For major conversion mods it allows the player to gather information about the mods components and options rather than going in blind. I agree that it wouldn't solve the major issue which is that it takes all its information from text entries now rather than from XML+ text entries.
Civiliopedia gone horribly wrong..
- Thread starter PanicX
- Start date
For major conversion mods it allows the player to gather information about the mods components and options rather than going in blind. I agree that it wouldn't solve the major issue which is that it takes all its information from text entries now rather than from XML+ text entries.
Suppose someone asks a question on the forum here and I want to check the civilopedia real quick (e.g. for the hammer cost of a building - something I wouldn't usually commit to memory). I just tried timing this for each game. Civ4, from clicking to launch the game to entering the pedia took 12 seconds. Civ5 took 75 seconds.
Also, starting a new game each time you do this is a nuisance because it can erase your autosaves of an existing game. And if you opt to load a save instead of launch a quick game, it will take just as long if not longer.
evrett37
Prince
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2008
- Messages
- 346
ya..they laid off a chunk of the worker bees. Their parent company did the same thing after completing Red Dead Redemption. Apparently if you arnt a dev your a whore to be discarded when the deed is done. Little premature in this case.
And this community turned the other cheek, looked away, and did nothing. This was like #3 in my top five reasons not to buy Civ 5. We are more to blame for the practices of the industry at this point then they are.
Shiggs713
Immortal
yea the civlopedia was probably one of my biggest disappointments. Really the whole game is an epic fail, but this in particular looked like a bunch of jr programmers did it. I guess I really did want civ 4.5... Civ4 did so many things so much better its unreal.
Another thing, which hasn't been mentioned: It's important for modding.
First thing after adding something new like a building, a unit, etc. is to check the civilopedia, if everything shows up correctly, before you really check it ingame.
Yes, this whole business has "bad/lazy programming practice" written all over it. Having not enough words can be solved with a simple copy & paste. However as mentioned here, civilopedia seems to be incapable of referring to a database. "Bonus vs. tank" is a glaring example that supports my belief that the code for it simply doesn't exist.
In that case as I've feared there won't be a fix anytime soon. Maybe an expansion will get things done.. I like the game and all, and I do believe it has great potential, but having such a long list of things that weren't 'cooked enough' is disappointing. I do get that it makes sense to have some loose ends for further expansion; no one is in the business for charity, but Civilopedia is a key feature, and has always been a key feature! It deserves some attention... A BIG
goes to whoever in Firaxis thought it was O.K. to release the game with crippled Civilopedia. Utter disappointment...
I agree that more things should be read directly from the database instead of using text descriptions. It would make the life of a modder easier
Especially, since they had a blueprint for this. AND it's already more than 2 months after release.
So even assuming that for some strange reasons they didn't have the time to finish the 'pedia, they should have done so since long.
Angular
Chieftain
I'll bet the reason the Civilopedia doesn't give specific information is that when the game is patched, the 'pedia doesn't have to be updated.
That's seems rather, er, lazy. Vague by design.
That's seems rather, er, lazy. Vague by design.
Angular
Chieftain
Sorry for my redundant post above. I posted a comment having read only to the end of the first page without noticing there were more comments.
However, I do recall that the notes to Civ IV patches included corrections to the Civilopedia. I don't know if other Civilopedia updates were automated.
However, I do recall that the notes to Civ IV patches included corrections to the Civilopedia. I don't know if other Civilopedia updates were automated.
I was going to mention this too, as I use it a lot in civ4. However isn't it the case that changes made to the database can now be reflected in the pedia on the fly? If so then restarting the game would no longer be necessary.
Darksaber1
Secret Emperor
One of the biggest issues I ran into was-Just how much better are Chinese Great Generals compared to Regular ones? The 'pedia has NOTHING on them.
I remember trying to find this out too. Frustrating, eh? In the end, the only way to find out was by looking at the combat odds when you had a unit with a GG nearby. Another thing missing in the documentation (as far as I can tell) is the information about the range of a GG. For ages I assumed it was just radius 1.
Similar threads
