5021

From my perspective, an AI that will cede half of it’s territory to you in a war in which you’ve never fired a shot is pretty damn “broken”. If someone wants to use a different word for it that’s completely understandable, but for me the MANY problems the AI has certainly “breaks” the game.

I could see how more casual people who just want to build some cities and stuff, that may not concern them to the same degree.

5022

That seems a fair conclusion. I wonder if difficulty level influences it’s decision making.

5023

It’s a perfectly reasonable thing for those of us disappointed in the game to come here to discuss whether the updates address our disappointment. And it’s perfectly reasonable for us to continue to be disappointed when they don’t. You don’t see us complaining about you guys (someone cue Hans to do a keyword search). It’s also perfectly reasonable for those of you enjoying the game to talk about enjoying the game. The internet will contain many different ideas. You don’t always get the luxury of an echo chamber.

Besides, I’m not sure what’s left to talk about. If you guys want to pony up with stories about how awesome the $5 Polynesians are, no one’s stopping you. I think I even saw a few upthread. I liked Chris’ stuff about Steam data, and he always has some interesting observations on the patch changes. I’d love to hear more of you guys who dig Civ 5 talk about that stuff. It’s just that, like the rest of the internet, you might have to share the space with people who want to talk about something else.

 -Tom

P.S. BTW, if you’re referring to my earlier comments about being disappointed in reviewers who didn’t mention the AI issues, I apologize if it sounded like I was calling you out. I didn’t realize you had reviewed the game and I’ve since been pointed to your review. I’m glad you dig the game, which has a lot going for it, but I do wish you and other reviewers had a broader perspective on Civ 5.

5024

I haven’t tried any mods that change the stacking limit, but I wouldn’t be surprised if that change alone doesn’t improve the game. I’m guessing other things would need to be tweaked or reworked.

5025

Fair points, Tom, and I didn’t mean to say that I want this thread to be an echo chamber. But the anti-Civ V tone in here quickly becomes (or just starts out) rather strident, and it grates.

5026

I really didn’t want to keep at this, but it’s just so easy assigning people other motives, because that way you can ignore that what they are saying might hold a nugget of truth. I was clearly not alone in seeing your condescending dismissal of our arguments… but instead of looking at how you write, you first accuse me of not being able to read, and when others chime in, I’m suddenly the leader of a merry band of negative people who aren’t commenting on how you present yourself in this particular argument, but rather dragging in negative baggage from some other thread.

Perhaps what you perceive as good natured digs is seen by others as talking down… or perhaps we just hate your tie.

I think you’re an excellent writer. Even when I don’t agree, I gain insight from reading a review, a blogpost or an article from your hand. But I also think you suck at communicating in a forum setting. If somebody has a problem with baggage and spend too much time reacting to imaginary motives, it’s you.
(and I didn’t search, I was just reading a page back to see what somebody had said - unlike you I read what others post, sometimes more than once, before replying. But now that’s something you can keep taking a dig at… ignoring that you where the one who claimed something that was shown to be false)

I don’t mind people asking to and discussing the AI after a patch. It’s a valid subject and I’ve even agreed that an AI fix would be nice. I’m not the one saying others are playing the game wrong or enjoying a game that is fundamentally broken.

5027

So, um, about the Polynesians. By my count they are the second nation to get a custom tile improvement, and it’s a lot more impressive than the Incan terrace farms. Chaining multiple Moai statues along a coast line will increase the culture bonus per statue; I reached +3 for five or six adjacent statues. That’s a pretty significant bonus if you have some coastal hexes, especially since there’s no opportunity cost as with culture buildings in cities. Great choice for cultural victories (I won one in my Polynesian game).

5028

Actually, I think they may be overpowered precisely for that reason. If you find a Polynesian empire, I think you’d pretty much have to wipe them out ASAP to avoid culture overload (it seems that the AI defaults the suggested buildings to the Moais when you have open land on a coast, which makes me think the AI itself will build a ton of them).

Add to that their ability to send units immediately across oceans and you have a recipe for the culture 'o doom.

The terrace farms, on the other hand, are not bad in that respect because it’s very rare when they get major bonuses (for instance, when a tile is bordered by mountains on three sides).

5029

I haven’t played against the Polynesians - you’re right that on coastal tiles the computer suggest Moais. On an archipelago map the ability to go island hopping is pretty powerful. And you get quite a bit of time to hunt for the best places to settle, goody huts and wonders before barbarians develop ships.

5030

Tom, this is exactly what I’m talking about. Step back a bit and consider whether the internet rage is really warranted. Do you realize you’re coming off much the same as rezaf?

But it’s a simple point that really shouldn’t need much help, i.e. those of us critical of Civ 5 are well aware that the game plays just fine for some people. No one is saying the game is unplayable. So why are some of those people so weirdly defensive about criticism towards the AI? “Hey, it’s fine for me!” is all good and well, but it’s got nothing to do with the complaints we’re leveling about how the AI can’t handle the game as it was designed (i.e. focused on tactical combat).

Note that I too think the AI is sub-par, enough so that I can’t even be bothered to play again until hotseat comes out. Being abusive about it doesn’t help support this point though.

5031

Tell me another one, Hans. There’s nothing controversial or hard to understand about pointing out that no one is saying Civ 5 is unplayable. It’s a perfectly reasonable assertion to me and nearly everyone else critical of Civ 5 that other people are successfully enjoying it.

I’m sorry you have trouble understanding my posts and that you’re insecure about my tone of voice or your pet game being called “broken” or whatever. But grow up already and learn to get over whatever silly grudge you’re nursing. You’ll enjoy Qt3 a lot more.

 -Tom
5032

I’m not fond of the mechanic for the statues. It’s seems too potent, is very gamey, and doesn’t fit the Polynesian culture. I don’t particularly dislike it either, I just think they could have done better.

5033

Internet rage!!! I guess that’s from the italics I used, right?

I’m not sure where you get the rage bit. Exasperation, sure. And from years of Usenet, I can certainly respond to condescension in kind. But I’d like to come in here and talk about Civ 5 without the Hans/Anax brigade dragging in their baggage from, well, stuff that’s happened elsewhere. But I’m not going to start posting in all caps or anything if that’s what you’re implying. I draw the line at italics.

 -Tom
5034

I will say that I do like that it improves with the flight technology (increased tourism ftw), but yeah - it needs to be brought into line with other special buildings as I think that would tone the Polynesians down in general.

edit - another check on their considerable early game might would be to make ocean tiles cost double movement points until they reach navigation or something.

5035

It’s a cool idea, but it’s thematically inconsistent if no other “tourist attraction” (i.e., Wonders) gets a similar bonus.

5036

Very true - I think there needs to be more of that going on where the technologies intermingle a little more with improvements.

5037

I spend a dozen posts trying to bring my statements into context and your throw something like that? You know what? F*** you.

Here from the other side of the opinion fence, it looks just the opposite. I’m totally with Tom when he says Civ5 is broken, but I tried my best pointing out that I’m fine with others thinking differently and that it’s probable me who’s playing the game wrong.

It’s actually you guys from the “Nah, Civ5 DEFINATELY ain’t broken” camp that just CANNOT ACCEPT others might think otherwise, even if they’re fine with your opinion, and continue arguing about how, while it’s nice that we accept your opinion, we gotta admit ours is OBVIOUSLY wrong and start to see the situation your way.

rezaf

5038

I think there are two objections to what you’re doing here. The substantive one is: Yes people are. “Unplayable” doesn’t have to mean the game literally cannot be played, like the executable crashes to desktop on startup or it sets your monitor on fire. If the game has a flaw so serious that it renders an otherwise good game not worth playing anymore, people use “unplayable” (and “broken”) as a shorthand way of saying that. Not that the game cannot be played, just that there’s no point in playing unless the flaw is fixed. I know you already know this, but since you have been persisting in this “Nobody said it was broken!” argument, let me lay it out. You and several other people said the AI is so bad that you won’t play the game, despite its other enhancements. Some of those people literally used the words “broken” and “unplayable.” That’s fine – to each their own, and a reasonable discussion can be had about it – but it’s wrong to then come back and say “Nobody ever said it was unplayable.” Sure they did. You did. People don’t have to quote you or use your exact wording every time they describe your position. They just have to represent it correctly. Especially so when they’re talking about a bunch of posters, not just you, and you are responding on behalf of a bunch of posters, not just yourself.

Second, there’s the tone of your posts. I have no problem with people like Ben or Jason McCullough or KevinC coming in and critiquing the game, saying it’s broken for them because of the AI, etc., because they’re being civil about it. Rezaf’s been civil after his first “fucking idiots!!” post. We’re having a discussion about the AI and whether it’s really broken (i.e., ruins the game by any reasonable metric) or just “broken for them,” how it could be improved, how it is after each patch, etc etc. But your posts (and this is something that happens often with you, unfortunately) contain grains of discussion swamped by a flood of nerd-ragey, condescending bullshit. Everyone who disagrees with you is only doing it because of baggage from another thread, or because they can’t stand to hear contrary opinions, or because they have an irrational love of Civ 5 and won’t brook legitimate criticism of it. Right. And that’s not even getting into the childish snarky insults you litter your posts with. I won’t quote it all because other people have called out the specific portions upthread, but it’s really lame, detracts from whatever you have to say, and craps up the thread. So people are going to call you on it. I mean, look: you say you’re frustrated because you just want to come here to discuss Civ 5 and everyone keeps calling you out. But check out your first post back into the discussion a couple days ago:

My translation:

Lie. False accusation, snark. Super snark!

Snark super art finish!

Haha j/k! Someone else talk about the game now! LOL!

-Tom

5039

Oh, good, the semantics thing! We haven’t heard that in this thread before! The bottom line is that no one is insisting Civ 5 cannot be played or enjoyed by other people. That’s a strawman. There’s no reason for folks who dig Civ 5 to mischaracterize the position of those of us who are done with it.

Actually, they don’t (and it doesn’t), but that’s a pretty sweeping generalization on your part. In fact, I’d say you plucked it out of your ass! I almost daily have reasonable discussions with folks on this forum. But there are a handful of people – and it really bums me out that you’ve decided to put yourself in this category, because I can’t remember the last time you replied to a post I’d written without some sort of snide condescending bullshit like that post you just wrote – who I usually avoid.

Everyone? I’m pretty sure Chris and Jasper and a whole mess of other people disagree with me because we have different opinions about the game.

For a couple of people in this thread, there’s a history I’d rather not go into, because it involves how people who get banned tend to resent it. Which I sort of understand and I make a point to avoid those people once it’s clear that’s how it’s going to be. But I’m not sure what your excuse is for dragging out this sorry mess with your lawyerly passive-aggressive bullshit wall of petty text. Sorry, was that condescending? Nerd ragey? Can you find the grain of discussion in that, Rywill? I’d kind of prefer if you didn’t.

-Tom

5040

There’s definitely a weird disconnect, and I think a lot of it has to do with a loaded word like “broken”. Maybe we should instead discuss whether Civ 5 is “fun”.

-Tom