Civ 5 + expansion
- Thread starter mickedog
- Start date
Drakarska
Epic Dadness
Tell you what. Why don't you read Sulla's excellant synopsis of Civ V, and then judge for yourself.
Chase_2_Rabbits
Warlord
I enjoyed the vanilla version of Civ 5, despite the flaws. Although I came to it not having played any version of Civ for 12 months or so. The fact that it was so easy and accessible happened to be a good thing for me at that point.
5 lacks the strategic options of 4 Complete, and generally seems a little dumbed down - which I think is why so many high-level Civ 4 players don't have a good word to say about it. Perhaps the G&K update has improved some of the game mechanics, you'd have to ask the Civ 5 people.
In short, 5 is a good game; but if you're an Emperor+ Civ 4 BTS player, then I think the gameplay aspects will prove disappointing. Having come back to Civ 4, I don't see myself playing 5 again.
5 lacks the strategic options of 4 Complete, and generally seems a little dumbed down - which I think is why so many high-level Civ 4 players don't have a good word to say about it. Perhaps the G&K update has improved some of the game mechanics, you'd have to ask the Civ 5 people.
In short, 5 is a good game; but if you're an Emperor+ Civ 4 BTS player, then I think the gameplay aspects will prove disappointing. Having come back to Civ 4, I don't see myself playing 5 again.
Civ 5 is a broken game. Instead of fixing the game, the expansion adds features (which, as should be noted, had all been included many years ago in Civ 4). So Civ 5 with expansion is still a broken game but with a few more features (that are not even implemented well either). Decide for yourself if you would enjoy it or not.
Yes, highly recommended and surely on the of the most intelligent and insightful comments in that context.
Btw. there's a demo for G&K at Steam that let's you play with the Celts for as long as you want, you just can't save the game. So you can see for yourself...
Gucumatz
JS, secretly Rod Serling
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2011
- Messages
- 6,181
And then there is the simple point reading Sulla's synopsis is like reading criticism of the Articles of Confederation. The game that was played then doesn't exist now. Patches, the expansion, mods (even without the code yet for modders) have changed Civ 5 into a new beast. Yes the AI is still pretty bad but in comparison to other games its actually not that bad. But be aware difficulty levels are different. The easy levels of Civ 5 are much easier than their Civ 4 equivalents.
===
If you want to play multiplayer go for it. Civ 5 Multiplayer >>> Civ 4 Multiplayer by a longshot even though it is more buggy. Humans can handle the interface and the Civ 4 multi lobby really has had a significant die off. Compare that to the various civ 5 multi groups and the general decline of league - civ 5 is a must for multi and a better experience than Civ 4.
If its just singleplayer you want - play the demo and try it out for yourself. Civ 4 is a polished product and you might want to stick with it.
===
Just don't listen to the Sulla Dinosaurs
===
If you want to play multiplayer go for it. Civ 5 Multiplayer >>> Civ 4 Multiplayer by a longshot even though it is more buggy. Humans can handle the interface and the Civ 4 multi lobby really has had a significant die off. Compare that to the various civ 5 multi groups and the general decline of league - civ 5 is a must for multi and a better experience than Civ 4.
If its just singleplayer you want - play the demo and try it out for yourself. Civ 4 is a polished product and you might want to stick with it.
===
Just don't listen to the Sulla Dinosaurs
Troll alert !!!
My advices :
1) If you have enough money to spare simply buy civ5. If you like it, buy G&K too.
2) Otherwise, wait for a sale.
3) Try the demos. You can only play the G&K demo if you have civ5.
4) Read Sulla's analyses + the civ5 rant thread has also very usefull posts. Ignore the civ5 fan mail (all meaningless posts with empty words).
Reminds me of something like "I didn't make my homework, but the others also didn't make their homework!!!"
Epic fail - especiall if your big brother (Civ IV) is the one who actually made his homework, and got an A- for it...
Gucumatz
JS, secretly Rod Serling
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2011
- Messages
- 6,181
Civ 4 AI is better suited for the system - but from a programming and actual standpoint it isn't "smarter" in fact is much more simplistic than Civ 5 AI
Civ 4 is an amazing game and Civ 5 is def not for everyone. But there is a significant fanbase for Civ 5 too - despite what this forum has you believe
. I play Civ 4 much less now than Civ 5 but once again, I play multiplayer most of the time and Civ 4 multiplayer just can't touch Civ 5 multi (even with the steam issues that happen every now and then)
==
@ Tatran - So are you denying Sulla's synopsis is ancient and entirely out of date considering all of the changes to Civ 5 nowadays (Expansion, patches, AI enhancers, etc? Right so who honestly is trolling here lol...
Civ 4 is an amazing game and Civ 5 is def not for everyone. But there is a significant fanbase for Civ 5 too - despite what this forum has you believe
. I play Civ 4 much less now than Civ 5 but once again, I play multiplayer most of the time and Civ 4 multiplayer just can't touch Civ 5 multi (even with the steam issues that happen every now and then)==
@ Tatran - So are you denying Sulla's synopsis is ancient and entirely out of date considering all of the changes to Civ 5 nowadays (Expansion, patches, AI enhancers, etc? Right so who honestly is trolling here lol...
Probably not. There are a few interesting concepts but the game is just too easy. The inability to stack units means that the AI can not build bige armies and so it becomes a tactical game and in that the AI sucks. Really Really sucks. Deity victory is simply too easy with no challange
Gucamats, Is the most recent version of CIV 4 not still easily recognizable as the original? Because, if you answer yes, you'd be lying. And 4 has had more updates than 5. IT IS STILL THE SAME GAME.
As for the multiplayer, from what I have heard, it is nothing but a mad click-fest. But, I have no experience, so I can't say.
As for the multiplayer, from what I have heard, it is nothing but a mad click-fest. But, I have no experience, so I can't say.
This surprises me greatly, I was under the impression that Civ 4 had a more multiplayer games going on then Civ 5, was more balanced, and had more multiplayer options. My opinion is heavily biased by RealmsBeyond, however.
It's a different game; I don't think liking Civ 4 is well correlated, either way, with liking or disliking Civ 5.
But isn't that the whole point of it? To make the AI suit the game it belongs to? In Civ IV the lead designer was also the AI programmer. The guy obviously knew quite well what his AI would be capable of dealing with - and made his design decisions accordingly. In Civ V it looks like a guy came up with a lot of stuff that looks great in theory and on the drawing board - but either just does not work in the real world or the lead designer was unable to communicate to his AI programmers what he expected them to do. I don't care whether the Civ IV AI is more simplistic from a philosophic pouint of view. But it's able to play the game. That's the point that really matters!
And by the way: the last time I played Civ V is six or eight weeks ago - and it still perfectly fit Sullla's description: uncapable AI => especially in terms of 1UPT and diplomacy, nonsense global happiness, limitation of the map space caused by 1UPT => strangeld production of armies and all other stuff, cheasy city states mechanics, nerfing of all player strategies the AI is unable to deal with, etc. - all still there exactly as Sullla described them. And I don't see how these fundamental design flaws (we are not talking some minor bugs here) could ever be cured without throwing away the whole concept and starting new from scratch.
You keep saying how old and outdated Sulla's review is, yet at least four of his main five points of critic, global happiness, excessive penalization, shallow diplomacy, and 1UPT, still remain more or less in the same state as in Civ Vanilla. I'd assume that his fifth point, buggy multiplayer, has not received significant changes either from what I read (and you admitted it yourself). As others have said, it's the same game with the same base mechanics. These will never (and can't really) be changed. It's these base mechanics though that Sulla has based his report on, which is what makes it so intruiging, yet at the same time dissapointing. If we add in other features, which were not changed in G&K (which Sulla didn't even mention), like the console-like interface, a useless civilopedia, too fast tech progression compared to building times, the scale not fitting, and the general focus on tactics as opposed to strategy, and of course an atrocious AI, just to mention a few, then I don't understand how Civ5 can now be a such a different game with the expansion.
New features and incremental refinements won't address the valid criticisms. I don't need to check whether additions to Farmville made it worth playing either - there's only so much that can be done with broken (intentional or not) game design.
I'm a big fan of civ IV and still enjoy it a lot. I tried civ V with the expansion last week. Before that i had played civ V vanilla on the first day it was released. In fact i enjoyed the last expansion but it didn't give me that great empire management feeling that civ IV always give. Because:
- Civ V is a combat oriented game. If you manage your military units well u can win even if u can't do well at empire building.
- Global happiness is one of the worst ideas ever happened to civ series in my opinion. U have to choose either a tall or wide empire. In civ IV you can have a wide and tall empire and this gives you some great benefits.
- They added religion and espionage to the vanilla version with the last expansion. They were already there in civ IV. If they are good why did they remove them in the vanilla version? If they are not good why did they add back and sell it again under the name of an expansion?
- Some guys claim Civ IV's diplomacy is "game-y". Do you know how it is in Civ V? You just sell everything you have to the AI and get money for purchasing units and buildings. I think even a 3 year old kid can do this if he knows where to click. When u settle new cities or fight someone you surely get a few enemies. Every way goes to war.
Consequently civ V gets 5/10 points from me. If i never played civ IV, it would get 7 or 8. Play the demo and test it before buying.
- Civ V is a combat oriented game. If you manage your military units well u can win even if u can't do well at empire building.
- Global happiness is one of the worst ideas ever happened to civ series in my opinion. U have to choose either a tall or wide empire. In civ IV you can have a wide and tall empire and this gives you some great benefits.
- They added religion and espionage to the vanilla version with the last expansion. They were already there in civ IV. If they are good why did they remove them in the vanilla version? If they are not good why did they add back and sell it again under the name of an expansion?
- Some guys claim Civ IV's diplomacy is "game-y". Do you know how it is in Civ V? You just sell everything you have to the AI and get money for purchasing units and buildings. I think even a 3 year old kid can do this if he knows where to click. When u settle new cities or fight someone you surely get a few enemies. Every way goes to war.
Consequently civ V gets 5/10 points from me. If i never played civ IV, it would get 7 or 8. Play the demo and test it before buying.
I would recommend buying Civ5 without the expansion if youre a fan of the franchise and you want to support it. Secondly if youre a fan of the franchise buying Civ5 will demonstrate what Civ would be like if... it iwll satisfy your curiosity.
Now if you want hundreds of hours from Civ5 then I dont recommend buying it. Civ4 BTS is absolutely superior to Civ5, but if you have some disposable money and you really like Civ then yes I would recommend buying Vanilla Civ5.
Now if you want hundreds of hours from Civ5 then I dont recommend buying it. Civ4 BTS is absolutely superior to Civ5, but if you have some disposable money and you really like Civ then yes I would recommend buying Vanilla Civ5.
