Do you think that the expansion will really improve this game?

[Civsassin]

None of which is exclusive to 1upt.

Perhaps, but you have to put much more thought into your war plan than you did just stacking 50 units on a single tile and marauding across the map. Not that I didn't enjoy CiIV; I did. I just like the set up in CiV more exactly because it requires more thinking.

 

[lschnarch]

Perhaps, but you have to put much more thought into your war plan than you did just stacking 50 units on a single tile and marauding across the map. Not that I didn't enjoy CiIV; I did. I just like the set up in CiV more exactly because it requires more thinking.

That's complete nonsense, and you've said it by yourself:

Perhaps I did, but I still find the initial engagement to be fun. Once you've beaten the AI's initial troops, it's a matter of rote to move from city to city.

All you have to do in Civ5 is to survive the initial assault and then pick whatever you want.
Wargame-wise, the challenge in Civ5 equals almost zero.

This wouldn't be that much of a problem if it were a builder's game, too. Unfortunately, it isn't either.

So, what is left?
The fun is like slapping a four-year-old into the face and feeling great since he cannot defend.

 

[lschnarch]

Is there anything Official regarding an Expansion pack?

Plenty...

Wrong.

2K forums have threads worth of staff answers to specific issues.
V1167 (quick fixes) was just out (in dev calendar terms) two weeks ago.

The hotfix (translate: emergency fix) was released on Jan 19th, if I'm not mistaken.

To the best of my knowledge, there hasn't been ANY official statement regarding an expansion pack.

All they have done is saying they aren't yet finished with working on Civ5.
This is true, as at least one patch is outstanding. DLC might come, too.

Anything more than that is just speculation.

 

[SuperJay]

RE: a potential future unannounced theoretical expansion... I do think an expansion could "improve" Civ 5, but I don't think that will make the game much more appealing to me. I don't see an expansion fundamentally redesigning the game and improving the AI. What it might do that would be useful (to me) is improving diplomacy and adding more content and layered systems that would add more versatility and depth to the game. But given that the core product is so deeply flawed, I'm going to have a hard time convincing myself to spend $30-40 more to get the Civ 5 that I thought I got in September for $60. I mean, really - one hundred dollars just to get a decent Civilization game? Jesus.

If an expansion does come out, I'm certainly not buying it immediately - will wait and see what other players think, especially those who are known for writing well-reasoned criticisms here.

 

[Zyxpsilon]

The hotfix (translate: emergency fix) was released on Jan 19th, if I'm not mistaken.

Anything more than that is just speculation.

Ah, Com'on... Jan19_Feb15 - that makes up (what) for about 27days/7=3.8571428-- weeks ago instead of TWO, right?
This whole thread premise was basicly asking for any and all forms of speculative comments from everybody.
Some took (again) this opportunity to slap yet another bashing fest on our faces & eyes.

There's three and a half-ways to define Expansion; one of which isn't negativity.

 

[lschnarch]

What it might do that would be useful (to me) is improving diplomacy and adding more content and layered systems that would add more versatility and depth to the game.

What I don't understand: people are assuming a hypothetical expansion to add diversity, options and whatnotever.
On the other hand, many people claim that Civ5 was designed for the casual player who would be attracted by the current shallowness.

So, people are assuming that Firaxis alienated their old fans by design decisions to acquire other, new audiences. Once this has been achieved, these new audiences shall be alienated by adding more options?
Somehow, this doesn't fit.

The ones speaking in favour of Civ5 have mostly claimed to not like either religion, corporations, espionage, health, civics, whatever. In short: 90% of the ones in favour strongly disgust any variety or additional options.
Now, if these are the ones Firaxis wants to attract, what would you expect from an expansion?
Most probably there will be some additional DLC, some new civs and "natural wonders" (Garden of Eden, Atlantis, Yggdrasil and the like) and maybe the option to communicate with your Facebook "friends".

 

[SuperJay]

Now, if these are the ones Firaxis wants to attract, what would you expect from an expansion?

I was basing my remarks on the fact that expansions for PC games typically do introduce new features and mechanics. But you have a point in that many features from previous Civilizations games may have been deliberately streamlined out of Civ 5 - we don't know if they were removed in an effort to appeal to a wider audience that would see those features as "clutter" or "too complicated," or if Firaxis just recognized that they didn't have the resources to include things like espionage or religion given their schedule and budget.

I most of us can agree that Civ 5 was likely rushed out the door, and that many core features like diplomacy were released in an unfinished state, so it's not surprising if additional features were omitted simply due to lack of resources.

So if the lack of depth was a result of the limitations of budget and schedule, a hypothetical expansion might add more content.

If, on the other hand, that lack of depth was the result of a deliberate design choice to attract a wider audience, then yeah, an expansion is unlikely to add much content.

We just can't know why we got the product we ended up with, basically.

 

[Zyxpsilon]

Most probably there will be some additional DLC, some new civs and "natural wonders" (Garden of Eden, Atlantis, Yggdrasil and the like) and maybe the option to communicate with your Facebook "friends".

If it all adds "some fun" to the gameplay, i'm perfectly willing to test_beta_like such stuff -- again, once more, forever if i should.
But, isn't it completely ironic (and absolutely accurate on your part!) that the FaceBook's remark is indeed a valid factor?
We simply need TWO games.
The current arcade_inspired (specifically designed to appeal Soccer Moms & their Kids!) version and our very own precious "Fanatical Monster of a Beast" which may yet show up it's ugly Face(!) within some marvelously thought of MODs. Oh wait - this process has started already.

 

[vandyr]

That's complete nonsense, and you've said it by yourself:


All you have to do in Civ5 is to survive the initial assault and then pick whatever you want.
Wargame-wise, the challenge in Civ5 equals almost zero.

This wouldn't be that much of a problem if it were a builder's game, too. Unfortunately, it isn't either.

So, what is left?
The fun is like slapping a four-year-old into the face and feeling great since he cannot defend.

Isnarch, one day you'll have to accept the fact that not everyone shares your likes and dislikes. For many people Civ V is a perfectly good game and 1upt is much more enjoyable than SoD warfare.

 

[lschnarch]

Isnarch, one day you'll have to accept the fact that not everyone shares your likes and dislikes. For many people Civ V is a perfectly good game and 1upt is much more enjoyable than SoD warfare.

vandyr, one day you'll have to accept the fact that not everyone shares your likes and dislikes. For many people Civ V is a quite bad game and 1upt is even worse than SoD warfare.

 

[vandyr]

vandyr, one day you'll have to accept the fact that not everyone shares your likes and dislikes. For many people Civ V is a quite bad game and 1upt is even worse than SoD warfare.

I do, which is why I don't jump into every thread denouncing anything I don't agree with

On topic, I can't wait for an expansion.

 

[Danild111]

vandyr, one day you'll have to accept the fact that not everyone shares your likes and dislikes. For many people Civ V is a quite bad game and 1upt is even worse than SoD warfare.

He said MANY (not all) people...

 

[JoeBas]

All you have to do in Civ5 is to survive the initial assault and then pick whatever you want.

And this is different from cIV, C-III, C-II, etc how?...

 

[Ricci]

...
For many people Civ V is a perfectly good game and 1upt is much more enjoyable than SoD warfare.

Yes, once I saw a boy picking dirt from the floor with his finger and spreading it on his teeth, and he was smiling..

 

[Moss]

Moderator Action: lschnarch and vandyr (and everyone else), back on topic please.

 

[sketch162000]

RE: a potential future unannounced theoretical expansion... I do think an expansion could "improve" Civ 5, but I don't think that will make the game much more appealing to me. I don't see an expansion fundamentally redesigning the game and improving the AI. What it might do that would be useful (to me) is improving diplomacy and adding more content and layered systems that would add more versatility and depth to the game. But given that the core product is so deeply flawed, I'm going to have a hard time convincing myself to spend $30-40 more to get the Civ 5 that I thought I got in September for $60. I mean, really - one hundred dollars just to get a decent Civilization game? Jesus.

If an expansion does come out, I'm certainly not buying it immediately - will wait and see what other players think, especially those who are known for writing well-reasoned criticisms here.

Ditto, except I just had a thought. The base of "well-reasoned critics" that you and I are waiting for will be noticeably absent in the event of an EP because I think we are all twice shy at this point. Probably every one of the critics has already figured that he'll save his money and just wait for the next guy to pick it up for review.

So the boards are going to look like the professional review sites did on Civ V's release day--tons of boot-licking by the neophiles. Praises by the people who already like Civ V enough to ignore its flaws. And the lone critical guy who gets shouted down by everybody else. One of us is going to have to take the plunge in the name of objectivity.

*touches nose* NOT "IT!!"

 

[jtb1127]

Definitely right about the traffic jams.

 

[SuperJay]

Ditto, except I just had a thought. The base of "well-reasoned critics" that you and I are waiting for will be noticeably absent in the event of an EP because I think we are all twice shy at this point. Probably every one of the critics has already figured that he'll save his money and just wait for the next guy to pick it up for review.

So the boards are going to look like the professional review sites did on Civ V's release day--tons of boot-licking by the neophiles. Praises by the people who already like Civ V enough to ignore its flaws. And the lone critical guy who gets shouted down by everybody else. One of us is going to have to take the plunge in the name of objectivity.

*touches nose* NOT "IT!!"

Hahaha, I know right?? I had the same thought as I wrote the post you quoted. I realized I was basically saying "some of you who I agree with - go be my guinea pigs and gamble your money on another Firaxis product, and then let me know how that works out for ya."

It's not even the financial cost, for me - I can handle spending $30-40 on something useful and fun - but the principle of it. I have a problem rewarding mediocrity. If an expansion did rescue Civ5 somehow, I'd buy it because I really want to have a fun new Civilization game. But if it's just going to slap on some new civs, some new units, more "Natural Wonders" (*barf*) and add a few policies, count me out.

That said, I do try to be objective and I don't have an "us vs. them" mentality or a vested stake in disliking Civ 5. I really WANT to like it. In the event that Firaxis does release an expansion, we'll just have to draw straws to see who gets testing duty.

 

[Veino]

I believe the game is fundamentally sound. It needs some tweaks, but with each patch, so far, the game has improved. I enjoy it quite a bit. I, unlike many others, will not compare it to CiIV BTS. That game was well beyond CiIV Vanilla and Warlords.

The developers designed a damn good game IMO - not perfect, but damn good. Expansion will add elements to gameplay that will make it much more complex and challenging as was done with previous Civilization games. Although many people don't like the game, I enjoy it and will continue to play it through patches and expansions.

That's exactly how I see things. It keeps getting better patch by patch and I'm hoping to see some expansion in future. I still won't be devastated if it never happens. I don't think there is something so badly broken in game mechanism that it couldn't be adressed by some tweaking, major or not.