Civ V a step backward?

[The Almighty dF]

Maybe not to you, but what is fun is how the Civ's have developed. In Civ4 we had a UU, UB and two leader traits. Using those within the game was fun.

To me, the Civs aren't "Spain", "England", "Russia", etc. They're "this UU, UB, traits", "that UU, UB, traits", etc. Once you select a Civ you don't even see or interact with the leaderhead anyways. The fun is how the operate within the game. The name and flag are not important. I could as easily play Civ1, Civ2, ...., Civ18 as I do Spain, England, Russia.

With mods, it matters more. Most Civ4 mods have taken the extra step of doing unit and city artstyles (Firaxis seems to have... -somewhat- taken a better stab at the latter with Civ5, though not much of one. Judging by the units we've seen, Firaxis has yet to adopt the former.)

 

[Dale]

With mods, it matters more. Most Civ4 mods have taken the extra step of doing unit and city artstyles (Firaxis seems to have... -somewhat- taken a better stab at the latter with Civ5, though not much of one. Judging by the units we've seen, Firaxis has yet to adopt the former.)

Well, not entirely. The Civ is still made to function a certain way in-game. The art is just a visual cue. There is only limited fun in an artstyle. You see it once, get a little thrill and that's it. But how the settings of the Civ impact the game is where the fun is.

 

[ThunderGod]

Maybe not to you, but what is fun is how the Civ's have developed. In Civ4 we had a UU, UB and two leader traits. Using those within the game was fun.

To me, the Civs aren't "Spain", "England", "Russia", etc. They're "this UU, UB, traits", "that UU, UB, traits", etc. Once you select a Civ you don't even see or interact with the leaderhead anyways. The fun is how the operate within the game. The name and flag are not important. I could as easily play Civ1, Civ2, ...., Civ18 as I do Spain, England, Russia.

BUT seeing the same civs everytime is getting boring...fast...do something different...rename the civs to what they were etc...we know they'll be selling addons afterwards that add more civs and extra content...only difference is the combat system and other new features or twists to old features..lets see new Civs used rather than the same old tired ones

 

[seasnake]

BUT seeing the same civs everytime is getting boring...fast...do something different...rename the civs to what they were etc...we know they'll be selling addons afterwards that add more civs and extra content...only difference is the combat system and other new features or twists to old features..lets see new Civs used rather than the same old tired ones

Actually, the only changes we know about are the few that have been circulated, the idea of fully animated leaders, hex grid, 1upt, unit resource caps, etc. We have no idea what other changes to gameplay are in store. We have no clue about the role of religion, civics, culture, etc. fully. That's why I keep checking, vainly hoping for new previews with new information.

If you don't like the names of the civs, that's a really easy fix. You can change the name of your civ and with almost no modding experience and notepad you can edit the civ names. The first thing I ever did was make the Vikings the Scandinavian Empire.

 

[ThunderGod]

Actually, the only changes we know about are the few that have been circulated, the idea of fully animated leaders, hex grid, 1upt, unit resource caps, etc. We have no idea what other changes to gameplay are in store. We have no clue about the role of religion, civics, culture, etc. fully. That's why I keep checking, vainly hoping for new previews with new information.

If you don't like the names of the civs, that's a really easy fix. You can change the name of your civ and with almost no modding experience and notepad you can edit the civ names. The first thing I ever did was make the Vikings the Scandinavian Empire.

its not the same...the visuals of a game are important, as are everything else to do with it..so we'll have to wait and see if they redo the same basic game over again, or actually change things up to make it interesting

 

[Dale]

its not the same...the visuals of a game are important, as are everything else to do with it..so we'll have to wait and see if they redo the same basic game over again, or actually change things up to make it interesting

The bottom line is, if you don't like the looks of it, don't buy it.

Some will upgrade to Civ5, some will stay with Civ4, and some new people will come in. Isn't freewill fantastic?

 

[ThunderGod]

The bottom line is, if you don't like the looks of it, don't buy it.

Some will upgrade to Civ5, some will stay with Civ4, and some new people will come in. Isn't freewill fantastic?

yep...but also the ability to question decisions..which is probably why Fraxis lets peep these little updates...to get a feel how long term and new players feel about the so far released bits and peices

 

[Depravo]

its not the same...the visuals of a game are important, as are everything else to do with it..so we'll have to wait and see if they redo the same basic game over again, or actually change things up to make it interesting

So what exactly would you do differently?

Have you tried Rhye's and Fall of Civ? It addresses some of your problems.

 

[ThunderGod]

So what exactly would you do differently?

Have you tried Rhye's and Fall of Civ? It addresses some of your problems.

currently I am trying the different mods and discovering the joys of that, as how I would do the new game....

religion: ancient times and to help spread civ's favorite religion, would only trade with civs with the same religionn (its how christianity spread so far and so fast). It became less important as time went on.

espionage: useful, as larger civs were able to use them to do tech stealing, weaken cities to allow easier attacks

combat: doing too much here would make it a clone of Total War...not so good

Civs: I'd use the original names for the civs, lets make the game educational as well...

can't of much more at the moment, it may come to me after a few more hours of playing the civ4 gold mod I am playing currently

 

[Lord_Aeiducan]

I personally just hope ciV is just different from civIV, im bored of the old civIV formula and want a new game, i realy dont care if they scrap religion or add ths take way that, just make a new experiance and something thats yes familiar but also different.

 

[molesworth]

The 2 main things I would like to see in CIV 5 are:

1/ Sensible Artificial Intelligence, i.e. ensure the AI does not make stupid decisions like;
- City placement (ignoring nearby resources etc).
- Launching amphibious invasions repeatedly with just a couple of units and expecting to win.
- Knows how to use armies/great leaders if applicable.
- Has at least a basic grasp of tactics/strategy

2/ Complete modability of the game.

Without these two things I suspect it will be a disappointment.

 

[nokmirt]

Don't know if it'll be a step backwards (like Civ3 was compared to Civ2) but it'll be different. My only concerns are 1) the game will be "simplified" to appeal to a wide audience (and more dependent on mods to add complexity); and 2) all this talk about diplomacy, alliances, collaboration, etc. with the AI scares me since that's putting a lot of faith into something that has been unacheivable in most games.

As far as creating mods to increase complexity, is it going to be easier and more user friendly to build mods and scenarios. I think of all things this should be the most important. Modding should be simplified. I should be able to spend my imagination on bringing a new world to life, rather than asking the question. How am I ever going to be able to make that work. For instance I want to created a WWI mod and add all my events in two months instead of two years. If the game has been simplified perhaps modding will be as well. This is what I hope for.

 

[lietkynes]

Espionage in Civ4 was implented poorly, I'm glad they get rid of it in Civ5.
Religion I'm not sure, they did a good job with it in Civ4 but I won't be mad if they remove it.

 

[oldbear38]

The changes in the game smell like an attempt to produce a revenue producer for the developers and not a new or improved game. They've been infected by Paradox. I'll wait until the game is out for a bit.

 

[Ahriman]

The changes in the game smell like an attempt to produce a revenue producer for the developers and not a new or improved game. They've been infected by Paradox. I'll wait until the game is out for a bit.

Umm, yeah, cos those complex detailed games by Paradox (Victoria, Europa Universalis, etc.) have such a HUGE audience, particularly when compared to tiny unpopular games like Civilization.

I see no indications that the designers are going for the level of complexity contained in most games put out by Paradox.

 

[Depravo]

The changes in the game smell like an attempt to produce a revenue producer for the developers and not a new or improved game. They've been infected by Paradox. I'll wait until the game is out for a bit.

To me it suggests the exact opposite. If they wanted to get a return from minimum effort they would have used Civ 4 as a baseline. I'm struggling to see Paradox's influence here.

 

[Lloyd_Ortega]

Though I think that removing religions is a huge mistake (especially when you consider the introduction of some more minor civ-concepts, like city-states), I welcome the end of this spying madness. But these talks about hex tiles/single unit per tiles/religion aren't so relevant compared to the core problems of previous Civ titles.

There's only two things I'll be watching with this new Civ :

- GUI improvements
- IA improvements

Because I don't want spending no more 500 clicks per turn when I'm at war, seriously. Civilization is a great game, but from the point of view of the interface... It's like they're 10 years behind modern games while they should be 10 years ahead, given the complexity of the game. It seems Civ V is going to be a little step forward, compared to Civ IV, but that's still far from the huge leap that the game need.

 

[Le Sage]

Actually, the thought of Civ5 intrigues me more and more. I am actually tired now of the stacking and city-centred wars and am longing to see what they've done to make battles and wars actually be fought in the fields instead of below city walls. In my opinion, that is a step in the right direction right there, while I really hate the decision to cut out religions. I love hexagons, but hate the diplomacy screens.

There will be things I'll miss and there will be things I'll be happy to have changed in the fiver. It will be the next Civ, and I cannot compare it to its predecessors since I'll still have them right here and play them too. Civ5 will not be Civilization, but rather a part of the grander Civilization experience. Therefore, I can no longer afford to be worried.

Civilization is to computer games what Chess is to boardgames. If they fail miserably for some reason with this one, history will look down upon them and be a cruel judge, for this game series will live on for a thousand years. And I think they know that.

 

[conception]

Civilization is to computer games what Chess is to boardgames. If they fail miserably for some reason with this one, history will look down upon them and be a cruel judge, for this game series will live on for a thousand years. And I think they know that.

I'm not sure if that is true. Seemingly ever since the birth of the PC, the Sim City series was perhaps the most well-known series out there. While I wouldn't consider Sim City 4 a step backward in that its failure was that it made the game much more difficult and complicated than previous versions, the game lost the fun factor and the series is essentially defunct.

Civ is by its nature a much more developed game than SC, and it is certainly at its peak while Sim City probably peaked long ago, but I still think that a bad version can do a lot to damage a franchise's future prospects.

 

[Le Sage]

Yeah. I played Sim City to death on the old Amiga back in early nineties, and enjoyed it a lot. I then bought an updated version of the classic for the PC, called Sim City 3000, I think, and absolutely hated it. And there ended my interest in Sim City overall.

The same thing won't go down with Civilization. If I hate Civ 5 for some reason, I will only revert back to 4 and continue playing and modding this one instead, and just wait for number 6. But that is just the kind of Civ player I am today. I've personally invested too much time and effort, playing and modding, to ever give up on the series.

That's not true for most players though. Therefore Civ 5 needs to be eye-bleeding, mind-blowing good, for if it fails, it might just be like you said, that the public will see it as a sure sign of the end of the peak of the franchise. A fail like that will sure have history looking down upon those who created it and judge them. It's not like there's any pressure or anything.

I personally actually think this game series is historical and that its greatest days are yet to come.