Perfection
The Great Head.
That jerk!As (IIRC) JFK said:"Perfection is the enemy of progress."
That jerk!As (IIRC) JFK said:"Perfection is the enemy of progress."
"Be the change you wish to see in the world"-Ghandi.Evrett said:I did not receive a single message about the protest so it didnt happen.
As for Firaxis, if Civ V flops, all it means is that they were bled dry by 2K. Eventually they'd get a job somewhere else, and we'd get something good again.
Well, I remember those discussions as well.
Seems to me that you have been one of the defenders of the "suicide siege weapons" at that time, arguing how they would solve the problem of SoDs, haven't you?
And, btw, Civ4 has become good because of the modifications, if you ask me.
The last unmodified Civ4 (or WL, or BTS) game I seem to have played in November 2005, if memory serves me correctly.
@tom. Very poor example. Point is that Civ3 bombardment was *horribly* flawed-& open to rampant exploitation (especially with armies), but it *was* an improvement on the even more flawed Civ2 model (I remember being able to conquer whole empires with nothing more than a bunch of howies & a mech infantries in Civ2!). Civ4 sought to rectify the more glaring flaws of the Civ3 bombardment model-it worked, but had flaws of its own (though at least some of those flaws were ironed out during subsequent expansion packs). With Civ5 they're revisiting the ranged bombardment model, but in the context of a 1upt combat system-& with other limitations which didn't exist in Civ3-all of which hopefully will prevent the flaws in Civ3 from rearing their ugly heads. Now I'm not going to guarantee that it will work, nor am I going to claim that its "the best thing ever, just because its new". Yet nor am I going to hate on a game-& endlessly predict doom & ruination for the franchise-just because they're making a change I don't like (such as the removal of Espionage & Real World religions).
Aussie.
Where are making this stuff up at? I like the ranged combat aspect, because I liked the Civ 3 ranged combat aspect. Civ 3 method was flawed because the AI was broken and didn't use land bombardment hardly ever. Still, it beats IMO suicide runs (if it worked that is.. ). Actually Civ 3 mods have resorted to suicide runs because the Civ 3 artillery is so badly broken and Firaxis never decided to fix (I still wish they would).
Where did I mention gloom and doom in my last post? I like the ranged aspect, among hordes of other things. You must be mistaking my post with someone elses. I don't mean to confuse you or anyone else. I'm very sorry Aussie if anything in my post caused such confusion to befall upon on you.
Ranged bombardment in Civ3 was imbalanced cause you could stack an INFINITE amount of deathbringers in a relatively safe tile and bombard everyone to hell.
Civ4 balanced siege a bit, but Siege STILL rule in Civ4.
Civ5 brings back the fun from Civ3 in a balanced way because of 1UPT and making Artillery risky. If the enemy gets to your artillery its bye bye. You can't protect it as easily as in civ3.
The impression was it was artists and QA folks let go due to lack of work. I doubt they'll get royalties/bonuses for all their hard work though.
2K is going to suck the soul out of Firaxis, just like Sega sucked the soul out of CA.
Really, my issues with Civ V are almost entirely due to 2K right now.
Speaking for myself, I know I will never buy another Total War game after Empire. Loved Rome, Like Medieval I and II, but Empire was SO broken. It needed several patches before the AI could even use its own weapons properly (and it's still flawed), the UI was blurry and nearly unreadable, the system requirements are ridiculous (a brand new laptop can barely run the thing at the lower-end settings), the DLC was expensive and unimpressive, etc.
However, this doesn't mean buying ETW was itself a mistake. The previews looked really promising, the screenshots were awesome, the company had an awesome track record, and the changes to a new era with naval combat were really, really exciting. Based on all the information at the time, it was a great move. However, now they've used up that credibility and lost my business.
Likewise, if Civ V sucks I'll be done. But given how much value Civ IV and III have given me, and the awesomeness that was Pirates! and Railroads!, Sid Meier's label will get a pass from me until it lets me down. Further, I've invested about 80 bucks in Civ IV and gotten easily hundreds of hours of quality entertainment (including modding, which is like Legos for us grown ups).
The new things in Civ V sound awesome! I may be alone in this, but the thought of 1UPT with ranged bombardment sounds excellent. It's done pretty well in Pirates!, when you sack a port you maneuver units around in bunches, some with a melee attack and others with a ranged attack. All units can move and attack or move twice. The ranged attackers are really weak so you need to protect them. The cavalry double move except in forests. Trees/Walls/Hills provide various advantages. It was a fun mini-game in a great game. The Policy Tree sounds really intriguing, and culture victories look they'll be something can strategically plan. The City-States and new UN voting appear to be a great dynamic, I love being the benefactor looking after little guys and now I'll be rewarded for doing so (in Civ IV I have to conquer them first and make them my vassals before I can be their benefactors, which isn't quite the same). And the civs and their units/abilities all look lie they'll be distinct and interesting enough to reward various replays with each civ.
As for artwork, each new screenie looks better and the leaders are awesome. The music just in the trailer sounds great and so do the voiceovers.
So Civ V is my purchase, and this isn't "sheep like" because a sheep implies a lack of thought. It's because I'm dealing with a company that I respect, the previews appeal to me, and the screenshots are promising. It's possible that it will be bad, and then I will not buy new Civ games. But I refuse to be let down until the game itself lets me down.