Are you happy with the path Firaxis is taking Civ 5?

Your Opinon

  • Like it

    Votes: 226 71.5%

  • Hate it

    Votes: 21 6.6%

  • Unsure

    Votes: 61 19.3%

  • Other (please explain why if possible)

    Votes: 8 2.5%
  • Total voters
    316
frekk said:
One thing I'm really concerned about, though, is ... what is the franchise doing? It seems to be appealing to a core demographic - people like me, who have been playing for a long time and who initially came to a civ as a computerized (and very light) version of tabletop wargames and strategy games. That is the origin of the franchise, too - Sid himself was apparently quite the wargamer way back when. What I'm concerned about is that it won't resonate with younger players who only came to civ in 3 or 4, and people who don't have a background in the roots out of which it developed (the Avalon Hill type games etc). They're looking for an 'immersive experience', not a strategy game per se. It'll be a great game for me, I just hope they know what they're doing commercially. I wouldn't want to see the franchise fail.
Click to expand...

I don't think you need worry. Civ is good at retaining old fans, but huge numbers of young people love it too.
 
I seem to like the idea of one unit per tile but that could bring up problems such as... transporting Settlers!
 
I voted other.

In reality its an "I like it" but with out playing the game for a few hours I'm never going to know.
 
I like the changes so far. They aren't deleting Civ 4 off our hard drives, so now we'll have two different games to play; one with religion and one with one-military-unit-per-tile. 2 > 1
 
deanej said:
I guess if you like the changes or not depends on how entrenched to civ4 you are and weather you think of civ5 as "the next version of civ" or "totally new game".
Click to expand...

I like the fresh feeling the news snippets about Civ V give me. I very much enjoyed Civ IV, but I think it's time to move on. And though I'd like religion to be kept for happiness and culture, I'm glad it has been removed as a political factor. That was way overdone and made political relations drearily predictable. In real life, countries throughuyt history have mostly formed alliances based on their own economical and strategical interests, not because of religious sympathies.
 
Honestly, with all they've released so far about it, I'm absolutely overjoyed with the direction they're taking it. It seems to me like a refinement of almost everything that I enjoy when I play, and a removal of some of the minor nagging doubts. Now of course issues like the SoDs and the squares were never enough to stop me playing, but still, the fact that they felt that they could be done better bodes extremely well for me that they're actively shooting for perfection rather than milking a franchise.

I can understand how the religion could be controversial, but I totally agree with everything I've read so far about it. As it stands just now you could have 3 neighbours, and essentially the modifiers for your relationship are almost entirely reliant on chance. If you share a religion with one you're best friends, if you're opposite from others then they arbritarily hate you. realistic maybe! But it wasnt particularly engaging. The city-states in particular seem like a brilliant refinement of the diplomacy system - now I'm going to be drawn into conflicts over issues that I really, truly feel. If a neighbour is threatening towards a city-state friend of mine, and i would stand to lose a bonus from losing a friend, then I will feel genuine, personal investment in this conflict, as opposed to merely from a role-playing perspective. I could see a situation arising now where wars are carried out because I, the player, am genuinely invested in it and truly believe in the issues instead of "oh ok, this makes sense we believe in different gods".

The only investment I'd have in a religious war would be from a role-playing perspective, but with diplomatic relations where my bonuses from my little friend are under threat, I really care about the outcome.
 
Willem said:
Well it's pretty hard to make any sort of judgement from just a few screenshots and some basic reviews. It looks promising but the proof will be in the actual playing of the game.
Click to expand...

For sure. We're not yet to the point of seeing detailed played game samples and such where you can really get an idea of what's going on, and even then, playing it for yourself is necessary to fully judge.

I do like what I've seen and heard.

I think Civ IV is the best in series and the culmination of all things Civ, so they kinda needed to mix things up a little and change how some aspects of the game roll to really push the series to a new level to top IV.
 
Non-******** AI is huge for me
 
How can I not love it when someone takes one of my favourite games of all time, PG, and then take the best series ever, Civ, and says "hey, we're gonna do something great with these two"?

It couldn't have been better except if someone said they were making a spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate. Wait, that happened and I was disappointed. :(

I still believe in Firaxis though, please don't sell out! :p
 
Yes, I think it sounds great and I'm very curious to how it will be. I'm really really looking forward to it... I'd look forward to it if Civ 5 went in the same direction as the other games as well, but it's really interesting to see a different path. We already have four excellent Civilization games, plus Alpha Centauri and Colonization. The new direction will be a breath of fresh air, and and maybe even kickstart other projects too if it goes well.
 
Gliese 581 said:
How can I not love it when someone takes one of my favourite games of all time, PG, and then take the best series ever, Civ, and says "hey, we're gonna do something great with these two"?
Click to expand...
Just because I like 2 games, that doesn't mean I will like a hybrid of the two , even if the features are well bundled together ;)
 
r_rolo1 said:
Just because I like 2 games, that doesn't mean I will like a hybrid of the two , even if the features are well bundled together ;)
Click to expand...

True but it would have been a little different if say a dungeon hack developer says they're influenced by Diablo. Really!?

PG is such an old and obscure game today, I'm willing to bet that the majority of the people here didn't know about it, well maybe not a mjaority of the civfanatics but of civplayers in general. It's totally awesome for Firaxis to use such a great old game as a model for combat and to admit that they're using a decades old game in such a way. :)

Now if only someone would do the same thing with Microprose's Sword of the Samurai.. ahh one can dream. :king:
 
It could be worse... they could have said that Civ5 was influenced by their love of Diablo and Starcraft.
 
Ahriman said:
It could be worse... they could have said that Civ5 was influenced by their love of Diablo and Starcraft.
Click to expand...
:rotfl:

Or SimCity ;) ( not that I don't like SimCity games ... well, except last one :/ But it would fit as bad in Civ as a hand glove in a foot ;))
 
bonafide11 said:
They've already said military units and civilian units can occupy the same tile.
Click to expand...

But will this still allow naval convoys with multiple ships? Or naval battlegroups with carriers and their destroyer and cruiser escorts?

Also, unlike what has been said before, I like the idea of supply lines, much more realistic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Bactrian
Warfare is tedious with 1UPT and it's making the entire game less fun
2 3
Replies
59
Views
3K
aelf
aelf
evonannoredars
How are you introducing variety into your games?
Replies
16
Views
1K
UWHabs
U
K
Civ 7 is a step away from the casual fanbase
2
Replies
24
Views
3K
vorlon_mi
vorlon_mi
P
The many problems with Modern era
2 3 4
Replies
60
Views
4K
Boris Gudenuf
Boris Gudenuf
C
Civ VII single player suffers from the same problems Civ VI did
3 4 5
Replies
88
Views
7K
Lazy sweeper
Lazy sweeper
Back
Top Bottom