Ive bought and played every iteration of civ from 1 to 5, except for some of the module expansions. I can remember when I first bought civ 1 back in the 80s, and stayed up all night on many occasions not sleeping at all. Two years ago when civ5 first came out, I decided to postpone purchase of it based mostly on what Id read in forums like this, and also after my disappointment with civ 4 which Ill address later. So, after spending an hour and a half, at least, reading through this thread, I feel the need to reply.
First off. I dislike CivV. I dislike it so much that it was the major reason why I signed up on these forums. (Or no, actually it was to look into the CivIV mod-scene more closer but I like a bit drama
)
Dear devs, stop thinking in sales figures and catering to casuality and look at the workings of what your fans have made for you to take inspiration from. Some of the stuff is truly genius pieces of creative modding that in the hands of proffessional programmers could turn CivV to be something us more conservative players could enjoy too.
My 2 cents.
In fact, I disliked civ IV so much, that it actually impacted my purchase decision for V, delayed it for 2 years until it became cheaper. Just because some modders have implemented in the game, in a practical way, what their vision is does not mean that all or even a majority of fans like it.
A new game in a serie should improve on the previous one. That's pretty much a given - what's the point of making a new iteration if not to make a game of the same type that is better ?
In general, I agree. However, there is a huge gap between different people as to what constitutes an improvement. For my part, I see improvements in games as something that adds to the enjoyment of the game and does *not,* I repeat *not,* change the base game. Example: Master of Orion II was probably the most enjoyable PC type game that Ive ever played; Ive also never been as disappointed (and had so much expectation) for any PC game as I had for MOO3, which, unfortunately, *completely* changed the base game 360 degrees around (Real time not turn based, wormhole movement not free form, and the AI was the worst Id ever experienced in a PC game up to that point). MOO3 was simply not Master of Orion and should have been given a completely different name for the completely different game it was.
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.
Improving upon the template of Civ IV + BTS is the modders' job, not that of the Civ V development team. What they provided instead was groundbreaking changes to the very way the game is played (hexes, 1utp, global happiness, unit maintenance, limited resources, and embarkation being the most notable). So rather than competing directly with a huge community of talented modders, they are providing those modders with a fresh foundation upon which to build the legendary mods of tomorrow.
Actually, I think you have it backwards. It was civ IV that made the groundbreaking changes: stacks of doom and more than 1UPT. The original Civ1 and Civ2 had 1UPT stacking, and this is a major feature at the core of the game design that affected everything: unit, movement, and combat related.
I believe it was civ3 that actually started changing or deviating from the core design (and not for the better, I might add) of the game with generals who allowed SOD, and was a major reason why I was disappointed with that version of the game. And while I, at first, liked the addition of culture which also came out in civ 3, I very much disliked how the culture borders flip-flopped every other turn: you could have a key piece of farmland with RRs and irrigation development (after 10 turns of working it with workers) and the next turn it became the enemys because of culture flip-flop. I was highly pleased to see that they fixed this in civ 5 and added the concept of land purchase; this was a very good improvement over civ 3. And, I was more than overjoyed at the return to Civs roots with 1UPT
. This is not a groundbreaking change, its a return to the roots of the game which should not have ever been changed to begin with.
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".
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.
Actually, I would disagree that fans are happy with changes from the previous releases. And, I also think its important to define exactly what change is in this context. For example: the concept of culture borders was not something that changed the game, since they did not previously exist before civ3, rather this is something new that has been added to the game. However, adding a general that allows unlimited stacking and the creation of game-breaking SODs (when the game previously only allowed 1UPT) is a significant change from the previous release.
I also agree that most game players in younger folk. In fact, I think that a majority?? (maybe) of purchasers of civ 5 are probably people that never played any prior iteration, and have no bias toward civ 5 since they never played civ 4 or any other iteration. This is a guess on my part (as to the number of purchasers who never played civ 5), but if anyone has any factual statistical data as to civ 5 buyers and their prior knowledge of other civ titles, I think it would be very interesting to see. Id like to know, just out of curiosity anyway.
Theres a huge difference between a change and an addition to a game.
Its also just as valid for Firaxis to have fixed what went wrong with Civ 4 by re-creating a game which went back to its roots and focused on what works best and not what fails. After all, the original civ was the 4th and 11th greatest game of all time according to at least two prominent surveys:
http://www.ign.com/articles/2000/07/24/the-top-25-pc-games-of-all-time
http://kotaku.com/293565/german-journos-pick-their-most-important-games-of-all-time?tag=gamingnotag
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.
For me, Civilization is dead, but let's see how long the new people will shout "Long live the new Civ".
People keep using change in reference to civ 5. Sure, its a change with respect to civ IV, but its very much closer to the original core game, civ 1, than any iteration since civ2. Seeing that, its not a change but a return to its original roots (which should never have been changed to begin with in civ 3 and expanded on in 4).
The fact that civ has returned to its home, tells me civ is not dead and that theres a lot of hope. Civ 5 has the potential to be the best yet, I just hope they dont change anything, but improve upon what we now have.
... is this a debate to find out which pie is better, apple or pumpkin? Because thats kind of what it sounds like.
I hated IV originally, when it was first released, I thought they butchered my civ game. I don't remember my reasons, but those were my first impressions (and an impression I continued to have until the first expansion and even a little beyond that).
The game was just different than what I was used to (and missing some of the things I liked). Civ5 is no different in circumstance. I needed expansions/patches/ and even mods before I would accept civ4 and im sure thats blasphemy to a lot of you.
Civ5, on the other hand, has traits that line up with my favorite civ games (Civ3 and CTP2) but still hacks out pieces of Civ4 that I liked... I don't think there will ever be a perfect sequel.
With that in mind you should expect retail versions to disappoint. You should expect the community to prop their respective games on their shoulders and carry them beyond what the developers are able to do themselves. In my experience the community does better work anyway and I completely doubt Civ5 will fall short on modding. In fact I already have procured several community balance mods that significantly enhance the base game just by making a few tweaks.
That being said... if you hate Civ5 then HA!!! Its your turn to hate the game for a year until its patched and has expansions
Actually I like civ 5, and definitely like it much more than civ IV which was the biggest disappointment to me in the civ series. Ranking from best to worst as to my personal enjoyment of the civ series: civ 2, 1, 5, 3, 4.
Civ 2 was simply the best because it didnt change an already stunningly great game and just improved upon it. I loved the alpine troops and 1/3 movement, and the consistently-working-workers that always had something to do: after irrigation, those refrigeration updated tiles that you have to work all over again.
One thing I dont like about civ 5 is that post-gunpowder I got two dozen workers with absolutely nothing to do: I click turn- wait spacebar (for worker 1) spacebar (worker 2), etc, etc, two dozen times before the turn button again. There should be a late game improvement (such as refrigeration did in civ2) that gives the workers something to do in this period. And when finished with that, it should be possible to add workers to city (or something like that) when they become useless: Perhaps the ability to cross-train them (at a loss of some turns) into a military unit. Workers with nothing to do (and nothing to do in the future and no way to do something else with them) are a failure of some sort on the part of the game. Workers are unbelievably important early in the game, but then late game theyre just a waste .. this needs to be addressed.
I agree with this forum. I liked CIV 4 with RoM AnD, and I was hoping that CIV 5 would go even further than that expansion did. But unfortunately, it went backward in many aspects of the game except for hex, missle fire, and graphics. Yes I too am disappointed by CIV 5.
Dejavu: I feel exactly the same as you did except for civ 4. When I first played civ IV my reaction was: this is not even civilization, its a completely different game. So much of the core was altered, especially wrt to the SODs, that I played maybe a couple hundred hours and it just went into my closet where it stands now.
My hope (then) was that they (the designers) would quit deviating and changing the original core game and go back to the things which made the original civ series so great, and one of the most important key things in that light is 1UPT. SODs simply sux and tend to break the gameplay/balance of most games that implement them.
I certainly dont think civ 5 is a perfect game, but it is a significant improvement over civ IV, and this is from one whose been a loyal supporter purchaser of every iteration (if not every mod) of the game from 1 to 5 (I even bought many of the guides). Yeah, Im an old geezer.
Things I love about civ5: Return to the 1UPT roots of the original design. And, this is improved with the use of hexes and tactical (front/side) etc bonuses which are an incredible addition (not change) to the game. I could care less about artwork (I still love Stars!). I loved that they fixed the cultural flip-flop expansion border thingie of civ3 which I really disliked in that iteration. I also liked that they fixed the concept of revolution/revolt (cant think of the game term now) in civ 3 where conquered cities suddenly changed back to their owners side (which, I felt, was a concept that really suxed in that iteration of the series). Im hesitant as to whether global happiness is a better way to curb expansion as compared to the corruption of earlier versions. I loved Elvis as the entertainment advisor in civ2 and I want him back god***mit!!! Im also on a hedge as far as ground units turning into boats: no doubt this is a simplification but its not very realistic. I really like the improved defense of cities, but barbarians are just not a threat now, in fact theyre so weak as to be a joke (I always play with raging barbarians). They need to be able to capture cities (after all, the Vandals sacked Rome for 3 days and Ghengis khan razed Beijing in 1280ish AD) .. perhaps cities should not be able to fire (target) until archery is researched: a couple of barbarian warriors should be able to take an undefended city (pre-archery and pre-bronze working) in, say, two or three consecutive turns of melee.
Things I dont like about civ5: The combat ability of the AI is severely lacking. They simply have no ability to attack intelligently against cities. Also the use of workers as combat troops is perplexing? In my last game I probably built only 3 workers myself but had two dozen by game end, most of those gotten from the Persians who sent them across my country (during war) for reasons unknown. I mentioned before that I dont like workers who dont have anything to do, as which happens typically post gunpowder when every tile has been irrigated/farmed/mined/plantationed/etc.. there needs to be something for them to do or become. Generally, the post gunpowder era of the game is not so exciting (in comparison to the pre-Renaissance). I find myself just clicking turn with spacebar a bunch of times (for the workers who have nothing to do). There needs to be some more AI aggression and worker work opportunities in this part of the game to increase its enjoyment. I actually still remember one game of civ2 where Ghengis Khan sent a nuclear armed carrier fleet against my country on my continent and nuked me!! Wouldnt it be awesome if I could be pleasantly surprised by this happening again in civ5.
(And please don't tell me, 'Yeah well, but Civ 5 is just weak11!11. My point has nothing to do with how well Civ 5 performs, I am making a global personal clarification and statement)
................. 
