Did Sid just pull a George Lucas on us?

[Drazil69]

1) research pact gives you a free tech when complete. Also bugged right now, so gives tech on DoW. But I'm sure they will fix.
2) Because tech trading/brokering was horribly unbalanced and exploitive in previous civs, especially 4.
3) You can see what civs have excess resources quite easily in the diplomacy overview.
4) Because you are a rival,, and therefore a threat. Quite realistic actually. Can you think of any examples in history of close neighboring civilizations that aren't rivals?

1) Hadn't even noticed the bug... But was referring to the "secrecy" and "cooperation" pacts, their nontransparent effects and the fact that you have no idea of the other civs' attitude towards you before they DoW on you.
2) Care to give any basis for that reply?
3) No you can't, you'll have to enter negotiations before seeing that. And if you can, please direct me to the correct screen. And when I have to ask this question in a discussion forum pretty much proves that at least the diplo UI needs work.
4) With the possible exception of Sweden and Finland, largely true, but at least those countries know why they hate each other. Civ 5 doesn't tell you. Besides, I was giving an example with the Chinese and Aztecs. I currently have no way of knowing whether they love or hate each other (or me, to that matter). Or do you mean that any civilization takes offense if I trade with any other one = their rival?

 

[wilson1225]

We need a Jar Jar Binks mod.

 

[frags]

Short answer:

Spoiler :

No

Long answer:

Spoiler :

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

 

[berni19]

Someone please explain to me how a game in production for 3 years is rushed out because it lacks a victory screen. I'd be more upset if time and money allocated on QA had been spent on creating a victory screen. You people have got to understand the realities of producing a video game. Resources are finite and I don't know what game you are playing, but the Civ5 I am playing is very polished - I've had 3 crashes in 70 hours.

Now i understand the need of the Firaxis to delay with the demo until the D-day...how come that so unpolished beta version even got green light..it should be stopped, delayed...
Even in Firaxis if i remember correctly, they disbanded a lot of theirs workers on this project as the CiV was finished..WTH..they really belieave that the game at this state would be managable
Still the game is out...some elements are really fine and ideas good, but whole picture missing the frame...soul and the details which others Civ games had even in start...so for me the biggest dissapointment are the journalist and the rewiews they had for this game...crazy..
But nevertheless i am still playing the game, giving it a chance to know it even better, depper to eventually start to work on SDK and try my best to make this game proud of the name brand Civilization as it should be in the first place.

 

[jdog2050]

Now i understand the need of the Firaxis to delay with the demo until the D-day...how come that so unpolished beta version even got green light..it should be stopped, delayed...
Even in Firaxis if i remember correctly, they disbanded a lot of theirs workers on this project as the CiV was finished..WTH..they really belieave that the game at this state would be managable
Still the game is out...some elements are really fine and ideas good, but whole picture missing the frame...soul and the details which others Civ games had even in start...so for me the biggest dissapointment are the journalist and the rewiews they had for this game...crazy..
But nevertheless i am still playing the game, giving it a chance to know it even better, depper to eventually start to work on SDK and try my best to make this game proud of the name brand Civilization as it should be in the first place.

This is a very good point. It's not 100% Firaxis' fault, here. The reviewers were giving this game insane reviews despite some glaring balance issues. I should have known something was up when everyone was jizzing their pants but 1Up gave them a C-.

 

[NASAROG]

Yeah, I'm pretty glad I tried the demo out before running out and getting this game.

Same. The demo ran very poorly on my gaming rig (that is a couple of years old) and I am not going to make a major investment in a new rig. I think I am going to wait for this game to get a 100% port to my PS3. Yes, it felt just like Civ:rev.

 

[jdog2050]

1) research pact gives you a free tech when complete. Also bugged right now, so gives tech on DoW. But I'm sure they will fix.
2) Because tech trading/brokering was horribly unbalanced and exploitive in previous civs, especially 4.
3) You can see what civs have excess resources quite easily in the diplomacy overview.
4) Because you are a rival,, and therefore a threat. Quite realistic actually. Can you think of any examples in history of close neighboring civilizations that aren't rivals?

4 is an absolute cop out to me. Pretty much whenever Civilizations were close to each other, especially in the ancient era, they had intel about each other. If you were Greek, you knew the policies and military capabilities of Egypt. China, Korea, and Japan all kept tabs on each other. Things only became more transparent in the modern era with the advent of communications, history as a subject, and sociology. So no civilization with moderate contact has ever been completely blind to the wants and capabilities of another.

The problem with Civilization 4 was that it was just so extreme. There was all the nuance in diplomacy of a sledgehammer. That could have been fixed in Civilization V, but the cop out is "we wanted more mystery". Yes, that's nice ON PAPER, but like so many other things, just doesn't actually make a whole lot of sense historically or in a game setting.

 

[karadoc]

Most of the reviews of Civ5 that I've seen are completely useless. Reviews these days seem to be more about amplifying pre-existing hype rather than actually judging the game. I'm not really sure that they actually play the game... it sounds like they're just describing what they've seen in a few screenshots, and then reading off the back of the game box. What I'd call 'changes' or 'differences', reviewers just call 'improvements' — as if one-unit-per-tile is an unquestionable improvement; or black-box diplomacy; or the maintenance changes; and so on.

I feel like the media hype-machine has carried Civ 5 to success.

 

[rjmghome]

I have played since CIV 1. Each change was frustrating to start with, but once you understood the depth and intracacies you discovered the enjoyment. CIV V is a dumbed down version that is just not that much fun. I got bored early and there's just not enough new with any depth to make the learning curve worth the effort.

It's as if the developers realised that a better version of Civ IV would just have a narrower playing base (and therefore make less money) by excluding new players by being too complicated and taking too much time to learn.

 

[Sarkozy]

I WILL NEVER EVER PREORDER AGAIN!!!!

Did Sid just pull a George Lucas on us?

My answer is: No, because there is a dramatic difference between cIV and ciV.
However, I agree that ciV has much in common with Civ Revolution - in short: It's Civ for dummies. I want...

- micromanagement (all the adjustments in the city screens)
- imersive gameplay (...One last turn... when it's 4AM and you have to get up at 6)
- civics
- religion
- wonders
- customizable leaders / civs
- unit stacks in cities ...back

In short: I feel I want my money back and I am terribly disappointed by ciV. For that money I would rather have had an improved cIV (i.e. a leader customization - like create your own SIM, a few tweaks on wonders and civics which improve gameplay and perhaps hexes). I really don't care about directx11 and not allowing stacks of doom is one thing, not allowing more than one unit per hex is another... Some changes are too drastic.

Game Reviewers did not mention that ciV got oversimplified and as a player since Civilization 1, I am disgusted - and feel I bought the wrong game.

Seriously, I would like to resell my version, but I am not sure how this works as it is registered with steam (I bought at Amazon, though).

 

[Venereus]

I have played since CIV 1. Each change was frustrating to start with, but once you understood the depth and intracacies you discovered the enjoyment. CIV V is a dumbed down version that is just not that much fun. I got bored early and there's just not enough new with any depth to make the learning curve worth the effort.

It's as if the developers realised that a better version of Civ IV would just have a narrower playing base (and therefore make less money) by excluding new players by being too complicated and taking too much time to learn.

There is no learning curve in Civ V. You just click away until you auto-win.

 

[zonk]

1) research pact gives you a free tech when complete. Also bugged right now, so gives tech on DoW. But I'm sure they will fix.
2) Because tech trading/brokering was horribly unbalanced and exploitive in previous civs, especially 4.
3) You can see what civs have excess resources quite easily in the diplomacy overview.
4) Because you are a rival,, and therefore a threat. Quite realistic actually. Can you think of any examples in history of close neighboring civilizations that aren't rivals?

Just want to point out re: 2) ---

The modders had this solved years ago.... AND has a simple selectable option preventing "tech brokering" -- you could only trade techs you researched, and together with Tech Diffusion + variable tech bonus from city capture mods, they had the issue completely knocked. Technological advancement both for the player and AI flowed quite naturally and properly.

I hate this implementation -- even if they get the bugs fixed.

They could have used the paradox HOI model -- where you don't trade for pure techs, you trade for blueprints, which shorten research time of a given tech.

They could have used the GalcivII model -- where research treaties simply provided science bonus.

I HATE when games force me to use 'House Rules' to make up for clunky or unworkable features -- and this has forced me to use a "No Tech Treaties" house rule.... Otherwise -- I was simply giving away gold, flat out gifting huge sums of money -- to other civs in order to sign a research pact. By early mid-game, I had research treaties in effect with every other civ... including the ones that hated me.

It's as if the developers surveyed the lay of the land for how modders and other games dealt with the tech brokering issue and deviously decided to come up with a way to take the worst of every other possible solution to create some unifying worst possible way of doing things... I know they didn't, but my experience with 'Research Treaties' is really that bad.