1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Civilization 5 ......5 out of 5

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by Jughead, Sep 29, 2010.

  1. Eejit

    Eejit Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2002
    Messages:
    82
    Location:
    Northern Ireland
    Agreed. However the same could be said for previous Civ games on release, I'm just happy there's a very solid basis for improvement, particularly with the new combat system.


    Pity (Acti)Blizzard are the worst culprits for intrustive DRM (Starcraft 2) and trying to monetize EVERYTHING. I've really lost a lot of respect for them.
     
  2. mattosika

    mattosika Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2010
    Messages:
    16
    Not firaxis, 2k. Remember Blizzard was it's own publisher for most of the time and even now is pretty much just given whatever they ask for because, well it's Blizzard. Money, time, people; I doubt they have many worries outside of just making the game itself. Most other companies have to put up with publisher demands in addition to just making the game itself. I mean in the end if the game feels rushed it's not Firaxis and the civ team you should be mad at. 2k sets the release date.
     
  3. Guardian_PL

    Guardian_PL Emperor

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2006
    Messages:
    1,231
    That my friend is a severe understatement :D
     
  4. brades

    brades Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2007
    Messages:
    295
    Honestly, I'm not mad at anyone. My first impressions of civ 5 were very good, I love the new combat system and 1upt is a great addition. I'm just a little dissapointed with the removal of a lot of the depth that was there in BTS. Maybe it was just perceived depth and that all still exists in civ 5, but so far I haven't felt that way.
     
  5. mattosika

    mattosika Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2010
    Messages:
    16
    No I get what you're saying man. I even agree for the most part. Suppose I just figure most games that are released with the knowlege there will be expansions later on are usually a bit light on depth vs. games where an expansion isn't a certainty because they know they have time to flesh out ideas they couldn't fully get working before release when they know the expansion is coming. They tend to focus on making a solid base game to bring more depth too. I mean there are problems with Civ V but 60+% are bugs which can be squashed and aren't entirely unexpected. It could be a whole lot worse.
     
  6. vandyr

    vandyr Prince

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2007
    Messages:
    351
    Ya'know, I've played this game nightly since it was released, and I was on the same page with the AI needing work, however I'd seen the occasional post where someone at higher difficulties talked about facing a seemingly intelligent AI, so I moved up to King last night and played a game, and it was the best game yet. I also got my ass kicked by Nobunaga in a very decisive fashion, and I have to say I enjoyed every minute of it.

    There's no doubt the AI needs work, but it seems at higher difficulties its superior to the Civ 4 AI. I can't recall ever being beaten militarily in Civ 4. Never played deity though, for the record.
     
  7. KroninW

    KroninW Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2010
    Messages:
    14
    I've seen comments about the removal of depth from IV to V, but I really don't understand it. They removed tedious stuff, they simplified concepts, but I haven't felt any depth removed. The game still plays and feels like a civ game to me (I've played all of them for 100's of hours each, and probably 1000's in IV).

    Religion didn't provide depth. It provided a cheese way to make gold, and a way to game the AI in diplomacy. I like religion as a concept for the game, but IV's did not provide depth to gameplay, it provided a way to access buildings (temple, cathedral, etc) and culture / happiness. Both the culture and happiness religion building still exist in V, and can be used strategically to make gains on those areas. The only loss is the easy manipulation of the AI in diplomacy and the cheese gold making from spamming missionaries for your shrine, neither of which added depth to the game aside from a repetitive task that you did over and over. Discover religion, find way to pop great prophet, spam missionaires to every city, win due to gold domination.

    Espionage may have added an angle to the strategy portion of the game, but in practice all it meant is that you had to waste time building a spy for each city in your empire to counter-spy.

    Happiness is still there (and actually I think its a more interesting system than IV's happiness system). Having your whole empire be affected by the negatives of an unhappy society makes managing it far more intersting. In IV, an empire of 20 cities had a few unhappy cities, no big deal, you still had your others cranking out at max potential. And lets be honest, who ever had unhappiness issues in IV after the rennasaince period and with religion? I often had +10 happiness in all my cities.

    Excepting that the AI can't yet take advantage of the new combat system, it provides way more depth than a stack of doom wandering from city to city. Assuming they fix the AI, combat is far deeper in this game than IV.

    Managing your gold requires a bit of thought, balanced against the unhappiness. Building maintenance vs benefit exists on a level that IV didn't have. In IV, if you built every building in every city, aside from being a waste of resources, what did it really cost you? there was no depth to that. Sure there was a strategy for optimum use of those resources to make the buildings, but V balances cost vs benefit much more in depth than IV.

    Managing your tiles? Still can be done in V, and likely should be. If the animated tiles are considered depth..well then I can probably agree that those are a missing piece of depth (though I would say that is more UI issue than depth).

    Perhaps the great people farms are the depth you refer to? I think the new great people system is at least equal to 4, and the additional options of constructing buildings with them on the land add another layer. (Do I use the GA for a golden age or a landmark in my main culture city?) I dont think building as much food as possible and then putting specialists in place is any different in IV and V (though it seems there are more specialist options in V's buildings).

    The only piece of "depth" that I miss from IV so far is culture flipping as a strategy, but you can use great artists to accomplish that in V. I haven't had an occasion to try it yet. But the way more interesting modern era coupled with the more strategic combat makes that a non issue for me.

    The depth of the civics system vs social policies? Only thing I can come up with here is that there are no negatives to weigh, only which positives you want to use to help you win this particular game. I would like to see some negatives to go with the positives to add more strategy. But compared to the depth of civics? Switch back and forth through various civics depending on what you were working on at that point in the game. I suppose if you consider pressing F5, clicking the mouse once to pick the very obvious choices for what is best for war time or peace time and clicking once to confirm as depth, then yeah, I suppose that depth was removed. But I feel as though the social policies require far more thought on which ones to pick than the civics ever did. Oh I discovered bronze working, 100% of time yes i switch to slavery. Oh, I get to adopt a new policy. Lets see, i'm trying to win via cultural...so I should pick piety, but Rome is angry at me right now and likely will invade soon, maybe I should pick that 15% bonus while fighting adjacent to a military unit with this one instead, but damn, i'm losing influence with my city states...I should really open up patronage to slow that down. That feels far deeper as a system to me.

    I dont mean to put words into peoples mouths, but V definitely does not suffer from a lack of depth of gameplay compared to IV. It does suffer from a lack of AI intelligence that makes the game easier than IV comparing similar difficulty levels, but that doesn't make it less deep.


    I love civ IV. I played it more than any other game i've ever owned except for world of warcraft. But to say IV was a deeper game tells me that you haven't really explored the nuances to V's changes. (And again, I agree that the poor AI makes exploring that depth seem arbitrary, but the depth is there. I'm HOPING that the AI gets some tweaks to really make it use the system more intelligently to provide more challenge).
     
  8. phillydilly

    phillydilly Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2009
    Messages:
    13
    I didn't want to start a thread about this, but someone mentioned it, so this seems like a good place.

    I've been waiting for both Starcraft 2 and CIV 5 for a while. And the difference between the two is absolutely shocking.

    The quality and production of SC2 are so much better, it is unbelievable. The visuals in SC2 are so much better, the game has numerous high quality cut scenes where we don't even get anything for a win in Civ 5.
    Even the defenders of Civ 5 know some serious changes need to be made. If you look at SC2's first post release patch, the changes are adding 5 seconds to some build times, and tweaking damage of a few units. We are not talking about a total rewrite of the AI, massively imbalanced city states, or totally broken happiness system like we have in Civ 5.
    I personally think Civ 4 is vastly superior to Civ 5, but if some people don't for gameplay reasons, I understand that. But just looking at what should be two of the biggest games of the year and comparing them, there is no way it isn't painfully obvious SC2 is worlds beyond Civ 5 in quality and polish. Right now I'd say Civ 5 could use the year in Beta that SC2 got.
     
  9. the_lor

    the_lor Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2010
    Messages:
    43
    I enjoy it a lot when I’m playing it. It does need some patching, balancing etc but it’s a really solid base.

    I don’t find myself sitting and playing it for hours like I did with Civ 4, but that could have something to do with a significant portion of my home time now being spent chasing around a 1 year old picking up Cheerios.
     
  10. Lillefix

    Lillefix I'm serious. You can.

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2003
    Messages:
    5,688
    What about some perspective? In the time it took Blizzard to begin the SC2 development until it released the game, Firaxis developed and released Civ4, Civ4 Warlords, Civ4 Beyond the sword and Civ5.

    And I'm not impressed by SC2 btw. It's almost the same game as SC but with better graphics.
     
  11. jtwood

    jtwood Warlord

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2004
    Messages:
    128
    Before I say this, I just want to clearly state that my problems with the current state of the game have nothing to do with what they took out. That said...

    I love the tedious stuff in the Civ series. It's why I play. Taking it out does take away one of the aspects I enjoy about the game.
     
  12. brades

    brades Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2007
    Messages:
    295
    Exactly, there aren't many games out there for the tedius gamer, civilization and simcity 4, and seeing as how we will never see a true sequel to simcity 4 we are stuck with civilization for the tedious minded gamer. Now on to that behemoth of a post I need to reply to...
     
  13. KroninW

    KroninW Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2010
    Messages:
    14
    Yep, if the tedious stuff is what you enjoy about the game, I totally agree there is less of it. My point is that tedium != Depth. From a depth perspective, V is at least equal to IV. There is plenty of stuff to deal with each turn, each era, within each city, depending on victory condition, etc.

    Personally, I've found that finding a way to get my production up to the best possible amount in various cities while still growing them at a good clip is very fun to manage.
     
  14. Guardian_PL

    Guardian_PL Emperor

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2006
    Messages:
    1,231
    Dude, you have NO idea how I envy you of being Nobunaga raped... :sad:

    I'm not a "serious wargamer" from zomg's post, but I've finished my very first three games in Civ5 on King, Emperor and Immortal difficulty on Standard, Large and Standard without a shred of a challenge. Deity is the same, only more units to kill. They are like smoked bees, no clue as to what's going on whatsoever. They can wage war to a City-State for a hundred turns without the outcome, and if said CS is on an island they'll never manage to conquer it...

    It's just a huge, huge disappointment that I can't have fun with the game while waiting for patches. And don't even get me started on Barbarians, against them you can leave your city undefended, and workers have to simply move on the other side and O_o continue their tasks :rolleyes: Come on, 1920AD and we have... A Brute! Pikemen if you're lucky...
     
  15. Mallipeep

    Mallipeep Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2002
    Messages:
    150
    After having played this a while id give 8/10 for single player, 10/10 if they improve the AI and fix some UI things. ( Since it has become obvious that it really needs more polish )

    Otherwise i havent felt so addicted since my first games of civ1
     
  16. brades

    brades Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2007
    Messages:
    295
    Our history playing civs is quite similar, and I will attempt to explain my dissatisfication with the overall depth.

    A civilization game without religon feels wrong, maybe religon wasn't perfectly executed in civilzation 4, but it definately added an element of realism. Historically, wars are fought for two reasons: resources and religon. Relgon caused endless conflicts in civ 4, but knowing how to correctly manipulate them (read: depth) provided numerous gameplay options. An example, the last civ 4 game I played was with ghengis khan, my whole continent was hinduism but it never spread to me. I founded confucianism (not on purpose), but never changed to it, I stayed religon less until liberalism so as to not offend any of the hindus around me. To me this seems much closer to history than just saying "religon? well that was never important". I've played missionary spam games, but not in a long time, it's just really not that effective of a strategy, maybe in civ 5 it would've been too powerful because of how important gold is, but in civ 4 you could have a relgion spread world wide and still have a terrible beaker output, all the gold in the world wont help you recover. Religon should provide access to buildings, it makes no sense to build a temple to a god when your people don't belive in one. Look at catholicism specifically and how deep their pockets are, they have certainly made quite a bit of money from their 'shrine' (vatican).


    I for one really liked espionage in BTS. If you were lucky to get an early great spy than you could almost certianly steal a few early techs. Stealing technology is historically accurate and how the Russians were so quick to produce their own nuclear bomb. I never had spies planted in my cities as counter spies, but I almost always used them to support city revolts and steal technology. Some games your EP just stunk and there wasn't much you could do, but a spy strategy was certainly viable and added more depth to overall gameplay allowing you more options to win.

    I like the new happiness system, in my eyes its hardly any different, I never liked having any unhappy cities in civ 4, by late game I'd almost always have the cultural slider at 10% anyhow. Can't stand :mad: faces.

    I agree, the new combat system is great and is far more in depth than civ 4. Civ 4's combat was by far the most lacking thing. SoDs make no sense. Again, the new combat system is awesome. I love 1 upt, hexes, and ranged combat. Like you said, fixing the AI will make this great, fixing MP would make it possible to see how awesome the combat is right now.

    I did not build every building in every city, I built according to the land, had specialized cities, etc. But for the last two years I've only been playing on emperor (which I've beaten with every leader standard settings), and immportal when I wanted to get beat (I've beaten immortal 3 times). I've tried a handful of diety games, I've survived them, but never been competetive. I do not thing managing you gold in civ 5 is that tough, my first game I was low on gold because i thought the trading post improvement looked worthless, the 2nd game I focused on trading posts and not wasting my money on tiles and I am doing fine. +50 gold at around 1800, I have allies with 9 city states and will win a diplo victory when I find the remaining CS. I do like having increased maintenance costs for buildings, but right now those aren't the limiting reason why you can't build more buildings its because production is a tad low.

    I still do, I'm a micromanager at heart, I make sure all my cities are using the correct tiles and have the correct specialists. The problem is now that there isn't a big difference between the auto picked and me as governor becuase the tiles yields are all so close and the specialists tend to be worse than working an actual tile itself. 3 gold from a river trading post, or 1 gold from a merchant? With the tile yields all being so close I feel that if I didn't micromanage it really wouldn't hurt me. In the past the difference between a good and great civ4 player was their ability to squeeze out extra things through microing.

    The great people are OK, I prefered settling my great people, the new build a building specialist is the equivalent of settling your specialists except now I have to use that grassland for an academy instead of a farm. A settled scientist was 6 science, now the building is worth 5, a settled engineer was worth 3 hammers, now the building is worht 3, a merchant was 1 food 6 gold, now it's some gold, an artist was 12 culture, now its a 4 culture monument. Essentially the great people are the same as they were in civ 4, the small changes aren't gamebreaking one way or the other.

    This is one part that I always thought was stupid about civ 4, culture flipping cities really has no historical precedence and is just silly. I like the new way borders pop.

    I have no problem with the social policies persay, but I liked the dynamic feeling of the civics instead of the static policies. Changing your civics throughout the game was a great, and spiritual was my favorite trait, so I assume you can see why I don't particularily swoon over the new policies versus old civics. I like that there are more variety, but variety could've been added to the old policy system.

    The only place where civ 5 is deeper is the combat system. Everything else has been 'streamlined'.
     
  17. Lillefix

    Lillefix I'm serious. You can.

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2003
    Messages:
    5,688
    What about city states? Can't you say that the gameplay has become deeper, because you are able to manipulate them. You can invest in them, and they can wage wars or give you resources and so on.
     
  18. brades

    brades Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2007
    Messages:
    295
    So far I have enjoyed the city states, but they hardly add an element of depth. In my current game of civ5 I am currently allied with 9 of the city states. I just gift them 250g every time they are about to drop below allied. I went up the patronage tree so I was specifically trying to play with the city states in my game. When I meet the remaining three I will have enough votes to win a diplomatic victory even though I have 4 cities, a pitiful army, but a strong gold economy. I'm still playing with the default number of CS on a standard map, I belive reducing them to 4 on a standard map will probably make them more important.

    Basically, gift them gold, they are your friends and provide you with food, culture, or units (and usually terrible units, thanks for the scout in 1850ad :)) For a small price you have more cities that you don't control.
     
  19. Guardian_PL

    Guardian_PL Emperor

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2006
    Messages:
    1,231
    :lol:

    "Give us what we need, so we'll give you xxx of you-know-what, if you don't want to, just 250/500/1000 of gold will do, we'll be back for more". That's deep man, very deep.
     
  20. ChaplainDMK

    ChaplainDMK Warlord

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2010
    Messages:
    103
    Cathrine: "hey stop messing with my city state" *declares war*
     

Share This Page