Beyond earth the worst civ game ever - nothing happens

[Kutuzov]

If we're going to compare Civ BE to other Civ games, then I have no problems with this being the 'worst' in the series at this point. I have never played Civ 1, Revolutions or Col - 'whatever' and so can't make any comparisons there but Civ BE is on a par with Civ V for having the most passive AI.

But, one point I consider is that I always, repeat ALWAYS, build a decent sized military early in the game and so the AI no longer sees me as easy pickings. I never fall far behind the leader in techs, if I fall behind at all, and so a lot of the aggression I used to see from Civ 3 and 4 might have been down to me not knowing how to make myself safe. Certainly not all of it by any means but enough to make the difference between the AI's attitude towards me being 'Threaten' and 'Time to die!'

Since AI passivity is something that Civ BE has inherited from Civ 5 vanilla, it's likely that the developers are wary about making the AI too aggressive. It doesn't help that folks complain very quickly when they feel the AI is too aggressive either. Me, I'd like to see it take a chance and 'first strike' me more frequently especially with its satellites.

 

[Colwyn]

I really hope in the next patch they really get the ai more aggressive esp with regards to not necessary attacking a city but using hit and run methods to least slow expansions down. I think bombard fire from city is way overpowered as it stops pillaging, getting airpower early too also pretty much guarentee's your cities cant be taken till much much later in the game and only if your way behind..

Good comments guys its good to hear other peoples sensible opinions

 

[Breezin]

While I agree with you 100%, I'm not sure if I would include Call to Power and Test of Time in the official Civ Connon. Call to Power was absolute rubbish!

CTP 1 and 2 were OK (as is BE) but the difference here is BE will actually get multiple patches and DLC.

CTP 1 and 2 actually had some interesting systems some of which were actually incorporated in to the Civ series if I recall correctly.

I wish there would be more Civ type games to compete with the Firaxis take which I think has been lacking to some extent. Maybe that would push the envelope. Unfortunately, there aren't. I don't know why there are so many sci-fi Civ games but I can recall any recent true historical ones in the line of Civ I - V.

 

[m15a]

Sorry, but Civilization Revolutions is the worst Civ game ever.

I feel like people must be not even counting it (them) since I haven't seen any other mentions of it on the "BE is the worst/easiest Civ ever" threads. But that's what I was thinking, too (at least the iPhone version, which is the one I played).

 

[Mikee]

Beyond Earth Review

This game is extremely disappointing. I have followed and played each iteration of the CIV Series since its inception. Why go off planet to introduce new technology and concepts? It is a given that the game is adversarial and could easily have remained on earth to explore human advancement and technology. Nothing wrong with going off planet though.

I have read many game reviews and comments regarding each Civ Game and have always felt that this series has been more or less developing and maturing as each iteration has only gotten better. I am 60 years of age and was once an industrial programmer.

This game is simply a cheap and nasty rearrangement of the deck chairs with a reduction and loss in many game interface aspects and overall playability.
The game interface, game details and strategy for Civ V have been by far the best yet. The Civ V achievement could also have been further improved.

Beyond Earths game interface has suffered a loss of features and connectability. The characters are greatly limited compared to Civ V. The variability of production and game strategy choices are no longer available with projects once committed not able to be changed according to the requirements of the game as it develops.
In an attempt to create an "atmospheric" off world appearance has only caused a loss of game clarity in the graphics department. Refer to Civ V for a better approach to game graphics and renditions.
The graphics are poor and units do not flow or sit in the landscape like the CIV V units do, the whole appearance of the game is now cheap, childish, poor and immature. Is the game being produced for the 10 to 15 year old age group?
The game relies on a great deal of chance with the relics etc.
The maps are extremely limited in the choice of layouts available.
What separated the Civ Series from many other games was its more mature and realistic approach to game play that relied on a greater requirement for thoughtful and complex strategy and less on childish handouts and graphics.

There is an audience who would rather play chess than drafts or snakes and ladders. Beyond Earth is the drafts version.

All in all this game is a cut down version of Civ V and would seem to be a very cheap approach to cash in on what was now once the very best strategy game series of all time. What a shame. The Civ games have up till now always seemed to be striving for quality, this game does not. As an avid follower of the Civ Games I am now considering not to purchase any further iterations of these games if Beyond Earth is the new bench mark. What is glaringly lacking in most games for the mature gamers who want realism even if it is sci-fi, is complex and mature game play.

Why has Civ not further built upon the Civ V advancements and achievements in game play, game interface rather than producing a cheap and nasty version directed at what audience?

Sorry people but you have successfully managed to break what was very nearly the very best strategy game of its kind ever.

I could go on and comment about many aspects of this game iteration however I think you will clearly understand my view without further embellishment.

A very sad and disappointed CIV Fanatic.

Moderator Action: Please do not spam the same post across multiple threads or fora.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Mustakrakish]

I prefer that to the random "we're friends and I'm much weaker than you, but you're winning" DoWs from earlier Civ V.
I guess it's personal preference in strategy games. I like the other civs to behave more like actual people than particularly dickish players. From a roleplayng perspective it makes little sense for a Purity civ do attack another Purity civ because they are about to save humanity first. It also makes no sense to obsessively destroy your "friends" tading partner just because you can.

Oh, I so agree.

 

[LastChime]

It does need some work for sure, did you try playing on smaller maps?

My most recent game I used the Planet Simulator mapscript (perfect world from civ 5) for BE and it put KP and Franco-Iberea both within 20 tiles of my capital on either side, yeah I sneezed around turn 100 and double war decs. So yeah stuff happening.

Also on a standard size map as all the ones I've played on massives are indeed a snorefest (really seem to need 12 players for massive).

 

[Eliezar]

Depends on how you're defining "worst." My vote has to go to Vanilla Civ 3 simply because of the number of design decisions I disagree with, which is pretty close to "all of them."

Civ 3 was by far the worst IMO.

Alpha Centauri and Civ IV were the best.

 

[Thormodr]

No votes for Civ World yet as the worst civ game ever? Not even turn based.

Fair enough. Civ World is worse that Civilization 5: Beyond Earth.

 

[Thormodr]

CTP 1 and 2 were OK (as is BE) but the difference here is BE will actually get multiple patches and DLC.

CTP 1 and 2 actually had some interesting systems some of which were actually incorporated in to the Civ series if I recall correctly.

I wish there would be more Civ type games to compete with the Firaxis take which I think has been lacking to some extent. Maybe that would push the envelope. Unfortunately, there aren't. I don't know why there are so many sci-fi Civ games but I can recall any recent true historical ones in the line of Civ I - V.

I agree with you that Firaxis needs more competition in the genre. There are plenty of Sci-fi and Fantasy 4X games out there but not enough historical ones.

What we need is some billionaire philanthropist that used to be a Civ fan when he/she was younger.

 

[Halbbruder]

I've played SMAC, civ2, civ 4, civ 5 and of course civbe. I would say civ 4 is the worst civ game, at least in combat system and diplomacy, as well as for new players too. Civ 2 was decent. SMAC is probably the benchmark civ game in my opinion, along with civ 5, and has a similar combat system to civ 4 but at least it properly deals with stacks of doom, unlike civ 4 where you have to sacrifice (fingers crossed that it lives) an artillery unit to damage a stack of doom because there's no such thing as ranged units in that game. What a stupid combat system. Not to mention the ultra-rare possibility of an ancient era unit defeating a modern era unit. How can you say civ 4 is the best?!

As for civbe, it does need work, but to say it's the worst game is a bit harsh. I'd rather play civbe, civ 5 and SMAC, perhaps even civ 2, than even think about returning to the garbage you people call civ 4. Civbe the only civ game that has a tech web, an affinity system and orbital units. It's new content that they could use for future civ games meaning this game can form a legacy of its own, just as civ 5 made its legacy in 1UPT, social policies and city states. And what legacy does civ 4 have? Nothing. Just a crap combat system that's been dumped by civ 5 and culture has been appropriated as a civ 5 idea because it actually contributes to something rather than just a cultural victory.

Again, as this point has been repeatedly made about civbe: give it time and wait for an expansion.

 

[Haggbart]

Not counting Civ Rev and Civ World (those were garbage), I find it incredible to discuss the Civ-games in terms of "worst". Let's just say "least awesome". In that case I vote for Civ4/CiV with expansions as most awesome, and Civ 3 as least awesome. CivBE is pretty awesome already, it just needs some balance patches, an extra difficulty level or two and some polish.

 

[EricTheGreat12]

This post is hilarious; you know, I agree that the current state of BE is absolute disaster, but in the end it reminds me of another game outside of the Civ series that was released a few years ago: Rome Total War 2.

When Rome Total War 2 was released, many people thought that it was a horrible disaster: They blamed the siege AI and other things like the naval combat being pathetic. But you know what, with Emperor Edition and many patches later, the game is honestly in my top 3 computer games of all time because so many items have finally been fixed and the game looks like what it was always meant to be.

So for those saying that you hate this game, that it's absolute garbage and that you'll never play another future game in the series think again; Beyond Earth is actually going to become fun and playful (Sorry I'm in the xmas mood )

 

[Fabio1701]

Civ world lastest 115 seconds on my computer u til i realised that it was not turnbased .

 

[Gort]

I quite like Civ Rev. It's nice to be able to play a whole game in a few hours. I think future civ games could definitely benefit from these design decisions in Civ Rev:

1. Each civ gets bonuses PER ERA. So the Greeks might have Phalanxes in the Ancient Era, and they get Democracy for free in the Classical Era, then a city state bonus in the Medieval Era and so on, keeping the bonuses from previous eras as they go. More differences between civs means more replayability.

2. Ships come with a free explorer who you can disembark to explore ruins and small islands. Just makes so much sense.

3. Unit skins changing as you gave them promotions was pretty cool too. A nice touch.

4. Advisors. Specifically, advisors that change their appearance as you gain technology.

 

[Roxlimn]

Advisors changing appearance with tech was a Civ1 feature.

The Specialists changed appearance, too.

1. Each civ gets bonuses PER ERA. So the Greeks might have Phalanxes in the Ancient Era, and they get Democracy for free in the Classical Era, then a city state bonus in the Medieval Era and so on, keeping the bonuses from previous eras as they go. More differences between civs means more replayability.

The Virtues are already a form of this. I mean, sure, if you only ever play Prosperity and go down the tree the same way every single game, that's bound to get repetitive.

 

[melcron]

If you want the AI to attack you do not play smart. Forward expand, ignore their request, and break promises. Yes Apollo is easy comparable to emperor difficult in civ 5.

I don't play smart (it's not necessary) and I've been attacked before but I can easily go from little to no army to a force which can turn the tides within 5-10 turns... Apollo is not easy compared to Emperor difficulty: it's easy compared to Settler. That is not an exaggeration.

If anyone is actually having difficulty in this game I'd have to see it to believe it. I've played Civilization IV/V and I don't consider myself a skilled player my any means, but this game is ridiculously easy. I'm sure it will improve with patches... it's not really a finished game.

 

[Roxlimn]

No. I've played Settler. Have you?

 

[JokerJace]

Each civ gets bonuses PER ERA.

THIS!!! should be in all CiV games since forever. Instead they do their best to remove faction diversity completely.... I wonder when the first CiV game comes out with no factions at all.

 

[melcron]

No. I've played Settler. Have you?

Yes. Have you played Beyond Earth? The aliens and combat might be easier in Civ V (Settler) but spamming cities and managing health(happiness)/culture/science/gold is easier in Civ BE (Apollo).