbag

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Krill View Post
                              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.

                              Originally posted by yin26 View Post
                              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.

                              Originally posted by DriXnaK View Post
                              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.

                              Originally posted by Sirotnikov View Post
                              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.

                              Originally posted by yin26 View Post
                              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.

                              Originally posted by EternalSpark View Post
                              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.
                              Rise from Erebus - R i f E
                              http://forums.civfanatics.com/forumdisplay.php?f=360
                              Member of the R i f E team

                              Comment


                              • 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.
                                Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X