Rywill
4981
You’ve been misunderstanding or misconstruing Christoph’s argument all along. He’s been making two points: 1) that most people move up the difficulty until the computer gives them a good run for their money, and therefore the victory stats show that most people are fine with the overall challenge level of the AI (tactical combined with strategic); and 2) in response to the counterargument that some players intentionally set the challenge level very low because that’s how they like to play the game, he’s saying that even if that’s the case for some number of people, the AI obviously isn’t “broken” for them either. What you deride as “backtracking” is the normal discussion and illumination/evolution of an argument.
Folks like you and rezaf aren’t helping your position here. You sound like high school kids, ragehammering the keyboard in pursuit of internet victory.
And it’s interesting to note that none of us (on the other side) are saying that the tactical AI isn’t bad or that it wouldn’t be nice if it was improved - we’re simply disagreeing that the game is broken and unplayable.
Because clearly it’s very playable to a lot of people.
rezaf
4983
@Rywill: Aren’t actually you the one that continues to pursue “internet victory”?
Note that I stopped posting about the topic before you brought it up again, because I thought the differences between the opinions are a bit academic.
I think Chris highlighted players wanting to be challenged in his initial posts, while I said they merely want moving targets, but I think the difference is pure nitpicking and not worth arguing about.
However, YOU continue arguing about it, and thus not helping YOUR position.
Can’t we all just agree that it’s no longer worth arguing about the semantics?
If not, just consider yourself the victor, will you?
@Miramon: That’s still around? I noticed it often in my initial games, but I thought (hoped) it had been resolved by now, like 5 patches later.
Hearing that’s not the case it slightly discouraging.
Edit: @Hans: You’re the different audience I was talking about. It’s a bit like FPSes like Doom, where enemies are just standing around and idling unit you, the player, approach them, then they get active and rush at you, and something like Unreal Tournament, where enemy bots are actively roaming the maps and searching for you.
Both have a place, but are a totally different approach to FPSes.
Maybe a more apt comparison would be one-shot FPSes like Counterstrike vs. guns-blazing FPSes like UT.
rezaf
Alstein
4984
It’s broken and unplayable to some people, many of which are grognards of the series.
Take 2 managed to replace a good portion Civ’s old fanbase with a new, larger fanbase. It’s a great business decision, but that doesn’t mean that I have to like that decision.
I often compare Civ IV to Street Fighter IV because that game did the same thing.
Except that I have been playing Civilization since the first one too and I disagree with your comparison. Focusing on other aspects or other challenges isn’t the same as not wanting challenge.
We’ve been playing it since the first game too. I think that ‘good portion’ is much smaller than you think. But of course you don’t have to like it.
facepalm
I clarified my argument immediately after you started your harping on the immaterial question of whether players are really, objectively, maximally challenged on some given level or not. “Cannot beat” and “don’t feel compelled to try” are equivalent for the purpose of the discussion. It’s not my fault if you pretend not to notice so you can keep arguing.
(rezaf already understood this point, by the way, and Rywill shouldn’t have pulled him into this.)
What on earth is your evidence for this?
Grognards are never that large of a portion. I think the fact that the game is selling well on Steam, despite the grumbles, is a sign that they’re getting a new audience from somewhere.
I think this is playing a role in the difficulty statistics as well.
rezaf
4989
How long you’ve been playing Civ is irrelevant. An we’re talking about the tactical AI here, not “other aspects”, so what you think about those isn’t relevant either.
Which is my point, you don’t need to have a AI that knows how to play the game efficiently to have fun. That’s totally fine.
Hence my FPS comparison, the Doom Grunt also has no idea how to play the game as the player plays it, but he doesn’t need to. He’s a moving target that can shoot back, nothing more.
Viewing the Civ5 AI players as scenery is what you need to do if you want to have fun with Civ5 as it is right now.
Those of us on the HMS “Civ5 is broken” cannot play that way, but you can argue that’s totally our problem, and I won’t disagree.
Like I wrote a few posts before, it’s not about being right or wrong or about being better or worse, it’s about being different. The people in our boat felt a capable AI was an important part of our Civ experience/enjoyment, whilst for you other folks … shall we say, it’s slightly less important. That’s totally fine as well.
rezaf
Hard to tell. Maybe the audience really shrank but not enough to matter. Regardless, I don’t think the weak AI was an intentional trade-off. I rather think it’s a consequence of the more complex combat system plus ruthless cost cutting, including trying to get the game out for the holiday season (and then firing half the team). The big balancing and diplomacy changes in the patches already show that the release was somewhat premature IMO.
Have you played a game to completion after this latest patch? I’m no Civ Deity, but I’m no slouch either, and have been playing each new version since the original. Right now, playing at Prince with no reloads, I feel sufficiently challenged – even surprised sometimes – and caught in the just-one-more-turn vortex. I put the game aside in disappointment about two months ago, but now it’s what I find myself playing whenever I have a spare moment. It’s pretty great right now, imo. There are still some flaws, but overall it’s a great game.
Jorune
4992
This. If asked, I would say the game is broken because of the tactical AI. But it’s only broken in the way I play the game. Many, many other people are playing Civ V apparently in a different way and they just don’t see it. They agree it’s there, but it’s a ‘feature’ they don’t use.
Jorune
Rywill
4993
I was talking about the tone of the posts – your saying everyone at Firaxis are “utter idiots that have no clue about what they’re doing,” Equisilius’ “Oh I guess I just won then, that’s cool” business, etc. You can critique Civ 5 and participate in the other side of this discussion in a meaningful way, but that sort of childishness just undercuts an argument.
The overall point I’m making, though, is this: there seems to be a condescending assumption that everyone enjoying Civ 5 is like a Farmville-level nongamer. There’s a lot of “Oh well you just want paper tiger opponents” or “You’d understand better if you had played the prior games like I have” or “The game is only doing well because it’s captured a new and more naive audience.” What we keep telling you is that we’ve played the prior games, we like being challenged, and the game as it stands today is pretty challenging even with the deficient AI. That view is supported by Steam’s statistics.
But it’s not for you. I get that…and I’m not going to sit here and tell you it’s just because you don’t understand the game, and pat you on the head. You just genuinely disagree.
Oh, we use it, it’s just that we don’t view it as being essential to having a pleasurable time.
Have you ever had a large meal where one of the dishes just wasn’t that good? You can still have a great meal if you decide to eat around the part you didn’t care for. Of course, if you had your heart set on that particular item and it was undercooked or something then perhaps everything else couldn’t save it for you and that would be entirely understandable. However, many others at the table would be likely to find something else to make the meal enjoyable.
But don’t you guys realize Civilization has always been a wargame at heart. A grand tactical wargame about manouvring… and now the idiots at Firaxis has ruined that most vital part and turned the rest into a casual city builder. You can even build stuff like a granary, a harbor and a hospital… what kind of wargame is that?
And it’s only because they fired most of their developers while the few left were working on Sid Meier’s Civilizationville for Facebook.
The franchise is domed. Domed, I tell you.
Really?
I can distinctly recall playing and winning many games by launching my ship to Alpha Centauri.
Actually… I remember playing the sequel called Alpha Centauri.
Seems to me you’re interpreting the game based on what you want to be there, not based on what is actually there.
Winning? Didn’t you read the thread (he asked already knowing the answer)?! Only casuals and n00bs actually finishes a game of Civ. Real player stops as soon as they know victory is inevitable.
When did anyone ever call Civ V “unplayable”? That’s quite a strawman for you guys to tilt at, but next time don’t hold back. Go for something even more dramatic!
For example: “I disagree with all these people who say Civ V is broken and causes cancer. I’ve been playing for 500 hours and I still haven’t caught cancer. Therefore, their claims are without merit.”
So, hey, how 'bout those Polynesians?
-Tom
SamS
4999
The Polynesian special unit should have been the ‘Nightclub Bouncer’. Send it to an opponents city and it will instigate civil unrest.
I’m not going back through 125 pages to find the exact wording “Civ V is unplayable”… although I’m sure I could.
But it’s ok to infer that meaning from people explaining in detail why they’re certainly not playing it anymore. It’s side by side with people calling the game broken, a dippy puzzle/RPG game, a sub par city builder and a complete failure on Firaxis’ part amongst other things.
Early island hopping with the Polynesians on a archipelago map is kinda fun. And deciding whether you should go for more food or hammers or just fill you little island with Moai for a culture boost is an interesting choice… then my game crashed. I guess it’s still broken.
