Can "patching" correct the game enough to compete with Civ IV BTS?
- Thread starter hj232
- Start date
All depends on perspective. For those who don't like many of the core mechanics.. NO. For those whose biggest issue is the gameplay bugs and balance issues Yes. For those whose biggest complaint is Ai.. Maybe.
ZimbuTheMonkey
King
The game is already competing with past Civs... so I don't even understand the sense in making the poll.
Way to make an objective poll though, did you learn that from the Fox News school of journalism? Usually the point of a poll is to get information from the subjects, not to force a point of view regardless of which answer is picked.
Way to make an objective poll though, did you learn that from the Fox News school of journalism? Usually the point of a poll is to get information from the subjects, not to force a point of view regardless of which answer is picked.
I voted "No" but I wanted to clarify why: I think that a lot of the negativity involves things that are by design. Certainly patches will correct balance issues, but the core design philosophy will remain unchanged.
As for myself, personally, I think Civ5 is very interesting, but I'm not a genius-good Civ player. (Highest I've ever won was a couple up from normal on SMAC) I think a lot of people are overlooking the fact that BTS is Civ4+Patches+Expansions! I like the direction Civ5 takes things, and probably an expansion or two will see it as robust as BTS. So, I think it will take more than just patches, basically.
Almost every game on release is incomplete from its final, mature form that everyone loves. StarCraft, for example, took 4-6 years, depending on how you count, to get to the point where it was the perfectly balanced masterpiece it is today. (SC2 will probably take a similar amount of time.)
People don't seem to appreciate that good game design and balancing is hard. It is something that will never be achievable in any timely development cycle simply because it is impossible to stress test any sufficiently deep game with only a few hundred players and a year (or two, maybe) of "final" gameplay to work with.
As for myself, personally, I think Civ5 is very interesting, but I'm not a genius-good Civ player. (Highest I've ever won was a couple up from normal on SMAC) I think a lot of people are overlooking the fact that BTS is Civ4+Patches+Expansions! I like the direction Civ5 takes things, and probably an expansion or two will see it as robust as BTS. So, I think it will take more than just patches, basically.
Almost every game on release is incomplete from its final, mature form that everyone loves. StarCraft, for example, took 4-6 years, depending on how you count, to get to the point where it was the perfectly balanced masterpiece it is today. (SC2 will probably take a similar amount of time.)
People don't seem to appreciate that good game design and balancing is hard. It is something that will never be achievable in any timely development cycle simply because it is impossible to stress test any sufficiently deep game with only a few hundred players and a year (or two, maybe) of "final" gameplay to work with.
I voted yes. Of course it is possible that can happen. Will it happen? I have no idea. I am hoping so. Of course I mean the game to get better through "patching" and not DLC (unless it's free), since I will not spend any more money on this game other wise.
JP1
Warlord
Pretty much this. You poll already asserts that Civ5 is worse than Civ4 regardless of which answer you pick.
The patches can obviously change just about everything about the game, so they can in theory put in massive changes which fix every issue in the game... But patches are never going to fix, "I don't like the things which were removed/added, and I would rather play Civ 4."
UKScud
Warlord
I honestly don't think this is a yes/no problem? In my opinion Civ5 is so very different from Civ4 in its gameplay that patches would have to fundamentally alter what was released.
A few points I have issue with (and just a few examples)
1) Great Scientists should not give a free tech. That's almost as powerful as some wonders. And if you are playing Babylon you really didn't do anything to earn that tech if great scientists are popping out so quickly.
2) the diplomacy system gives out so little information it is difficult to make informed decisions.
3) 1upt is not producing the buzz that I imagined it would. Sure, I like wargames as much as the next 41 year old geek but the only emotional feedback I'm getting is that the board is cluttered and difficult to maneuver around. Couldn't these really clever games desginers come up with a compromise?
4) the childish "pointiest sticks / shiniest things" titles...whose decision was that? Personally, I'm now expecting there to be another secret unit after the GDR...a LOLCAT!
5) Maps - cannot be taller than they are wider, and are very limited in size compared to the older games. Any explanation for that? I thought computers have become more powerful since the last Civ was released, shouldn't they be able to cope better with the number crunching required to allow such maps?
In the end, any of our opinions matters very little as the designers had their own vision, and will be taking the "patched" version in that direction whatever opinions are expressed on these forums. Perhaps the redeeming feature is that Civ5 more than any of its predecessors looks as though it is relatively friendly to modders.
Bottom line, I think that it is largely irrelevent what patches Firaxis puts out because there is going to be some really clever community members that are going to put together something much, much better than the software studio that was forced to push out an unfinished game.
A few points I have issue with (and just a few examples)
1) Great Scientists should not give a free tech. That's almost as powerful as some wonders. And if you are playing Babylon you really didn't do anything to earn that tech if great scientists are popping out so quickly.
2) the diplomacy system gives out so little information it is difficult to make informed decisions.
3) 1upt is not producing the buzz that I imagined it would. Sure, I like wargames as much as the next 41 year old geek but the only emotional feedback I'm getting is that the board is cluttered and difficult to maneuver around. Couldn't these really clever games desginers come up with a compromise?
4) the childish "pointiest sticks / shiniest things" titles...whose decision was that? Personally, I'm now expecting there to be another secret unit after the GDR...a LOLCAT!
5) Maps - cannot be taller than they are wider, and are very limited in size compared to the older games. Any explanation for that? I thought computers have become more powerful since the last Civ was released, shouldn't they be able to cope better with the number crunching required to allow such maps?
In the end, any of our opinions matters very little as the designers had their own vision, and will be taking the "patched" version in that direction whatever opinions are expressed on these forums. Perhaps the redeeming feature is that Civ5 more than any of its predecessors looks as though it is relatively friendly to modders.
Bottom line, I think that it is largely irrelevent what patches Firaxis puts out because there is going to be some really clever community members that are going to put together something much, much better than the software studio that was forced to push out an unfinished game.
Old_Man_River__
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2008
- Messages
- 34
Word.
For the most part yes.
To me the main issues are divided into 4 parts:
1) Bugs - Patches can of course fix these.
2) Gameplay Optimization - Patches can increase the performance of the game.
3) Gameplay/UI Changes - Mods are already out there in droves making tweaks to common complaints like slow building vs teching, problems with the build queue, etc. I think patches can easily take care of this.
4) AI - This one is the toughest. I think patches can make some solid improvements here. But can the AI be made tough enough that emperor and diety players can actually feel a significant challenge? That one I don't know.
To me the main issues are divided into 4 parts:
1) Bugs - Patches can of course fix these.
2) Gameplay Optimization - Patches can increase the performance of the game.
3) Gameplay/UI Changes - Mods are already out there in droves making tweaks to common complaints like slow building vs teching, problems with the build queue, etc. I think patches can easily take care of this.
4) AI - This one is the toughest. I think patches can make some solid improvements here. But can the AI be made tough enough that emperor and diety players can actually feel a significant challenge? That one I don't know.
Aristos
Lightseeker
hey Jon, we get it, your game is perfect.
ZimbuTheMonkey
King
That is funny and relevant.
Except, you know, for the fact that you can check my post history and have it completely disprove your accusation of me being a fanboy or shill. Also, way to miss the point.
But pretty clever, I guess. I'll give you a 5/10 for the effort.
The question is completely weighted. It implies that Civ5 is worse than the previous iterations. Having said that, it's one of the better questions that's asked.
I have a huge list of issues that they need to fix. If they fix even half of those, I'll laugh at anyone who thinks it's still a bad game. Civ5 has the most solid base to work with out of the Civ franchise to date.
I have a huge list of issues that they need to fix. If they fix even half of those, I'll laugh at anyone who thinks it's still a bad game. Civ5 has the most solid base to work with out of the Civ franchise to date.
Aristos
Lightseeker
thank you so much, for you are so smart... heck, you even play civ5! Thank you!
Moderator Action: And just what did this add to the discussion? Much less than I hope you are capable of. Please try to further the discussion.
Solid base how? Hexes and 1upt?
With so many changes to the game, and the unintended consequences they've produced, and the ineffective game design mechanisms implimented to try and limit forseen consequences of design changes (Happiness doesn't limit snowballing from conquering for instance), I don't think a patch is going to fix the game.
ZimbuTheMonkey
King
To imply that you can measure a person's level of intelligence by looking at the video games he or she plays is probably one of the most asinine things I have read on these forums.
For the record, I also play:
Worms: Armageddon
Plants vs. Zombies
Call of Duty series
Team Fortress 2
Company of Heroes
Grand Theft Auto series
Left 4 Dead
Civilization IV
and a host of other games. According to your videogame-intelligence theory, how do I rate?
Yes, hexes and 1upt. There's also a lot of other really cool stuff. Social policies are a very good base for modders and future patches. If you look at the happiness mechanic very carefully, it's well thought out.Solid base how? Hexes and 1upt?
With so many changes to the game, and the unintended consequences they've produced, and the ineffective game design mechanisms implimented to try and limit forseen consequences of design changes (Happiness doesn't limit snowballing from conquering for instance), I don't think a patch is going to fix the game.
What I'm really surprised by is the number of people who say it can't be fixed by a patch at all. It matches the people who actually have faith. Why are the former even still here if they are so down that they won't even like it with a patch?
If you're looking to enjoy the game more, I'm going to recommend Standard pace as Epic and Marathon aren't balanced at all (ie the 50 turns just for a building feeling). I also recommend Small Continents with low sea level.
Similar threads
