Can "patching" correct the game enough to compete with Civ IV BTS?

[Collic]

Comparing the vanilla civ v to a game with two expansion packs isn't really a fair comparison. I didn't vote on the poll for that reason; it isn't one that you can answer fairly. It's a biased question that will inevitably result in most people picking the 'no' option (or pointing out what I just have).

 

[mrt144]

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.

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.

Modding and expansions can "fix" the game.

 

[PawelS]

One answer is missing: It already competes with Civ4 BTS.

 

[Abremms]

this is a bad pole. 1st off, some patching can certainly fix some bugs and get it "on par" with civ 4, even though I am of the opinion that, gameplay-wise, it has already surpassed civ4. 2nd, you should not expect a vanilla game to compete with a game that had two xpacks and years of polish in terms of content and polish.

so no one can realistically say "yes", but in voting "no" we give the impression that V is broken beyond fixing. something that i cannot condone. V has a few bugs, but beyond those it is a great game in its own right.

 

[KingYosef]

Patching, no. Expansions, maybe.

 

[UKScud]

One answer is missing: It already competes with Civ4 BTS.

There really is a point where you have to draw the line with negligable answers on a poll.

But seriously, as before...its not a black/white issue and never will be.

 

[Jolly Rogerer]

Can patches fix it? Sure, a really big patch that redesigns everything could conceivably fix the game even for people that currently hate everything about it. Will patches fix the game enough for someone who disagrees with a lot of the new design decisions? I seriously doubt it.

I'll wait and see myself. There is no way I'm going to spend good money to beta-test this game, even if I didn't have serious misgivings about the game design. The fact that I do have those misgivings means that I'll keep an eye on it over the next couple of years and see what it looks like then. Odds are I'll simply pick up some more Paradox and Total War games, and fire up BtS once in a while to get my epic Civ fix. I'd like to play a new Civ game, but this one is beginning to remind me of Civ 3. I put that away and never looked at new Civ titles again until BtS came out and was recommended to me by a friend. Fireaxis lost a lot of money in the long run when they sold Civ 3 (beta) to me. They are now in probational bargain bin only status, I will never pay good money for their games, nor will I ever buy one on a whim.

 

[Grell_74]

You must be some kind of superman, over 500 fanboi posts in a few months, AND finding time to play all those games, I am impressed. You say that you cant measue a persons intelligence from the games they play... yet then list of a series of games. None of which have Paradox levels of strategic depth. Is the conclusion to be drawn that CiV appeals to Call of Duty, GTA, shallow console twitchy players?

Moderator Action: Warned for trolling.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

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?

 

[Collic]

You must be some kind of superman, over 500 fanboi posts in a few months, AND finding time to play all those games, I am impressed. You say that you cant measue a persons intelligence from the games they play... yet then list of a series of games. None of which have Paradox levels of strategic depth. Is the conclusion to be drawn that CiV appeals to Call of Duty, GTA, shallow console twitchy players?

That's your first post? really? The games you play don't have anything to do with intelligence; it's subjective, personal taste. Congratulations on making a (first) post that paints you as an arrogant elitist, though.

 

[ZimbuTheMonkey]

That's your first post? really? The games you play don't have anything to do with intelligence, it's subjective, personal taste. Congratulations on making a (first) post that paints you as an arrogant elitist, though.

I read it as a troll post (or ironic comedy if you want to be generous).

Moderator Action: If you believe a post is against the forum rules, please report it, calling it a troll is not allowed.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

EDIT: I didn't have an issue with the post, so why would I report it?

The parts about the Paradox games and console players give it away. I guess I'm hoping it was not sincere, because it would blow my mind if people actually think like that.

 

[Thormodr]

You must be some kind of superman, over 500 fanboi posts in a few months, AND finding time to play all those games, I am impressed. You say that you cant measue a persons intelligence from the games they play... yet then list of a series of games. None of which have Paradox levels of strategic depth. Is the conclusion to be drawn that CiV appeals to Call of Duty, GTA, shallow console twitchy players?

Welcome to the forums Grell.

Those games listed aren't for me either. Sadly, it seems that ciV was designed with snagging those kind of players. That and soccer moms and all the casual gamers out there.

Paradox games are indeed excellent. I shall enjoy playing Victoria II a lot more now that ciV has revealed itself to be a half baked, unbalanced mess. Victoria II is a very fun, challenging game.

 

[ZimbuTheMonkey]

Welcome to the forums Grell.

Those games listed aren't for me either. Sadly, it seems that ciV was designed with snagging those kind of players. That and soccer moms and all the casual gamers out there.

Paradox games are indeed excellent. I shall enjoy playing Victoria II a lot more now that ciV has revealed itself to be a half baked, unbalanced mess. It's a very fun, challenging game.

Well, I guess I was wrong.

People out there actually think like that.

ITT: People that believe liking a certain genre makes them superior.

EDIT: Also, I listed Civ IV as one of the games I play, how does your theory (that Civ V was marketed to shallow gamers) reconcile with that fact? Or was Civ IV also marketed in a similar manner?

 

[Grell_74]

Consider your mind just blown.

I am curious how much 2k is paying you to spend several hours a day on the forums rabidly tirading against anyone who dares to point out the flaws of CivV... Because it would blow my mind to think that someone would do it out of enjoyment.

I read it as a troll post (or ironic comedy if you want to be generous).

The parts about the Paradox games and console players give it away. I guess I'm hoping it was not sincere, because it would blow my mind if people actually think like that.

 

[ZimbuTheMonkey]

Consider your mind just blown.

I am curious how much 2k is paying you to spend several hours a day on the forums rapidly tirading against anyone who dares to point out the flaws of CivV... Because it would blow my mind to think that someone would do it out of enjoyment.

I think maybe you need to take a look at my post history.

I don't defend Civ V irrationally against criticism (the review I agree with most is from Tom Chick who gave it a C-grade at 1UP) and it's my belief that Civ IV + Expansions is superior and I hope Civ V can catch up. I defend the concept of objective arguments, which seems to be a foreign notion in these forums.

EDIT: I also fine it ridiculous that I have to defend my credibility by listing my pedigree in video game genres to appease elitists that think they are better than everyone else because they enjoy Paradox games.

 

[Aristos]

ITT: People that believe liking a certain genre makes them superior.

well, quite the opposite, bro... we think ourselves superior, and then we pick our games according to that believe. (Civilization is a GOD game, remember?.. or should I say "was?)

More seriously though, I can understand that some, or many here cannot digest having spend money on a unfinished product with a mediocre design. And yes, for many of us it is mediocre. I understand it is hard to say "man, I was wrong, 60$ to the waste"... far easier to try to convince yourself that the game "is good", or that "it has a solid base" and blablabla... been there, done that. Not anymore.

The design is shallow, the decisions are less and poor, the gameplay is boring, the AI is a disaster... it is NOT Civlization. It is an appeal to the "mass markets" that like to play, well, you listed it for us...

 

[Grell_74]

A brief look at you post history mostly uncovers posts of one sentence personal attacks on other posters who have dared criticise CivV... I have better things to do that keep searching hoping anything of profound insight.

To avoid further derailment of the thread and twisting it into being all about you again Zimbu, I voted no. CiviV is an amazingly good game, being a big SMAC player the Civ series lost me with CivIII, I came back to CivIV BTS and was very impressed. I dont see the AI, and small scale implementation of hexes and 1up tile being salvagable. Justifications of it not being "fair" to compare CivV vanilla to CivIV+XPs are ludicrous. Fairness has nothing to do with it. Is it "fair" to realase an unblanced, seemingly poorly tested, unfinished game with atrocious ai and charge customers full price? I dont think so. Why should unpaid modders have to try and salvage something decent and challenging from CivV?

I think maybe you need to take a look at my post history.

I don't defend Civ V irrationally against criticism (the review I agree with most is from Tom Chick who gave it a C-grade at 1UP) and it's my belief that Civ IV + Expansions is superior and I hope Civ V can catch up. I defend the concept of objective arguments, which seems to be a foreign notion in these forums.

EDIT: I also fine it ridiculous that I have to defend my credibility by listing my pedigree in video game genres to appease elitists that think they are better than everyone else because they enjoy Paradox games.

You dont "have to", no one asked you to, you proffered up that list yourself, since you did it speaks for itself.

 

[Some guy]

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.

Kind of like your point about Fox News... Way to be a hypocrite.

 

[Thormodr]

I think maybe you need to take a look at my post history.

I don't defend Civ V irrationally against criticism (the review I agree with most is from Tom Chick who gave it a C-grade at 1UP) and it's my belief that Civ IV + Expansions is superior and I hope Civ V can catch up. I defend the concept of objective arguments, which seems to be a foreign notion in these forums.

EDIT: I also fine it ridiculous that I have to defend my credibility by listing my pedigree in video game genres to appease elitists that think they are better than everyone else because they enjoy Paradox games.

I never said I was better because I enjoy Paradox games. I enjoy them because they are complex as well as entertaining and you do learn a lot about history and geography. Quite educational.

I enjoy complex, entertaining strategic games and I'd prefer the Civ series stay that way. Unfortunately, Firaxis and 2K Games have watered down the game to appeal to a different crowd and I think that crowd are players of some of the games that were listed. I'm not a fan of them myself but I won't put anybody down for enjoying them. They are apples and oranges though. Firaxis is making a big mistake by trying to make a arange/opple.

Anyway, I wasn't trying to snipe at you. I agree with you that Tom Chick's review pegged ciV pretty well. This game needs a lot of work.

 

[Soduka]

this is a bad pole.

You're right, it certainly would be a bad pole.

I personally think Civ IV vanilla comes off as bland and uninteresting compared to Beyond the Sword, and Beyond the Sword bland and uninteresting without mods. I hope the same will happen with CiV's evolution, but it is troubling to know 2K/Firaxis has shifted focus to DLC instead of expansions.

 

[Julian Delphiki]

One answer is missing: It already competes with Civ4 BTS.

True, polls should always include the joke option as well.