New DLC on December 16

[Huaojozu]

Is it just me or are Natural Wonders getting a boost?

One of the screen shots says "Culture ... from National Wonders doubled." I dont recally there being any culture associated with them now. And with more Wonders in the world with the patch, Izzy's trait just might be good enough.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Are we certain they're having an expansion pack this time? It struck me that DLC was an alternative so they could release it a piece at a time, rather than all at once.

If that's true, then its *GOOD-BYE* to Multi-player games IMO. Also, Expansions add a *lot* of stuff that I just don't see being included in DLC. I don't mind DLC, per se, but I would have serious issues with it replacing the tried & true method of releasing properly thought out expansion packs.

Aussie.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Well I'd love to get excited about all of this, but Civ5 still sits atop my computer, gathering dust, because it currently holds no excitement for me. In truth, Civ5 is to me kind of like eating Tofu after you've been eating Steak (Civ4) for the last 5 years-it just seems so bland & tasteless. I give it another whirl after the next patch comes out & see if my excitement in the game is rekindled.

Aussie.

 

[Geek113377]

My expectation is a granary replacement, to be honest, but we'll see.

But don't they already have one of those for the Aztecs (I may be wrong)? HOw boring would it be if there were multiple civs that replaced the same building?

It also gets released the day before my last final, so I'll definitely download and play this on Saturday.

Halfway through my finals. I won't have time to play even if steam wasn't blocked at my school.

 

[anandus]

If that's true, then its *GOOD-BYE* to Multi-player I don't mind DLC, per se, but I would have serious issues with it replacing the tried & true method of releasing properly thought out expansion packs.

I'd rather have DLC's.
I'd rather beef up my game in small increments.

The first expansion pack for Civ4 was actually the same as 3 CivV DLC's (6 Civs), only you had to wait a year for that.
I prefer DLC's in that case (and DLC's packs as 'expansion packs' later on, maybe )

But this is probably a bit offtopic in a thread about Isabella and the Inca's

 

[Zyxpsilon]

I just hope someone at Firaxis' linguistic dept found an alternative to the common punch-line for Spain & Inca (Can you build a civilization that will stand the test of time?) of every intro-screen for leaders!
After awhile it feels, i dunno, somehow repetitive and hints on a few people's lack of imagination.

 

[Morningcalm]

They include that punchline with every civ intro, Zyxpsilon, so no. Early screens show the Inca definitely have that line, for one thing.

The Inca is a tile replacement (cuz the art is blue and white, not multicolored like building replacements). I'm going to guess it's a farm with benefits, but requires that it be on a hill.

 

[kaibayashi]

Didn't read the whole thread, so dunno if someone posted these links/info already, but here they are anyway:

http://www.2kgamesinternational.com...lization-and-scenario-pack-coming-december-16
http://www.flickr.com/photos/colonyofgamers/sets/72157625563948548/with/5247151942/

 

[Louis XXIV]

Anyway. I like that the Incans get a unique tile improvement, but they seriously need to rename the Incan "Slinger", Incans weren't the only ones with slingers, and the Incan slinger had a unique name, thank you very much. Similarly, the Aztec UB should be "Chinampa" not whatever-it-is-right now (forgot its name, not played Civ V in a while).

Do you know the name? Slinger is straight forward and descriptive. It's not any worse than Bowman, etc. I'm sure there are also Arabic words for Camel and Archer. It's heads and shoulders above Chasqui Scout and Quechua Warrior, though, imo. But I always like a little more flavor, so, if you know the name, renaming is always possible for mods.

If that's true, then its *GOOD-BYE* to Multi-player games IMO. Also, Expansions add a *lot* of stuff that I just don't see being included in DLC. I don't mind DLC, per se, but I would have serious issues with it replacing the tried & true method of releasing properly thought out expansion packs.

Aussie.

Well, they said they're looking into making all versions multiplayer compatible (even if you don't have the DLC, you can play against players with DLC). I do agree about extra content. That might be weird, at least not without a very complicated menu.

But don't they already have one of those for the Aztecs (I may be wrong)? HOw boring would it be if there were multiple civs that replaced the same building?

Doesn't the Floating Gardens replace the Watermill?

 

[LegionSteve]

Lets not forget there are some people with all DLC so far that have paid nothing (D2D Deluxe customers, I'm looking at you)

I paid an extra £10 ($15.78) to get the deluxe edition from D2D instead of the standard edition. For that I got Babylon (now available for $5) plus some bits of crap I don't care about and have never looked at. So this 'free' thing I'm about to get has cost me $10.78. Well, fine, but somehow now it doesn't feel like the most awesome bargain ever.

 

[lschnarch]

Precisely. For that matter, often the new civs necessitate some additional AI fixes that will then apply to all civs.

Trust me, the patch has been worked on and the DLC has helped drive that, between AI needed for the Spanish (exploration) and the scenario (over-seas expansion).

The devs have been VERY actively patching issues, the full changelog is quite extensive for a patch.

What? No! They were not added for the DLC, nor are they required in the DLC.

What?

No. Just no. You may not have liked the game. That does not mean it "wasn't even beta stage". It just means you did not care for it.

(Emphasis mine)
Now it really becomes ridiculous.

The poor state of the game at release now magically is being transferred into OUR fault? We did not care enough to see its wonderfulness?

We know that you're eager to get employed with them (or any other company who would hire you), as you have stated previously.

Seems to include that you're wiling to take over 2k marketing members' tasks.
And honestly, I wonder more and more what is getting infracted here at this board and what is not.

The game was playable. The game mechanics were functional. Bugs existed, but bugs always exist. The tactical AI was poor, but AI is almost always poor in games, particularly strategy games, and particularly complex ones. It has also been massively improved in the new patch.

What you generously forget to mention is that the AI was one of the main advertisement features AND that a decent AI is required to make "1upt" (which isn't a real 1upt, btw) work.
As you by yourself have to admit, the AI didn't work decently.
It still does not, although already have being patched.

And before it's said, I am not an "apologist" or a "suck up". There were, and still are, many things I dislike about Civ5. However, I am well able to recognize the difference between a faulty game, and a game with mechanics I dislike; Civ5 is of the latter.

Oh yes, you are an "apologist".
Things which will be allegedly improved by the next patch were so obviously flawed (combat AI, diplomacy, city states, to only name a few) that this can very well be qualified as being a "faulty game".

The devs have been working hard to improve the AI and renovate mechanics the community disliked. This is not simply to make money, it is to improve the game.

Which wasn't faulty, eh?

Moderator Action: Trolling is not allowed in this forum.

 

[Louis XXIV]

lschnarch, weren't you talking about the addition of the new small wonders and natural wonders? They were more likely to have been added because of the happiness rebalance than the new civs (although the new natural wonders probably did have Isabella in mind at least partially).

 

[lschnarch]

lschnarch, weren't you talking about the addition of the new small wonders and natural wonders? They were more likely to have been added because of the happiness rebalance than the new civs (although the new natural wonders probably did have Isabella in mind at least partially).

No, I was not.
My concern with the upcoming patch is my fear that it will render bigger empires obsolete.
As I am a huge maps player, I fear for having empty maps in the industrial age, as there is no chance to fill them up, in which way ever.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Sorry, I thought you had the original post. I think that's what ImperialGuard was talking about, though. That's why there wasn't a contradiction between Valkrionn's various posts.

I think the issue of scaling is a genuine concern. I'm hoping things balance out. I think the Circus Maximus might help to some degree with your concern. Plus there are all the happiness wonders which people have ignored in the past that will be useful (a wonder that added 5 happiness did not seem worth it when you could build a Colosseum, but it helps you add several more cities before you hit the cap once again).

 

[Zyxpsilon]

For that I got Babylon (now available for $5) plus some bits of crap...

True, i got Khan/Mongols "free" but i still don't have Babylon.
Now that Spain+Inca+New World Scenario will sell as a sealed_but_stand-alone DLC, one has to wonder *HOW* to get the most valuable items by choice.

5$ is peanuts (in Québec, anyways) considering i'd have to spend 75$+ on a single evening of Pool_Shark_Table_Renting matched with a few beers to spice things up with friends -- hustling or not, btw.

I certainly hopeD for a complete Mongol+Babylon+Spain+Inca DLC set for reasonable pricing... but as someone else said above - later expansions will most probably combine plenty of earlier stuff together for (again) a price.

The trick is. Are some players patient enough to wait?

50$ for a whole game, patchable through continual & steady updates is a fair deal. Any or most additional value(s) are to be perceived as a marketing ploy.

Consumers have that undeniable right to spend however & when they please, though.

 

[squeebus]

I already paid 50 bucks for this broken, buggy, incomplete, poorly designed mess of a game... and now they want me to spend another $5 for Babylon, $10 for a map pack, and $7.50 for Spain and Inca? Really? Almost 25 bucks MORE for content that SHOULD have come with the original purchase!

 

[Louis XXIV]

Define "should have." Where do you draw the line on artwork that they should have rushed to finish ahead of time and artwork they can make afterward? Should BtS have been included in the original Civ4? Should Conquests have been included in Civ3? I really don't get the entitlement for extra civs needing to have been released with the game. I understand if things were promised and then they try to sell it after. That would be sneaky. If they tried to sell the modding tools as DLC or extra multiplayer features as one, then I'd be with you entirely. But extra artwork? They're employing artists to make the stuff. Don't they deserve to get paid for their work?

 

[squeebus]

Define "should have." Where do you draw the line on artwork that they should have rushed to finish ahead of time and artwork they can make afterward? [...]

Thank you for putting words into my mouth. I never said Firaxis "should have rushed" anything. In fact, I would rather they had released the game at a later date as a more polished product than what it is now. At least then I would have no problem buying DLC as an enhancement to an already well-made original release. BioWare does a great job of releasing quality games from the start and then offering DLC down the road to expand the experiences of their customers. Unfortunately 2K is doing the opposite by releasing an unfinished game and following that up by shoving overpriced DLC in our faces as quickly as possible.

I'd appreciate it if you didn't try to straw man me in your next reply, thanks!

 

[SuperJay]

You know I would actually feel better as a consumer, if Firaxis/2k came out and admitted that they did a rush job and feel sorry that the game is perceived so poorly amongst many fans. In my mind this wouldn't result in a loss of face but as a bold and positive step.

However, what we have seen since the overhyped launch of the game is pretty much silence from the community managers.

I'd like that too. But they say exactly the opposite - see Jon Shafer's interview in the most recent Game Informer magazine. The interviewer repeatedly asks him about the state of the game on release, the problems with the AI, the blowback from players over the changes, and Jon just answers with blithe, vague corporate nonsense that doesn't even acknowledge any problems.

He and Firaxis would save a lot of face with me if they'd come out and say "We understand why a lot of you were disappointed in the Civ5 release, and we're working hard to improve the game further and address the issues that you guys - our customers and longtime fans - are encountering in the game. We think Civ 5 is a great addition to the franchise and we're really excited to have so many people playing it, and we appreciate the feedback you've provided us so far."

You don't even have to apologize, but something more than this head-in-the-sand attitude could go a long way toward at least letting people know you're aware of the problems. (And obviously they are - you don't have two major patches within 3 months if you shipped your product in a completed state.)

 

[Morningcalm]

Do you know the name? Slinger is straight forward and descriptive. It's not any worse than Bowman, etc. I'm sure there are also Arabic words for Camel and Archer. It's heads and shoulders above Chasqui Scout and Quechua Warrior, though, imo. But I always like a little more flavor, so, if you know the name, renaming is always possible for mods.

You could easily pick Huaraca or Bolas/Ayllos for the slinger name. It adds some culture to the unit, and besides, it only takes a quick mouseover or look at the troop's graphics to realize it's a slinger.

I'd like that too. But they say exactly the opposite - see Jon Shafer's interview in the most recent Game Informer magazine. The interviewer repeatedly asks him about the state of the game on release, the problems with the AI, the blowback from players over the changes, and Jon just answers with blithe, vague corporate nonsense that doesn't even acknowledge any problems.

He and Firaxis would save a lot of face with me if they'd come out and say "We understand why a lot of you were disappointed in the Civ5 release, and we're working hard to improve the game further and address the issues that you guys - our customers and longtime fans - are encountering in the game. We think Civ 5 is a great addition to the franchise and we're really excited to have so many people playing it, and we appreciate the feedback you've provided us so far."

You don't even have to apologize, but something more than this head-in-the-sand attitude could go a long way toward at least letting people know you're aware of the problems. (And obviously they are - you don't have two major patches within 3 months if you shipped your product in a completed state.)

I'd be interested in what he said, without frill. I imagine he might well repeat some of the stuff he's said previously. His reaction to player frustration/disappointment is "well we made big changes, some people will be upset and cry out that we took away their favorite feature, but Civ 5 has always been about change" (I think this is from a written interview or podcast prior to Civ 5's release--maybe one of the podcasts on the official site).

And yeah, he and Firaxis would save a lot of face that way, but the prospect of getting lower sales because they came out and said "We know you're disappointed" is a no-go, esp. for 2K's business plans, given that 2K was the one that (I am guessing) forced CiV to its rushed release.

Supposedly the upcoming patch notes are a reaction to player disappointment--in cases that seems so. But we still have no official message or human-to-human talk from them....just cold silence and a belated patch. (Why not stream out the changes in multiple small installments instead, esp. hotfixes for bugs?)