Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by Stalingrad, Oct 4, 2010.
Link to video.
So, everyone who actually liked the game got paid off?
I confirm and understand that you believe in outlandish conspiracy theories.
This is exactly what they gave us in Civ4 as well. a Bare bones buggy game with what some would call broken AI. All was forgiven once it was fixed.
I suspect the same will hold true with V.
I do think the 1upt does make the entire fix of the AI harder, but then, its 2010, not 2005. We'll see how it goes.
Civ V had to be better and compare to Civ IV and all its expansions.
for me the stacking limits, and the whole lets play a tactical game on a strategic map just wrecked the game.
if i wanted to play a perfect general game i would play one, i wanted to play a new civ game, that immersed me in spreading my Civ accross the planet. Its not like the combat system is in any way unique or new. What they should have done is forced you to combine the units in a hex into an army that would fight all together as a single unit.
but the current system, is just idiotic and breaks down the feel of the game for me.
Of course, something like that whold suit me better than this. I belive some parts are good yes; hexes, grafic and some parts of the city cultural system, but to gain depth they need to radicaly change the game.
Although I am biased - yes I think Civ V falls short - it seems the posts saying the Civ IV release had the same problems are not correct.
I went back and went through the Civ IV CFC forums posted post-release, and yes there were issues. But they were fundamentally different in that they were about bugs (not that many really) or specific balance issues.
There wasn't the generalized disappointment that Civ V has generated.
Without doing a numerical survey I can't be 100% certain of this, but it definitely seems to me that Civ V has been received much less positively by CFC members.
What else you know "Chieftain"? Why don't you go read the rest of the reviews on the internet from IGN, GAMESPOT, PCGAMER? Good advice, you better speak for yourself because you are part of this SMALL minority of people here who claim..."Oh CiV is dumbed down, a dissapointment". Oh and don't buy it, no one here cares what you buy and if you buy anything. More good advice, you may not want to accuse places like IGN and Gamespot to be paid off. The most idiot thing people say, WHERE is the proof of this BS statement? Why don't you go and actually "read" some of those reviews and see why they rated the game so high. Let me guess, I work for Firaxis now right? I am paid by Firaxis right?
Ummm...more people on Civ Fanatics think the game has been dumbed down than not. That "small minority" is actually 45.5% and rising by the day.
I'm enjoying Civ 5 so far. But if you don't think it's a dumbed down disappointment, you're blind.
Or Civ V gave us more of what we wanted than previous iterations of Civ did. Namely, a considerably heavier emphasis on macro-management than micro-management.
I'm elated; not disappointed.
I will never buy another civ release, that's for sure !
Until the expansion comes out and it magically fixes everything, causing you to forget you ever made this post.
You sure about that? The Civ V equivalent to the macro-style sliders from Civ IV is micro-style replacing tile improvements. Need more gold? Make Trading Posts. More science? Make farms. I miss the fact that once you developed a city's BFC, it was pretty much permanent until some techs or civics prompted a few changes. Now I never get the satisfaction of looking at a fully developed empire built from the ground up with my very own hands.
Having to manipulate sliders or swap civics every other turn was micromanagement at its absolute worst. I'm much happier replacing tile improvements every couple of turns.
How is pushing a few buttons more micro than going around moving and giving orders to workers?
Err... can you explain further?
Who changes sliders and civics every turn?
How many times per game do people actually do that?
I agree, and am waiting for my cheque to arrive in tha mail.
Part of the reviewing problem stems from the fact that it takes a while before Civ V's glaring flaws really start to reveal themselves, I think. Bear in mind most reviewers probably only get a few days of game time with it. If I'd reviewed the game within the first few days of playing, I probably would have gone with a 9/10 rating because at the time I was absolutely loving it. It was new Civ! It was bright and exciting, had new features, and it looked lovely.
Now, two weeks later, I'm pretty disappointed as it slowly dawned on me what a rush job it obviously was, and have pretty much stopped playing until they release some major patches. If I were to review it now, I'd give it a 6/10 or so. Of course, never underestimate the power of a big release to bump up scores - highly-anticipated games (and films for that matter) rarely gets low scores even when they turn out to be terrible, sad but true that many reviewers like to go with the flow.
Incidentally, I've just read Tom Chick's review and it is absolutely spot on.
Separate names with a comma.