From what I've seen of BE, it looks interesting. I'm a long time fan of the civ series, and was very disappointed with civ5 (I still play Civ4 regularly), and while BE seems to be Civ5 in space, I see this as a spinoff game or something, and so that makes it seem okay in my mind. Anyways, if I'm going to play this just for fun, is it worth the money?
For someone who hated Civ5, is that worth the buy?
- Thread starter Phail
- Start date
Bandobras Took
Emperor
It depends on why you didn't like Civ 5.
It's going to come down to why you didn't like Civ V.
If the main thing you didn't like post Vanilla balance patches only being able to self found a few cities due to happiness concerns, you will probably love the current version of BE.
However if it's 1 UPT (or more precisely the AI's ability to handle 1 UPT) you probably won't like BE.
And if the main reason someone didn't like Civ V Vanilla wasn't either of those but instead was that a lot of mechanics were removed compared to Civ IV BTS, they might want to give BNW a shot.
If the main thing you didn't like post Vanilla balance patches only being able to self found a few cities due to happiness concerns, you will probably love the current version of BE.
However if it's 1 UPT (or more precisely the AI's ability to handle 1 UPT) you probably won't like BE.
And if the main reason someone didn't like Civ V Vanilla wasn't either of those but instead was that a lot of mechanics were removed compared to Civ IV BTS, they might want to give BNW a shot.
Like I said, the only reason to buy beyond earth if you hated civ 5 would be if you played civ 5 and thought "this game sucks, but it would not suck if it had aliens in it"
Bandobras Took
Emperor
Yes, and it wasn't funny the first time, either.
It's either hyperbole, or ignorance, and there's really nothing in your post to respond to or to discuss that has bearing on the thread, either way.
joncnunn came up with three separate considerations. I could add a few more, but I'm not going to bother if the OP doesn't give reasons.
I was not a big fan of V and I also play IV occasionally and consider it (IV) the far superior game of the two having played all of the V expansions.
That said, I've enjoyed BE so far although I'd say it has many of the same "features" that annoyed me in V. The highlights so far are that the sound track is amazing, the technology web is quite refreshing compared to V and I enjoy the way you can specialize a city through the various choices of tile improvements (although I'm not pleased with the lack of specialization options from buildings). I still prefer the civics system of IV over virtues (policies in V) but for some reason I like virtues a bit better than I liked policies, possibly because they are all available from the start unlike in V.
However, I must say that BE is a very flawed game in that many features are simply buggy or of poor quality implementation wise. The balance of the game leaves a lot to be desired and just like V it has atrocious diplomacy (even worse than V I'd say). Also, 1UPT is just as annoying as ever unless you are playing a one city challenge or trying for a three city peaceful victory. Moving large armies is as massive a chore as it was in V. Also, trade route microing is the most annoying thing in any game I've played this decade.
I expect many of these flaws to be addressed in future patches however, but for now I'm going to play Europa Universalis: Art of War and keep an eye of any potential patches/expansions for BE.
That said, I've enjoyed BE so far although I'd say it has many of the same "features" that annoyed me in V. The highlights so far are that the sound track is amazing, the technology web is quite refreshing compared to V and I enjoy the way you can specialize a city through the various choices of tile improvements (although I'm not pleased with the lack of specialization options from buildings). I still prefer the civics system of IV over virtues (policies in V) but for some reason I like virtues a bit better than I liked policies, possibly because they are all available from the start unlike in V.
However, I must say that BE is a very flawed game in that many features are simply buggy or of poor quality implementation wise. The balance of the game leaves a lot to be desired and just like V it has atrocious diplomacy (even worse than V I'd say). Also, 1UPT is just as annoying as ever unless you are playing a one city challenge or trying for a three city peaceful victory. Moving large armies is as massive a chore as it was in V. Also, trade route microing is the most annoying thing in any game I've played this decade.
I expect many of these flaws to be addressed in future patches however, but for now I'm going to play Europa Universalis: Art of War and keep an eye of any potential patches/expansions for BE.
Pyramid Head
Chieftain
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2010
- Messages
- 79
No. It's WAY worse than CivV
Deon
Lt. of Mordor
If you didn't like Civ V because it felt like it cut a lot of content in favor of new graphics, hex grid and 1 Unit Per Tile, then you won't like BE either because it feels like it has much less content than Civ V (mainly the lack of time-era progression, which makes sense in the setting, and diversity of civs/units, which all look the same).
Kutuzov
Prince
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2006
- Messages
- 362
Didn't you want to rate it as 0/10?
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=536860
Post #7
Such objectivity. In your 'objective' opinion which needs to be taken seriously (not!
), Civ BE is the worst computer game ever made 
To the OP, it's certainly a long way from perfect. If you're looking just to have fun, you probably will have fun with BE. For how long? That would be another question.
If you want to know how this community rates this game on release, check out the poll in the thread linked above. In spite of all its flaws, and the current climate of dissatisfaction, most folks here rated it around a 7/10. That's not bad
EsnesNommoc
Chieftain
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2014
- Messages
- 21
I play both and love both. 
It doesn't really play all that much like your typical Civ 5 games, despite looking superficially very similar.
Just like Civ 5 itself it has a couple of nice systems added that make the game interesting at the cost of a lot of irritating flaws, some of which will be patched out and some of which are sadly systemic.
Just like Civ 5 itself it has a couple of nice systems added that make the game interesting at the cost of a lot of irritating flaws, some of which will be patched out and some of which are sadly systemic.
I liked Civ 5, and there is nothing wrong with beyond earth, I just don't feel like playing civ 5 some more.
Bandobras Took
Emperor
I dislike the Planetfall mod because it was trying to be Alpha Centauri and did not (for me) succeed. Beyond Earth succeeds for me because it was not trying to be Alpha Centauri, but has incorporated many of the things that attracted me to Alpha Centauri. I prefer it over Civ 5 because they were able to design the game without having to be constrained by historical considerations, which automatically elevates gameplay itself to a higher priority level.
If you didnt like Civ5 then definitely no. Technically Civ5 could still be A LOT better, but firaxis is probably finished with the game now.
That said, Civ5 with both expansions is pretty good (well the second didnt really add much, but the first was worth its money), there is almost no comparison in the genre, save for Endless Legend, which is both better and cheaper than BE at this moment.
That said, Civ5 with both expansions is pretty good (well the second didnt really add much, but the first was worth its money), there is almost no comparison in the genre, save for Endless Legend, which is both better and cheaper than BE at this moment.
They just released a patch bruh.
Similar threads
