Has G&K fixed this game?

You know what I mean. Would you say, overall, that the expansion has correctly the underlying design flaws of the game? Could you list the reasons why?

Also, if you haven't already, please read this: http://www.garath.net/Sullla/Civ5/whatwentwrong.html

EDIT: Link is fixed.

I would say yes. With a big improvement to the AI, a viable ranged unit line, and an economic victory that is less economic, it puts Civ V on par with where it should have been.

Mouthwash said:

You know what I mean. Would you say, overall, that the expansion has correctly the underlying design flaws of the game? Could you list the reasons why?

Also, if you haven't already, please read this: [http://www.garath.net/Sullla/Civ5/whatwentwrong.html]

Click to expand...

Bad link for me.

IMHO, the game has greatly improved... I wouldn't use such a definitive adjective as 'fixed'. I was a huge Civ fan all the way from Civ I through cIV, and was very dissapointed in CiV. My big issues were diplomacy, boring when not at war, and a middle-game lull. Sure the combat AI wasn't great, but I was able to overlook that if the other issues didn't exist.

The big issues have been greatly improved on. The thing that had me ragequit the game was how the AI would piggy-pile on you during wartime, regardless of past diplomatic relations. Now, AI's which you have fostered good relations with actually stick with you, unless you give them a genuine reason to be pissed off. The inclusion of religion, CS quests, and to a lesser extent espionage has gotten rid of being bored when not at war and also the mid-game lull. I now find myself actually doing things when not at war, as opposed to vanilla where I would just endlessly pound the end turn button for a couple hundred years.

Overall great improvements. The combat AI is improved upon, but not perfect. In my 3 or 4 games the AI has a good mix of units, properly lined up and hitting me all at once, but sometimes they have a problem committing troops.

In b4 horsehockystorm

Well, you will like this review as well. The reviewer is biased against Civ 5, as IMO Sulla is as well.

Basically some comments put it right: If you didn't like Civ 5 in the first place, then you will not like the expansion. It makes Civ 5 not Civ 4 as the concept is and was a different one. I liked 5 more than 4 so I will get it, but then again some argue it is still bad/bland/streamlined/whatever.

Those "design flaws" were fixed in patches well after that article was published (that was made in December 2010, IIRC).

Gods and Kings is simply Vanilla Civ 5 with more flavor and depth. So yes, it "fixed" a game that wasn't broken* (merely, Civ 5 vanilla was in dire need of personality and depth).

* - after the june/july 2011 patch, this game was cured of rather horrific balance issues

Have a look at the first impressions thread, that's the most reliable source for your question, I wouldn't pay any attention to negative reviews as they are probably biased.

mindbreaker said:

In b4 horsehockystorm

Well, you will like this review as well. The reviewer is biased against Civ 5, as IMO Sulla is as well.

Basically some comments put it right: If you didn't like Civ 5 in the first place, then you will not like the expansion. It makes Civ 5 not Civ 4 as the concept is and was a different one. I liked 5 more than 4 so I will get it, but then again some argue it is still bad/bland/streamlined/whatever.

Click to expand...

Biased? I first tried Civ V, thought it was great (never played a good TBS game before). I got quickly got bored with the meaninglessness of the whole thing and got into Civ IV. Believe me, I'm not simply jealous that my favorite game is outdated.

i_imperator said:

Have a look at the first impressions thread, that's the most reliable source for your question, I wouldn't pay any attention to negative reviews as they are probably biased.

Click to expand...

To be fair, people at civfanatics would be biased toward positive reviews instead.

You will never find a review absolved from preference. That's the nature of review.

i_imperator said:

Have a look at the first impressions thread, that's the most reliable source for your question, I wouldn't pay any attention to negative reviews as they are probably biased.

Click to expand...

I see. Any negative reviews = biased.

...I guess the people will still cite Sullas article, even if Firaxis had changed Civ5 into a FPS in the meantime...

that said...
Moderator Action: The OP doesn't really provide anything for a good discussion himself, and I'm sure the answer can also be found in this thread.
-> Closed here.