New IGN preview

Honestly stopping at the top of my post because you don't agree with something shows how close minded you are. I thought you might be arrogant when you presumed to tell us what we learned from the article but now I know you are.

As for downloadable content. Many companies release there expansions as downloadable content. If you don't think they will be available for direct download then you are kidding yourself.

Sorry for the off topic discussion but I felt compelled to reply. And as was said more dribble not related to gameplay at all.
 
As for downloadable content. Many companies release there expansions as downloadable content. If you don't think they will be available for direct download then you are kidding yourself.
Don't be pedantic. When used in this respect Downloadable Content refers to small amounts of additional content released for a small price. Not full expansions packs. Yes, expansions packs are content and can be downloadable, but in common usage are not "downloadable content". By this theory we can say that Civ5 itself will be downloadable content.
 
Great article thanks for posting it. I am truly shocked at the direction this thread has gone. Very little discussion of game mechanics and a lot on semantics.

IMHO I don't think which leaders and Civs are in the game matters very much if the game turns out to be a dud. After all... the rest will be included with downloadable content/expansions at a price. Obviously that is what most of you care about, so why not charge a premium for more leaders and civs? That is what I would do. Personally I could play the game with Cultural leader Artsy Fartsy and scientific leader Smarty Pants as examples.

As to the realism vs gameplay debate. You guys are all arguing on the same side of the argument, but from different angles. The Civ developers have tried to make a somewhat realistic and playable strategy simulation out of the history of mankind. I know the game in itself is not uber realistic but every step it gets closer to realism we all seem to like the game much better. As crazy as this sounds... as it gets more realistic the gameplay seems to be getting better as well. In fact as a community we can't even stand it if it takes a step back in the wrong direction. i.e dropping religion and espionage. So to all of those people who say it is all about gameplay I say this... Great gameplay brings about realistic results. If the game doesn't feel realistic few people will play it. To all those who think it is all about realism. Without gameplay you are not playing a game. So just go and settle a village in the wilderness somewhere and we will see where you get in a few thousand years.

Now back on topic.

I find the generic statement "game is as deep as long time fans want" a bit too vague to give me any comfort at all. Every other game developer has let me down in the past except Sid. Please Sid don't fail me now!

I am concerned about naval warfare/transport and how it will be managed. Some of the ideas in this thread have been very interesting like units transporting themselves through a city. We will see soon I hope.

I truly like a cities culture and borders growing slowly hex by hex. The innability to pick which hexes you want to include in your cities culture will make it hard to specialize cities to certain tasks. Perhaps specialized cities are a thing of the past? Are national wonders for specializing cities included in CiV? I haven't read anything about them.

I like the idea of cities defending themselves and building structures can increase that defense. Also garrisoning the city with a unit is a great option to have. With the one unit per hex rule I can already see a battle frontage where each side has units on either side of a city and that city hex changing sides several times before the battle is over.

Units can replace each other is great but can 3 units in a triangle switch spots?

The tech sharing is definately better with a small boost to participant nations. I may even play with it turned on. I have never played a game with tech trading on in CIV 4.

I find alliances with city states very intriguing and hope they pull it off. I wonder why just taking their city will not be as beneficial to you? It always has been in the past.

I love the idea of maintenance costs for strategic resources. This will make warfare much more necessary to aquire vital resources. It will also make a target of nations who have the most resources. So when you get big and have the most everyone will try to knock you down and take what you have. This could balance the game a bit instead of the snowballing I see in many of my games where the big just keep getting bigger.

The concept of writing the AI in layers sounds great. I just hope it has the flexibility to change with map position, availability of resources, and the changing game. Here's to hoping!

Cities flipping always seemed unrealistic and by definition bad gameplay! ;) I'm glad that is changing. I hope it becomes more of a civil unrest situation. Thus having cities like this become a drag on the empire. The partisan idea could be cool as well. This could tie up your troops from more important matters.

The individual traits for the leaders has me very concerned. As was previously mentioned. When leaders shared traits there was competition for wonders, culture, religion, large empire, attack, defense, etc. There was always another leader with the same or opposite traits to compete with. Also the example given was horrible. forests as roads? If they are going that route then I am truly worried. I could get a seafaring trait only to be stuck in the middle of a continent. I see very little flexibility if they are going for traits like that?! I can also see a situation where a couple of leaders will have the most desired trait and everyone will want to play with that leader/civ.

As for the graphics news. Great extra but I don't really care a whole lot. Gameplay and Realism that is what I care about!

City states will have their own tech trees. I suppose there's a chance that if you are particularly nice to them that they will give you a tech that you can't research. Also, apparently City States will gift you military units as well. Even ones that require resources. Perhaps you can go over you limit for a unit in that way.
So, it could very well be worth it to keep them independent. Sounds like an interesting game play choice. :D
 
Drakken I didn't mean to come across so rude, but I suppose I did. Sorry, I just have no tolerance for rampant speculation of things that I already know (the closet thing we're gonna have to downloadable content is user mods or official expansions). You bring up many good points, but to me the best thing revealed in these previews is the improvement of the AI. 4 layers of strategy, thats more than some people! Lets hope the days of barb nuking, useless attacks, and mindless roaming for the AI are done. No offense to firaxis, but seriously the AI was pretty stupid even in BTS, I had to play on immortal most the time to have a decent challenge.
 
i red your post Drakken but i also understand why Shiggs713 didnt want to continue reading it at first, after seeing 3letters DLC.

DLC has been discussed in other threads and most fans hate this. games like civ saga have idealist and clever core fans, so every marketing type doesn't work within such communities.
Even if EPs didn't bring new features (real improvements that can't be included by modders) and brought only new civs, it would spread great dislike.
 
I was disappointed to read that culture will still dominate border expansion. It sounds like they've atleast got some plans in the works to fix the whole problem with most culture being generated in the middle of the empire where it is worthless and none at the edge where it is needed.

I really hoped that they would be leveraging the 1 unit per tile thing to add some more options for claiming territory. You can probably count on 1 hand the number of times outside of the last hundred years where the quality of life in the nearest large cities was the determining factor in who got to tax the people in an area.
 
I was disappointed to read that culture will still dominate border expansion. It sounds like they've atleast got some plans in the works to fix the whole problem with most culture being generated in the middle of the empire where it is worthless and none at the edge where it is needed.

I really hoped that they would be leveraging the 1 unit per tile thing to add some more options for claiming territory. You can probably count on 1 hand the number of times outside of the last hundred years where the quality of life in the nearest large cities was the determining factor in who got to tax the people in an area.

Culture being strongest at the center and weakest at the frontiers makes perfect sense though. Sounds good to me. :)
 
I really hope if you take away culture or space race as a victory option civs won't try to win that way.

I mostly play on lakes, standard size with aggressive civs. In those games no civ ever wins by space race or culture, if a civ were to aim mainly at that they would have no chance to win.
 
honestly, i belive they will not fix the culture/border issue in civ5 neither.

they can never fix this unless they include ways for claiming land w/o settling. a very easy solution would be w castles. u should be able to build them far away your cities and they could spread a little culture.

you have to build useless cities to block AI in some games and it is rubbish. claiming territory should be possible. they could also just fix city maintenance issue. it is very very high in deity.
 
Top Bottom