Beyond, Beyond the sword

Wow, I never read that big sloppy kiss part before. My, my, how could they have screwed up so bad?
 
noto2 said:
Wow, I never read that big sloppy kiss part before. My, my, how could they have screwed up so bad?
Click to expand...

Because that was pure BS. They were targeting exactly the same way when they made Civ V as when they made Civ Rev...they just know better than to say so.
 
I don't know about that. I have to admit I have almost no experience playing either game, but I've watched both being played and I've read about both and they seem quite different. Just because civ 5 is a bad game doesn't mean it's bad because they tried to make it a simplified console version of civ. In what ways are they similar? They seem like night and day to me
 
The two games are not the same. They are just targeted the same. Any game developer that claims 'we are not targeting a wider audience' is lying, period. And that will stay true as long as targeting a wider audience works.

Wider audience, buys Civ V and likes it.

Long term Civ players maybe hated it...but they still bought it.

It's a win.

But if they said 'we are targeting a wider audience even though our long term Civ fans probably won't like it' it wouldn't work.
 
I didn't buy Civ V and don't want to. I've seen a friend of mine with his units all over, because he can only fit 1 unit per tile. It's rediculous. It's Not Civ to me.
Civ came about when Master of Orion was around and both gained popularity for their 2nd revsions. Both have stacks of units in one tile, mostly for simplicity's sake and it worked. Many games have limited to 1upt and that is a distinguishing characteristic which seperates diferent games and makes them unique. I am hoping that Civ doesn't go the way MOO3 did and flop so bad that it's out for good.
Oh, and yea vincentz, I recommended your game to him, because you took a different route with production and food base values for tiles and improvements that made your version more unique and less of a knockoff of others. Certainly worth someone's effort to see those differences and find out if they like them. Variety is the spice of life.
 
Yes I know, and it's very unfortunate. They made a lot of money off Civ 5, and a lot of people hated the game. I don't know...perhaps they will be punished by soft sales of the expansion packs. Silly me for believing that some people might care about developing a good product just as much as making money
 
Yeah, I think their sales results were skewed from guys like me - a long time civ player, so I bought Civ V right away. played it enough to give it a chance, then promptly uninstalled and went back to civ IV.

But, from their point of view - I bought the game, therefore they got a sale. now, what the results DON'T show is if they come out with a Civ VI, you better believe I'm not getting that right away without some serious looks at reviews from a community I trust (namely, you guys!!)

I know the sales of Civ V were fine, so from the dev's point of view, they did great. But I can't help but wonder what the percentage of sales were form folks like me - who did buy it, but came to regret that decision.

So, my thought is they may have done OK on Civ V based on community trust and goodwill. Now that they flushed that (at least, in the eyes of some of us - I know there is a faction who does enjoy Civ V and I respect their opinion!) we'll have to see what the future holds - my thought is there won't be nearly as much support should they continue the franchise.
 
Jeffrey it's the same exact situation with me. I bought the game because I thought it would be better than Civ IV just like Civ IV was better than Civ III but I was sadly mistaken. Nevertheless they got a sale from me. I haven't bought any expansion packs though and for Civ VI I'll be watching live streams and making sure to check out reviews from reliable people first before I buy it.

Sadly though I feel that Civ IV will be the last good Civ game. Everything from here on out will be produced to streamline and dumb down the game for the masses. Everything will be always online and civs and maps will be sold as DLC content. Modding will start to go away because it will affect their DLC sales.

plasmacannon said:
I didn't buy Civ V and don't want to. I've seen a friend of mine with his units all over, because he can only fit 1 unit per tile. It's rediculous. It's Not Civ to me.
Click to expand...

I think it's funny that people hate stacks of doom but all Civ V did was replace the stack of doom with the carpet of doom.
 
Ormiga said:
Jeffrey it's the same exact situation with me. I bought the game because I thought it would be better than Civ IV just like Civ IV was better than Civ III but I was sadly mistaken. Nevertheless they got a sale from me. I haven't bought any expansion packs though and for Civ VI I'll be watching live streams and making sure to check out reviews from reliable people first before I buy it.

Sadly though I feel that Civ IV will be the last good Civ game. Everything from here on out will be produced to streamline and dumb down the game for the masses. Everything will be always online and civs and maps will be sold as DLC content. Modding will start to go away because it will affect their DLC sales.
Click to expand...
For an interesting bit o' history, and a bit of an alternate take on this. Search for "Lemon Merchant crackpot" on this forum and check out the thread you find. A lot of what you're saying here was said before Civ 5's release... ;)

EDIT: Here it is: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=366430
 
honestly I don't hate the stack of doom at all. I don't want Civ to be a game about war tactics. When I want to play a game where I'm thinking about when to flank, what to do with my cavalry and which target to shoot at with archers, I'll play Rome Total War. When I want fast paced action I play Dota or GTA. Combat is quite abstract in Civ and always has been, and I'm completely fine with that, it's a turn based strategy game spanning all of human history ffs. It took me a month to finish a game of RTW and I was playing it nearly every day, can you imagine if the combat in Civ were as involved in that? It would literally take you years to finish a game. No thanks. Just let the troops fight it out and use some kind of simulator to tell me who wins. Civ 4 already has unit types, counters, and using the terrain. Civ 4's combat is as complex as I'd ever want Civ combat to get. Not that it's perfect, I have a few beefs with it (like that siege weapons own everything else) but making it more involved and complex is not the way to improve it, IMO
 
I'd like to think that my opinion on civ5 is rather unique because I first started playing civ with civ5. To be honest I first started off playing civ revolutions on my ipod but that doesn't really count. I started playing civ5 in 2012 so by then alot of the game breaking glitches had been worked out so I missed that whole mess. I got kind of bored with civ5 and then they had gods and kings which I loved. Personally I was a big fan of the 1upt rule until I got up into higher difficulties and realized the AI can't wage war without overwhelming numbers and even then its hit or miss. I disliked espionage in civ5 because even my ipod civ had a more complex system. That all said I started to find civ5 somewhat borring and I became desperate for more so I loaded up mods like crazy. Eventually firaxis did an update that has trashed civ5 for me.(my laptop was at the low end of being able to run the game anyway.) So I figured I'd buy civ4 since I can't stand civ3. Long story short for the most part I love civ4 it has most everything I was looking for in civ5. So is civ5 a bad game? No its good maybe in very good especially if you don't know what you're missing. Its still one hell of a drop from civ4 and thats not even bringing in what BTS does for civ4.
 
I doubt how bad V was perceived by many will have any effect on future games in the series.

IF that was true, the sales for IV would have been terrible after III.

It's like Star Trek Movies. I wasn't that great but it was the first, II and IV were great and III and V sucked.

Hopefully VI will follow the pattern
 
rah - I suppose that's possible. I know a lot of people were unhappy about certain elements in Civ 3 compared to Civ 2 when it first came out. I am old enough that I played Civ 2 a lot. Civ 3 was a big change. It introduced stacks - units in Civ 2 were very limited in their ability to stack. Civ 3 also introduced traits and culture, and I think a few people did not like culture. Also, it was streamlined a lot. Believe it or not, Civ 2 actually had more techs, more units, and more buildings than Civ 4. So one could argue that we saw the same problem, the purists didn't like Civ3 and we're seeing the same thing again with 5.

Perhaps I'm biased, but I saw many of the changes implemented in 3 to be a good thing. Sure, a part of me missed being able to build offshore platforms, Civ 2 was a very good sandbox game, it was like playing a large scale Sim City. But streamlining is good. Overall I thought the vast majority of changes implemented in 3 - leader traits, resources, stacks, streamlined, culture - were a good thing. Civ 5 is different. Right off the bat the first major change they made affected the rest of the game - the 1UPT decision. I vehemently oppose this decision. Also, as Phil pointed out, what's with the specs??? I have a lap top but it's a good lap top. I can play dota2 on it with maxed settings. I can even play GTA4 on this laptop with about medium settings and get a very high framerate, or I can max the settings and get a low framerate. Civ is a TBS game and it won't run on my system in any reasonable way. That's not acceptable.
 
I didn't particularly like Civ III and went back to II after a short while. (I also hesitated adopting IV because of how much I didn't like III.)

However, IMHO culture was the *best* change from II to III. The traits/UUs weren't as well implemented as in IV, but I thought it was a good attempt at differentiating the civilizations. I found that having great leaders emerge only through battle was annoying. The resources were something to deal with. The nerfing of wonders was a downer. The two-second wonder "movies" were a slap in the face. The AI empires getting more and more unreasonable in negotiating for resources was maddening. What I despised was the corruption. I love large empires, and the corruption was a clumsy attempt at limiting the size of empires. (I think it was changed after some patches/expansions, but I had given up by that point.) The final straw was when I decided to try a diplomatic victory; I didn't declare war all game, tried to play nice, built the UN, and all the AIs voted for the #2 nation, meaning I lost. :mad: I went back a couple of turns and built the spaceship instead of asking for a diplo victory.

But my disappointment with III pales in comparison with the complaints I've read here about V.
 
Lennier said:
I didn't particularly like Civ III and went back to II after a short while. (I also hesitated adopting IV because of how much I didn't like III.)

However, IMHO culture was the *best* change from II to III. The traits/UUs weren't as well implemented as in IV, but I thought it was a good attempt at differentiating the civilizations. I found that having great leaders emerge only through battle was annoying. The resources were something to deal with. The nerfing of wonders was a downer. The two-second wonder "movies" were a slap in the face. The AI empires getting more and more unreasonable in negotiating for resources was maddening. What I despised was the corruption. I love large empires, and the corruption was a clumsy attempt at limiting the size of empires. (I think it was changed after some patches/expansions, but I had given up by that point.) The final straw was when I decided to try a diplomatic victory; I didn't declare war all game, tried to play nice, built the UN, and all the AIs voted for the #2 nation, meaning I lost. :mad: I went back a couple of turns and built the spaceship instead of asking for a diplo victory.

But my disappointment with III pales in comparison with the complaints I've read here about V.
Click to expand...

Well...the traits and UU's and such were pretty good in comparison to Civ 2 which had none, right?

Civ2 had wonder movies and the advisors, and both of those were fun for the first 10 games I played, after that I didn't care.

I don't know...there really isn't much of a comparison. Civ 4 has a lot of replayability, I mean, I've probably spent more hours of my life on Civ 4 than all other computer games combined. It might even challenge my total number of hours on consoles as well (and I played a lot of Mario as a kid).
Replayability comes from having tons of different strategies to use, different civs, and a challenging AI. Of course, Kmod has a lot to do with it too.
Civ 2's replayability came from its sandbox nature, it was just so huge, such a vast game, but I only played it once in a while. The AI was just so horrible.
 
Yeah Lennier, I gave up on III before they fixed the corruption problem. We played a lot of CIV II MP.
 
rah said:
It's like Star Trek Movies. I wasn't that great but it was the first, II and IV were great and III and V sucked.

Hopefully VI will follow the pattern
Click to expand...

The same analogy could be apllied to Windows OS following a pattern like 3.11 (first) -> 95 (good) -> 98 (bad) -> 2000/NT (good) -> ME (bad) ->XP (good) -> Vista (bad) etc. :mischief: :)
 
Never heard that one, but I like it.
 
AdamCrock said:
The same analogy could be apllied to Windows OS following a pattern like 3.11 (first) -> 95 (good) -> 98 (bad) -> 2000/NT (good) -> ME (bad) ->XP (good) -> Vista (bad) etc. :mischief: :)
Click to expand...

Wait, I missed that.
Win98 was bad? I never had a problem with mine.

I think we add Win 7 (good), Win 8 (too cell phone-ish)...
I know people who are already refusing to upgrade to Win 8. Asking questions like, "Where is the Start button?"

It's one thing to have many game developers out there producing many games each vying for our game dollar, quality is important. It really sucks to have so few OS developers out there which forces us to use a crappy version, because that is the way they want us to use it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

C
[BTS] Ethnically Diverse Units MOD Beyond the Sword Edition
Replies
3
Views
606
Plains-Cow
Plains-Cow
M
Reinstalling Civ 4 Complete from Amazon Download
Replies
1
Views
434
Mistro
M
K
New to Civilization 4
Replies
5
Views
1K
f1rpo
f1rpo
T
AI League 2.0
Replies
12
Views
552
Thrasybulos
T
T
The AI Horatius League
2 3
Replies
41
Views
2K
Keler
Keler
Back
Top Bottom