Did Sid just pull a George Lucas on us?

[jjkrause84]

It would still mean that 'culture' can write political borders, which I always found a little silly in Civs 3 & 4.

Pop a great artist and take some of your neighbours land!? So in the 60s when the Beatles and Stones were king Calais went back to Britain?

Obviously I'm being a bit facetious....I just never liked culture flipping (also because it was very hard to do against the computer in 4...less so in 3)

 

[Ignorant Teacher]

It would still mean that 'culture' can write political borders, which I always found a little silly in Civs 3 & 4

Of course it does. Culture ownership of a tile means that the people who live there consider themselves a part of your culture. That's the very same reason most countries have laws that forbid foreigners of buying land at a certain distance from the borders - would make flipping possible. Why? Because the other country's culture would become dominant.

OK, it's more complex than that, but that's the idea.

 

[Kietharr]

This is a game that I desperately wanted to love. I have played civ for almost half of my life. But this is not civ. Yes, all civ games had horsehockey launch issues but having played 3 and 4 from launch NOTHING was this terrible.

I'm not complaining about change. I enjoy change. I, along with most of the civ community, embraced Civ4. Civ4 was almost nothing BUT change, the way you played the game was completely different, the uses of a lot of staple units were radically changed or reversed, city specialization and limited expansion trumped mass expand mine the grass/farm the plains. There was at least as big of a mechanical change from 3 to 4 as there was from 4 to 5. I like hexes. I like 1UPT. I like gold being more useful.

What I'm complaining about chiefly, and what I feel most people are complaining about, is how astonishingly dense the AI is. Prince difficulty in civ4 is about as difficult as Deity in civ5 and I feel that is unacceptable.

 

[Etheric]

I have to say I agree with most of this thread.

We have a wargame that has a small base building component. I guess in some ways it IS a slowed down RTS. I don't mind the hexes and the wargame part I think does have promise (once the AI stops sucking so bad at it), but the lack of depth in the rest of the game is just horrible.

The social policies were a big mistake. The generic building X is also pretty bad. I had not thoguht about it until I saw it here, but we just have a few classes of building and they all do the same.

I have to agree with the earlier posters if I could take it back tomorrow and get my money back (or anything back) I would. But this is a steam game, so no resales, no refunds.

I would suggest what people wanted was the depth of Civ IV in terms of city building and everything else, combined with a decent wargame for combat. Units would then become more expensive etc as you would need fewer. The simplification of the rest of the game thoguh is bad, and teh AI jsut sucks.

In the one game (only king) I have finished so far Darius was just in the middle of belittling me for having a small army when I declared on him. I thought he had a tech lead as he got into modern way before I did. His army was mostly pikemen though. Gave my artillary lots of target practace though.

Going to beat it on Diety then put it away for good.

 

[charon2112]

We have a wargame that has a small base building component. I guess in some ways it IS a slowed down RTS.

Yeah...no. War is no more prevalent in V than it was in IV. Just because they changed SoD to 1UPT and squares to hexes, that doesn't mean that war is suddenly the focus. It's just that two of the larger changes involved the combat system. All of the play styles (diplo, cuslture, science) are every bit as viable in V as in IV...and this game is NOT a slowed down RTS...no way.

 

[Venereus]

Yeah...no. War is no more prevalent in V than it was in IV. Just because they changed SoD to 1UPT and squares to hexes, that doesn't mean that war is suddenly the focus. It's just that two of the larger changes involved the combat system. All of the play styles (diplo, cuslture, science) are every bit as viable in V as in IV...and this game is NOT a slowed down RTS...no way.

War becomes the focus because the AI uses any attempt at diplo to drag you into wars, and once you start, it's so easy to conquer everyone, that every other victory condition turns suboptimal. Now, playing inefficiently is not fun for many civ fanatics, so why cripple yourself?

 

[OliverFA]

It would still mean that 'culture' can write political borders, which I always found a little silly in Civs 3 & 4.

Pop a great artist and take some of your neighbours land!? So in the 60s when the Beatles and Stones were king Calais went back to Britain?

Obviously I'm being a bit facetious....I just never liked culture flipping (also because it was very hard to do against the computer in 4...less so in 3)

That was a very nice part of the game. An alternative to war. Now war is the only option.

Plus it's something pretty historical. There are lots of examples. The Roman Empire solidified their conquests through culture. And disintegrated when foreign culture entered the Western half. Greece got themselves free from Ottomans because they had a different culture. Belgium will split any day because of culture...

 

[jjkrause84]

That was a very nice part of the game. An alternative to war. Now war is the only option.

Plus it's something pretty historical. There are lots of examples. The Roman Empire solidified their conquests through culture. And disintegrated when foreign culture entered the Western half. Greece got themselves free from Ottomans because they had a different culture. Belgium will split any day because of culture...

I don't think the barbs "out-cultured" the Romans into losing Gaul and eventually losing Rome (a couple times).

I agree it sorta makes sense in the early and medieval game but once you get "real" modern borders recognized internationally it's quite a lot harder to accept.

 

[OliverFA]

I don't think the barbs "out-cultured" the Romans into losing Gaul and eventually losing Rome (a couple times).

I agree it sorta makes sense in the early and medieval game but once you get "real" modern borders recognized internationally it's quite a lot harder to accept.

They were barbarians from the Roman point of view but not from the Civ point of view.

That's why nationalism is one of the problems of XXIst century, because internationally recognized borders are set in stone ;-)

 

[MM1nd]

I remember reading this Forum when cIV came out. Besides bugs and weak AI issues, the "problem" with IV was that strategies which had been long established ceased to work. We had to learn a totally new game. Once we did (and a few patches were released), IV's weaknesses turned out to be strengths.

I really hope this will happen to ciV as well. But to be honest I do not think this will happen. There is a difference between the III-IV and the VI-V transition which can be illustrated by this example:

IIRC cultural borders were the new thing in part III. Part IV took this concept to perfection and introduced a new concept: Religion. Part V should have been to Religion what IV was to culture, unfortunately it isn't.

Yes besides Religion, combat needed to be redone, and yes V does a decent job on this. But somehow it feels like the remaining 80% of the game have vanished. The 80% that worked pretty good in IV and should have been left as they were.

I think it is absolutely stupid to suggest that a library or theatre does not add to a city's culture. Of course they do in reality. Equally stupid it is that some buildings have the sole purpose of generating culture. As if this was even possible by the defition of culture. The so called cultural buildings, (monument, temple, and the like) are in fact religious buildings. But the designers seem to fear to use ther word religion. What really has happened here is that most effects of religion were removed from the game and religion was renamed to culture.

Personally I also think that expanding borders with Units -- basically cheaper Settlers which found cottages in the IV sense instead of cities but with the additional effect of expanding the border -- would have made more sense than the "pay for it" solution.

 

[plaugeman]

there are two certainties in life - death and taxes - that is unless you are playing civ 5. i am rather unimpressed with this game - just feels like civ revolutions except with insanely long waits between turns. Also no religions? whats the point in going to war if not to wipe out the infidels? must admit tho that i do like the hexes over squares - but an improvement in geometry is not worth it with most of the flavour removed.

 

[Rulle_Kebab]

I've played ONE game thru since this came out the 24th.
Then stopped.
I agree with many of the things said here...
What bugs me most tho, is it seems like it is made for a console.
The UI and the fewer options in almost everything.
Dunno tho if I'm right tho, never tried Revolutions or whatever it is called.
But certainly less of everything so far and I can imagine playing it with a pad/controller easily.
They can still add tonnes of stuff I guess. So can the modders.
And it took me two years to convert from civ 3 to cIV.
Hehe.
So have patience people. It's been out less than a month!

 

[dexters]

Also took them 2 years to 'fix' Civ4. The product that came out in 2005 was not the same as the BTS version people love so much.

I like the core concepts of V, but It really needs some work, the AI/diplomacy area in particular.

It could be a game killer if they don't fix those and simply add more bloat in the XPs.

 

[charon2112]

What bugs me most tho, is it seems like it is made for a console.

So ridiculous...

Why? Why exactly does Civ V seem like it was made for consoles? There is no console game even close to it. This is one of the most regurgitated and yet vague complaints about this great game.

 

[Xetian]

So ridiculous...

Why? Why exactly does Civ V seem like it was made for consoles? There is no console game even close to it. This is one of the most regurgitated and yet vague complaints about this great game.

Because the UI is pointlessly sleek and sparse (Because consoles on TVs cant assume you are close enough to read small stuff). Because the actual information available to us in graphs/advisors can almost entirely be inferred from what you already see. Because resources aren't as *important* as better *tactics* with a few *hero* units. Because the new buildings are like a skill level system only MORE depressing because there is a pointless trade-off when I already spent 50 calories smashing that next turn button to finish buildings.

Civ is has been my HERO for computer games since my half-bro taught me how to use 2 when I was like 7. I Liked the new stuff in 3 and was heartbroken that my comp couldn't play Civ4 vanilla. When I find a game at most as complex as our new generation Tower Defense games (which are incredible, try out cursed gems and protector 4) it isn't a civ game. BTS I had to learn things and play off my civ's strengths and try to gain military dominance during my UU window. Now I just have to pummel them with archers while gaining no tangible game-play difference for 80% of the Civ's special traits. Even if not siam/greece city states are worth most of your money. Most of the UB's aren't compelling, and ironically my favorite was floating gardens because it let me have Civ2,3,4-esque super cities on lakes, sadly that save crashed due to a power failure (not gonna replay 8 turns with this poorly optimized ai, I'm running crisis on max with 8gigs RAM but can't process a standard map turn in middle ages in less than 20 seconds? Pft

TlDr; Everything is too simple, I have casual mastery of all the new mechanics before a game is over.

P.S. I hate new civilopedia and luxuries need to be better or unhappiness needs a nerf. I can handle less policies if I can at least HAVE a big empire from time to time.

 

[speegler]

I agree with others in that it took me x amount of years to make the transition to the next game in the civ series (except for civ2).

And as it stands right now Civ5 feels like different game kinda like Call to Power 3, but I am sure that after the first major expansion pack comes out and the modding community has much to offer then Civ5 will be a great game.

One thing though is that Civ5 has done is also break my ability to go back to Civ4 with hexes, no SOD silliness, better uses of money, better navy, social polices, and other things that I can't think of.

So what fraxsis and/or the wonderful modding community needs to do re-add religion, improve the AI, BUG mod, influence driven war, and other tweaks or fixes.

 

[charon2112]

nope. don't buy it. why? It looks like a console game because the icons are round now instead of square? Or because it's inspired by art deco? Ridiculous. There is a ton of info available to the player by mousing over things, just like in IV. There's many reports available to show stats. Civ V is a complex game, it doesn't matter that there's less "stuff" than in IV, most of what they removed was redundant. Every design decision was for a reason. And there would be no way to play this game on a console unless you moved around a mouse pointer with the analog stick...and you could do that with IV on a console, too. The UI is fantastic, it stays out of your way until you need, it's a huge improvement over IV. The only way I could see Civ becoming "console-ish" is if they implemented a circular menu for selecting things like in mass effect 2...Civ V as it is is nothing like a console game at all.

Because the UI is pointlessly sleek and sparse (Because consoles on TVs cant assume you are close enough to read small stuff). Because the actual information available to us in graphs/advisors can almost entirely be inferred from what you already see. Because resources aren't as *important* as better *tactics* with a few *hero* units. Because the new buildings are like a skill level system only MORE depressing because there is a pointless trade-off when I already spent 50 calories smashing that next turn button to finish buildings.

Civ is has been my HERO for computer games since my half-bro taught me how to use 2 when I was like 7. I Liked the new stuff in 3 and was heartbroken that my comp couldn't play Civ4 vanilla. When I find a game at most as complex as our new generation Tower Defense games (which are incredible, try out cursed gems and protector 4) it isn't a civ game. BTS I had to learn things and play off my civ's strengths and try to gain military dominance during my UU window. Now I just have to pummel them with archers while gaining no tangible game-play difference for 80% of the Civ's special traits. Even if not siam/greece city states are worth most of your money. Most of the UB's aren't compelling, and ironically my favorite was floating gardens because it let me have Civ2,3,4-esque super cities on lakes, sadly that save crashed due to a power failure (not gonna replay 8 turns with this poorly optimized ai, I'm running crisis on max with 8gigs RAM but can't process a standard map turn in middle ages in less than 20 seconds? Pft

TlDr; Everything is too simple, I have casual mastery of all the new mechanics before a game is over.

P.S. I hate new civilopedia and luxuries need to be better or unhappiness needs a nerf. I can handle less policies if I can at least HAVE a big empire from time to time.

 

[Ignorant Teacher]

The UI is fantastic, it stays out of your way until you need, it's a huge improvement over IV.

Sorry, but I beg to differ. One thing Civ 4's UI (with all its flaws) had and the new one doesn't is a standardization of where you're going to click. You open the civilopedia, the close button is on the top right, policies down on the left, your menus are to the left and are vertical, reminders are on the right, you don't get a right-click menu, there's no easy way to go to all the places you want to (tabs in the foreign advisor, instead of buttons that open new windows, for example). I'm sorry, but I think that, while the new game simplified many things (and whether they were redundant is a matter of opinion and experience), they made the most important thing more complicated and confusing.

 

[Xetian]

nope. don't buy it. why? It looks like a console game because the icons are round now instead of square? Or because it's inspired by art deco? ...Civ V as it is is nothing like a console game at all.

There isn't a lot available with mouseover. They don't even have basic stuff like promotions and strength (unless the computer just isn't using promotions). I have to hunt to find useful stuff or tally what I have mentally.

I'm not saying that it won't become worth my money, but I regret preordering (for DLC bonus from direct2drive) and getting this unpolished easy-mode.

And seriously the civilopedia is driving me bonkers. Hyperlinks and large entries were par for the course. I would especially appreciate if the promotion 'chapter' made any sense. Why fix something that wasn't broken? I'm amazed how much I miss the annoyance of health considering there is nothing to do early game.

EDIT: Hindsight 20|20, confusing wording

 

[DagHammarskjol]

"Pointlessly sleek and sparse" is a really weird criticism. The opposite of "sleek and sparse" would be "clunky and overcrowded." That's what you want?

I take it by calling it "pointlessly sparse" you mean there is information not available to you easily in civ V that would have been easily available in Civ 4. Can you give me some examples?