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

[Jharii]

It's rational to expect IMPROVEMENT. If that's NOT what one expects, what, then?

"Yes, I'd like to purchase the new x product in the series and I expect it to be worse than the last version. Thankyew."

Yes, and it's also rational to understand that it's also a new game. It's also rational to acknowledge that people have differing opinions than your own. It's also rational to understand that people have differing expectations than your own.

For instance, I expect people here not to act like condescending jerks and to be civil towards each other.

I suppose such requests (not to mention startling lack of rationality) DO occasionally occur. In fantasyland.

Obviously, some things fall short of some people's expectations.

 

[Toady]

Your opinion. And one shared by many, of course.


If by 'given', you mean it's an expectation, then yes, it's an expectation.

To make a game of the same type that is not necessarily better. Some may like it more, some may like it less.


He just doesn't have the same expectations as you.

Ok... then:

Fact 1): He is satisfied with Civ V

Fact 2): He didn't expect a game that would be an imrovement over Civ IV

Conclusion (Fact1 + Fact2) : Civ IV is better than Civ V.

Now we can all be happy! Logic games are fun!

 

[PieceOfMind]

Let me ask. Suppose the civ series went all the way to iteration number 100. Do you think that every single fan - even the most hardcore ones - would all agree that every game got better every step of the way?

In the favourite version of civ poll, you'll see that not everyone who isn't voting for civ5 is necessarily voting for civ4. There are quite a number of people who liked one of the earlier games more than they liked civ4. Does that mean civ4 was not better than the previous games? Who gets to decide whether a game is better or not?

Ok... then:

Fact 1): He is satisfied with Civ V

Fact 2): He didn't expect a game that would be an imrovement over Civ IV

Conclusion (Fact1 + Fact2) : Civ IV is better than Civ V.

Now we can all be happy! Logic games are fun!

I hope you're being intentionally ironic (is that the right word?), because there's no logical connection between your facts and conclusion.

It's rational to expect IMPROVEMENT.

It's no more rational to expect improvement than to have no expectations at all. What you probably meant to say, is that it's more common to expect improvement. This does't make it rational, it just makes it the normal point of view. I would argue that if you take that view with every sequel you ever experience, you always set yourself up for the occasional (or frequent) disappointment. It's actually pretty rational (or should I say 'just as rational as other points of view') to have low expectations, so that you are pleasantly surprised sometimes. Funnily enough, this is how I approached civrev, yet I was still horribly disappointed.

 

[Jharii]

Ok... then:

Fact 1): He is satisfied with Civ V

Fact 2): He didn't expect a game that would be an imrovement over Civ IV

Conclusion (Fact1 + Fact2) : Civ IV is better than Civ V.

Now we can all be happy! Logic games are fun!

My expectation still remains that when Civ5 is fully patched and expanded, it will be better than Civ4 fully patched and expanded. So no matter what anyone's opinion is on the current state, whether or not my full expectations are met remains to be seen. In other words, I have no conclusion at this point. I'm just enjoying the hell out of Civ5.

And as PoM pointed out, your logic is a bit flawed.

 

[Akka]

Your opinion. And one shared by many, of course.
[...]
To make a game of the same type that is not necessarily better. Some may like it more, some may like it less.

Not making any sense, again. Making a sequel that is worse on purpose ? That's just completely broken logic.

He just doesn't have the same expectations as you.

Having different expectation is fine. Having broken logic isn't.

PoM covered the very basic logic of my point for you. Enjoy your day.

And the very basic logic of this point is completely broken and senseless. It's completely absurd to pretend a sequel isn't supposed to improve. The point of a sequel is to continue a franchise, and you don't make things worse on purpose.

Let me ask. Suppose the civ series went all the way to iteration number 100. Do you think that every single fan - even the most hardcore ones - would all agree that every game got better every step of the way?

Unrelated issue - the EXPECTATION and PURPOSE of a sequel is to be better. The RESULT is something different, and the PERSONNAL OPINIONS about if it's better are yet another thing.

 

[PieceOfMind]

Not making any sense, again. Making a sequel that is worse on purpose ? That's just completely broken logic.

Please tell me you understand the logical difference between the two propositions:

"They made a new game. It was not necessarily going to be better than the previous."

"They made a new game that was worse on purpose."

It seriously is not difficult. And a programmer, of all people, should have no trouble. Note that the qualifier "not necessarily" has an important role here.

 

[Nefelia]

It's rational to expect IMPROVEMENT. If that's NOT what one expects, what, then?

"Yes, I'd like to purchase the new x product in the series and I expect it to be worse than the last version. Thankyew."

I suppose such requests (not to mention startling lack of rationality) DO occasionally occur. In fantasyland.

The rational expectation would be for something new. And that is precisely what we got with CiV.

While 'unfinished' and currently flawed, CiV has improvements at its core that promise a better game once the polish and corrections are patched in. Once the modding tools are fully released, comprehensive mods in the league of Civ IV's FFH and RoM will likely eclipse anything seen before.

I look forward to it, but am patient enough to enjoy the game as-is until CiV begins reaching its full potential.

 

[cr0ws]

You don't even have to compare Civ 5 to ROM for the ciVfatality. Even Quot Capita is flawless victory!

 

[Toady]

Let me ask. Suppose the civ series went all the way to iteration number 100. Do you think that every single fan - even the most hardcore ones - would all agree that every game got better every step of the way?

In the favourite version of civ poll, you'll see that not everyone who isn't voting for civ5 is necessarily voting for civ4. There are quite a number of people who liked one of the earlier games more than they liked civ4. Does that mean civ4 was not better than the previous games? Who gets to decide whether a game is better or not?

To answer your last question: Each man for himself, it's a subjective matter of personal opinion.

To answer your first question: I would assume that the vast majority of the fans, with the exception of irrational, as determined by commonly accepted basic logic, people, would expect each and every iteration to be an improvement over the last.

You and Jharii were talking about expectations. You also said people can have different expectations. I have yet to see an industry or market where an expectation of non improvement is acceptable ... or even considered logical.

The new iPhone comes out, some people would expect better camera, some people would expect better reception, some people would prefer different design and some people would prefer different accessories. 1)They all have different expectations, 2) Each will have his own opinion of the end product 3) They will all base part of this opinion on a comparison with the most recent version of the previous iPhone.

People can have the same expectations, for instance the expectation of an improved Civ V over past iterations and still disagree on their opinion of the end result.

There are of course aspects of the game that can be argued more objectively, like wether the game is streamlined or not, wether mechanics work as intented or not, wether the AI is capable or not, etc etc. One's opinion can't change facts, it can only ignore them or accept them.

 

[civ_king]

Considering that Civ 4 BTS+RAND had five years to improve and Civ V has had 1/40th of that time I think it's acceptable for Civ V to be worse currently

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. I realize that Civ V sucks at using more than two cores, but the truth is once the engine allows for multithreading it makes it possible by patches to make it better support up to sixteen cores (according to Firaxis). I'm not suggesting that you should ditch Civ IV and play solely Civ V, but rather that you at least try Civ V again in March when many kinks should be worked out. Civ V is a good game, but Civ IV is so good from all the improvements over 3.5 years including two expansion packs that it overshadows Civ V. After all when the game your trying to beat quality wise basically has 101/100 it takes a bit of work.

 

[Jharii]

And the very basic logic of this point is completely broken and senseless. It's completely absurd to pretend a sequel isn't supposed to improve. The point of a sequel is to continue a franchise, and you don't make things worse on purpose.

Unrelated issue - the EXPECTATION and PURPOSE of a sequel is to be better. The RESULT is something different, and the PERSONNAL OPINIONS about if it's better are yet another thing.

My expectations were for a different game and for a good game. My judgement is not based on whether it is better or worse than Civ4. It is if Civ5 stands on its own. Just like i have judged every game that I have ever owned. I would never scrutinize my son based upon whether he was better or worse than me.

Your description is all fine if this is YOUR expectation. Do not pass off your expectations on others and label it a fallacy of their logic. Just because you choose to be close minded that others have differing expectations does not make them flawed.

And I am not so presumptuous to expect that my expectations fall in line with Firaxis's expectations. One of their goals was very likely to improve the game. Whether the game is or is not an improvement is completely a matter of opinion.

You and Jharii were talking about expectations. You also said people can have different expectations. I have yet to see an industry or market where an expectation of non improvement is acceptable ... or even considered logical.

The movie industry has been doing this for ages. They have been capitalizing on the success of initial releases with inferior sequels for decades.

This is not a parallel to Civ, simply providing you the example you overlooked.

 

[cr0ws]

Considering that Civ 4 BTS+RAND had five years to improve and Civ V has had 1/40th of that time I think it's acceptable for Civ V to be worse currently

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. I realize that Civ V sucks at using more than two cores, but the truth is once the engine allows for multithreading it makes it possible by patches to make it better support up to sixteen cores (according to Firaxis). I'm not suggesting that you should ditch Civ IV and play solely Civ V, but rather that you at least try Civ V again in March when many kinks should be worked out. Civ V is a good game, but Civ IV is so good from all the improvements over 3.5 years including two expansion packs that it overshadows Civ V. After all when the game your trying to beat quality wise basically has 101/100 it takes a bit of work.

In other words Civ 5 is an experiment...which failed...all because the makers were focused on one thing...making it look perty. Eye candy for teh win!

 

[Toady]

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. I realize that Civ V sucks at using more than two cores, but the truth is once the engine allows for multithreading it makes it possible by patches to make it better support up to sixteen cores (according to Firaxis). I'm not suggesting that you should ditch Civ IV and play solely Civ V, but rather that you at least try Civ V again in March when many kinks should be worked out. Civ V is a good game, but Civ IV is so good from all the improvements over 3.5 years including two expansion packs that it overshadows Civ V. After all when the game your trying to beat quality wise basically has 101/100 it takes a bit of work.

Adding multi core support is considered an improvement... so i don't see how people who would expect an improvement over Civ IV were basically hoping for a game stuck on single core support.

All those improvements over the years.... where did they go? Did all that coding, design, art, concepts, ideas etc etc get deleted once Civ V production begun?

If you are trying to surpass a 101/100 product and you present something which displays a 50/100 effort then a lot of people are going to be rightfully critical.

 

[civ_king]

In other words Civ 5 is an experiment...which failed...all because the makers were focused on one thing...making it look perty. Eye candy for teh win!

did you even read my post? That's a pretty large non sequitur

Toady, that would actually be impossible and illegal to make that modification to the Civ IV game engine. Also Vanilla unpatched Civ IV is worse than Vanilla unpatched CIv V, I played both yesterday

 

[Zogar]

While 'unfinished' and currently flawed, CiV has improvements at its core that promise a better game once the polish and corrections are patched in. Once the modding tools are fully released, comprehensive mods in the league of Civ IV's FFH and RoM will likely eclipse anything seen before.

I would like nothing more than an incredible civ, but could you explicit the "improvements at its core that promise a better game once the polish and corrections are patched in" ? I don't see any (well, apart from better graphics, arguably more simple so more modabble resources, and interesting ranged and city combat, but these are not reasons enough to expect an incredible civ at the end).

 

[civ_king]

I would like nothing more than an incredible civ, but could you explicit the "improvements at its core that promise a better game once the polish and corrections are patched in" ? I don't see any (well, apart from better graphics, arguably more simple so more modabble resources, and interesting ranged and city combat, but these are not reasons enough to expect an incredible civ at the end).

Multicore capability is a massive one and Civ V is very moddable even though the C++ part of the SDK hasn't been released yet. Also the multileveled AI will be better when it gets fixed

 

[Toady]

The movie industry has been doing this for ages. They have been capitalizing on the success of initial releases with inferior sequels for decades.

This is not a parallel to Civ, simply providing you the example you overlooked.

The reason they are capitalizing on this is exactly because of the expectations of fans for improvement or at worst more of the same.

Unless you are aware of masses of Trekkies or Star War fans that had hopes for worse products than the initial films, i don't see any point to your statement other than to reinforce what i said.

 

[r_rolo1]

did you even read my post? That's a pretty large non sequitur

Toady, that would actually be impossible and illegal to make that modification to the Civ IV game engine. Also Vanilla unpatched Civ IV is worse than Vanilla unpatched CIv V, I played both yesterday

Have you kept your steam offline since you bought the game or have you reinstalled ? Otherwise it is a patched civ V

 

[civ_king]

Have you kept your steam offline since you bought the game or have you reinstalled ? Otherwise it is a patched civ V

Yes, yes I have

 

[Jharii]

The reason they are capitalizing on this is exactly because of the expectations of fans for improvement or at worst more of the same.

Unless you are aware of masses of Trekkies or Star War fans that had hopes for worse products than the initial films, i don't see any point to your statement other than to reinforce what i said.

My apologies if I misunderstood your reference. Your statement seemed all-inclusive of fans and companies.

And fans have different expectations. I would not presume to know what everyone's expectations are.

I sincerely doubt that a majority of Star Wars fans of the first trilogy were fully expecting something better from the second trilogy than the first. How could they expect that? However, I am sure that they expected a compelling, quality, exciting storyline that expands on the saga. That is exactly what they got. Whether they were better or worse is completely a matter of opinion. FYI, when we went to see the first Star Wars of the 2nd trilogy, there were about 20 of us that went. We all shared the same expectations, so it's not as far fetched as some would have us believe.

There is a difference between "expecting worse" and "not expecting it to be better." Sometimes the bar is just too high. But if you don't understand the subtle differences between the two, than that would explain why you do not understand my viewpoint.