DLC Map Pack
- Thread starter Hawaiian
- Start date
eric_
Emperor
Except, y'know, the salary required to ensure that said staff is available to build said map.
On the other hand, it is absolutely free to completely ignore any and all DLCs. Seems like a fair deal to me!
Strategist83
King
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2005
- Messages
- 625
There's a lot to criticize about Civ V but the quality and amount of 'hard work' put into the DLC packs certainly isn't one of them. Contrary to the main game, these packs have been shipped in a very solid state and are of very high quality. It's not something they slapped together in five minutes of spare time - the loading screens with new leader portrayals alone affirm that.
It's also pretty silly to assume Firaxis simply asks one of the Civ V guys to sit down and create a map pack for free. Yeah, sure, he'll do that. For free.
You can criticize the cost or whatever but to call the DLC's they've released so far bad is pure bigotry.
Moderator Action: "bigotry" is a very bad choice of words and inappropriate
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Guardian_PL
Emperor
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2006
- Messages
- 1,231
Your call, for me pure bigotry is to be ecstatic over a turd and to keep making excuses for the devs. Oooh a map. Oooh and a leader. One modder can do that in two afternoons. Or can he - is 3D leaderhead still a no-no for modders? Well go figure.
If you like the DLC's buy them, I won't be stopping you. But I don't, and that's my opinion.
seasnake
Conquistador
I don't know why you would think that, but look at the Civ IV graphics modding forums and you'll see real pros like Ekmek and TheCapo who spend weeks using blender and other devices to get one leaderhead out. And even though it looks great, you can still tell they basically did an alteration and patching up of an existing leader. That's not a slight on their work, these guys are among the best leaderhead makers in civ IV, there stuff is excellent. It's just they stretch the limited tools and resources over an incredible number of days/weeks and they still don't get a leader as convincing as the leaderheads introduced in a game like Colonization.
Civ V is full-screen leader screens, with brand new leaders with new animations and interaction, and recorded dialogue in a foreign tongue.
Sorry, you simply cannot just whip that up in two or three afternoons. Professional quality requires professionals.
Guardian_PL
Emperor
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2006
- Messages
- 1,231
If you say so. It might come to many as crazy but I don't see Civ5 leaderheads as professional. All that dead, inanimated background, still and stiff leaders... Babylon and Aztec is ok-ish, the rest is like WoW graphics. You're right that it might have took more than couple of afternoons to do them (not much more though, when having all the tools at your disposal), but still I'm not impressed.
At the same time, I still remember when Cathy in Civ4 was slapping me in the face or Gilgamesh was grabbing my throat to say no. They felt alive. Civ5 guys are without personality whatsoever.
Go on, brand me a Civ4-lover. So far I've been called a bigot and a person who believes that Steam (of all things) and DLC is pure evil, another empty label won't harm me ^^
seasnake
Conquistador
"Brand you a Civ4-lover?" I love that game too. Please do not defend when there is no attack. I apologize if you felt my post was supposed to be such an attack, but it was not.
My question was what knowledge do you have to indicate that it only takes a couple of afternoons to whip up something far more complex than the Civ V leader screens when it takes incredible modders several days to create a much simpler LH for civ IV?
I'm sorry, but look at the latest LH DLC, Harald. The dude is on a ship and is constantly rising and falling with the ship as the wind stirs his ponytails and the rigging. He puts on a helmet and curses you out in Danish when you declare war on him, he strolls up and down his ship as he contemplates your offer. This doesn't just "get done" but it requires programmers and artists to really work hard to deliver such a polished product. It's far more alive and interactive than Gilgamesh's refusal which is basically a camera zoom and a head shake. It looks cool, I'm not dogging it for what it is, but it's like saying that the visual effects in Star Wars are superior to Avatar. Objectively it's not true, even if you prefer the Star Wars effects.
formless blob
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2004
- Messages
- 81
How does the sandstorm map play? Is the difference from a normal continents map noticable? Is the world actually harsh?
janboruta
Artistriarch
So far I've tried Continents Plus and RL British Isles.
Continets Plus is fun, as there are more small islands, though they are mostly dedicated to CSs. But the shapes of the landmasses, the rivers, climates etc. seem to be more appealing.
The British Isles are self-explanatory. You've got the green Ireland, green plains in southern England and rolling hills rising into mountains in Wales and Scotland. Very nice and rather accurate map with quite a lot of rivers. Although I'd recommend adding 2-3 civs to the standard 8 suggested when setting the game up, the map is large and without the extra civs it would be quite empty.
Continets Plus is fun, as there are more small islands, though they are mostly dedicated to CSs. But the shapes of the landmasses, the rivers, climates etc. seem to be more appealing.
The British Isles are self-explanatory. You've got the green Ireland, green plains in southern England and rolling hills rising into mountains in Wales and Scotland. Very nice and rather accurate map with quite a lot of rivers. Although I'd recommend adding 2-3 civs to the standard 8 suggested when setting the game up, the map is large and without the extra civs it would be quite empty.
elprofesor
Pluri-editing poster
I've played in the British Isles too. One thing to take into consideration is that, for realism purposes, there are no Natural Wonders, so extra difficulty there. There are exotic luxury ressources though (ivory, silk, spices...).
I found 8 civs to be reasonable, although 3 civs never expanded, and one was conquered by England, which left them a third of all the settable landmass for themselves; and Ireland is big for only 2 civs. Your call, really.
EDIT: just started a continent plus games. I have no problem with CS being on islands; after all, the DLC is called "explorers pack". But can you actually start next to the shore with your initial settler? I've started 2 hexes away from it (which I only realized 15 turns afterwards...), and Kamehameha (which I assume would have some starting bias) started kind of landlocked.
I found 8 civs to be reasonable, although 3 civs never expanded, and one was conquered by England, which left them a third of all the settable landmass for themselves; and Ireland is big for only 2 civs. Your call, really.
EDIT: just started a continent plus games. I have no problem with CS being on islands; after all, the DLC is called "explorers pack". But can you actually start next to the shore with your initial settler? I've started 2 hexes away from it (which I only realized 15 turns afterwards...), and Kamehameha (which I assume would have some starting bias) started kind of landlocked.
Actually people can't even criticize the cost.
The absolute fact of the matter is that Civ V + all current DLC civs at full price is MUCH cheaper than Civ IV + Expacks at full price. Even if 10 more DLC civs were released for Civ V to match the 34 civs in CIV+Warlords+BTS the total cost of Civ IV+Expacks vs CiV+DLC means CiV is only $13 more expensive. Plus with DLC you can pick and choose.
All these points are well illustrated by this post here: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=10470839&postcount=1
Morningcalm
Keeper of Records
Civ IV Complete is around $20 now, so I don't buy your argument that Civ V is cheaper, Revoran.
I'm talking about value for money.
If you bought Civ IV when it came out, then Warlords at release and BTS, you're paying like $40 more than someone who bought Civ V at release then each current DLC Civilization as it was released as DLC. Granted this only gives you 24 civs in Civ V so far compared to an eventual total of 34 in Civ IV post-BTS - but even factoring another 10 DLC civs in at the regular price - it works out that buying Civ V + DLC (full price) up to a total of 34 civs is only $13 more expensive than buying CIV+Warlords+BTS at release (full) prices.
And I can guarantee you that the DLC will go on sale much sooner and more regularly than CIV + Expansions did. And again with DLC you can pick and choose what you think is worth your money wheras you can't pick and choose civs/maps/scenarios out of an expansion pack.
Overall people who think they're substantially spending more and getting less value for money are wrong. Of course if they don't like Civ V to begin with one wonders why they'd be posting in this thread anyway seeing as if someone doesn't like CiV then CiV DLC is clearly not worth the money to them. (Not aimed at you, just a general snipe).
Seriously, read the guy's post.
Morningcalm
Keeper of Records
Civ IV expansions added far more content and new gameplay features than a few DLC, so my point stands.
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
^ Since this is about the maps, I won't really comment about price, since there are other threads there, but I'll still maintain that each Civ5 civ gives you more value than a Civ4 civ (with full leader art, music, sound files, Dawn of Man recording, two UUs, plus the scenario that includes extra unit and improvement graphics).
Continents Plus is pretty good. FWIW, although I didn't start by the coast, Kamehameha did, so it's certainly possible.
Continents Plus is pretty good. FWIW, although I didn't start by the coast, Kamehameha did, so it's certainly possible.
I actually like that a lot. It seems more realistic and makes it harder to attack a city state. A lot of times I think leaders like Catherine just attack cause the city states are in the path.
The island city states meake me think of Singapore, Hong Kong, etc.
Morningcalm
Keeper of Records
I dunno Louis, despite the great leader anims and such, I feel that Civ IV civs had more differences and bonuses between them than Civ 5 civs do. All Civ 5 civs feel samey after a while, the exceptions being civs with truly uber UA's like Greece's which last the whole game (as opposed to Bismarck's ability, which becomes quite trivial once most of the map is settled). Also, I miss Civ Rev's "through-the-ages" bonuses, which always made advancing to a new age refreshing, and I also miss Civ IV's traits, which lasted the whole game and had great impact on gameplay.
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
See, I didn't see much difference between playing as Justinian and playing as Saladin. One got GP a bit faster, the other got settlers a bit faster. But I could focus my play style in a certain way and they would come out exactly the same. By contrast, being able to embark and cross oceans from turn one feels very different. Even with UUs, one has two extra strength, the other got a few other subtle bonuses. But a Knight that can settle cities, a great leader replacement, and a unit that can weaken enemy units just by being nearby feel very different.
Likewise, hearing Isabella speak Spanish feels a lot different than seeing Isabella's head in a diplo screen when I'm focusing on the offer and counteroffer. Even if I were to look up at the art, the background of Nebuchadnezzar and his fire or the cool blue ocean of Kamehameha looks much better than the tiny floating heads of Civ4 leaders.
Likewise, hearing Isabella speak Spanish feels a lot different than seeing Isabella's head in a diplo screen when I'm focusing on the offer and counteroffer. Even if I were to look up at the art, the background of Nebuchadnezzar and his fire or the cool blue ocean of Kamehameha looks much better than the tiny floating heads of Civ4 leaders.
Similar threads
