Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by ori, Dec 3, 2010.
Civ 3 > all other Civ's
What I don't get is why the developers would complain that there wasn't any choice (only one correct build) and then proceed to change it so that the player still has no choice at all.
Change the system so that stats actually become meaningful. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
As far as the game not being dark, gritty or gothic enough, meh. Angst ridden little Gothlings will be upset but no big loss. I think the game looks fine. However, as we all know from Civilization 5, graphics do not make the game.
At least with Diablo 3, there is still hope.
Quantitative stats are a poor venue for choice. I would have made a different decision altogether. I would have pared it down to items and qualitative talents and *entirely* removed the quantitative attributes. I think this approach would suit Diablo very well. It would technically have one less element, but I think there is something to be said for aggressively paring a game down to its lean, muscular core.
Well, props for seeing the light Besides, said "Gothlings" are mistaken anyhow. Diablo and Diablo 2 were certainly not purely monotone dark games.
Civilization 5 has a mixed bag graphically anyhow. I think the city graphics and unit graphics are annoying, although I do like the(non-river) terrain graphics.
Hope? I have a lot more than hope. I expect it to be the best Diablo ever based on what I've heard.
Moderator Action: Please back to the actual topic, the Civ5 rants.
Ranting about other games can be done in the other games section on CFC.
Sounds like Civilization 5 is veering towards a classic game I fondly remember. Perhaps there is hope for this debacle yet.
Well, though I find extra classy to place a picture of a tubby goth to take a stab at fans of the old Diablo (glandular issues just gives me the giggles), I feel Diablo 3 is an example of basically introducing a new game by using an established IP. This is somewhat of a risky move, specially considering that it doesn't go as well when the last installment on the franchise was a resounding success.
No one said a word when Batman and Robin became Batman Begins, but that's because B&R is an awful movie. It would had been weird to do so with any other Batman movie before the 4th installment, as those movies had been a quite successful (sort of like rebooting the franchise after The Dark Knight).
Reboots or reworking an IP have to be made sensibly and only if the previous installment was a dud. This is perhaps one of the least likable qualities of Civ V: that it ignored a lot of the popular features from Civ IV, reworking many of it's dynamics. John Shafer even discusses this explaining that he did not wanted to make Civ 4.5 (why?, Civ IV was awesome!).
Again, this wouldn't really be a bad thing in itself if the game had a different name, but it's basically a case of a different game under the same IP. This sort of thing doesn't sit well with fans at all. But companies have been doing this sort of thing as of late (results have been... mixed at best)
-Command and Conquer 4: retooled to remove all traces of it's previous C&C game dynamics and added a bunch from Call Of Duty.
-Doom3: loosely connected to it's old IP, it resembled more to a Half-Life clone with it's heavily scripted events (and the strange dynamic of having to hold a flash light to explore the station).
-Rise of Nations: Rise of Legends: great game, dumb move to attempt to promote it with another game that had little to nothing in common.
-Duke Nukem Forever: Duke can only hold 2 weapons and only regenerates his health bar because of Halo.
Attaching the name of a designer to another completely different game seems to be the exception to the rule: "Sid Meiers..." works because the line of games that are produced under the Sid tag are similar. Sid Meiers GTA 5 would probably not sell as well.
Moderator Action: Back to topic please.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Maxi sumo, maxi, jeez maxi.....I thought I was getting fat at 40
EDIT : Warned myself for a drunken matter of fact,,,
Well, I was being a jerk I guess. I'm sorry about that, it just seemed like the perfect way to project my mental image of the "Darky" camp. I apologize if I genuinely offended you.
I disagree. Diablo 3, from what I've seen, is fairly faithful to Diablo. Stat pumping was inconsequential for the most part, and the art style is merely a nod to Blizzard's "unified look" since Warcraft 3.
Actually, I saw quite a bit of wailing and gnashing of teeth, but that doesn't mean it was widespread.
For what it's worth, Civ4.5 would have been worlds better than what we actually got. I still think, though, that I prefer to have something new even if it is a risky move.
Blizzard has, perhaps, the best excuse for doing this. They are practically prisoners of their fans, doomed to make the same 3 games until the sun burns out. I can hardly blame them if they are indeed doing what you say. On the other hand, I don't think this is what they are doing with Diablo 3.
Sounds weird, never tried it though.
Yeah, Doom 3 wasn't so great. I'm sick of scripted shooters anyhow.
I thought I was the only one that liked Rise of Legends
I could forgive both of those things if the game was fun, but it isn't. DNF sucks for many reasons and zeroing in on these is missing the point.
I dunno, I'd probably buy it if it was fun. I am, however, bitterly sacrilegious when it comes to fandom(and proud of it.) I despise fandom and view it as an attempt to hijack the creative impulses of designers, so you can freely discount my opinion on those grounds if you like.
Moderator Action: I said back to topic just a few posts above.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
FTW: "Civ4.5" = Rise of Mankind + A New Dawn
I was really excited about the new graphics and hex/1 unit system and then I saw the AI.. this is such a waste, my only hope now is roaming in the mod forums... My dream would be a Civ game with a real concern for realistic diplomacy and I would even go as far as adding all kinds of elements from geo political simulators !
Depending on what you consider a 'Civ 4.5', it may not have been a good move. Civ4 was good at what it was, and by the time of BtS it was already cluttered with too many features that felt tacked on.
No clear evolution, no easy way of 'upgrading' the mechanics, hard to beat with something similar.
Fan desires and market pressures don't necessarily make for good sequel handling if the aim is to put out quality entertainment:
Something was close to perfect once? Make more of the same that will probably be inferior, with a little luck customers will notice only after they bought 5 more titles of the franchise.
Something was a great idea, but execution left something to be desired? Perfect material for a quality sequel/remake, but customers will be wary... making it less attractive for publishers.
This game were so bad at start... happily, it's way better now.
You can't take cities with horses anymore, which emphasises the importance of iron... which you will lack most of the time, or need to found a costy city at the other edge of the map. Now THIS IS HARDCORE, I love it! Hardcore games for hardcore gamers such as ourselves.
Costy city you say? How that? In happiness I mean... happiness that you will lack most of the time... luxury ressources nerfed, happiness buildings nerfed, whereas the AI has plenty free happiness at a decent difficulty level... this city that you have to found for iron ( when you found any in free territory) is most of the time a crap city, taking out at least 3 more happiness faces, at least... yes, because now, if it's too far away from your capital, it's -9 happy faces as a hit... WOW, HARDCORE! Thank you Firaxis!
Not to mention AI capitals... mostly they have nothing to give to you (luxury ressources are so rare) but you have to keep them with their load of population, not to mention the distance from the capital... hardcore hardcore hardcore, I love it!
And what about City States? You have to give them ALL YOUR GOLD, and when a rich AI do the same as you 1 turn later and declares you war, those city states are 100% agressive towards you, nullifying your gold!!!... ALL your gold! WAOW, THANK YOU FIRAXIS! I feel it! That's wonderful!
But my most beloved feature is yet the fact that you can't finish a game with the rules it started with when a new patch arrives! Oh, I remember this day when I was SAVING POLICIES in order to get this pretty bad (overpowered) policy that gave you +5 production in all your cities... happilly, the new patch came and I was unable to save policies anymore, too cool i wasn't yet in Industrial Era (some turns away), and would have had to spend all policies in one turn, that if I wouldn't have quitted! I quitted because this was too much to bear! Too much pleasure in one shot! THANK YOU FIRAXIS!!!
And what about the fact that I can't even sell the game to anybody, due to the link between the serial and my Steam Account! I am condemned to play this deliciously awful game for the rest of my life, what a desperate pain! Oooooooh! I FEEL IT!!!!
Now the multiplayer. I bought the game for it. (can't play multi with tipiak) 60 €. Must I continue? This game is so awful and useless that every day is a day improving it... or maybe not. Ah! My pain! I feel!
Etc... (continuously forget there's so many greatness in one game)
I FEEL IT! THANK YOU FIRAXIS, THANK YOU HARCORE GAMERS FANS!
Moderator Action: Merged.
So, out of the blue I got an itch to play Civilization again. The last time I played a Civ game was last year, back when I abandoned Civ 5 out of boredom and frustration.
I figured I'd try it again since supposedly it's improved by leaps and bounds.
Sat down at my PC, double-clicked the Civ5 icon... ooops, first Steam has to update itself. I wait a few minutes while it does so. Eventually the progress bar disappears and nothing happens. I click the Civ5 icon again, and another Steam dialog pops up saying it's connecting. Cool.
Then, I see "Cannot connect to Steam Network. Please see www.Steampowered.com for details." Herp derp, okay, what? See a whole website full of details about one single error? Yay.
So I was unable to use the software for which I purchased a license because I couldn't get permission from the Internet to use the software for which I purchased a license.
Went ahead and decided to fire up Civ4 and install FFH2. Oh, I need to re-download the BTS expansion before I can install FFH2. Oh, to get BTS again, I need to connect to Steam, and I can't. So no Civ4 BTS or FFS either.
In the end, I just turned on my Xbox 360, put in the Civilization: Revolution disc, and pressed Start. Within seconds, I was building warriors in my capital and scouting goodie huts. CivRev isn't exactly my favorite Civ game, but it's the only one I was allowed to play in the couple hours I had free for gaming. Go go consoles, I guess?
Sad story really. I made a point of not having cIV on steam. Pretty glad I didn't.
FFH is amazing still. Hope you get it working soon.
Civilization 5 just doesn't scratch that gaming itch for me. Even if it actually became a half decent war game in the end (highly doubt it due to a horrendous AI which in all likelihood will not be fixed) it's not something I'd be interested in as it's not what I paid $60 for. I paid $60 for a deep, immersive game that fired my creative energies, along the lines of the Civs that came before.
This bait and switch to go after the ADD riddled teenager crowd et all is a decision they'll have to live with as they pissed off countless loyal fans. Hopefully it's not too late for Civ VI. Doubt it though. Likely it'll be $ivili$ation $ix and the pursuit of the soccer mom/ADD riddled teenager/casual player will continue. The future is bleak.
The golden age of Civ is done. It's all downhill from here on.
Civilization has jumped the shark.
Yes, no kidding. Right now there is an attempt to rationalize the currently broken nuke situation in CivV on a thread here. You know, there is the "realism" argument that forgets its a game, the macho "challenge" argument that kicks sand in the eyes of those wimpy "sandbox" players who actually thought Civ was primarily a builder game, and so forth. As if it weren't just a poorly thought out mechanic in an unfinished game. But if you think that, and think it is unfun, then it is your fault for "not understanding" the genius behind the mechanic, which is telling you to go out and hunt down the world's unranium.
I call it the Uranium Easter Egg Hunt. Oh boy....
Looks like I have to be the Bad Civ, the Sad Civ, behind Blue Eyes....
Basically just be Mongols or survive as the Germans until the dawn of PanzerGeneraldom and let 'er rip (and raze often) - that'll teach the nuke happy AI!
The City States in this game are worthless and do nothing.
The Diplomacy in this game isn't the same it's actually worse.
No economic strategy in this game, stupid.
Diplomatic victory = Conquer as much as possible and/or befriend more city states.
Should have just implemented a patch that disallowed stacking in Civ 4. Sigh.
I wouldn't say Civ V is done completely. There's a lot of things that were done right and a lot of interesting ideas (with mixed results in their execution, yet still interesting). I hope they continue to develop the game (in a quicker manner, if possible).
I hope they do something about the art assets once and for all though, nothing makes me cringe more than playing a game that openly says "we know about it, but we just don't care".
Civilization 5 is by no means done. After all, they could possibly make it worse the more they tinker with it. Lol.
The non regard for artist's copyrights is pretty low by Firaxis/2K Games. About as low as people that defend this by calling it "Civilization 5 bashing" when someone dares bring up the subject. I believe in Karma however.
I think I really do hate the city states nearly as much as all of the cool kids. I really don't understand what they are for. They sounded neat before the game came out, but they really don't work.
A good way to fix city-states would be to make the relation more dynamic than "give me 1000 gold every so often and we'll be best friends". Yeah, yeah. I know that there are quests but so what? I'm sick and tired of the constant "kill the other city-state" quests that come up. City-states should give missions that benefit them so what does killing another city-state do for them? Nothing. Same with the "connect to a resource" missions. I get the barbarians and request for units and honestly, those are the only ones worth while.
If they had implemented international trade through roads, then the mission to connect the road wouldn't be so stupid. Puppet cities aren't puppet cities; they act more like autonomous regions than puppet cities (which is why I started a "Better Puppet State" thread in suggestions). The problem is that because they won't hurry up and release the DLL so modders can do what they do best (ie, fix the game, add stuff, new mechanics), I don't even think I can touch onto the problem.
Separate names with a comma.