Gods & Kings adds gods and spies instead of fixing Civilization V

This isn’t really the place to revisit my unhappiness with Civilization V, but I’m sorry to discover the game hasn’t gotten better a year and a half after I reviewed it. Instead of addressing the problems with the game’s AI, interface, and design, Firaxis has been nickel and diming you with DLC maps and civilizations. Now that they’re selling a full add-on, what better time to give it the overhaul it needs?

But no such thing happens in Gods & Kings. This is the same disappointing strategy game it was a year and a half ago, except that it now has two finicky and mostly unimpressive systems shoehorned in.

After the jump, gods & spies doesn’t sound quite as snappy

The new religion and espionage are basically each a new resource. Religion is based on spending the faith you accumulate and espionage is based on moving around a couple of spy units. A handful of new buildings and techs affect these new resources, and some of the new civilizations specifically push you into using religion or espionage. But for the most part, these systems feel poorly bolted onto the larger game.

Religion is almost exactly like culture, which was almost exactly like technology. Basically, these are just more tech trees, where you save up points, get a reward, repeat. You’ve done that with technology all along. In Civilization V, you did that with culture. And now, in Gods & Kings, you do that with faith. Civilization V keeps adding buckets to fill up and then empty out, picking rewards from a list. It’s the worst kind of feature creep because it’s just repeating features it’s already got. It’s like improved shaving technology that just keeps adding blades.

To be fair, some nuances are different from technology and culture. The concept of religion as something developed over time is intriguing enough that it belongs in a better game. As religions are founded and as they develop, each civilization gets to pick from a menu of perks. But each item on the menu can only be picked once, so it’s like calling dibbs on the best perks. Eventually, your religion gets five perks that no one else has. It’s an interesting representation of religion that will be familiar to any history student. It begins with a rabbi advocating for the sick and poor, it develops into an evangelical movement across the Mediterranean, and it finally explodes as an established church that appropriates an entire empire. At each step, it picks up new elements. You’ve eventually got something that gives you, say, added population growth, a gold bonus for converted cities, extra income from incense and wine, cathedrals for your cities, and extra faith from quarries. Don’t ask about that last one. Sometimes you just have to put a point in the religious equivalent of a gift certificate.

It’s a simple enough DIY bonus system, but from here it falls apart. It fumbles the viral element of religion so well expressed in Civilization IV and Paradox’s game. Sure, religions can spread — and here is one of the many examples of Firaxis’ inability to do a good interface — but who cares? If it has any effect on diplomacy, you’d never know, thanks to the game’s wretched diplomacy, which remains as inscrutably bipolar as ever. Some religions benefit from spreading, but for the most part it doesn’t matter. So much for the new missionary and inquisitor units.

Furthermore, religion matters even less as a game goes on. Firaxis intends that religion will get less relevant as history progresses, which is plenty realistic from the perspective of a bunch of privileged overeducated Americans like me and Firaxis. But it’s also a gross mischaracterization of the rest of the world to present religion as something that you can pretty much forget about once the Enlightenment has run its course. More importantly, it’s a lousy gameplay mechanic to basically let something just cease to matter after a while. “Okay, we’re done with that,” Firaxis says, brushing the religion crumbs from their hands. It’s interesting that they added a new unit progression to keep crossbowmen relevant throughout history, but they didn’t see the need for religion to be a meaningful gameplay mechanic in the late-game.

The idea is that religion leaves off and then espionage takes over. Again, the concept is interesting. Espionage is basically an alternative to spending gold on the city-states, which were previously just a money sink. Now you can basically pick a city-state to influence for free, putting your spy there for sudden coups or periodic realignments in the form of rigged elections. There’s a certain Cold War thrill to seeing messages like “the United States attempted a coup in Hanoi but failed to overthrow the Chinese supporters that have an alliance with the city-state”. Sexy!

Spies can also be used to steal technology and peek into enemy cities. It feels like the former is too powerful and the latter is too overpriced. Can I afford not to have a spy working on stealing a technology? And am I really going to bother buying buildings to keep spies from stealing my tech? And why do I care about peeking into cities? In Civilization IV, peeking into cities was important because of how armies were hidden. In Civilization V, armies are always visible and there’s not much point looking at a city’s buildings. Sometimes I wonder if Firaxis is playing their own game.

The interfaces to manage religion and espionage are both awful, relying on long unmanageable lists that relate poorly to the rest of the game. I’d expect this from a mod. But from the guys who made the game? This is the best they could come up with for their new systems? Long unwieldy lists?

Some new units make an appearance, and most notably the naval balance has been reworked. It’s hard for me to care about this when the computer is still incapable of playing the game as designed. Mongolia throws unit after unit into my defenses, so I couldn’t care less what the units are. France parks armies underneath ranged fire and waits for them to die, so what does it matter if I kill them with a new tank or a biplane bomber? Siam marches its generals up to my front lines. Carthage declares war on me and never sends a single unit against me. If you want to play a game about civilizations shuffling their armies around ineffectually, Civilization V remains the game for you, and now it has new units to shuffle around ineffectually.

Then there are the three scenarios. The steampunk scenario has a nifty twist on victory conditions, but it’s otherwise little more than a reskinned and truncated version of the core game. The Fall of Rome scenario pits four warring factions against each other on a pre-set map to show off the game’s horrible combat AI. The Renaissance scenario is a time limited historical scenario that can be played on a real world map or a random map. It has rules for being Holy Roman Emperor, capturing Jerusalem, and sending ships off to the New World. The historical flavor here is great, and like the steampunk scenario, it’s nice to chase new victory conditions for a change. But the bottom line is that Civilization V remains a disappointing mess, all the more disappointing that its getting new stuff added instead of being fixed.

2 stars
PC

  • Peter Michelsen

    I’m replaying the Total War games at the moment, and I think it’s pretty depressing that those games actually pull off a much better diplomacy system. 

    If I want something from another nation, all I have to do is make it worth their while. In Civ V, it seems like everybody wants to humiliate me if I dare to try and cooperate on any level.

    It’s a shame. There’s definitely a good game hiding in there somewhere, but 2/5 is spot on for what it is.

  • Nightwish

    “Sometimes I wonder if Firaxis is playing their own game.”

    Civ V in a nutshell, sadly.

  • http://rycheguard.net Corey Krosting

    That is disappointing to hear the game isn’t getting the improvements it needs to shine. I’ve put in a request to cancel my pre-order with steam, with 13 hours till it’s released I should get my money back!

    I might go back to playing Total War: Shogun 2 vanilla (Fall of the Samurai plays far to slowly for me.)

  • Rob

    I won’t place your decision on this reviewer, who clearly hates Civ V. There are many of us who cannot wait for the expansion pack to come out this week.

  • Rob

    I meant “wouldn’t place your decision…”

  • amandachen

    It’s not like it’s some sort of irrational hatred for the game. He gave reasons why he dislikes it.

  • Peter Michelsen

    I think those “many of us” should be left to speak for themselves. I have nothing against Firaxis, I’ve played every Civ since the first one, but I still think he’s absolutely right.

  • Rob

    You’re obviously not one of the “many of us” then Peter.

  • Tim James

    “It’s like improved shaving technology that just keeps adding blades.”

    http://www.theonion.com/articles/fuck-everything-were-doing-five-blades,11056/

  • Ben Halliburton

    Really, Theodora is the leader for Byzantium? Her only claim to fame is her improbable marriage to Justinian and the advice she provided during the Nike Riots. If you want an unsung hero, as is supposedly Firaxis’ mandate, why not pick Anastasius or Leo VI? Hell, how about Irene, who at least ruled independently and not as an appendage of her husband?

    Anyway, it’s disappointing but unsurprising that this expansion pack fails to impress. If the core game suffers from anemic and broken features, burying them in even more features via an expansion pack is not the way to fix things.

  • Peter Michelsen

    I don’t think I want to. I believe in arguments, not numbers. 

    Saying that “many of us” share a certain point of view isn’t actually saying anything. 

    I think it would be more constructive to simply explain why “you” think otherwise.

  • Fraser Wilson

    And the Empress Theodora also spoke to the following effect: “My opinion then is that the present time, above all others, is inopportune for flight, even though it bring safety. . . . For one who has been an emperor it is unendurable to be a fugitive. May I never be separated from this purple, and may I not live that day on which those who meet me shall not address me as mistress. If, now, it is your wish to save yourself, O Emperor, there is no difficulty. For we have much money, and there is the sea, here the boats. However consider whether it will not come about after you have been saved that you would gladly exchange that safety for death. For as for myself, I approve a certain ancient saying that royalty is a good burial-shroud.”

  • David Ray

    Egyptian Princess Di is looking hot, though. You gotta admit that.

  • Mattmitchell45

    Sometimes ready to combat your game reviews and defend my rocky relationships with my fractured new gaming loves….but you were so right about Civ 5

  • http://rycheguard.net Corey Krosting

    Tom has clearly stated what his problems with Civ V are and I found them valid when the game came out.  That didn’t stop me from buying Civ V and playing it for many hours.

    However I am inferring that Tom was hoping for the Gods & Kings expansion to dig into the guts of Civ V and improve upon it, in the manner that Beyond the Sword did with Civ IV, giving the game a new life.

    I take his short little review here to be that this hasn’t happened.  I feel that’s enough information from me to base a buying decision on.

  • tomchick

    The diplomacy system that sets the standard for me these days is Sins of a Solar Empire.  They really nailed the idea of diplomacy as a long-term systems-driven process of empires throwing their lot in with one another for mutual benefit.  And they do it mainly by using spaceships.  Really slick stuff.

  • Zero

    Groan I really hoped that this expansion pack would really fix things and add more oomph. Unfortunately it sounds incredible tapioca.  As long as the AI isnt very good then the game isn’t very good single player. Civ 4 AI wasn’t that great either, but because everything was so much simpler tactics wise it didn’t need to be.

    Although if the make an Alpha Centauri expansion that’s good, then all is forgiven.

  • Rob Clark

    I don’t want to go to Civ IV with the stacks of doom again, even if the game as a whole is good. I’m not a big space game fan, but Endless Space looks like it has promise from what I have read. The Total War series (while not really that close to Civ games) never held my attention through an entire campaign. It seems like if a player enjoys this type of game Civ V is the best game in town.  Are there any good Civ V alternatives? 

  • NeilS

    Nearly every review by you is an incredibly low score. Really does make me wonder if you do it because your site isn’t very big and it gives you hits on metacritic. Anyway, I told them about this site and linked your various reviews (especially the 3-4 paragraph ones) and they said they will look into it. Because this is clearly underrating games to gain more populairty and publicity which is working.

  • Rob Clark

    While I disagree with Tom’s low rating of Civ V, it is his opinion and I think your criticism of him is unfair. Take a look at Qt3′s review history and you fill find plenty of 4 and 5 star reviews. Yes, there are low score reviews too, but there isn’t anything wrong with using the entire scale. He also writes many articles about games that are not reviews that represent the games in a positive light. Tom states his reasons about why he comes to the conclusions he does, he just doesn’t write ‘ this game sucks!’. We might not agree with his final conclusion, but as long as he states his reasons it seems fair.

  • tomchick

    I’m pretty sure Metacritic already knows about this site. But while you’re playing watchdog, Neil, don’t forget Gamerankings! Also:

    http://www.quartertothree.com/fp/2012/03/24/the-official-journey-review-faq/

  • endersdragon

    To be fair, 16 reviews have been printed so far, 12 of them really positive, 3 luke warm, 1 hated.  I generally prefer to believe 12 people than 1.

  • http://twitter.com/SESSpackman SamSpackman

    Bah, that’s nothing. You need at least 16 blades.

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjEKt5Izwbo 

  • endersdragon

    @Peter It is hard to argue for this game without actually playing the game so far, but of the 16 reviews I have seen this is by far the worst, and most are incredibly positive.  Beyond that after reading the words of this review, it sounds like like a 3/5 than a 2/5, which is a huge difference

  • Peter Michelsen

    Honestly I think it’s far more conspicuous that 16 individuals manage to gain roughly the same impression of something like this, than one guy managing to disagree with them.
    The difference between 2/5 and 3/5, is that 2/5 is a thumbs down, and 3/5 is a thumbs up. Is someone having a difference of opinion really that unlikely? I can’t even agree with myself on what to have for lunch sometimes. I’m sorry, but I can’t help but think there’s some kind of flawed reasoning behind that argument. If 16 people manage to share the same opinion, everyone who disagrees with them are wrong?

  • Peter Michelsen

    Generally I prefer to think that when you ask 16 people for an opinion, they won’t all share the same one.

  • Rob

    If you find that one reviewer’s opinion generally reflects your own, then I can understand your decision; however, this is the only quite negative reaction to Gods and Kings I’ve come across. My original statement was really to suggest looking at the other reviews as well - but, of course, that is entirely your perogative. I didn’t find Tom’s review for the original Civ V reflective of my experience; for instance, I quite like the social policy set-up that Tom didn’t. However, opinions vary and I do respect Tom’s opinion – I just don’t agree with him.

  • endersdragon

    @Peter, my point exactly.  If 15 people do share an opinion, at least to a point, and the 16th says the exact opposite, who do you believe.  If 15/16 of people agree it generally means one of two things 1) they were bribed or 2) it is pretty accurate.  I don’t really see that much bribery going on, especially when I have yet to see a Civ 5 G&K ad on a website, so it seems like the 2nd one is more logical.

  • Habbaku

    In your opinion, is it ever legitimate to give a high-profile game a bad review when others say it’s good?

  • amandachen

     If 15 people wish really hard, will it fix the AI?

  • NeilS

     A 5 star rating system never translates well to a 100 point scale. It just doesn’t and the fact is publishers base bonuses, etc. on meta scores, Is that the fault of Tom? No of course not. But it shows how broken of a system it is when they let ANY site that signs up be a part of this list. You have sites that are nothing more than blogs with a few paragraphs in a review (like some of the ones here) that get posted to metacritic with a completely ridiculous score that gets the most hits for obvious reasons.

    If you want to be on metacritic a 10 point scale should be used because this game is NOT a 20 out of 100 which is what metacritic rates it as. That is ridiculous and at the level of atrocities like Duke Nukem Forever.

  • NeilS

    It is part of the reason G4TV recused itself of metacritic because Adam Sessler railed against the site about how ridiculous it is for 5 star scales, grade letter scales, etc. get converted into a 10 point rating. Of course ever since Sessler left the site went back to metacriitc. But the guy had the balls to tell the truth and tell metacritic his review scores do not reflect what he actually means. A 1 star isn’t a 20%, a 2 star isn’t a 40%, etc. What it looks like to me is Tom knows he is someone that gives a lot of games low ratings and knows he can get hits to this site if he does it to big games like Max Payne, Journey, Civ V, and a whole host of others. Sometimes his reviews take no effort and consist of a few paragraphs that do not explain anything about the game.

  • amandachen

    Neil, that’s a fair point about most of his reviews seeming to take no effort.

  • Johan Sjobom

     Good to know that I don’t need to waste any time and money on this expansion. The negative things listed in the review are exacty what made me stop playing Civ V, after sticking with it much too long because I really wanted to like it. I love the hexes and the new combat system, too bad the AI is so totally incapable of using them and that diplomacy sucks so badly.

    The one thing I do not agree with is that religion should have a continuing importance even after a civilization has evolved into the modern world. Yes, religion is still important in some parts of the “rest of the world” today, but that’s only because they are still, to use Civ terminology, still stuck in the medieval age, where religion still matters.

  • http://twitter.com/nochancesimo Simon Hyatt

    Thank you tom

    I have been pretty hyped for this to come out, having played XXX hundred hours of Civ 5. 
    i have tried to access pretty much all the hype i could find, so of course i thought it was the second coming.

    im still going to buy the game, and play it to death. but good to remember that while finding religion is a game changer (apparently), it still aint gonna fix the world.

    keep up the good work

  • endersdragon

    @Peter, If you are watching, let’s say gymnastics and every judge gives the athlete scores between 8.0-9.0, and another judge gives her a 4.0, which are you going to believe is more representative of what she actually earned?

  • endersdragon

    @amanda, there aren’t many good turn based strategy games with decent AI.  Total War’s AI appears decent, but that is just because they cheat horribly sending armies at you out of the middle of nowhere.  Previous civs got away with pretty bad AI because stack of doom made it a bit easier to program (ala just create a huge stack of units and send it at the enemy, or better yet just use it to defend).  Other than that I can’t think of a TBS game where the AI even appears decent.  Can you?

  • amandachen

    There are many TBS games where a computer AI can beat good human players.

  • http://www.facebook.com/samuel.rosenbalm Samuel Rosenbalm

    You are obviously not a Civ fan, so you need to keep your mouth shut.

    Real Civ players love this game. The fact that your review is on metacritic is surprising.

    You are small potatoes and flaky.

    Civ 5/GK is the shit.

  • Peter Michelsen

    I wouldn’t trust anyone holding up a number, unless they were able to tell me why they scored the way they did.Like I said before, I believe in arguments, not numbers. If 16 people think the same thing, it’s still just an opinion. If a thousand people think the same thing, it’s still just an opinion.If their words truly make sense to you, go with that, but I don’t think you’re doing yourself any favors by ignoring your own intuition in favor of supporting the majority. How did that athlete look to “you”?

  • Peter Michelsen

    It might be logical, but it strikes me as pretty naive to rely on that.

    A review isn’t an objective thing. The notion that 12 people would agree almost exactly on what to think and what to score, should be cause for concern, not trust.

    If everybody rates Alvin and the Chipmunks a perfect 10, does that make you like it more?

  • Peter Michelsen

    But isn’t the problem really with the numbers? I mean, I read a review to learn one thing: Is it good or not.

    Beyond that, I just don’t really care. Is it a playable 80 or a forgettable 80? And what distinguishes an 80 from being a 75? Why am I trying to convey an opinion through math?

    Putting numbers on opinions doesn’t make them better, or clearer. I respect the 5-scale for taking out the convenient middleground, but ultimately I think thumbs up/thumbs down is the only scale that makes sense.

  • NeilS

     Right a 5 star scale is fine but a site that uses it shouldn’t be on metacritic because it makes no sense and doesn’t convert into it. It makes no logical sense.

  • Civmaniak

    Do you really play this game?? :D 

  • Peter Michelsen

    Neither does a percentage scale though. What distinguishes a 57% game from a 63% one? What use is that to anyone reading the review?

    Rotten Tomatoes got it right by tallying reviews simply according to whether they were positive or not, and ignoring any kind of scale. 

    The problem is with Metacritic, not with any of the review formats.

  • Ronecvan

    Guys chill out, its his opinion. Whether you agree with it or not is subjective. At least respect it. I certainly don’t base my buying decisions on tomchick. Good god; if I did so I might save some money each year.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jason-McMaster/607680289 Jason McMaster

    Yeah, that’s the thing about Tom. We don’t always agree, but I always enjoy reading his reasoning for the disagreement.

  • Peter Michelsen

    Same here. It reminds me of a pretty great line:

    “If you’re dumb, surround yourself with smart people. If you’re smart, surround yourself with smart people who disagree with you”.

  • Ruskov

     Good question!How did you bring yourself to play that dumbed down,money grab and fundamentally broken crap?

  • Civ V player

    Don’t forget that the new 100 hp system can screw you units. I love how today a crossbowman of mine attacked an enemy warrior and the warrior did not come close to dieting in three hits, but was 2 eras of technology ahead. The 10 system let it die in one hit..10 was better, if they wanted to fix archers blowing up giant death robots, they could have just made certain units immune to ones from things like the ancient era or classical era, not put screwy hp in place. Besides I think your wrong about religion and espionage, they’re a nice flavor, but I have only had it for a day..
    Civ v=3 stars
    Gods and Kings=1 star
    Overall= 4/10 stars, or 2/5 stars