Does anyone else think G&K looks a lot like BTS?

[Horizons]

To me it really looks a lot like a rehashed BTS ... religion, espionage (both of which were supposedly left out deliberately for design reasons) and new units and wonders ... a couple of scenarios ... wouldn't surprise me if stacked combat has returned ...

Also it's been nearly 2 years since Civ5 came out, so the game will likely only be supported for a few more months and then dropped altogether, not leaving much time to balance out the 'new' combat, navy, units etc ... leaving an AI unable to use the new stuff, just like Civ5 vanilla is and always will be (because it'll never get patched again) unable to launch seaborne/inter-continental invasions.

I'm like ... ho-hum, with this new expansion. And boring civs too ... no Zulu. Celts, Austria ... blah blah blah, more boring Europeans.

 

[Lyoncet]

Rehashed BTS? By that you mean one feature they're adding in G&K has the same name but works entirely differently? Unless I'm misunderstanding you, this is sort of like saying CiV vanilla is just a rehashed CIV because they both have combat and world wonders. Or that IV is a rehash of III, III a rehash of II, and II a rehash of I. I doubt you'll find many people voicing those complaints, or saying that that makes Civ II a worse product than if it would have had no gameplay elements carried over from its predecessor.

I understand you may be coming at it meaning that since the two expansions add the same content over the vanilla game (in which case, I'd like to point out that only espionage is ported over; religion was in the stock game in IV), but if that's your concern, I guess my question is "So?" They're both capable of being very good gameplay elements that take some focus off war, which CiV vanilla overemphasizes – a chief complaint by the community. If you're saying you wish they would have added something else instead of two new gameplay elements, revamped city-states, new wonders, new scenarios, and 9 new civs, what would you have rather they added? Am I correct that your argument is that you think they should have added more, or wish they didn't add the same things they added in BTS? Because only one of those features was actually also added in BTS, and the other features you mentioned I'm sure nobody is complaining that they added. Can you imagine the outcry if they didn't add new civs and wonders? I guess generally I'm just trying to figure out what you think they should have done.

Also, the last official patch for BTS was released in June 2009, roughly 4 years after CIV was released and 2 years after that expansion came out. I don't know where you got the "they'll probably just support V for another few months" idea. Do you have any basis for that? It seems to me that as long as it's selling well (it is), they'll have people working to produce content, and as long as they're doing that, there will be updates. So if your concern is that all the features they added meant less time working on core AI problems that will never get fixed because the game will get dropped in two months, I'd have to say there's very little to support that. Perhaps you can enlighten me? On top of that, saying CiV vanilla won't get any more patches doesn't hold up if you're going by the franchise history either – CiV vanilla's last patch was in July 2007. Warlords came out in July 2006. So there was another year's worth of patches that didn't depend on expansions.

It seems like you're making a lot of assertions that you can't really back up – or maybe can, but just haven't yet. TBH this kind of comes off as a rant without much substance. But I could be wrong. Feel free to elaborate.

 

[Mozzington]

Horizons, I'm really sorry to do this to you (with you being a fellow countryman and all) but you are coming across to us as an idiot. Moderator Action: Sorry, this is already over the line. Please don't call anyone idiot here on the forums. You have this one totally wrong.

 

[smallfish]

It's more Warlords than BtS.

 

[CleverFool]

Is it a bad thing that it looks like BtS? Most consider that expansion to be the one that really put CiV over the edge and made it such a great game. If it is anything like its predecessor I'll be plenty happy.

 

[Lyoncet]

Is it a bad thing that it looks like BtS? Most consider that expansion to be the one that really put CiV over the edge and made it such a great game. If it is anything like its predecessor I'll be plenty happy.

That too. I hear "BTS was subpar" about as often as I hear "CiV is like a rehashed CIV." Read: never.

So again, what's the problem?

 

[Sonereal]

What was wrong with BTS, O' Great OP?

To me it really looks a lot like a rehashed BTS ... religion, espionage (both of which were supposedly left out deliberately for design reasons) and new units and wonders ... a couple of scenarios ... wouldn't surprise me if stacked combat has returned ...

1.) "...." isn't a form of punctuation one should use frequently. It makes your post, like your line of reasoning, extremely choppy.

2.) Yes, how dare they add a mechanic that shares the name of a mechanics from previous game that works completely differently. I think they should've called religion "Super Lawlfuntime" since that would be unique.

3.) I hate when the add new units, wonders, and scenarios to games with expansion packs. Seriously, 2kGames and Fireaxis? I hope you guys are reading this because we want you to know we really hate new stuff.

Also it's been nearly 2 years since Civ5 came out, so the game will likely only be supported for a few more months and then dropped altogether, not leaving much time to balance out the 'new' combat, navy, units etc ... leaving an AI unable to use the new stuff, just like Civ5 vanilla is and always will be (because it'll never get patched again) unable to launch seaborne/inter-continental invasions.

This part made my head hurt so I'm ignoring.

m like ... ho-hum, with this new expansion. And boring civs too ... no Zulu. Celts, Austria ... blah blah blah, more boring Europeans.

See. This is where punctuation hurts you again. "No Zulu, Celts, Austria' implies you wanted them but "more boring Europeans" implies that adding European civilizations you don't want is stupid and adding ones you do want is exciting. Well, yes.

I like how you're perfectly fine with new civilizations but have something against new units and wonders.

 

[bestrfcplayer]

I'm like ... ho-hum, with this new expansion. And boring civs too ... no Zulu. Celts, Austria ... blah blah blah, more boring Europeans.

Well, I don't think that any civ could be 'boring.'

 

[Ranos]

To me it really looks a lot like a rehashed BTS ... religion, espionage (both of which were supposedly left out deliberately for design reasons) and new units and wonders ... a couple of scenarios ... wouldn't surprise me if stacked combat has returned ...

Religion was in Civ IV vanilla. Yes both added espionage. But BTS added corporations, random events and a couple of other things. Every expansion has added new units, wonders, buildings, scenarios and other similar things.

G&K is the only expansion, iirc, that has changed a major system in the game (combat).

Also it's been nearly 2 years since Civ5 came out, so the game will likely only be supported for a few more months and then dropped altogether, not leaving much time to balance out the 'new' combat, navy, units etc ... leaving an AI unable to use the new stuff, just like Civ5 vanilla is and always will be (because it'll never get patched again) unable to launch seaborne/inter-continental invasions.

Civ IV was released in 2005, Warlords in 2006 and BTS in 2007. The final BTS patch was in 2009. So Civ IV recieved a total of 4 years of support. Then Civ V came out a year later. So depending on what Firaxis and 2K decide to do, we could see another expansion ofter G&K and probably 2-3 more years of support before they cut it off to focus on Civ 6.

I'm like ... ho-hum, with this new expansion. And boring civs too ... no Zulu. Celts, Austria ... blah blah blah, more boring Europeans.

How exactly do you know they are boring? Have you played any of them yet? The Celts look to be gaining benefits toward religion and Austria's ability to "marry" into City-States looks like a great new strategy.

As for Europeans, I count only four. Out of nine. The others are two Mediterranean, one Asian, one African and one American.

Why is it that every time an expansion or some other big change is going to be made that people judge it and decide that it's horrible before they have even tried it?

I personally can't wait for G&K (already preordered) to try out the new systems!

 

[Mozzington]

For the record, nobody was called an idiot. It was just stated that the original poster was coming across like one, not that they are one.

Moderator Action: There may be a temptation to either comment on moderator actions or explain your earlier post to readers, but please refrain from doing so in public.

Using simile doesn't really mitigate the trollish nature of saying someone is exhibiting characteristics of an idiot.

 

[Camikaze]

By the looks of things, comparisons could be made to BtS, but in a complimentary way. Like, 'G&K will probably be to Civ5 what BtS was to Civ4'. I find it fascinating that a point of view that G&K to an extent emulating BtS would be a bad thing actually exists.

 

[BobDole]

By the looks of things, comparisons could be made to BtS, but in a complimentary way. Like, 'G&K will probably be to Civ5 what BtS was to Civ4'. I find it fascinating that a point of view that G&K to an extent emulating BtS would be a bad thing actually exists.

Yeah, that's the only sort of comparison I can see being made. OP, you should probably read some previews or something, because if you really think that they just copy/pasted religion and espionage over, and if "it wouldn't surprise you if stacked combat returned" then I guess you really haven't been paying attention at all, which means you really aren't in a position to even make assertions about G&K.

 

[The Pilgrim]

By the looks of things, comparisons could be made to BtS, but in a complimentary way. Like, 'G&K will probably be to Civ5 what BtS was to Civ4'. I find it fascinating that a point of view that G&K to an extent emulating BtS would be a bad thing actually exists.

I guess people feel that no really new concepts added for quite a while. I can partially understand that. It's been over 20 months since a release and we didn't get anything new. Bunch of new civs that cost extra bucks and play by the same old rules and ehm... stone? In roughly the same period of time we got two packs for Civ4, which both added new features and new functionality. Ironically, when someone points out that these are the exact reasons why DLC model is not good for us, they get yelled at (probably by the same people who rant about lack of innovation ) with claims that it brings lots of new stuff and fun etc.
I aslo wish Firaxis were more creative and innovative. And really hope the next EP won't be all about corporations. But quality and balance-wise we can only dream of G&K being comparable to BTS.

 

[Horizons]

By the looks of things, comparisons could be made to BtS, but in a complimentary way. Like, 'G&K will probably be to Civ5 what BtS was to Civ4'. I find it fascinating that a point of view that G&K to an extent emulating BtS would be a bad thing actually exists.

The problem is that BTS already exists, why do I want to play the same thing again? (Or, better put, if I did want to play it again - why not play BTS instead of buying a new XP?)

What I meant was, what else is new in this XP besides making Civ5 more like Civ4, which I thought was deliberately rejected by the designers?

 

[Camikaze]

I'm not entirely sure you understand what I was attempting to say. G&K does not sound like it will be similar to BtS, other than that the mechanics added have the same names, and that both are probably pretty groundbreaking for their respective series iterations. Playing G&K will not at all be like playing BtS. The new systems are being implemented in different ways, and the stark differences between the base games (1upt, hexes, etc.) will remain.

 

[Velvet Elvis]

Civ IV was released in 2005, Warlords in 2006 and BTS in 2007. The final BTS patch was in 2009. So Civ IV recieved a total of 4 years of support. Then Civ V came out a year later. So depending on what Firaxis and 2K decide to do, we could see another expansion ofter G&K and probably 2-3 more years of support before they cut it off to focus on Civ 6.

Also consider that CiV includes DX 11 support and could only run well on high end hardware at the time of its release. To me that says they were obviously looking to make a game that people would still be picking up for the first time years on down the road.

 

[Lyoncet]

The problem is that BTS already exists, why do I want to play the same thing again? (Or, better put, if I did want to play it again - why not play BTS instead of buying a new XP?)

What I meant was, what else is new in this XP besides making Civ5 more like Civ4, which I thought was deliberately rejected by the designers?

It's been pointed out time and time again that there's only one (yes, one) feature that G&K adds that BTS also added: espionage. AFAIK, Espionage wasn't cut from CiV vanilla because it wasn't good; it was cut because it wasn't something everyone enjoyed, and they wanted to focus on mechanics that have a broader appeal. Same with religion. Since so many people like it and miss it, adding it in an expansion is fine. (Also, same with random events, although obviously those haven't been added in at least as of G&K.)

Same with religion (which wasn't added in BTS like you keep insisting). It was cut because a lot of people hated CIV's religion system, for good reason. It was 2-dimensional, random, and arbitrary. So they came up with an entirely new gameplay mechanic, which is an abstraction of the real-world concept of religion. Said mechanic resembles Civ IV's religion mechanic in name only, which is why it's baffling everybody else on this thread that you insisted (and then re-insisted) that they just put the same, unpopular mechanic back in. Because they didn't.

So again, it comes down to this: what's wrong with the content? You mentioned three things: espionage and religion are too similar to the way BTS added espionage and religion (let's not even get into the fact that BTS didn't add religion as you claimed), and they both added civs and wonders. Espionage was completely reworked from Civ IV, and religion isn't even mildly reminiscent of Civ IV. And again: let's seem them release an expansion without wonders or civs. We could take bets on how many minutes it would take for angry fan traffic to bring down every civ-related site on the internet. So what makes this expansion BTS 2? You just re-iterated what you said originally without adding anything or addressing all the myriad ways it was pointed out that your complaints were essentially insubstantial because their premises were terminally flawed. What's your basis? What's your complaint? What's your alternative? What's the issue? What's your alternative?

This isn't even getting into the substantiation we're still waiting for on your claims such as "there will only be 2 more months of support before the game is dropped" and the like. Is that anything more than conjecture? And if not, does the conjecture have any basis? Because going by the company's history, I'd say your outlook is questionable.

 

[cain3456]

I think what the OP was trying to say is that G&K should be considered the second xp for CiV, and the DLC together should count as the first. I wonder what the consensus would've been had they gone oldschool and release the DLC collectively as an xp, titled something like "Explorers and Wonders".

 

[ohioastronomy]

Religion in Civ 4 was not "broadly unpopular". Like most game concepts, it had people who very much liked it and some people who really did not like it. The removal of religion in Civ 5 triggered numerous complaints. Espionage really did have more critics than fans, largely because of the micromanagement.

 

[Hormagaunt]

Espionage really did have more critics than fans, largely because of the micromanagement.

Espionage requires some micromanagement, yes, and can be annoying, but I found it odd how many people didn't like it simply because they had little concept of what it could be used for. I really hope that the G&K version of Espionage will be as useful as Civ4's version.

(I won't find out for quite a while, though, because I'll not be buying the expansion for the same "quite a while".)