Talk:Civilization V/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

e sure how to cite this, but, as mentioned here, the latest (March) issue of Swedish PC Gamer mentions Firaxis including the Quechua language in the game. That pretty much a confirmation for the Inca, isn't it? Xavius, the Satyr Lord (talk) 12:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It's probably best to wait for explicit confirmation before adding it onto the table. I remember there being several leaders mentioned or leaked during the Civilization IV development period that ended up not making it into the final game. bob rulz (talk) 13:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


Civ V Info Centre[edit]

Civ V Info Centre should be allowed as it's a collection of information from previews, GDC articles and confirmed primary source information on the game. The wiki linked to is not advertising anything, it provides information to those wishing to learn what will be available in the game. If Civ V Info Centre is not allowed then neither should wikia's link as it is the same type of external link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

A primary consideration for external links is to sites with information that cannot be included in the Wikipedia article. Is there anything on this site that cannot be added to Wikipedia? That excludes pictures of artwork that are copyright violations, which appears to be a feature of the Civ V Info Centre. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm curious as to how the WP article can use the copyright Civ5 logo directly off Firaxis website (you didn't even bother to change the filename), yet released screenshots (cropped to fit the Info Centre's content better) off the official website ( are contravening WP rules. How's that explained? ( (talk) 23:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC))
Just read the File:Civ5logo.jpg page. You've got a detailed non-free media use rationale as well as licensing information plainly visible there. I think we will add screenshots of the game into this article at some point but similar rationales will have to be written for them too. The Civ V Info Centre also does not contain any mention of the origin, owner or license of the images, making their use questionable. —ZeroOne (talk / @) 13:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Another reason why Civ V Info Centre would not be used is because if all they are doing is repeating primary information then the preferred reference would be who Civ V Info Centre is getting the information from. (talk) 20:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Actually, a secondary source is preferable to a primary (follow the links to read why). This is not the problem with Civ V, it is that it is essentially a self-published wiki fan site (see points 1, 11 & 12 on this link). --Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

...So does all this mean that this article can be more similar to the Civ IV article (where the nation details are more...detailed.) The site they got the civ leader info from, the official game site, also includes unique units/buildings as well as abilities. Sorry, but all this official talk here is confusing. TheFedExPope (talk) 18:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


what is with persia —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


[1] It's actually Augustus Caesar, Not Julius. (talk) 13:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I have edited the article accordingly! —ZeroOne (talk / @) 18:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Civilization List[edit]

For those that are curious about the missing Civs, I did a comparison of those in Civ4 to those in Civ5.

  • American
  • Arabian
  • Aztec
  • Chinese
  • Egyptian
  • English
  • French
  • German
  • Greek
  • Incan
  • Indian
  • Japanese
  • Malinese
  • Mongolian
  • PersianOttoman
  • Roman
  • Russian
  • SpanishSonghai

Everything in Italics is in Civ4 but not in the Civ5 list. Everything in bold is in the Civ5 list but not in Civ4.

So there are currently 2 new civs, and 5 old civs not in the list. I speculate that the two they plan to drop are the Incan Empire and the Malinese Empire. But that is just my own opinion. Zell Faze (talk) 16:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you equated Spain and Songhai on your list, as they're two completely unrelated civs in terms of timeframe, geography, and culture. Songhai is obviously the replacement for the Zulu (which although not a starter civ in Civ IV was in other civs). Anyway, it doesn't matter because despite this wiki article not posting it, almost all the civs are known already through foreign game magazines.
I know it doesn't matter much at this point. But I put the Songhai by the Spanish because of I used a diff tool. Both lists were put in alphabetical order then run through the diff tool. Spanish just happened to be out and Songhai in, and they were both S letters. Zell Faze (talk) 18:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

1. America - Washington
2. Arabia - Harun al-Rashid
3. Aztecs - Montezuma
4. China - Wu Zeitan
5. Egypt - Ramesses the great
6. England - Elizabeth
7. France - Napoleon
8. Germany- Bismarck
9. Greece - Alexander
10. India - Ghandi
11. Japan - Oda Nobunaga
12. Ottoman Turks - Suleiman the Magnificent
13. Rome - Augustus Ceaser
14. Russia - Katherine
15. Songhai - Askia

16. Either Spain or Persia
17. Either Iroquois or Inca
18. Either Mongoloia or Siam 16-18 all had conflicting information based on interviews, most likely the game magazine confusing the playable civs and the newly added city-state feature.

19. Babylon - Nebuchadnezzar II as DLC (talk) 15:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The official final list is up at: [2] (talk) 21:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Steam Activated[edit]

Civ V is is Steam activated confirmed Here

- Thekidz2237 (talk) 02:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Massive Info Dump[edit]

I'm going to do a massive information dump. All info comes from this thread:

It has all its information sourced, so don't start adding Citation Needed tags to my additions, or deleting them. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabretooth (talkcontribs) 07:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

All of its information may be sourced, but you didn't include a single source with your edit. Without any sources, chances are it will get a citation needed, or straight out deleted. Thanks! Fin© 11:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Sources in the Civilization Table[edit]

Now that the official site has been updated, there's really no need to cite every single leader being mentioned in a random game article. All these obsolete sources do is clutter up the table. I vote that we remove all the sources from the table (except the one for Babylon) and simply include a single citation at the top of the table to the official civ site which includes all the information anyway. (talk) 01:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I've added a ref to the table heading by way of a start. Oosh (talk) 07:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I was confused to see both "Notes" and "References" at the end. I looked at a May 6 version and saw that the Babylon note was immediately under the table instead of at the end of the article. Is it possible to revert back to the previous article. (I am very hesitant to revert changes until I know whether there was a rationale for it. I think it is only a matter of courtesy not to delete another editor's work without bringing the matter up on the discussion page.) Vyeh (talk) 16:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree, as the only note is in reference to Babylon it seems more convenient to have it as a footnote to the section rather than an endnote to the article. However, as Direct2Drive and 2K recently confirmed that there will be additional civs as DLC besides Babylon, I think it might actually be best to have Babylon and all future DLC civs in a separate table underneath so at to distinguish what is available in the core game and what is additional content you need to purchase without the need to clutter the table with notes. (talk) 23:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Win Condition[edit]

I have added a subsection "Win Condition" to the Gameplay section. I have supplied a reference[1] which supports the subsection. There are also other information in the reference, but I thought I would wait for the reaction to my initial edit before I did further edits on the article.

  1. ^ "New Civilization 5 screenshots and E3 impressions". PC Gamer. 2010-06-15. Retrieved 2010-06-19. 

Vyeh (talk) 16:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The Win Condition section was edited to indicate ten policy trees. Does anyone have a source to support that there are ten policy trees instead of six. Vyeh (talk) 11:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Got the Escapist source from the 2k Civilization 5 forum. Vyeh (talk) 15:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
The section now outlines other possible types as per the Escapist article. Not sure about Alpha Centauri comparison, as the article itself doesn't mention it. Feels like "original research". Spiritaway5177 (talk) 22:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Getting it Right[edit]

I notice a LOT of errors throughout the article.... - "entirely new game engine scripted in Lua": the new game engine ALLOWS scripting in Lua. - Unit-stacking: there's three confirmed unit categories - military (military units), civilian (Great People, workers, settlers) and air (planes). You can stack only one unit from each category, so a hex can contain a military unit, civilian and air unit at the same time. - Babylon is also available from Direct2Drive. - No mention of pre-order maps bonus. - "They can be upgraded and made veterans, as in Civilization IV.": who writes this crap? Veterans is a CIV3 concept, Civ4 and Civ5 units are promoted with various promotions giving them new/better unit abilities like healing, stronger strength, more sight etc. - "in Civilization V automatically transform into troop transports when entering ocean squares": when the required tech is researched. - "The Technology Tree has been revamped with a three-way path, each yielding unique benefits.": I would remove this sentence as it's never mentioned in any source. - "Cities, when first built, have a 3-tile radius instead of 2": wrong. Cities have a maximum working radius of 3 only possible after lots of culture growth (claiming of hexes via culture or bought). They don't start with 3. - "Puppets reduce unhappiness": puppets increase unhappiness, but not as much as annexed cities do. - "City-States have their own technology trees": where's the source? I call 'Bull'. - "a break from the Space Race victory": Space Race is still in, or more accurately, Race to Alpha Centauri. - "September 24 in the EU": this is International date, not just EU. - "through retail and the Steam content delivery system": not just Steam, but now D2D. Should read "through retail and online content delivery systems". - Note 1: Babylon is now also available from Direct2Drive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Please feel free to make these edits yourself. Any unsourced information you know to be wrong can freely be deleted, and with unsourced information you are unsure about simply add a fact tag. (talk) 23:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Deleted (for now). Source? - Lua, Tech tree branches, City radius, City state tech tree
  • Not added (for now). Source? - Unit-stacking and unit categories, Pre-order maps, (International release date)
  • Fixed, with source. - Babylon on D2D, "Veterancy" wording, Space race victory, Steam and D2D
  • Unnecessary (too much detail). - Troop transport requiring tech
  • That's what the current source says. - Puppet state unhappiness Spiritaway5177 (talk) 02:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Puppet states ADD unhappiness, but not as much as annexing: Dennis Shirk (Producer) interview, about halfway down the page. Pre-order maps and international release date? I ain't doing all the work for you. Check Steam order pages. Troop transports, one of the E3 vid interviews with Jon Shafer he stressed the point about having to research particular techs to enable and enhance naval troop transportation. You might think it's too much detail, but it's the most critical point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Also if you read the given source re puppet states, the writer states that the amount of unhappiness from capturing the city is reduced. Capturing a city gives +X unhappiness, making it a puppet gives +(X-some) unhappiness. Still a net increase in unhappiness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Cover Art - Resolution[edit]

Is the cover art 'low resolution' and meeting the requirements of the tagged fair-use license? After looking at a random selection of images in the same category I'm not confident that is the case and would suggest it is reduced to one-half or one-third of its current horizontal and vertical dimensions. -Oosh (talk) 10:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I reposted the question at Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Civilization_V_cover_art. Vyeh (talk) 14:25, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
No, 1000x1000 pixel image for cover art is well outside what we normally would allow. I've tagged it for reduction. --MASEM (t) 14:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Too big. You can also remove the PC DVD header at the top of the image to save some pixels and bring it into line with the Civ IV image. - X201 (talk) 14:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

System Requirements[edit]

The minimum and recommended system requirements are backwards on the main page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Never mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The revised the minimum requirements from dual core to "Intel Core 2 Duo 1.8 GHz or AMD Athlon X2 64 2.0 GHz" —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

External Link to Civilization V Analyst[edit]

violates WP:FANSITE (point 11). It can only be included if there is consensus (the burden of proving justification for an external link is on the person who wants to include the external link). Vyeh (talk) 08:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Another revert of an external link to that site. Vyeh (talk) 21:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Map & Tiles[edit]

"The game is based on an entirely new game engine with a hexagonal map instead of the square tiles of earlier games in the series." changed to "with hexagonal tiles". The TILES are now hexagonal, not the map. (talk) 11:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

"Units and combat" section[edit]

"As they defeat enemy units, units may be either promoted for bonuses or forgo their promotion in lieu of being completely healed." This reads as if the player can either get promoted and get healed or neither, which doesn't seem to make sense. I am guessing that it should read "...forgo their promotion and instead be completely healed." or similar which would indicate that the player must choose between the two alternatives. Someone who is familiar with the gameplay might want to make the change. - TheDaveRoss (talk) 12:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


The section on the article mentioning reviews from amazon and steam appears to be an incredibly biased segment. Many PC games are now running on Steam, it's not controversial anymore, and definitely does not deserve a controversy heading. Steam certainly does not stream ads onto a PC, it runs in a separate client, and it appears to be a biased and unsupported assertion of opinion. Please point out to me how this is relevant, or else remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. It was temporarily added and repeatedly removed. Being Steam delivered is not controversial in the least. The Amazon reviews may eventually deserve a mention though, if they get to the level that was seen with Spore (2008 video game) and have actual real sources discussing them. DP76764 (Talk) 17:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


"Champion Cavalry" should be "Companion Cavalry" For some reason, I can't edit this in. Black Fatalis (talk) 22:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

That's because the article is protected so that only established editors can make changes. I have just made the change. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Is it necessary or misleading to hotlink all the in-game abilities?[edit]

I do not see why the in-game units, buildings, and player abilities should be made so that clicking them takes you to an article about something related to whatever the name of the unit is. A few examples - "Achaemenid Legacy" is an advantage the player gets if they choose a particular country to play as, where in-game bonuses last longer in some situations. Clicking it takes you to the article about the Achaemenid Empire, which has nothing to do with the actual gameplay. In many cases, the article linked is to a specific word that is part of the name of a gameplay feature (like the link to Mosque under "Mud Pyramid Mosque" or for Rome under "The Glory of Rome") or to articles related to the subject ("Mandekalu Cavalry" links to "Military history of the Mali Empire").

In many of these cases these pages are already linked in the article, if a person is still wondering what "Rome" means when they read "The Glory of Rome" on the table listing the different special abilities of players who choose the Roman side, they probably don't know how to click links.

Someone who is reading about the game already knows that it is based on history, and is probably interested in what these abilities do and how the different military units vary from each other in the game. It seems like adding links for the sake of having more links, is there some kind of advantage to pages that have practically every word linked? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

It is over-zealous linking IMO, and I agree that they should be removed. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 15:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Yeah some of it really resembles original research because there is no obvious link to a real world concept. Some of them are just cool names for a bonus. I would agree with removing most if not all of them. (talk) 18:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
I actually like the links. Some of them might be on the edge of wp:Easter egg, but I still find them very useful as to inform about the historical inspiration for the unique abilities and units given to the various civilizations in this game. I have not been able to find any where I think it would be reasonable to dispute the accuracy of the link.TheFreeloader (talk) 22:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


Should we make mention of the extremely negative player response in regards to the state of multiplayer aspect of the game (no animations, no leaderheads, broken AI that won't contact, games dropping, etc. etc.)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

If you can provide a reliable source, yep. Thanks! Fin© 09:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources[edit]

Amazon isn't a reliable source. It is a collection of individual reviews (raw data) that requires interpretation (original research) and we don't do that here in Wikipedia (per above). Rklawton (talk) 15:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Seconded. Please don't add Amazon reviews details, they'll just get removed. --Topperfalkon (talk) 16:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Thirded. And while we're at it, don't give WP:UNDUE weight to criticisms in reviews that call it a great game. (talk) 18:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

This article really needs some balance. The reality is that the game has been received very very poorly by the user community (spend 5 mins reading forums or amazon reviews to find out), and this article misrepresents reality by only showing "published" reviews. I believe that the amazon rating (by hundreds of users) is far more reflective of the reception that some online publication reviews.

I appreciate the way Wikipedia works, but right now this smacks of a whitewash and a PR campaign. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

No, we can't do that; they are not reliable sources. I will point out that the "C" grade is probably what needs to be incorporated more since it matches the weaker reception of others. --MASEM (t) 16:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Just want to point out that Wikipedia has what some would consider flaws, but that's just its nature. It is not meant to shape opinion, but only to organize information from reliable sources. It's well known that there is discontent out there amongst the player community, but that is not the proper content for this article until a reliable source reports it. Torchiest talk/edits 02:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Christian.Oberndorfer, 3 October 2010[edit]

{{edit semi-protected}}

following information should be added to the section "reception of Civlizition 5":

Consumers reception of the game has been less favorable though. Reviewers at give the game an average rating of 2,5 stars out of 5, with the "1 star" being the most frequent rating

here is the reference/link to Amazon:

Christian.Oberndorfer (talk) 12:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Amazon reviews are not consider a reliable source (see WP:RS for more on what we consider reliable sources) and we would not add such material to the article. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Note that the article is semi-protected because people kept adding this exact information in and trying to use Amazon as a source, so you're definitely not going to be able to get this added, and it will be removed immediately if you add it after the article is no longer protected. If you can find a suitable source (see Cameron Scott's message above) that mentions the issues players have with the game then please post it here and we'll add it to the article. Unfortunately the media outlets that are acceptable sources for Wikipedia haven't covered this issue which is why there is little negative feedback on this article. We can't go interpreting data from Amazon reviews and presenting it as fact as that would be against the core principles of Wikipedia. I would encourage you to go looking for a review from a good reviewer (a mainstream games magazine or media outlet, not community-based or amateur publications), but I understand (from trying to find one myself) that it's difficult to find any (this is another reason why we shouldn't be drawing conclusions from the Amazon figures; the scores suggest a skew brought on from annoyed Civ veterans dumping their anger in one place and we would be adding our own—possibly incorrect—original research). Wenttomowameadow (talk) 14:51, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Completely agree with both of the above. We have to remember that Wikipedia isn't the end all be all of information on the web. It's a good starting point for research. That's what this article is: a starting point. For people that want to find more information, or information about non-professional reviews, they can go elsewhere. Torchiest talk/edits 16:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Not done: Per the above comments, which the page history and WP:RS back up. elektrikSHOOS 16:51, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, guys, here is the review you need :) This basically sums up the grievances that are so common around dedicated forums such as civfanatics. (talk) 23:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

ATI Crossfire and Nvidia SLI Problems[edit]

This game will not work with ATI Crossfire or Nvidia SLI. Either of these two major graphics makers technologies for using more than one video card do not work on this game. This has been confirmed by users of both graphics card companies. Can someone please find a reference to site this in the article? Flickering squares appear in the game when it is used.

Even though ATI Crossfire does not work on this, the Crossfire logo will still appear if it's turned on in ATI catalyst.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Even if you can find a good source for this information, it sounds like unnecessary miscellany. It's annoying for users, but far too specific an issue for Wikipedia. If it made waves (media coverage) then it would be worth including, and we'd have sources for it to boot. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 00:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I totally disagree with the previous statement here. People who play a lot of games invest heavily in their computers video card capabilities. We're talking about $500-1000 of equipment. Most of the brand name games today support crossfire. This program uses a huge amount of the video card, and yet will not let you hook up two and share the load. There is a technical problem that causes black squares to appear all over the game when you try to use either crossfire or SLI. This is not a minor issue. Anyone purchasing this game will want to know this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't here to reflect people's opinions. See Wikipedia:Notability. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 17:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I guess it isn't here to represent the facts either. "A game does not support crossfire." That is a fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 17:42, 7 October 2010

Again: Wikipedia:Notability. You need to read this. Repeatedly stating your case when it's against the basic principles of Wikipedia isn't going to get you far. 17:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

"These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article. They do not directly limit the content of articles."

- A direct quote (including italics) from the INTRODUCTION to the article linked in the above post. Clearly the writer should heed their own advice.

For the record, a simple inclusion of Does not support Crossfire (under system requirements, if you need me to hold your hand on this one) is verifiable, unbiased, AND valuable information to parties interested in details of this game. Lastly, isn't having a closed-edit article controlled by a handful of elitist editors the Real bash in the face to Wikipedia's principles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The article is only locked to unregistered new users (as far as I'm aware). It was necessary due to repeated inserts of Amazon reviews. Anyway, "Does not support Crossfire" should not be added to the infobox. Why not add "Not playable on Xbox 360" if you're going down that route? Unless it was advertised as supporting something, it's not exactly a big deal that something exists that it doesn't support. Thanks! Fin© 10:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't have to add "not playable on Xbox 360," as that information Is already covered under "Platforms" in the infobox. I understand the need to weed out annoying amazon inserts that clearly conflict with the basis of reliable sourcing, but in the case of not supporting crossfire this actually, seriously, honestly, is important information. I say this even as someone running a single nVidia gpu that in no way is affected by this detail, but can fully appreciate its weight.

Look, the system requirements already include information such as what the minimum and recommended graphics configurations are for this game - this is simply an additional but entirely warranted and verifiable detail to that pre-existing section. If "256 MB ATI 2600 XT/nVidia 7900 GS or better video card, or Core i3 or better integrated graphics" is noteworthy, believe me - no support for Crossfire is certainly so as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I pinpointed why I feel so strongly about the issue: the minimum and recommended requirements state "...or better video card." Using a crossfire configuration is for no other purpose than to attain better graphics support. So the fact that "or better" is tacked on the end implies that CrossFire or SLI would be included, as in any logical setup these configurations are designed to fall into the "or better" category. However, this game does not support those setups, which is important information to append to the "or better" description - as it stands "or better" is a half-truth that requires correction. End. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:27, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

"Or better" doesn't actually make sense when you're talking about minimum requirements, so I removed it. Why is the lack of Crossfire/SLI support noteworthy? If Civ V didn't play with a particular graphics card, that wouldn't be a noteworthy occurrence. Thanks! Fin© 11:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
If we're being specific about the wording here, the fact that it's states "...or better video card" rather than "videos card/s" implies that it's talking specifically about a singular item. Aawood (talk) 11:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Sigh, alright I will concede at this point. Fin, the removal of "or better" in the minimums makes it look much cleaner and so easier to quickly read - Aawood, touche. All I'm left with to say is, "why should an encyclopedia be written by implication when the facts exist to accurately describe?" Otherwise, CIV has at least taught me to pull out of a lost battle before it's too late, haha. (talk) 23:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm just happy to have a difference of opinion on Wikipedia that was handled amicable and maturely on the talk page, no edit warring, no personal attacks. You have my thanks for that! Aawood (talk) 11:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

City-State List[edit]

Should we put a City-State List.

Another Editor took it away, but said to look for Consensus here

Please states your opinon with Add or Don't Add

Add A city state list is no more a game guide than a civ list. OttomanJackson User:OttomanJackson 15:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't Add: It's excessive detail to have a precise list. We might as well add a list of every single unit and building if we're going to add this. The remaining prose paragraph covers the topic adequately. DP76764 (Talk) 15:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Yep. I was the one who removed it, per WP:GAMEGUIDE. Thanks! Fin© 15:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Not really per WP:GAMEGUIDE, more WP:NOT

Kielbasa1 (talk) 13:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: People changing the name and/or spelling of Leaders/Civs/Buildings/Units etc.[edit]

I've noticed a lot of edits in regards to changing the names to what editors may view as more correct, e.g. Harun al-Rashid to Harun ar-Rashid; Catherine to Yekaterina. Please DO NOT do this. The policy for the article should be to list all names/units/buildings as they are listed on the official website and/or in-game. It is not up to us to express/put-forward our own opinion as to what we view as more correct or even to correct the game developers. We are simply to state what the unit/leader is listed as in-game. This also goes for changing civ names to their adjectival forms, e.g. Japan to Japanese. In both the game and in the website, the civ is simply listed as Japan, so this article should do the same. Flygongengar (talk) 21:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. It only makes sense to list things as they are in the game, not as what they might be in the real world. Torchiest talk/edits 15:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Lead designer[edit]

Does anyone have info on who is leading the design of this game? It is probably worth mentioning in the article. --Jleon (talk) 01:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, so we can lynch him. 90% joking. Stuntaneous (talk) 21:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


...should be split into "critical" (i.e. collusive lies) and "player", because there are definitely people out there who bought this game who don't rate it anywhere near "good" or "9 of 10", etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Player reviews aren't considered reliable sources for our purposes, and thus, can't be used. The only possible way they could be included, is if something similar to what happened with StarCraft II were to occur, where a news agency reported on the large number of negative reviews on, and even that was borderline. Torchiest talk/edits 19:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Disagree (with O.P.): individual player reviews are not notable or reliable and should not be included. DP76764 (Talk) 19:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough, player reviews are not notable or reliable sources. I'm a wikipedia noob and not the best at sussing out sources, would anyone more useful be able to find a source which verifies the significant amount of player discontent? I very much agree with the first comment that the playerbase is far from united in agreement about the big reviewers' thoughts. One only has to browse all the top scoring or even highly controversial posts on Reddit to realise *people are not happy*. For example, fans new and old are concerned the major online reviewers have next to completely omitted serious bugs and flaws (e.g. overwhelmingly stupid AI, seemingly unnecessary lag). I personally would suggest the idea: the game doesn't adhere to what makes a Civilization game what it is. The trademark Civ 'feel' is absent from this most recent iteration. Many have preordered in the presumption Firaxis & Sid would produce another quality title worthy of the franchise name only to be shocked at what they have got. Furthermore, dare I say, I think the sheer amount of hype surrounding such a big release has scared the major reviewers from being completely objective and telling us how it really is. Stuntaneous (talk) 20:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
+ A piece going halfway to what I suggest is strangely missing in reviews: and an example of a more irate player, but still identifiable among many: Stuntaneous (talk) 21:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
G4 did an article on how to mitigate a few of the problems that occur so far as crashes and such go. It would also be possible to cite this page and that Firaxis released a patch only 2 days after launch. Both are signs of the overwhelming amount of problems with the game. Don't get me wrong, I love the game and think it deserves a section about how awesome it is, but at the same time I agree with the IP user; we need to talk about some of the negative criticism the players have brought on the game, especially with stability. Zell Faze (talk) 22:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Per DP, player reviews are not notable, reliable or verfiable. Neither are forums. If a review comments on issues, they're ok to include, else, no. Thanks! Fin© 22:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, is generally a decent source, so that criticism could be mentioned in the Reception section. I know it's a new game in a much loved series (I've been addicted since 1993 and Civ 1) and there's some disappointment in the quality (I've seen several too) of the release. But let's not let that initial emotional response compromise the article here. Give it some time (a few weeks) and see what the professional reviewer come out with. DP76764 (Talk) 00:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Considering Steam has recorded consistently 24 hours a day between 45,000-79,000 players of Civ 5 (direct off their stats page), a few hundred vocal complainers doesn't indicate "significant amount of player discontent". I would actually contend that due to the consistent high numbers (regularly the #1 game being played on the Steam network) that it would indicate the complete opposite, "significant amount of player contentment". (talk) 06:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Those numbers mean nothing about player contentment, and trying to draw a conclusion from that information would be original research. The most important thing to realize is that Wikipedia isn't exactly supposed to be the cutting edge of information, and can't report rumors or community sentiment on its own. It's only supposed to collect and report from other sources. Discussions about player happiness or irritation are for forums. Torchiest talk/edits 12:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with the original poster. Players reviews are not reliable. For every 1 player who has some personal gripe with the game there are a couple hundred others who are happily playing. Better to leave this to the professionals. If the personal gripe has any credibility it will be picked up by a more reliable source. (talk) 18:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Steam figures are hardly a definitive indicator. Piracy isn't taken into account nor as the above reply notes, player contentment. My take: I think Civ V is a huge departure from the series and doesn't have enough Civ in it let alone key elements we have come to regard as essential in the series. This is the reason a significant number of veteran players are very unhappy about it. Note: the divide comes largely from veteran players vs the newer generation of people growing up on the simplistic console version, Civ Revolutions, and complete newcomers to the franchise. Myself and others (forums are loaded with discontent) wouldn't be so irate if only the game had been made under a different title. The anger and unhappiness is due to the series, ultimately, coming to an abrupt and unwelcome end (for a large number of fans). While I realise the majority of players (both veterans and newcomers combined and from forums polls / feedback I'd definitely wouldn't say a large majority) are content with the latest iteration, I propose it should be noted this departure from Civ conventions / gameplay and the resulting discontent among a significant proportion of the player-base should be mentioned in the article. The franchise is coming up on two decades of sequels and expansions. This is a big deal in gaming culture and the industry as a whole. It speaks to the shift towards the console generation and the casual, streamlining of previously more 'hardcore' titles. It matters, it should at least be mentioned. Stuntaneous (talk) 20:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

This "a forum post is not notable" is silly. It depends WHO wrote the forum post. I would take the word of a highly respected long standing member of the Civ community over a review by someone who plays any random game and probably has not spent the last 4 years playing just Civ. Seriously. From my observation in the forums there is a definite split in the community with some long standing members on the balance enjoying the new game, and others finding serious deficiencies in it.

The only forum post that'd be notable is one directly from someone who works for the developer (and is posting from an official account). All other posts are not notable, regardless of who wrote them. Thanks! Fin© 07:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
That someone is a big wheel in a fan forum means less than nothing to us, it's as far away from an RS as you could get. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Post-Release Reviews[edit]

I've looked at reviews from the past week or so, since the game has come out.

I haven't found much criticism at all. Whatever the gripes a few people have with the game (for sure if your system can't actually run the game you're going to have a lot more free time to post on forums and put reviews into amazon) they're not really representative of the overall experience. The worst criticisms I could find were that the AI does silly things, embedded in otherwise glowing reviews. (talk) 18:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Having spent hours and hours on the forums, I can tell you that this game has not been well received. These game sites that rated this game 9.4 out of 10 haven't even played the game long enough to judge it when the reviews were released. This is just a rubber stamp advertisement and nothing more. This article needs to be more balanced. A lot of Civilisation 4 fans were upset with this game because it removed the bulk of what they liked about the game. Please find some negative reviews to counterbalance this one sidedness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

You, me or a fan forum are not reliable sources. This has been explained multiple times on this page and is documented in great depth on Wikipedia; have you read these things and understood them? Wenttomowameadow (talk) 17:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I realise legitimate sources need to be used to highlight the point. I also agree the game has taken the Civ out of the series, it's a non sequitur. I think points I make and similar like the above unsigned are worthwhile in the discussion if only to encourage people to sus out the other side of the reception. For someone to say the game is universally regarded as a great success and loved by fans is a huge mistake. You only have to wander around various forums to notice a large and significant number of people are very unhappy. Relevant reading: - It should also be noted, people who are tethered to the new game and are clearly enjoying it could be more likely to report this admiration as opposed to those who are shocked and dismayed at what they got. I for one am largely apathetic about it all, I can't believe the series is essentially dead and Civ 4:BTS is the last I'll see of it. I personally can't be bothered flogging this very dead horse the majority of the time. If I can feel this way, I'm sure many other diehard fans can as well. Stuntaneous (talk) 20:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


I did a quick Internet search for game reviews and found several both positive and negative that an editor could easily add to this article for the benefit of all. Those with a sincere interest in improving this article will do so. Rklawton (talk) 15:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Then why keep them a secret? I was unable to find an overtly negative review from a reliable source, so please share your search string or the reviews you found. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 16:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, somewhere it should be noted that this version of the game was a huge disappointment to the solid fanbase of the game. Perhaps in time it will be written about in a "reliable" source and it can be referred to here. (talk) 18:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC) "While Civilization V is an achievement in many areas, it seems like a game that abandoned its traditionally great single player to enhance its multiplayer.", etc. Stuntaneous (talk) 08:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Mac Release Date[edit]

Amazon UK says that the release date will be Nov 22 2010. (talk) 01:26, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Amazon, like many retailers, uses placeholder dates when no official one has been announced; let's wait for a reliable source for that. Grandmasterka 03:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Now confirmed by Aspyr Gameagent Blog. Added to article. 20:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

City States[edit]

I was looking at [3].

I believe the new version has gone too far in brevity. I am only semi-active these days and am concentrating on my own article, but I believe as a new feature in the Civ series, there should be more details about city states. I am not a fan of Wikia. When there was a WP sister project on Strategy Games, it made more sense to put strategy material there. Vyeh (talk) 12:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Music in Civilization V[edit]

I was thinking it would be a good idea to have an article for music in Civ V, much like Music in Civilization IV. There is already a list of known pieces up on CivFanatics- I would start it but I am not very good with formatting. (talk) 05:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Recommend adding a section 'Changes from Civilization 4'[edit]

Civilization 5 is a total overhaul of the Civilization series of games, which is what I believe most of the complaints by users is about. Whereas those who reviewed the game for professional magazines, websites, etc., reviewed the game as an independent gaming experience. Prior to Civ 5, each version of the game grew upon the previous where components were added to the program. Civ 5 is the first where there are significant removals from the game (religion, espionage, Civics, stacking units, how great people are used, how to balance science/culture/finance/espionage, water transportation, etc., etc., etc.,) So I recommend that there be a section on the changes from previous editions of the game. What do you all think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Such sections are discouraged. Why not changes from Civ 3? or 2? as well? If sources describe overall changes that are significant (hex grid, for example) they should be noted appropriately but these types of sections attract trivia easily. --MASEM (t) 14:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
How is hex grid a significant change? It is merely how a unit moves as oppossed to the overall strategies and concepts of game play. I swear, I don't understand "gamers" at all and what they think is important. And yes, maybe there should be a list of changes from 3 & 2.
Ur, when units are a core part (the core part?) of gameplay, and you fundamentally change how that part operates, that's quite a large change. No, there shouldn't be a list of any changes - Masem was making the point that it'd be silly to include a list of change from II and III, which it would be. Significant changes can be noted in the prose, as he's said. Thanks! Fin© 16:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I disagree that the units are the core part of the game. They are simply one of the tools used in one of the many strategies to winning the game. Units are primarily used for a domination win, as oppossed to the many other victory conditions that do not require the primary use of units. Civilization is a "thinking man's" game and the reviews that focus on the hex movement of units totally miss the concept of the game itself. So I have to state that there should be some sort of section. Perhaps something phrased differently that would be in compliance with WP. Hobbamock (talk) 03:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Agree. Civ V is such a massive departure from the series this is noteworthy. Stuntaneous (talk) 23:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Remember, WP's goal is not be a game guide (you want to go thatawhat for that). We are here to cover games in an encyclopedic manner. Large overall changes, such as the switch from square to hex, is significant based numerous reports, but other changes - which may be more significant to players such as how great people work, lack of military unit stacking, etc - are trivial in the overall scope. We want to give enough of how the game is played and the larger changes so that readers understand the development and the reception sections. --MASEM (t) 00:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Yea, I agree with you, and I really would like it if people would stop with the PoV pushing. This is not a place for hardcore Civ fans to soapbox about this game. Rather it should be based on the reporting by sources which meet Wikipedia's standards (which in this instance means mainly gaming media outlets). I do think though that non-stacking units has been quite widely reported upon as a pretty significant change from previous games in the series.TheFreeloader (talk) 00:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, in a nutshell, Civilization 5 is only a sequel to Civilization 4 in name.

It is best thought as a tactical combat puzzle game with Civilization elements.

In general, it's a flawed game, although it manages to still be enjoyable and "looks good" on first sight. The issue is that the tactical combat AI is terrible, which gives you a huge military edge and makes the game a tactical puzzle game with the objective of moving your units so that the AI suicides theirs, and hence winning battles with no losses.

As a result, an experienced player will only find the game enjoyable at the highest difficulty levels, where the AI gets huge bonuses that compensate its massive lack of tactical skill. Additionally, the high army sizes at those levels, very high AI warmongering tendency and weakness of buildings, wonders and other non-combat elements make military-light strategies inferior, and thus emphasize the tactical combat game at the expense of the rest.

The game is also significantly unbalanced. For instance, Companion Cavalry and to a slightly lesser extent Horsemen are hugely overpowered, and building those units is often better than building anything else. Also, the game fails to counterbalance infinite city sprawl, making that (along with maritime food and some social policies) the best strategy if you are not busy taking over the world with mounted units. There are lots of exploits like leasing access to resources for a lump sum of gold just before declaring war, invalidating the deal (in Civ4, the AI will only give you gold per turn and not lump sums for resources).

Most reviews do not highlight this most likely because the reviewers didn't play the game for enough time, didn't have significant experience with previous Civilization games, did not read comments by other people and/or did not try warmongering strategies or ICS strategies.

The professional reviews are however probably indicative of the experience of someone new to strategy games, playing the game relatively little and reading no strategy tips, or alternatively not valuing good game balance and challenge in the game.

See for instance [4] and [5] for detailed commented playthroughs that will give you a much better idea of the game than the commercial reviews.

I'm not sure how to add this in a way compliant to Wikipedia's policies.

The 1UP review captures this best, but generally fails to mention the broken game balance and bad design of the non-combat game mechanics, and doesn't truly describe how the disastrous AI and the need to counterbalance it with massive bonuses actually causes the game to fundamentally change. (talk) 03:21, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Nice play-by-plays, but those are totally irrelevant for Wikipedia. You need a reliable source to cover anything like this. DP76764 (Talk) 16:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
It has to be said, we're talking about a game here and "reliable sources" are dictated to be online reviews. These online reviews are at the end of the day, just another guy like you or me under a corporate banner. They're not exactly peer-reviewed quality. Some publications both online and proper mags even allow reader contributions. So as for the long repeated shut-down line, I'm not sure it applies a whole lot in this situation. Stuntaneous (talk) 07:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
""reliable sources" are dictated to be online reviews" - Wrong. Reliable sources are sources that have a trustworthy editorial policy, that are open and honest, that meet the criteria of WP/RS and that have a history of of being reliable. The way they are published; whether they are in print, online or graffittied on a wall doesn't matter. WP:RS and WP:VG/RS doesn't allow user generated content. - X201 (talk) 10:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Trustworthiness, openness and honesty are determined by your point of view. Likewise, the merits of a game are determined largely by who you are and your individual circumstances. A history of reliability is but a measure of how well one publication adheres to the average of all publications in that area of interest. There is a large gap in the way a game's reception is being judged here. There should be room for smaller, less well known review sites with differing opinions to the majority to have their perspective reflected on Wikipedia. Stuntaneous (talk) 08:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Fortunately there is a policy for this. See WP:UNDUE. Wikipedia is concerned with the majority view. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 12:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
@ From what I can see, it is very apparent that fan reaction to this game is very negative, and there is a vast gap between popular reception and the early reception from the paid reviewers cited in the article. I don't really know what to suggest, because as has been said we have policies on reliable sources. Although gaming reviews aren't particularly "reliable" as "sources", not much more so than amazon reviews, they sneak under that umbrella--by a neck--because they are published by popular sites and magazines, and being published in such a manner is, in other areas, usually meaningful. I do think there is a problem here, but there's little that can be done. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
It may be possible that a RS like Edge will do some type of article noting fan reaction (or at least the reaction of the writer). Or else there may be an article about sales that will say that fan reaction is negative. On the subject of having a "Change" section, the article should not presuppose the reader has knowledge of Civ 4. I think contrasts with Civ 4 and earlier games can be made in the Gameplay section and a separate section is not appropriate. Vyeh (talk) 03:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Thinking more about the WP policies, I wonder if the "reception" sections shouldn't be just deleted from all articles.
In particular, there seem to be a lot of problems with them:
  1. The work of summarizing several reviews seems to me original research, especially because there doesn't seem to be any "single best/balanced way" of doing it
  2. It's hard to make the section NPOV and balanced since it depends a lot on how you weight different aspects. For instance, someone who only cares about graphics might consider Civ5 very good, while someone only valuing an hard challenge will consider it abysmal due to the bad AI.
  3. The opinions of random game reviewers are not necessarily notable in isolation, even though specific reviews tend to be quoted
  4. The reviews have dubious reliability, since they often partially contradict each other (especially on somewhat subjective claims, like "it's very buggy")
Overall the issue is that there is no "objective truth" to determine (just "is it good?"), the subjective opinions are not by notable people, and there is no summary of various reviews to quote from, except the single Metacritic score number.
On the other hand, more information seems better than less, so this doesn't really seem a great solution. I suppose the best way forward would be for someone familiar with WP to start a discussion on detailed policies on how to write such sections, and figure out what to do. (talk) 23:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Reception can and have been written with objectivity for years. The practice is well established. That's why we use reliable sources to make sure all the major opinions of the game are included (for example, with Civ V, the review is both reliable and very critical and one we cannot ignore. The same concept we have to apply to changes from Civ IV. Things like hex grid and nation-states are well documented in reliable sources, but to make a full list of all changes, we can't make up stuff ourselves. --MASEM (t) 04:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Are there guidelines for this? In particular, how do you choose which reviews to quote objectively? How do you choose which issues and comments to cover and quote objectively? Regarding Civ5, for instance, why out of the likely 20/30 reviews are we citing precisely Gametrailers, G4TV, Gamespot and IGN? And why the only specific issue mentioned is the AI? Should we also talk about the reception of graphics and some elements like social policies? That said, I wrote part of the section and I think it's good now, but it seems hard to objectively justify it. Also, is this useful at all to the reader, or would he be better served by being given a link to the Metacritic page listing reviews? (talk) 16:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
As a somewhat revolutionary proposal, how about just precisely copying the review quotes page on Metacritic, for all games? Presumably, they are relying on fair use to include the quotes, so that should apply to Wikipedia too, unless Metacritic can claim copyright to the mere aggregation of them in score order, or they actually have a specific license (fair use could still apply though). It would significantly increase the size of the articles, but would prevent any controversy. (talk) 16:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
See [6] for how we generally select sources. We're looking at both history and reliability and the industry trustworthiness of the reviews. And we can only describe in a critical manner what the reviews describe in a critical manner: that's to avoid WP:OR and WP:POV problems. It's an art to know how to do this, but the VG project has come to learn how to do this right to pass several articles for Featured status. --MASEM (t) 04:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

OKAY, I just took a look at all the Civilization WP sites and it seems the precedent has been set. In Civilization III there is a differences section from Civilization II. Considering the controversy, it should be established. Hobbamock (talk) 04:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Stuntaneous (talk) 07:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Gaming the system by Oosh[edit]

Why is it that there are always some eggheads who manage to turn a really informative article with just a hint of trivia into a dull compilation of text which's uninformative and does everything to prevent someone from getting a grasp of the game? But sure, it's fine and everything, since some wikirule(s) can be readily applied to them, which'll make everything nice & shine. Unfortunately conforming to the rules (or actually explaining our actions with some rules) doesn't necessarily mean that the result's good as well. Oh and to be precise, the fuss' about the last few edits by Oosh: [7], [8] and [9]. Sure, I could do something about it, but I just don't feel like getting involved in an edit war with a bonehead who'd love to turn the whole word into a painfully boring place, which'd be to its liking, and neither do I have time for that. Also, since you've removed all the tables with useful info from the article, why don't you go ahead and do the same with the Civilization IV article too? And while you're at it, be sure to check some other articles too or else you might risk some of your "favorite" articles being informative at all (but you'd never want that, would you).   CoolKoon (talk) 18:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

First of all don't attack other users. If you don't like Wikipedia's policies, like gamecruft, then perhaps wikipedia isn't the place for you. I suggest Wikia. Fair point about Civilization IV, I might have a look at it tomorrow. Thanks! Fin© 21:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Oh, and "gaming the system" implies a deliberate misinterpretation of rules to overcome those rules, that didn't occur here. Thanks! Fin© 21:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Great. Did I specifically accuse anyone of anything? I guess not. Anyway it isn't the fact that I dislike Wikipedia's policies, it's more about people trying to interpret them word-by-word. If one was to do that with every single Wikipedia policy, then all the trivia sections from the movie articles should be removed as well and a lot of other stuff as well, which's just "cluttering" the articles and would look better on Wikia. But maybe there are people who prefer not to go to Wikia for some more general information on a certain game. Maybe they don't want to fully immerse themselves into the game, but only want to get a grasp on it via a few bits about the game. One way of doing this is to include a few details from the game itself, in addition to writing about the game (the two are not the same). Wikipedia's supposed to be an encyclopedia after all. CoolKoon (talk) 23:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
"Did I specifically accuse anyone of anything?" Yes you accused Oosh of gaming the system in the section title you also more or less called him an "egghead" and a "bonehead." Doing this sort of thing isn't going to help you get taken seriously. Why not bring your concerns to the talk page and say something like "I think the info that Oosh removed is encyclopedic let's discuss" rather than complaining about "eggheads." Wikipedia isn't a game guide, it should provide relevant real world information. If you want specific info on Civilization V like faction lists or whatever than try the Civ V wiki which is linked at the bottom of the page. --Leivick (talk) 00:03, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
I did. Yeah, I've seen all the data which's been removed from here over there. I think you've missed my point though: what I said was that some gaming information COULD be provided as well IN ADDITION to the real-world information, not INSTEAD of real-world information. I don't want to get hung up on words either. And somehow I have a feeling that even if I wouldn't have implied that Oosh (or anyone else who's supporting him for that matter) is a "bonehead" or an "egghead", I could've hardly stood against the firm opposition. I would've probably been referred to Wikia the same way as I am right now with everyone pointing to the rules and the fact that "WP is not a game guide/movie guide/whatever guide, but an encyclopedia, therefore blahblahblah are discouraged". So it hardly would've made any difference (maybe in the tone of the discussion, but the point would be just the same). And actually I DID bring my concerns to the talk page, with maybe some insufficient manners..... CoolKoon (talk) 01:44, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, next time I recommend that not assume your ideas will be shot down and jump right to being rude. You are much more likely to be successful that way. In any case I still feel that the material doesn't belong in this article. --Leivick (talk) 03:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, I don't wanna argue about it anymore, since I'm more of a reader than an editor anyway. My overreaction's been probably the "side effect" of the fact that I was pissed about the fact that something I've worked with has been removed (along with other materials) citing the rules as an excuse. Also the fact that I've been arguing a LOT with trollish near-sighted Slovak nationalists about historical issues (they take the "task" of spreading the word about the "real Slovak history" - a bunch of unfounded speculations and myths - as a sort of crusade while trying to bash everyone who doesn't share their POV) could've played a role in my outlash as well. CoolKoon (talk) 12:41, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Apology accepted. No one likes their sand-castle kicked in, even if you built it in the wrong place, but unlike the real thing on Wiki it can always be 'un-kicked' so try not to get too precious about it. BTW those pesky rules should come in handy with your little Slovak problem. ;) Oosh (talk) 13:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
It can (be un-kicked I mean), but starting an edit war is not my cup of tea (not now anyway :P). You're right, the "pesky" rules DID help, but even if all of them are dealt with, one such's born every minute (and don't even get me started on their sockpuppets :P). And having to explain countless times the same thing (e.g. point out the fact that some things are myths which won't come true regardless of whether some politicians treat them as such) drives me crazy at times. Also when I tell them that what they're doing is instilling lies (and trying to pass them off as truth) then they just cynically accuse me of ulterior motives, bias, ad hominem attack etc. and point me to sources written by heavy nationalists (and then turn around and dismiss sources I provide as "nationalist propaganda"). Sure, if someone would be paying me to keep up with this and hence I'd do it full time, I'd do it. But I have a life and nobody's paying me for this (even though some of them believe that any such deeds "aimed against Slovaks" are sponsored by George Soros), so the rules do little to help me in this (without me investing countless amount of time into it). CoolKoon (talk) 14:44, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip CoolKoon re: Civ IV, I might just get around to improving that C-Class article too. Oosh (talk) 03:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Please stop adding the Amazon reviews as negative feedback[edit]

You can't interpret statistics you've found and present a case for the game being received badly, because that's original research and isn't how Wikipedia works. We don't come up with new information here, we simply present information given to us by outside, reliable sources. This isn't a case of people wanting to silence any criticism, it's a case of criticism not being sourced correctly. As explained above, a news report talking about negative user reaction to the game would be suitable. I've tried to find one, but no news outlets seem particularly moved by the issue (suggesting that it probably isn't notable enough). Remember, Wikipedia isn't your soapbox and you don't have a right to contribute any content you like; it has to be within the framework of site's rules. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 11:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Please note that the anonymous editor's edits are very consistent with Amazon's reviews - thus I have every reason to believe they are made in good faith, and we should make every effort to treat these editor's accordingly. Of course, you are 100% correct regarding the importance of reliable sources. To that end, we should either compile (or more likely, point to) a list of sources typically considered reliable for video game reviews. Doing so will help these editors develop this article. Rklawton (talk) 12:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
The edits have been coming from multiple accounts, and occasionally coupled with accusations about corporate shills (see this edit, for example). It's not a simple mistake or misunderstanding, they've had it explained to them time and again, and they've only responded with accusations. They've purposely edited a note in the article to reflect their unfounded claims about commercial interest in the article. I'd say that it's time to stop treating them as good faith edits at this point. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 12:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Additionally, the population of reviewers giving poor reviews may compare poorly compared to the total amount of gamers that enjoy the game. In other words, customer reviews are flawed because they're more likely to give a review if they dislike the game than someone who enjoys the game, so it skews results in favour of the negative position. That and the continual Steam-bashing that's going on. --Topperfalkon (talk) 13:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Just a heads up. This article has a discussion on the COI page and has also been listed at WP:RPP - X201 (talk) 14:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm aware one of the commenters here was responsible for the RPP though--Topperfalkon (talk) 14:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I just want to cement a consensus on this. No. No player reviews. No amazon reviews, which for all we know were part of a coordinated campaign by a minority of players who have some personal gripe with the game. If there's any credibility to their complaints they will be picked up in reliable sources. (talk) 18:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I am just curious, game entries on wikipedia never mention how buggy a game is. And after reading this discussion I now see why. Only "Reliable" reviews are allowed. I'm sure if a novel came out from a popular author with pervasive and extensive spelling and grammar errors, wikipedia would note it in the article. This is incredibly misleading to not do it with pc games. Do a simple google search on Civilization 5 crashes or freezes. But since wikipedia editors refuses to consider customer reviews or forums as "Reliable" sources for this, you seem to be doing a bit of whitewashing. I paid nearly $100 for this game and a full campaign is virtually unplayable for me and I have a good pc. and i am not alone, a lot of other people have similar issues just look at the threads on the "Offfical" discussion board (but again, not reliable right?). I've noticed the same thing on the "Fallout: NV" wiki entry, another game infamous for its bugs even though i myself haven't had a problem, I know others who have. but wikipedia just seems to be turning into an endorsement site that doesn't note the problems with the games. I love the Civilization games but if i had known before hand how buggy the game was, I would probably waited 6 months or so before purchase, so they could have enough time to release enough patches to fix the game breaking bugs. Ok, good to know wikipedia is not a "Reliable" source when it comes to computer games. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

PCs are so variable in spec and performance if you google any game along with "crashes" or "freezes", chances are you'll get some results. I've had huge problems with Minecraft crashing on one machine, and simply not starting on another. Are these valid for inclusion on the Minecraft article? No, but if everyone was experiencing the same problem, it would be. Even official boards are not reliable - I could register an account and post something saying "Civilization 5 formatted my hard drive", get ten other people to create accounts and say the same thing. There's no verifiability. Well if you'd checked the boards you mention before you bought it, you would've seen all the problems other people may be having. Wikipedia is certainly not a reliable source when it comes to anything - anyone can change anything it says! Thanks! Fin© 13:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

How is not an outside source? I didn't write reviews there for Civ V. And isn't Wikipedia just as susceptable to a "coordinated campaign" as Why is a journalist so much more reliable that a number of actual users? Ironically, it is user input that creates wikipedia, just like (talk) 18:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not reliable because user reviews tend to skewed towards either the negative or the positive. Specifically, users tend to review more if they have a negative experience as opposed to a positive one. And yes Wikipedia is susceptable to such 'coordinated campaigns', which is why we, as editors, need to be especially vigilant to this type of vandalism.--Topperfalkon (talk) 20:18, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
You don't have a citation for this statement. Please link to a scholarly article demonstrating negative or positive review skewing in gaming reviews. Until you can cite this, using a reliable scientific study, you are in fact stating an opinion.--Occident 12:34, 4 Dec 2010 (UTC)
[10] [11] [12] [13] (talk) 19:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Those are all nice, but none of them pertain to THIS piece of software. DP76764 (Talk) 19:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe make it clear that the reception part is applicable to Professional reviewers only (IE people who get paid to do reviews). Comments like "Universal acclaim" are rather misleading unless were specifically speaking of professional reviewers. Nvm I took the initiative and did exactly that. If the criteria points to only professional reviews being used there is no reason not to make that clear to the reader. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Table removing[edit]

If you are going to remove the tables, please be consistent and remove them from all the Civ game articles, and place a link in the talk page directing to this discussion:

Civilization (video game)
Civilization II
Civilization III
Civilization III: Play the World
Civilization III: Conquests
Civilization IV
Civilization IV: Warlords
Civilization IV: Beyond the Sword
Civilization IV: Colonization
Civilization Revolution

As that was the point of this discussion, wasn't it? Otherwise the removal was just some sort of edit war for this article itself which makes no sense. Though, to be honest, from the above discussion I did not see a consensus being reached in terms of removing them or not, and I understood Wiki policy to maintain the article's long standing status quo until a consensus is reached (which would mean leaving them in until it was decided).Flygongengar (talk) 20:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps more input is needed in this discussion. Would someone care to post a request for comment/input on the video game project page? (I'm not sure which one would be best, otherwise I'd post it) DP76764 (Talk) 20:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I think that's a good idea, as there are a ton of video game articles that include a table of playable characters (just check most fighting game articles) which is analogous to a table of playable civs. Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with the various project pages myself, either. Additionally, I would assume there is the option to make a List of Playable Civilizations in the Civ Series type article.Flygongengar (talk) 20:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Change[edit]

In an effort to re-start the discussion above, below is roughly what I believe the Civs sections should look like without tables, and I envisage something similar for the DLC. Only listing the number of extra Civs released thus far, but highlighting the notability of the Babylonians for their inclusion in the Deluxe Edition and the Incans given their 'unique building' is double unique since it is in fact a terrain improvement. Oosh (talk) 01:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Civilizations and leaders[edit]

There are 18 civilizations available in the standard retail version of Civilization V. The player chooses a civilization and assumes the role of its leader, based on prominent historical figures. Each leader of a civilization has a unique unit, another unique unit or a unique building, and a special ability.[1] For example; China is lead by Wu Zetian who has access to the Cho-Ko-Nu unit (a Crossbowman that can fire twice), Paper Maker building (a Library that also produces gold), and Art of War special ability which increases the effectiveness and spawn rate of Great Generals. The player is able to interact with the leaders of other civilizations via the diplomacy screen, which features—for the first time in the series—fully animated leaders that speak their native languages.[2][3] For instance, Augustus Caesar speaks in his native Latin and Montezuma speaks in his native Nahuatl.

Recognition of player reception[edit]

It's no secret people of both camps are very vocal about their views. I'm of the perspective Civ V is a non sequitur in the series and the franchise has been unceremoniously ended. I don't see why myself and others of my view don't get a fair say on this page. It is beyond obvious there is a significant portion of Civ fans incredibly unhappy with this fifth iteration, if you can even call it that. Browse the forums. Hell, even check out the Official Civilization Facebook page and read the replies to the PR posts. If you can label this reception as insignificant or just plain unworthy of a mention that just isn't right. In practical terms, consumers very often use Wikipedia as a first or early point of call. Without a shade of doubt, the description of Civilization V's reception on Wikipedia will be generating regrettable sales and unhappy customers. Stuntaneous (talk) 07:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

How many times does this need to be said? If you can provide a reliable source, you can add the negative reviews. User reviews are not a reliable source. Forums are not a reliable source. Replies to a Facebook post are not a reliable source. A lot of games have a very angry, very loud, minority of users. This does not make them notable. Thanks! Fin© 09:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I am no seasoned researcher I am however a keen observer of other people. People are heavily disappointed and frustrated in droves. A significant number of Civ gamers will be talking about this event for years to come, it is definitely notable. It would be nice if someone could help out with such sources, perhaps yourself even. It would be extremely surprising if there was no "reliable source" to document this. Thanks. Stuntaneous (talk) 03:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
The sad thing is it looks like there really isn't a reliable source. All the mainstream outlets loved the game and like most reviewers played it a bit then never picked it up again. Despite the huge amount of negative reviews on sites like Amazon, and the tons of negative posts on the official forums and on fan sites like cifanatics, no reliable source has commented on this fan reaction. I agree with the Wiki policy that we need one, so I hope one eventually turns up. It's not just a non-notable minority as a previous poster stated, the fan reaction on any sort of outlet has been largely negative. (talk) 00:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
No, the sad thing is people are STILL using Amazon as a reflection of all Civ5 player's view. Yes SOME people are unhappy, but definitely NOT a majority. Yes, Amazon has lots of negative user reviews, but GameSpot was thousands of user reviews with the majority being positive (the game averages 8.5 or something on user reviews). Metacritic also shows favourable user reviews. Using Amazon as the definitive answer on player sentiment is ridiculous. (talk) 23:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, here's something:

[14] (talk) 06:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC) appears to allow user submitted articles, which will probably make it fail WP:RS. Also, this particular author only has *1* article (this one). Keep lookin! DP76764 (Talk) 16:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Sullla (the author) is also known in Civ circles to vehemently HATE Civ5. There is also a conflict of interest as Sullla was dumped quite unceremoniously from the testing team after Civ4 and was not allowed back into Civ5 (I know, I was there). IMO, Sullla's opinion of Civ5 is extremely tainted with resentment, and this shows very clearly through his articles and website. (talk) 23:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

CTRL+F "Civ" Reddit post: "what is your biggest gaming disappointment" Stuntaneous (talk) 12:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

What of it? Reddit user comments in response to another users' questions are a long way from WP:RS. - Oosh (talk) 12:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Ancient Korea[edit]

Who Put This in the dlc civs table I don't think it is true. I looked up civ 5 korea and I couldnt find anything about it. Please confirm or delete it. OttomanJackson User:OttomanJackson 15:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by OttomanJackson (talkcontribs)

No Korea in Civ V as a major Civ, however Seoul is a city-state, possibly causing some confusion. Also, as with Civ IV, the modding power allows any civilization to be in game, and as Civ V has a more integrated, official mod-server, these mods might be mistaken by some for official DLC. Zakhalesh (talk) 20:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

However, Korea was released as an official DLC in the Korean CivPack. If we are including official DLC civs (I don't know if we are), it should be included. (talk) 00:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Professional vs. customer reviews: fundamental flaw in Wikipedia's guide lines[edit]

There seems to be a fundamental issue with WP:RS and video games here, and the whole thing about Civ V really proves the point. First, let me put my cards on the table: I'm also one of those who were extremely disappointed by Civ V, and I absolutely share the perception that the majority of Civ veterans feel the same. I've gone through the forums and (yes, how horrible!) also through the amazon reviews, and it's just ... plain and obvious. You rarely get a consumer reaction as significant as that! I've played this ... of a game myself, and I can confirm most of the other players' points: the details of my experience and those of other disappointed players' experiences overlap, meaning that there's something inter-subjective, vulgo objective behind all those rants. OK, you may doubt it and state (for whatever reasons) that, no, you're convinced that the vast majority of players actually loves this game, and forums and consumer reviews don't mean a thing. I can't validly proof my point, you can't validly proof yours. It's a draw. But I see what I see, and I know what I know. I'm OK with that.

On the other hand, I can also see that the professional reviews were generally enthusiastic. It's the more irritating for me as those very reviews made me buy the game and waste my good money. But apart from that, isn't it strange that there is such a hugely negative consumer reaction versus a totally positive, even enthusiastic reception by professional reviewers? At least a bit? What to make out of it? My idea is that it's not just a case of a corrupted reviewing process here, but that moreover Wikipedia itself is flawed and has become a multiplicator for marketing strategies. And that just by following guide lines that are definitely important and useful - in other fields, but not here. Why that?

WP policy demands to ignore forums, consumer reviews and the like and to consider and quote only opinions published in acknowledged media. Which makes sense in almost all other fields of knowledge. A reviewer of "serious" literature will rarely jump on the bandwagon of a hype, because works of literature usually don't come rushing into the market, with people waiting in queues on the weekend of the book release. It's no problem if your magazine oder newspaper gets its reviewer's copy a couple of weeks later than your competitors, for your readers will (normally) not hunger for the first and earliest review, or punish you for always being later than the other reviewers by not clicking into or buying your magazine any more. Most readers will rather tend to respect you for publishing competent and balanced reviews of these books. And they will measure the reviewers by comparing their former reviews with their own reading experiences. Here, the system usually works.

But what if there is a field where being one of the first to write about something counts much more than the quality of your review? That's the issue with video games. Gamers aren't known for paying subscription fees for magazines that have strict and transparent quality policies with regards to their reviewing process. What most gaming magazines need for their economic survival in the first place is clicks. Everything else (quality, competence, reader satisfaction) is just a means to generate clicks so that your advertisement clients see it's a good idea to give you money for showing their ads on your pages. And you don't get these clicks by writing about stuff three weeks later than the other magazines, however responsible and competent that may be. It's also safe to assume that gamers are generally more susceptible to hypes and less given to patient waiting than consumers in other markets (a bit similar to moviegoers, though). Now companies will hype their games for months in advance, fans will scan the magazines for news and early reviews, and naturally they'll click into those magazines that are most "up to date". If a magazine writes its review of game XY a couple of weeks after the first rush, they'll only get a small and negligible portion of XY-specific clicks, and thus will not be able to generate a significant ad income.

I think that's the problem here, because it produces a circle of corruption: with the important and prestigious games, the magazines need to be first reviewers, or at least publish as early as possible. But in the end, it's the game producers / distributors who are able to decide which magazine can be among the first because it's them who decide who will get their pre-release copies early (or not at all). They'll naturally favour those magazines that have shown their good-will in reviews of previous games of that company, and skip the more critical ones. (Actually, many consumers do something similar: there is a tendency that under the influence of hype-nosis, people really want that the hyped computer game turns out to be the greatest game ever, and they won't reward it if a reviewer says that no, it sucks, so better forget it.)

In the end, only those gaming magazines will be able to survive that write overly positive reviews, at least for the important games, the games of the big players in the gaming industry (big fish like Firaxis, but also distributors like Steam). They'll be more or less free to write really critical reviews for the games of small and medium-sized companies, for these do not have sufficient power to bend the process to their will. Here the system may still work. But for big, critical events like the release of an instalment of Civilization, the process will break down because none of the big internet gaming magazines will ever dare to challenge the companies on one of their main projects. (With printed magazines, the mechanism is similar, just without clicks.)

I want to stress that although I'm using the word "corruption", I'm actually not blaming the reviewers, or the magazines' editors, and not even the gaming companies themselves. The fault is rather with the system, and/or with the gullible consumer. But there is a fault here, and the article here suffers greatly from it. Wikipedia should not be that gullible, for it's bound to become a long-term multiplier for gullibility. And as for the presentation of all those positive reviews on the article page, that's a proof in point for Wikipedia's principle of "reliable sources" being able to be carried ad absurdum. This whole thing about Civ V shows that, in effect, Wikipedia can be turned into a secondary marketing instrument for big companies after all: not only despite, but rather because of a set of rules and principles that were established to ensure objectivity, but then get to be used too stubbornly and without discretion. ("Secondary": the primary marketing instrument is the corrupted reviewing process itself, and Wikipedia becomes secondary to that by adopting the material and its authorities one-to-one).

As for me and Civ V, after reading the Wikipedia article I'd happily have bought this masterwork of strategic gaming, couldn't go wrong here, right? Only that I have already bought and tried it and know what a total failure it is - an experience obviously shared by a significant number of other people, and, also significantly, for more or less the same reasons. And that to an extent that it should have prominently figured in the article's paragraph on the game's reception. That this didn't happen, that the guidelines didn't allow for that shows that those rules and guidelines have to be refined. Wikipedia guys (I'm not one of the flock): I suggest you make this a point of departure ...

Greetings -- (talk) 07:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Your small essay on WP:RS, even if it uses Civ V as an example, is misplaced here. -Oosh (talk) 07:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
As per Oosh. You needed to have posted that at WP:RS as that is what governs the eligibility of reviews, not the Civ 5 article. - X201 (talk) 07:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi & thanks for your feedback. I left a note & link at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources. However, I don not think that this "essay" is misplaced here. There is not only a flaw in the guidelines, but - of course - also in this article that was written in accordance with them. Greetings -- (talk) 08:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Also agree with Oosh (also OP is tl;dr). Philosophy on what is/is not a WP:RS for game reviews doesn't belong here expressly. DP76764 (Talk) 14:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Gosh, it's not philosophy. The article is flawed, and that has already been an issue here, hasn't it? People rightly observed that there's a deal of ... horse manure in the article, and I've been trying to work out what's wrong - that's all. If you disagree, well. But "that's philosophy" is not an argument, it's just evasion. Greetings -- (talk) 21:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I actually enjoyed the time I spent playing Civilization V, I liked how it was a lot 'cleaner' than previous titles and I liked the new tactical element brought about by the move to hex maps and non-stacking. I also initially enjoyed Spore too, despite DRM woes and other disappointments, because it gave me a new type of game to play. And yes, it was fun for a time, and it was certainly worth the money I paid for it. So, I actually feel quite offended when someone presumes that Amazon's user review speaks for gamers as a whole, especially when I make any purchase choices I haven't already decided on by using a mix of PC Gamer and Zero Punctuation. I generally tend to prefer these reviews as a balanced rating of the game as reviewers will discuss what they don't like and what they do like than default to the usual "ZOMG this game was so hyped, but it's actually shit. DO NOT WANT. 0/5" That is absolutely no use to me whatsoever. It just gives me an opinion with no substance. --Topperfalkon (talk) 22:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey, it's nice that you liked the game and had fun with it. While I had good reason to find it totally and seriously sucks, I'll always respect other opinions. I also agree with you that a lot of people write useless and stupid stuff in forums etc. As they say: everyone's got one of these, an opinion and a rectum. Nobody who writes stuff on the net can ever "presume that" he/she "speaks for gamers as a whole", as you say. Especially not the occasional fool that you've been quoting. But your likes and dislikes don't explain the huge difference between official, professional reviewing and a general and very significant tendency in consumer opinion: so many people complaining about the game for mostly the same reasons - reasons that were not or just marginally addressed in professional reviews. I could give you a list of these issues if you insist, but please, spare me and the others. I insist that there's a serious problem with this article, and in consequence also with the IRS-guidelines - for the reasons already given. -- (talk) 00:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Everything you say can be address in four points;
  • Wikipedia is not a games review site. It is not the place to make purchase decisions.
  • If you have issues with the game review sites then take it up with them, not here.
  • Your estimation of what general customer opinion is is not notable.
  • If you have problem with Wikipedia guidelines then this talk page is not the place to discuss them. Try here.
Thanks. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 19:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Just as a final addition to this, the point has previously been made (if not here certainly elsewhere) that people only tend to review products on sites like Amazon when they have negative feedback, hence why consumer-sourced reviews tend to have a very heavy negative bias. As a whole I don't trust them for games like Spore or Civ 5, which are fine games but have some known issues likely to draw feedback. Given that will pretty much the only content of most consumer reviews if I already know about the issue actually reading these reviews is pretty pointless and any ranking system even more so. In other words, consumers have a choice over when to review, professional reviews don't. They have to review good games and crap games, but they're generally well enough respected or known in their field that their individual biases can be known and modified against and their opinion has a degree of trust associated to it. You don't get that with consumer reviews. --Topperfalkon (talk) 23:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Escape Orbit. This here as an answer to your "four points":

  • Wikipedia is not a game review site, sure. So why giving (PR-speech: "multiplying") game review scores on the article page? Now you tell me it's not supposed to, but this does influence people's purchase decisions - or would you question that? If you don't think that's right, try remove the review scores from the article, lean back and see how the game producer's hired viral PR guns will react to your edit.
  • I have no issue with the game review sites, just with the naive handling of that on Wikipedia pages. So I took up the issue here.
  • Thank goodness I'm allowed to voice my justified concerns on a Wikipedia talk page without having to publish them in a "notable source" first.
  • Thanks, I already did that a couple of months ago. But first and foremost I did it here, because the article on Civilization 5 shows an especially strong pro-producer PR bias. That has made Wikipedia in general, and the Civ-5 article in particular a part of the producers long-tail marketing strategy. This here is definitely the right place.

Bye. (talk) 15:38, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

  • You're missing the point clearly. As an encyclopaedia, this sites job is to only reference that which is notable. Frankly I doubt 'viral PR guns' would give a toss anyway.
  • It isn't naive, though it is flawed - find the correct flaw and I'll take you more seriously.
  • Well that is part of the purpose of the these pages. I'm glad you discovered that.
  • No it hasn't. It is not wikipedia's fault that many reviews favour the game favourably. As Escape said, if you have issue with the reviews, take it up with the reviewers.

Seriously. The reviews noted on this page, and this site, are those which have been deemed notable. If the only notable reviews are those which are in favour of the game, then so be it, and I'm sorry that you feel pained by this. It's not our fault if the reviewers were or were not paid off by the publisher. Muskeato 18:41, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Muskeato. Your points:

1 - that is exactly what I called naive. You uncritically reference something that contains a strong bias, so you multiply that bias on the Wikipedia page under the guise of "objectivity". My point is that Wikipedia's concept of "notability" is inherently flawed here. Please bear with me - I have explained my point at the beginning of this discussion, and I don't really want to repeat it over and over again!
2 - I'm glad that you also realize there are flaws. I admit that's much easier than finding solutions, but it's an important start. It's good to keep in mind. Promise: as soon as I find out the "correct flaws", I'll go and create a better Wikipedia, and then a better planet. After that I'll probably rise to godhood. Puny mortals, beware!
3 - Believe it or not, but I actually knew that before the Escape guy told me off for not being "notable". I just wanted him to know, too.
4 - Read what my point was in the beginning. Complete answer there.

Bye again. (talk) 19:17, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Removal of tables of Civilizations[edit]

So how about it? To me this is a clear cut case of WP:GAMETRIVIA. What say you all? - Oosh (talk) 02:24, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. It's not really excessive detail. All it lists is the playable factions and leaders, it doesn't go into detail to explain what each ability or unit does or give strategies for each one (perhaps some of the columns could be removed, but not all the info in the tables). The list of civilizations is one of the main things to compare between the various Civ games. Additionally, most video game articles have a list of playable races/civs or playable characters (it's one of the main bits of information people look for). (talk) 03:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
People looking for it isn't a good enough reason. I just don't see it being 'essential to understanding the game', the lead-in text adequately covers the gameplay mechanic that there are different Civs with different attributes - I can perhaps see merit in a list of Civs and Leaders but certainly nothing more. - Oosh (talk) 04:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
As I was saying, I do think that some of the columns can be removed--Capital and the Uniques to be specific--but not the Civs and the Leaders. It's not just the information people look for but one of the main things to compare between the games and the game and its later expansions (as civs are one of the main things added in expansions). Additionally, it serves to show the type of DLC added to the game, as DLC is a new feature of the series in Civ (talk) 22:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC) BTW both this and the post you are replying to are by me, Flygongengar Flygongengar (talk) 22:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

One of the things I want to know is what cultures they are including; games of this type that are overly Eurocentric are problematic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Yep, pure gamecruft. rm -rf. Thanks! Fin© 08:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Agree. Remove. By any other name its a car list/team roster/character class list etc. - X201 (talk) 10:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Completely disagree. It's just a short overview of the civilizations in the game; by no means is it the "game manual" it's being accused of being. Most video game articles typically provide a list of the playable characters, because that is some of the most basic information that is essential to a video game article; in this game, the playable "characters" are civilizations. Without knowing what the playable civilizations are, this article becomes woefully incomplete. —Lowellian (reply) 18:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

In an effort to further stimulate debate, I have flagged similar problems in the Civ4 related articles and invited them to join this discussion, as I feel a consensus reached in one should set a precedent in the other. -Oosh (talk) 12:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I an effort to further this debate and get more input, I flagged the tables in the Civ 1, Civ 2, Civ 3, Civ 3 Play the World, Civ 3 Conquests, Civ IV Colonization, and Civ Revolution articles, and linked them to this discussion in the talk page. As it follows that the decision for this article would affect all those articles as well.Flygongengar (talk) 01:52, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
I actually like the tables with leaders and civilizations. Through links and piped links they help explain the historical inspiration for units and abilities in a way more easily done on Wikipedia than anywhere else. I know Wikipedia isn't able to cover all such connections there might be within a game, but I think to the extent that it is done presently in this article it is neither excessive nor disruptive to the the flow of the article. I do however agree with the removal of the tables with city-states and social policies, those tables were unnecessary.TheFreeloader (talk) 15:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

While I like the current tables a little (as long as the detail is kept low), I think a series-wide restructure of that section would be valuable. Specifically, could we remove the tables but convert (most of) their content to a prose-style paragraph? I realize that each table is a substantial amount of information, and it may not flow well under another format, but it seems like a reasonable direction to take on this topic. Currently, I lean towards saying that the tables aren't game-cruft or manuals (as long as their detail level is kept low); it certainly doesn't seem to expressly violate any specific piece of WP:GAMETRIVIA. $0.02 DP76764 (Talk) 18:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I would consider removing the tables leaving an explanation of the civilization choice which determines your leader and special units, and give a few practical historical examples that can be linked back to specific history articles --MASEM (t) 18:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring the tables[edit]

Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement can help you to disagree in a more agreeable way.
Image created by a Wikipedian, based on an essay by Paul Graham

Guys, please don't edit war about including the tables. Please discuss the reasons for including or not including them here. In particular

  1. Falcon, you are obviously a more experienced editor than Dark Peria but that is not a reason to come across all high and mighty.
  2. Falcon, discussing this page on an individual users talk page is unhelpful.
    1. It adds to the high-and-mightiness problem by implying that the issue is with a user and not with the content of the page.
    2. It makes it harder for other editors of this page to see what is being discussed.
  3. Both of you, just stating that what each other says is wrong or irrelevant isn't getting anyone anywhere. Try explaining why the tables are or are not trivia, rather than just stating that one or the other is the case. You are half-way up Graham's hierarchy of disagreement. If you can go a bit higher then we may find that we don't go round in circles.

Yaris678 (talk) 21:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

My argument is somewhat based on experience. When I first looked up the game, I expected to find this information. The civilizations and the differences between them are no minor element of the game. Cruft, if I am not mistaken, is defined as being information interesting only to a small audience, almost everyone reading the page will be interested in this information. Also, although this is not really an argument, the tables are convenient in linking to the articles related to the game elements. The Dark Peria (talk) 00:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Your expectations and anecdotes of what people supposedly expect are not valid reasons to include what is clearly not core to understanding what the game is about in an encyclopedic sense. All that need be said is each Civilization has some unique attributes/units/building and one or two examples given. It just the same mannor the native laguages are mentioned and not listed ad nauseam. Oosh (talk) 03:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I thought the purpose of an encyclopedia was to inform. This information is what is expected, and will be searched for, therefore, it should be what is found. The Dark Peria (talk) 03:54, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
You may find it useful to browse through some of the policies on what Wikipedia IS and what Wikipedia is NOT. While I agree that the Civilizations are a core element of this game series, style-wise for Wikipedia, it's not necessary to have an exhaustive list of each one. If people really want specific game details for this, they should be on CivFanatics, not this site. DP76764 (Talk) 04:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay, I wasn't informed of this discussion. The purpose of an encyclopaedia may be to inform, but at the same time an encyclopaedia shouldn't list every detail about every game. As an example, a lot of users may come to Wikipedia articles looking for cheat codes, but that doesn't mean articles should include cheats. Just because a user searches for something doesn't mean it should be included. As DP says, CivFanatics or Wikia is the place to go for specific details. Thanks! Fin© 12:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Oosh, look in other encyclopedias. They include tables. Seems a stupid policy to not include tables in what is essentially, a website trying to pass itself off as an encyclopedia, when convention and reasonable reader expectation is that encyclopedia's contain tables. (talk) 23:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I have no problem with tables per se and nor does wikipedia in general (AFAIK), the core issue is cruft/trivia, present it in any form you like (tables/lists/haiku) it does not belong in an encyclopaedia. -Oosh (talk) 01:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

First off, Falcon you were in the wrong for removing the tables as it was being discussed and a consensus had not yet been reached on the talk page. Contentious edits need to be discussed not just have someone go into an article and do them, hence the tag that was placed above the tables. Secondly, I understood Wiki policy to maintain the article's long standing status quo until a consensus is reached (which would mean leaving the tables in until it was decided). Thirdly, as suggested below, someone should request for comment/input from a video game project page as many many video game articles include a table with a list of playable characters and there might already be an established Wiki policy regarding such things.Flygongengar (talk) 02:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

A third party might end up being necessary.
The statement above the table seems to provide all the appropriate information for an encyclopedia, with the link at the bottom to the wiki providing detailed information for those who seek it. The wiki has two pages with all of the information in the corresponding table. It is possible that they would welcome the links to the Wikipedia pages for the historical inspiration of all of the data within the table but it isn't really appropriate for Wikipedia.
The specific gamecruft rules it violates are numbers six and ten, Lists of gameplay items, weapons, or concepts and Cast lists respectively. Let's look at the argument that users need this information when looking at this type of game's article. I scanned a number of other 4X games' articles and none include one or more tables listing each faction and their special abilities.
If the argument is that the historical background of each character and their special abilities need to be linked then let's look at other games with historical characters. The Dynasty Warriors games do not list that information in the main articles, instead they have a separate article for that. A sub-article like that could be made for the Civilization series, though I think it's fair to question whether such articles for such games are gamecruft themselves. I say so due to the factions and characters, as they relate to the games, not really being noteworthy.
Then there is the argument that some other game articles do it so Civilization should too. Most game articles on Wikipedia are pretty bad and I've yet to see a featured article with a character list. The cast is talked about in context where and if relevent (the plot section covering most of that). The Civilization articles in general tend to fall into the trap of covering overly specific information which doesn't belong in an encyclopeida. The "New Features" section in the Civilization IV article is a great example of what not to do. Instead of broadly covering the changes, it details each one in a manner which only players of the games would care about or, in some cases, understand. It's information that many Civilization players are interested in but not really anyone else, which is why it belongs in a Civilization wiki instead of Wikipedia. UncannyGarlic (talk) 07:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
The guidelines shoud be followed in this article same as any other. Until the guidelines change this article will not. -Oosh (talk) 10:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


I thought we should re-visit this debate with the creeping of cruft in to the Gods & Kings expansion article. tellingingly I cannot find a 4X game article that rates anywhere in the upper echelons. Closest I can come up with is Age of Empires III, this is how it stood immediately prior to its 'Feature Article' review, which it failed and later cruft snuck in: -Oosh (talk) 04:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Age of Empires III has never had a FAC (there's a major difference between that and featured topics!). Age of Empires (passed), Age of Empires II (passed), and Age of Empires (video game) (failed) have, though the latter was derailed by plagiarism.
I'm really confused as to why these are considered GAMETRIVIA. There's nothing in that guideline prohibiting any kind of table, and an article on the game will necessarily need to name the civilizations in it or it wouldn't be complete. I'd much rather look at these in a table than a prose list separated by commas (WP:ACCESS). There is an argument for excluding the unique units/abilities, but IMHO there's really none for scrapping the entire table. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 13:19, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Imagine you are a non-gamer, but need to know about this game. The civ table provides nothing of absolute essential understanding of the game. It is, for all purposes, a game guide, useful for players, but not the general reader. It is important to understand the player pics a civ to start with that gives them unique units and starting abilities, but that's it. --MASEM (t) 13:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Ah, but it does provide understanding. Like I said, much of the information is not needed, but a table listing the civilizations and leaders would be easier to read than the equivalent in prose. This information (civs, leaders) needs to be included because they're an integral part of the game. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:04, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
No, even in prose the specific details of each civ is not relevant and shouldn't be included. --MASEM (t) 21:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Exactly, the fact you can have a different nations with unique attributes etc. is the core information and few notable examples should be include to illustrate the point. An exhaustive list, no matter the format, is not appropriate for an encyclopaedia. -Oosh (talk) 23:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't see what the harm is in including the specific leaders... Oosh, are you arguing that all of the civilizations should not be named? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:47, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Technically I don't think it's necessary to list them all, however, I think there are far more 'cruftier' issues to tackle. The AoE II feature article sets a good example, see: Age_of_Empires_II#Civilizations. -Oosh (talk) 00:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── How do you figure the article is complete if it doesn't list the basic aspects of the game? Your definition of gamecruft is far too wide IMHO, and that's coming from someone who tends to shun popular culture topics like this on Wikipedia. ;-) It is a good example for that article, but this article has 18 + 9 civilizations, and I certainly wouldn't want to read 27 blue links in a line of prose... Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

That to me is an argument for not identifying them all, but assuming we do keep them complete I'm not ideologically opposed to tables themselves (despite the topic heading), if that's the best way to present the cut-down information set so be it. However, perhaps the a compromise position is to have a List article for the entire series that contains the complete info. set? -Oosh (talk) 01:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I'd like that idea, but I have a feeling it wouldn't pass the notability guidelines. "if that's the best way to present the cut-down information set" <-- that's why I'm in favor of a table here. I don't think the game summary is complete without the inclusion of such a basic aspect of the game, but I also don't want to read all of them in a prose summary. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
The "basic" information is this: "The player picks or is randomly given a civilization at the start of each game. Each civilization is based on historical ones from mankind's history, and include a historical figure as its leader, initial technologies, and unique units and buildings they can construct." That's it. The non-gamer doesn't need to know anything more specific than that, which is why the fully listing of civilizations and the respective data, whether presented as a table or in prose, is "gamecruft", only of use to the actual game player. That's what sites like Wikia can cover, but not an encyclopedia. --MASEM (t) 01:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
So you agree the information within the table itself is not notable? -Oosh (talk) 02:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Masem- I respectfully disagree. To fully understand the game's coverage, you need to know the civilizations. The definition of "gamecruft" is much narrower than what you are painting. Oosh, yes, the capitals, special units, and abilities are not necessary. The leaders are borderline in my mind because they will be of interest to general readers, not just gamers, but the civilizations are integral to understanding the game. Both- I think this would be a good question to raise at VG talk page (as a link to here)... Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
The fact I can explain how civs function without naming a single civilization shows how "important" that information is to the game (namely, none). It is gamecruft, pure and simple. You can raise the question at the VG talk page, but I'm sure they will agree with this assessment. --MASEM (t) 03:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't think that's the only purpose of the article. I think that readers, gamers or not, will be interested and/or looking for this information on this page, and shuttling off even the civilizations to an obscure gaming wiki does them a huge disservice. I've left a note at the VG talk page, so hopefully we will get some comments from others experienced in these articles. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 11:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I believe an overview of the fact there are civilizations and the impact of choosing a civilization (along with a maximum of one or two examples, to illustrate the concept) is more than sufficient to explain the gameplay element.
  • As mentioned above: "Cruft, if I am not mistaken, is defined as being information interesting only to a small audience..."; specific information about every civilization is only "of interest" to people playing (or planning to play) the game, which is not necessarily a majority of the people seeking information about the subject. Listing every civilization would be akin to listing the skills of every job in an RPG; it's information that falls under the scope of WP:GAMEGUIDE, and as such, should be sought and found in game guides (Walkthroughs, FAQs, Wikias, guides, etc.), not in an encyclopedia article about the product. Salvidrim! 11:39, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I think you should list the 27 playable civs in the game, it's not unreasonable at all, it doesn't make the article a guide and i don't particularly care how you do it (although i do favour a limited sized table).
It's not information for just a few people as someone else said but it is VITAL to the article, it is VITAL to knowing what kind of scenarios the game is limited to and how the game has changed from the last.
So I support having this info in the article.
Thanks Jenova20 13:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Its gamecruft. List only the civilization and you may have a stronger argument for inclusion. But capital cities and unique units drags it well beyond the gamecruft winning post. Needs removing. - X201 (talk) 15:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

How about something else, since people can't decide on removing the tables outright. Currently, they can be reduced somewhat. A basic way is that we don't actually need 3 columns for uniques (unit 1, unit 2, building), especially since they've started introducing civs which don't fit the format and have unique improvements. All civs only have 2 uniques. We remove the third column, rename the first 2 to simple Unique 1 and Unique 2. There's no real need to distinguish between units and buildings.Flygongengar (talk) 16:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The proposed chart would violate WP:GAMEGUIDE and WP:GAMECRUFT. It's okay to cover briefly in prose, but charts like that would be more suited for Gamefaqs or a Civilation Wikia or something... Sergecross73 msg me 16:07, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

If you read my comment on this you will see i proposed nothing more than just the Civ, no units, nothing.
I would like to see special units added if possible though as that wouldn't take too much room i imagine and wouldn't complicate things or make the article into a guide (as one editor seems to be suggesting).
Thanks Jenova20 16:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, as I was saying above, I think a table with only the civilizations (and possibly the leaders) would not violate GAMECRUFT. The table as it stands, however, clearly does violate it. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think a consensus is ever going to be reached on this board (it's been over a year). Why don't we just ask for an outside opinion from the Video Game Project page, and be done with it?Flygongengar (talk) 22:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Someone already beat me to it. Here's the link:

Other game examples[edit]

Consider Megaman games, such as Mega Man X (video game) and Mega_Man_2. None of the Mega Man games have tables for the Robot Masters and the weapons Megaman acquires from them. Based on this pattern, Civ games should not have a table dedicated towards Civs and their attributes. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 23:13, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

A Modest Proposal Then[edit]

Well since this is yet another editor(s) arriving to "clean" wikipedia of dreadfully useful information. Why not just remove the whole article then. And all video game articles as well, and just relink them to "Video Game". After all the "real" encyclopedias wikipedians so desperately chase after like Gilgamesh to immortality, don't include individual articles on video games. Now consider: If you went and removed the list of the playable civilizations and expansions then consider removing that from ALL game articles. Colors from Magic the Gathering, classes from D&D, cast (ex. Yuffie, Cloud in FFVII) from RPG's... Then consider this information is similar to the main cast of say a movie or a list of characters in a book, so remove them. (After all we have imdb for that). I suppose we could expand this further... but I hope the point is made. Picking on Civilization V because you happened to come by it and wanted to stand on a soap box is not a good reason to go and change it. I would recommend prune the table to a list of Civilizations and Leaders. Then have a small list of the DLC that has been released (since every other game lists it's expansions. And DLC is an expansion.) Then maybe a bunch of you should sit down and actually make a template with guidelines on what goes in and does not go in a video/card/board game article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bloodycelt (talkcontribs) 06:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

We already have WP:VG/GL - X201 (talk) 10:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but it does not have an explicit note on characters/factions, however I have looked at Age of Empires, Final Fantasy VII, Starcraft, etc. They all list each playable faction or character. And I would anecdote that it is an expectation. Furthermore it is common for Books to list the main characters (especially Point of View Characters). If the list is large enough or complex enough a seperate article is made just for those characters (and if the character is notable enough (Aereis/Aerith for example) a separate article just for them.) Hence I think if a table of civilizations is considered inappropriate then so would any table of playable characters/factions in any game and to me for consistency the same goes for Casts in movies and Characters in Books (Since they are essentially the same thing). And a global purge should then be done... but make this explicit in WP:VG/GL. (Then I don't have to get the headache of that stupid message and other similar warnings due to inconsistent guidelines.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

== OK Why not something like this (Fighting games seem to do this a lot).

1 ^ Came in Expansion: Play the World
2 ^ Came in Expansion: Conquests
3 ^ Came in Expansion: Warlords
4 ^ Came in Expansion: Beyond the Sword
5 ^ Came in Official DLC
Civilization Civilization Civilization II Civilization III Civilization IV Civilization Revolution Civilization V
Americans Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Aztecs Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Babylonians Yes Yes No Yes4 No Yes5
(Addressed to the previous argument, not the table directly above) Please lets stop slippery slopes and drama. Some articles DO list characters or factions. However, those that do it well (and stylisticly best) do it in prose, not with a large table. In regards to the Civilisation series, I think a list of civilisations may be appropriate. That said, I don't think it's appropriate to list of all the capitals, unique units etc. The above table would be well placed on the series page. Muskeato 01:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, it should be pointed out that the above table already exists on the Civilization (series) page and has so for quite some time before this debate began. However, as per the individual pages, I do not think that listing the units and capitals is gamecraft or even needless detail. The tables do not explain how they function in the game (which would be crossing the line). Yet, since the Civ series uses actual civilizations the mention of the units and capitals depicts how the civs change between games in the series and differ from real history. (Whereas, another article that includes a roster of fictional characters does not necessarily need this distinction as their uniqueness is implied). Furthermore, all the unit and capitals are notable enough on their own to warrant their own articles (which is not true for fictional characters) and the tables serve as a way to inter wiki link the subjects.Flygongengar (talk) 15:07, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

(adressing nation list table in articles from Civ1 onward - keep it a civ series problem, it des not necesserily apply to other games) I must admit that the first place to look for the list of playable nations in consecutive Civ games for me was Wikipedia. But at the same time I feel this is completely out of the place in an encyclopedic entry. Not only it clearly violates whatever article writing rules you can cite, but distorts a visual image of the whole article at the same time. Just imagine a world where a printed heavyweight encyclopedia makes an entry about a computer game Civilization. Would you find such a table there? The importance of that peace of information is negligable for an avarage, nongaming reader. For me however such a list would be interesting not for the overly detailed in-game info it is, but for comparing all the games in the series. What about making a separate article 'Playable nations in different Civilization games' linked from Civilization (series) article, styled like the above example? Anyway because Civilization wiki does a pretty good job, providing even a better list then the articles do/did, I'd opt for removing the tables completely. A simple one-line description somewhere inside Gameplay section about what kinds of nations you can play is enough. I mean the infamous babylonian-bomber-destroys-american-catapult aspect of the game. Walen (talk) 10:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Then this style of table would best fit here: Civilization (series). KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 23:30, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Further Tables Discussion[edit]

To even come close to satisfying WP:NOTMANUAL, the columns: "Unique 1", "Unique 2", and "Ability" would have to be removed. The table as is shows the exact same information found between pages 173 and 190 on the Civilization V manual. [15] KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 00:13, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

First, WP:NOTMANUAL doesn't say an article can't include any information that is in the game manual. It says an article shouldn't instruct someone how to play the game (i.e. by giving specifics about stats, button combos, etc.) like a manual. Second, it doesn't give the same exact information as pgs 173-190. Stop exaggerating to support your case. While yes, you can find all the information in the chart in the manual, the manual also gives specific stats of how each ability functions and what each unique replaces (pg. 170 "Trade Caravan +1 Gold per trade route, double Oil"; Came Archer, replaces Knight"). That sort of specific information is what's frowned upon by the wiki guidelines as that's what's more appropriate for a strategy or gaming wiki. None of that info can be found in the chart. The only valid concern of NOTMANUAL is "But avoid lists of gameplay weapons, items, or concepts, unless these are notable in their own right". But, the Civ series is in a position where everything in the chart is actually notable in its own right by having its own wiki page as it focuses on a list of historical items instead of a list of random fictional items that no one outside of the game has heard off. So the only real criticism from the policy you cited has room to be debated. Nothing clear-cut that even resembles your exaggeration of "To even come close to satisfying WP:NOTMANUAL".Flygongengar (talk) 21:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Steam Criticism[edit]

Is there no criticism of having to use Steam for this game or apparently how horrible the enemy AI is as i read in a LOT of reviews recently? Seriously, there must be references as i used Amazon and Google searches and there is widespread criticism for how rushed and easy this game is compared to the rest of the series. I'll find some references to post. Thanks Jenova20 08:21, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Most of that criticism is from user reviews on those sites, which we cannot use as reliable sources. I believe there's at least one professional review (I think it was either the 1up or IGN) that did give a more negative outlook on the game compared to most other reviews, but that's been included here. --MASEM (t) 15:28, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, i'm not saying we accept those user reviews but from how many of them are negative or very low there really must be some professional review along those lines. Don't worry, i'll find a professional one, not user reviews, i'm well aware they're useless to us. Thanks Jenova20 18:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
I hope you do as the AI and the MP in particular have received widespread criticism (Steam not so much) but nothing in professional reviews. Why? Because professional reviews get payed to give good reviews of big title games and most were done before the launch so they didn't have the option to try the MP. The information really should be added but we definitely need a reliable source first. (talk) 21:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Civilization Tables Redux[edit]

I posted this over at the Video Game Project page

Okay, the previous discussion seems to have gotten archived. Despite the last post being a declaration that "[the tables] do not have consensus support", the truth of the matter is closer to there being no consensus either way with almost an even split on both sides of the argument. Of the people that officially voted there were 3 deletes and 2 keeps. In terms of the members who actively participated in the discussion there appears to be 5 in favor of deleting the tables (KyuuA4, X201, Sergecross73, Masem, Salvidrim), 4 in favor of keeping the tables in at least some form (Flygongengar, Ed, Azolo, Kanjo Kotr) and ButOnMethItls who simply reminded everyone that the decision to keep or delete the tables is based on community consensus. (I grouped the names based on the arguments presented in the discussion, if you feel I misrepresented your opinion please say so here). The discussion has been going on for 2 months on the Project Video Game page.

The original discussion on the Civ V talk page has been ongoing since November 26, 2010 (so around one a half years). No real vote was ever done on the original page, however reading over the discussion the following people seemed to either oppose or support (at least in some form) the tables--and not double-counting people such as KyuuA4, X201, Masen, Ed, and Flygongengar who also participated on the project page--4 additional people expressed views completely against the tables (Oosh, Fin, DP76764, UncannyGarlic), 5-7 expressed views in favor of the tables in some form (Lowellian, TheFreeloader, The Dark Peria, Jenova20, Bloodycelt and & if we choose to count anons), and 2-3 took a relatively neutral stance (Walen, Muskeato & Again, I grouped the names based on the arguments presented in the discussion, if you feel I misrepresented your opinion please say so here. Also, If I missed anyone, please speak up.

So after 18 months of debate the community seems split with 9 completely in favor of removing the tables, 9 (11 if we count anons) in favor of keeping the tables in some form, and 3 (4 if anons) remaining neutral. As one can see the debate has been ongoing for a significant amount of time and the community consensus is pretty even on both sides of the argument (and was also pretty evenly matched when looking at the individual discussions as opposed to an overview).

Because of this--and because the previous discussion reached such a point that it was archived--I'm convinced that it is unlikely that future discussion will reach a consensus either. The question is what to do now. Wikipedia:Consensus#No consensus holds that "in deletion discussions, no consensus normally results in the article, image, or other content being kept" which would mean keeping the current status quo of the pages and thus keeping the tables. I'm going to give this 2-3 weeks, but unless the debate seriously kicks up again with new blood allowing a consensus either way to be reached, I'm going to remove the "copy to gaming wiki" tag on all the tables at that time.Flygongengar (talk) 23:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I suggest leaving what's in the article now as it is encyclopedic and it's not "cruft".
There is an article something along the lines of "List of Pokemon" that goes into more detail than these tables and nobody is arguing over that. These are the basics being listed and so let's just leave it as it is and get back to improving the text aspects of the article. Thanks Jenova20 15:07, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Oh yeah, you can leave it. Just remember that this article will never get anywhere close to GA or FA with those tables. :-/ Nolelover Talk·Contribs 23:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
As the summary above says I think they should go, I've made my views why clear in the past, if they do stick around as seems increasingly likely then I think they require some extensive changes. e.g. The Uniques are all entirely without context, for example, what on Earth can someone gather from 'Father Governs Children' linking to Origins of the Thai Monarchy in terms of how it affects the game? But if we put that in context (extra food and culture from City-States) it will get increasingly 'crufty'! So that begs the question of the worth of their inclusion at all.
If we must have a table/list, make it of the Civs and Leaders only, and increase the lead-in text to briefly outline the type of bonuses and provide one or two examples. The balance should be in favour of the prose. -Oosh (talk) 01:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

My revert[edit]

I have just removed two diagrams of the stages of city building and influence for what I hope are obvious reasons. The tables are one thing (although I still think the unique units and abilities are too much) since they discuss the characters of the game -- a fundamental part of most gaming articles. File:Civilization 5 Hexagon City Multiple Conflict Radius.jpg, on the other hand, is a detailed look at one of the most minor points of the game. It's OR/based on primary sources etc. If you can put that in, there is no reason to exclude graphs of weapon power, or terrain types. Let me clarify that I have nothing against Civ (Vyeh and I got SMAC to GA and I think Civ II is the greatest PC game ever); these are great images, but this stuff belongs at the Civ wiki or the Strategy wiki. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 17:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree. The images were far too much WP:GAMEGUIDE-ish. Wikia or CivFanatics is where they belong. DP76764 (Talk) 17:22, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Agree. The only way I could see them being in anyway suitable for Wikipedia is as part of a game mechanics article, but with better sourcing. - X201 (talk) 20:17, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
What about just the first 3 images? I think they explain the change from the old square tiles to hexagonal ones very well. I agree with the 2nd set being removed now. The first one i felt was informative for the reader in the way "a picture is worth 1000 words" and explained things in a way short of being "Cruft" or gameguideish.
You can state the game uses hexagonal tiles instead of square over and over but a picture just says it better. Opinions? Thanks Jenova20 22:24, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Or perhaps 1 image of a comparison between the difference of Civ 4 and Civ 5 tiles? Better? Jenova20 22:29, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Agree. I appreciate the work you have put in, but as per X201's comment, these would only be suitable as part of a well sourced discussion of game mechanics. As it stands they are almost entirely without context and therefore superfluous. -Oosh (talk) 00:49, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
I'd also like to add I believe the labeling of these edits as "ridiculous" was a bit over-the-top for something that was clearly done in good faith. -Oosh (talk) 01:00, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
You're right, and I apologize for that. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 01:20, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
So 2 small images side by side of a city radius from Civ 4 and one from Civ 5 is too far into game mechanics instead of encyclopedic and a comparison of something basic and fundamental to the game? It's one of the biggest changes of the series so i certainly think it would be worth showing in the article. Opinions?
Thanks for retracting "ridiculous", i usually don't work on game articles as i think is now obvious. Jenova20 08:27, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Which one was the Civilization 4 image? They were all Civilization V. A IV vs V comparison is a different discussion. - X201 (talk) 08:39, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
None of them were, that was a new question i last asked. I could have probably reworded it better. Thanks Jenova20 08:57, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


The article already ascribes significance to the shift to hexagonal tiles, and 1 Unit-per-Tile, city-radius changes are down in the weeds compared to those two as far as I'm concerned. Good on you for apologising Nolelover, not enough of that happens in online, it's nice to be involved in a 'civilized' discussion ;). -Oosh (talk) 10:04, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Just a suggestion, and I don't know if there is a reason for this, but there are no screenshots in the article as it is. If you could find one that shows the hexes clearly (like this one maybe? [16] ) that would kill two birds with one stone? The other option would b to have two screenshots of Civ IV next to each other with the grid showing (this was the best I could find at short notice [17]) to compare. --23230 talk 11:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
I think this kind of deeper level comparison between instalments belongs in the Civilization (series) article. -Oosh (talk) 13:11, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't think a little diagram showing how Civ 5 has changed as i last suggested is an unreasonable request.
I'll mock one up, post it here and ask your opinion later when you can see what i'm actually advocating. I wouldn't be able to use screenshot comparisons though as i don't want to reinstall Civ4, but i can provide screenshots of Civ5 if there is any screen you think would be useful? Thanks Jenova20 14:13, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
The problem with a diagram, from a policy POV, is that it is probably OR. In other words, who is making these charts? You/me/other editors, not a third-party. Now, in video game articles especially we really need to be careful that we stay away from stuff like that. Talking about the changes from Civ4 to Civ5 is one thing (and you could probably find an ok source for that), but charts and diagrams is essentially us interpreting (even if correctly) the game and publishing that. Yes, it may seem like overkill when there's no other possible way to read into city growth, but the principle is keeping out stuff that doesn't have independent sources. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 14:30, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Noleover, I think what is being proposed here is side-by-side screenshots from Civ IV and Civ V as an illustration of what the visual difference is, in order to support the hexagonal prose. WP:OR wouldn't come into that as the screenshots themselves are the reliable source. - X201 (talk) 14:49, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

(freeing colons) Ahh, ok. I read "little diagram" wrong then. In that case (two screenshots, one from each game), wouldn't Oosh be right that the series article is a better place? Nolelover Talk·Contribs 14:58, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I think both. The series article (because its a major change in the series) and Civ V (because its the title that the change happened in). Would seem a bit odd to read about it in the series overview, but not find it in the actual Civ V article.- 15:02, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
I understand, but...well...a picture may be worth a thousand words, but in this article I'm just wondering if the thousand words is a better choice. Anyway, we'll see when Jenova pulls it out. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 15:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
"Pulling it out" wasn't something i was expecting to read but i can get a screenshot from Civ5 if someone can get one from 4? I'll also present my original idea, even though we're all (even me now) more interested in the screenshots.
Thanks Jenova20 17:30, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
For some unknown reason my print screens create black rectangles, rather than screenshots of Civ 5. I can't explain this...Jenova20 18:13, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Press F12 in Steam. Press Shift + Tab to view screenshots during game. After exiting game, go to View>Screenshots on the Steam menu and click the Show on Disk button. - X201 (talk) 09:57, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
I still get black screens or images of the old guy in the video at the start. I've Googled this but can't get round it...If Steam wasn't being used this wouldn't be a problem but i'm done trying to get around it now. Thanks anyway Jenova20 16:02, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


Can someone change the infobox header of "System requirements" as it currently has 2 headers and only 1 of them is really needed. Thanks Jenova20 15:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Could you please clarify? I've reformatted it a bit so that Windows vs. Mac is a little clearer; is that what you meant?
Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ (talk) 16:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
While We have a "System requirements" heading in the infobox, there's another heading underneath of "Requirements". It's duplication so surely you could delete one? Thanks Jenova20 08:50, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 Done Thanks X201 Jenova20 09:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Patch dates side discussion[edit]

P.S. I've undone your revision to the patch release dates - while December and February are two months apart, 20 December and 8 February are not - they are ≈1½. As of today, 20 Dec is 5 months and 24 days ago, while 8 Feb is 4 months and 5 days ago. Next week, the PC version patch should change to 6 months ago, but the Mac version won't change to 5 months until July.
Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ (talk) 16:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, why the heck do we care about "how long ago" a patch was in the infobox? That information seems entirely irrelevant. DP76764 (Talk) 17:20, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure, but it's a convention that seems to hold true across all types of software (not just video games); maybe someone at Wikipedia:WikiProject Software and enlighten us. My best guess is to give an at-a-glance idea of how "current" a piece of software is, or how frequently it is updated. With regard to relevance, I don't see that it's any less relevant than the actual date the patch/version was released. Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ (talk) 17:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Huh, I've never seen it used in any of the other VG articles I watch or have looked at lately. Since it's a painful, must-edit-manually-and-constantly-update field, I'd say it should be removed and people can just do the date math in their head. DP76764 (Talk) 18:19, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
What do you mean? All you do is put in the date of the latest release and it auto-calculates how long ago it was. No one ever has to enter how long ago it was manually, let alone constantly update it. How is that any more painful to edit/update than just having the date? Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ (talk) 18:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
In case you hadn't realised, this is the code:
{{start date and age|2012|02|08}}
and this is what it produces:
February 8, 2012; 6 years ago (2012-02-08)
Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ (talk) 18:29, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Well, that's better (I didn't look to see if it was using code, my bad). But still, I've never seen this used in any other VG article (it's not in any of the other Civ articles, to start). Is there any MOS entry about this or anything? I still think it should go. DP76764 (Talk) 18:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

It's certainly used across other software types (OSes, MS Office, Media Players etc.) and at least a few games (for example, Skyrim, World of Warcraft and Diablo III all have dates, although no "X days/months ago"). I suspect it's probably more common on games where patching occurs more frequently. I don't know about MOS stuff TBH, although the WP:VG manual of style says to follow the guidelines at {{Infobox video game}}, which says to use the "latest release date" field where data exists, which implies to me at least that dates should used (whether that's with or without "X days/months ago" is unspecified).
I'd say for a proper answer you best bet is to ask at WT:VG.
My main question is this though: why do you think it should be removed? As far as I can tell there's no reason why it shouldn't be in the article and its consistent with patch dates used in other types of software (consistency across Wikipedia is part of the reason we have manuals of style in the first place). Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ (talk) 19:29, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
A date for the patch should absolutely be listed (I'm not arguing against those; patch dates appear to be standard), but the 'X ago' part strikes me as entirely superfluous and makes it look a little clutter-y in the infobox. Plus, in terms of consistency, all the VG articles I looked at today have either: verion + date, version, or no info. This is the only VG article I've seen with version + date + ago. Frankly, when I saw the 'X ago' the first time here, my reaction was: what the heck is that and who would possibly care if a game patch was 4 months old or 5 months old? In summation: I think consistency with other (VG) articles should lead us to removing the 'X ago' bit. $0.02. DP76764 (Talk) 19:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:VG doesn't use the "days/months ago" template. Just the date. It becomes redundant on the vast majority of WP:VG articles inside of a couple of months. IIRC there was a clean-up of them about 4 or 5 years ago, as they were deemed pointless for WP:VG, and only of use for WP:SOFTWARE where you obviously get constantly iterated software like Adobe Reader etc - X201 (talk) 19:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

That seems fair enough (although that being the case I can see it having some uses in WP:VG - MMOs for example). I suppose it goes from this article then. Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ (talk) 19:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes MMOs, they were the bit that wasn't covered by "vast majority" :-) - X201 (talk) 21:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Nothing to discuss here, "These standards have been developed in accordance with fundamental Wikipedia policies and guidelines and reflect the consensus of the community."[edit]

This is not to discuss aything, it's for a reminder for you to revert yourself. --Niemti (talk) 05:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

And done[edit]

Voila. You're welcome.

Cic III & IV will need more work, though. --Niemti (talk) 05:35, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Shafer and such[edit]

Should be moved from Gameplay to the new Development section. --Niemti (talk) 05:46, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Niemti's Edits[edit]

Okay, stop. Not only are you removing information that is actively being discussed, your method of removing them is disruptive. You are also breaking Wiki's 3 reverts rule, and if you continue I will report you. I am restoring the page to a semblance of what it was before you started your editing. If you want to participate in the community, participate in the discussion. You alone (or your interpretation alone of the guidelines) does not make you the sole decider of the page. There were going to be edits to the page to help conform it to a good article, however, you are removing a lot of information that does not or need not be removed. The tables were possible going to be converted into prose, you also made no attempt at such a compromise and just deleted information.Flygongengar (talk) 15:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Looking at your talk page, I see you were already warned. I remind you the moderator stated, "To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors." As such, I feel right in reverting the page to something resembling what it was before your edits as that more accurately (as per the discussion on this pages archives and at the Video Game talk page's archives) represents a consensus among the editors and not just your consensus. If you revert the tables, I will re-report you. I also, only reverted the tables because I do not have to patience to sort through the rest of your edits so will hold off on judging them.Flygongengar (talk) 16:00, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
For the record, I'd like to point out that my reversion of the Gods & Kings article (which undid a re-adding of the tables there) was due to a misunderstanding/stupidity on my part. It was done at 3:25 am so I wasn't really firing on all cylinders, so when I saw an anon IP restoring something that I knew had been previously removed and had been under discussion I came to the wrong conclusion. In hindsight I suppose I should have checked the discussion to see just which way the consensus lay (which I have just done and it does seem to be in favour of keeping them), but 3:25 am me is apparently a bit stupid in that regard. My apologies. Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ (talk) 16:45, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

It's called cleanup, of the gamecruft. The Wikipedia consensus is that game guide is not acceptable material, and Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate (and unsourced) trivia information. If you don't like it, use Wikia. There are Civilization wikis too.

Btw, "The 3RR says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period." First learn the rules, only then try to use use scare tactics. --Niemti (talk) 21:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Except that we do consider WP:DUCK-like behavior. That revert counts. --MASEM (t) 21:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Nope, it's over 2 days later, not 25 hours or something. And if you want these tables so baldy, go and copy them to the wikis (they're not deleted, they're in history and easily accessable to copy), problem solved. --Niemti (talk) 22:02, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Niemti, I actually agree with you as far as removing the tables goes, but please don't try to justify yourself by saying that you didn't break the letter of the law. Sure, you may not have made more than three complete reverts here in a 24 hour period, but that doesn't change the fact that what you did between 4:50-5:35 UTC June 14 was edit-warring, and an admin would be perfectly within his rights to block you should you continue. Wiki-lawyering will get you nowhere, and since I'd really like you to continue your work here on this article in a congenial way I ask you to discontinue any further reverts. Those tables are obviously not completely against Wikipedia policy, or they would have been removed long ago. You may feel strongly on the matter, but there are others on the other side of the issue who feel just as strongly that they should be allowed per various policies. Implying that your interpretation of the rules is the only correct interpretation is a little brash, and I hope you can see that. :) Can we focus our efforts on actually determining the relevance of the tables now? Cheers, Nolelover Talk·Contribs 22:04, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, it's just big chunks of unsourced trivia. There are more valuable/informative game article tables that I wanted to stay (like the character roster at Tekken for example), but still got deleted, and I accepted it. Btw, I'm a Civ fan, since 1992, so it's not like I'm against anyone here. --Niemti (talk) 22:12, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

But I'll just show some good will and revert myself. For a while. So copy it somewhere, then remove. --Niemti (talk) 22:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I even improved these tables lol. But seriously, they should go. --Niemti (talk) 22:26, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey, I don't disagree. As far as I can see, these tables will never be completely sourced to anything other than primary sources and a bit of OR, and if we follow a modified version of the GNG (any in-universe content that has a third-party reliable source can stay) I see no reason to keep the tables. IMO, it would be much better to use the info in bits and pieces: "Characters in Civ 5 are civilizations, like ABC, which are unique from each other by units and abilities like XYZ." There's no reason to list each and every Civ, leader, unit and ability here. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 22:41, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I think they should be moved specifically into Civilization Wikia articles like (it seems not all games in the series have them there yet). --Niemti (talk) 22:44, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

And what this article needs instead is a gameplay screenshot. --Niemti (talk) 22:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

So, it's one week later. What's the progress? How's this "actively being discussed" discussion going? Rhetorical questions. --Niemti (talk) 12:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

The most active discussion in the history of the Wikipedia. --Niemti (talk) 05:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, just be bold again; nothing's being actively discussed AFAICT. Nczempin (talk) 07:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Yup, that's how WP works :( I would say to list every controversial change you are planning on making here before making it, along with any other reasoning. Other than that... Nolelover Talk·Contribs 17:58, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, thank you for finally settling the issue on the tables by removing them. Naturally, this same motion extends to the other Civ articles. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 00:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Seems no oen loved this guy Niemti that much that he has to seek out attention on the internet. User: The people who actually wasted time wondering where the useful chart went. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

WP is not a game guide. There's plenty of other places on the Internet to find that chart with more details than we can support. --MASEM (t) 01:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


Should we mention FreeCiv? It has always been closely related do Civilization, and it is still today, even if it remained behind on the graphic. In fact, FreeCiv and Civilization are very similar, one being inspired by the other. Most think FreeCiv has no rivals on the artificial intelligence abilities. Medende (talk) 10:38, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Its linked to from the series article. But unless it has a major direct link to Civ V, I can't see a reason for mentioning it. - X201 (talk) 11:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Procedurally generated map?[edit]

"In Civilization V, the player leads a civilization from prehistoric times into the future on a procedurally-generated map"

Civ maps are generated in full at the beginning of a game before Turn 1. These maps are not made "on the fly". Is procedural generation the correct term here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:53, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Procedural generation doesn't mean they're made up as the game plays; it means there's a random-but-logical based process that creates the map prior to the game (eg, if you want an island-based map, it will use random results to gear the map towards islands). --MASEM (t) 06:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Mods and Mac[edit]

The Mac version of Civilization V *does* support mods, but you cannot install the SDK on it, nor can you get mods through the Steam Workshop. It requires a manual installation process, but to say that mods are not supported is misleading and whatever source is linked is outdated. Wer900talkcoordinationconsensus defined 21:14, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Its possibly worth commenting also that the OnLive version also has no mods and is SP only Adycarter (talk) 21:22, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

First Things First[edit]

One of the main reasons for investigating computer games is to find out whether they are FREE.

After wasting 15 minutes reading about Civ V, I have concluded this software must be purchased. Why do we not have a "Cost" section as a standard part of the commentary/definition/explanation for any software-related articles? It would have saved me 14 minutes of skimming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ertdfgcvb (talkcontribs) 01:31, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

WP's not a sales catalog. We're not here to help you find the best prices. We're covering a game in an encyclopedic manner. --MASEM (t) 01:38, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

One World[edit]

Hey everyone! Sorry if I'm doing something wrong, new here. This is my first post on a talk page.

Recently I edited the Civ V section with these lines: "There are talks about a second expansion pack, One World, based on information from a Steam applications database.[4] The expansions is not officially announced yet, so One World might only be the working title."

It was already an extended edit, I reposted it with a reference as it had been undone in lack of that. But now it has a reference, still it was undone: "Not a reliable source. Just a listing page that claims to be Steam files"

I don't agree with this decision, as the database on that page direclty connects to Steam's application files, searching for updates every 30 minutes. If Steam is reliable, then this reference should be reliable too.

Thanks! AbsintheRed (talk) 16:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

First things first, linking to a download source for Steam files is not a source for the information they contain, and likely violates WP:COPYLINK. That aside, a mention in the game's files is not sufficient for inclusion in Wikipedia, as it amounts to little more than a rumour (see WP:CRYSTAL). Simply put, we don't know what that refers to, and to suggest otherwise is merely speculation. Alphathon /'æɫ.fə.θɒn/ (talk) 21:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification! Will wait for the official announcement then! AbsintheRed (talk) 10:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Validity of user reviews[edit]

Under "Reception", there is a note forbidding comments referring to user reviews. That's absurd. So the only people allowed to have opinions on Civilization V are those who write for gaming magazines? Ever heard of citizen journalism? User reviews of Civilization V have referenced a number of legitimate grips about the game that are not reflected in this article. Examples: serious concerns about the use of Steam, and the security of user systems resulting from the requirement that Steam be used to download/access the game; issues with certain game features, like the 'happiness effect', that affect gameplay; and a lack of context for some military situations. None of these issues are covered in this review - all warrant consideration.

Was the prohibition on referring to user reviews (ie, real people's reactions to the game) possibly added by Firaxis PR hacks, or are Wikipedia editors seriously suggesting that the rest of us shouldn't be allowed to comment on the game?--RachelBBerry (talk) 05:50, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Across all WP articles, we use what we consider reliable sources for opinions about media, which does not normally include user reviews - in part that we have no assurance if a user's review is a legitimate compliant or just being purposely negative (reliable source reviews give assurance they've honestly tried the game and made sure they've not made errors in their reviews). In a case like Civ5, where I know the average user review is much more negative of the game due to lacking certain features, we can't discuss those problems if no journalistic reviews haven't touched on them. That is a WP policy (see WP:SPS). --MASEM (t) 06:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Civs and leaders table (again)[edit]

Please review the talk page Archives to see the extensive discussions on tables/lists of civs and leaders. It appears that the consensus was not to include a table/list but to write a prose paragraph on some of the highlights of those elements. Mostly per WP:GAMEGUIDE, etc. DP76764 (Talk) 19:25, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

  1. ^ "Civilization V - CIVILIZATIONS". Retrieved 2010-07-22. 
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference bizwire was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference IGNp1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ "Civilizaton V Applications". Steam.