Civ 5: My Doubts

[wapamingo]

The Spanish had formed a large alliance with the Aztec's disgruntled neighbours. The numbers weren't as lopsided as many people think.

Also, don't forget disease that went ahead of the Spanish -- And this is not modeled at all in Civ 5.

My only concern is the turn timer took too long (2-3 seconds?) on the "beast" machine the 2kGreag played on - I am worried that my not so beastly laptop may take frustratingly longer.

 

[GoodRevrnd]

About the only valid comment I see is regarding trade mechanics. That's one area I wish they would explore a bit more. Considering all your other comments, I honestly don't understand how you could even tolerate Civs 1-4.

 

[edpovi]

I have also played Civilization from the time the game didn't have a number. I have also enjoyed every version of the game, including Civ 3 and Rev. But I am very much looking forward to this game and I believe the changes and non-changes will led to an excellent game.

From your complaints, it sounds like CIV (all versions) were never designed to be the game you are looking for and never well be (without mods). Perhaps something like Victoria II will have the level of detail and historical elements you are looking for. CIV was never meant to be a Historical Simulation, nor a full on war game like Case Blue. CIV has just enough strategy to allow for interesting choices without being so detailed you need to memorize tables of complex variables.

This game for me has always been the definitive 4X TBS game, where you start with just a settler and built a civilization to stand the test of time.

 

[iop]

My only concern is the turn timer took too long (2-3 seconds?) on the "beast" machine the 2kGreag played on - I am worried that my not so beastly laptop may take frustratingly longer.

Just don't try and encode a streaming video at the same time as playing Civ and all will be fine.

 

[Lord Tirian]

Graphic Requirements:Firaxis doesn't seem to realize that for the vast majority of strategic gamers, graphics are not first on the priority list. This is not the FPS crowd that has to have shiny objects and loud explosions to even consider a game.

Sorry to get a bit ranty here, but:
a) The graphics requirement are not high. I've got a 5-year old computer (from a discounter even) where I upgraded the graphics card once (for less than 100 quid). It's going to handle Civ5 just fine. People are either overestimating the requirements of Civ5 from its looks or underestimating the power of graphics cards by quite a bit.

b) What is it with the perception that strategic gamers don't care for graphics? They may not care for graphics that tax every bit of processing power of their graphics card, true, but almost nobody does? Where is that perception coming from that "strategy = ugly"!?

Cheers, LT.

 

[Schuesseled]

What exactly is wrong with having beautiful strategy games, every one made by games company uses up-to-date graphics, its only the ones done by indepent designers that suck graphically, mostly because of a low budget, not design choice.

 

[Tiberias]

It's odd to me that the OP claims to be a long time civ lover and lover of similar games then complains about just about every element that makes civ the *game* that it is (with all the other games being pretty much the same)...boggles the mind.

Civ 5 is just doing some things differently and IMO, better. If all you want is an improved Civ IV just stick with Civ IV and mods that keep the game fresh.

I apologize if I am coming across as a bit of a curmudgeon!

I am in fact a long time player of the Civ-type games, but what I think has changed has been that I have realized how much more untapped potential there is. A very big part of that has been exposure to other games, both boardgames and computer games. I played GalCiv 2, and thought--why shouldn't a city be able to build more than one of each type of building if it has the room for it? I played Colonization and thought--this is a really interesting economic model, why isn't Civ doing more to make its economic model more structured, with more interesting decisions?

And then there are things I have hoped for that have simply never materialized, and where they aren't even close to being implemented--e.g. the aforementioned issue with trade, but also nomadic cultures, an interesting civil stability model (Rhye's was a good one, it would make an excellent starting point), population migrations, the natural spread of ideas, etc.

The point on mods is well taken, but there's only so much mods can do within the existing framework. As long as it's a narrow system confined to generic people, hammers, and gold coins, that's a limited set of tools to work with (EU has the same problem.) Rhye has done amazing things with Civ 4, and if he's interested in doing the same for Civ 5, that may tempt me over, but that remains to be seen.

 

[Schuesseled]

Thats why civ is modable, so you can take the basic code of civ 5, and twist it your perversions....

You can mess around with the economics system, you can add new units, you can make civs die and be reborn pointlessly etc.

It's more important to have a solid base game that doesn't experiment too far, leave that to the mods.

 

[Tiberias]

From your complaints, it sounds like CIV (all versions) were never designed to be the game you are looking for and never well be (without mods).

I did enjoy the earlier versions, although I only really warmed up to Civ 4 with the huge Rhye's and Fall mod, and with Colonization 2 (yes, you read that right: I am in fact a fan of Colonization 2.) The thing both have in common is that they moved Civ away from the "classic" gameplay toward a style of play that was more dynamic and fun not in spite of the fact that they attempted to model history, but because of it.

Perhaps something like Victoria II will have the level of detail and historical elements you are looking for. CIV was never meant to be a Historical Simulation, nor a full on war game like Case Blue. CIV has just enough strategy to allow for interesting choices without being so detailed you need to memorize tables of complex variables.

I was a huge fan of EU2 back in the day, but its limitations are now painfully evident to me. It's much too numbers-based, and much of the history is heavily scripted rather than the natural result of real-world dynamics.

The historic games I enjoy the most are boardgames, specifically wargames. The problem wargames have is that the rules and pieces and maps can become cumbersome when the scope is large enough. A computer game would not have that limitation, and could have a certain amount of complexity "under the hood" while presenting relatively straightforward decisions to the player.

This game for me has always been the definitive 4X TBS game, where you start with just a settler and built a civilization to stand the test of time.

But civilizations never stand the test of time! If I wanted to play fantasy, I wouldn't be playing Civ 5, I'd be playing Master of Magic 5! Hey wait, where is Master of Magic 5? . . .

 

[kiwitt]

A better example would be the difference between Euro games and wargames. Euro games take a game system, then go in search of a theme that happens to fit well on top of it (example: Dominion.) My central complaint is that Civ has been going more and more in the direction of a Euro game: design something fun to play, then tack a historic theme onto it.

The inverse is a wargame. A wargame covers an actual event of interest, and the design is an attempt to capture the issues and complexities that make that event worth studying. Playing the game (ideally) leads to insights into the real world (example: Twilight War, which despite some game-y mechanics yields some interesting insights.)

I have to disagree on virtually all your points.

The Civ Series (I have them all) allowed so many custom mods, so much so that you can virtually be playing a whole new game.

Civ 5 will be a whole new framework for modding and will be even easier than before and continuing to support it by Firaxis/2K games (represented here), show this will continue. Like the Civ 4 series, fan scenarios (or mods) will make it into expansions packs or DLC (the new method).

Now on your point about a wargame. I have been playing wargames for 40+ years, from model soldiers, to paper cutouts on hex maps, and the like, so I can comment on this well. I have spent better part of nearly 2 years re-writing a Fan Mod (RtW), to make it more like a wargame. Why not buy a dedicated wargame like HoI (I have btw), you may say; well because I like the Civ 4 engine and mechanics. Civ 5 mechanics (1 upt, hexes, etc.), will even suit my style of play. As a "novice" modder, I am looking forward to creating my own RtW mod for simulating WWII, (especially in Europe with the massive land battles), in Civ 5.

 

[Seven05]

The point on mods is well taken, but there's only so much mods can do within the existing framework.

No, they can do so much more than what most people bother to do, almost the entire 'framework' can be redesigned. However, that is not what most people want. Most people want a mod that still plays, fundementally anyway, like Civ. That is why Fall From Heaven or Rhye's still play like Civ, not because they were somehow limited by the 'framework' of the existing game.

If you want something different and don't plan on moving on to Civ 5 then you should dig around the Civ 4 SDK and see what you can really do with it. There is no 'limited framework' to stop you from doing some crazy stuff with Civ 4 as long as you're reasonable and not dreaming of turning it into a FPS. Just don't be surprised if it isn't popular unless you can manage to convince people that don't like the base, unmodified game into buying it so they can play your mod.

 

[Tiberias]

@OP

So your argument is that Civ 5 is to similar to previous civ's that you've played and enjoyed. And that's a bad thing. Right whatever.

I played them, enjoyed them, and am ready for something new. So where's my something new?

And while I'm on it, where is Master of Orion 3 (no, not that one, the real Master of Orion 3)? Where is Master of Magic 2? Where is the brand new turn-based strategy game that defies genre and expectations (e.g., the next Alpha Centauri, only in a whole new environment)?

The simple and unfortunate fact is that turn-based gaming, and the Civilization series in particular, is stuck in a rut, and is not getting out of that rut anytime soon from what I can see, and that's what the complaint is.

At a broader level, too many games companies are in "if it ain't broke don't fix it" mode, which has resulted in the so-called Attack of the Clones (Starcraft "2" may as well have been called Starcraft 1.2.) Much of that is the result of the corporate-ization of computer gaming, so some of the blame is at the feet of Take2 and Activision, but a lot of it is also our fault, as we continue to readily buy "safe" iterations of previous games that lack in innovation.

Oddly enough, I have a sliver of hope for Civ Network, a view which I realize is not universally held on these forums. But I am hoping that the entirely new medium of a social networking platform will push a radical redesign of the system that could result in some interesting new features.

 

[Marcus I.]

Strange point, since Civ5 seems to have finally broken the iron grip of ICS/expansion over development. In past civs, the right play was almost invariably "build Settlers, expand until you run out of land, fight war until you get more." Civ5 has moved away from that, to the point that Jon Shafter typically has a 3-city empire. Civ1-4 favored expansion, and Civ5 favors internal growth; that's enough of a game changer to make Civ5's winning strategies different.

I did manage it once in CIV IV to build my spaceship without fighting a single war - not only that I didnt declared war to anyone else, but also nobody else declared war on me. I called it "The Perfect Game". Was on Monarch difficulty, with rather usual settings.

 

[Drawmeus]

Trade may overtake Espionage as a first major mod feature for me to work on, if I can come up with a good, clean system for it.

 

[iop]

Where is Master of Magic 2?

How much should Master of Magic 2 differ from Master of Magic in order to be new but not in the same rut? Anyway, FfH2 was Master of Magic 2, and Kael has announced that he is working on a standalone sequel, so not all hope is lost.

Also, there is Elemental:War of Magic, which is pretty new. Also a bit buggy, but that will be fixed in time. Is that new enough for you? Or is new only what you, with years of gaming experience, cannot imagine?

 

[parabellum9x19]

I played them, enjoyed them, and am ready for something new. So where's my something new?

you don't really want to see anything TOO new, tho. the old games aren't going anywhere. some of us are really excited for 1UPT

 

[tom2050]

Combat is Civ has been stale and uninspired for a long time, this looks to be far more interesting.

The OP is basically saying about much of the game, what you are saying about combat.

The whole game, with nothing that is really 'NEW' is making things become stale and uninspiring. It's nice there is a new combat system, but that is practically the only thing new, which they should have done a decade ago. Everyone has been expecting social policies since AC.

It's like they are digging up old ideas that were good from other games and adding them together.

Diplomacy is the exact same thing, again. I agree, they need to get some imagination going to expand the game in some new ways... instead of sticking with the exact same stuff. Look at the tech tree for crying out loud, there is nothing new at all.

It doesn't mean you have to change the core game, but it means if they put some thought into it, there are a vast amount of things that could be added to make the game feel more dynamic. Yes, make the world more dynamic, so there can be random world events that can take place. Because rest assured, there is not going to be anything that 'surprises you' in Civ... rarely. Because we all know what it's going to be like.

So, although I like the core game how it is, it doesn't mean they can't add new ideas and features (instead of borrowing them all). The problem with Firaxis is that they pretty much do what is safe, and fix things that aren't broken.

 

[Toddcola]

I am, as many of you here (if not most of you), a long-time Civ player, having played since Civ 1, through Civ II, Civ III, Civ IV, Master of Magic, Alpha Centauri, and Colonization. But I have serious doubts about Civ V, and it may be the first of the Civ series that I do not pick up. I realize that the game is not yet out, but most of what I have seen so far is not encouraging. My issues, in no particular order:

Combat: It's a tactical system shoehorned into a strategic game. I don't know what else to say about it, other than that it's a terrible mistake, and this is likely the game-breaker for me. I can tolerate a lot, but I cannot tolerate archers who can shoot arrows 500 miles, and one-unit-per-250-miles stacking limits. It demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of even the most basic principles of warfare on the part of the game designers.

The fact that you think the developers don't realise that this is not a realistic war system, is so lulz worthy I won't go into detail. Land is represented in six sided shapes and we play with little units who have only strength attributes, no softness, no hardness, no morale, no supply, ect....

What you want is not what this game is even trying to achieve.

Same Winning Strategy as Ever: Amass Land, Amass Population, Fast-Tech to Game-Breaking Military Unit, Amass Military Units, Faceroll Enemy (don't think so? read the Gamespot hands-on.) I realize that this is the "classic" approach to Civilization and it would be borderline heresy to remove it from the game, but with now five major titles and a number of subsidiary titles having come along, nobody seems to have ever asked the question of why this approach does not seem to reflect history. I realize the game is not supposed to be entirely realistic, but it is supposed to capture the flavor of history, and this simply does not capture the flavor of anything except a mathematical simulation that shows no understanding of history.

Plus, it's really, really boring.

Go play something else. Anyone who expects to play Civ and have a fully functional Historic RTS should go play Hearts of Iron/Victoria, and then come running back to Civ. What you want is not what this game is.

The "if it ain't broke don't fix it" Mentality: Some point after the release of Alpha Centauri, Sid & Co. had a decision to make: stick with "classic" gameplay for Civilization and move in very small increments, or go with a radical, AC-style overhaul of the entire system, with a host of innovations and risky new features. They chose the former, and while this iteration introduces a few features that should have been introduced a long, long time ago (e.g. hexagons--squares should have been phased out with patch 1.01 to Civ 1, IMO), it's still the gradually-and-carefully let's-not-upset-the-traditional-players approach. Not only are innovative features introduced in a very limited way, but it is perfectly clear that they are very much "on probation" and liable to be removed at any time should they prove disruptive to "classic" gameplay (nice knowing you, Religion!)

Have you seen what happens with other games when they change the core gameplay mechanics? My favorite example is Ghost Recon 2(Xbox) vs. Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter(X360.) They went for a more "futuristic" style for mass appeal, gutted dedicated servers, ect... and ripped out the clan matchmaking. Ubisoft is a prime example of what happens when you decide to mix up the winning formula, you fail, and you fail hard.

Target Audience and Design Philosophy: Along the same lines, there seems to be a marketing difficulty at the heart of all of this: Firaxis knows that its core audience is the "die-hards", but at the same time, the conundrum is, why would the long-time Civ players bother buying the new version when they are perfectly content with the old one? The current approach seems to be to offer new versions that are mostly graphic overhauls of the older versions, but with some highly demanded changes (e.g., new Civs) and a few innovative features that tinker with the gameplay, but not by too much.

There seems to be a desire to attract a new audience, but let's be honest: that's not going to happen until Firaxis completely redesigns the game (hint: massively multi-player web games have very large audiences of new players, despite abysmal graphics and unbelievably atrocious gameplay; I wonder if they might be on to something that the old-school RTS game designers have not yet figured out?) But they can't redesign the game without risking the wrath of their core audience; so it is more muddling through with a few changes here and there and shiny new graphics, but essentially unchanged gameplay.

Graphic Requirements: I am reasonably confident my system can handle the game, but that's not the point. Firaxis doesn't seem to realize that for the vast majority of strategic gamers, graphics are not first on the priority list. This is not the FPS crowd that has to have shiny objects and loud explosions to even consider a game. This is a turn-based strategic game, it's highly unlikely to attract new gamers outside of its core niche (sorry, but that's the brutal truth.) So why the heavy emphasis on new graphics that is likely to turn away more customers (whose systems are not up to speed) than it attracts?

Gameplay is always over graphics. But honestly go pop Civ 4 into your hard drive and turn the graphics to full max. If you can say it's even remotley acceptable to todays standards, you are lying to yourself. And if a person is unable to play this game with it's current requirements, then they have a really crappy comp.


Moderator Action: *snip* insults and swearing are not allowed in this forum.

 

[Spatzimaus]

Because it needs to be said... Can I have your stuff?

Seriously, I disagree with practically every point in the original post, and most of the other posters here have already addressed why each of these is flawed. But I'll address a simple point: the graphics, and the perception that somehow, turn-based gamers don't care about advanced graphics.

Look, if graphics didn't matter at all, I'd still be playing Civ 3, Starcraft 1, MoO 2, etc. all the time, because those were stable, well-designed games. At some point, you want to upgrade to a game that isn't an eyesore. In Civ4, one of the first things I did was download the Blue Marble terrain mod, to make the hills and mountains look much better. So I absolutely LOVED what I saw of the terrain in the live stream yesterday.
That's why it was so funny that Greg talked about playing entire games in Strategic view, with just a handful of icons and colors. Obviously, the gameplay is the same either way, so it's not like the game would suddenly be lousy without the detailed graphics, but why would you NOT want the best looks you can?
(That being said, I love the idea of Strategic View for things like planning out cities or checking resources. It'd be HUGE for Succession or scenario games, where you need to learn so much on your first turn, and it'd allow people to take a screenshot of a situation without their personal graphics settings interfering.)

 

[Schuesseled]

I played them, enjoyed them, and am ready for something new. So where's my something new?

1 upt is new, resource limits are new, emarkation is new, social policies are new, full-screen diplomacy is new, etc etc.

If your looking for something completley new then the next civ isn't for you, you'll want to pick a new game with a new name. You might even want to change genre if you're that bored.

Try R.U.S.E - real time strategy (out now)

Portal 2 - fps puzzle game (out next year)

Don't demand that civ completley changes everything it is about because you've played it to death.