Civ V a step backward?
- Thread starter 1morey
- Start date
Disgustipated
Deity
As has been mentioned, if you simply add on to the game, you are only making an expansion pack. A sequel should be an entirely new game. For better or for worse.
I have a feeling many people will prefer civ4 over civ5, and will continue playing civ4. Similar to how people prefer civ3 over civ4 now (though I can't understand why they prefer that one, but that's their right).
My only worry is they are simplifying the game for the console market (it may eventually be ported in some way). All eye candy, and no real depth. But it's too soon to tell, and I still hope for the best.
I have a feeling many people will prefer civ4 over civ5, and will continue playing civ4. Similar to how people prefer civ3 over civ4 now (though I can't understand why they prefer that one, but that's their right).
My only worry is they are simplifying the game for the console market (it may eventually be ported in some way). All eye candy, and no real depth. But it's too soon to tell, and I still hope for the best.
Dbob
Merchant Prince
I really don't get the people who complain about one leader per civilization. One leader choice has been the standard for 75% of the series to this point. It was nice to have it in cIV, but there were only so many combinations of traits and then it just got redundant.
Plus, this time it sounds like the leader "flavors" could actually be truly unique to each civilization so I think you should focus on the promise that could bring instead of "it doesn't have a ridiculously high number of leader choices".
Plus, this time it sounds like the leader "flavors" could actually be truly unique to each civilization so I think you should focus on the promise that could bring instead of "it doesn't have a ridiculously high number of leader choices".
Nobody
Gangster
every new civ that comes out the drop some cool feature from the last one. When part 3 came out i was gutted, i couldnt plant a nuke, my senate wasnt being jerks, i couldnt split a big empire with winds of change, and Other civs werent making "London Pacts" to contain my agression. But part 3 had a ton of other cool features.
Part 4 made me so angry that i couldnt rop rape any more. I mean sure it was evil, but it had in game consequences, you got a bad rep. But they took the ability away was just gay. But part 4 gained vassal states and un resolutions which rocked.
Part 4 made me so angry that i couldnt rop rape any more. I mean sure it was evil, but it had in game consequences, you got a bad rep. But they took the ability away was just gay. But part 4 gained vassal states and un resolutions which rocked.
frekk
Scourge of St. Lawrence
Think you're contradicting yourself there ... if poor LH graphics go over well in mods, then why would modders need to create LHs to the same quality? Civ3 and 4 both feature animated leaderheads, but some of the most popular mods (eg FFH) feature static leaderheads, civ1 + 2-style.
And no, I don't need more than 18 leaders. That's pretty typical for first release, civ4 is an exception, every other iteration of the game only ever had 1 leader per civ.
deanej
Deity
It's going to be different with leaders being full screen. When the diplo screen is only a 384x512 window, 2d leaders look great. When its the full screen at 1680x1050, they aren't going to look so good.
Civ2 had two leaders per civ.
What?! Dude, religion brought more dynamic relations to civ. I belong to those who think that removing religion is a step backwards.
It may have had a male and a female leader per civ but each one was nothing but a name and a picture. All were functionally identical.
This is a non-issue anyway. Basic game mechanics are 10000x more important.
troytheface
Deity
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2002
- Messages
- 3,262
i see what the op is stating to a degree -and i am a minimalist- usually favoring the less is more approach in so far as the drama and narrative aspect of the game-
however- i'll chime in -
the wonders in Civ3 that produced a unit were a great idea- and added to the fun- not over powered- yet you could gather a unique little army of crusaders or - what were they? some horse attackers- gone
and the spy and espionage is going ? i agree- seems odd- liked that as well
on the other hand you probably have to let your creative guys be creative and while beholding to the scope and theme- be free to go in other directions
game never let me down once
just some people associated with it- that do not do anything anywho
however- i'll chime in -
the wonders in Civ3 that produced a unit were a great idea- and added to the fun- not over powered- yet you could gather a unique little army of crusaders or - what were they? some horse attackers- gone
and the spy and espionage is going ? i agree- seems odd- liked that as well
on the other hand you probably have to let your creative guys be creative and while beholding to the scope and theme- be free to go in other directions
game never let me down once
just some people associated with it- that do not do anything anywho
People will hack together leaderhead implementations that only require a static image, or even just an animated head. Heck, I'd expect people to hack together a tool that imports Civ4 leaderheads into Civ5!
---
Espionage, as implemented in Civ4, is utter crap. Heck, it was utter crap back in Alpha Centauri, and I think that was close to the best implementation they did. It wasn't in Civ4 at launch, and they pushed it back until a late expansion, and hopefully learned something from it.
Corporations, similarly, are rather poorly done in Civ4.
Religion, as a spreading game, was a neat sub-system, but it was quite divorced from the rest of the game.
I'm looking forward to an expansion pack that includes Religion for Civ5, but it not being in the base game is perfectly ok with me. (ie, imagine if they made culture as interesting as beakers, and a Major Religion became just one of many cool things you could do with "cultural research").
---
Espionage, as implemented in Civ4, is utter crap. Heck, it was utter crap back in Alpha Centauri, and I think that was close to the best implementation they did. It wasn't in Civ4 at launch, and they pushed it back until a late expansion, and hopefully learned something from it.
Corporations, similarly, are rather poorly done in Civ4.
Religion, as a spreading game, was a neat sub-system, but it was quite divorced from the rest of the game.
I'm looking forward to an expansion pack that includes Religion for Civ5, but it not being in the base game is perfectly ok with me. (ie, imagine if they made culture as interesting as beakers, and a Major Religion became just one of many cool things you could do with "cultural research").
Osama Bin Davis
Warlord
All I hope with this base game is that it is a well made engine, the ai is more intelligent, diplomacy is actually worthwhile and good, got a nice variety in the civs. Just something solid to add to. If you make a solid game you can add stuff to it with the expansions. I'd rather a great game that adds content on in time than a poorly made game with lots of content.
Rusty Edge
Deity
I think better diplomacy, more modabillity, hexes, and multi-core capabillity are steps forward.
Just because some things, such as religion will be changed, doesn't mean it will be less realism and worse gameplay. Most of the changes since Civ I have been improvements.
Keep hope alive.
Just because some things, such as religion will be changed, doesn't mean it will be less realism and worse gameplay. Most of the changes since Civ I have been improvements.
Keep hope alive.
frekk
Scourge of St. Lawrence
Dynamic isn't always a good thing. If you completely randomized all relations every round, it would be super-dynamic, but wouldn't make for a very good game at all.
The diplomatic problem with the religious mechanics (there were lots of other problems) was that it prevented the AI from making decisions about who their friends and enemies were in the same manner the human player could.
A human player doesn't care what religion another country is - so why should the AI? Unless a human is so far ahead he can afford to do whatever he likes, he makes his decision based on things like who's got stuff he wants to trade for, their relative level of power and threat, who their enemies are, and so on. For the AI, religion threw a monkeywrench into the diplomatic planning, effectively ensuring that the AI couldn't really plan out any sort of diplomatic strategy because they were stuck with whatever choices religion made for them. This was a burden the human didn't have, and made for an unnecessarily crippled AI.
One of the key goals stated for Civ V is to have an AI that makes sensible decisions about diplomacy - calculated decisions that work to the AI's benefit, in the manner that human players make their decisions.
In theory religion was a neat idea, but in practice - at least with the system that we have in civ4 - it doesn't really work. Religions being founded by a technology; Buddhist Vikings; bad diplomacy; very limited set of choices only reflecting modern religion; and so on. It had to either be vastly improved and reworked, or scrapped altogether. With all the other changes being introduced, they decided for the latter.
I suspect it will reappear in an expansion, when they have more time to focus on devising a workable system for religion. If they do, they'll probably be gathering ideas for it here, so if you want religion back the best thing to do is acknowledge the problems it had and come up with new systems that offer solutions.
As to the whole "step back" notion in general, each edition of civ adds some things, so there are only two words I have to say: feature creep.
trickofthehand
Prince
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2007
- Messages
- 310
@frekk
Do you have any knowledge of history and religion? Here's a spoiler: Peoples of the same religion have tended to stick together and shun peoples of opposite religions. This has held true until the rise of liberalism and the adoption of free religion by the majority of the world.
So while the civics need to be tweaked a bit and more Civs should be more prone to Free Religion, the game is pretty much simulating real-world religious tensions.
I've seen AI trade with other religions plenty enough. No outpouring of love and compassion for each other, but trade representative of real-world interactions between nations of opposing religions? Sure. At least when those nations were heavily influenced by the Civ equivalent civics of Organized Religion and Theocracy.
The only flaw with the current religious system is that Free Religion takes too long to discover and thus makes civs stuck with religious civics for too long in the game, thus influencing their diplomacy. Still, comparing ancient civilizations that embraced all religions versus those that were prejudiced against external religions; I'd say Civ is doing a damn fine job of simulating history since the vast majority of major civilizations in history have been quite prejudiced.
Do you have any knowledge of history and religion? Here's a spoiler: Peoples of the same religion have tended to stick together and shun peoples of opposite religions. This has held true until the rise of liberalism and the adoption of free religion by the majority of the world.
So while the civics need to be tweaked a bit and more Civs should be more prone to Free Religion, the game is pretty much simulating real-world religious tensions.
I've seen AI trade with other religions plenty enough. No outpouring of love and compassion for each other, but trade representative of real-world interactions between nations of opposing religions? Sure. At least when those nations were heavily influenced by the Civ equivalent civics of Organized Religion and Theocracy.
The only flaw with the current religious system is that Free Religion takes too long to discover and thus makes civs stuck with religious civics for too long in the game, thus influencing their diplomacy. Still, comparing ancient civilizations that embraced all religions versus those that were prejudiced against external religions; I'd say Civ is doing a damn fine job of simulating history since the vast majority of major civilizations in history have been quite prejudiced.
frekk
Scourge of St. Lawrence
I do actually, but let's keep in mind that civ is a game, not a simulator.
It ended with liberalism, did it? Where have you been for the last decade?
And ... really. Are you kidding me? You boast your knowledge of history and religion, yet seem totally unaware that intra-religious war is dozens of times more common than inter-religious war. There have been so many wars between Christian nations, or civil wars in Christian nations - and really only a handful between Christian nations and Muslim nations. This notion is rubbish.
Maybe not to you, but I'll take quality over quantity any day.
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
Actually I think, in many ways, CivV could represent a huge step forward for the franchise. Civilization Trees, more unique benefits for Civilizations & their leaders, more realistic terrain, finite resources, more tactical combat. I loved Espionage & Religion as they were in CivIV (in spite of their imperfections), but have hopes that, when these features make their return (& I believe they *will* make a welcome return) then they will be better than ever!
Aussie.
Aussie.
I agree 100%. All the things you mentioned look very promising.
I also anticipate the return of espionage and religion in the future. I am sure they'll be in an expansion pack.
Chalks
The blue pieces
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2010
- Messages
- 1,097
Exactly. Basically the entire history of Europe since Roman times is proof of how much people of the same religion like to fight each other no matter what.
