Dont buy Civ5 : Dont be the sheep

Status
Not open for further replies.
Evrett said:
I did not receive a single message about the protest so it didnt happen.
"Be the change you wish to see in the world"-Ghandi.
 
re the OP; I myself don't intend to purchase Civ, but I have a specific complaint. If I felt that a new edition was simply a pointless waste of money, I wouldn't bother posting here about it, I just wouldn't buy the game.

I want to buy the game, but I can't, because of this one problem. I'm not sure I understand your objections, though. I read your post and reread it, and I cannot for the life of me see any specific objection you've raised. I'm not sure what the point of your communication is.
 
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 Civ V is not out yet, and Firaxis has alredy laid off 20 people. They are not even waiting to see if Civ V flops or not.
 
Does Firaxis have any side projects? Perhaps the 20 people fired were not working on CIV V. Perhaps they were working on some other project altogether.
 
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.
 
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.

Wow, someone's in a bit of a snotty mood, aren't they? Are you not even prepared to be remotely civil Bello? I wasn't a defender of "suicide siege weapons", as I preferred a penalty system for extra units on a tile as a means of ending SoD's-so I fear your memory is faulty on this issue. Point is, Civ4 did have flaws, but I find the game extremely enjoyable-even in its unmodified form-& got significantly better with each new expansion. I do like playing with Mods, but the shear enjoyment I got even from unmodified games was far greater than anything I got from either Civ3 or even SMAC. The sales figures suggest that many, many other people felt the same way. So *yes*, the predictions of "the game will be rooned" proved to be utterly unfounded then, & I predict they'll be equally unfounded now, no matter how much the whiners say otherwise.

Aussie.
 
Actually, Bello has a point... Those that trashed Civ 3 bombardment (ranged bombardment), and said Civ 4's method was superior; and suddenly saying Civ 4 method is flawed and Civ 5 is superior. This, among other things has happened quite often.

It's somewhat of a: "Whatever is new with Civ, is the best thing to happen ever" mentality that some players on here engage in.

What's even worse is listening to the excuses given to defend themselves when they know they are one of those that have done things as such. :lol:
 
evrett37, you were the one that was supposed to be organizing that protest &-as I recall-you were even prepared to obtain day-laborers to help you. That you didn't go ahead & do what you promised proves to me that your credibility on this whole issue is completely shot to pieces (indeed, I'll predict that you'll quietly *buy* the game the same day its released, & have it as your guilty little secret).

@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.
 
@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.. :lol:). 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. ;)
 
I've actually brought up the return of bombardment in several threads because I agree that it hasn't gotten the attention that it warrants considering how potent a mechanism it is. With ranged bombardment, when it's good it's really good and when it sucks it's completely pointless to build it -- and either way, it's a lot of extra clicks for the same number of attacks.

I don't mind it so much on ships -- they desperately need the ability to act with ground units, although if they can capture cities again I might just change my mind on that one.

And artillery? Well, sure, why not. Artillery usually comes with a lot of caveats and as a result people don't exactly build a ton of it. And anyway you need something for fighting back against ships.

But archers? No. Just no. If archers really need a unique mechanism, they could provide combat bonuses to adjacent units. Otherwise, no.

The other big issue about ranged combat the whole no risk concentration of firepower shtick. But you can partially solve that with retaliation strikes by friendly adjacent ranged units.


I'm guessing the major narrative of CiV will be the regular rebalancing of ranged combat, as it wobbles between nigh on exploit and utterly worthless. I hope they eventually get it right.
 
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.. :lol:). 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. ;)

I was simply making the point that I refuse to blindly love-or hate-a game on the basis of a single change to the game. Yet this is exactly the group I'm being lumped in with by Bello (&, so I felt, by you too-perhaps I did get that wrong, in which case I humbly apologize). As I've mentioned elsewhere, I don't agree with their removal of real-world religion & espionage, but I probably will still buy the game if the reviews from both the magazines & fellow Civfanatics is overall positive. I *won't* buy two copies of the game because, as an Australian, I'm pretty ticked off about paying over AU$80 for the game. I doubt that this was the decision of either Firaxis or 2K though-I think it more likely that local distributors think that Australian consumers are dupes living in a time-warp (when the AUD was almost half the value of the USD). Still, even this outrage won't be enough to stop me buying the game *if* it sounds like a great game (I'm hoping for another Sulla-style walk-through to really sway me one way or another). Anyway, thank you for clearing up the confusion tom!

Aussie.
 
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.
 
It would not have been imbalanced if Firaxis actually programmed the AI to use it's artillery and ranged units. Same with the fact that Firaxis actually broke Armies in the Conquests expansion pack and then never fixed them with a patch. (makes me wonder why they did not... it is a fact they knew about it; I suppose they just ignore these things or something). A whole lot of bad AI programming caused the AI to be able to be very badly taken advantage of.

I'm sure this won't happen in 5 though, so it's nice to see it return!

I think everyone can agree it is extremely odd and a bit annoying to see a catapult literally attack a town and lose, crumbling to pieces. They should have never went there because that is stretching the 'gameplay > realism' remark to the very possible fringe! :p

But, many mods in Civ 3 have had to resort to the Civ 4 method because Firaxis 'forgot' to program the AI of how to use artillery. I can only imagine what Firaxis was doing that caused them to forget ? :smoke:


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.
 
Just cause the Enemy can use nukes doesn't make it alright to have nukes. It would still have been imbalanced.

Two stacks of siege units just means that whoever goes first wins.
 
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.

thanks, all i did was read the first sentence or three of the first post and i pretty much figured out the guy doesn't know the definition of the word "customer."
 
To the first post:

That is how the entire American economical system works, no?
 
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.
 
Yes I think Civ5 has the potential to be a great game. But with 2K in the drivers seat I fear that, out of all the Civ games, Civ5 risks the same fate as ETW. I'm hoping that I am wrong and that Steams DRM won't chase to many customers away, and that 2K won't over do it with DLC civs that are too expensive for what you get, causing the community to splinter along those that can afford the DLC and those that can't.

And I especially hope that they use the Steamworks backend for good MP code and that they haven't put to few resources into the MP community. We all hear lots about the Mod Centre, but still very little detail about the actual MP mechanics other that generalist "MP will be good" statements, like they are afraid to give details like they have for the rest of the game. Anyone ever see a screenshot of the MP interface yet? Ever wonder why they would not want to show off a good thing? Makes me a tad worried, but then maybe I'm just paraniod I hope.

CS


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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom