Civ V a step backward?

[squadbroken]

They can't keep up with a large community that isn't restrained by budgets or deadlines? Really?

 

[The Almighty dF]

They can't keep up with a large community that isn't restrained by budgets or deadlines? Really?

Not the point at all.
The point is that skill wise, and -logic- wise, they can't compete with even a small handful of our modders.

It's like... You have two people planning a party. One guy is receiving money to do it, and he does a half ass job. The other guy just does it for fun, only has a small amount of time every now and then to even -work- on said party, yet still manages to do a much better job.
I'm willing to bet that if you hired say, Bakuel, and paid him the same salary another member of the art team Civ5 has is getting while removing someone from said art team, he'd easily release something better.
It's not the lack of bugdet, or the lack of deadlines. It's the lack of thought, and the lack of creativity.


At the very least, Firaxis should concede that the modders will always manage to improve their game, even within a short period of time after release, and do all they can to make it easier to continue to do so.
Adding overly complex leaderheads? That's the exact opposite. It leaves us with just the Firaxis product, which is small and lacking in variety. Variety and size can't be added because now the modders have to do all of this ******** extra crap which ends up being moot anyway. We don't need our leader walking around for the brief moments we talk to them. We don't need to constantly see Washington's feet on screen.

 

[deanej]

What about the lack of anyone telling you what to do?

 

[Loppan Torkel]

It's the lack of thought, and the lack of creativity.

Isn't the lead designer an old modder or something and aren't they rewriting the design even more than they've done in the past? To me it seems they're showing creativity and are making some bold decisions, which btw seems to be smart ones so far.

 

[Thyrwyn]

The number of leaders we have now is after 2 expansions. 1 leader per civ is fine with me to start. And, actually, if they are going to add a 19th leader, I would much rather they added a 19th civ to go with it. Adding another leader to an existing civ is only half an option, since there is no change in the number of potential civs.

Consider a solo game in which there are some civs with 2 leaders and some civs with only 1. If each AI slot is determined by randomly selecting a leader, then some civs are twice as likely to show up as those with only 1 leader. If the AI slots are filled by randomly selecting a civ, and then randomly choosing a leader from that civ, then some leaders are only half as likely to appear as those whose civ only has one leader. Pet peeve. had to vent. sorry.

 

[Thormodr]

Firaxis has a policy of 1/3 old, 1/3 tweaked and 1/3 new. I like that philosophy.

Just piling stuff on top of the old game usually doesn't work well. It's like making a sandwich really. Too much is not always good. It eventually becomes unwieldy.

Relax. More leaders will come in the expansions along with more civs.

 

[NBAfan]

I would wait and see before I make any judgements.

 

[squadbroken]

Not the point at all.

Actually, yes, that is the point. Apparently you have no idea how much work is actually involved in game design and production.

The point is that skill wise, and -logic- wise, they can't compete with even a small handful of our modders.

Which is why modders have to work with someone else's game instead of making their own.

 

[1morey]

After reading these comments. I understand some of the things I said were kinda stupid. I mean, the first Civ game I ever played was Civ II: Test of Time (at a public library), and then I bought Civ IV when I was in 7th grade. I liked Test of Time, but being a total noob at it (I only ever played a full game ONCE. And I got a conquest victory.) But from my understanding, CIV was meant to be an "alternate history simulation." I want a game that is fun. And has some historic value in it, without being a "THIS IS WHAT REALLY HAPPENED WAY BACK WHEN simulation." And While game designers can't always sit down and think of EVERY POSSIBLE THING a player would want. That would take forever. (At least until 2050. That's when the world will end.) I still would like to see a Mayan city look like a mayan city, and a Native American city look like a....well...a native american city. But we can't always get what we want. And for now, I am still making up my mind whether to by CiV or just wait for an EXP.

 

[Thormodr]

Actually, yes, that is the point. Apparently you have no idea how much work is actually involved in game design and production.

Which is why modders have to work with someone else's game instead of making their own.

The real irony of his statement is that ciV is being designed by one of "our" modders. Yet Almighty DF is still complaining about it.

 

[1morey]

It's like making a sandwich really.

QUOTE]

That's an awesome way to put it. In layman's terms.

 

[squadbroken]

Isn't the lead designer an old modder or something and aren't they rewriting the design even more than they've done in the past? To me it seems they're showing creativity and are making some bold decisions, which btw seems to be smart ones so far.

The real irony of his statement is that ciV is being designed by one of "our" modders. Yet Almighty DF is still complaining about it.

Nah, see, he had to give up his creativity and skill as part of his contract.

 

[bonafide11]

I don't understand why people care so much that there's only one leader per civ. That's not even an issue. Most people prefer more civilizations rather than multiple leaders per civilization.

Again, just adding more units, more buildings, more leaders, more techs, more features does not make the game better. Many times it makes the game feel bloated. It's a better idea to cut the game down to the bare minimum and rebuild it from scratch, making an entirely different game with the same core concepts. I'm glad they're doing this because I've gotten bored of Civ 4 and I don't want a Civ 4.5, I want a new Civ 5 to play.

 

[Thormodr]

Nah, see, he had to give up his creativity and skill as part of his contract.

Firaxis. Noun. A company where creativity goes to die.

 

[Ahriman]

The funny thing about worrying about which leader your faction has is... that is the one leader you are absolutely guaranteed to never see once you get past the load screen. The leaders of every other faction, sure, you see them every time you open diplomacy. But your faction leader? Never there.
The leaders of other factions will each have their own AI flavors and quirks, but *my* faction is controlled by me, so the flavor characteristics of the leader for my faction has no chance to make any difference.

I'm never worried about who the leader I'm playing is; they have all just been trait combinations to me.

 

[Thormodr]

The funny thing about worrying about which leader your faction has is... that is the one leader you are absolutely guaranteed to never see once you get past the load screen. The leaders of every other faction, sure, you see them every time you open diplomacy. But your faction leader? Never there.
The leaders of other factions will each have their own AI flavors and quirks, but *my* faction is controlled by me, so the flavor characteristics of the leader for my faction has no chance to make any difference.

I'm never worried about who the leader I'm playing is; they have all just been trait combinations to me.

Exactly. I find the leader I play to actually be irrelevant too.

By the time I'm tired of playing against the other 17 leaders the first expansion pack will have been released. Supposedly though the leaders will be a whole lot more fun to play against.

1 leader per civ is perfectly acceptable.

 

[Carver]

Does anyone else think that Civ series are going backwards with each new sequel? I mean religion, espionage was awesome in Civ IV. But now they're not going to be implemented in Civ V.

Each new Civ has certainly NOT been a step backwards. C4 is clearly more advanced than C3, which was more advanced than C2 or C1.

However, the info so far on C5 is perplexing and disappointing. 1upt, magically appearing transports, lack of/reduced religion and espionage, and no tech trading all look like dramatic steps backwards.

The good news is that if they screw up C5 I will have a lot more free time on my hands.

 

[Thyrwyn]

Another point: It will probably be much easier for modders to create leaders for existing civs (using the existing leader/animations) than it would be to add whole new civs.

 

[Asylumer]

Each new Civ has certainly NOT been a step backwards. C4 is clearly more advanced than C3, which was more advanced than C2 or C1.

However, the info so far on C5 is perplexing and disappointing. 1upt, magically appearing transports, lack of/reduced religion and espionage, and no tech trading all look like dramatic steps backwards.

The good news is that if they screw up C5 I will have a lot more free time on my hands.

Of course what is "a step backwards" is essentially subjective.

For example: I consider Hexes and No Tech Trading to be huge improvements over the old system and my opinion is mostly positive towards 1upt due to its tactical possibilities. However, I am with you when it comes to the transport system and I am slightly disappointed that they may leave religion and espionage out entirely (at least for the original release).

One must ask what exactly Civ5 would be stepping back from with its most recent changes. Is it the Tile map that makes the series? How about technology trading? Or is, as the name implies, the series only defined by the ability to take a historic civilization from humble beginnings into the modern age?

After all, a movement must be relative to a location, and you may find your idea of where the series should be differs from that of the next person.

 

[eireksten]

Unless you take a step backwards every once in a while, you could soon get stuck in a corner (local optimum), unable to make any real improvements.