Like many of you may already know, Civilization 5 was released less then a week ago in America and less then a day ago everywhere else. And in the last few days the Civilization fanatics forum as well as the Civilization forums/and or sites in general have been completely bombarded with annoying and idiotic threads where the game gets bashed to death by whiners who insist the game is terrible and 'dumbed down for the masses' because it isn't 'Civilization 4:2' Don't get me wrong, what makes a game good or bad is entirely subjective.
But that said, being someone who has played the Civilization games a lot and is a regular user of the Civ fanatics forum I am completely sick of seeing every other thread as of lately carry tittles like 'OMG ThIZ GAmE ISN'T COMPLETELY LikE CIV 4 IT SUXXX ASSS!!!!?!? Whom are created largely by people who have played the game for something like an hour or two and then proceed to whine about how Firaxis has sold their souls to devil and ruined the Civ franchise forever for the sake of making more money by stripping the game of all complexity to appeal to a larger market. Most of their logic appears to boil down to either 'they removed feature X so the game sucks ass (largely or even completely ignoring that some other features may have replaced the old ones)' or 'my fav tactics from Civ 4 no longer work and thus the game is obviously dumbed down'.
And don't forget the good old 'they dumbed down for the console crowd' argument, even though no console version of the game has been released or is likely to ever be released. In addition to that, I have also seen some completely baseless complaints like interface features from Civ 4 not being in the game even though spending a few min or so messing around with the interface in Civ 5 reveals that they aren't actually missing. It seems to me that roughly 75% of all of the complaints I have heard about the game at this point are about the game being horrible for no other reason then that it actually took the franchise into a new direction instead of simply being a Civ 4 with better graphics and some new features(aren't we suppose to call those kind of games expansion packs?). There are some fair complaints as well however, like the combat AI not being very good at the moment and production being needlessly slow a lot of the time, but most complaint threads largely exist of what I described above. Anyways, I guess the point I am trying to make is that Civ 5 is a new game. Its not Civ 4.5, but a new game.
![Civilization 5 this is not the.exe you are looking for you Civilization 5 this is not the.exe you are looking for you](/uploads/1/2/5/5/125561411/267401075.jpg)
How To Fix Sid Meier’s Civilization V Errors, Crashes, Not Starting, FPS. By Denis Last updated Jan 2, 2017. Update: If you are looking for a guide to fix the errors in the new. #5 Civilization V Low FPS and other performance issues. Sep 24, 2018 - Sid Meier's Civilization V or Civ 5 as it's popularly known is a. There is no error and sometimes you can just see the generic “CIV 5. Start Steam by double-clicking its icon on the Desktop or by searching for it. Check to see if Civilization V keeps crashing and displaying the “Civ5.exe. I'm not interested.
You can still hate the game if you want to, and I won't tell you that you are 'wrong' since everyone has his or her's own tastes in games, but calling the game horrible 'because it isn't Civ 4' just doesn't make any sense. I've only had one problem with Civ 5.
And even then it wasn't really with the game, it was with steam. I bought the physical game, and when installing it it defaulted to 'download'. So when I tried to install from the disk, it started downloading the whole game. I had to open up the disk files and run the setup.exe.
It was a pain in the ass and completely stupid, but not really the game's fault. I personally am loving it, and glad they didn't keep it too much like Civ 4. Its different, I'd say better. And its easily just as addicting. And if it was like Civ 4 they'd just call it 'Civ 4.5' or some bullshit like that. As somepne who was introduced to the series at 4, Civ5 is a what a sequel is meant to do (more or less) take out the unneccessary or ridiculous, improve existing assets (like the UI which is tons better than 4) and innovate (hex grid, no unit stacking, city states etc.) Firaxis has made a game that turn based idiots can enjoy yet is still challenging enough for civ addicts, it only appears dumbed down because it is more user friendly (like the interface). The civfanatics regulars obviously don't get the concept of ergonomics.
Well people will always complain about stuff. Some people just don't know how to complain constructively, or are too lazy too.
Just ignore the trolls and fanboys; they have no goal other than to force you into their world. I disliked the new Age of Empires 3 so I didn't buy it or look into past the point that I knew it would not be the game I was looking for. Since I am a semi sane human I did not need to go yell to the internet that it sucks because it is not like AOE2. I like Civ V even though I have a few minor issues with it. I believe most of these posts can be classified. Deep breath then walk past the crazies on the street yelling at you.
My only beef is with it's video options menu. I get this weird feeling Napoleon is looking down his nose at me for using DX9 on XP SP3. As i've said in another thread, you aren't missing much, the graphics suck on dx10/11 too.
My only beef is that reviewers throw near perfects scores at the damned thing, when it looks like a game that came out 7 years ago. If this game were named anything else, it would have received average reviews at best. I feel the same about this game as I do gears of war, seriously, it's no where near great.
Is there ANY review site that actually does honest reviews besides ZP? Oh well, it's not like I lost anything. I haven't had the chance to play anything more than the demo, but it's pretty obvious to me that it's much, much more than a graphical update. It's very nearly a different game entirely. Which I believe is the point of a good sequel.Regardless of what the Call of Duty franchise wants us to believe.
CoD makes very original sequels. But many other games are just graphical updates, i.e. Every single ea sports game, left for dead, assassins creed felt like just a new setting and add a few ideas. Point is, some companies go with the profiting route of making a sequel with the same effort as an expansion pack. Not related to the topic but only big issue i have had with Civ 5 so far is the time it takes to load up saved games and a bit into the games the turn takes forever for the AI T.T'. Don't know if civ 4 had this since i never played it but civ 3 didn't Well, seeing as the recommended specs for the game includes over 4 whole GB of RAM its only to be expected that turns take long on slower machines. What I get for not reading recommended specs and just assuming my computer can run it, guess I will me some more RAM then:s.
I'm not sure what you're getting at here, it's quite obvious that the game has been dumbed down a lot (or streamlined, to use a more positive word), if you call it baseless or claim that most has been replaced by other features, we could make a point-to-point comparison if you want. That being said, I agree with you that it's not the duty of a sequel to do the things the predecessor did just with updated graphics, and I respect the new approach and I am sure that a lot of people who found the previous parts too dry will have fun with it.
It's a good game, it's just not quite the strategic heavyweight anymore. I'm not sure what you're getting at here, it's quite obvious that the game has been dumbed down a lot (or streamlined, to use a more positive word) It only looks dumbed down because most of the information is now hidden in tabs or menu screens instead of all of it being shown/obvious at once. I have heard from people who complained about the interface being dumbed down only to take their statements back later after they had spent some time getting use to the new interface and learned where all of the important information they were use to having is. The interface isn't dumbed down, its just organized differently. Well, the thing that bugs me a LOT in the demo is how it takes 15 turns to make a worker in a city, and that means about 750 years before you get your first useful unit in the game.
Yea the years each turn amounts to is far too much to make logical sense. Another issue I have is that it will say '7 turns to make a new citizen' or something which in logic means it will take about 400 years for a person to give birth.WTF?
To be honest though I think this is nitpicking seeing as this has been the case with every single Civ game ever released. I for one don't even pay attention to what year it is because literally everything you do in any Civ game takes longer in terms of in-game years then it would in real life. My only beef is with it's video options menu.
I get this weird feeling Napoleon is looking down his nose at me for using DX9 on XP SP3. As i've said in another thread, you aren't missing much, the graphics suck on dx10/11 too. My only beef is that reviewers throw near perfects scores at the damned thing, when it looks like a game that came out 7 years ago. If this game were named anything else, it would have received average reviews at best. I feel the same about this game as I do gears of war, seriously, it's no where near great. Is there ANY review site that actually does honest reviews besides ZP?
Oh well, it's not like I lost anything. Were you meaning to the graphics only? Or the whole concept? Giving a review for the graphics would be a quite dumb thing to do, as with games that are more about the concept than the graphics you should review the former. In personal opinion, I think that I agree with the OP, as yes, a sequel needs to be a new game, not the last game with a graphicds update or extra features.
I have enjoyed my 3 days of civ 5:D. It only looks dumbed down because most of the information is now hidden in tabs or menu screens instead of all of it being shown/obvious at once.
I have heard from people who complained about the interface being dumbed down only to take their statements back later after they had spent some time getting use to the new interface and learned where all of the important information they were use to having is. The interface isn't dumbed down, its just organized differently.
Ah, no, I'm not talking about the interface. There's quite simply less of everything: less technologies with less complex prerequisites, less different units, less wonders, less buildings. No religion and no civics which makes the diplomacy a lot less complex. No technology trading for Christ's sake! No depth to the diplomatic victory. No corporations as well, and no health.
Less resources, less tile improvements, less specialists, great people and things to do with them. No espionage, no cultural takeover of other players' cities. And so forth. Again, I'm not saying all of it is bad, but it IS a lot less complex, and that has nothing at all to do with the interface. My perspective is that I played Civ 2 like 10 years ago, sucked at it and never went back. Civ 5, on the other hand, has the same addictive nature that Total War games have. I just finished my first game at 390-odd turns for a military victory on difficulty 4, and a barely managed to pull away to sleep, lol.
The interface makes sense if you've played any Total War, though it wasn't until the end game that I realised that I could manually focus my city's production and that just because a tile was developed it was being used. That's an example of great design making complexity accessible - the options are there, but they're not thrown at you in a daunting manner and the default will work. I know I've only scraped the surface, and I hunger for more. It's a great game, excellently designed to be accessible whilst still being deeper than any other strategy showing I've seen around.
My only beef is with it's video options menu. I get this weird feeling Napoleon is looking down his nose at me for using DX9 on XP SP3. As i've said in another thread, you aren't missing much, the graphics suck on dx10/11 too. My only beef is that reviewers throw near perfects scores at the damned thing, when it looks like a game that came out 7 years ago. If this game were named anything else, it would have received average reviews at best. I feel the same about this game as I do gears of war, seriously, it's no where near great.
Is there ANY review site that actually does honest reviews besides ZP? Oh well, it's not like I lost anything.
Haha, fair enough. I suppose the only reason I even mentioned it is just because I DO have a powerful enough rig to handle Anti Aliasing, but they flat out slapped that option off the menu due to my OS and drivers. Anti Aliasing isn't exactly new, nor DX10/11 dependant, so the whole thing felt almost like a waiter at a restaurant saying, 'And you'll be paying with, OH.
I'll just take that menu back, as I'm sure you can't afford it. Here's the peasant menu, now lets get you seated somewhere more appropriate for someone of your status.' It only looks dumbed down because most of the information is now hidden in tabs or menu screens instead of all of it being shown/obvious at once. I have heard from people who complained about the interface being dumbed down only to take their statements back later after they had spent some time getting use to the new interface and learned where all of the important information they were use to having is. The interface isn't dumbed down, its just organized differently. Ah, no, I'm not talking about the interface.
There's quite simply less of everything: less technologies with less complex prerequisites, less different units, less wonders, less buildings. No religion and no civics which makes the diplomacy a lot less complex. No technology trading for Christ's sake! No depth to the diplomatic victory. No corporations as well, and no health. Less resources, less tile improvements, less specialists, great people and things to do with them.
No espionage, no cultural takeover of other players' cities. And so forth. Again, I'm not saying all of it is bad, but it IS a lot less complex, and that has nothing at all to do with the interface. Aww, I didn't know there wasn't cultural takeover - I'd heard it talked about and was absent-mindedly trying it out, but it never seemed to do anything:'( Yeah, the things you mention could have been included without causing too many problems - Total War has religion, after all, so it's not like there's not another mainstream precedent:/ I also felt that the tech tree was almost linear; I got hung up on economics - researched around it without looking at the tree, then had 3 or 4 techs in a row with no options.
There should have been more options to have a civilisation develop without a complete tech tree! On the plus side, the combat sounds much more interesting than Civ 4's sounded, and was better than I remember Civ 2's to have been. And don't forget the good old 'they dumbed down for the console crowd' argument, even though no console version of the game has been released or is likely to ever be released. There was a 360 version for sure, it was almost clone of the Civ 4 with a few minor differences (though it was just called civilization), which was meh in my opinion. Proof: As for the topic, I agree its much different than Civ 4, but I believe most changes are improvements and add depth to the game.
The new battle system in particularly I love, since the NPC's can't dip around your units and take your city. However, I've been playing since Civ 2 so. Edit: By the way, the random req's in Civ 4 were annoying and pointless. It was possible to unlock pikemen after you had musketmen, and in some cases riflemen. How does this make sense? It doesn't the technology line -needed- fixed and reduced to its current level to prevent stupid stuff like that.
This same arguement has happened everytime on those forums whenever a game of Civ gets released since 3 pretty much. It is the very reason I am not there right now. Civ 4 was the first release I was disappointed with in Civ.
Bugs everywhere to anyone without flawless specs, and even then they would show up from time to time. People getting manuals in the wrong language.
Disc 1 and Disc 2 were labelled wrong. Civ 4's release was horrible. 2K/Firaxis ignored it and refused to address it because the civ franchise had to take a backseat to Oblivion's buggy release. But regardless many people threw alot of this at me as I didn't like 4's relase because it wasn't 3. Most of their logic appears to boil down to either 'they removed feature X so the game sucks ass (largely or even completely ignoring that some other features may have replaced the old ones)' or 'my fav tactics from Civ 4 no longer work and thus the game is obviously dumbed down'.
2 was pretty much accepted in open arms within the fan community because it was 1 but plus more stuff. The widest and most accepted reason for hating Civ 3 was that it was not Civ 2. The only real change was ranged bombardment which is back in 5 and I bet the AI will never learn how to use this putting the player at a huge advantage over the AI. We will see what Firaxis does with patches. All the positives added in 3 like Great People/generals, culture, resource dependancy, Domination victory, diplomatic victory, and cultural victory, etc. Were all in credit to Civ 3. But Civ 4 recieved that credit when it came out and everyone ignored 3.
Civ 3 is the red headed step child in the Civ franchise and for no good reason IMO. As well, alot of 4's credit should, in fact, go to 3. And don't forget the good old 'they dumbed down for the console crowd' argument, even though no console version of the game has been released or is likely to ever be released. Civ 1 was on SNES, Civ 2 was on PS1, and Civilization Revolution was on PS3/360/DS/iPhone.
The console crowd arguement probably comes from open statements by Firaxis that they are trying to make Civ a TBS that doesn't feel intimidating to step into. Civ 4 was their first attempt at this. CivRev was actually made because Sid Meier wanted to make a Civ game that his 11 yr old son might enjoy. They have been trying to expand their target demographic to 'nonstrategy players' which IMO is a bad idea considering you make strategy games and your already existing fanbase are strategy game fans. Anyways, I guess the point I am trying to make is that Civ 5 is a new game. Its not Civ 4.5, but a new game. You can still hate the game if you want to, and I won't tell you that you are 'wrong' since everyone has his or her's own tastes in games, but calling the game horrible 'because it isn't Civ 4' just doesn't make any sense.
One thing that you will have to grasp in Civfanatics community is there is a large amount of players that started with 4. (Not to mention people who are stepping into the series fresh with 5.) Then the number gets slimmer and slimmer down to people that started with 1. So everyone on there has a different connection to the franchise. OF the 5 games, 1 and 2 were the closest. Past that they rip the guts out with every sequel and start over. They do what Final Fantasy does to game mechanics every sequel. It can be seen as good or bad.
But the important thing to remember is that every fan on that site views civ differently than others usually due to the fact that they probably see Civ in a different way based on which sequels they have played. There isn't many TBS games out there unlike RTS's and that makes Civ sort of special to most fans. It's that genre that has managed to always be there and even stand out for them in this one particula title. People take that stuff to heart sometimes. I personally am side-stepping this release.
I just aint in the mood this time around. Civ 4's was more than enough for a decade. Civilization V is a completely different game. Apart from the obvious graphical update the entire game was basically revamped. I know it seems like it was dumbed down but honestly, making it more accessible is the best thing they could have done for the series. The 2 are completely different experiences even if at first they seem a little similar. I'd go as far as to say you can't compare them due to the differences.
The core game is still there, your taking a culture through the 'test of time' just how you go about it has been tweaked, streamlined in some parts, and made more realistic in others. The core gameplay is still the same as Civ 1, much less 4.
IMO they are easy to compare. Civilization V is a completely different game. Apart from the obvious graphical update the entire game was basically revamped. I know it seems like it was dumbed down but honestly, making it more accessible is the best thing they could have done for the series. The 2 are completely different experiences even if at first they seem a little similar. I'd go as far as to say you can't compare them due to the differences.
The core game is still there, your taking a culture through the 'test of time' just how you go about it has been tweaked, streamlined in some parts, and made more realistic in others. The core gameplay is still the same as Civ 1, much less 4.
IMO they are easy to compare. The core gameplay might be there but the way you actually take your culture 'through the test of time' is different.