Question of interest....
- Thread starter david1806
- Start date
ABCDPuppies
Warlord
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2011
- Messages
- 298
I don't game much, so never have a cutting edge gaming machine (play on my laptop actually) and as a consequence usually end up getting around to games kind of late if at all. For instance I just started playing CIV in November or so when I got it with expansions for less than $10 on a Steam sale. Between getting things for cheap and after they've already been through the cycle of patches expansions, this seems a pretty decent way to go for me. I still enjoy it now as much as I would have a couple years ago (although it's fortunate, and impressive, that there are still people playing it.)
If Civ V were really awesome I might go out of my way to play it, but from everything I've heard it's not worth the trouble. Probably I'll get around to it in a couple years when I get a new computer that will be able to run such an "old" (by then) game, and hopefully it will have been fixed up a good bit.
If Civ V were really awesome I might go out of my way to play it, but from everything I've heard it's not worth the trouble. Probably I'll get around to it in a couple years when I get a new computer that will be able to run such an "old" (by then) game, and hopefully it will have been fixed up a good bit.
Psyringe
Scout
Civ4 is the only Civ game I play, as it fits my personal preferences almost uncannily well. I especially like:
- the complexity of the economy (which is also well-designed, e.g. using the city maintenance mechanic instead of the building maintenance mechanic was the perfect solution to Civ3's non-fun corruption issues and the equally non-fun superiority of the ICS strategy that had plagued Civ games since the series' inception)
- the complexity of diplomacy, the fact that all diplomacy modifiers are visible (this helps a lot in creating an atmosphere of an unfolding world history, since I can see and understand what the other leaders are "thinking"), and the fact that you can actually make lasting friends - i.e. doing other civs well can be useful since you can expect them to reciprocate.
- religion, which adds to the game's atmosphere, and creates diplomatic blocks that make playing more interesting; you need to take a side and there's no cheesy "be everyone's friend (until everyone backstabs you)" strategy any more, as in previous Civs
- the vast amount and versatility of mods
- the fact that war, while important and often necessary, is not the center of the game - I really feel like building a civilization, not like just playing a conquest game.
- the flexibility in organizing one's civilization witch civics, similar to SMAC policies, as opposed to the simple "government forms" in earlier Civ games.
With Civ5, I expected a game that fit my preferences less well (naturally, since Civ4's phenomenal fit couldn't realistically be expected to be repeated), but that still worked as a Civ game. Despite these relatively low expectations, I was disappointed. Civ5's economy and diplomacy have been simplified, AI players now act like (incompetent and erratic) humans in a board game (which destroys the epic atmosphere of being part of an unfolding world history), religion is gone, building maintenance and cheesy ICS strategies are back, empire organization is forced onto rails that you can never leave once chosen, the game is clearly centered around war (but the AI is abysmal in waging it), and a questionable design decision (1UPT) created lots of problems for no gain, at least not for me. On top of that, the game was only released on Steam (which I stay clear of), and it was released in an extremely unfinished state with glaring bugs (like the "always peace" bug preventing you from winning the game), and naturally there isn't much support for mods right now, although the two last points will improve over time.
In short, Civ5 has a basic design that's very different from the kind of games I enjoy, and then executed this (for me) inferior design in a very shoddy fashion. Hence, I keep playing Civ4. I may check out Civ5 if it's released as a Steam-free bargain game, but it's unlikely that it will ever surpass Civ4 in terms of enjoyability - for that, they'd have to radically redesign core systems of the game.
- the complexity of the economy (which is also well-designed, e.g. using the city maintenance mechanic instead of the building maintenance mechanic was the perfect solution to Civ3's non-fun corruption issues and the equally non-fun superiority of the ICS strategy that had plagued Civ games since the series' inception)
- the complexity of diplomacy, the fact that all diplomacy modifiers are visible (this helps a lot in creating an atmosphere of an unfolding world history, since I can see and understand what the other leaders are "thinking"), and the fact that you can actually make lasting friends - i.e. doing other civs well can be useful since you can expect them to reciprocate.
- religion, which adds to the game's atmosphere, and creates diplomatic blocks that make playing more interesting; you need to take a side and there's no cheesy "be everyone's friend (until everyone backstabs you)" strategy any more, as in previous Civs
- the vast amount and versatility of mods
- the fact that war, while important and often necessary, is not the center of the game - I really feel like building a civilization, not like just playing a conquest game.
- the flexibility in organizing one's civilization witch civics, similar to SMAC policies, as opposed to the simple "government forms" in earlier Civ games.
With Civ5, I expected a game that fit my preferences less well (naturally, since Civ4's phenomenal fit couldn't realistically be expected to be repeated), but that still worked as a Civ game. Despite these relatively low expectations, I was disappointed. Civ5's economy and diplomacy have been simplified, AI players now act like (incompetent and erratic) humans in a board game (which destroys the epic atmosphere of being part of an unfolding world history), religion is gone, building maintenance and cheesy ICS strategies are back, empire organization is forced onto rails that you can never leave once chosen, the game is clearly centered around war (but the AI is abysmal in waging it), and a questionable design decision (1UPT) created lots of problems for no gain, at least not for me. On top of that, the game was only released on Steam (which I stay clear of), and it was released in an extremely unfinished state with glaring bugs (like the "always peace" bug preventing you from winning the game), and naturally there isn't much support for mods right now, although the two last points will improve over time.
In short, Civ5 has a basic design that's very different from the kind of games I enjoy, and then executed this (for me) inferior design in a very shoddy fashion. Hence, I keep playing Civ4. I may check out Civ5 if it's released as a Steam-free bargain game, but it's unlikely that it will ever surpass Civ4 in terms of enjoyability - for that, they'd have to radically redesign core systems of the game.
backthief
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2007
- Messages
- 58
One of the main reasons i bought a damn good new PC was to play CIV V without having to wait 2minutes between turns. Months later i am still playing CIV IV almost everyday, and sometimes i play CIV V for 10min, trying to see if i didnt get something or the game is downright bad.....its bad.
Civ IV is a better game. Religion makes it unpredictable and different maps give you infinite replayability, but AIs could use a boost package to become less predictable sometimes.
CIV V 1 unit stack isnt appealing for me. And the game seemed "made for dummies", or "dumb proff". And i hate its Civilopedia.
Civ IV is a better game. Religion makes it unpredictable and different maps give you infinite replayability, but AIs could use a boost package to become less predictable sometimes.
CIV V 1 unit stack isnt appealing for me. And the game seemed "made for dummies", or "dumb proff". And i hate its Civilopedia.
Bushface
Deity
I cannot force myself to name the version of Civ that followed BtS, because I hate it so much. They're issuing vast patch after vast patch, but that's like nailing rusty corrugated iron over the tattered tarpaulin that was slung over the rotting grass roof of a hut built by drunks, on a bog, using termite-infested timber.
Civ I was good: Civ II was better: Civ III was ruined for me by the corruption.
Civ IV + BtS, on the other hand, is excellent in my opinion.
Civ I was good: Civ II was better: Civ III was ruined for me by the corruption.
Civ IV + BtS, on the other hand, is excellent in my opinion.
Brilliant! And thanks for all the replies - just came back to this post after quite awhile away, very interesting posts.....
And I'm on Civ IV by the way!
D
KinesongPayaso
Warlord
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2006
- Messages
- 188
I never played civ1-2-3, because I never heard of it back then
I started with 4, and enjoyed it -- primarily because of its breadth and depth. Lots of other games promise variety, open-ended possibilities, yet when you try out each tendril of a possibility, it feels hollow, like it's there for variety's sake. That is not the case in civ4 -- each variance in gameplay is significant, and has purpose
when 5 came out, I gave it a try, and didn't like it. I earnestly played it like a different game. I was not playing it with the expectation of a 'new and better civ4' -- that wasn't what disappointed me, it was the lack of depth
-
I mostly play rpg, rts, tbs, card and board
my machine can handle current games, it was not a factor for me in playing older games
.... aaaaaaand i just realised it's a 4 year necro
I started with 4, and enjoyed it -- primarily because of its breadth and depth. Lots of other games promise variety, open-ended possibilities, yet when you try out each tendril of a possibility, it feels hollow, like it's there for variety's sake. That is not the case in civ4 -- each variance in gameplay is significant, and has purpose
when 5 came out, I gave it a try, and didn't like it. I earnestly played it like a different game. I was not playing it with the expectation of a 'new and better civ4' -- that wasn't what disappointed me, it was the lack of depth
-
I mostly play rpg, rts, tbs, card and board
my machine can handle current games, it was not a factor for me in playing older games
Brilliant! And thanks for all the replies - just came back to this post after quite awhile away, very interesting posts.....
And I'm on Civ IV by the way!
D
.... aaaaaaand i just realised it's a 4 year necro
I played civ2 when I was 10-14 yrs old
i played civ3 when I was 15-19 yrs old
I played civ4 since 20 yrs...
I tried civ5 last year... really tried (and for few weeks it was fun).. but that was different.. not really bad... but not next step.. So I guess I will stick to civ4 as long as it will give me fun.. after that I don't hope to see civ6 (upgrade from civ4).
Problem is that market has changed.. and games like civ4 just can't get too many fans (its too deep for average gamer who just has fast reaction + fast PC.. but nothing personal - less "brain" for something deeper)...
I like Starcraft too as game.. but its mostly about reaction speed.. and than comes strategy and tactics... I am too slow for that
i played civ3 when I was 15-19 yrs old
I played civ4 since 20 yrs...
I tried civ5 last year... really tried (and for few weeks it was fun).. but that was different.. not really bad... but not next step.. So I guess I will stick to civ4 as long as it will give me fun.. after that I don't hope to see civ6 (upgrade from civ4).
Problem is that market has changed.. and games like civ4 just can't get too many fans (its too deep for average gamer who just has fast reaction + fast PC.. but nothing personal - less "brain" for something deeper)...
I like Starcraft too as game.. but its mostly about reaction speed.. and than comes strategy and tactics... I am too slow for that
My first experience was Civ II. Played, loved it. Lost many nights to the "just one more turn" syndrome, but then grew tired of some of the annoyances. (number 1 being the AI building cities right in the middle of "my" area, I mean literally in the middle of my cities and my cities alone, there would be a small open space and PLUNK, the AI drops a settler and builds. Loses immersion for me)
Got III when it first came out, loved it, lost many nights to the "just one more turn" syndrome, but with the advent of cultural borders mostly (not quite all the way but mostly) doing away with my number one complaint from II, I bought all the expansions and was a happy Civ III player.
Didn't get Civ IV until after the first expansion was already out (Warlords), played it, loved it, lost many nights to the "just one more turn" syndrome, and then bought Beyond the Sword when it came out. And then, well, the lost nights due to the "just one more turn" syndrome increased exponentially, and IMO it was the "perfect" Civ game with all the best qualities of all of the past ones, including SMAC. Have been a happy player for years, with literally hundreds, probably thousands of games under my belt.
Didn't buy V because of the Steam thing. Boycotted Steam for years and years. Then when it appeared that horse was out of the barn, I grudgingly gave in and bought some of the games I had done without due to Steam (Fallout New Vegas and Civ V were the biggest two) and tried it.
And it was the first game in the series that the "just one more turn" syndrome did NOT get me. I don't know why, to this day I don't know why, it's.... something, I dunno, just not as FUN about it to me, and so I stick to Civ IV, BtS and am (mostly) happy.
Got III when it first came out, loved it, lost many nights to the "just one more turn" syndrome, but with the advent of cultural borders mostly (not quite all the way but mostly) doing away with my number one complaint from II, I bought all the expansions and was a happy Civ III player.
Didn't get Civ IV until after the first expansion was already out (Warlords), played it, loved it, lost many nights to the "just one more turn" syndrome, and then bought Beyond the Sword when it came out. And then, well, the lost nights due to the "just one more turn" syndrome increased exponentially, and IMO it was the "perfect" Civ game with all the best qualities of all of the past ones, including SMAC. Have been a happy player for years, with literally hundreds, probably thousands of games under my belt.
Didn't buy V because of the Steam thing. Boycotted Steam for years and years. Then when it appeared that horse was out of the barn, I grudgingly gave in and bought some of the games I had done without due to Steam (Fallout New Vegas and Civ V were the biggest two) and tried it.
And it was the first game in the series that the "just one more turn" syndrome did NOT get me. I don't know why, to this day I don't know why, it's.... something, I dunno, just not as FUN about it to me, and so I stick to Civ IV, BtS and am (mostly) happy.
Seraiel
If you want anything from I please ask in German
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2011
- Messages
- 8,165
I played 1, 2 and also 3, but not seriously. Then a friend told me you have to beat the hardest game on the highest difficulty!
Found out that CIV Deity qualifies for this, so I worked my way until I fonally was able to beat Deity. Also did the HoF Elite Qattromaster Challenge, so I played CIV really completely, having won with every leader, on every map, with every victory condition, on every speed, with all advanced starts too, and I also played 4 Deity Gauntlets successfully.
Now I wonder where to go ftom here on. My PC is a quite new Alienware that could handle every game, but it seems, that CIV is simply the best of the whole series. I'd guess after having read what other pmayers wrote, that CiV would bore me to death because in it, AI can handle war even worse then in 4.
No idea. I'm currently writing strategy articles for others because it's fun and very givi.g. I also try to help most CIV players with their games. I'll probably continue with xOTM and QM from here. Would like to have the awards for those too. I hope the CIV community will live for as long as it takes for a decent new Civ coming out. I do everything I can so this happens.
Found out that CIV Deity qualifies for this, so I worked my way until I fonally was able to beat Deity. Also did the HoF Elite Qattromaster Challenge, so I played CIV really completely, having won with every leader, on every map, with every victory condition, on every speed, with all advanced starts too, and I also played 4 Deity Gauntlets successfully.
Now I wonder where to go ftom here on. My PC is a quite new Alienware that could handle every game, but it seems, that CIV is simply the best of the whole series. I'd guess after having read what other pmayers wrote, that CiV would bore me to death because in it, AI can handle war even worse then in 4.
No idea. I'm currently writing strategy articles for others because it's fun and very givi.g. I also try to help most CIV players with their games. I'll probably continue with xOTM and QM from here. Would like to have the awards for those too. I hope the CIV community will live for as long as it takes for a decent new Civ coming out. I do everything I can so this happens.
misterfilmgeek
Warlord
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2006
- Messages
- 172
Why do people do this? What is wrong with Steam? At least it's not Origin. Other than putting in your key or purchasing the game through their store, you don't have to be online to play. There's no installation limit, there's no need for physical media ever, you can play on multiple computers on your network (and now even stream games from a central computer), gift extra keys form bundles, and... do I really need to go on?
No, you don't need to go on. You could go on until the end of time and it won't change my mind about a new, intrusive, form of DRM.
And while you may not need to be online to play, you do need to be online to download and install it. And my ISP bill is over $100 a month (that's phone too). At some point I will no longer be able to justify that expense since I'm on a fixed income now. So guess what happens to games I purchased and supposedly own after that if I say have computer problems or just want a new one? With a simple disk, or DRM free install file like you get at GOG dot com, I can simply install the game onto my new computer, no internet connection ever required. Not so with Steam. Every time you install, or reinstall, you have to have an internet connection. And every time anything goes wrong (and it HAS gone wrong) the offline mode stops working and once again you need an internet connection.
No thanks. When I have to give up my internet, I'd prefer to keep playing my games without "asking permission" from Steam.
Pangaea
Rock N Roller
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2010
- Messages
- 6,390
If ever there was an equivalent of an upvote button on this site, I'd be hitting it on your post until my mouse gave out
Hate everything about Steam too, don't own a single game there, and never will. I stick to GOG these days, and crowd-funded games, as these don't contain DRM or have the dodgy policies of steam. It saddens me that most people don't care about such issues, or even know about it.
Unless they have changed this recently, it's also not correct that you don't need to be connected to the internet to play your already installed games on steam. You can stay in offline mode for a few weeks, but then you need to connect to the internet so steam can "phone home" and do whatever the hell that hidden software code does.
Steam is the reason I stopped playing Football Manager, a game I was even a beta tester for. Bought it at least 10 years straight, but the year they made it impossible to play without steam was the year I stopped playing it.
slengtorm
Chieftain
If ever there was an equivalent of an upvote button on this site, I'd be hitting it on your post until my mouse gave out
I second this. Just say no to DRM.
Wait, what? Isn't Football Manager 2015 available on disc?
Pangaea
Rock N Roller
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2010
- Messages
- 6,390
It is, but you still need to hook it up to steam. It's basically just a disc with some of the game on it. Then, from what I understand, you need to download the lasts bits from steam, and connect to it there. It's impossible to play the game (legally) without steam.
Other games have the same "feature". That you can buy them on discs doesn't necessarily mean you can play them without steam.
slengtorm
Chieftain
You have just ruined the nice romantic evening I've been having with my girlfriend.
This is the case for the OS X version as well?
This is the case for the OS X version as well?
Pangaea
Rock N Roller
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2010
- Messages
- 6,390
I haven't bought it myself, obviously, but I can't imagine they've changed their stance since they have been pretty aggressive when people have continuously criticised their steam-only stance on their forums (I was one of them, including in the beta testing years, when it became more and more obvious they would monopolise via steam). But just to be sure I checked it out, and sure enough, you require steam to play the game, no matter how or where you buy it. Bloody idiotic. May as well just include an empty DVD cover with a printed on CD key for steam
http://www.footballmanager.com/manual/12-installation/122-installing-football-manager™-2015
(I may have changed a few words here and there for clarity).
Spoken like a true Orwellian. A negative limitation that users probably won't like? Make it sound like something positive!
misterfilmgeek
Warlord
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2006
- Messages
- 172
I have an old laptop that has no network any longer that I play Football Manager 13 exclusively on, and it has never asked to reconnect and has never stopped me from playing. I don't know why you think that this is so. I'm sure Steam wants to check for updates (maybe not in Offline mode; I've never verified that), but without a connection it doesn't know that there is an update, so it just blissfully continues along as I win title after title. It's possible that this behavior is exclusive to FM13, but I seriously doubt it. I also play BtS on Steam on another computer, and it has never updated it (no need to since there have been no new releases), and I'm sure if I put that on a non-network computer, it would run for eternity just fine.
If you face the prospect of no internet at all, then obviously Steam isn't for you, but there's no need to bash it. People need to seriously lighten up about Steam - it's not the devil. It just makes buying and playing multi-player games much easier, and in my experience much cheaper as they frequently have sales - I haven't paid more than $5 for a game in years. I have everything backed up so if my hard drives fail I can just restore it without internet, and I always have the option of restoring from Steam. There is absolutely no downside if you connect to the internet even occasionally.
