Discussion in 'Civ4 - General Discussions' started by fathertuck, Aug 30, 2010.
There's also a history of abuse of children for sexual desires, but that doesn't make it legal.
Wowwwwwww, that analogy is way below the belt.
I don't think he's suggesting that selling the Steam account would be legal, but rather that he doesn't expect to be caught / punished for it.
For my own value system, selling a Steam account is not a big deal even if it is illegal. Choosing to break the law is a choice that I believe people should be free to make. Usually a person's own ethics would prevent them from breaking laws, but when that doesn't work (because the person disagrees with the law or whatever) then the penalties associated with breaking the law should discourage them.
The reason I'm saying all this is so that the difference between selling a Steam account and sexually abusing children is very clear. (As if it wasn't clear enough already!?) The Steam thing is not a social taboo and is not likely to result in harsh punishment. The children thing is both.
I hope that my computer can run civ5 but im not likely to shell out 60 bucks anytime soon even if my computer can handle it, so yes i will be sticking with civ4.
Jerrymander, wtf man?
http://ww2.sythe.org/forumdisplay.php?f=367 681 pages of a forum where people sell Steam accounts.
http://www.destructoid.com/man-sells-steam-account-for-1-000-on-ebay-160675.phtml Story of a man who got $1000 for his account.
Be careful, man. You don't want to encourage him to post websites with hundreds of pages of child porn as a counter-argument.
Hahahahahaha, this threat is going slightly off-topic
One reason I am sticking with is the criminal pricing for Australia, basically paying twice the price for the game that Americans are getting and we can get it via download, so that is no extra cost to the company, but massive extra money for them. Also I am still in some MP games, so i will want to finish those off, plus MP looks not to be a consideration of CiV.
Agreed. I really like some of the new things in V, but the AI is more stupid than a blonde who's locked inside of her own car. I mean, my goodness, tonight's game featured Bismarck building two cities with nice buildings and such, but virtually no defenders to keep me from slaughtering him. And that was at Prince, the "normal" level. At Noble or Prince in Civ4, it would have been a bit of a battle to contain him, much less run roughshod over him and force him to polish my shoe collection, take out my garbage and wax my cars.
Ballbuster? Me? Not when it's that easy. It's like cheating.
It has some cool features that if modded into civ 4 would kill Civ5. I really like the hexes, global happiness, embarking, and a couple of the new political options. Other than that, the game fails for me.
I was bored in 2 days play. I never got that bored with "Vanilla" civ4.
Seriously, it's really getting on my nerves how that forum is. I actually like to hear people's honest opinions about a game, whether good or bad, and there any pro/con posts get denuded in personal attacks (particularly the con posts, as apparently it's verboten to air your discontent. Apparently, the fan base should not complain so the devs don't know what people want changed for patches). It's funny because I seriously think there are 3x more posts from people complaining about other people complaining about the game than actual posts complaining about the game
Anyway, I'm not because my machine isn't going to be able to handle it, I really don't like 1UPT (looks like an insane headache, and 4UPT or some other limited number would have been far more preferable), the mechanics look a lot simpler, and I have 0 interest in installing Steam. I do, however, think the graphics are a huge step up. I really, really love how the fog actually looks like clouds now. I have been waiting ages for strat games to adopt that instead of the depressing black void approach that's so common. Still, the UI and terrain are a little too "polished" for me: everything sort of blends together a bit much. Maybe I'd get used to that with play, though.
I acquired ciV and played a couple of games but couldn't really get into it. It has some cool features like hexes, ranged attacks, embarkation, culture linked to social policies, buying tiles, state wide happiness/science, city states, better water units, research agreements, city defence etc. but in general it just feels a bit too dumbed down and not that much fun. It plays too much like risk 2, which isn't a bad game but the reason I'm playing Civ is because I want a broad strategy game, not one that can too easily be won just with 4-6 units in a better formation than the enemy.
I kind of think it took too much away from traditional civ features, with no option of including them in advanced settings. For example tech trading, it's always been a part of screwing over the AI on higher difficulties and was a quite strategic part of the game. And then things like the stingy lack of a video/replay after you win, the fact that worker improvements don't seem to matter all that much, and the really slow load times/time between turns. In civ 4 I reload quite a lot because I hate making silly mistakes but in civ 5 it takes ages. I agree that BTS was probably a bit too complicated in the end, but I think Civ V has taken back to basics a bit too far.
The AI seems to be quite primitive as well compared to civ 4. Strangely this means that the AIs are more proficient at killing each other before you meet them, but vs a human player they are at a huge disadvantage. The fact that people on these forums are reporting winning on deity after only a few games suggests that the AI could do with a lot of improvements.
And then there are the uber strategies which people are already coming up with. Things like great scientists being able to bulb whole techs enabling ridiculous things like rifling slingshots on Deity with Babylon, or the ultra quick cultural win by selling off most of your cities at a certain point in the game, and the apparent power of gold, trading posts, and maritime city states. Civ 4 did have a few uber strategies, like the infamous civil service slingshot, so maybe some of these will be "fixed". But they would have to revise the current game mechanics quite significantly to do so.
On the other hand, when civ 4 came out it was a while before all the "standard" play strategies were developed. I remember when it came out everyone was trying to make uber shrine cities ala Sulla, but at higher difficulties it turned out that wasn't really feasible but other elements of religion, beelines, and bulbing could be just as powerful. And at least by BTS cottage spam, specialist/GP spam, SP workshop spam, corporations, whipping, drafting, rushbuy etc were all relatively balanced strategies. In civ v at the moment gold seems to be the most important thing and thus trading posts are the superior. Maybe someone will prove me wrong though.
Anyway I'm sticking with civ 4 for the moment. Just won my highest scoring immortal game where Mansa managed to hold off against Shaka, Toku was my bestest buddy, and an uber rexing Zara met a quick demise against my horse archers. I'm sure civ V will get better with future patches/expansions/BUG type Mod so maybe I will give it another go then.
I pulled up Sulla's walk-through the other day - that was enough to convince me to hold off on purchasing CiV.
I won't be buying CiV any time soon for three reasons:
1. I can't afford to upgrade my computer to the recommended specs.
b. From what I've read the game has too many bugs.
iii. I'm still enjoying CivIV.
Very nice post. This is why I stopped reading anything in that forum. I very much liked reading the pros and cons, but often the first post after that (or one of the first) was some variant of "you don't like change, go and play civ 4 instead" with a hefty dose of personal attacks thrown into the mix. And then the thread veered way off topic into a personal attack fest.
Sadly this is the case with many games with a solid fanbase. Criticise the game, and the attack dogs charge. Was the same with Mass Effect 2, and looks to be the same with Dragon Age 2. The developers made changes that took away key elements of the original game (and very successful games at that) to appeal to a broader segment of gamers (dumbing it down if you will). Criticise that, and you got torn to bits by a select group of posters. Sadly the same has happened to the Civ 5 forum.
I think it's pretty clear the game both got potential and serious flaws, and I hope the developers are being more rational than the attack dogs, and take the serious criticism to heart and fix it in patches and expansions.
Wait, did Sulla do a walkthrough for C5 or did the C4 one just get you back in the mood?
Meh, seems to me like most of the flames in the C5 forums are from rare/new posters. They might have been playing since C1 for all I know, but it has the feel of a bunch of kids who just got their new game flooding the forum for a few months until they move on to the next new thing. I'm not sure it's the dedicated fan base so much, but who knows? This is what happens when you put it on steam! (is what my gut is telling me )
Anyway, I haven't even really played any of the C4 mods yet, so I've a while longer with this title before moving on. I want to get good at Emperor, then have fun with AND, and by then I'll be able to get the more polished product, perhaps with 1UPT modded out.
He did a Civ5 walkthrough (more of an after-action report actually) on his webpage. It demonstrates some massive AI failures in his first two games. The third one (which is on Immortal) looks like the AI might have finally gotten enough bonuses to outweigh its tactical incompetence (last time I checked, at least). I'd recommend it, it's a pretty honest approach from someone who liked Civ4, is trying to give Civ5 a chance, and points out the good and the bad along the way.
I've seen the same with other games too, and won't be surprised if it's the same here. Long time fans of the game, but lurkers of the forum, are so disappointed that they voice their concern. With time the select group of attack dogs manage to mute out the criticism (the 'new' users tend to voice their concern and then leave, or leave after seeing the disgusting replies to their concerns), or derailing threads with serious criticms with personal attacks. It's almost a carbon copy of what is going on here. Pretty sad actually. Wish it was possible to have an adult discussion about the new game there, but I've given up. Easier to get Abbas and Netanyahu to talk.
My only hope is that the developers are being more professional in dealing with the criticism, and change things around in future patches and expansions.
I hadn't played Civ 4 in about a year but after trying out Civ 5 I've now gone back to playing. Civ 4 is a genius of a game!
I'll stick with Civ 4 until Civ 5 has been patched and fixed.
Civ 4 BTS isn't the best game ever made but it's still damn fun. Most games that have a span and complexity like 4 also have glaring bugs and balance issues - The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind is one great example I can think of off the top of my head. It's buggy as all hell (probably moreso than Civ 4), crashes frequently, and the archetype balance (warrior, mage, thief) is so thrown off that it's almost required that you use community-made mods to ensure playing a mage doesn't cause you to rip your hair out. That being said, if you like sandbox games, Morrowind is one of the best single player RPGs ever made. Civ 4 is one of the best TBS/empire management games ever made.
Separate names with a comma.