Brave New World reviews

[mitsho]

When has it become normal to put up video reviews? I really really dislike them, takes so much time to view them whereas I can "quick read" the written text. Sighh...

Reviews look overall to be positive, but I'd say the silence on the abilities of the AI's and the balancing in general are also very telling.

 

[Randall_Flagg]

I was just thinking, I like video reviews much better. lol

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

IGN 94%: "The best Civilization expansion so far."
http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/07/08/civilization-v-brave-new-world-review

culture-weak civs are easy prey for tourist influence, but culturally strong ones can be an insurmountable roadblock to the culture victory … unless something bad were to happen to them. Something like extermination. Let's see how the French feel about their own cultural achievements when my nation of artists and writers start carpet-bombing Paris.

 

[Greizer85]

Le sigh. If these bribed lackeys say that the AI 'leaves something to be desired', I shudder to think about its true state. Oh well I already bought the expansion... And how much worse could the AI be than it already is? But if the whole trade route business 'has a learning curve' for humans then how must it be for the AI who is a slew of algorithms utterly incapable of learning...

 

[DeutschDachs]

Le sigh. If these bribed lackeys say that the AI 'leaves something to be desired', I shudder to think about its true state. Oh well I already bought the expansion... And how much worse could the AI be than it already is? But if the whole trade route business 'has a learning curve' for humans then how must it be for the AI who is a slew of algorithms utterly incapable of learning...

I love the smell of cynicism in the morning

 

[Hans Castorp]

Maybe this could be made a sticky thread to collect all the reviews that come out?

 

[MadMage86]

Le sigh. If these bribed lackeys say that the AI 'leaves something to be desired', I shudder to think about its true state. Oh well I already bought the expansion... And how much worse could the AI be than it already is? But if the whole trade route business 'has a learning curve' for humans then how must it be for the AI who is a slew of algorithms utterly incapable of learning...

Multiplayer.

I plan to hop on teamspeak at 11pm CST with a buddy and play this guy into the wee hours of morning; he tends to be distracted easily, so I have to yell at him to finish his turns quickly now and then but it's still so much funner with a friend or two. Especially if your friend is a peaceful isolationist and doesn't impair your plans of world conquest - our only rule is domination victories are off the table. Conquest cannot serve it's own end and thus makes warfare more reasonable - you have to have a real reason for going to war. Annexing land or removing cultural/religious threats, for example. Damnable Iroquois shouldn't have had such a high religious pressure on my cities, or I wouldn't have nuked them...

 

[Greizer85]

I have no friends, nor do I want any. I suppose I could play randoms, or join the 'no quit' group; but how many other newbies are there in mp? I'd get crushed most likely... Most mp players are all about efficiency; while I like it too, I also like to role-play a bit and take my time. I often alt-tab out of the game and do something else for 30 minutes; no-can-do in mp.

Really if they fixed the damn AI I'd play almost nothing else but Civ... I've said it before and I'll say it again: I'd pay 200 euros for an AI-only expansion, with special emphasis on the combat AI.

 

[Ikael]

- The fact that they received Civ5 in multiple parts instead of the whole game at once (in other words, expansions aren't their thing)

To be fair, Civ V vainilla was, indeed an unfished game back when it was released. It was unplayable, on a quite literal fashion, and it needed several patches to start working (as in, being able to be booted in my computer) not to mention that it had huge balance issues that needed to be addressed by the community trought mods and that they were latter adopted by the official game patches. It was hot steaming garbage, and it could hardly be considered a game able to stand on its own. It did needed an expansion (G&K) in order to be finished. BWN, however, looks like a full blown sequel. Cannot wait!

 

[MadMage86]

I have no friends, nor do I want any.

Well, we can't work with an attitude like that, can we? May the UN embargo trade with you every game, sour puss!

I suppose I could play randoms, or join the 'no quit' group; but how many other newbies are there in mp? I'd get crushed most likely...

If you played with me as I said we don't go to war with one another (and tend to reset the game if we are far too close - I tend to eat my immediate neighbors) so you'd be left to your own devices for the most part.

This isn't to say I wouldn't create an empire that dwarfs you in every area and that you'd win, but then it's the journey that matters, isn't it? If you do manage to beat me at anything it's because you've earned it.

Most mp players are all about efficiency; while I like it too, I also like to role-play a bit and take my time. I often alt-tab out of the game and do something else for 30 minutes; no-can-do in mp.

That one might be a rub - we do take informal breaks at pretty regular intervals, but you'd have to at least keep the pace up a bit or risk getting nagged on TS a lot. If you need to take a few minutes to ponder your position, however, we aren't unfeeling savages - let us know you need a sec and just don't do it every turn. I can't use it as an excuse to refill my drink and take a leak that often.

Really if they fixed the damn AI I'd play almost nothing else but Civ... I've said it before and I'll say it again: I'd pay 200 euros for an AI-only expansion, with special emphasis on the combat AI.

Well, single player is pretty much all that can be modded right now, so all hope is not lost if you're just bafflingly anti-social.

 

[78stonewobble]

I have no friends, nor do I want any. I suppose I could play randoms, or join the 'no quit' group; but how many other newbies are there in mp? I'd get crushed most likely... Most mp players are all about efficiency; while I like it too, I also like to role-play a bit and take my time. I often alt-tab out of the game and do something else for 30 minutes; no-can-do in mp.

Really if they fixed the damn AI I'd play almost nothing else but Civ... I've said it before and I'll say it again: I'd pay 200 euros for an AI-only expansion, with special emphasis on the combat AI.

To be fair... There still really isn't anything like good ai in strategy games like civ or total war.

But I'd settle for adequate AI's. Which means less idiotic mistakes and a little more surprises.

 

[Ulthwithian]

Well, for myself, I would love to see an actual evolving AI, using even basic machine learning...

Of course, this would mean that you would get an AI that is tailored for your specific skill set and goals, so.....

The big issue with this is if you 'lose' a game (mainly through complete Domination), how do you figure out who 'beat' you? Everyone who is left? Do you have the game 'continue' to a final victory if the human is no longer involved? These are nontrivial questions that would have to be resolved before you could implement a learning AI.

As for the reviews, I'm heartened by the almost uniformly positive response. Now I need to watch/read some of them....

 

[Greizer85]

Well... Let's put it this way: I'd want friends if they did my bidding at each and every turn. Humans are too fickle and needy beings and I hated 'friend management' when I still had a few rl friends. (Perhaps I was Enrico Dandolo in a past life! )

Really the constant messaging back-and-forth and not being able to 'escape' it (like in e.g. Diablo 2 where you can just leave and make a private game) make multiplayer a taxing experience for me in games like Civ. I might try it if the AI is totally incompetent though.

I realize this is derailing the thread a bit... On these 'reviews' I'll just say what someone else already did: I will wait for the community's judgement after a few weeks to get the real scoop. You really can't judge a game this complex after a few days of trying out the new features, especially if you play on Prince or Warlord (no offense ofc).

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

http://games.on.net/2013/07/civilization-v-brave-new-world-reviewed-finally-the-system-works/

Good:

Cultural Victory requires actual strategy
AI quality now finally the way it should be
Diplomacy is now required, rather than an optional extra
World Congress + Multiplayer = Hilarity

Bad:

Performance is much better but still lags in some cases
Very few changes outside of Culture and Diplomacy

(It seems like most of the reviewers are very fond of Venice)

 

[Law Lord]

I realize this is derailing the thread a bit... On these 'reviews' I'll just say what someone else already did: I will wait for the community's judgement after a few weeks to get the real scoop. You really can't judge a game this complex after a few days of trying out the new features, especially if you play on Prince or Warlord (no offense ofc).

I don't think this is true. The reviewers are saying that the big new systems are fun and add strategy to the late game. There is nothing misleading or incomplete about that because their job is to focus on the big picture. In fact, I'm convinced that BNW is going to be fun based on these reviews. Shocking I know

I fully agree that this community will delve into all the little picture items and point out what needs rebalancing/tweaking and give you perhaps the "full" scoop. The little picture can always be fixed though: Civ 5 has gotten progressively better since the frustrating vanilla version, but that doesn't change the fact that vanilla Civ 5 had the core mechanics of a fun game. Community forums often blow minor annoyances way out of proportion, especially when a game is first released.

It all depends on what you're looking for. If you insist on a well balanced game out of the gate, go ahead and wait for the user reviews. If you just want fun, I see nothing wrong with relying on mainstream game reviews.

 

[Ogrelord]

Here is my review:

I

WANT

TO

PRESS

NEXT

TURN

protip: Do not save your games after you make a proposal in the World Congress. It will kill you waiting to play the game again to see who voted Yay or Nay.

 

[codepoet]

Really if they fixed the damn AI I'd play almost nothing else but Civ... I've said it before and I'll say it again: I'd pay 200 euros for an AI-only expansion, with special emphasis on the combat AI.

I see this objection often. It's the "safe" objection to any strategy game.
In the end you're playing a computer; it's going to be predictable at some point. You're going to eventually figure out any flaws or how to decisions are ranked and exploit it. You're not playing chess vs. deep blue where you must be Kasparov to have a chance; and Civ is more complex than Chess.

So I guess what I am saying is this:
I think people's expectations for the AI become too high because it's a moving bar (or they're unrealistic to begin with). Once you figure out a weakness, you exploit it and then become upset that the AI is not able to adjust. Civ has ALWAYS compensated with that by granting unfair buffs to the AI opponents; it must to it: every strategy for every scenario cannot be programmed and accounted for without completely trashing the speed of the game (and therefore play-ability - not many would wait for an end of turn where every possibility is mapped out X turns in advance like and advanced AI would need to do). There is a balance to be struck and buffs to the AI smooth it over.

In the end you're left with is it fun? These things added in this expansion look fun, and I can't wait to try them out

 

[Law Lord]

I see this objection often. It's the "safe" objection to any strategy game.
In the end you're playing a computer; it's going to be predictable at some point. You're going to eventually figure out any flaws or how to decisions are ranked and exploit it. You're not playing chess vs. deep blue where you must be Kasparov to have a chance; and Civ is more complex than Chess.

So I guess what I am saying is this:
I think people's expectations for the AI become too high because it's a moving bar (or they're unrealistic to begin with). Once you figure out a weakness, you exploit it and then become upset that the AI is not able to adjust. Civ has ALWAYS compensated with that by granting unfair buffs to the AI opponents; it must to it: every strategy for every scenario cannot be programmed and accounted for without completely trashing the speed of the game (and therefore play-ability - not many would wait for an end of turn where every possibility is mapped out X turns in advance like and advanced AI would need to do). There is a balance to be struck and buffs to the AI smooth it over.

In the end you're left with is it fun? These things added in this expansion look fun, and I can't wait to try them out

Good points all, but to be fair, the combat AI misses some really basic strategic concepts. I think most have no problems with the AI not being perfect, but the AI inability to place it's units even semi-strategically is a more than fair criticism at this point.

However, you're totally right about goal post moving. People forget what an unmitigated disaster the vanilla Civ 5 AI was. We've come a long way.

 

[Greizer85]

I see this objection often. It's the "safe" objection to any strategy game.
In the end you're playing a computer; it's going to be predictable at some point. You're going to eventually figure out any flaws or how to decisions are ranked and exploit it. You're not playing chess vs. deep blue where you must be Kasparov to have a chance; and Civ is more complex than Chess.

So I guess what I am saying is this:
I think people's expectations for the AI become too high because it's a moving bar (or they're unrealistic to begin with). Once you figure out a weakness, you exploit it and then become upset that the AI is not able to adjust. Civ has ALWAYS compensated with that by granting unfair buffs to the AI opponents; it must to it: every strategy for every scenario cannot be programmed and accounted for without completely trashing the speed of the game (and therefore play-ability - not many would wait for an end of turn where every possibility is mapped out X turns in advance like and advanced AI would need to do). There is a balance to be struck and buffs to the AI smooth it over.

In the end you're left with is it fun? These things added in this expansion look fun, and I can't wait to try them out

Hey -- I *like* safe objections. You can keep your head on your shoulders with those *and* appear intelligent.

I'm not asking for human-level AI, nor for the removal of all AI bonuses. Let's say that with the current AI it takes 2 months to figure out every exploit and fine-tune their use for Deity (a generous estimate). With the 200 euro expansion I'm asking that it would take 20 months instead. Is that too much to ask with current resources? I suppose a decent AI might tax current computers too much... It's often been mentioned as a bottleneck in AI talks on these forums. I know next to nothing about programming, much less about AI programming; but surely there must be something better than this? Anyway I'll enjoy the added features whether or not they cripple the AI... But to prolong that enjoyment a decent AI is a must imo.

 

[Fabiano79]

This is the most fun I’ve had with Civilization since Civ IV, and the best late-game since Civ II. Brave New World is the rare case of a title delivering exactly what it promises.

http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/07...iew?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Moderator Action: Merged with the main review thread.