Civilization 5 Rants Thread
- Thread starter ori
- Start date
GalCiv is a 4X game. Clearly 1UPT and 4X games are not mutually exclusive. In fact, due to the game being designed around the AI, GalCiv's strategic and tactical AI is one of the sharpest ever made, capable of keeping up with the player without any bonuses whatsoever up to Hard difficulty (and Hard in GalCiv2 is no cakewalk like it is in the Civ series).
Well, still, it is the only hope remaining, and it may happen, just think about FFH which is a completly different game as compared to the BTS base game. The problem I see here is why would a community member invest such a huge amount of time instead of creating games based on Civ4 dll as usual. The only reason colud be the "better" graphics, if the graphical engine is really better than its predecessor (gameboy?). However I am not convinced about this. For example you may have experienced the zooming problems also mentioned in this thread. So it may occur that the graphical engine itself is a step backward, in which case Civ5 is a total failure. The only feature - I mean real feature - in Civ5 are hexes. Big deal... It is not worth to migrate to Civ5 - investing years of modding work - just because of hexes.
Didn't you mention the main factor by yourself?
Following your description, GalCiv makes use of "fleets" (armies, stacks, how you will ever call them - they are all groups of different single units with different single attributes).
In Civ5 you have the single unit, meaning that whenever you want to have different units "work" in combination, they have to have a certain amount of space available. The more units, the more space will be needed (not to mention that even more space will be needed for moving them in a meaningful manner).
Talking about moving the units, we are talking about time - both for the human as well as for the AI.
Moving a group of units takes two clicks, one for selecting the group, one for selecting the target tile.
Moving 20 units takes at least 40 clicks (if no rubberband functionality is present, but in a strict 1upt environment even that functionality is questionable) and much more carefulness as you have to find the right target tiles for each individual unit. And additionally you should care for the "traffic jams". And so on.
In total this means that a strict 1upt system makes your actions slower and more complicated when the number of units in a given region is enhanced.
I have never played FFH (as I am not so much into fantasy environments) but heard many good things about it.
Nevertheless, as much as they may have added, from all what I know they didn't have to problem to enlarge unit movement and unit management, as this was already available.
From an xupt system you can "rather" easily create a 1upt system, but the other way is much more difficult, as the basic AI functionalities are missing.
And actually, I agree with you pessimistic view upon the graphics engine.
I think it is really a shame that an old Gamebryo engine (which, as far as I know, now is more than 6 years old) provides better and quicker graphics than the Civ5 graphics engine, which consumes computing power like nothing and delivers almost nothing (in comparison - the Civ5 map is a very static one).
And meanwhile even Civ4 leaderheads are of at least the quality as the Civ5 bodies.
It is really frustrating, but except for dual core utilization even in the technical fields I can't see significant improvements. And we are talking about a timespan of 5 years!
And even so, both Civ4 and Civ5 have issues with long turns at end game. This is understandable to a certain degree, since gameplay elements used by AI increase over time. However! Civ5 is slow in the early game as well - which phenomenon I do not understand -, whereas Civ4 has very quick turn times in the eary game play. Oh, and I played both on at minimum dual core... Not a big deal, it just shows how bad the game is in almost any possible field and aspect of comparison. I cant even think of a single aspect where Civ5 would beat Civ4. Maybe social policies, but they look like a copy-paste of the technology tree, so I imagine it couldnt be difficult to implement it...
Even social policies are inferior to civics from a game-immersion standpoint. The reason is that the player need not sacrifice the benefits of one SP when progressing to another one (with a couple minor exceptions). There is (except for conflicting trees) never a penalty for adopting one SP other than maybe you could have used a different one better right now. Thus there is little adaptation of the improvements and buildings and game objectives to SP (or vice versa), whereas for civics that was a key element. So less thinking is needed in this aspect of the game as well. Once you take an SP, you get its bonuses forever and can basically forget about it. Once you know the trees you want for different victory conditions, there is seldom any variation in SP-progression required.
This is vey much spot on.
TheMarshmallowBear
Benelovent Chieftain of the Ursu Kingdom
True, very ture
For Cultural Victory, Tradition, Piety, Freedom are the obvious 3 ones with Patronage being useful for Cultural CS, with 1 SP being open to your choice.
For Scientfici Victory, if you play smart, Liberty, Order, Rationalism are very useful trees (the more cities more beakers more science)
For Diplomatic Victory, obviously Commerce and Patronage come in handy due to the fact you are working with Economy, with more cities also being useful (Order and Liberty)
And with Domination,well Honor, Autocracy, Rationalism, Liberty are the only ones useful.
For Cultural Victory, Tradition, Piety, Freedom are the obvious 3 ones with Patronage being useful for Cultural CS, with 1 SP being open to your choice.
For Scientfici Victory, if you play smart, Liberty, Order, Rationalism are very useful trees (the more cities more beakers more science)
For Diplomatic Victory, obviously Commerce and Patronage come in handy due to the fact you are working with Economy, with more cities also being useful (Order and Liberty)
And with Domination,well Honor, Autocracy, Rationalism, Liberty are the only ones useful.
Aristos
Lightseeker
Big conceptual mistake, my friend. GalCiv plays in EMPTY space, so each tile is "the same empty space" without any differential tactical value. There is no tactics in space warfare at that scale! So the AI can manage it very well, plus you can build holders for the units (ala CtP with its armies and tactical simulation window, which was a way better solution to the SoD dilemma). So NO, GalCiv2 can not be used as a successful example of 1UPT.
Aristos
Lightseeker
THIS is what is very much spot on.
Let's face it, this is a game for the masses, as in "less willing to think" masses (yeah, I can try the political correctness bullcrap too you know?).
lschnarch:
I have to be brief. It was made clear to me that this thread is not for discussion, but for ranting. My apologies:
Fleets in GalCiv2 are limited by Command capability, so you generally have a lot more than just the one fleet. In fact, I have more fleets in GalCiv2 than I have units in Civ 5.
ricardojahns:
That's not precisely correct. GalCiv2 obviously features the planets and the suns, which impede movement, but also Asteroid fields which restrict movement, and you can "create" terrain using bases for movement and combat bonuses and for interdiction technology. The AI accounts for these quite well.
There are definitely tactics in GalCiv2 - I can't imagine how you can possibly say otherwise.
kcd_swede:
Your reasoning doesn't support your premise. The premise is that SPs are bad because they lack immersion, but then you go on about game design rather than immersion factors.
Also, you're playing Civ 5 unbelievably badly if you don't adapt your building queue to the SPs you have or plan to take. You don't build Walls for happiness unless you have or are planning to take Professional Army.
I have to be brief. It was made clear to me that this thread is not for discussion, but for ranting. My apologies:
Fleets in GalCiv2 are limited by Command capability, so you generally have a lot more than just the one fleet. In fact, I have more fleets in GalCiv2 than I have units in Civ 5.
ricardojahns:
That's not precisely correct. GalCiv2 obviously features the planets and the suns, which impede movement, but also Asteroid fields which restrict movement, and you can "create" terrain using bases for movement and combat bonuses and for interdiction technology. The AI accounts for these quite well.
There are definitely tactics in GalCiv2 - I can't imagine how you can possibly say otherwise.
kcd_swede:
Your reasoning doesn't support your premise. The premise is that SPs are bad because they lack immersion, but then you go on about game design rather than immersion factors.
Also, you're playing Civ 5 unbelievably badly if you don't adapt your building queue to the SPs you have or plan to take. You don't build Walls for happiness unless you have or are planning to take Professional Army.
Not sure how I would seperate game design from game immersion. For example, the ability to choose between different benefits of different civics makes me consider whether it would be better to make workshops and use State Property, or switch to Universal Suffrage and keep the cottage economy, or maybe plan ahead to get a corporation. All these decisions are affected by the stage of development, the type of land I have, the infrastructure already in place and what would need to be built, and so on. But with SP, I know at the start of the game which SP's I'll be aiming for, and roughly when I can expect to get them. The geography matters almost not at all, and the infra that you will want will always be the same for that set of SP's. So if I don't have to fret every turn over when/if I want to make a strategic shift in my empire, I'm not needing to pay close attention to the game and it loses the immersion.
Of course, everyone is different.... some people cannot get immersed in a game with cartoon-like graphics, and otghers can't get immersed in chess. Vive la difference.
I am guilty of playing Civ 5 very badly (just follow my performance in the game of the month training series)
. What I'm saying is that I don't have to worry how to adjust when the benefits of Professional Army are no longer in effect. Build the wall, the happiness is there. Forever. Just like a colloseum... though in other games the effect of such a building can be varied by choosing different trade-offs. Not so in Civ 5... the infrastructure is very static in its benefits. Less to think about, but less to consider how to optimize. For me, that means less immersion.
I must concur with the opinion that social policies are dull. They aren't great for the immersion factor and they don't offer much meaningful strategy. It's basically plug and play. *Yawn*
The game was made easier and dumbed down to appeal to a wider fan base. Deep down, we all know that. It was a conscious strategy on the part of the developers to increase sales. Certainly a misguided one and a real shame for Civ fans.
The game was made easier and dumbed down to appeal to a wider fan base. Deep down, we all know that. It was a conscious strategy on the part of the developers to increase sales. Certainly a misguided one and a real shame for Civ fans.
Anybody here likes Heroes of Might and Magic? The reason I ask it here, is that Homm6 is about to be released and it may end up in the same shoes as Civ5 (rant: total failure). However according to feedback of beta testers the developers listened to the fan base and did not introduce radical changes ans so did not alienate the game. The changes they have introduced sound quite good - not ideas like 1UPT and City States which Ive disliked even before the game was released- If Homm6 will be successful it may beat civ series in popularity. I really put much hope into this game, since Civ5 seems to just deteriorate, with just small patches and DLC-s after so much time, I see no progress.
Sadan01
Conical Flask
I don't want to derail too far so will keep this short and sweet. I love the HOMM series (especially II and III, like most people) and have heard/read bugger all about HOMM6. I wasn't that impressed with HoMM-V even though it was so much better than IV.
What kind of changes were they planning but didn't follow through with? Is there a site that has information about this so I can read up on it? (Keeping it short and sweet).
I must admit - when I read that Civ V was going to use 1UPT, I thought "cool - this is a new radical feature".... Unfortunately, well, you know the rest
I start with the rant now: For me this is mostly intresting because I want to know, that is it Civ5 alone which succumbed to the casual streamlined society or all old-timer, tradition based monumental games will inevitely face this unfortunate demise dictated by industry trends, and so we will be left with nothing new to play...
And now info in short: The game is about to be released in october, the beta test is nearing end, the demo is available, almost all (or all) features are revealed. I use to read the official ubi forums, just google ubi and homm6. Some say that in many features it went back to 3 instead of 5. So seems promising.
I just thought, that mabe moderators could move this into a seperate thread called Civ5 Homm6 comparison. I didnt want to do this though, since it also contains rants, so maybe it would end up here anyway. But I think this topic is quite valid and interesting, since these are similar games and are in a similar situation. Same stuff: old fan base. Dummy (unsuccessful sequel): Civ3 and Homm4 (means only one in the series, and now in the modern era we have Civ5 and about to have Homm6).
Sadan01
Conical Flask
A lot of games are doing it. Compare DiRT3 with the original Colin McRae's DiRT. The races in the original are far longer and much more difficult.
MMOs have been dumbing themselves down since WoW.
It's all for instant gratification. Many folks in a certain demographic do not have long attention spans so a game like Ultima IV, EverQuest, Civilization IV or Baldur's Gate isn't going to hold their attention long. However, a game that gives rewards quickly with easy progression and not-too-difficult concepts is probably going to keep them playing until the-next-big-thing.
Crap. I didn't even know there was a demo. Shows how much I keep up with games today
Going back to "we will be left with nothing left to play" from your last post, I suspect I'm already at that point as I just have bugger-all interest now.
Sadan01
Conical Flask
I suspect we are talking too soon about how it will compare to Civ as if history may be repeating itself. As you wrote before, the developers listened to feedback so it may not be as bad as you originally feared?
I certainly won't turn my nose up at a new HOMM game. I guess we'll have to wait and see what comes to pass.
Similar threads
