View Full Version : Be honest! Who currently still prefers Civ IV?


kamex
Sep 21, 2010, 06:35 PM
I think I may atm. Maybe I'm just not 100% settled with 5 yet. :confused:

Bei1052
Sep 21, 2010, 06:37 PM
It just came out. Gotta' get used to it.

...But I'm not gonna' lie. I'm currently right in the middle of a game of Civ IV, so I'm gonna' finish that up before I really get into Civ IV.

RD-BH
Sep 21, 2010, 06:37 PM
Undecided, there are some problems to work out.
The strategy ... I'm not feeling it yet.

Jimbo30
Sep 21, 2010, 06:38 PM
Civ 4 was terribad beyond anything, even Civ 3 on release.

Nothing has changed except your memory of events.

Guardian_PL
Sep 21, 2010, 06:39 PM
signed with the OP. It's just that Civ5 feels like... Nothing special. But maybe I'll get used to Civ5 and start to like it. So far, it feels more like CivRev to me then Civ game... :sad:

CyberTyrant
Sep 21, 2010, 06:39 PM
Wayyy too early to call. I'll get back to you with a definitive answer in about... a year.

starrywisdom
Sep 21, 2010, 06:41 PM
Civ 4 had a ton of bugs at realease as well - anyone who bought Civ4 at the Steam sale(a few months ago) will have no ability to understand those events. There are a few design flaws I greatly disagree with(no animations or saving in multiplayer /doh) but overall its a superior game IMHO. Anyone looking for Civ4:BTS-2 is looking in the wrong place though.

City Builder
Sep 21, 2010, 06:46 PM
I prefer Civ IV still right now. There is a lack of information given to the player in Civ 5 and it makes the game very unenjoyable to have to play it on guess work.

In all honesty, I think what is going to happen unless the game changes tremendously through patches, is that this Civ is going to be the red headed stepchild of the Civ franchise, and that's just a downright shame.

Quueg
Sep 21, 2010, 06:46 PM
So far, it feels more like CivRev to me then Civ game... :sad:

I must confess that, so far, Civ V strikes me as having "console" written all over it. I'm not saying I don't like it, but it does "feel" like a console game to me.

guczy
Sep 21, 2010, 06:48 PM
Civ 4...cause im Euro and dont have V yet :-)

sadris
Sep 21, 2010, 06:50 PM
I hate Civ 5, it seems way too simplistic. I'm more of a micro-manager and Civ 5 seems like its oriented towards 5 year olds.

Aecursis
Sep 21, 2010, 06:51 PM
There are a few design flaws I greatly disagree with(no animations or saving in multiplayer /doh)

What? Can you elaborate?

I've been away from some time and haven't had time to read up on Civ 5 very much. I was about to purchase the game with the sole purpose of playing online with some friends.

Booshaka
Sep 21, 2010, 06:51 PM
I like Stratego better, nothing is ever good enough, I hate rainbows and puppies. change is bad.

Slickshooter
Sep 21, 2010, 06:51 PM
I actually just closed my Civ 5 demo and started playing Civ 4 again. Something about it is too overwhelming for me.

Lord Tirian
Sep 21, 2010, 06:53 PM
I think I may atm. Maybe I'm just not 100% settled with 5 yet. :confused:Only CiV demo here... so YMMV, but: They feel very different:
Civ IV is a fully matured game with two expansion and a buttload of great mods
Civ V just came out and is a paradigm shift regarding the map and combat

For now, I'll just treat them as different games, not as "upgrade" or anything - after all, you don't stop playing Civ because you're playing, let's say Mass Effect or Half-Life. But I am loving the hex map and 1upt already, it's making combat a lot more tactical than the stack of doom.

Cheers, LT.

volcano_head
Sep 21, 2010, 06:54 PM
I'm doing the demo. It's OK. civ4 is like a very old friend, I'm still a bit diffident with civ5. Potential is there though.

I miss the slider, it feels really SLOW to change my empire.

It feels like amuch slower game in general.

MercuryP
Sep 21, 2010, 06:56 PM
Civ V has a lot more balance of ideas than Civ IV did, with things like excess happiness not being wasted but instead going to golden age, gold that is actually a very useful commodity, more elegant diplo victory, and et cetera.

From a game design perspective, Civ V seems way better than Civ IV to me. Although there are some things that still need work, like a couple of things in the UI still being a little rusty and the overall feeling that you never have enough production to build anything. And then maybe I just need to get used to how slow everything plays. But other than balance and UI stuff (and maybe graphics, I still need to get used to them), I pretty much think every change they made from Civ IV to Civ V was a positive one.

Removal of religions and "first to discover this tech gets this" bonuses, slower culture, increased importance of gold, social policies that make you choose but you don't lose anything you already have when you choose them, removal of cottage spam. These are positive changes in my opinion, so Civ V is poised to be better than Civ IV. And it seems like they took a lot of steps to further balance out the different types of victory, which I think adds strategic depth above and beyond what Civ IV had.

snoochems
Sep 21, 2010, 06:57 PM
Some of the comments here have me worried (haven't played it yet), but my fear was that Civ V will be a dumbed down, shallower, "consolised" version of Civ. And it is sounding like this is indeed the case.

I trust the opinions of those on this site over the good/positive reviews in the media. I have trouble trusting "game site" reviews, as the reviewer is probably not a civ-fanatic like most of us are. In fact, they're probably console-game-players that go from one game to the next each day.

boredatwork
Sep 21, 2010, 07:01 PM
Maps - Hexes > Squares
Interface - Civ4 > Civ5
Combat - Civ5 < Civ4 so far
AI - too soon to say
Overall - far too soon to say

However I hated Civ4 Vanilla and it wasn't until the BTS improvements as well as discovery of the "sweet spot" of custom settings/difficulty/map type that I really got into it.

ATM I see Civ5 with the potential to be the best game of the series - whether it's actually there yet or will take several XPs time will tell.



BUT I do HATE the hundred clicks it takes to actually get into the game.

And I hate not being able to rename units now that they actually live longer than 2 turns. (unless I just haven't discovered how to do it)

Cybah
Sep 21, 2010, 07:02 PM
Me. CiV rounds take too long. 1upf is annoying (for me). Research by population? lol. Using EVERY single unit to be able to end the round is just WTF. And the interface totally f*cks me up. Looks great like Battle for Middleearth, but is not comparable to the well done Civ4 Interface.

Lord Tirian
Sep 21, 2010, 07:04 PM
Some of the comments here have me worried (haven't played it yet), but my fear was that Civ V will be a dumbed down, shallower, "consolised" version of Civ. And it is sounding like this is indeed the case.You might want to read this playthrough (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=380899) - seeing stuff in action is usually way better than any review.

The vibe I'm getting from the playthrough (and the demo I've played too many times already) is that the game only gives a shallower first impression, because the complexity is not on the surface, but rather hidden away in the interplay between things (example from the playthrough: since economy isn't linked as tightly to science as before, you have to balance out more stuff than before - it just doesn't appear that way, because there are less "knob" so to speak, like the sliders).

Combat and city sieging is also much, much more interesting and deeper than every civ before (where it was: get the biggest stack, launch attack), positioning and tactics are actually crucially important as far as I can tell.

It's probably one of these "easy to begin, but hard to master" games.

Cheers, LT.

Evocatus
Sep 21, 2010, 07:04 PM
And I hate not being able to rename units now that they actually live longer than 2 turns. (unless I just haven't discovered how to do it)
Don't take my word for it, but I recall someone saying that you can rename units once they have received their first promotion.

Doppleganger
Sep 21, 2010, 07:05 PM
It's because Civ 5 seems so....different. Would be better to ask this question a month's time when everyone's had a chance to get used to the new features.

krunsh
Sep 21, 2010, 07:06 PM
Civ 5 all the way.

bernlin2000
Sep 21, 2010, 07:07 PM
I love most of the new concepts, but I'm just having problems getting use to working the whole system: it's second nature with CivIV. I love ranged combat, and I haven't had the chance to wage war yet (I prefer peace, but war looks very interesting). Can't say I prefer CivIV though, it's a bit old hat and it'll take a lot of playing CivV before I get nostalgic :p

Lancor
Sep 21, 2010, 07:11 PM
Interface - Civ4 > Civ5
Combat - Civ5 < Civ4 so far


Can you get me some of the stuff you smoked? ;)

Ex Mudder
Sep 21, 2010, 07:14 PM
So far, Civ V has failed to impress me. Civ IV I liked out of the box, despite its flaws. Civ V has some good ideas but I feel they were poorly implemented. It's just not engaging me.

starrywisdom
Sep 21, 2010, 07:15 PM
What? Can you elaborate?

I've been away from some time and haven't had time to read up on Civ 5 very much. I was about to purchase the game with the sole purpose of playing online with some friends.

There is no manual saving(have to rely on the auto saves) in MP, also there are absolutely no animations in MP whatsoever.

sgrig
Sep 21, 2010, 07:15 PM
Well, having played through the Civ5 demo, I must say I'm still thinking whether to buy it or not.

On my computer Civ4 actually looks better and is much faster than Civ5. Somehow I feel like there is too much clutter on the screen in Civ5 also units are difficult to tell apart. In Civ4 I always played with single unit graphics, so everything was nice and easy to see on the screen. Another thing about the UI that I don't like is that you get notifications when something is built or research is completed and are not taken straight to where the decision has to be made. So lots of extra clicking involved.

I also don't like how slow-paced the game is - it takes ages to build anything. You can't stack workers, so workers are also very slow.

Although I must say that I like the combat engine in Civ5, even though 2-hex ranged attack is something to get used to. I absolutely love the indecisive battles where both units survive.

techathon
Sep 21, 2010, 07:15 PM
i do, I do. Civ IV accuially works on my computer.

Likes_Civing
Sep 21, 2010, 07:17 PM
I can not stand Civ V right now. ICK.

But I don't think I will have a better game than 4 BTS.

Lots of issues, most all are touched on.

I mean this is slow boat to china. Is it me or you can't move your worked tiles. Does the AI decide what squares, hexes, are being worked?

The worst thing is info is HARD to find.

As said in some famous movie series, "I have a bad feeling about this."

Jimbo30
Sep 21, 2010, 07:18 PM
I prefer Civ IV still right now. There is a lack of information given to the player in Civ 5 and it makes the game very unenjoyable to have to play it on guess work.

In all honesty, I think what is going to happen unless the game changes tremendously through patches, is that this Civ is going to be the red headed stepchild of the Civ franchise, and that's just a downright shame.

The exact same things were said about Civ 4.

I dunno if you remember, but when Civ 4 was first released, there were no "combat odds" shown at all. I dare you to play a game even now without seeing the combat odds first. That's how "bad" Civ 4 was on release. ;)

InterAl
Sep 21, 2010, 07:20 PM
Besides tactical combat (which isn't that great either, TBH), the only thing Civ5 offers me as a civ veteran is a more simplified design and streamlined gameplay. If I really wanted those, I would've gone playing CivRev instead...

MercuryP
Sep 21, 2010, 07:20 PM
To move your worked tiles you have to expand the menu that lets you choose your focus, then zoom in a little so you can actually see what you're working. Interface stuff like this is my biggest problem with the game right now, other than the fact that units take forever to build and still drop like flies when you're at war.

remake20
Sep 21, 2010, 07:21 PM
I am defiantly after playing the demo. Much prefer cIV. But I'm sure I'll like ciV better once I play it more.

Ayt
Sep 21, 2010, 07:26 PM
People should go back and play a game of the original Civ4 with no patches.

starrywisdom
Sep 21, 2010, 07:27 PM
I can not stand Civ V right now. ICK.

But I don't think I will have a better game than 4 BTS.

Lots of issues, most all are touched on.

I mean this is slow boat to china. Is it me or you can't move your worked tiles. Does the AI decide what squares, hexes, are being worked?

The worst thing is info is HARD to find.

As said in some famous movie series, "I have a bad feeling about this."

You can change worked tiles in the city menu under a '-'sign in the top right corner.

How is info hard to find - what info specifically? I find the UI is much better in greater amounts of information are given to you in a lot better fashion then BTS.

Lancor
Sep 21, 2010, 07:34 PM
People will always complain... and I'm just amused by the pure fact that most of the people with their negative comments are playing it nonstop nonetheless ;)

bossconian
Sep 21, 2010, 07:36 PM
just had two demo games 100 turns each - i feel so tired..... The map is cluttered - the UI so unintuitive - I was very sceptic about the game but I've never suspected that playing itself could be so tiresome...

carstuar
Sep 21, 2010, 07:40 PM
I sure prefer Civ4 above the demo. Can't really do much with just 100 turns.

-=Yin=-
Sep 21, 2010, 07:44 PM
Treat the demo merely as a hardware test to be sure you can run the game. The first 100 Turns of this game don't give you a feel for when things really pick up.

Tylerryan79
Sep 21, 2010, 07:48 PM
Civ V seems simple only because you can basicly click next turn over and over again, and it will tell you what to do(build que, move a unit, pick research etc). I spent my first hours in a daze, just trying to get a feel for it. Then the complexity slowly starts to show, there are a lot of choices to make for yourself, if you take the game off auto pilot. You do have to play the game for more than a few hours before you can call it a wash and give up!

I think this game will be MORE complex then iv ever could be. The different variations are astounding. It's simplistic on the outer shell, crack that sucker open and it oozes strategy. If some people can't see it, or don't want to see it, your lose.

edorazio
Sep 21, 2010, 08:00 PM
civ 5, and it's not even close. I simply cannot believe people think this game is "simplified"! To me, it is MUCH more complex! Indeed, it is a bit overwhelming at first. To balance your economy is a much more challenging task than in any other civ.

You have to balance happiness (which is by far the most precious resource!) with food (so the question is, how many farms/pastures on bonus resources should I build?). You may have a lot of food bonuses (i.e. bonus resources like wheat) around, but you may not have the happiness to burn to get them all!

Indeed, you have to balance food with trading posts (gold), because you will quickly run out of happiness. Why food with gold? Simple, because you get big time happiness bonuses with buildings early on in the tech tree. But of course it's not that simple, you need quickly make sure your production is up to snuff because all buildings/units seem to be a bit more production intensive. This may mean a mine or two (for 3 production each), which severely cuts into your excess food...

People were worried about science being only from population. It is not even remotely an issue. In fact, I would prefer to slow down the first two eras just a bit. Well, this is if you make sure to get a library in each city relatively soon. Ahh, there is that production dilemma again! Get more production (that is, devote more HAPPINESS to production producing tiles) and you get more science more quickly.

Oh what a wonderful system of complexity. I mean, in civ 4 you just built stuff willy nilly. Follow the bonuses, cottage up the place. Adjust the "slider" (the ULTIMATE simplification!) to fix any problems. Blah blah blah. Never again for me.


Combat absolutely REQUIRES you to pay attention to terrain. You fall asleep for even a minute and your precious horseman (and all that production! you did focus at least one city on production, right?) is gobbled up with a combo archer ranged attack and a brute/spearman strike. You must plan your movement carefully, ESPECIALLY around rivers! Can't tell you how many units I lost because of both of these points.

My biggest issue so far is a bug that people have already mentioned: I managed to get myself a rifleman in the first couple dozen turns. Really, really unfortunate. I simply abstained from using it, but still...should be fixed soon, at least.


In sum, to be perfectly frank the people who yell and scream "simplified!" are either being disingenuous or they are playing fast and recklessly. Indeed, this may explain why people feel put off so far. Can't stress enough the various balancing that needs to be done...

Oh wait, I forgot something else too. People were very down on the liberty tree before. Including me. After forcing myself to try it, I must say it is very underrated. Specifically, the +1 production from republic represents a potential 10-20% boost in production AT LEAST PER CITY at the beginning! It may not seem like a lot, especially with larger costs, but we're shaving many turns off of longer builds. It adds up. So too does the +1 happiness per city connected to the capital. If you can limit yourself to MORE but SMALLER cities, we're talking a free colosseum or two. Getting that without the maintenance costs at the beginning of the game can be huge. Try to leverage the smaller but more numerous cities into an increased number of happiness buildings when you transition to the mid-game. Suddenly, your reservoir of potential happiness is MUCH higher than someone who goes for large but fewer cities...

Oh many, the strategies for this game...can't wait for all of us to figure it out. Frankly, we need more strategy talk and less whining about graphics or simplification or what have you!

Sarda
Sep 21, 2010, 08:13 PM
I see Civ4 as superior atm in almost every way shape and form, the ONLY thing V has going for it, is more strategic combat, ofcource when moving large armies it creates more headaches then its worth and I long for stacking when i got a +10 unit army.

Xoatl_169
Sep 21, 2010, 08:16 PM
I'm getting mixed feelings for the game. Btw I hope this thread goes on cause im interested in peoples opinions. First 100 turns, i felt.... meh, felt way too simplistic, and i usually love the early years, which was a bummer. Like everyone else i'm a flawed human being and by instinct i reject change, being consciously aware of this helps a bit but it still doesn't feel right. Took my eyes awhile to adjust to the graphics, I was like woah, some parts are way too blurry but others have pristine detail, felt weird. Not to mention the hexes got me disoriented. It took even longer to understand the interface "Pick a new production" What? Oh! That's right! My hoplite is done.... uhhh sure, im used to the building thing popping up but this is good i guess, and casually brushing off different suggestions from advisors and the pop ups.

Another 100 years passed and another and maybe a few more turns and i realized. Hey its not perfect, but theres something to clinge to in civ 5. I can't put my finger on why I continued playing for that long. However the 1upt, limited resources, ranged attacks all the "NEW AMAZING BATTLE SYSTEM" didn't really deliver, funny how it turned out. I like the micro-management of the culturaly, scientific and all things non-military in Civ 4 and mods conversly i liked the simplicity of military combat in civ 4. In this game its different. I'm disappointed in the lack of micro-management in things i like yet the battle system frustrates me. Not to say its hard strategy wise, fairly easy, but i mean i have to make a conscious effort "Okay gonna move units like this so they don't get caught up on those trees".

Uhhhh what else. Aw yes my goldilocks zone. The settings that make the game just right. Was kinda sad that the options were so few. Glad they kept the marathon and huge maps to what i like. But one thing though, is it possible to have historical placements on earth map? I noticed there was no worldbuilder either.

But im in a middle of one intense civ 4 game so that'll probably take me a week to finish before i can get into the game and understand everything. Last thing, anyone else almost cry to how awesome the intro video was?

Likes_Civing
Sep 21, 2010, 08:16 PM
yeah i mean i played about 30+ and lost a scout and a warrior to barbs and built one worker and a settler. I mean man you can't see what is happening.

This designer was a wargame guy. Now I loved Panzer General and all those games my self, had them all from the beginning of PC's with a floppy drive lol but this interface SUCKS.

I think the old civ you could play without reading anything.

Like someone posted, not at all intuitive. Played CIV, CIV 2, CIV 4, for hundreds of hours and now this demo. I bought a video card for this?

How big can a city get? Hate hard to work squares. Not a lot of depth of improvements. could type more

Auncien
Sep 21, 2010, 08:17 PM
*whispers*

The more I play V, the more I like it.

Full review tomorrow night.

migkillertwo
Sep 21, 2010, 08:17 PM
I think I may atm. Maybe I'm just not 100% settled with 5 yet. :confused:
I feel really sorry for you. I'm in love with Civ V, I really dont think I can go back to Civ IV after today.

King Jason
Sep 21, 2010, 08:18 PM
It'll take time. Nuanced elements like SEs and EEs, and all the number-crunch crazy analytical strategies haven't even hit the forums yet.

Most people know civ4 in and out and love it to death.

So far, I'm diggin civ5 a lot and don't intend to go back to 4 anytime soon. But it's only day one, seriously.

Xoatl_169
Sep 21, 2010, 08:22 PM
*whispers*

The more I play V, the more I like it.

Full review tomorrow night.

Yeah, not to make it seem like my previous post is all hate, i suppose the things that civ 5 wasn't so succussful stood out like a sore thumb. But i agree with you, its starting to seep in.

Civtilltheend
Sep 21, 2010, 08:29 PM
I remember when cIV came out on the first day everybody was moaning and groaning, couple months later the majority caught on how great cIV is\was. I played 5 or 6 turns of the ciV demo then stopped "thinking Why am I wasting my time on this demo when I need to be downloading the legit game"!

starrywisdom
Sep 21, 2010, 08:34 PM
I think anyone who is playing the 'Civ4 was teh bests' card needs to go play vanilla civ 4 with no updates - and see how god awful it was in the beginning. I mean - how many people even play anything BUT BTS?

Andoo
Sep 21, 2010, 08:39 PM
I almost deleted cIV(along with all the other games on my PC) before realizing I had to wait till Friday to play the full game :P Everything seemed just about right in my taste and by far the best game I'v ever played.

seasnake
Sep 21, 2010, 08:41 PM
Been playing the demo, and:

Civ V is awesome but doesn't replace Civ IV, yet. I think it is better overall, but I'll still play civ IV. I think the UI is different but actually a bit easier to manage. The City States rock, and the Social Policies are my new favorite part. The Tech tree is still the same, but the Wonders, oh my, every wonder is useful now. There is no "Best" wonder, they all do something important. UPT is so more engaging than SoD.

Don't understand people who think it's simpler.

hardcore_gamer
Sep 21, 2010, 08:51 PM
So far the only thing I am finding really disappointing is that there doesn't appear to be any kind of a advanced diplomatic screen that shows all of the relations between the Civs on the map which leaves a lot of the international diplomacy to pure guesswork which is just a pile of cra*.

Still, I have only played the demo since the full game won't unlock for me until the 23rd.

I like most of the other things I have seen however, not counting the painfully slow pace of the starting/early game.

Venereus
Sep 21, 2010, 09:03 PM
It doesn't surprise me that veterans like us get appalled by having to dig to get the info we're used to see easily. But, think of the newbies.

Dark_Jedi06
Sep 21, 2010, 09:04 PM
Not all.

I haven't played Civ IV in months, yet Civ V has had me glued to my computer chair (despite the fact that it's uncomfortable).

bamboothief
Sep 21, 2010, 09:17 PM
Civ5 is better than Civ4(includes all expasion patches). If you are comparing civ5 with civ4 vanilla with no patch, then Civ5 is alot better.

Civ5 has a far superior combat system. Civ4 one is so simple for 3years kids. Civ5 one needs to think more strategically.

The only thing i really don't like about Civ5 is you cannot raze city-state. A lot of these city-state cities are placed at very bad location(like 1 resource in its range, and 4 resource 3 tiles from it).

BjoernLars
Sep 21, 2010, 09:28 PM
As for the interface complaints, I think lots of people need to realize that you have to get use to a new system. There is a lot of resistance to change.

I remember awhile back when a new interface came out for Facebook and the community was up in arms and demanded that the company revert back to the old format. Now, nobody complains, we enjoy the way the program works, we are used to the new format and we can't remember why we were complaining in the first place.

I am still learning the system of CiV, and yes it gets a bit annoying at first...

- What?!?! I can't purchase a unit because of a garrisoned unit!? Where is it?! I can't find it! Yarrrrrg! Military adviser! Where is my garrisoned warrior!!! Yes, you centered on the city where I can't buy a unit... Where is my unit?!?!?!?! OH... here is a unit's symbol in the upper left hand corner of my city. I'll click on it... ah! There's my unit! NOW MOVE! -

...now I know for the next time.

I have to say that the 1UPT tile in a militaristic sense is a godsend! NO MORE STACK OF DOOM! I love the bombardment! I missed that so much from Civ III. Suicide catapults were something I never got over in Civ 4.

As for workers, the 1UPT are a bit cumbersome at times. I will probably have to experiment on some different ideas on how to maneuver them in a better manner.

Kruelgor
Sep 21, 2010, 09:30 PM
I like Civ 5, but I kind of get the sense that it was designed for a console.

nokmirt
Sep 21, 2010, 09:32 PM
Civ 5 all the way. It is very smooth, love the interface. I have to play some more though.

As for the interface complaints, I think lots of people need to realize that you have to get use to a new system. There is a lot of resistance to change.

I remember awhile back when a new interface came out for Facebook and the community was up in arms and demanded that the company revert back to the old format. Now, nobody complains, we enjoy the way the program works, we are used to the new format and we can't remember why we were complaining in the first place.

I am still learning the system of CiV, and yes it gets a bit annoying at first...

- What?!?! I can't purchase a unit because of a garrisoned unit!? Where is it?! I can't find it! Yarrrrrg! Military adviser! Where is my garrisoned warrior!!! Yes, you centered on the city where I can't buy a unit... Where is my unit?!?!?!?! OH... here is a unit's symbol in the upper left hand corner of my city. I'll click on it... ah! There's my unit! NOW MOVE! -

...now I know for the next time.

I have to say that the 1UPT tile in a militaristic sense is a godsend! NO MORE STACK OF DOOM! I love the bombardment! I missed that so much from Civ III. Suicide catapults were something I never got over in Civ 4.

As for workers, the 1UPT are a bit cumbersome at times. I will probably have to experiment on some different ideas on how to maneuver them in a better manner.

I went through the same thing, lol!

Oerdin
Sep 21, 2010, 09:32 PM
Civ4 was a classic which I still play all the time. Civ5 just isn't as good, maybe after an expansion pack but right now it isn't on the same level.

MercuryP
Sep 21, 2010, 09:33 PM
I like Civ 5, but I kind of get the sense that it was designed for a console.

I really don't understand why people keep saying this. Just because a UI might be able to be navigated with a game controller doesn't mean that it's designed specifically with a game controller in mind.

Bill Bisco
Sep 21, 2010, 09:37 PM
If you take the options and information CivIV gives you vs. CivV.

1. Combat Statistics
2. Diplomacy Modifiers
3. Annoying Narrator Voice for Civ INTRO!
4. Map Buttons
5. Ability to easily play modded MP Games
6. Ability to easily save MP Games
7. I simply Double-Click Civ4 BTS or whatever Mod Shortcut I have and BOOM! Instant mod game. Rather than having to click Steam junk, and EULA agreement Junk and select mods junk, etc.
8. Strength adjusted according to damage in Civ4, now in Civ5 I have to guess what my actual Strength is and what my HP are.
etc. etc.

Civ5 as of yet, doesn't match up and give me the big oomph to recommend it over Civ4. 1 Unit/tile is a nice start as getting away from city defense battles all the time is refreshing, but that isn't enough.

Murky
Sep 21, 2010, 09:40 PM
CIV IV was more intuitive in terms of the interface. Maybe with some heavy modding, Civ V will turn out to be a good platform.

Thonnas
Sep 21, 2010, 09:42 PM
Civ4 was kind of lame. I barely played any vanilla civ4 after the good mods started coming out. It was all about the mods. I hope civ5 is like that, too, because it's so homogenized and simplified it feels a bit boring. It is nicer for the late game, which might have been one of their goals, and that is kinda cool. I just keep having this feeling like vanilla civ5 is a really elaborate tutorial. I can't wait to get into some mods that have some depth to them.

Maybe I'll have to dig into the guts and see exactly how moddable it is myself.

The_Tyrant
Sep 21, 2010, 09:43 PM
If they add religions or corporations in a later expansion pack, then I will prefer Civ 5. But for now, it is just too simplistic.

darkwurm
Sep 21, 2010, 09:46 PM
I played my first game tonight, 3 hours of a simple game on prince level, huge map, epic speed, rest default settings.

My first impressions is that I like it. There are some quirky interface things that I find annoying, but nothing deal breaking.(things like canceling a unit move) But it could just be I haven't found all the tricks yet.

But I find combat is very satisfying to me. It's miles better then civ4.

And on my map the barbarians are a bit over the top. They keep popping up all over the place. I mean they are reproducing like bunnies.

I wasn't trying to win, just play around to get to know the game. I spent most of the time running around playing with the different combat scenarios killing all the previously mentioned barbs.

I did have one laugh out loud moment that my wife hollered up asking if i was ok. I had a damaged warrior unit left(one guy left out of the 10) and I attacked a full squad of enemy archers and the little guy was swinging his heart out taking out every single archer one at a time. Had to be there moment i guess.

I guess the answer to the OP is I don't prefer civ4 over civ5, I would not go back to civ4 unless it was to play multiplayer with some friends, but even then I would try to convince them to give civ5 a chance. The new version takes a bit to get used to but change is good. I find it a refreshing update on the game.

Also I do find the the river graphics are strangely flat and lacking detail, but I noticed on my computer when they are close to the right side of the monitor, they suddenly come alive like real water(faintly but I can see it) . Must be a bug of some sort that I'm sure they will figure out.

digitalcraft
Sep 21, 2010, 10:21 PM
I think I still prefer 4. It's not that 5 is bad, it just appeals to a different audience, one I'm not part of.

mrhell
Sep 21, 2010, 10:23 PM
civ 4 forever. This(5) is civ's Phantom Menace.

Buccaneer
Sep 21, 2010, 10:27 PM
I think I still prefer 4. It's not that 5 is bad, it just appeals to a different audience, one I'm not part of.

I think the potential is there. It's just going to take a lot of work (by Firaxis and modders) to change things. I thought Civ4 was very playable out of the box (just like I do with Civ5) but like with Civ4, they certainly changed (and especially, added) a lot of things for the better by BtS 3.19.

Crezth
Sep 21, 2010, 10:30 PM
What we're all forgetting is that Civ 3 was better than Civ 4 on release day.

Oerdin
Sep 21, 2010, 10:31 PM
civ 4 forever. This(5) is civ's Phantom Menace.

Civ3 was a stinker too so I guess the odd ones always suck. ;)

What we're all forgetting is that Civ 3 was better than Civ 4 on release day.

There was absolutely nothing "better" about Civ 3 even on release day. Civ 3 was an abortion of a game which should have been flushed down the toilet instead of released. Civ 1, Civ 2, and Civ 4 I can remember loving right out of the box but even though I loved the Civ series 3 was just a total turd.

RX2000
Sep 21, 2010, 10:32 PM
I've switched to Civ V.

I am really digging the city states & the fact that resources are only good for building a certain amount of units. This REALLY gives some more reasons to get wars started in game. In Civ 4 it was just "He has an oil & I need/want it." In Civ V it can be "I really need 5 more oil so I'm gonna take that one" or "Florence is at war with Venice who is allied with my arch rival.. This gives me the perfect excuse to ally with Florence & crush them." It fits in better with my storytelling playstyle. :)

Bad Brett
Sep 21, 2010, 10:40 PM
Sadly, the game is a big disappointment so far. Ok, I live in Europe so I've only played the demo so far, but the first 100-150 turns were always the fun part of the earlier games; City placement, maximizing the science output while expanding quickly. You could do this by founding religions, building cottages, going for the pyramids or by waging really offensive wars (and in BTS, use spies). The different civs and leaders gave you endless possibilities. I often were awake many nights and planned upcoming games in my head.

"Nonsense", you say. "The Pyramids were too powerful", "Cottages were too powerful", "very little strategy was needed". But one thing that you can't deny, is that the first 100 turns were crucial. Getting the economy working in the long run was easy, but getting it working QUICKLY was a tough challenge. You searched for gold and gems, you built the Oracle to be able to chop early Courthouses, you let your neighbour build the Pyramids so you could steal them from him...

It's not possible to come up with such strategies in Civ5, because you have very few options. You get science from population and to get a high population, you need happiness. That's it. Not only is it boring, but also completely unrealistic. The slider gave you the option to invest all money in culture, sacrifying research and military. Though it wasn't perfectly implemented, it gave you tons of option and you could always feel as you had control.

This game kind of feels like a turn-based RTS (paradox!). Build your base >>> collect resources >>> FIGHT! Simply, because if you don't fight, the game will be boring as hell, as there's almost nothing else to do.

gouldilocks
Sep 21, 2010, 10:40 PM
I'm still on the fence. I want to like civ5 but im not sure i do.

The Bad
1) Interface feels clunky to me; civ 4 imo had a cleaner layout
2)Maintenance Costs. I HATE paying to maintain roads and buildings. F'in lame.
3)No foreign trade routes; This takes away a lot of strategy imo.
4)National Wonders now require buildings in ALL your cities and many are empire wide effects; this really dilutes the concept of city specialization that civ4 fostered.
5) All civilizations are too similar. The leader traits just dont do enough to change how you would play the game. The leader traits in civ4 were MUCH more polished and meaningful and had a profound effect on the strategies I used. I dont see this as being the case at all in Civ5. I think this is my biggest gripe with the game. I think it will get stale as each civilization is pretty much the same.


The Good
1) Social Policies are cool
2) Combat system is much more strategic and satisfying that civ4.

Skwink
Sep 21, 2010, 10:44 PM
Well, I have a Mac, so no CiV for me yet. But I was never that excited to play CiV. Can't really say, but It seems I will like cIV best, based on things like religion, and other features now gone.

dcorban
Sep 21, 2010, 10:44 PM
I think anyone who is playing the 'Civ4 was teh bests' card needs to go play vanilla civ 4 with no updates - and see how god awful it was in the beginning. I mean - how many people even play anything BUT BTS?

I do. I can't stand BTS. I prefer the elegance of the vanilla game. I don't want vassals, or espionage, or corporations, or...

CaptainKapow
Sep 21, 2010, 10:47 PM
I think it's very silly to think anyone can make a useful comparison between 4 and 5 when no one has played 5 for more than 24 hours yet.

I'm not discounting any one individual's opinion who has posted, but I generally wouldn't put much weight behind anyone's comparisons between a game they've played and grown into for years to another game of which they only have a first impression.

It's like a new pair of shoes. There is always a little discomfort at first as you stretch them out, and you don't really know how well they'll fit until you've worn them in.

mva5580
Sep 21, 2010, 10:48 PM
I really don't think it's fair to compare Civ V on release day to Civ IV which has been out for 5 years and had multiple patches, expansion packs, mods, etc. Let's give it a bit of time.

Having said that, I like Civ V at this point, but I understand the complaints from this community. The game definitely has a bit of a "dumbed down" feel to it, made for a broader audience. I would imagine anyone who is a top level player of Civ IV will probably dominate in Civ V with relative ease, at least how things are right now. I think it would be nice if the expansion packs added a bit more of the "hardcore" stuff to the game, to balance that out a bit.

We'll see, but me, as someone who is frightened of playing on higher difficulty levels at this point, I like it. I'm interested to see where they go with it though, hopefully it's fleshed out through patches and exp packs to add more stuff.

mva5580
Sep 21, 2010, 11:16 PM
Thanks for your opinion. *snip*

Lancor
Sep 21, 2010, 11:22 PM
Thanks for your opinion. I guess that means I don't have to worry about seeing you post in this forum anymore as you obviously think the game is horrible. Actually I'll just save myself the trouble and put you on my ignore list as clearly you have nothing to say worth reading about the game. Just immature "junkware" comments.

I want to give mva5580 hugs and reputation!! ;)

frozenwings
Sep 21, 2010, 11:23 PM
I'm still on the fence. I want to like civ5 but im not sure i do.

The Bad
1) Interface feels clunky to me; civ 4 imo had a cleaner layout
2)Maintenance Costs. I HATE paying to maintain roads and buildings. F'in lame.
3)No foreign trade routes; This takes away a lot of strategy imo.
4)National Wonders now require buildings in ALL your cities and many are empire wide effects; this really dilutes the concept of city specialization that civ4 fostered.
5) All civilizations are too similar. The leader traits just dont do enough to change how you would play the game. The leader traits in civ4 were MUCH more polished and meaningful and had a profound effect on the strategies I used. I dont see this as being the case at all in Civ5. I think this is my biggest gripe with the game. I think it will get stale as each civilization is pretty much the same.


The Good
1) Social Policies are cool
2) Combat system is much more strategic and satisfying that civ4.

I agree totally. Civ4 had more diversity between how I played the game with different civs/leaders. There are only 3 or 4 civs in civ5 that really stand out from the others. The combat in civ5 is much more fluid, strategic, and has more meaning. Civ4 has way more to offer during times of peace. I find myself going to war in civ5 just to keep entertained. In 4, I only went to war when someone was is the way of my expanding empire.

Bill Bisco
Sep 21, 2010, 11:24 PM
Um...civ 4 has been out for years ..thats the point...they could have growth with it ..instead they took 5 steps back..these are the times that seporate the people who will take old yeller behind the barn and the people who will sit, quiver and watch him suffer. Civ 5 is junkware
That's similar to my thoughts. When you make a sequel to a game. I expect the sequel to be everything good the previous game was and more!

nokmirt
Sep 21, 2010, 11:52 PM
I've switched to Civ V.

I am really digging the city states & the fact that resources are only good for building a certain amount of units. This REALLY gives some more reasons to get wars started in game. In Civ 4 it was just "He has an oil & I need/want it." In Civ V it can be "I really need 5 more oil so I'm gonna take that one" or "Florence is at war with Venice who is allied with my arch rival.. This gives me the perfect excuse to ally with Florence & crush them." It fits in better with my storytelling playstyle. :)

I like it too but what about the penalty for annexation, is it better to annex at some point. Right now I have Venice as a puppet, and it took me forever to found a coastal city. The whole coast is taken up by city states. I guess next time I will limit the numbers of city states. I could not find the more advanced options, on the advanced options tab. I must not have looked close enough, this is going to take alot of getting used to.

ffifield
Sep 22, 2010, 12:01 AM
It's a little early to say whether V is better than IV or not. My only complaints so far is that I haven't been able to figure out how to turn off combat animations or find the clock/timer that was so useful in IV.

Remember that when IV came out, if you had an ATI video card the game didn't work at all. But peole forget stuff like that, especially after a few years.

Cashew
Sep 22, 2010, 12:06 AM
That's similar to my thoughts. When you make a sequel to a game. I expect the sequel to be everything good the previous game was and more!

Kind of hard to do that when the predecessor had 2 expansions and more modding than a person can count.

Selous
Sep 22, 2010, 12:24 AM
well i really like it, cant see me ever playing another game of civ4 again and looking forward to civ5 maturing into the full game that civ4 was by the end

smackthewise
Sep 22, 2010, 12:28 AM
I will give Civ V a lot of play time to see if it grows on me, then if it does not I will wait for mods or expansions.

But I will certainly be playing Civ 4 BTS - Legends of Revolution a heck of a lot. I know it almost better than my GF's body and its an incredibly polished game. I cannot just waste the time I spend on that Leaning Curve, to get my play down to an art.

EmpireOfCats
Sep 22, 2010, 12:33 AM
Some of the comments here have me worried (haven't played it yet), but my fear was that Civ V will be a dumbed down, shallower, "consolised" version of Civ. And it is sounding like this is indeed the case.

Well, that's not quite fair. It isn't so much dumbed down as severely cut back and refocused. Combat is far more interesting, for instance. But based on the demo, you are missing complete levels of game play -- pollution, for example, and of course religion -- that you had to take care of in Civ IV. And everything is more focused on money.

So if it feels simplistic, it is because everything seems to be focused on two things: Combat and money.

Chris41336
Sep 22, 2010, 12:37 AM
Well, that's not quite fair. It isn't so much dumbed down as severely cut back and refocused. Combat is far more interesting, for instance. But based on the demo, you are missing complete levels of game play -- pollution, for example, and of course religion -- that you had to take care of in Civ IV. And everything is more focused on money.

So if it feels simplistic, it is because everything seems to be focused on two things: Combat and money.

Well then, I suppose that makes Civ V more realistic than Civ IV anyway.

Shurdus
Sep 22, 2010, 12:38 AM
I only played the demo so far, and I was disappointed with the way the game looks and feels. Granted, I do not have the best system out there, but I expected more from my rig. I would think they can still fix done performance hiccups wroth patches though.

I can see the potential in civ5, so I will say 5 for now.

UltimaCiv
Sep 22, 2010, 12:51 AM
At the moment Civ IV as Civ V runs quite badly on my PC and I can't get into it. I'm just going to wait until I get a new PC, which should coincide with some patches for Civ V. Hopefully by then it will be a better game.

da_Vinci
Sep 22, 2010, 12:54 AM
Does anyone think that the sense of unease about Civ V is in fact just that? The unease that comes from being unfamiliar with it, compared to a game that we now know like the back of our hands?

My sense playing though the tutorials, including the "learn while you play" (two civ duel map on settler), gave me the following impressions:

Still getting comfortable "seeing" the map ... at a distance, units get lost in the terrain, I need the resource icons to sort our their terrain representations, seems to me the interface could occupy less of my screen space (maybe there is a way to shrink it?). Tile yield graphics are taking some getting used to, compared to the Civ IV method. This is all a matter of getting used to a new presentation ... it is getting better the more I play.

The city screen method of showing which tiles are worked is a step backward, I think ... those silly David's heads, just ad more clutter on top of yields and resource markers ... and that line of "demands (resource)" is placed in the way. Nice if they could fix this ... the circles were so much simpler.

Then there is the issue of not knowing what is optimal for this game's mechanics. Find myself looking for the cottage (the trading post seems to be the nearest thing), laughing when the fishing boat only adds gold production, granary adds food per turn (is not a multiplier). And with citizens making science (funny idea, maybe, but is turning gold into science any more realistic (what kind of alchemy is that)? Dollars are not science without scientists.) ... All that means is that in this game, food is science, instead of gold being science. All of this is not a problem, it is what makes it a different game!

Self embarking units is different to be sure. Loving the ranged attacks!

Bottom line, feel very different from Civ IV, which I think is as it should be. I recall my limited understanding of Civ IV before I started playing XOTMs and reading war academy article, after which a whole new layer of depth emerged. In Civ V, perhaps there is less detail of city micromanagement, but I can see more "path" options ... what is the optimal tech path, in particular mixed with what is the best social policy path, and the best city state diplomacy path, to reach a particular objective.

So rather than complain about the Civ IV things you don't find in Civ V, why not embrace solving the puzzle of the new items that are in Civ V?

dV

HamTard
Sep 22, 2010, 01:00 AM
Some of the comments here have me worried (haven't played it yet), but my fear was that Civ V will be a dumbed down, shallower, "consolised" version of Civ. And it is sounding like this is indeed the case.

I trust the opinions of those on this site over the good/positive reviews in the media. I have trouble trusting "game site" reviews, as the reviewer is probably not a civ-fanatic like most of us are. In fact, they're probably console-game-players that go from one game to the next each day.

Play the demo and see for yourself.

charon2112
Sep 22, 2010, 01:07 AM
I love civ IV, but I am going to really try to play just V to learn it well. I like it more and more as I play it.

squadbroken
Sep 22, 2010, 01:20 AM
Civ 5 is superior unless you like spreadsheets, stack bumping and excessive micromanagement.

seasnake
Sep 22, 2010, 01:24 AM
Civ 5 is superior unless you like spreadsheets, stack bumping and excessive micromanagement.

Not that there's anything wrong with that ...

J/K, I like V better than IV. But I'm waiting to buy V (been playing the demo) because I don't think it's worth 60 dollars and I want to see what the prices/options on DLC are. So in the meantime I'll enjoy Civ IV.

KyleCraig
Sep 22, 2010, 01:41 AM
I'm in Europe and have downloaded the demo and am already bored after 80 turns...

Although I like some of the new changes and although I would love to like Civ V more, I just really miss having to deal with:
- religion
- pollution
- espionage
- more different civs

plus, Civ IV really did give you a feeling of a board-game, this one just doesn't. I know I'll need to get used to it, but it reminds me too much of games like Age of Empires or Empire Earth - which are great games of course, but the clue about Civ is the turn-based part and I really can't get into it...

The hexes are a good change and look of course better, but if one actually pays attention, squares give you more options about movement. Social policies look pretty good, but I think there's still some improving possible (I don't know exactly how yet but it feels a little shallow, it looks like a lot more but is in fact less.)

what I absolutely LOVE is the restriction of one unit per tile/hex. It requires a lot more strategy and is not just about who has more units stacked on one tile anymore. also I love the ranged attacks, as they make a lot more sense now...


other than that, I don't know... the animation of the leaders are fun (although it seems like nothing can upset them, in Civ IV you actually started to like and dislike leaders just bc of the way they were acting and that was fun.)

I also believe (as mentioned by a few above) that the civs and leaders don't stand out enough, which was better in IV. The whole tile/territory-buy thing is a nice idea, but requires all that money that I keep on not having (and I'm not SUCH a bad player ;) )

City-states: GREAT! probably the best change to the new version...

well I probably am also being unfair, since I'm just playing the demo for right now and probably not giving it enough time to get used to it. but I did have high expectations after Civ IV and the BTS expansion. To me, it has been the best game I've ever played.

I know I'm probably repeating a lot of things that have been said before. but for right now, if I had to choose between the games I would choose Civ IV a hundred times over Civ V. Which is why I'm about to play IV again :) :goodjob:

Biz_
Sep 22, 2010, 01:46 AM
civ5 seems too easy vs the AI

vs humans it seems like it's going to be a lot more about luck based on who gets more luxuries. can't afford to make happiness buildings everywhere vs someone who doesn't have to... maybe if there's something like hereditary rule it might end up ok, but i haven't noticed it in any of the early social policy options

squadbroken
Sep 22, 2010, 01:49 AM
The hexes are a good change and look of course better, but if one actually pays attention, squares give you more options about movement.
I keep seeing this in hex vs. squares arguments and it totally baffles me. How is simply having more directions you can move better? Especially when the way Civ 4 handled movement meant that diagonal moves were almost always superior unless something in particular prevented them.

kenwyn
Sep 22, 2010, 01:50 AM
It just came out. Gotta' get used to it.

...But I'm not gonna' lie. I'm currently right in the middle of a game of Civ IV, so I'm gonna' finish that up before I really get into Civ IV.

As an old boardgamer, the new, much more realistic hex tile system should be a step up in looks as well as movement. Tho I'll miss the transports, so long merchant marines. http://forums.civfanatics.com/images/smilies/frown.gif

sosco
Sep 22, 2010, 02:08 AM
Ive gone through all pages and cant stop laughing... After 1 days som vets on Civ fanatics are rumbling such a nonsense....there is only one thing that goes through my mind (Darwin):“It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change.” Here it seems that nothing works for guys that are used to civ iv (i'v played it since start btw)....and to think how they criticised it at start...heh.

12agnar0k
Sep 22, 2010, 02:18 AM
What are you people going on about, Civ V is way better than Civ IV, that was so 5 years ago, change with the time people.

chongli
Sep 22, 2010, 02:47 AM
Civ 5 is, in my experience so far, the best game in the series and one of the best strategy games I've ever played (very close to Master of Magic). The tactical combat is so refreshing. No more fretting over the possibility of losing a unit despite 99% odds. Through proper planning, I can make multiple ranged attacks on an enemy unit and kill it without taking any damage, guaranteed.

The elimination of sliders is another huge godsend. Man, did I ever hate how Civ 4 forced me to keep adjusting the science/culture/espionage/gold rate all the time. The elimination of per-city happiness and health is also really nice. As eluded to earlier in this thread, there is a huge amount of strategic depth to keeping your empire in positive happiness, gold and food while continuing to grow (and actually be able to produce anything). So far, there seems to be no easy answer for how to do this.

The other major implication of empire-wide happiness is that you can no longer think about maxing each city. An extra citizen in one city means one fewer in another. You need to think extremely carefully about where you want to allocate your population among your cities in order to be most productive.

The last big thing I really enjoyed is that I no longer have to tediously hook up all my resources with roads. A simple route-to command allows me to connect all my cities in a much more orderly fashion.

civ5 seems too easy vs the AI
Really? Have you won on deity yet?

RD-BH
Sep 22, 2010, 03:05 AM
The deity AI is quite 'stoopid'.

onedreamer
Sep 22, 2010, 03:33 AM
I think I may atm. Maybe I'm just not 100% settled with 5 yet. :confused:

Rethorical question when asked on day 1.

tuuhhov
Sep 22, 2010, 03:38 AM
I've only played the demo once, so no comments on actual gameplay yet. Call me crazy, but I actually like Civ 4's graphics more than 5's! (I use the highest settings in both games.)

Bluetooth
Sep 22, 2010, 04:01 AM
Iíve only played the demo for a couple of hours so itís too early to say of course. All I can say right now is that I donít like the graphics. And by that I donít mean the graphics quality but more the look.

AFACI
Sep 22, 2010, 04:02 AM
Holy :):):):) I can't believe people are already dissing it and asking what their preference is! The game only just came out - give it a chance!
For one thing, the "Civ IV" most people refer to, is usually BTS, a game that has fully developed. Look back at people's reactions when Vanilla first came out.

I just can't wait until all the expansions come out - that's the best part!

Newcomer24
Sep 22, 2010, 04:09 AM
I love Civ4... it's my favorite game of all times. This said... I have played it hundreds of times for a total of thousands of hours. I really needed something new.

This new Civ is a good game, it still lacks something but even Civ4 wasn't perfect at release. So, for now, I will just force myself to try to get used the new game knowing for sure that with time this is going to be another masterpiece.

draxil
Sep 22, 2010, 04:35 AM
Not me. I live the novelty, and the tactical battles :)

But then I can only play 100 turns at a time right now, perhaps it sucks after that?

Iceciro
Sep 22, 2010, 04:46 AM
Civ V does a lot of things better than Civ IV. It just needs some tweaking, just like Civ IV did.

Asking me to compare my Civ IV experience to new civ is really unfair since my Civ IV experience has two major expansions, a boatload of patches, and then Rise of Mankind: A New Dawn on top. :crazyeye:

Schuesseled
Sep 22, 2010, 04:50 AM
Maps - Hexes > Squares
Interface - Civ4 > Civ5
Combat - Civ5 < Civ4 so far
AI - too soon to say
Overall - far too soon to say

However I hated Civ4 Vanilla and it wasn't until the BTS improvements as well as discovery of the "sweet spot" of custom settings/difficulty/map type that I really got into it.

ATM I see Civ5 with the potential to be the best game of the series - whether it's actually there yet or will take several XPs time will tell.



BUT I do HATE the hundred clicks it takes to actually get into the game.

And I hate not being able to rename units now that they actually live longer than 2 turns. (unless I just haven't discovered how to do it)

When a unit gets a level up theres an efdit button underneath the promotions pop up interface. click on that.

Schuesseled
Sep 22, 2010, 04:51 AM
The civ demo is a little limiting, but i didn't expect anything different. The full game of civ 5 is gonna rock when it's released here.

KyleCraig
Sep 22, 2010, 05:45 AM
I keep seeing this in hex vs. squares arguments and it totally baffles me. How is simply having more directions you can move better? Especially when the way Civ 4 handled movement meant that diagonal moves were almost always superior unless something in particular prevented them.

gotta give you that :)


Ive gone through all pages and cant stop laughing... After 1 days som vets on Civ fanatics are rumbling such a nonsense....there is only one thing that goes through my mind (Darwin):ďIt is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change.Ē Here it seems that nothing works for guys that are used to civ iv (i'v played it since start btw)....and to think how they criticised it at start...heh.

Good for you to like Darwin, but I don't think you can generalize his quote about preferences in gaming. If we were talking about a real-life situation, then I would completely agree with you. But this is JUST a game. In a game, we are allowed to be picky and expecting, because it is about OUR fun. :)
But I agree that probably after 1-2 years everybody (probably including me) will have changed their minds. But it is still about a current impression, not about a general judgement that decides whether this game is a mistake or not. In the end, even I will buy the game, but the demo has not impressed me at all, and I LOVE Civ IV, so I'm probably gonna stick to that one for a while longer till I finally make the switch.

Holy :):):):) I can't believe people are already dissing it and asking what their preference is! The game only just came out - give it a chance!
For one thing, the "Civ IV" most people refer to, is usually BTS, a game that has fully developed. Look back at people's reactions when Vanilla first came out.

I just can't wait until all the expansions come out - that's the best part!

And the expansions (+mods) are gonna be what makes number 5 probably another great game that is worth playing... So far though......... :confused::confused::confused:

but I'm sure it will be better....


In the end all these criticisms just mean that we have to come up with some nice mods and changes ourselves and BLESS firaxis for giving us this opportunity!! :D :goodjob:

sghiminini
Sep 22, 2010, 06:22 AM
Sadly, the game is a big disappointment so far. Ok, I live in Europe so I've only played the demo so far, but the first 100-150 turns were always the fun part of the earlier games; City placement, maximizing the science output while expanding quickly. You could do this by founding religions, building cottages, going for the pyramids or by waging really offensive wars (and in BTS, use spies). The different civs and leaders gave you endless possibilities. I often were awake many nights and planned upcoming games in my head.

"Nonsense", you say. "The Pyramids were too powerful", "Cottages were too powerful", "very little strategy was needed". But one thing that you can't deny, is that the first 100 turns were crucial. Getting the economy working in the long run was easy, but getting it working QUICKLY was a tough challenge. You searched for gold and gems, you built the Oracle to be able to chop early Courthouses, you let your neighbour build the Pyramids so you could steal them from him...

It's not possible to come up with such strategies in Civ5, because you have very few options. You get science from population and to get a high population, you need happiness. That's it. Not only is it boring, but also completely unrealistic. The slider gave you the option to invest all money in culture, sacrifying research and military. Though it wasn't perfectly implemented, it gave you tons of option and you could always feel as you had control.

This game kind of feels like a turn-based RTS (paradox!). Build your base >>> collect resources >>> FIGHT! Simply, because if you don't fight, the game will be boring as hell, as there's almost nothing else to do.

I don't want to sound offensive or arrogant, but this post to reads: "I don't like this game because I can't use my favourite Civ IV strategy...".

It's a new game, you'll need to come up with different strategies. Personally I wouldn't like it if I could play the same style I played Civ IV.

Orbiter
Sep 22, 2010, 06:41 AM
I think the game looks and feels amazing! There's a few things I would like to see changed though:

1. When it's time to choose a new policy/production/research, let us be able to press enter to open the relevant interface. Clicking all the time is tedious.

2. There are way too many city-states and they are too frequent in their requests (in the demo atleast).

3. MP needs a fix

Bad Brett
Sep 22, 2010, 06:57 AM
I don't want to sound offensive or arrogant, but this post to reads: "I don't like this game because I can't use my favourite Civ IV strategy...".

It's a new game, you'll need to come up with different strategies. Personally I wouldn't like it if I could play the same style I played Civ IV.

In that case you got me wrong. My biggest issue with this game isn't that I can't use my Civ IV tactics (Remember that I've played all Civ games a lot, including Colonization), no, it's the fact that I have no control in the beginning of the game. The cities grow if you are happy and when they grow you get extra science.

In earlier versions, you could have a small mining town with source of corn and three gold mines, and yet your entire economy could depend on it. You have big great people farms, or cottage cities... You could try to found three or four religions in your capital to get a great income. You could focus on trade routes, you could turn useless water tiles into something great with Moai + Col + Fin...

No one can tell me that you have the same amount of options in Civ V.

I've played Civ IV for five years and still come up with new strategies all of the game. The game wasn't perfect, but the replay value was incredible.

May Day 10
Sep 22, 2010, 07:04 AM
I hate to say it, but I may end up reverting before too long.

Civ V feels and looks a lot like Revolutions. A couple things I like, but a few things I hate already. I think I can get used to it and "get into it", but it doesnt feel right yet.

The game seems very clunky, including the UI. I have a pretty decent laptop, and it really struggles with the game.... and IMO Civ IV looks better and moves better (other than battles). The little struggles the CPU has makes it not that enjoyable and for how the game looks and acts, it doesnt seem necessary.

Bill Bisco
Sep 22, 2010, 07:55 AM
Does anyone think that the sense of unease about Civ V is in fact just that? The unease that comes from being unfamiliar with it, compared to a game that we now know like the back of our hands?No sir

Kind of hard to do that when the predecessor had 2 expansions and more modding than a person can count.They could more or less copy the functionality from the new to the old games. ;)

jfby
Sep 22, 2010, 09:35 AM
I'm still on the fence. I want to like civ5 but im not sure 2)Maintenance Costs. I HATE paying to maintain roads and buildings. F'in lame.



You hate paying for maintenance costs for your roads and buildings? I would think one added level of realism would be a welcome change from the past. History would be very different if governments didn't have the burden of paying for their infrastructure.

treadwin
Sep 22, 2010, 11:05 AM
Ok - Played til 3am last night and have a few suggestions.

1. Don't play on too high a difficulty level. Yes, you may "own" Civ4, but play one on easy and get the hang of it. Winning is more fun than losing.

2. You can't win by excelling at one facet of the game. If you don't balance technology, military, economy, City States and happiness, you are going to lose. No more falling behind on technology and trading to make up. You need to consider what to build in each city very carefully.

3. Warfare is your edge. With a combined arms army you can do much better than the AI, but don't get cocky. If you overreach, the AI is good enough to take you out.

4. The game seems to pick a lower resolution than your computer is really capable of. If you have a card with lots of memory, but that isn't fast, you may be able to bump it up.

5. Wonders are much more of a risk. The AI builds them and it is no longer a way of "producing" money before you get the tech.

6. ALWAYS make sure you have enough money! You can ALWAYS buy your way out of any other trouble, but there is no way of curing a money shortage.

7. You are not going to win this game by the middle ages like lower levels of Civ4. This one will take time to unwind. Having said that, NORMAL speed is slow enough. I couldn't stand Civ4 on anything faster than epic and normal is plenty slow enough to strategize.

8. I used to pack Civs into Civ4 to make the game more interesting. With the city states, the regular density of Civs seems fine.

9. Take time to enjoy diplomacy. Just because you can't see the modifiers, doesn't mean you can't negotiate. Research agreements are very profitable. Build friendships with powerful Civs and unite against the Civ you want to take out. Relationships develop more slowly than Civ4. You can't make allies as quickly, or appease the other Civs if you are really in conflict over land. You can't afford to give away resources as much as you could in Civ4.

I'm enjoying it immensely. It suits my style of play, far more than Civ4 did, and I've already deleted Civ4.

Stalingrad
Sep 22, 2010, 11:07 AM
civ 4 all the way

Likes_Civing
Sep 22, 2010, 11:27 AM
The guy with the post about city specialization.

You had so many things to do.

Food is science?

There is not a lot of fun ways to play this game.

Like someone else said, you feed yourself, get happy and make war.

That is this game. I think that sucks.

Why dumb down CiV? I don't get it. This guy was a wargamer that made 5.

This is CIV the wargame. Stupid simplified and generic cities, all the same, to crank out some units.

I would expect combat to be better. It is.

There is NO game play fun. That is why all the boring posts. The FUN in 5 is the WAR.

I would like to have fun in war AND peace.

Anyway, that is my day 2 rant. Where is the fun.

PS One other note. Are you guys missing the red circle. Maybe it is just me but the end turn lights up and I have a settler to move and a worker. Why is it tempting me? You know it's bad when you don't know if you are done with a turn. But I assume this is me not knowing something about the interface, which IMO, like others have said, is clunky and not at all intuitive.

Madprofe55or
Sep 22, 2010, 11:30 AM
Hmmm....tough right now. But I just finished a really great game a few days ago in Civ4. Give me one more week with Civ5 before I really make up my mind. I like it a lot...except for the AI.

bigwillydier
Sep 22, 2010, 11:39 AM
We wouldn't have anticipated the release of Civ5 as much if it was simply a graphics/ui update to Civ4.. it's different.. give it a chance.. I am.. I'm digging it.. though, it's obvious that almost all of my old strategies don't apply anymore..

BWD

zomg
Sep 22, 2010, 11:50 AM
Panzer general was one of my favorite strategy games so I enjoy this better. They need to tweak the AI to expand better however, they seem far too content to sit at 1 city for too long.

digitalcraft
Sep 22, 2010, 11:55 AM
We wouldn't have anticipated the release of Civ5 as much if it was simply a graphics/ui update to Civ4.. it's different.. give it a chance.. I am.. I'm digging it.. though, it's obvious that almost all of my old strategies don't apply anymore..

BWD

This is called a straw man. Nobody is claiming they want Civ4 reskinned. That's hyperbole.

Updates like a hex map, one unit per tile etc are big changes. But did they have to remove complexity to do it? No they did not. That was a decision they made. Was Civ 4 just civ 3 reskinned? No it wasn't, but they added depth, not took it away. The whole point of using the same name and making it a sequel is that it is along the same theme. If you're going to completely change the nature of the game, make it for a different target audience, change the name. Name it Civilization: Revolution 2. :P

squadbroken
Sep 22, 2010, 12:09 PM
This is called a straw man. Nobody is claiming they want Civ4 reskinned. That's hyperbole.
Sure doesn't seem that way. 99% of the complaints I've read boil down to people upset that it's not close enough to Civ 4.

Wah, I can't see diplomacy modifiers!
Wah, religion is gone!
Wah, no slider!

I've seen this sort of thing countless times before. Popular Game comes out with a sequal, and a bunch of self-styled hardcore fans pitch a fit because it isn't just a glorified expansion pack. So they kick their feet while and scream while everyone else enjoys the new game.

Kboomch
Sep 22, 2010, 12:10 PM
To everyone who made it to diety and played civ nightly for hours it isn't going to happen with civ5 imho . Very clunky interface too many problems to list very slowwww to develop. Half the time I don't even know what is happening, VERY SORRY I ordered this from steam a waste of time and money

xxxlambo
Sep 22, 2010, 12:25 PM
Perhaps it is because I didn't put thousands of hours into Civ 4 (only hundreds over the years and I wasn't really that good to begin with), but I feel like this game is a breath of fresh air into the series. Now I've only played about 3 hours so far (damn work), but I'm not understanding all the hate this early on. To me it seems like there are a lot of options within the game and it plays really well at least on my system. What I hope is they don't screw up the base game with future expansions and crazy DLC. So far I think they have a really good thing going and while there are definitely some things I would like to see added, overall I'm happy with what I'm seeing so far.

AFIW I don't plan on uninstalling Civ 4, but I don't see myself playing it again this month.... we'll see what I think after I get a few games under my belt, but I'm happy so far.

da_Vinci
Sep 22, 2010, 12:28 PM
Obviously, what we need is an expansion pack to Civ IV, using hexes and 1 upt combat, but retaining the rest of the BTS features ...

They could call it "Civilization IV: Beyond Civ V" :mischief:

dV

squadbroken
Sep 22, 2010, 12:31 PM
Obviously, what we need is an expansion pack to Civ IV, using hexes and 1 upt combat, but retaining the rest of the BTS features ...

They could call it "Civilization IV: Beyond Civ V" :mischief:

dV

I prefer "Civilization IV: Change is Scary"

Fookison
Sep 22, 2010, 12:33 PM
Only thing I miss from Civ 4 is the option to put a time clock in the top right hand corner of the screen. I do not see this option in Civ 5. So far, Civ 5 has been very fun to play and I am sure I will go back to Civ 4 from time to time for nostalgic purposes. I still go back to Civ 3 on occasion as well.

xxxlambo
Sep 22, 2010, 12:37 PM
Only thing I miss from Civ 4 is the option to put a time clock in the top right hand corner of the screen. I do not see this option in Civ 5.

I noticed in the mod section there is a "example of a clock" I haven't tried to make it work though. It should've been in the base options screen.

Buccaneer
Sep 22, 2010, 12:43 PM
Ok - Played til 3am last night and have a few suggestions.

1. Don't play on too high a difficulty level. Yes, you may "own" Civ4, but play one on easy and get the hang of it. Winning is more fun than losing.

2. You can't win by excelling at one facet of the game. If you don't balance technology, military, economy, City States and happiness, you are going to lose. No more falling behind on technology and trading to make up. You need to consider what to build in each city very carefully.

3. Warfare is your edge. With a combined arms army you can do much better than the AI, but don't get cocky. If you overreach, the AI is good enough to take you out.

4. The game seems to pick a lower resolution than your computer is really capable of. If you have a card with lots of memory, but that isn't fast, you may be able to bump it up.

5. Wonders are much more of a risk. The AI builds them and it is no longer a way of "producing" money before you get the tech.

6. ALWAYS make sure you have enough money! You can ALWAYS buy your way out of any other trouble, but there is no way of curing a money shortage.

7. You are not going to win this game by the middle ages like lower levels of Civ4. This one will take time to unwind. Having said that, NORMAL speed is slow enough. I couldn't stand Civ4 on anything faster than epic and normal is plenty slow enough to strategize.

8. I used to pack Civs into Civ4 to make the game more interesting. With the city states, the regular density of Civs seems fine.

9. Take time to enjoy diplomacy. Just because you can't see the modifiers, doesn't mean you can't negotiate. Research agreements are very profitable. Build friendships with powerful Civs and unite against the Civ you want to take out. Relationships develop more slowly than Civ4. You can't make allies as quickly, or appease the other Civs if you are really in conflict over land. You can't afford to give away resources as much as you could in Civ4.

I'm enjoying it immensely. It suits my style of play, far more than Civ4 did, and I've already deleted Civ4.

Very well said!

I believe that Civ5, with a couple patches and an expansion pack, will end up being better than Civ4. It needs time to mature and to get meat on its bones.

May Day 10
Sep 22, 2010, 12:44 PM
the hang-up with me is that I played a lot of Vanilla Civ IV, was never really that good, and eventually moved on. I recently broke it out in my excitement for V. At this point I have researched some awesome strategies and ways to play and am only beginning to really grasp all the awesomeness that is Civ IV. I have played it right up until the 20th. I have finally grasped how to use religions, GPs, production cities, etc...

After playing V last night, to be honest, all I can think about now is playing Civ IV this weekend.


And I havent even really scraped much of the surface of BTS or Warlords yet.

My problem is that Civ IV never had a chance to get stale with me and I feel like every game I play I enjoy it more and more. I am convinced its a near perfect game, and probably the best ever created. It hasnt run its course yet with me.

Zeppelin4
Sep 22, 2010, 12:46 PM
NO!!! I never liked the end game in Civ 4 it felt like a job. I hated the stacks of doom and combat in Civ 4. I just enjoyed the early game on marathon and would start over as soon as the combat unit spam took over.

The release of Civ 5 is a lot better then all of Civ 4 to me. I have played non stop since yesterday morning other then a 6 hour sleep last night and I'm having a blast. Well back to the my coffee and the game. :D

Stephanovitch3
Sep 22, 2010, 12:46 PM
I have played the demo off Steam... i am not impressed its just Civ Rev with crap graphics and new features. all i like is the ranged attack and ruins
what i dislike is if you take on a city state it another city state declares war on you ???It has absolutely nothing on Civ IV :lol: I think its fair to say that Civ V was hyped and I will not be spending £40 on it on 24th Sept
Ste

mva5580
Sep 22, 2010, 12:47 PM
If the Civ V patches and expansions add as much to the game as the Civ IV patches/expansions, Civ V will end up being the better game. At this point it's just not a fair comparison.

Madacian
Sep 22, 2010, 12:58 PM
It may still be early, but I'm confident that my Civ IV days are behind me. I've been playing a marathon game on a huge map for about 6 hours. I'm absolutely wrapped up in it. I'd have played all night if I didn't have to be at work. I see these posts suggesting that Civ V was made for consoles or is another Civ Rev and I have to wonder if they've even played a single turn of the game. Civ V feels like a Civ game. It looks amazing on my machine as well. Rivers and oceans lap against the shore. The sun shines and glistens on the surface. All of the tile resources are animated with great detail. The clouds that make up the fog of war are beautifully rendered. I honestly think a lot of these posts are knee-jerk reactions or even lame troll attempts.

In 338 turns I've had a lot of great experiences that really make me enjoy the game. City-state interaction has been one of the most interesting. It adds a much needed layer to diplomacy. My capital started with almost no food producing resources. I had marble and spices in the vicinity, but nothing further. Because of that I befriended two maritime city-states I met while exploring who provided Washington with much needed food. Throughout the game other civilizations were announcing their protection or allegiance with other city-states. At one point a friendly city-state of mine asked me to eliminate one of it's rivals. However that particular state was under the protection of Montezuma. From previous interactions it was clear he was not the friendliest of leaders. He already had a second city up and I didn't feel like the risk was worth the influence I'd gain with my friendly city-state. There are many diplomatic decisions that will come about because of this addition. I loved the added complexity.

Speaking of diplomacy, I didn't find a need for the old +/- system of Civ IV. It was very clear to me how a civilization felt. Not long after meeting Alexander of Greece he made it clear to me how he felt when he came to my attention and apologized for confusing me with the barbarian scum he'd been wiping out. Point taken. You don't care for me. Catherine of Russia made it perfectly clear that she did not appreciate me becoming allies with a city state near her area of influence. It was obvious it spoiled our relationship. As I was moving my army north to eliminate Montezuma I had to pass by Chinese territory. Their leader came to me immediately and made it clear that she did not appreciate the show of force near her borders. I had to appease her and let her know I meant no harm. I signed open borders with her to show my respect and later she came to me with a research agreement. The interactions with civ leaders are perfectly obvious to human players. They will let you know where you stand.

Combat has been infinitely more fun than Civ IV. Using terrain to your advantage, positioning your units correctly, maximizing your promotions, it's all been thoroughly enjoyable. While attacking Montezuma I made sure to protect my archery units with spearmen at the front lines. I'd have additional spearmen just off to the side behind forests or hills to protect them from bombardment, then switch them out with a frontline spearmen after he took a few rounds' beating. I whittled away at their units and defenses until my spears could make a head on attack. After taking his first city the most direct route to his second was across open ground. His unique jaguar units would have eaten me alive. So having just discovered Optics I used a lake adjacent to his cities to flank the second city from the northwest where several forests and hills were available for cover. Again positioning my archers on the hills to fire over the forests into the city and using my spears as frontline defense, I was able to take over yet another city. I had to think about my positioning, when to swap frontline units, when to use promotions or quick heals, which of his units to dispense first. It was very refreshing compared to taking a stack of 6 tebuchets and 10 rifleman to decimate the city in one turn.

Anyway, sorry for the long post, just wanted to share my experiences so far. I doubt many will read it, but I've enjoyed every minute of the 5+ hours I played. I can't wait to get home tonight and continue the journey.

Aegis
Sep 22, 2010, 01:03 PM
Sure doesn't seem that way. 99% of the complaints I've read boil down to people upset that it's not close enough to Civ 4.

Wah, I can't see diplomacy modifiers!
Wah, religion is gone!
Wah, no slider!

I've seen this sort of thing countless times before. Popular Game comes out with a sequal, and a bunch of self-styled hardcore fans pitch a fit because it isn't just a glorified expansion pack. So they kick their feet while and scream while everyone else enjoys the new game.

Mis-characterizing the people who disagree with you as whiny, tantrum-throwing children does not make your opinion any more valid. It only serves to show how petulant you are. :nono:

Civ V is a dumbed-down version of the series, which became popular by not being a dumbed-down game. The only innovative ideas in V are city states, the change to Hexagons and only allowing one unit per tile. Everything else is either exactly the same, or reduced to insignificance. All of the interactivity, functionality & decision making which made the previous versions of the game so enjoyable were tossed out the window, so it is perfectly understandable for the fans of a series which thrived on those principles along with managing (note: not micro-managing) an empire to be underwhelmed.

People are not upset because it's not a re-skin of previous versions. They are upset because the foundation of what made the game great, is gone. Civ has changed from a game where you needed to manage & grow an empire into a simple war game. It's depth, which is what made the game so appealing to so many, is very weak now. Some questions or conflicts we as players used to ask/face were: Do I focus on research, or commerce? Do I give patronage to this AI so that they will like me enough to trade with them? Should I research this tech and use it to trade for another, or should I rely upon pointy-stick research? All of those choices are gone and Civ is now relegated to building structures without regard to an individual city's need and building military units for conquest. Very slow conquest, mind you.

They don't have to replicate every feature from each previous game, but when they replace one feature with another or change how those features are implemented, the very least they could do is make the changes interactive for the player. They didn't, and that is why Civ V fails to meet people's expectations.

Shiggs713
Sep 22, 2010, 01:11 PM
put civ5's graphics and hex system into civ4 and that is what I would prefer. Many of the new "features" or lack there of are obviously inferior to Civ4 BTS. Its still coming along, expect hundreds of DLC's in attempt to make it better. Oh and speaking of anybody look at the MP server!! HAHA what a joke, there was like 5 games hosted when i logged in, in civ4 there are probably more than that going atm. They have killed off multiplayer I'm afraid.

squadbroken
Sep 22, 2010, 01:14 PM
Mis-characterizing the people who disagree with you as whiny, tantrum-throwing children does not make your opinion any more valid. It only serves to show how petulant you are. :nono:
Except it's true, so it's hardly a mischaracterization.
Civ V is a dumbed-down version of the series, which became popular by not being a dumbed-down game. The only innovative ideas in V are city states, the change to Hexagons and only allowing one unit per tile. Everything else is either exactly the same, or reduced to insignificance. All of the interactivity, functionality & decision making which made the previous versions of the game so enjoyable were tossed out the window, so it is perfectly understandable for the fans of a series which thrived on those principles along with managing (note: not micro-managing) an empire to be underwhelmed.
Civ has never been complex or hardcore and you're delusional if you think otherwise. It has always been the strategy game for casuals.
People are not upset because it's not a re-skin of previous versions. They are upset because the foundation of what made the game great, is gone. Civ has changed from a game where you needed to manage & grow an empire into a simple war game. It's depth, which is what made the game so appealing to so many, is very weak now. All Civ is now is building structures without regard to an individual city's need and building military units for conquest. Very slow conquest, mind you.
What exactly is this foundation that is missing?

They don't have to replicate every feature from each previous game, but when they replace one feature with another or change how those features are implemented, the very least they could do is make the changes interactive for the player. They didn't, and that is why Civ V fails to meet people's expectations.
On the contrary, Civ 5 apparently has exceeded many peoples expectations, if we are to go by reviews (from both professionals and users). Most of the whining is from a bunch of die-hards who loathe change. As I mentioned before, it's the same thing I've seen on dozens of message boards whenever a sequel for a game comes out and it's not identical to the previous one.

edit: see the post above mine for proof.

dirtforker
Sep 22, 2010, 01:17 PM
Of course CivIV is going to seem better. It's patched to the gills and has 2 expansions in it. Also will runs fast as hell on today's hardware.

That's the one thing I miss, with my 4 year old computer (but damned beefy for 4 years old, 4gb RAM, 64 bit, 3ghz dualcore), Civ5 turns are hourglass-fests even in the BC years. I'm at 1000AD and dreading establishing anymore colonies...

But, it's pretty much to be expected. Just gotta give it some time, and get used to how the game plays first. It's frustrating going from playing Monarch and higher levels to being a Chieftain noob again...

Aegis
Sep 22, 2010, 02:23 PM
Except it's true, so it's hardly a mischaracterization.

The only person being overly dramatic & theatrical is you and your characterization of people who dislike the game.


Civ has never been complex or hardcore and you're delusional if you think otherwise. It has always been the strategy game for casuals.

Please point out where I said that it was complex or hardcore.

It's okay. I'll wait.

What exactly is this foundation that is missing?

You quoted it. The fundamental philosophy of the game has changed.

edit: see the post above mine for proof.

Proof sans the throwing of a fit, screaming and the kicking/stamping of the feet, you mean.

bob_d
Sep 22, 2010, 02:32 PM
the hang-up with me is that I played a lot of Vanilla Civ IV, was never really that good, and eventually moved on. I recently broke it out in my excitement for V. At this point I have researched some awesome strategies and ways to play and am only beginning to really grasp all the awesomeness that is Civ IV. I have played it right up until the 20th. I have finally grasped how to use religions, GPs, production cities, etc...

After playing V last night, to be honest, all I can think about now is playing Civ IV this weekend.


And I havent even really scraped much of the surface of BTS or Warlords yet.

My problem is that Civ IV never had a chance to get stale with me and I feel like every game I play I enjoy it more and more. I am convinced its a near perfect game, and probably the best ever created. It hasnt run its course yet with me.

I sort of feel the same way. I was still enjoying Civ IV with BTS and the "Better AI" mod. I loaded up Civ V, and after playing two hours, I was BORED.

Yes, I know I need to give Civ V more of a chance.

But I think that Civ IV is a game like chess in that you can play it your whole life.

I also like the Civ IV interface a lot better. When it's time to build something in a city, thebuild menu just pops up. When you need to select something to research, a selection window just pops up. Civ V make me click a bar at the bottom right which is annoying and slows up the game.

squadbroken
Sep 22, 2010, 02:37 PM
The fundamental philosophy has not changed, unless you think twiddling with the slider was the core of it.

Katananga
Sep 22, 2010, 02:48 PM
Imho: Civ V is easy to learn and hard to master. The learning curve is pretty steep under the shiny surface and ive seen the difference between my first few demo games and the last ones (european *sigh*). You can make a lot of wrong decisions in the first few turns. Reading the map and balance food/happines/social politics/production/special abilities of the leader is more challenging as in Civ4 :eek:

Ashbery76
Sep 22, 2010, 02:48 PM
Alpha centauri is better than both.

Flak Fox
Sep 22, 2010, 02:54 PM
If it wasn't for Civ IV's LoR mod not working online, I'd still prefer Civ IV.

But since LoR doesn't work online (properly), Civ V > Civ IV imo.

Alpha centauri is better than both.

Can't argue with that, the Alpha Centauri formula was flawless--if it had a graphic/interface/tech upgrade I'd still be playing it daily as opposed to frequently.

Buccaneer
Sep 22, 2010, 03:00 PM
Civ has never been complex or hardcore and you're delusional if you think otherwise. It has always been the strategy game for casuals.

Perhaps but there was always a game for micromanagers. Now much of that is gone or incomplete and what we have left is only a game for casuals.

squadbroken
Sep 22, 2010, 03:20 PM
Perhaps but there was always a game for micromanagers. Now much of that is gone or incomplete and what we have left is only a game for casuals.
Don't worry, I'm sure someone will eventually make a mod with dozens of sliders you can twiddle with.

Jerieth
Sep 22, 2010, 03:28 PM
Could someone make a mod that has similar rules as Civ 4 and just better graphics? I mean I enjoyed Civ 4 so much, why change such a good model? They did not need to start from scratch, now its too simplistic and we have to wait until someone fixes it.

Aegis
Sep 22, 2010, 03:30 PM
*snip* no trolling here

boredatwork
Sep 22, 2010, 03:32 PM
When a unit gets a level up theres an efdit button underneath the promotions pop up interface. click on that.

But otherwise you can't edit the name?

I also like the Civ IV interface a lot better. When it's time to build something in a city, thebuild menu just pops up. When you need to select something to research, a selection window just pops up. Civ V make me click a bar at the bottom right which is annoying and slows up the game.

Agreed.

mva5580
Sep 22, 2010, 03:38 PM
I just don't understand why the main complaint of Civ V seems to be that it's not Civ IV. Why would you WANT it to be Civ IV? Didn't we just play that for 5 years?

If I'm going to play a sequel, I want it to have fundamental differences from the previous game. I don't want it to have all of the EXACT same features from the previous game with just upgraded graphics. What does it even matter at that point? If all Civ V did was add hexes and 1UPT to the game, can you imagine how many people would be running here crying about how little it's changed?

It's interesting that they took out religion. It's interesting that 1 resource no longer allows you to build 150 Swordsmen. It's interesting that it's now Global Happiness rather than city by city. Whether you think "interesting" equals a good or bad thing, it's all opinion and none of us are truly "right."

But I just don't understand why so many people are looking for Civ V to just be a slightly upgraded Civ IV. I didn't wait 5 years to play an expansion pack, I want to play a game that has a lot of different elements to it. And this game achieves that. And if you think those changes are bad, then I guess you can go back to Civ IV and play that. But honestly, I find the changes welcome and fun to experience. No it's not perfect, yes I have things that I would like to see patches/expansion packs address, but these people who are running here acting like Civ V is garbage are way, way over the top.

No, it's not Civ IV. And I'm glad it isn't. And that's coming from someone who would probably rank Civ IV as the greatest game of all time.

squadbroken
Sep 22, 2010, 03:52 PM
*snip* no trolling here

Aegis
Sep 22, 2010, 03:59 PM
*snip* no trolling here

squadbroken
Sep 22, 2010, 04:05 PM
*snip* no trolling here

R0gue
Sep 22, 2010, 04:18 PM
Okay after reading this thread about mixed reviews of CIV V, its bad it don't have this or that or the other. The people who are not happy with Civ 5 at this stage. I would like them to do this test. Play CIV IV no expansion/mods, just the basic game. Then decide. This is where Civ V is at, at the moment. Then start adding Civ IV mods and expansion then think about the start of Civ IV to the update CIV IV BTS 3.19. Then you should understand the dilema ppl are having with civ V. Its like the start of CIV IV and proberly 95% of the ppl who is not happy with CIV V will grow to love the game, just like Civ IV.

dirtforker
Sep 22, 2010, 04:59 PM
Okay after reading this thread about mixed reviews of CIV V, its bad it don't have this or that or the other. The people who are not happy with Civ 5 at this stage. I would like them to do this test. Play CIV IV no expansion/mods, just the basic game. Then decide. This is where Civ V is at, at the moment. Then start adding Civ IV mods and expansion then think about the start of Civ IV to the update CIV IV BTS 3.19. Then you should understand the dilema ppl are having with civ V. Its like the start of CIV IV and proberly 95% of the ppl who is not happy with CIV V will grow to love the game, just like Civ IV.

Even this wouldn't be enough because they've probably upgraded their computer since that time. You gotta play it on the same machine (and gfx card, etc.) you did in 2005 as well. :)

Ricci
Sep 22, 2010, 05:07 PM
There is no manual saving(have to rely on the auto saves) in MP, also there are absolutely no animations in MP whatsoever.

I don't know hwat you all make of this, but it seems pretty broken not being able to save the game on the spot!!!! What were they thinking??

PiTiFUL
Sep 22, 2010, 05:50 PM
Civ V is a dumbed-down version of the series, which became popular by not being a dumbed-down game. The only innovative ideas in V are city states, the change to Hexagons and only allowing one unit per tile. Everything else is either exactly the same, or reduced to insignificance. All of the interactivity, functionality & decision making which made the previous versions of the game so enjoyable were tossed out the window, so it is perfectly understandable for the fans of a series which thrived on those principles along with managing (note: not micro-managing) an empire to be underwhelmed.

People are not upset because it's not a re-skin of previous versions. They are upset because the foundation of what made the game great, is gone. Civ has changed from a game where you needed to manage & grow an empire into a simple war game. It's depth, which is what made the game so appealing to so many, is very weak now. Some questions or conflicts we as players used to ask/face were: Do I focus on research, or commerce? Do I give patronage to this AI so that they will like me enough to trade with them? Should I research this tech and use it to trade for another, or should I rely upon pointy-stick research? All of those choices are gone and Civ is now relegated to building structures without regard to an individual city's need and building military units for conquest. Very slow conquest, mind you.

They don't have to replicate every feature from each previous game, but when they replace one feature with another or change how those features are implemented, the very least they could do is make the changes interactive for the player. They didn't, and that is why Civ V fails to meet people's expectations.

QFT... after playing a couple rounds of the DEMO I'm in agreement, game has been simplified (dumbed down) alot. Found I didnt have to think or plan at all , click click click and my empire had no issues, try that in 4 and I would be bleeding money, science would be toast I'd have rioting citys, and it would be game over. Poor direction on Firaxis part IMO, CIV is a niche game and they seem to have simplified it to try and attract a larger audience. Not gonna happen, the console crowd isnt going to touch this with a ten foot pole, so all you've achieved is disappointing your core civers which is your bread and butter. Unless there is a serious overhaul of the game mechanics, I wont touch this one... one thing I havent seen mentioned much is the axing of goverments, WTF, the new system blows, pick your upgrades and thats it, like has been said, simplified. The hex map is nice and the overall look is nice but its way more simplified then Civ4, one look at a city in 4 and I could tell what buildings were there, made every city look different, now all the same all the time... seeing wonders under construction is sweet though.

Now all that aside... darn it I want the new combat system in my Civ4 so bad now. That is a definate improvement, with some exceptions, I'm not keen on the new transport method. I like the new costs associated with roads which should eliminate the Ais desire to road every square inch of the map. Resources having limited uses is a nice touch. Seeing wonders under construction. Some of the diplomacy changes, the hex grid... put those changes into the Civ4 core and that should have been Civ5... hmm any modders up to the challenge ;)

mva5580
Sep 22, 2010, 05:57 PM
So I assume you've already played on Deity and won easily considering how "dumbed down" the game is?

AetiusG
Sep 22, 2010, 05:58 PM
I can't believe the demo is 4.3GB!

Either way, I recently began the Civ series with civ4 and I'm in love with it :) Civ 5 doesn't really interest me at this time but I do hope it's not "dumbed down", something that has affected so many other games that i like!

Aravorn
Sep 22, 2010, 06:48 PM
Yep

I still like Civ II better ;)

Chaotic42
Sep 22, 2010, 08:28 PM
I'm going to give it a chance, but I'm skeptical. I can't even get an MP game going because it's tied to Steam which keeps dying. The no unit animation thing is BS too.

digitalcraft
Sep 22, 2010, 09:14 PM
To decide whether or not its dumbed down, all you need to know is they adopted World of Warcraft talent trees instead of civics. :P

ilikepies
Sep 22, 2010, 09:21 PM
Absolutely not. Civ 5 is cleaner, nicer, more interesting, more entertaining, better gameplay, and more immersing. The only thing keeping you in the past is nostalgia and spearman v tank.

PiTiFUL
Sep 22, 2010, 09:46 PM
So I assume you've already played on Deity and won easily considering how "dumbed down" the game is?

So based on your logic, pacman, galaga, asteroids and other old school arcade games are the most complex games ever made, because they are after all, almost, if not literally impossible to beat... interesting.

MeatUnit2
Sep 22, 2010, 10:27 PM
Too early to say about Civ V. Since Civ IV Total Realism mod was completed I've been loving that.

JoyG
Sep 22, 2010, 10:30 PM
Okay after reading this thread about mixed reviews of CIV V, its bad it don't have this or that or the other. The people who are not happy with Civ 5 at this stage. I would like them to do this test. Play CIV IV no expansion/mods, just the basic game. Then decide. This is where Civ V is at, at the moment. Then start adding Civ IV mods and expansion then think about the start of Civ IV to the update CIV IV BTS 3.19. Then you should understand the dilema ppl are having with civ V. Its like the start of CIV IV and proberly 95% of the ppl who is not happy with CIV V will grow to love the game, just like Civ IV.

I never bought any expansion, so I'm still playing Civ IV vanilla on my old 2006 laptop featuring an old Intel integrated graphic GPU. I enjoyed Civ IV from the start. I was not happy with everything, but it was fun. Now I can't say the same about playing Civ V demo on my family up-to-date desktop PC, that can run Crysis at max detail. I don't care much of the aesthetic and Civ V runs smooth on that PC, but Civ V graphic isn't that good, in particular compared to the system requirements. And I wonder what are for those 4 Gb in the demo. Wonders movie aren't movie, just plain pictures zooming, advisors are just pictures. The ocean is good, resource animals are moving, but everything else looks flat and lifeless compared to Civ IV. Civ IV had too saturated colors and a cartoonish style, but what's important is that units and resources were identifiable at glance: I can't say the same about Civ V. Civ V has not only battles but Panzer General colors too (I watched some screens of PG). And, no, that's not just matter of be used to something: I wasn't used to this new battle system and I love it. The same with city states and social policies. Civ IV health system suked and I won't miss it, but maybe it could have been implemented in a different way instead of just toss it away. Religion system implementation wasn't great, but the idea was good, and I enjoyed it. Religion was (and it is) an important factor in human civilization. The Pope was a powerful and influencing man in the middle ages. In the real world, religion inspired (or was an excuse for) "holy" wars, influenced country relations and crusades were about Christian vs Muslim countries, in some way. Ideologies did almost the same in the XX century with capitalist and communist blocks of countries. So I enjoyed religion in Civ IV and it was fun to try to expand my religion and to influence other civs: it added a little new dimension to the game. Of course it could have done better, without micromanage the missionaries, but I didn't expect its complete removal (OK, not really "complete", since there are still temples and social policies, but... you got it).
Well, I was charmed by the Civ IV's atmosphere. Civ IV vanilla wasn't perfect, were was the building maintenance? (Yes I'm happy to have it back) and other stuff was more streamlined compared to the older Civs. Sure, every new Civ game had its pro and cons, but they are still Civilization. Back in 2005 as you ask, I liked Civ IV more than Civ III. Now I still like Civ IV and I have mixed fellings for Civ V.
I'm not sure if Civ V is less "complex", it has new choices and maybe more variety. What really concern me in Civ V is that until now it looks all about battling. I can almost forget my cities, I don't even have to put my army to garrison them. All the management but building stuff is streamlined now. No sliders, no financial balance (and it was already simplistic. Now how can one be a country that cuts found to research, like cutting founds to the NASA?). It now works indirectly maybe, but it fells like I have less control. Yeah, all is automated so I can only care about war and battles. War in Civ V had a nice improvement, but peace time is quite boring. There is something wrong. This is not Civ, this is Civ General! :lol:

Likes_Civing
Sep 22, 2010, 11:56 PM
Amen brother. Nice post.

I just can't get into 5 and I wish I could not buy it. I never bought 3 based on reviews. I think 4 modded or BTS is the perfect game. 5 stinks.

I never bought any expansion, so I'm still playing Civ IV vanilla on my old 2006 laptop featuring an old Intel integrated graphic GPU. I enjoyed Civ IV from the start. I was not happy with everything, but it was fun. Now I can't say the same about playing Civ V demo on my family up-to-date desktop PC, that can run Crysis at max detail. I don't care much of the aesthetic and Civ V runs smooth on that PC, but Civ V graphic isn't that good, in particular compared to the system requirements. And I wonder what are for those 4 Gb in the demo. Wonders movie aren't movie, just plain pictures zooming, advisors are just pictures. The ocean is good, resource animals are moving, but everything else looks flat and lifeless compared to Civ IV. Civ IV had too saturated colors and a cartoonish style, but what's important is that units and resources were identifiable at glance: I can't say the same about Civ V. Civ V has not only battles but Panzer General colors too (I watched some screens of PG). And, no, that's not just matter of be used to something: I wasn't used to this new battle system and I love it. The same with city states and social policies. Civ IV health system suked and I won't miss it, but maybe it could have been implemented in a different way instead of just toss it away. Religion system implementation wasn't great, but the idea was good, and I enjoyed it. Religion was (and it is) an important factor in human civilization. The Pope was a powerful and influencing man in the middle ages. In the real world, religion inspired (or was an excuse for) "holy" wars, influenced country relations and crusades were about Christian vs Muslim countries, in some way. Ideologies did almost the same in the XX century with capitalist and communist blocks of countries. So I enjoyed religion in Civ IV and it was fun to try to expand my religion and to influence other civs: it added a little new dimension to the game. Of course it could have done better, without micromanage the missionaries, but I didn't expect its complete removal (OK, not really "complete", since there are still temples and social policies, but... you got it).
Well, I was charmed by the Civ IV's atmosphere. Civ IV vanilla wasn't perfect, were was the building maintenance? (Yes I'm happy to have it back) and other stuff was more streamlined compared to the older Civs. Sure, every new Civ game had its pro and cons, but they are still Civilization. Back in 2005 as you ask, I liked Civ IV more than Civ III. Now I still like Civ IV and I have mixed fellings for Civ V.
I'm not sure if Civ V is less "complex", it has new choices and maybe more variety. What really concern me in Civ V is that until now it looks all about battling. I can almost forget my cities, I don't even have to put my army to garrison them. All the management but building stuff is streamlined now. No sliders, no financial balance (and it was already simplistic. Now how can one be a country that cuts found to research, like cutting founds to the NASA?). It now works indirectly maybe, but it fells like I have less control. Yeah, all is automated so I can only care about war and battles. War in Civ V had a nice improvement, but peace time is quite boring. There is something wrong. This is not Civ, this is Civ General! :lol:

smackthewise
Sep 23, 2010, 12:10 AM
so I'm still playing Civ IV vanilla on

THIS IS MADDNESSSSS!!!!!!! No BTS? You make an excellent post and I agree wholeheartedly, but........ NO BTS. Good sir you have taken this to far!

vamperium
Sep 23, 2010, 12:14 AM
Now all that aside... darn it I want the new combat system in my Civ4 so bad now

Go download A New Dawn, Afforess modded in UPT's earlier this year.

KingYosef
Sep 23, 2010, 12:22 AM
So far I like Civ 4 better. Hopefully mods will be able to take us to the depths what a Civ game is about, which in my opinion Civ 5 has failed to do.

Venereus
Sep 23, 2010, 01:00 AM
THIS IS MADDNESSSSS!!!!!!! No BTS? You make an excellent post and I agree wholeheartedly, but........ NO BTS. Good sir you have taken this to far!

Not long ago (a few months), I tried to teach my GF about Civ. Not to get her into the game (I plan to use "streamlined" Civ V for that), but just so she could understand wtf I was talking about when I talked about it. So, on that proverbial occasion I had to go back to vanilla Civ IV, because that's the only version that plays the Tutorial.

Now, I got into Civ IV by the time BTS came out, because up until that point I was only able to play Civ III on my not very well aged old hag PC. This was the only time I had played vanilla Civ IV, and it was the tutorial for Sid's sake! Even the victory conditions were different (i.e. I didn't even know the Domination Victory used to require other percentages)!

What I learned from that shared experience playing vanilla Civ IV with my girlfriend, was that it sucked harder than [M-rated GF related fitting joke]. I don't know if I would love Civ IV as much as I do had I played it from release. This fills me with hope about Civ V.

KyleCraig
Sep 23, 2010, 01:27 AM
Yep

I still like Civ II better ;)

YESS!!! :) I loved it!

Not long ago (a few months), I tried to teach my GF about Civ. Not to get her into the game (I plan to use "streamlined" Civ V for that), but just so she could understand wtf I was talking about when I talked about it. So, on that proverbial occasion I had to go back to vanilla Civ IV, because that's the only version that plays the Tutorial.

Now, I got into Civ IV by the time BTS came out, because up until that point I was only able to play Civ III on my not very well aged old hag PC. This was the only time I had played vanilla Civ IV, and it was the tutorial for Sid's sake! Even the victory conditions were different (i.e. I didn't even know the Domination Victory used to require other percentages)!

What I learned from that shared experience playing vanilla Civ IV with my girlfriend, was that it sucked harder than [M-rated GF related fitting joke]. I don't know if I would love Civ IV as much as I do had I played it from release. This fills me with hope about Civ V.


Actually I didn't buy Civ IV until 2008 and at that time, without expansion (I believe you call it vanilla, well maybe bc i'm from europe but i've actually not heard that name for the game before, anyway), and I still loved it! It was fun, and had the basics. Then, maybe a month or two later I went and bought the expansions and it just made it a WHOLE LOT BETTER! so looking back at it, it wasn't that I was complaining at the beginning, but after you know the (MUCH) better version of CIV IV with bts, you don't wanna play the vanilla one... But as long as I didn't have it, I didn't crave BTS... But yes, I wouldn't wanna play without BTS simply bc it's sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oo much fun! :)

Redcard
Sep 23, 2010, 04:29 AM
On day one of Civ V I felt like there was a real mix of things I liked better than IV and things I liked less.

Social policies and their links to culture are awesome, city-states are pretty good (religion was good in theory but since you could never afford to take the "religious path" on higher difficulties it was rather limited), decoupling gold from science is great and of course there is combat.

On the other hand Diplo is a nightmare, the interface is extremely unpolished and I just don't like the look as much. But I was hopeful that the first two issues would be solved by patches/mods.

After my second day with Civ V though, I've found that the little things come together to make it a really soul-crushing experience for me. From the moment Baba Yetu started playing Civ IV felt upbeat, exciting, and bright. Key techs, wonders, and land with specials nearby all had a feeling of great importance to them. None of these things have the same shine in V. Wonders are far less powerful. Land is all pretty much the same other than finding a happiness resource you don't have. I'm sure there will be people of an opposing opinion about tech but I look through the tree and I don't see nearly as much interesting stuff as there was in IV. Also as one person mentioned, there is the constant feeling of never having enough production.

I am shocked to say it but I think I will be putting V on the shelf for awhile.

Jafendel
Sep 23, 2010, 04:49 AM
I purchased BtS only a few months ago (a very late adopter?) so I'm definitely not bored by it yet. And my PC is over 5 years old, so... there's some hardware to be acquired.

How sluggish do you see Civ 5? Civ 4 is the worst memory hog I've encountered... (easily 1 gig in lategame) and I play a lot of different games.

Kharum
Sep 23, 2010, 05:11 AM
Okay after reading this thread about mixed reviews of CIV V, its bad it don't have this or that or the other. The people who are not happy with Civ 5 at this stage. I would like them to do this test. Play CIV IV no expansion/mods, just the basic game. Then decide. This is where Civ V is at, at the moment. Then start adding Civ IV mods and expansion then think about the start of Civ IV to the update CIV IV BTS 3.19. Then you should understand the dilema ppl are having with civ V. Its like the start of CIV IV and proberly 95% of the ppl who is not happy with CIV V will grow to love the game, just like Civ IV.

A bunch of people saying this, but I find it the thought process behind this rather illogical. Why 5 should be a sequel only to 4 and not 4 with expansions? Why the new things in 4's expansions should be ignored when comparing these two games? They've aready once made those features the expansions brought, it's not like they somehow have forgot those things while developing Civ 5. Civ 5's expansion should bring completely new features, the way I see it. Or are you saying the expansion should re-implement the same features, such as religion?

KyleCraig
Sep 23, 2010, 05:13 AM
I purchased BtS only a few months ago (a very late adopter?) so I'm definitely not bored by it yet. And my PC is over 5 years old, so... there's some hardware to be acquired.

How sluggish do you see Civ 5? Civ 4 is the worst memory hog I've encountered... (easily 1 gig in lategame) and I play a lot of different games.

all I can say to that is that the demo is almost 4GB - THE DEMO!!!!! with 3 of 6 civs and only 100-150 turns possible......

and I'm also kind of a late adopter to BTS. I've had it for two years now and in the meantime i've bought quite a few other games... eventually i got bored with all of them EXCEPT this wonderful, exciting, challenging Civ IV!!! :) I may be exaggerating, but I wouldn't be surprised if I was still playing this game in like 10 - 20 years down the road (assuming there's not gonna be another FANTASTIC CIV version) and everybody's gonna think I'm way too old-fashioned :D

since you're a late adopter, look around for some mods on here that are just gonna make it more fun... :)


A bunch of people saying this, but I find it the thought process behind this rather illogical. Why 5 should be a sequel only to 4 and not 4 with expansions? Why the new things in 4's expansions should be ignored when comparing these two games? They've aready once made those features the expansions brought, it's not like they somehow have forgot those things while developing Civ 5. Civ 5's expansion should bring completely new features, the way I see it. Or are you saying the expansion should re-implement the same features, such as religion?

I agree! if they actually DO re-implement known Civ IV features (like religion or espionage) then that to me is just a sign of indecisiveness... (if this is not proper english, cut me some slack :D ) A new version to me is supposed to build upon the previous version, ESPECIALLY if it was such a tremendous success like IV... I'm not saying it needs to be another expansion, I'll be very happy to see some completely new features - just like the previous versions did compared to their predecessors - but a (with some exceptions what looks like) complete reset of the franchise is not gonna work...

poncratias
Sep 23, 2010, 05:24 AM
a bunch of people saying this, but i find it the thought process behind this rather illogical. Why 5 should be a sequel only to 4 and not 4 with expansions? Why the new things in 4's expansions should be ignored when comparing these two games? They've aready once made those features the expansions brought, it's not like they somehow have forgot those things while developing civ 5. Civ 5's expansion should bring completely new features, the way i see it. Or are you saying the expansion should re-implement the same features, such as religion?


this.

fathertuck
Sep 23, 2010, 05:38 AM
Think about how bad civ4 vanilla was compared to BTS. I think the same goes for civV too, so i see no reason to migrate at the moment (not that my computer could run the game anyway). I also think that many who have purchased civV feels obliged to speak good about the game no matter of the gaming experience.

Lord Olleus
Sep 23, 2010, 05:41 AM
I prefer Civ IV still right now. There is a lack of information given to the player in Civ 5 and it makes the game very unenjoyable to have to play it on guess work.


In the Gameplay options menu theres a slider to set the delay for "extended pointer info" or something like that. The default is 2 seconds which is waay too long. Put it on 0.1 or 0.2 seconds. Now if hover over a unit you see how much HP it has. Hover over a worker and you see how close it is to completing its improvement.

AlexandrosV
Sep 23, 2010, 05:43 AM
CIV was a great game, but i played it for years. Now i want something new, not just a CIV expansion pack. They did well and the game would be better in some week. In a few years, with the depth added by expansion packs it would be the greatest. The structure it's there, i'm happy it's not just a "colonization"

RD-BH
Sep 23, 2010, 09:53 AM
I'm going back to Civ IV.
IMO this is MOO3 all over again.
Needs patching and modding to bring back FUN 8)

ctiberius
Sep 23, 2010, 09:57 AM
LOL. I was gonna raise MOO3 too. Perhaps it isn't quite that bad. At least Civ5 works as designed mostly.

bob_d
Sep 23, 2010, 10:33 AM
LOL. I was gonna raise MOO3 too. Perhaps it isn't quite that bad. At least Civ5 works as designed mostly.

And MOO2 wasn't as good as MOO1. I hated the idea of having to build improvements on your planets like Civ. (Yeah, I love Civ, but it didn't work in a space game.) The MOO1 sliders let you focus on the more interesting stuff.

if someone would just come out with a MOO1 clone that ran on Windows and had a quality AI, I'd run to buy it.

ctiberius
Sep 23, 2010, 10:56 AM
I'm not a Civ5 hater, by any means. I appreciate change provided it is the right kind of change.

That being said, I'm not sold on it yet. I understand the direction with eliminating sliders for culture/science/gold, but I really feel I lack control over these things now. They just sort of...happen. If I need more gold vs more culture vs more science it is actually more difficult in my opinion to make that happen. Changing them involves me reallocating workers by city. I may prefer the ability to just direct a change empire wide via sliders. Same ambivalence toward global maintenance, happiness. It may be better and I may see that in the long run. But not yet, not yet.

The other stuff I can't fathom why they stripped it out altogether. There's a difference in my mind between making something more accessible by papering over micromanaging mechanics with set up options and just gouging them out totally. Civ IV had plenty of options in game setup. The ability to have advanced worker commands or not, tech trading, etc. This version seems to have regressed in that regard. I'm not yet convinced the game is "better" without at least the option to micromanage cities or experience things like espionage, advanced diplomacy (why oh why can't I diplomatically demand foreign troops leave my soil!), religion, corporations, etc.

It definitely isn't Civ 4.5. I'm not sure yet whether that's a good thing. I think I was hoping for evolution of the series and instead got a revolution.

da_Vinci
Sep 23, 2010, 11:33 AM
I'm not a Civ5 hater, by any means. I appreciate change provided it is the right kind of change.

That being said, I'm not sold on it yet. I understand the direction with eliminating sliders for culture/science/gold, but I really feel I lack control over these things now. They just sort of...happen. If I need more gold vs more culture vs more science it is actually more difficult in my opinion to make that happen. Changing them involves me reallocating workers by city. I may prefer the ability to just direct a change empire wide via sliders. Same ambivalence toward global maintenance, happiness. It may be better and I may see that in the long run. But not yet, not yet.

(snip)

It definitely isn't Civ 4.5. I'm not sure yet whether that's a good thing. I think I was hoping for evolution of the series and instead got a revolution. I suppose the challenge for the designiers was whether to make "Civ 4 plus", or to make "Civ New" in designing Civ 5. I think they picked Civ new, and if you wanted that you are happy, and if you wanted Civ 4 plus, you are unhappy. For the unhappy group, not a matter of someone changing your mind ... that is unlikely. But the question for the unhappy group is whether to try to embrace the differences in Civ 5 or just keep playing Civ 4.

I was just a Civ dabbler in II and III, and never very good at them, but really got into Civ IV. So I don't recall how much complaining there was about how much different 4 was from 3. Do folks think that 5 is more radically different from 4 than 4 was from 3?

Been thinking about the slider, and maybe that has really been a crutch all along? ctiberius says that now it is more difficult to get science, culture or gold when needed without the slider. He has to change citizen allocations. I would add, that he needs to carefully plan his building mixes, and potentially has to pay even more attention to city specialization. In a way, having no slider adds depth and complexity, but takes away convenience. Whether you like the change depends on which of these you value. Which of course, is a matter of opinion ... so no one on either side is right or wrong. A lot may depend on were your sweet spot is in the interplay between ease of play, depth and micromanagement, and tedium.

Regarding global maintenence and happiness ... I rember in Civ II sending caravans to other cities to drop off hammers for wonders. I have often wished I could send food from one city to another ... silly that the only comodity that can't be dispersed is food. So to me, globalizing some of these features is fine. Not better or worse ... different.

It could well be that Civ 5 has fewer options for variety (this is different from the core gameplay mechanics) than BTS, and potentially these could be added over time to CIv 5. Gamplay features from Civ 4 perhaps can be added to Civ 5 as well, if there is enough demand. Firaxis went in a new direction and perhaps took a risk ... all inovation involves some risk of failure. I don't think the final chapter in the Civ 5 story has been written yet.

dV