In the Civ series, generally speaking, expansions have improved on the existing game. That said, the same does not hold true across all game franchises. I can think of other game franchises where the expansions did not really give bang for your buck. I think this is why DLC has become popular. It's cheaper to produce, provides a steady stream of income to the company, and is priced at a low enough point to attract impulse buyers. By contrast, a $20-30 expansion that doesn't live up to your expectations might end up hurting the franchise in the long run (and yes, there will be a franchise if there's an actual expansion).
Do you think Civ V is doomed?
- Thread starter Shmike
- Start date
So different opinions = "revisionist history?"
exactly this is a crap game.
blind biker
King
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2009
- Messages
- 609
Personally, I liked vanilla Civ IV, and I still play it today. For some reasons, I prefer it to BtS. Not all the time, but often I fire up Vanilla instead of BtS, and definitely rather than Warlords.
Different strokes for different folks.
Different strokes for different folks.
Perhaps the first basic version of each civilization version did not exactly deliver what we hoped for, but after playing it and with expansion it did do so.
BUT other Civ versions did however improve the latest version in complexity and gameplay. I think that Civ 4, for example, with introduction of a number of new features was actually a big step forward in how to run your civilization.
BUT instead Civ5 did remove lot of the complexity seen in earlier version. They removed health, and unhappiness does not have a lot of impact as well. I really hate that your troops can go right out in the sea without any need of transportation. As said before, the only thing I like is the hex-mapping, and that you cannot stack units. Put those features into Civ4:BtS and I would be more than happy, since Civ4 was lacking the tactics of battle in that aspect.
As for Civ5. Doomed!! and no patch or expansion will ever make it a good game. At least not for core Civilization players, but perhaps for people who have not played Civilization before, and just do not want to think about tactics.
BUT other Civ versions did however improve the latest version in complexity and gameplay. I think that Civ 4, for example, with introduction of a number of new features was actually a big step forward in how to run your civilization.
BUT instead Civ5 did remove lot of the complexity seen in earlier version. They removed health, and unhappiness does not have a lot of impact as well. I really hate that your troops can go right out in the sea without any need of transportation. As said before, the only thing I like is the hex-mapping, and that you cannot stack units. Put those features into Civ4:BtS and I would be more than happy, since Civ4 was lacking the tactics of battle in that aspect.
As for Civ5. Doomed!! and no patch or expansion will ever make it a good game. At least not for core Civilization players, but perhaps for people who have not played Civilization before, and just do not want to think about tactics.
Öjevind Lång
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2005
- Messages
- 2,371
I don't think it is doomed. It's been received well by everyone except a minority of fanatical Civ IV admirers who will never be satisfied no matter how much a vast majority of gamers enjoy it.
Granted, Civ V was released much too early, and there are still a lot of things that need to be addressed. Even so, it becomes more impressive the longer I play it. For example, once you begin to understand how diplomacy works, it's a completely different ball game. Much tougher than in Civ IV. Of course, anyone using the old bludgeon strategies from Civ IV can win the game easily even on the higher levels. But that complaint is about as relevant as the one sometimes made about Civ IV: that one could almost always win an early victory by means of the famous axemen rush. That was true, but the obvious answer to that complaint was valid, and is for Civ V too: Don't play the game that way if you want to enjoy it.
Of course there are still many bugs and balance issues that should be fixed, and some (re)introductions of various items would be welcome. But I am so glad to be rid of the Stack of Doom, swarming spies, corporations, the slider, tech trading and religion-based (and completely broken) diplomacy.
Granted, Civ V was released much too early, and there are still a lot of things that need to be addressed. Even so, it becomes more impressive the longer I play it. For example, once you begin to understand how diplomacy works, it's a completely different ball game. Much tougher than in Civ IV. Of course, anyone using the old bludgeon strategies from Civ IV can win the game easily even on the higher levels. But that complaint is about as relevant as the one sometimes made about Civ IV: that one could almost always win an early victory by means of the famous axemen rush. That was true, but the obvious answer to that complaint was valid, and is for Civ V too: Don't play the game that way if you want to enjoy it.
Of course there are still many bugs and balance issues that should be fixed, and some (re)introductions of various items would be welcome. But I am so glad to be rid of the Stack of Doom, swarming spies, corporations, the slider, tech trading and religion-based (and completely broken) diplomacy.
Öjevind Lång
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2005
- Messages
- 2,371
Your majesty, you are right. I salute you! But the end of the world did not start with Civ V. It started when Civ II was superseded by that abomination in the eyes of God, Civ III. Since then, the Apocalypse was merely a matter of time. Repent, ye sinners! Go back to playing Civ II, and ye may still save the world.
im already playing Civ 4 again. Love it. Civ 2 adn Civ 4 are still the best. Yeah i still can play Civ 2 lol. Its an incredible game. Civ 4 is just an advancement from 1, civ 2, civ 3 . But then Civ 5? The progress of civ 1, civ 2, civ 3 and civ 4 mostly gone. Its like Sid Meier's life work just removed for the sake of hex squares and crappy wannabe strategic battles and more clouds.
You don't think there's a correlation between franchise fans, their disappointment, and Firaxis/2K's early release of an unfinished/unpolished sequel?Öjevind Lång;10107729 said:
As for that vast majority of gamers, a poor game hurts the entire community. How do you compare this to this? I mean, we all know "critically acclaimed" means jack **** when reviews are basically bought off by developers. This isn't the first lemon from a "major" PC developer I've seen in the past few years, but it is more disappointing than most others.
As can be seen in most of my post im not a huge fan of civ 5 but I dont think the reviewers were bought off, If you only played civ 5 for 20hrs you would more than likely think it is a great game its when you hit the 50 hr mark you start to see flaws. Most game reviewers dont just review one game a week so they dont spend more than 20 hrs or less with a game, so I could see how they would play it for a round and think it was good.
Only if they turned their brain off. The biggest problems were apparent to me before I started actually playing the demo - a read through the manual was sufficient to see that some areas of the game were broken and to raise suspicions that the designers had little clue how it would end up when played seriously. Playing the demo confirmed this, as well as that the AI would indeed suck (unsurprising. Civ AI was never better than adequate and Civ5 mechanics would be much more challenging).
Few games are perfect at release, and it's unrealistic to expect that. However, some flaws are easier corrected than others.
There was plenty wrong with Civ4 at release, but nothing of importance was *fundamentally* wrong. Lack of choice, variety, balance and overall polish are not fundamental flaws... they can detract from the experience a lot but in the end those can be fixed. Broken mechanics and gameplay that makes it unreasonably hard to create adequate AI are a much bigger problem in the long run.
Of course Civ5 can be improved, but there's only so much you can do when the basic design decisions sucked.
Few games are perfect at release, and it's unrealistic to expect that. However, some flaws are easier corrected than others.
There was plenty wrong with Civ4 at release, but nothing of importance was *fundamentally* wrong. Lack of choice, variety, balance and overall polish are not fundamental flaws... they can detract from the experience a lot but in the end those can be fixed. Broken mechanics and gameplay that makes it unreasonably hard to create adequate AI are a much bigger problem in the long run.
Of course Civ5 can be improved, but there's only so much you can do when the basic design decisions sucked.
1.) The reviewers, if they aren't bought off, are hacks. Seriously. They focus on pretty pictures most of the time, and tend to ignore gameplay. Sure, they'll catch bugs and crashes and such, if the game is in really bad shape, but they do not ever provide really in-depth reviews of game mechanics. I also think that, again -- if they aren't bought off, they tend to be wowed by big-name franchises and carry over the goodwill established in previous entries. They also seem to play favorites. Call of Duty as a franchise is a current favorite. Medal of Honor, by contrast, is not. Never mind the fact that Call of Duty's gameplay is stale and kind of mindnumbing, their "stories" tend to be fairly ridiculous and over the top (not to mention formulaic). The reviews always focus on how great the new graphics are and blah blah blah. Lastly, reviews are always the instantaneous view of things before the shine is off. I WISH gaming review websites would start running "Two months later...." columns. Plenty of games I've played I've thought were great for the first month or so, only to later discover real deep problems with them.
2.) It took me a total of about 5 or 6 hours to determine that Civ 5 was poorly constructed, poorly thought out, and not for me. In a Civ game. That has NEVER happened before with a Civ game for me. When you sell your game on the strength of the name, you'd better bloody well deliver a game worthy of the title. Civ 5, for me (and apparently for many others), is mediocre as a generic 4X empire-building game. Civ 5 as a Civ game is a pathetic entry into a storied franchise that actually HARMS the strength of the brand. I mean, I was lukewarm about Civ 3, but Civ 5 I've now actually uninstalled after playing for about 5-6 hours. It just has no real appeal to me. There are a few nice new features, but there's so much more that irritates me or just leaves me bored silly.
2.) It took me a total of about 5 or 6 hours to determine that Civ 5 was poorly constructed, poorly thought out, and not for me. In a Civ game. That has NEVER happened before with a Civ game for me. When you sell your game on the strength of the name, you'd better bloody well deliver a game worthy of the title. Civ 5, for me (and apparently for many others), is mediocre as a generic 4X empire-building game. Civ 5 as a Civ game is a pathetic entry into a storied franchise that actually HARMS the strength of the brand. I mean, I was lukewarm about Civ 3, but Civ 5 I've now actually uninstalled after playing for about 5-6 hours. It just has no real appeal to me. There are a few nice new features, but there's so much more that irritates me or just leaves me bored silly.
SKILORD
Insurgent
I just remember being a Regent player back in the day, and being honestly challenged with equal startups. All of the sudden in Civ V I can bash stuff on Deity, with AI handicaps I still spend the whole game trying to figure out how they can be so stupid. It's like if I were competing in the special olympics, the victories are not particularly gratifying.
I find it hard to believe that all reviewers were bought off. It sounds too much like a conspiracy theory.
Yes, maybe it was some kind of "emperor's new clothes" -phenomena. Civilization has such a reputation that perhaps reviewers had no courage to criticize the newest iteration. Maybe deep inside they thought the game is actually quite boring, but didn't dare to say it out cause they were afraid to be marked as ignorants who don't understand complex and great games like Civ5. This is my theory anyway...
bryanw1995
Emperor
you can still take cities like that, but siege units are a great help. 3 trebs with a few defending longswords can take out a castle city as long as you've taken out their support units first. just make sure one or two of your infantry units has medic especially and you'll take it fairly quickly.
SKILORD
Insurgent
I understand what you mean, and with respect to your marketing strategy I will hold my tongue as a "player of video games" in which role I cannot help but violently disagree.
My more moderate, considered point would be that while it should be accessable, I think that the Settler difficulty setting is plenty easy enough for accessable. If anything the lack of a coherent AI makes the game harder at that level for beginning players because beginning players will readily assume that their peaceful interactions with the AI are meaningful, when in fact they almost never are and can often be followed directly by invasions at random.
But you also have to appreciate the market for players who want a game that requires some skill. You have to be able to make Deity harder at the same time you make Settler easier, so that you can capture both markets. Dumbing down game mechanics like diplomacy, or the AI's war strategies until they don't even have real role in the game is not an effective way to accomplish much with either group.
EDIT: If you really want to lure in casuals... Bring back hotseat!
bryanw1995
Emperor
from looking at 3 and 4 I'd assume that they built the game with at least 2 expansions in mind, and sales definitely look strong enough to justify them. however, I doubt that people who have put the game down now are likely to come back to it en masse, so figure that even great expansions will cap out at 1-1.5 million sales.
bryanw1995
Emperor
yeah, you're right, those 20,000 people play it 24/7 while the other 980,000 never play it at all...
more likely an average user plays it an hour or 2 per day, lifting you to 240,000-480,000 active users.
bryanw1995
Emperor
hit escape key while loading video, if you have a decent computer it should be less than 5 seconds. for me it's usually just 2-3 seconds in fact.
Similar threads
