I hope you realize the only reason "here we go AGAIN" is happening is due to your opinion of my response,
not my response itself which you have grossly distorted to favor your own view.
Take a look at some of the threads in not only the Civ IV forum but also the Civ 6 forums and you'll see a plethora of threads/posts directly related to a change in gameplay from IV to V which subtracts depth, strategy, and overall game play (even from those in favor of V - which is the majority).
You'll continually see things mentioned about "casual" or simplified game mechanics for the massess. You'll also see the reasoning behind this seems to be geared at future releases being more available on tablet/mobile and the PC (not individual but combined platforms) which will increase sales and popularity.
There's even mention of Soren Johnsons' direction, even in Civ IV was to have a less micro oriented approach, although it didn't end up playing that way. So it's no surprise that Civ V (and probably 6) will be simplified (although Soren moved on from IV). My point? How can anyone with a non-biased view truly believe that Civ V is anywhere even remotely close to being as in depth on a strategical level as IV? They are literally leap and bounds apart in that area. Does that mean Civ V is not a fun game for most people? Of course not. Most people on these forums seem to love the game.
Civ 5 is a great game for casuals and for those who struggled to learn all the nuances/intricacies of Civ 4 which were necessary to truly succeed and conquer the game (at least when compared to HoF or other serious gamers).
Civ 5 is a great game for casusals. How is this untrue? Civ 5 is a great game for those who haven't learned the in's and out Civ IV w/ special emphasis found in parenthesis, "at least when compared to HoF or other serious gamers". How is this untrue? If a person hasn't learned all the nuances of a game how can they hope to compete at the highest level? There is definitely a higher learning curve in Civ IV than V.
So if you're not in the mood to concentrate over every single turn and want a "fun" game Civ 5 is the place to be. If you're more goal oriented and ejnoy placing huge amount of time into all the subtle game mechanics/techniques to really succeed and thrive then Civ 4 is by far the best choice.
Go take a look at the current Civ IV HoF G-Major 144. Competing players are now at a point where
each turn is taking 2 hours. They have already played hundreds of hours for one game and will likely need 300+ more to finish. Once again, how is my statement untrue?
I've got some friends that absolutely adore Civ 5. I for one think Civ 5 was a complete train wreck and quite fitting for the garbage. To each their own.
I do have friends that love Civ V. They actually hate Civ IV because they hate to micro and find it too cumbersome. They do stuff like read strategy articles which help them speed up gameplay. My style is exactly the opposite. I will take 10 hours to play a single turn if I can finish the game 1T sooner. But once again, how is anything I said here untrue?
If you re-read my post and soak it in with new context I think you'll see you and I have the same exact view. Everyone has their own opinions and for better or worse play the game that gvies them the most satisfaction. Hopefully we can agree on that.
Cheers. Sean.
)
I guess I'll start at Immortal then.
