Some of you don't want Civ V

[paradigmx]

Reading a number of these threads, there are a lot of you that simply don't want this game, you're against 1upt, hex tiles, a lack of tech trading, religion and a good number of other new features. I'm gonna say it right now, Civ V is going to divide the Civilization fanbase into 2 groups, those that prefered the old style civ games and those that welcome the changes in Civ V.

Civ V is more than just a sequel to a Civ game, it's a complete overhaul to the concept of the Civilization games from what I can tell, it's a bigger leap than the series has ever had, and I'm afraid most of you seem to expect Civ IV 2.0, and you're not going to get it.

You can't think of Civ V in any sense of it's predecessors, it's a whole new beast with completely new mechanics. If nothing else, I hope this thread makes people realize that they are going to be playing a completely different game in September, not a mod, not and expansion, not even just a graphical upgrade. This is a new engine, new AI, new combat system, new resource system, new tech system, new diplomacy system, nothing is carried over. In the end, the only things tying Civ IV and V together will be that they are both turn based, both made by firaxis, and both allow you to control a Civ through history, that's where the similarities will end.

Thank you, I'll get off my soapbox now...

 

[MarkJohnson]

I for one welcome any and all changes as long as it stays turn based. I don't mind learning a new system and I'm hopeful that it will be well balanced. Every release has always been an improvement and I'm sure I won't be disappointed with this release. I may be frustrated for a while on learning curve and annoying updates. I just hope they make it so previous saved games/mods work on new patches. I hate losing stuff.

-=Mark=-

 

[Provost Martin]

I'm not so sure I agree when you talk about the few similarities. Granted some of the changes are pretty revolutionary, but I think most people welcome them. There are still lots of familiar stuff there though. For me Civ4 was more or less the pinnacle of the series. With pretty much perfected features, many of which you can trace back to previous instalments. So I really welcome some of the changes made, it's going to be really exiciting to play.

 

[Mercade]

Reading a number of these threads, there are a lot of you that simply don't want this game, you're against 1upt, hex tiles, a lack of tech trading, religion and a good number of other new features. I'm gonna say it right now, Civ V is going to divide the Civilization fanbase into 2 groups, those that prefered the old style civ games and those that welcome the changes in Civ V.

Civ V is more than just a sequel to a Civ game, it's a complete overhaul to the concept of the Civilization games from what I can tell, it's a bigger leap than the series has ever had, and I'm afraid most of you seem to expect Civ IV 2.0, and you're not going to get it.

Well put, Paradigmx.

I for one am looking forward to seeing how some of these changes turn out to be. It's nice to be playing a game with such a familiarity as Civilization, but see how the series evolves with new concepts. Everyone will have personal favourite features and if given a chance they'd make a personal mixture of , and as their preferred game to date. So yes, will reinvent the game to the new ideas and I'm excited to play it in September.

You can't think of Civ V in any sense of it's predecessors, it's a whole new beast with completely new mechanics. If nothing else, I hope this thread makes people realize that they are going to be playing a completely different game in September, not a mod, not and expansion, not even just a graphical upgrade. This is a new engine, new AI, new combat system, new resource system, new tech system, new diplomacy system, nothing is carried over. In the end, the only things tying Civ IV and V together will be that they are both turn based, both made by firaxis, and both allow you to control a Civ through history, that's where the similarities will end.

Thank you, I'll get off my soapbox now...

While I agree with the sentiment, it's slightly exaggerated. Apart from being a Firaxis made turn-based civilization game, the whole concept naturally stays the same. There will be AI, compact, resources, diplomacy, techs, et cetera. These concepts and various aspects thereof will be carried over. We'll have a gunpowder tech (presumably) and spearmen. But yes, it'll be different, and that'll be part of the fun. Otherwise, if I wanted to play Civ IV 2.0 I'd play (which I'm doing right now anyway).

 

[i64ever]

The civ community being divided when a new version comes out is nothing new. Some people refused to make the jump to Civ 3 way back when. Looking at the GOM, some people STILL prefer to play Civ 2. Personally, I wasn't a big fan of 3, and moved from playing mostly 2 to playing all 4. I know that there were others who felt the same. And the community survived.

I'll give 5 a chance. If I don't like it, I'll stick with 4, and maybe catch up with everone else on Civilization VI!

 

[Rince]

Back when Civ IV came out, many people complained about it being 3D and how they would stick with Civ III. Now, many (the same people?) complain about Steam and how they will stick to Civ IV.

I guess history repeats itself. But then, we DO need something to discuss about until the games comes out.

 

[Olleus]

Are you sure its the same people?

I joined the forums a few months before Civ4 came out, and the people who complained about it have mostly sought refuge in the Civ3 forums and I don't seem to hear from them very often. Or I could have forgotten what happened 4-5 years ago.

 

[Kyriakos]

Civ should have learned something from the Europa Universalis 1- Europa Universalis 2 transition (i am leaving 3 out, since i dislike it). It was basically the same game, but with more of everything, and in this way no one, and i mean no one, sticked to eu1 after eu2 came out. This is how games should, in my view, progress.

But the civ series is not like that. I still cannot comprehend the idiotic decision to leave events out of civ3...

 

[chongli]

Are you sure its the same people?

Therein lies the flaw in the OP's argument. He is essentially taking a bunch of negative threads and pooling them to create a broad generalization. The reality is that this forum is made up of many different people with a vast spectrum of preferences and opinions. Attempting to divide that into "two camps" is not going to work.

Civ should have learned something from the Europa Universalis 1- Europa Universalis 2 transition (i am leaving 3 out, since i dislike it). It was basically the same game, but with more of everything, and in this way no one, and i mean no one, sticked to eu1 after eu2 came out. This is how games should, in my view, progress.

That is absolutely the wrong way to go about designing a game. The concept can only be taken so far until the entire game is bogged down with innumerable layers of junk.

The best games in history start with a singular vision and as simple a design as possible. Complexity should arise in an emergent fashion from the simple components of the game rules.

 

[Sherlock]

I don't want Steam. That's for sure.

 

[Gary Childress]

I wish some company would buy the rights to Civ III and improve it. I bought the whole Civ IV Complete package and it's a major snooze fest IMO. Civ V will probably be more of the same. I really don't want a different game. I just want a great game improved. It's frustrating when you have a game you like and the producer abandons it because he's too busy trying to be cutting edge innovative every time he releases something. Cutting edge innovative does not necessarily always mean more fun. Sometimes it makes sense to improve upon what's already there.

 

[arstal]

Back when Civ IV came out, many people complained about it being 3D and how they would stick with Civ III. Now, many (the same people?) complain about Steam and how they will stick to Civ IV.

I guess history repeats itself. But then, we DO need something to discuss about until the games comes out.

There's a huge difference between complaining about graphics and complaining about DRM.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Reading a number of these threads, there are a lot of you that simply don't want this game, you're against 1upt, hex tiles, a lack of tech trading, religion and a good number of other new features. I'm gonna say it right now, Civ V is going to divide the Civilization fanbase into 2 groups, those that prefered the old style civ games and those that welcome the changes in Civ V.

Civ V is more than just a sequel to a Civ game, it's a complete overhaul to the concept of the Civilization games from what I can tell, it's a bigger leap than the series has ever had, and I'm afraid most of you seem to expect Civ IV 2.0, and you're not going to get it.

You can't think of Civ V in any sense of it's predecessors, it's a whole new beast with completely new mechanics. If nothing else, I hope this thread makes people realize that they are going to be playing a completely different game in September, not a mod, not and expansion, not even just a graphical upgrade. This is a new engine, new AI, new combat system, new resource system, new tech system, new diplomacy system, nothing is carried over. In the end, the only things tying Civ IV and V together will be that they are both turn based, both made by firaxis, and both allow you to control a Civ through history, that's where the similarities will end.

Thank you, I'll get off my soapbox now...

I don't know about the rest, but, I agree, it will be different, in a good way. Despite not really noticing AI Stupidity (Since I stink) but, well, I think 1UPT and new diplomacy are good things.

 

[arstal]

If Civ 5 can come up with Stardock-level AI, that will be quite an impressive feat.

My expectations for AI in TBS games (or what I want): I want the AI to be able to beat me without cheats, provided I don't do any exploits the AI can't do.

I don't like it when the AI plays by different rules then I do. GalCiv II mostly does a good job of this.

 

[Magma]

I was going to accept all the changes, then they came in with the Steam Deluxe . Now I just cannot buy the game with a good conscience.

 

[Minor Annoyance]

Well there are people who never quit Civ3 even when civ4 came out, so this would be nothing new. Hell, there are people who are still several patches behind because they don't like the changes made in some of them.

 

[wilebill]

paradigmx, there is much truth to what you say. How much is still hard to say when we yet know so little about Civ 5. Other game series produce similar anxiety when the new version comes out.

StarCraft 1 to StarCraft 2: SC2 is StarCraft, but with enough substantial game play differences to make it certain SC 1 will not die anytime soon.

Diablo 2 to Diablo 3: You can find any number of forums where controversies rage as to whether Diablo 3 is going to truly Diablo or another game entirely.

MOO 2 to MOO 3: Heh heh; that was just put in for humor.

Guild Wars 1 to Guild Wars 2: Continues the storyline of GW 1, but it is a radically new game. GW 1 is not expected to die off anytime soon either.

With the Civ 4 to Civ 5 transition, there will be major game play differences, to be sure. But it appears to still be Civ from what I can tell so far. An additional controversial change is the association of Civ 5 with Steam. How this will work out remains to be seen.

Civ Network adds a further complication, more for Firaxis than computer based players I think. The decision to use Facebook for Civ Network may have seemed like a no-brainer at the time, but may soon develop more unpleasant problems.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article7127721.ece

 

[Zhahz]

Same thing happened when Civ IV was coming out and being compared to Civ III.

I always felt like diplomacy in Civ III was horrendous and there were so many ways to cheese the game (like beat the game on harder difficulty levels by exploiting AI flaws or behaviors).

Civ IV retains plenty of elements of cheese but it's a tigher overall game, especially in patched BTS.

Civ IV definitely has its flaws but it's a really good game, same as Civ III.

I personally see war as a part of Civ, I don't view Civ as a war game. So I'm interested in seeing how Civ5 shapes up. A lot of the changes seem geared towards making the game more of a wargame with elements of civ, instead of vice versa. We'll see.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I'm kind of curious as to how many of the people that love CivIII played CivIII as their first Civ game. I think it might be the case, as the "new" civ was different than what they've always known. Could it be that some people didn't like four just because it wasn't what they were used to? Could it be that players suddenly couldn't use the strategies they memorized from online somewhere and weren't as good as they thought they were?

I started with two, and three to me was always kind of disappointing. It seemed to never live up what it could have been. I don't remember thinking that in the move from III to IV. I think four is much better than three and probably better than two.

 

[Earthling]

I started with three and still think four is clearly better than three.

That said, I do agree five is making a lot of big changes and they won't all be great. @ the OP, the thing to remember is not everybody is complaining about the same things. Joe Poster complaining about hexes and Tim Poster complaining about the AI may like the other features but complain about the one feature they dislike. That said, I'm not supportive of moves like simplifying the game with regards to AI/diplomacy/etc... and I'm wary of how the war system will work out, but I'm excited enough for a new game.