Civ4BTS to Civ BE

[Voltage]

Still playing this game quite intensively! Its really good, my only small nitpick would be 2 trades per city is a lot of screen movement, 1 beefy trade would be better. Also maybe different species of aliens. But thats me just being picky.

This game is great. People are way over critical and I think its a huge step up since I've been playing CIV4 BTS with the best mods.

 

[Kutuzov]

Still playing this game quite intensively! Its really good, my only small nitpick would be 2 trades per city is a lot of screen movement, 1 beefy trade would be better. Also maybe different species of aliens. But thats me just being picky.

This game is great. People are way over critical and I think its a huge step up since I've been playing CIV4 BTS with the best mods.

Hear Hear

There's been a lot of hysterical over-reaction to this game, probably for two major reasons. The first is that the Civ community got split quite badly with Civ V and its 1UPT and Civ BE is built off that same engine. Those who dislike 1UPT and won't buy Civ V will be unhappy that Firaxis appear to be continuing in this direction.

The second is that there are a large number of folks who really wanted Civ BE to be SMAC 2 even though they were warned that it was not and they are extremely vocal in their disappointment.

It's a bit like fans of the Star Wars series giving 'The Attack of the Clones' a rating of 1 out of 10, as in it was 'the worst movie ever made'. It's nowhere near as bad a movie as that. (I liked it and thought it deserved about a 7 or 8) Fans of a series often hysterically over-react to events in the series that disappoint them to the point where it's LOL funny. You see this here where folks want to rate Civ BE as a 1 out of 10 game. (Someone actually wants to give it a 0 )

This game is to the Civ franchise as 'Attack of the Clones' was to the Star Wars franchise. It's nothing more than Fear about the future of the series and their inability to follow. They pour scorn on the 'new' folks who do like it because 'Daddy has a new favourite. Smother the new baby so that Mummy and Daddy go back to loving ME.'

 

[Lexicus]

It's a bit like fans of the Star Wars series giving 'The Attack of the Clones' a rating of 1 out of 10, as in it was 'the worst movie ever made'. It's nowhere near as bad a movie as that. (I liked it and thought it deserved about a 7 or 8) Fans of a series often hysterically over-react to events in the series that disappoint them to the point where it's LOL funny. You see this here where folks want to rate Civ BE as a 1 out of 10 game. (Someone actually wants to give it a 0 )

Oh, come on, the love scenes with Padme and Anakin have to rank among the worst stuff ever filmed
I agree it doesn't deserve a 1/10, I'd give it, say, a 5/10 overall.

This game is to the Civ franchise as 'Attack of the Clones' was to the Star Wars franchise. It's nothing more than Fear about the future of the series and their inability to follow. They pour scorn on the 'new' folks who do like it because 'Daddy has a new favourite. Smother the new baby so that Mummy and Daddy go back to loving ME.'

I think this is quite unfair. People maybe just want a game they enjoy playing--can't blame them for that. Personally, I don't hate 1upt but I don't think it fits very well with the spirit of the Civ series. You disagree, obviously, but that is a legitimate difference of opinion and your words belittle those who disagree with you unnecessarily.

I think it's odd that some people apparently have such a problem with people venting off their frustration with the game. I often get the impression that some posters seem offended at the very idea that people might not like something handed to them by the developers, as though the games are gifts from a Benevolent God rather than part of a process that ideally ought to involve input from us, the consumers, the reasons the games exist in the first place.

Of course, it's probably true that some people overblow the significance of the game. But can you blame them? I have played Civ a lot over the years, and it was very significant to me when I was younger.

 

[Alkaid]

I think it's odd that some people apparently have such a problem with people venting off their frustration with the game. I often get the impression that some posters seem offended at the very idea that people might not like something handed to them by the developers, as though the games are gifts from a Benevolent God rather than part of a process that ideally ought to involve input from us, the consumers, the reasons the games exist in the first place.

I think that sort of behavior can be said for either side when discussing BE, but honestly on these forums I think it's more odd to call out the actions of those defending the game. That is, considering how much more vicious and common some of the posts talking negatively about BE are. With how intense the distaste for the game has been voiced by a number of posters, I can't really see any surprise that some that do like the game find the way in which the dislike is conveyed to be especially harsh.

With the climate among most of the community almost making this seem dangerous to state, I have to say I'm apparently one of the few who's really been enjoying BE. Despite it's flaws and obvious areas for improvement, I've been glued to the game more than anything else since its release. And while I've had Civ V for a long while and enjoyed that game a lot, and still do, since BE I've been unable to sit through a full Civ V game without getting bored. And it's not just because BE has the "new" factor going for it.

While I respect anybody who dislikes the game, and in most cases understand why, it's certainly true that there's a real vocal majority that's rather thoroughly denouncing the game. In short, I guess the point is I wouldn't call it fair to single out the reactions of those upset at the level of hate for the game, considering just how intense a lot of it has been.

On a side note, I really liked Star Wars episodes 1-3, despite Jar-Jar and the love scenes.

 

[Lexicus]

I think that sort of behavior can be said for either side when discussing BE, but honestly on these forums I think it's more odd to call out the actions of those defending the game. That is, considering how much more vicious and common some of the posts talking negatively about BE are. With how intense the distaste for the game has been voiced by a number of posters, I can't really see any surprise that some that do like the game find the way in which the dislike is conveyed to be especially harsh.

One the whole, I agree. Which is why I felt like it would work better to call out a poster who, on the whole, does a good job of presenting his case even though I don't agree with all of what he says.

Like I said, I haven't gotten the game myself. I might if folks like Ryika, AriochIV, and Acken are saying the problems they've raised with the game are solved.

Honestly, I will probably pick it up after the price drops. I just don't want to pay $50 for it, not enough content for that in my mind.

 

[Kutuzov]

I think this is quite unfair. People maybe just want a game they enjoy playing--can't blame them for that. Personally, I don't hate 1upt but I don't think it fits very well with the spirit of the Civ series. You disagree, obviously, but that is a legitimate difference of opinion and your words belittle those who disagree with you unnecessarily.

I think it's odd that some people apparently have such a problem with people venting off their frustration with the game. I often get the impression that some posters seem offended at the very idea that people might not like something handed to them by the developers, as though the games are gifts from a Benevolent God rather than part of a process that ideally ought to involve input from us, the consumers, the reasons the games exist in the first place.

Of course, it's probably true that some people overblow the significance of the game. But can you blame them? I have played Civ a lot over the years, and it was very significant to me when I was younger.

It would certainly be unfair if I was talking about anyone who complains about anything in their game but it was clear from my post that I wasn't talking about these people. 'They' is clear in its meaning but I know from my own experience that I can sometimes be mistaken as to what the OP meant after a quick read of their post by assuming that 'they', or 'you', was referring to me, or to people who share my opinions. Of course, if you want to tell us that you are part of that group, well, this is your choice.

And, for your information, I do not think that 1UPT fits very well with the Civ games at all. I think it is superior to Civ 3/4's stacks of doom though but I'm hoping we'll get something better in the future. But please, NOT a return to boring old stacks of doom.

 

[Acken]

One the whole, I agree. Which is why I felt like it would work better to call out a poster who, on the whole, does a good job of presenting his case even though I don't agree with all of what he says.

Like I said, I haven't gotten the game myself. I might if folks like Ryika, AriochIV, and Acken are saying the problems they've raised with the game are solved.

Honestly, I will probably pick it up after the price drops. I just don't want to pay $50 for it, not enough content for that in my mind.

The game would need a pretty deep rework for my own problems to get solved though. Only an expansion could achieve that and that's assuming the expansion wants to tackle that kind of problem seriously to begin with. A willingness I so far have not witness at all from either the initial release nor the first patch.

 

[Lexicus]

It would certainly be unfair if I was talking about anyone who complains about anything in their game but it was clear from my post that I wasn't talking about these people.

If you say so. I get a somewhat different impression from many of your posts on the subject, though.

Even if we restrict what you said to the most obnoxious posters, though, I sympathize with them more than you seem to. I don't think it's at all unwarranted to wonder about the direction the Civ series is going after BE.

Ah well, even if the next game is completely horrible they'll never be able to take away all my memories of Civ III and IV from when I was younger.

And BTW, I think that is a large part of it: the older games came out when we were younger. I know in my case I didn't care how well a game was designed. There's a general consensus that Civ III isn't that great, and I can see why people think that way, but I had more fun with III than with any other game in the series because I got it when I was 12.

This also helps to explain the sense of betrayal people felt at the prequels. You're twenty years older when the prequels come out, of course they're not going to seem as good.

And, for your information, I do not think that 1UPT fits very well with the Civ games at all. I think it is superior to Civ 3/4's stacks of doom though but I'm hoping we'll get something better in the future. But please, NOT a return to boring old stacks of doom.

Well, there's something to that, if they can build an AI that actually understands 1upt.

Right now I would prefer a return to SoD because as things are the AI cannot beat me unless they outnumber me 10 to 1 and have a tech advantage of an era (literally never seen an AI more than an era ahead of me but I'm a mediocre Emperor player).

SoD I think fits in far better with the overall spirit of the series. I have had some of my most harrowing moments in Civ history fighting massive AI stacks in Civ IV that attacked before I had much of an army.

I mean, Civ is about empire-building at the level of grand strategy. It isn't a wargame. SoD is a better abstraction of combat for the level of gameplay that Civ is (in my mind, anyway) supposed to deliver.

 

[Kutuzov]

If you say so. I get a somewhat different impression from many of your posts on the subject, though.

Even if we restrict what you said to the most obnoxious posters, though, I sympathize with them more than you seem to. I don't think it's at all unwarranted to wonder about the direction the Civ series is going after BE.

I hope you read my previous posts far more carefully than you read the one that offended you

For the record, obnoxious =/= posters who don't like the game and voice their complaints in a reasonably offended tone. If you wish to express your concerns about the direction Firaxis is taking, it is quite possible to do so in very reasonable terms if you're willing to make the effort to do so, like you, for example. In fact, your opinions will get more attention and respect if you do so. Posting as a foul-mouthed, offensive yob will not get my respect, (not that anyone should or does care about that). But they will with you, apparently.

I think everyone has to take responsibility for the manner in which they express themselves when posting on these boards regardless of their feelings.

 

[Lexicus]

Posting as a foul-mouthed, offensive yob will not get my respect, (not that anyone should or does care about that). But they will with you, apparently.

Meh. Foul language and offensiveness don't particularly bother me, though of course I see the need for forum moderation and I try not to be offensive (except on purpose).

Sympathy is different from respect. I no more respect the mindless complainers than the mindless enjoyers.

I am hoping Starships will be a better value for me. Whether I will get it will depend on the price and I have no idea what to expect.

 

[Lexicus]

The game would need a pretty deep rework for my own problems to get solved though. Only an expansion could achieve that and that's assuming the expansion wants to tackle that kind of problem seriously to begin with. A willingness I so far have not witness at all from either the initial release nor the first patch.

Well, give it time. You may be right, you may not. Either way, my world won't end. I didn't buy the game, so have nothing invested.

Of course, an expansion pack would probably qualify as a condition under which I would buy the game.

I do think the tendency to "finish" the game with expansions and DLC is somewhat troubling.

I mean, even with the expansions in V, you're playing without so many civilizations if you don't have the DLC. Fortunately I was able to pick most of it up on sale, but still...

Expansions ought to add something to the core game, not finish the core game.

 

[Kutuzov]

Meh. Foul language and offensiveness don't particularly bother me, though of course I see the need for forum moderation and I try not to be offensive (except on purpose).

Sympathy is different from respect. I no more respect the mindless complainers than the mindless enjoyers.

I am hoping Starships will be a better value for me. Whether I will get it will depend on the price and I have no idea what to expect.

Foul language is not always offensive. I really enjoyed HBO's 'The Sopranos', for example although I'd never have watched it with my mother. Plenty of foul language there as you'd expect from such low-brow thugs. It's generally considered unacceptable behavior in almost every culture to use foul language in a public place.

Sympathy is not as valuable to have as respect. Besides, I edited my response before posting so 'sympathy' was in there.

As for 'mindless x', I wouldn't go so far as to call anyone posting here 'mindless' either. Just people who are more clever at concealing their insults in their posts than are others.

 

[Gort]

Peak player stats on Steam today:

Civ 5: 38,619
Civ BE: 4,334

 

[Gorbles]

And?

Go back X years and compare vanilla CiV against a fully-expansioned Civ IV. Honestly, what's your point?

 

[Gort]

That BE is being played a lot less than its predecessor. Sorry that upsets you.

 

[Gorbles]

My point was that, in the past, it is likely that CiV was played less than Civ IV. And so on, and so forth.

Apart from SMAC. Everyone played that. SMAC is awesome.

 

[Gort]

My point was that, in the past, it is likely that CiV was played less than Civ IV.

Back this up with numbers please.

 

[Gorbles]

You can't. But sure, hide behind a technicality. Unless you're somehow excusing CiV's state on launch, which would be funny.

None of this is relevant. Posting player numbers does nothing to keep the thread going. This isn't even the "game is too superficial" thread, or a Starships thread where discussing the popularity of the BE lore setting would make sense.

This is just "let's drag every thread possible down with the same negative posts", and it's dumb.

 

[Gort]

OK, so you can't back your points up with any kind of evidence.

I saw a discussion going on about the reception this game has received, and felt that a comparison of player numbers between it and its predecessor would be useful. If you felt it didn't add anything to that discussion, you were free to ignore it. Nobody forced you to post about it.

 

[leif erikson]

Moderator Action: Please post on the topic of the thread and cease all the personal attacks. This is getting tiresome.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889