nvm
- Thread starter xarthaz
- Start date
So you've proven Civ 4 is a great game that expanded upon an existing game design, and that Civ 5 is a good game that risked a new, completely overhauled game design.
I'll take that =p
Civ 5 had some lofty design goals that it didn't quite meet, but there's a lot of potential there.
I'll take that =p
Civ 5 had some lofty design goals that it didn't quite meet, but there's a lot of potential there.
SammyKhalifa
Deity
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2003
- Messages
- 6,748
I don't know, I just see that (the undeserved praise) as a predictable reaction to the over-the-top trashing we'd seen before.
Adam7Eight
Emperor
The people have spoken.
Sadly, that document has little relevance anymore.
McLMan
Afraid of the monkeys
I voted -1, but that doesn't mean I think Civ V is a bad game.
Of which we don't know if it will ever come to live.
Which you had to enter immediately?yay another civ4 vs civ5 thread
LegionSteve
Motörhead
I love Civ 5 and I am not playing 4 anymore right now. At some point though I will surely go back and play 4 again because it is so awesome and has so many awesome mods, some of which I still haven't tried yet. Playing 4 and playing 5 are such different experiences that I couldn't possibly compare them with just a +/- number. So I didn't vote 
gorillagogo
Chieftain
Nothing says "proof" more than an internet poll with a few dozen responses.
Bandobras Took
Emperor
Er . . . no.
The pollution model was axed in favor of city health, the tile improvement model was completely redone, the city upkeep model was completely new, the combat system was redone to make single value units with situational modifiers, different religions were added, the ability of specialists to generate great people was added, great generals were removed (if we're talking about vanilla), cities no longer stopped working when unhappy, and building maintenance was finally and thankfully done away with.
To name a few.
Civ 4 risked a new, completely overhauled game design. We just didn't notice because it was for the most part done well.
migkillertwo
Prince
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2010
- Messages
- 404
I agree completely. Obviously some far-fetched design goals, but I think the expansions are going to be awesome as long as they dont follow the same path that the Babylon expansion did.
I see city states as the only area with genuine potential. You could say that something like the UN has potential too but that's only because it's unbelievable simplistic at the moment. Most of the other features of the game need rework and repair before any potential can be released. Social policies seem a reasonable concept but even they need some readjustment before any extra innovation.
Completely new ideas can be brought in of course but if they're introduced into a flawed/bugged system they're likely to have a difficult birth. The designers also seem to like very simplified components (units with one combat value, buildings with one function, etc) so if they stick to that concept they're limiting what they can add to the game.
cf_nz
Prince
I take that to mean that Civ V is a good game that isn't fully appreciated by some fans.
Bandobras Took
Emperor
Er . . . units with one combat value are the brainchild of Civ 4. Also, many buildings in Civ 4 Vanilla had just one function.
eviltypeguy
Warlord
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2010
- Messages
- 234
Civ4 Vanilla has average gamespot user rating 9.1
Civ5 Vanilla has average gamespot user rating 8.2
The people have spoken.
No, some people have expressed their opinion.
For example, did you ever stop to consider that the people scoring or posting reviews of Civilization V are not the same group as those that did so for Civilization IV?
TheMeInTeam
If A implies B...
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2008
- Messages
- 27,995
It's better, though that isn't saying much. It's not MUCH better than vanilla IV, but it is better. At max potential, it could be the best game in the series. We'll see.
The majority is not always right...
Btw I wonder why there are so many threads and polls here with the sole purpose to prove that Civ5 is worse than Civ4. Why is is to important to you, what do you want to achieve by doing this?
Btw I wonder why there are so many threads and polls here with the sole purpose to prove that Civ5 is worse than Civ4. Why is is to important to you, what do you want to achieve by doing this?
The best possible result I guess would be a serious revision of CiV scrapping core principals that just arent working as intended (global happiness for instance) and reintroducing staples of the title and core complexity we have come to expect from the title.
Realistic result would be ensuring that CiVI will be a true successor to the title and not continue the minimalist boardgame style attempted in this title.
Similar threads
- Poll
