Civ 5 Vs. Civ 4 BTS+ RoM:AnD - a final conclusion

[Jharii]

I never said variations didn't exist.

Technically, you never did. You said all other variations that did not coincide with your expectations were illogical, abnormal, lacked basic common sense, were stupid, and various other derogatory variatoins.

Now, there was most probably lot of noises jamming the debate. Guess it's the problem with the very polarized situation of the forum, and the constant use of strawmen ; tends to make people react hotly quickly.

The only "noises," "raging," and "jamming" that were going on were from you. The only person reacting "hotly" was you.

I really think you should reread your responses to me, and others, and take responsibility for your actions rather than blaming it on the "polarizing situation of the forum." I don't think that the "polarizing situation of the forum" was typing on your keyboard and clicking Post Reply.

Man up, dude.

 

[SuperJay]

Nowhere is it mentioned in the definition of "sequel" that it is a prerequesite to improve (or attempt to improve) on the previous work. It is merely a continuation and is complete in and of itself.

Fair enough. And as PoM said, "a sequel is something that follow something else." In that case, every game, book or movie is a sequel because everything by definition follows something else.

But silliness aside, it's mind-boggling that anyone would decide to put out a game and call it a sequel, but think "hey, this should be worse than it's predecessor." I know Firaxis didn't intentionally do that, and I know 'worse' is totally subjective, but my point stands: if it's a "reboot" and a "totally new direction" that we need to "think about differently," then why not name it differently?? Oh right, because it won't sell as well as it would if you call it Civilization V.

The Civ 5 release has been received with mixed feelings by the Civ fanbase, and it's obviously been pretty polarizing. I don't think that's subjective. All I'm saying is that I think a big part of the reason for that reception has been titling it "Civilization V" while simultaneously going with the "reboot / new direction" for this iteration. I don't think it's the fault of players for having (pretty reasonable) expectations based on the previous four games; some of that responsibility lies on the shoulders of 2K Firaxis. (Finding out that this game was designed to attract Civ Rev players was just salt in the wound, for me.)

We're just gonna go around in circles, so I'll let it rest. I hope my point is clear enough. You guys know I respect your opinions and I'm not trying to be disagreeable or argumentative.

 

[PieceOfMind]

Fair enough. And as PoM said, "a sequel is something that follow something else." In that case, every game, book or movie is a sequel because everything by definition follows something else.

But silliness aside

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=sequel

S: (n) sequel, subsequence (something that follows something else)

 

[SuperJay]

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=sequel

Okay? You're repeating what I already said that you said, while ignoring the rest of my post... but fair enough, yes, that's a definition of the word "sequel."

Like I said, there's no point in continuing because we're just going around in circles. Have a good one.

 

[Akka]

Technically, you never did. You said all other variations that did not coincide with your expectations were illogical, abnormal, lacked basic common sense, were stupid, and various other derogatory variatoins.

I said that normal and logical expectations takes precedence - you may have different expectations, but they are simply personnal, not the ones that should be expected.
I can expect that Half-Life 3 will be a 4X game, but it's still a very weird expectation, and I can't really pretend it's just as valid as the logical one that HL3 will be a FPS.

 

[Jharii]

I said that normal and logical expectations takes precedence - you may have different expectations, but they are simply personnal, not the ones that should be expected.

LOL. That's not at all what you said. Whatever, Akka. You've proven something, just not what you think you've proven.

Have a great day.

 

[Akka]

Whatever, this is running in circles, as already said.

 

[PieceOfMind]

Okay? You're repeating what I already said that you said, while ignoring the rest of my post... but fair enough, yes, that's a definition of the word "sequel."

Like I said, there's no point in continuing because we're just going around in circles. Have a good one.

I didn't ignore the rest of your post. And you're right. We've established that civ5 falls under the definition of a sequel.

 

[lschnarch]

Those who say that Firaxis should have just improved Civ IV need to realize that if they did that Civ V would be single core forever, and for a game with a predicted shelf life of five years that is horrible.

Improvement can very well mean making use of new technology. I don't see why an assumed "improved Civ4" couldn't make use of hexacores, of 64bit OS and whatnotever.

Odd, I'm pretty sure he doesn't (at least as long as he's so categorical about seeing his interpretation of "sequel" as the only one possible). If you look around on the world of games, you see lots of examples that don't match his interpretation (despite his claims that it's the "absolutely right" one). Sequels of games have been all kinds of things:

- same game with very few additions, or no additions except new levels (e.g. Doom 2, Heroes of Might & Magic II)

- basically same game with substantial additions (e.g. Civilization IV, Master of Orion II)

- basically same game with some aspects added, others taken away, and an updated database (e.g. FIFA manager series)

- same general type of game in the same setting, but plays totally different (e.g. Fallout 3, Master of Orion III, Lords of Midnight III)

- totally different type of game (e.g. Star Control 2)

- reboot / simplification (e.g. Ultima VIII, Heroes of Might & Magic 4, Quake 3)

This is not even a new phenomenon (as you can see by some of the names listed above). What a number n+1 behind a franchise name actually signifies has been very different in lots of franchises, for as long as video gaming exists. (I can bring examples from the 70s if someone really wants to read them.)

Now, if Akka thinks, there's only one valid interpretation of "sequel", then he's welcome to his opinion. However, if he bases his decisions (i.e. whether or not to buy a game) on this expectation, then he'll make many decisions he'll later regret, because imho his opinion doesn't reflect the reality very well.

While you may be right with your categories, the question is if your right with your conclusion.
At this point I will include a quotation from your next posting:

No one expects the fifth Harry Potter book to be "better" or "trying to improve" over the fourth. No marketing agency would start a campaign that's based on telling how much of an "improvement" the one might be over the other..

Actually, I remember that there was quite some uproar when the third HP movie was released. People complained about the new building, that Hagrid's hut was now downhill, that the guys were more casual and whatnotever.

Which brings me to the point: Are "fans" really happy with sequels changing (too) much from the previous release?
I severly doubt that. Actually, I think most people are unhappy. It is just that the major part of the target audiences in computer gaming and movies are younger folks. At the end, they won't be able to resist.

This is completely different when you're looking at automobiles. Companies lose sales in significant numbers just because the trunk looks strange (BMW 7 series in the past).

Actually, the expectation that a sequel follows the lines of the predecessor is not only justified, but you find it each and everywhere. Except when youngsters are concerned.
They are typically swept away by some media hype, because they are happy to have something new to play with (literally) and are willing to accept almost each and everything only to satisfy their urge for the "new, hot XYZ".

The way I see it, Firaxis had very little choice in how to tackle the post-Civ IV iteration of the series. Civ IV had plenty of mods to accommodate every conceivable play-style: streamlining; balancing; historical flavour; entirely new games (FFH and several other notables). Civ IV could probably live on for another decade or two just by the variety and creativity of its modding community.

Firaxis had every choice to make improvements based on Civ4, if only they would have wanted (or, more probably, would have the intellectual capacities for doing so).
Religion in Civ4 was bad? The mechanics awful?
Why not improving the system? Out of the hat I could think of 5 or 6 different ways to implement religions in a Civ game.
Espionage in Civ4 was bad? The mechanics aweful?
Why not improving the system?

And still, modders would have had enough things to tweak, to improve, to change and to enhance.

 

[SuperJay]

And you're right. We've established that civ5 falls under the definition of a sequel.

Haha, very clever sir! Yes, it does fall under a definition of the word 'sequel' - the broadest possible definition, wherein it is "something that follows something else." Primarily because of the label on the box, rather than the content of that box.

Obviously not everyone thinks sequels should improve on their predecessors, and you guys are quite happy having a "new direction" and a "reboot" labeled as a "sequel" and see no problem with that. I'm not so thrilled about the bait & switch myself, but I don't begrudge anyone else for enjoying it. I just get tired of being told that I need to "think about it differently" or "ignore my expectations" as if I'm having some kind of mental problem that's preventing me from enjoying the game.

 

[andrewlt]

Fair enough. And as PoM said, "a sequel is something that follow something else." In that case, every game, book or movie is a sequel because everything by definition follows something else.

But silliness aside, it's mind-boggling that anyone would decide to put out a game and call it a sequel, but think "hey, this should be worse than it's predecessor." I know Firaxis didn't intentionally do that, and I know 'worse' is totally subjective, but my point stands: if it's a "reboot" and a "totally new direction" that we need to "think about differently," then why not name it differently?? Oh right, because it won't sell as well as it would if you call it Civilization V.

The Civ 5 release has been received with mixed feelings by the Civ fanbase, and it's obviously been pretty polarizing. I don't think that's subjective. All I'm saying is that I think a big part of the reason for that reception has been titling it "Civilization V" while simultaneously going with the "reboot / new direction" for this iteration. I don't think it's the fault of players for having (pretty reasonable) expectations based on the previous four games; some of that responsibility lies on the shoulders of 2K Firaxis. (Finding out that this game was designed to attract Civ Rev players was just salt in the wound, for me.)

We're just gonna go around in circles, so I'll let it rest. I hope my point is clear enough. You guys know I respect your opinions and I'm not trying to be disagreeable or argumentative.

Each Final Fantasy game is different. Same goes with lots of long running RPG franchises.
Warcraft 3 was drastically different from Warcraft 2.
The Total War Series overhauls the engine every 2 games. How the campaign plays is totally different every engine.

 

[Buccaneer]

I'm sorry, I thought Rise of Mankind was a bloated mess. The kitchen sink approach to Civilization does not mean that more is better. Instead of the simple elegance of quality, it gave you every single ingredient possible. I know some like that but some don't.

 

[PieceOfMind]

Yes, it does fall under a definition of the word 'sequel' - the broadest possible definition, wherein it is "something that follows something else." Primarily because of the label on the box, rather than the content of that box.

Obviously not everyone thinks sequels should improve on their predecessors, and you guys are quite happy having a "new direction" and a "reboot" labeled as a "sequel" and see no problem with that. I'm not so thrilled about the bait & switch myself, but I don't begrudge anyone else for enjoying it. I just get tired of being told that I need to "think about it differently" or "ignore my expectations" as if I'm having some kind of mental problem that's preventing me from enjoying the game.

Well I'm sorry if anyone is telling you to have different expectations, because I'm certainly not. And you're wrong about me. I'm not perfectly happy with a reboot. Civ5 is a bit of a different direction to civ4, but in most of its gameplay its still very clearly a Civilization game. The only thing that clearly wouldn't have been justified is if Firaxis had called it a Civ4 expansion pack. Then I would have been just as upset.

I don't argue that everyone must compare vanilla to vanilla versions but personally I find this more practical because it means I'm comparing games that have had similar time and resources put in their development. It also allows better a consideration that further content/mechanics/refinements are added over the months or years. I will never argue that a flawed game is good because it could be fixed, but on the other hand I'll never argue a flawed game can't be made good, until active development on it ceases. A lot depends now on what Firaxis are capable of, and what sort of leash 2K have them on.

Haha, very clever sir!

It looks like you're trying to patronise me (and in prev post). If so, don't bother, because it's not going to achieve anything.

 

[Markstar]

For me it's simple: There can't be a final conclusion. The world is not black and white, so sometimes things are a little more complicated even though politicians and the media try to suggest otherwise.

Civ5 was targeted at a wider, more casual audience. We may think what we want about their programming skills, but clearly their marketing/publisher did quite some research about this and came to the conclusion that they can sell more copies of a game that has "Civilization" in its title by changing the target audience a little. People are different enough so that there are (obviously) existing civ players out there who like this change, but since they also wanted to attract some new blood, it is only realistic that new people fit that profile, which means they are happy with what they see and so they come here to tell us about it.

Personally, I don't like Civ4 (I HATE the maps, the map UI, the fact that there are not attack/defense values, ...) and CIV4 BTS+ ROM:AND doesn't fix it for me at all. I like that I can have it all in black and that there are more options with AND, but even though you can play around with the zoom level more now, it still sucks imo. Also, while I like the additional research options and some of the other stuff, it is obvious that this is too much for most people (e.g., if Civ1-4 were suited for 25% of the overall gaming population, then AND would probably be suited for only 25% of those). It's a civ4 fanatics wet dream, but not something that would sell in huge numbers on its own.

So to me, it is understandable that Firaxis/2k didn't want to release a AND 2.0 (or something along those lines), but on the other hand they now completely lost me with Civ5 (too simple, too long, ... - too boring!), as I have no hope whatsoever that all (or even most) of the major issues I have with the game will be fixed by either patches or mods.

For me, Civilization is dead, but let's see how long the new people will shout "Long live the new Civ".

 

[Hormagaunt]

If the question is "Did the Civ5 devs do a good job?", then it's of course unfair to compare a full-fledged, fine-tuned end product to a work in progress.

No.

Once it goes out the door, it is exactly fair.

I get paid lots of money every month to build programs for my bosses. Over my past two jobs, over better than 15 years, I *personally* have written close to 3/4 of a million lines of code.

When I create a new version of a program, if the new version isn't better than the prior version, then I'm not doing my job right.

Every program I put out is a work in progress, because it has to be fine-tuned for multiple clients. That one piece of code has to work in different ways, some subtle, some blatant, for those clients. And that work in progress *must* be better than what they were using before, and must work according to *their* requirements, not those of another customer.

If it isn't better, or it doesn't show them *their* stuff, then I'm wasting my customers' valuable time and I'm embarrassing my bosses.

Even worse, I'm embarrassing myself by showing sloppy work.

Judging by the way Civ5 works, were I to have released it I'd nearly die of embarrassment.

 

[Hormagaunt]

People have been arguing about the word "sequel" and whether Civ5 is one or not.

According to another thread, Civ5's devs explicitly stated that it *is* a sequel.

To Civ:Rev.

As far as I'm concerned, the reason for it being named Civ5 is very simple (and has been pointed out by others); if they'd named it Civ:Rev2 or Civ:Tactics or *anything* other than Civ5, I might not have bought it.

I bought it explicitly because it was named Civ5, which *to me* means that it is a successor to Civ4. If they had named it honestly, as Civ:Rev2, I *might* have bought it, but maybe not, too. By naming it as they did, they suckered me into buying something that I might not have bought otherwise.

By doing so they instantly tossed away every bit of good-will they've built up with me; I'll be looking with a jaundiced and very critical eye at *anything* they proffer in the future.

It IS NOT a sequel to Civ4; my own experience with it and the devs themselves have said so. Others have said that the gameplay *is* related to Civ:Rev, which accords with the devs. I never bought Civ:Rev, and I probably wouldn't have bought Civ:Rev2 if it had been marketed honestly.

 

[Ex-Cop]

Wait. A fully patched, expansion packed, and mod conversioned Civ4 is better than Civ5 vanilla?

Revolutionary!

Yeah, my Jeep Wrangler I bought 5 years ago, installed a Hemi, lifted it 3", threw on new wheels and 35" tires, installed a new light package and an exterior package, and countless other things including 2 recalls that Jeep had to fix... is better than a Jeep Wrangler fresh off the lot. It doesn't mean that that new Jeep Wrangler isn't damn fun to drive and won't be made better than the one I drive now.

Great, I am glad you love Civ4+RoM. Sorry you don't love Civ5 as much. Glad you gave up on it so quickly. Enjoy.

Just Empty Every Pocket

 

[poncratias]

No.

Once it goes out the door, it is exactly fair.

I get paid lots of money every month to build programs for my bosses. Over my past two jobs, over better than 15 years, I *personally* have written close to 3/4 of a million lines of code.

When I create a new version of a program, if the new version isn't better than the prior version, then I'm not doing my job right.

Every program I put out is a work in progress, because it has to be fine-tuned for multiple clients. That one piece of code has to work in different ways, some subtle, some blatant, for those clients. And that work in progress *must* be better than what they were using before, and must work according to *their* requirements, not those of another customer.

If it isn't better, or it doesn't show them *their* stuff, then I'm wasting my customers' valuable time and I'm embarrassing my bosses.

Even worse, I'm embarrassing myself by showing sloppy work.

Judging by the way Civ5 works, were I to have released it I'd nearly die of embarrassment.

Well, maybe you should listen to Jharii & alikes, and tell your boss&customers that if you don't make a new version better then it's prior's, that it's just his expectations that are wrong, not your program


Jharii & the rest, I applaud to you.

 

[vandyr]

No.

Once it goes out the door, it is exactly fair.

I get paid lots of money every month to build programs for my bosses. Over my past two jobs, over better than 15 years, I *personally* have written close to 3/4 of a million lines of code.

When I create a new version of a program, if the new version isn't better than the prior version, then I'm not doing my job right.

Every program I put out is a work in progress, because it has to be fine-tuned for multiple clients. That one piece of code has to work in different ways, some subtle, some blatant, for those clients. And that work in progress *must* be better than what they were using before, and must work according to *their* requirements, not those of another customer.

If it isn't better, or it doesn't show them *their* stuff, then I'm wasting my customers' valuable time and I'm embarrassing my bosses.

Even worse, I'm embarrassing myself by showing sloppy work.

Judging by the way Civ5 works, were I to have released it I'd nearly die of embarrassment.

These programs that you write are on the same scope as the development labor needed for Civ 5 or an MMO? If not, then your example is poor. Quickbooks software isn't necessarily intensive in the making, I can see being upset if your latest outlook express wasn't on par with the previous version. You can't claim Ford does a crappy job with their cars because you build go-carts and "know how it is".

 

[dhaniell]

RoM, as much better as it is compared too V is a mod which focuses too much on too much. Want the real successor to IV?

Community Civ V

Balanced, good AI, real strategy, options, customizable and without filling it with 1000+ units/techs/civs and so on.