- Joined
- Mar 26, 2007
- Messages
- 7,920
True, but the points are still valid, even though G&K did address some issues
I'm curious. Did Gods & Kings actually nullify any Civ V rants or did it simply make them (slightly) more tolerable?
Sun Tzu Wu
True, but the points are still valid, even though G&K did address some issues
True, but the points are still valid, even though G&K did address some issues
I'm curious. Did Gods & Kings actually nullify any Civ V rants or did it simply make them (slightly) more tolerable?
Sun Tzu Wu
Question like this makes me wonder, have u played the game at all or you r just ranting? Because people obviously smarter than you say that civ5 is bad bad bad.
Moderator Action: *snip*
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Moderator Action: *snip*
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Jabberwockxeno, I see you actually play the game, I'm sorry you don't like the new units. I'd suggest playing a slower game speed if you are having trouble keeping up with upgrading units. I rather like the swordsman-longswordsman/musketmen-rifleman upgrades, it feels like I am advancing through time. And if you don't like the new G&K units, you can always uninstall G&K and play the vanilla game. I find G&K a vast improvement, enough so that it eclipses and eventually, with more balance and enhancements, obsolete Civ 4.
I really understand how you like civ 5 and i can see it from your nickname too. You really want to defend it. It's a very nice game but not as good as we (some civ fans) expect it to be. There are so many posts under this topic explaining what is wrong about the game. Even Jon Shafer admitted some of them. I play it almost everyday. Actually i try to play but diplo is broken and 1 upt thing makes it tedious when you have more than 6-7 units. I simply can not get that being a mighty leader feeling. I just get the feeling of being a squad leader. A civilization game must be something else.
Edit: by the way waiting for the next expansion with a little hope.
From an update from Jon Shafer's At the Gates, he discusses what went wrong in Civilization 5 and what he's learned from it. It's a pretty good article in my opinion.
He explains why global happiness was wrong, for instance.
Revisiting the Design of 'Civ 5'
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/jonshafer/jon-shafers-at-the-gates/posts
A lot of these things are dealt with in At the Gates. For example, there is unit stacking as well as more transparent diplomacy. Looks like it shaping up to be a pretty decent game.
I'm curious. Did Gods & Kings actually nullify any Civ V rants or did it simply make them (slightly) more tolerable?
Sun Tzu Wu
Moderator Action: *snip*
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
I find G&K a vast improvement, enough so that it eclipses and eventually, with more balance and enhancements, obsolete Civ 4.
The only way 5 will ever rival 4 as a game is by ditching 1UPT and returning the game to the series' roots, which were building an empire and using grand strategy (either peace or war) to ensure its survival over a long period of time. Atm 5 is just an inferior wargame, as it meshes 1UPT with a map and economy mechanics which are fundamentally anathaema to 1UPT rules and needs.
Ah yes, the Call of Duty School of Game Design. I'm sure that's what the genre needs, a new game every year only slightly different than the one released last year.
Or, better yet, the same game released every five years that bears a striking similarity with a game released five years ago.
Sometimes, it really does boil down to wanting Firaxis to just doing Civilization IV Redux instead of actually doing something new.
Doing something new is great, if it actually works and is fun to play.
However, 1UPT neither works at the scale of Civilizations throughout the Ages nor it is new. 1UPT is a rather poor adaptation of the same game mechnism in Panzer General II. It worked well in Panzer General II, because there were only two sides, the player was on the offensive side and the computer needed only to play defensively and moved units only occassionaly to do so. Futhermore, Panzer General II was a purely tactical game and the Civilization series is everything from Grand Strategy, Strategy, Logistics through Tactics in numerous game areas that allows one to win a game anywhere from being totally peaceful to all out war with victory conditions to match.
The Gods and Kings expansion fails in its new Religion and Espionage subsystems which _seems_ to be cobbled onto a design that never planned for these two game additions. The AI might finally now work the way it should have on its initial game release in Sep. 2010 (two years too late). The Civ V espionage subsystem in particular is extremely limited in what the user can do to directly affect a wide number of areas of the game, which Civ IV BtS excelled at.
Sun Tzu Wu
How can you criticize Gods and Kings, having said a day ago that you *haven't played it*?
"The AI might finally now work the way it should have on its initial game release in Sep. 2010 (two years too late)."
You basically just admitted that half your argument is wrong. Why keep criticizing the game if the AI is good now? Yes, it was broken at release, but that's not the game everyone's playing now.
"The Gods and Kings expansion fails in its new Religion and Espionage subsystems which _seems_ to be cobbled onto a design that never planned for these two game additions."
First of all, it doesn't seem cobbled in (to most people). Perhaps you should play it before making such a statement? And also, I might note that not all aspects of Civ IV fit perfectly, as many make it out to be; Corporations, among other things, come to mind.
And at this point, 1UPT works pretty well. It's not perfect, but yours and others' statements that there aren't any high-level players because they've all gone back to Civ IV just isn't true. Take, for example, MadDjinn, who happens to be one of the highest-level players out there. He recently said that Civ V + G&K is possibly good enough to switch from CIV (sorry, can't find the quote right now, but I'll post it if/when I find it).
I know this is the Rants Thread, and pardon me for barging in, but aren't rants supposed to be mostly based in reality? There are so many people on here that are criticizing Civ V Vanilla, which A) released more than 2 years ago (and WAS quite broken), and B) is an entirely different game than it is now.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that Civ V isn't Civ IV, despite Civ IV vets wanting it to be exactly that. Despite the fact that the new system *overall* works quite well now, most people in this thread DO want it to be Civ 4.5. The game took some bold steps forward, and for the most part, they've paid off. It took a while to get to the level it is now, but it pushed the Civ series forward that some Civ 4.5 wouldn't have done.
I'm not even arguing that Civ V is better than Civ IV; it just seems like most of the people in this thread think it's a worthless piece-of-crap game, which simply isn't true.
Mods, sorry for barging into the Rants Thread