Blast From the Past: CivFanatics Forums from November 2005

[JLoZeppeli]

Uh? so you think from now they (the testers) will do the job that they were enforced to do before?

And before the release what were they doing? Playing paintball with Shafer?


Or is possible that the devs don't care of their warnings, before, now and in the future?

 

[Buccaneer]

I got the burger with fries but I did not like the fries. So just getting a burger is the same, albeit the burger wasn't as good.

I played with espionage and corporations once, did not like those features at all. I look forward to something better in Civ5.

 

[Buccaneer]

Uh? so you think from now they (the testers) will do the job that they were enforced to do before?

And before the release what were they doing? Playing paintball with Shafer?


Or is possible that the devs don't care of their warnings, before, now and in the future?

For those that have been around Poly and the Civ community for a long time, some of the best civvers of all time are on that team. They inundated Firaxis and the 2K test leads with requests and changes, but the developers did not have the resources to fix and to implement many of the changes prior to release.

 

[Bad Brett]

I really like the new terminloogy.

"Shafer 5"
"Shafer rating"
"Shafer states"
"Blue science"
"Pink science"

 

[dexters]

Notice how each section he makes a comment like "What replaces it?" He isn't begging for those things back, he wants something else to be there. Okay, you remove the early game implications of religion, what other types of things do we do instead? It doesn't have to be religion.

Imagine I go to restaurant A, and order a burger and it comes with fries
I go to restaurant B, and get a burger, but it doesn't come with fries. I'm still left wanting. I honestly don't mind if I get onion rings or some fruit, or whatever, something is just missing. Does it mean I'm obsessing about Fries? NO.

Well assuming they add a grand total of 0 features over the next 1 or 2 expansions, I assume some of those things will get replaced. I think they're a good direction to move in terms of city states that will be completely new and won't necessarily replace anything.

Civ5 is the first Civ game to have 25+ teams on the single standard map. That opens up have possibilities for civil war and even if they just make modest/incremental improvement to city states, that aspect of the game will be completely unmatched by anything before.

As I pointed out features are being pointed out from Warlords and Beyond the Sword that took years of patching and expansions to put into place. The irony of those expansion titles also doesn't escape me given the current hyperbolic claim of Civ5 being only a wargame.

 

[Thormodr]

I really like the new terminlogy.

"Shafer 5"
"Shafer rating"
"Blue science"
"Pink science"

You forgot Shafer States.

 

[Zechnophobe]

He mainly focused on game elements included in vanilla, such as more bombastic tile yields, more consistent and interesting AI, religion and buildings that aren't just "Building of +4 happiness 1" and "Building of +4 happiness 2".

At this point, that isn't even really a key feature of civ 4 per se. Civ 3 also had much of this, as did civ 2, only really failing on religion.

 

[Bad Brett]

You forgot Shafer States.

Oh yeah, I totally forgot about those... I edited my post now.

 

[dexters]

He mainly focused on game elements included in vanilla, such as more bombastic tile yields, more consistent and interesting AI, religion and buildings that aren't just "Building of +4 happiness 1" and "Building of +4 happiness 2".

At this point, that isn't even really a key feature of civ 4 per se. Civ 3 also had much of this, as did civ 2, only really failing on religion.

You means Cathedrals in Civ3 weren't tier2 happiness buildings?

I actually agree about buildings with more varied bonuses, it's something I wouldn't mind seeing.

But don't tell me religion wasn't interchangeable and the temples weren't happiness building A, B, C, D. Gotta catch em all.

There are quirks in both games, but Zonk's Civ4 bias is pretty obvious, and as I said that's fine. Espionage is obviously one element he really liked.

 

[Zechnophobe]

You means Cathedrals in Civ3 weren't tier2 happiness buildings?

I actually agree about buildings with more varied bonuses, it's something I wouldn't mind seeing.

But don't tell me religion wasn't interchangeable and the temples weren't happiness building A, B, C, D. Gotta catch em all.

There are quirks in both games, but Zonk's Civ4 bias is pretty obvious, and as I said that's fine. Espionage is obviously one element he really liked.

Sure there are multi tiered structures of various types. Markets and Banks, libraries and Universities. But those AREN'T THE ONLY BUILDINGS, or even close to them!

The religions were completely interchangeable in civ 4, except for a few subtleties (tech age, resource bonus for cathedral). What they were meant for, was rather to give you additional goals and modifiers to other aspects of the game. If you wanted to persue a religion or try to found one for the economic bonus, that was an additional early game THING to do. If you wanted to get the most out of the religious civics, you'd have to use missionaries. You could try to spread it for diplomatic bonus'. These were all decisions to be made and weighed against each other.

Where are the interesting early game decisions in civ 5 to replace it?

Here's a good civ 4 example you even touched on. Happiness from a temple wsa the same as 1 military unit from the powerful early game civic Hereditary Rule. The temple would last forever, so you could build that now, but the military unit could be cheaper... and would be a military unit. Then again, it costs maintenance, so maybe it isn't worth it. Of course if you are in hereditary rule, you may plan on ways of efficiently turning population into the economy you'll need to support the larger military, or maybe you gun for military state to make it work better.

That's the kind of complex decision making involved in that game. Early rammifications, late game ones, questions of progression, questions of stability. I just haven't found the same to be sayable about civ 5.

 

[dexters]

Sure there are multi tiered structures of various types. Markets and Banks, libraries and Universities. But those AREN'T THE ONLY BUILDINGS, or even close to them!

The religions were completely interchangeable in civ 4, except for a few subtleties (tech age, resource bonus for cathedral). What they were meant for, was rather to give you additional goals and modifiers to other aspects of the game. If you wanted to persue a religion or try to found one for the economic bonus, that was an additional early game THING to do. If you wanted to get the most out of the religious civics, you'd have to use missionaries. You could try to spread it for diplomatic bonus'. These were all decisions to be made and weighed against each other.

Where are the interesting early game decisions in civ 5 to replace it?

Here's a good civ 4 example you even touched on. Happiness from a temple wsa the same as 1 military unit from the powerful early game civic Hereditary Rule. The temple would last forever, so you could build that now, but the military unit could be cheaper... and would be a military unit. Then again, it costs maintenance, so maybe it isn't worth it. Of course if you are in hereditary rule, you may plan on ways of efficiently turning population into the economy you'll need to support the larger military, or maybe you gun for military state to make it work better.

That's the kind of complex decision making involved in that game. Early rammifications, late game ones, questions of progression, questions of stability. I just haven't found the same to be sayable about civ 5.

You may be overselling it though. There are similar decisions based on the Social Policies. Honor tree has a similar one. Also Happiness isn't sure a core mechanic in Civ4 also that I doubt most players would be making those kinds of tradeoffs. Health and maintenance cost would kick in first. And with both health and happiness, it was ::joker voke:: 'aggressive expansion' to grab as much early resources as possible. This is more something you would be agonizing over in Civ3, as a city that tips the other way means rioting and zero production. Civ4 penalities are relatively light.


But generally The early game decisions in Civ5 are not the same types or variety as Civ4 because Civ5 isn't Civ4. Your decisions there are how many cities to build, vs. how many SP to unlock early. As like any civ games, benefits are cumulative and the more SP you have, the stronger they are cumulatively, but it also means smaller empires.

 

[Thormodr]

You means Cathedrals in Civ3 weren't tier2 happiness buildings?

I actually agree about buildings with more varied bonuses, it's something I wouldn't mind seeing.

But don't tell me religion wasn't interchangeable and the temples weren't happiness building A, B, C, D. Gotta catch em all.

There are quirks in both games, but Zonk's Civ4 bias is pretty obvious, and as I said that's fine. Espionage is obviously one element he really liked.

Religion had to be interchangeable or else they would have been inundated with hate mail from various religious groups.

Sure it left it more generic but I completely understand Firaxis' decision in that regard.

Shafer 5's boring buildings are in no way an equivalent to this.

Calling people biased and only wanting cIV.5 (plus your excessive use of the word hyperbole) seems to indicate that you have your own axe to grind. That or you really just like arguing.

 

[HiroHito]

My main complaint is that CiV was dumbed down, not because of the crashes and whatsoever.

Technical problems can be fixed, simpleton gameplay cannot, sadly.

 

[Lightzy]

This is BS. I did some digging too when I posted some old polls from that time to another thread and like many have already said majority of complaints back then were of technical nature while now majority of them are about the design decisions. Old polls showed that clear majority of voters considered the design of Civ4 as an improvement while with Civ5 the division is at best 50/50.



No it's not. Maybe the industry wants you to believe that but from the consumer's point of view it's the only meaningful comparison.

1) It's sort of hard to get to complain about design decisions when the game doenst even run or keeps crashing mate.

2) say what? BTS was after multiple patches and a previous expansion pack. CIV5 vanilla is just vanilla. no real patches yet and definitely no xp pack.

If you can compare anything, its vanilla civ4 to vanilla civ5

 

[dexters]

Religion had to be interchangeable or else they would have been inundated with hate mail from various religious groups.

Sure it left it more generic but I completely understand Firaxis' decision in that regard.

Shafer 5's boring buildings are in no way an equivalent to this.

Calling people biased and only wanting cIV.5 (plus your excessive use of the word hyperbole) seems to indicate that you have your own axe to grind. That or you really just like arguing.

It was a neat concept and I would have much preferred if left as a kind of 'organic' mechanic players had no control over.

But ultimately, it came down to the camel food caravan from Civ2 with OP bonuses to make people like it so much. It does say a lot about the community though and not the game balance itself

 

[zonk]

Look - the only reason I bring up things that were in IV/BTS is because how else do you discuss a negative?

I - and others - are saying that our complaints are that the game gets really boring because there's nothing to do and if you're not at war, it's nothing but waiting for the next pink science or blue science.

Beyond "for exampling" features from IV that are now absent, how else can one explain it?

No religion? Fine... how about introducing a cultural identity aspect -- there are ethnic and cultural divisions that span nations, create divisions within nations, etc... replace with religion with - and with the concept, some aspect of it to manage, manipulate, and use.

This is what is so frustrating -- we say we're bored, we say "NEXT TURN NEXT TURN NEXT TURN". We're then asked to explain, so we bring up things we used to do from turn to turn in IV... and then we're branded as simply wanting IV features back.

I ask again, as I've asked many times before... Exactly what you say IS in V for the player who doesn't immediately look for new and interesting ways to conquer the other AIs?

Natural Wonders? You might have well have just put 7 random smiley faces on the map. There's nothing to them - there's no bonus for extending your cultural borders over them. There's nothing that enhances their usage via buildings or science. They play no role in diplomacy.

Social Policies? Just a pink tech tree.

City States? Does anyone REALLY think that adds any diplomatic depth? Pop a certain pink tech branch, then send them cash -- they don't even serve as a decent casus belli, since there's no penalty for FAILING to defend a CS ally, while if you DO come to their aid -- all you do is bump up your badboy in the eyes of the other AIs.

Exactly what IS there for the non-warmonger?

I've put the challenge out there - and I'm completely willing to listen.... so show me.

Play a game - in fact, play a huge map on epic or marathon - and DON'T start any wars. Tell me what I'm missing.... Tell me what it is that YOU find that breaks up the next turn monotony.

 

[Thormodr]

It was a neat concept and I would have much preferred if left as a kind of 'organic' mechanic players had no control over.

But ultimately, it came down to the camel food caravan from Civ2 with OP bonuses to make people like it so much. It does say a lot about the community though and not the game balance itself

You lost me after "organic", Dennis.

 

[danisans]

Below is an example of the kind of complaints that don't convince, as they don't indicate any attempt to really play the game in depth and surface the issues. Generalities ("I'm bored") rather than specifics. And a simple list is easily compiled. Here's a couple for starters:

- Overpowered horsemen that short circuit the rest of the game features;
- the inevitable and very unsubtle "AI gangbang the human" diplomacy.

But I have still hardly reached the end of exploring the game, and it still very much holds my interest.

What's boring are the same sweeping generalizations repeated over and over again.

I am glad you enjoy the game. Fact is, despite my complaints, I am still playing it too. Just not as much as I thought I would. Hopefully somebody at Firaxis will take note of our issues with Civ V and fix it. If you have no issues with Civ V, then just don't install the upcoming patches and don't buy the future Expansion Packs. If you are bored reading our posts, just stop reading them. I paid good money to play Civ V and I am starting to get bored with it already in less than a month (when this would usually start happening, at least for me, only after 2 to 3 years of playing Civ II, III and IV). That boredom is a lot more tragic than the boredom you experience when reading posts from discouraged veteran Civ players.

 

[dexters]

You lost me after "organic", Dennis.

Soren's original design was religion, once discovered (still tied to tech) would spread naturally through trade routes. No player control.

 

[Vordeo]

Re: the OP's post, true, but really that's how most new releases go. When Civ 6 is released years from now, you can count on people are bashing it and making unflattering comparisons to CiV (which will have gone through several patches and expansions). It's how fandom works.