1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

A little confused about all the "this is not Civ 4" criticism

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by Becephalus, Sep 27, 2010.

  1. Stiefel

    Stiefel Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2010
    Messages:
    67
    You really simplify it to the point where I wonder how well you can actually play it.

    Enjoy your own logic reversed.
     
  2. Flavorable

    Flavorable Warlord

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    165
    I was mocking you, you should have picked up on that.

    Civ IV was more complex than that, but its elements weren't tied together and I personally found weren't as focused and consequential as they are in Civ III and V.
     
  3. Usama84

    Usama84 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2010
    Messages:
    81
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Mississauga, Ontario
    civ 3 complete edition was amazing, it was a great secquel to 2.
    4 just added animation and more graphics, which was good...

    i dont get it, how can you be a true civ fan and not like 4? i couldnt play it till i got a good computer, maybe thats why... i dont get it, civ 4 BTS was the best civ ever!
     
  4. Earthling

    Earthling Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2008
    Messages:
    8,518
    Regardless of where the argument over Civ Rev goes, because that's been said too many times, everything else you said here is right. Most telling is the fact that everything the game is "stupid" about is EXACTLY what people already were predicting and worried about before release:

    -The AI is far worse
    -Game settings have less variety
    -Many features are severely lacking in depth, like diplomacy, and economy management

    Being different from civ4 wasn't a problem - plenty of things which are different are good (hex tiles and city states) just like things in civ4 which were "different" were bad - like the siege system, where civ3 was clearly better. But being different and bad is a problem - the real answer is that the things that aren't "different" more often stayed good which is why no one is complaining about them - if the OP looks at it that way, something which was good in civ4 and stayed the same and thus good in civ5, isn't going to have anyone complain then.
     
  5. fils

    fils Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2010
    Messages:
    98
    So many of these threads...

    I loved Civ2, and I remember being so disappointed with 3 on release because it was different, huge games ran slow on my cpu, etc. I barely played it after that. I never got into Civ4 until BTS either. This game reminds me a lot of civ2 on steroids and that's a good thing.

    Thank you.

    I think some people are forget that Civ is an open ended game with tons of different ways you can play and win. Why look at it like a high score competition and approach every game with the same strategy? Use your imagination a bit and try something new, you might find you enjoy it. Who knows, it might even work really well. There are tons of viable playstyles in this one. Just because one is more effective than the others right now, does not mean that there's no depth, it just means they need to do some tweaking.

    IMO the problem is that there's not enough war weariness (from what I can tell), and there's no advantage to defending cities anymore. In every other civ, unless you were much stronger, you could expect to lose a handful of units attacking. Your army couldn't just last forever. It wasn't until mid-late game when you may get some units with good survivability attacking. Now even the slightest advantage early on translates into auto win.
     
  6. Usama84

    Usama84 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2010
    Messages:
    81
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Mississauga, Ontario
    ya, instead, warriors with axes can suddenly build a wooden boat, sail it, dock it, and take it apart, and walk around with it, and then go back in the water...

    hmmmm, the whole point of civ was those steps... you build cities, farms, transports,

    i wish they added more logistical units, like actual trains and cargo jets would be sick!
     
  7. bernlin2000

    bernlin2000 Prince

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2010
    Messages:
    305
    Location:
    Florida
    There was no logic involved in your statement: you just repeated what Flavorable said, very well I might add (not enough comments by the majority of players who enjoy CiV). Cottages were not a complex mechanic, and their disappearance from CiV is so minor I couldn't fit it in the margins of this text box.
     
  8. Stiefel

    Stiefel Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2010
    Messages:
    67
    Of course, only a liberal such as yourself would resort to trolling and flaming to win an argument. You fail over 9000.

    Moderator Action: Infracted for trolling
    Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
     
  9. Flavorable

    Flavorable Warlord

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    165
    Cargo jets? I don't see a viable mechanic happening, and trains would just be annoying.

    The thing is, those steps in Civ IV were just debilitating, how many times could you settle overseas, and all around the world? Attack and capture civilizations on the far sides of the world? Develop powerful navies?

    I don't see why a Civ shouldn't be able to do that, after all, England did just that... Civ 5 removes that restriction, as it severely limited the potential of naval combat. Now navies are one of the funnest elements of Civ V.
     
  10. bernlin2000

    bernlin2000 Prince

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2010
    Messages:
    305
    Location:
    Florida
    What's fun about building transport ships though? It's the realism vs. fun argument, and I've always preferred fun over realism. Why do you assume they build them on the fly: perhaps they are transport ships that conveniently are located wherever you unit wishes to embark? Having to build up your civilization only goes so far before it gets tedious: shouldn't we have to build all the streets in cities, and all the houses? At some point you have to let go, and just assume some things are done for you, and that allows you to focus on things that matter: like destroying the Aztecs :D
     
  11. boredatwork

    boredatwork Warlord

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2010
    Messages:
    104
    Given that you like the game how are you an impartial judge as to what is a "valid criticism" versus what isn't?

    I see many people advancing polite, well written analyses of what specifically prevents them from enjoying Civ5 only to be answered with "Shut up and go back to Civ4."


    While there is some admitably annoying "Firaxis broke into my home and raped me with a blunt spoon with this game" hyperbole, alot of the criticism is reasonably thought out and might not be irreconcible with the things of Civ5 you enjoy.



    As an example:


    I hated Civ4 Vanilla and stuck with CivIII until BTS came out. Why? A simple reason - I like to play Civilization BIG. I like big maps and the resulting big civilizations. Civ4 Vanilla, despite having many superior features, had tiny map sizes in comparisson to III. It was the deal breaker for me.

    Now Firaxis could have taken the attitude of many on this forum and said "the game is fine, the majority of people preffer small maps, deal with it or go back to CivIII".

    Fortunately they did not. They read the criticism and decided "Well if small map size is the only thing that's preventing this guy from liking the game why would we not give him that option? After all it's not like it's a hard thing to add, nor will making large sizes optional ruin the game for those who like it as is." And low and behold BTS added large maps.


    Again I'm not against change - Removal of religion/corporations/espionage (at least as implemented in Civ4) and even the sliders were all positive improvements IMO - 1UPT and hexes were very positive additions (though city states IMO grew stale after the first couple of games) - but for a handfull of reasons as repackaged I'm just not finding Civ5 fun.

    Ironically one of which is again the lack of "big" civs - though in this case it's the mechanics of culture/happiness that leave big maps empty, as opposed to physical map size.

    Something simple as better scaling of the happiness bonus of resources based on map size, land mass and number of Civ/City states present, plus an **option** to disable the culture penalty for large civs so that civs could expand to their natural limits would go a long way to turning Civ5 into a game I enjoy without altering altering your experience at all.





    A final thought - at the moment Civ5 is new - which works both ways:

    Some people who hate it now will, once the shock of change wears off, will grow to love it.

    By the same token some people who love it now will, once the novelty of the changes wear off, take a second look at the game with a more critical eye.
     
  12. Flavorable

    Flavorable Warlord

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    165
    Although, realistically, many Civs have been able to amass huge invasion forces, complete with Navy ships, with no difficulty, so I really don't think it detracts from the realism much at all.
     
  13. boredatwork

    boredatwork Warlord

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2010
    Messages:
    104

    But you're making your own judgement as to what is fun or what isn't.

    I admit transport management was not an enjoyable aspect of Civ1-4. And after the movement was over you had loads of useless ships.

    However to remove it completely also completely removes the challenge of preplanning a large scale invasion. Now it's "What am I going to do today? I know, let's invade Europe, man your boats boys!" Which feels cheap, not fun.



    What I would have done is rather than build transport *units* instead build transport pool points. Units could then "build their own transport" and embark anywhere as they do now but only as many as you have built points in the pool. When they disembark their point is returned to the pool and another unit can use it.

    As an added bonus have any unused points contibute gold to the economy simulating that when they are not being used by the military they are abstractly sailing the seas conducting taxable commercial trade.


    Such a system would have not only been more fun than transport spam in Civ4 and more satisfying than the "as many units as you like" immediately after sailing, but it would also have been more realistic than both.
     
  14. boredatwork

    boredatwork Warlord

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2010
    Messages:
    104
    Please define which civs, "huge," and "no difficulty" because by my definitions none are springing to mind.
     
  15. Flavorable

    Flavorable Warlord

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    165
    The English empire was so expansive that the sun never set, In Civ 4, my empire tanks completely if I try to colonize across a lake.
     
  16. Ignorant Teacher

    Ignorant Teacher Emperor

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2009
    Messages:
    1,467
    You should have given your learning of the mechanics of BTS a little more time then. It's perfectly possible to run a profitable multi-continent empire without resorting to state property.
     
  17. Flavorable

    Flavorable Warlord

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    165
    Once you hit the middle ages...

    And it was nonetheless absolutely impossible to feasibly develop a proper naval invasion in 3X the time of a normal invasion.
     
  18. teks

    teks Prince

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2008
    Messages:
    330
    Location:
    Florida
    I want a piece of the flames.

    I just got civ5, and I haven't played it long. My opinion is therefore still in development, and may change as I continue playing.

    At a glance I really liked the new ideas in civilization 5. The hex, no more stacks, city states. This is not just some remake of civilization with better graphics. This isn't madden folks. Other games like MOO, and Empire Earth have proposed changes that utterly ruined the game. This is what a lot of people are scared of, but I don't think that is what is going on either.

    Civfanatics, you are the minority, sorry. Civ4 was impossibly complicated. If you never played civilization before, and jumped on at Civ4 you would be completely overwhelmed. IF they made another civ4 they would be shooting themselves in the foot. Civ4 was too complicated for gamers in general, and they made measures to fix that. A lot of it is good, like happyness being global, and omitting transports. Some of it is bad, like diplomacy. This game ain't a suit. It's gotta work for everyone.

    A lot of bashing is made over some new ideas. These features are the are not the tried and true foundations we had before. They are going to have some glitches at first. The game is not ruined because some producers still have an imagination(they are a dying race). It just needs some time (and a patch). I personally think that some of the new ideas are the most innovative ideas published since civ1. Gone are stacks of death, archers are now actually ranged, railroads don't mean instant death to anything that touches a square of your land, hell squares don't even exist anymore. They really addressed a lot of problems.

    Now the bashers do have some good points. I mean god damn is this game buggy. I can't even open it 1 in 4 times. Another person had a good point about the graphics. What happened?!? Rivers may be ugly, but roads look like someone made them in paint. I was also dissapointed by the world leaders too. Not as interactive as I hoped. I love them speaking native languages though. I want them to bring in a Canadian nation just so I can hear their leader talk all funny like.

    ok ok last point. about the insta-transports
    one turn equals how many years? That swordsman didn't just build the ship. it took that guy 20 years. Thats vs at least 100 years to build a transport at a city, and your worried that the prior makes no sense?!? I think the new idea is more realistic. You don't build HUGE ships just to move soldiers. Hell a frigate can hold plenty of soldiers, and in civ4 it wasn't even able to hold a single soldier.
    Here's a good modern point on the transport idea. Wanna know how to make serious money during a war? buy a boat. During wartime the military will lease your boat to move soldiers and supplies, then guess what. You get the boat back. Doesn't that sound exactly like what is going on in the game?
     
  19. Ignorant Teacher

    Ignorant Teacher Emperor

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2009
    Messages:
    1,467
    idk, depends on the era. You get a city building transports and another 2 building destroyers and you're good to go in 10-20 turns. If you want to use airforce, it's a whole different matter and requires more preparation.
     
  20. Flavorable

    Flavorable Warlord

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    165
    Actually, 4 months before Civ V was released I lended my copy to a friend, and a few more bought their own. They all picked up the mechanics very quickly and had no problem going to Monarch quite fast.

    Now, consider this, they can comprehend the strategies of Civ IV, and two of them think Civ V is much simpler. Regardless, we all enjoy Civ V more, because of the myriad of advances in gameplay, and the removal of the things that always brought Civ down in their eyes. (combat, navy, nonimmersive diplomacy...)

    The two who think its simplified, don't mind that its simplified, but seem to enjoy the idea that it puts game design over complexity.
     

Share This Page