Expansion Packs: Not What They Used to Be *Opinion Thread

[cman2010]

I bought the game in store for $50, and I would guesstimate another $60 altogether for the DLCs and map pack. The price of two Civ 4 expansions. I have to say that Civ 4 expansions were much more worth the money and play time. They did not just give you a civ or a map, but all new features, mechanics, civs, units, just a much better gaming package. I do believe that if CiV was not a steam entity, we'd see a whole new CiV upcoming, because a new expansion would be right around the corner. I would have guessed they would have had the first expansion come out this September. Steam seems to have changed the traditional way things are done. In doing so it has hurt this game. I could be wrong, but IMO I feel ripped off somehow!

thanks to dummys like you we cant get good expansion packs anymore thanks for helping ruin the gaming industry by supporting dlc.

Moderator Action: Stop the flaming.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[starrywisdom]

thanks to dummys like you we cant get good expansion packs anymore thanks for helping ruin the gaming industry by supporting dlc.

DLC is not 'ruining the industry'. How you would come to this conclusion is beyond me. DLC is done quite well by a great majority of companies. Not to mention that if you watch any developer panels you'll see that much content provided by DLC would just plain out not exist, since they wouldn't do a full on expansion pack. Just because x company does DLC wrong does not mean DLC 'is bad'. My local Subway is awful and can't make sub sandwiches worth a hoot - that doesn't make sub sandwiches bad.

Maybe, but saying "Ottomans and England need water so the system needs to be scrapped" seems to be throwing the baby out with bathwater. If, and I do mean if, this is a real problem the task is to make the water civs better suited for non water maps or alternatively exclude them from non water maps automatically.

Who said anything about scraping a system - I said the ability should be made more 'generic'. Reworking an implemented system =/= scrapping said system

 

[nokmirt]

thanks to dummys like you we cant get good expansion packs anymore thanks for helping ruin the gaming industry by supporting dlc.

Perhaps it is dumb, in any case you have to remember that curiosity is a very powerful business tool. I am very curious about new civs and scenarios for CiV, and in order to use them, I have to purchase them. I believe any change is a welcome one for this game, besides beggars can't be choosers. If we can have DLC and not expansions, at least that is something.

I want you to remember one thing cman2010, it is not dummys like us that ruined the gaming industry, it is the creators of CiV who made the decision to join with steam. This is part of the evolution of gaming. Do not blame the gamer, we are just trying to have fun, buying DLC helps us do just that. There is also a chance expansions may still be forth coming.

 

[TW_Honorius]

dlc is not the issue, the ability to patch games post release is killing the industry. In the past year, games on the PS3 and XBOX360 has hard drives that patches can be downloaded so that games can ship half ass and its easy to patch them. Did the PS2 games come with patches, no. Also, with Steam, updates are automatic so game publishers dont need to make a website and promote it much to tell people there is a patch, the game fixes itself.

 

[starrywisdom]

dlc is not the issue, the ability to patch games post release is killing the industry. In the past year, games on the PS3 and XBOX360 has hard drives that patches can be downloaded so that games can ship half ass and its easy to patch them. Did the PS2 games come with patches, no. Also, with Steam, updates are automatic so game publishers dont need to make a website and promote it much to tell people there is a patch, the game fixes itself.

Again this is incorrect. Games aren't 'shipped half finished' because they know they can patch it down the line. They are shipped half-finished because people still purchase them. Allowing patching has made games stay playable in the multiplayer genre. There are more then enough shovelware titles on the PS2 that were garbage and the lack of patching didn't make it better or worse. The ability to patch has greatly increased a titles ability to survive in the competitive market nowadays. Why does it matter if publishers don't 'need a website and promote it'? Just so you know, every game I've ever played has had a website ANYWAYS with the patch notes on them....

 

[Sonereal]

dlc is not the issue, the ability to patch games post release is killing the industry. In the past year, games on the PS3 and XBOX360 has hard drives that patches can be downloaded so that games can ship half ass and its easy to patch them. Did the PS2 games come with patches, no. Also, with Steam, updates are automatic so game publishers dont need to make a website and promote it much to tell people there is a patch, the game fixes itself.

If it's killing the industry, why is the industry doing so well?

It would help if people know what they're talking about before posting sweeping nonsense like "DLC is killing the industry" or "automatic patching kills the industry". If it wasn't for these things, Civilization V would've been DoA back in September and with it, the Civilization series. The ability to patch games after the release of the game is one of the greatest things gamers could've hoped for, especially for consoles. On another note, Steam patching is easier than going on line and downgrading the giant patch.

The industry is doing fine and apparently, there's nothing wrong with the DLC or Steam because plenty of users buy/use them.

Moderator Action: Saying that someone doesn't know what they're talking about and are posting 'sweeping nonsense' isn't very civil. Please improve the tone.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Thormodr]

If it's killing the industry, why is the industry doing so well?

It would help if people know what they're talking about before posting sweeping nonsense like "DLC is killing the industry" or "automatic patching kills the industry". If it wasn't for these things, Civilization V would've been DoA back in September and with it, the Civilization series. The ability to patch games after the release of the game is one of the greatest things gamers could've hoped for, especially for consoles. On another note, Steam patching is easier than going on line and downgrading the giant patch.

The industry is doing fine and apparently, there's nothing wrong with the DLC or Steam because plenty of users buy/use them.

That seems to be false logic. They wouldn't have dared to put out the game in the state it was in if they didn't have the Steam system in place. They knew they could get away with it and so they released a half baked game in order to please 2K Games' shareholders. So your scenario of being DOA is inaccurate. They would have insured that the game was up to snuff before releasing it if that was not the case. They never would have dared to pull the stunt they did in the past.

Steam is good for some things. Indie game producers can get more exposure and produce their games cheaper. On the bad side of things, Steam is basically a crutch that they can lean on. Steam also helps promote laziness from the developers. The game isn't ready yet? Doesn't matter. Let's release it anyway and then patch it up as we go.

It's also interesting that you mentioned consoles. Console games used to be released with very few bugs out of necessity. That's no longer the case. I wonder why that is?

 

[starrywisdom]

That seems to be false logic. They wouldn't have dared to put out the game in the state it was in if they didn't have the Steam system in place.

Source? Games have been releasing for decades in horrible shape. People have been buying those games for decades as well. There is no evidence to support that a company won't decide to release a bad product to cash in, regardless of plans to patch or not. This is contrary to obvious 'business sense' but anyone whose been following the industry over the years can see the evolution of the 'video game company'. Until people stop making bad software profitable, companies will continue to release the software in crummy condition.

It's also interesting that you mentioned consoles. Console games used to be released with very few bugs out of necessity. That's no longer the case. I wonder why that is?

Once again, do you have a source of this info? I remember a great many unplayable games on EVERY platform, dating back to the NES days. What games are you talking about exactly? You're also negating the fact that 20 years ago coding wasn't necessarily simpler but it was much more straight forward. Nowadays you are coding for a great many aspects, adding more 'engine features' create more places for bugs to crop up. Although if you have information for the % of bugs per generation or genre that would be greatly appreciated. I'm all for educating myself, but I can't seem to find anything that supports your claim...at all.

I'm not saying your incorrect, but from my personal experiences I can't draw that conclusion and would really love to see any info behind it. I'm sure someone...somewhere...has given an analysis about it by now!

 

[jtb1127]

You mistake the traits for the personality coding. I had a reference sheet with CIV4 AIs, and when they would not declare war on you (how much of a + you needed). So much personality they had! Laughs all around.

I don't mean to be a grammar nazi but I can't respond to your arguments if they don't make any sense.

Yes. Let me reiterate.

Yes.

I'm sorry to be the one to tell you this: but art is far from the most important thing for a video game to have. In the case of civ V, it is nothing more then fluff to attract new audiences and provide support when gameplay is lacking. And the graphics of civ iv are far from "bad". Nevertheless, graphics ares still one of the least important qualities of a video game.

you don't understand.

In Civ 4 this wasn't a creative unit: you used it exactly as you would a normal archer. In Civ5, it gains a new purpose: the Archer that can hold its own in melee. It opens up new strategies, and allows for games unlike the game you play with non-babylonian civs.

And how exactly do you use any of the other special units from civ v any different than their normal counterparts? you don't. They are the same thing just with a different name and a few less hit points. Also, a unique unit should not be game changing, even if they were, which they are not.

What your statement tells me is that you never heard of cataphracts before you saw them in Civ4, and then are projecting this lack of knowledge on someone you haven't met and know nothing about. In any case, in game, this was nothing more than a stronger knight, to be used as a knight just like any other civ.

Alright, first you accuse me of knowing nothing about history because I said that a cataphracts is a unique unit. What that tells me is that you think a unique unit has to be something we've never heard of before. So how about this. The unique unit is now a giant squid that shoots lasers and can also build great wonders in 0 turns. There is something you have never heard of before, is that a good enough unique unit for you? Also, you have no right to call me ignorant of history based on the context that I gave you. Than you say I am projecting this lack of knowledge upon someone I don't know? Why is the fact I don't know you going to change anything. Should I just not respond to your post because I don't know you? Would that be good? Since it bothers you, you shouldn't even respond. In response to the last point you made of this paragraph, I will just direct you back to my previous responses.

What was this? A galleon that defend itself better? To be used exactly like you would use a normal galleon? You know, I am beginning to see a pattern here.

Same thing. Here you go again using the exact same arguments towards every creative unit I gave you. The only pattern I'm seeing is the way you post-with dull and unintelligent responses used to criticize both the poster and his knowledge about history. Lets aim under the belt, shall we?

And here we have a musketman with some promotions. Oh that's creative. How would you use it in game? Exactly like you would a normal musketman, it would just be more effective.

You're actually going unit by unit just stating in your opinion that they are uncreative. Please refer back to the giant squid monster I told you about earlier. See if that is creative enough.

The Dog soldier and the Elephant are the only ones in your list that changed the unit's use in any way, and both of them made the unit narrower in use at the same time, not opening up any new strategies at all.

All of the units I have given you are significantly better than their regular counterparts. This creates and advantage for any player who chooses them in the given era of the unit's use. You are simply ignoring this with each unit I have provided as an incoherent argument. I really do not want to explain how each unit can provide an advantage. Your "creative units" argument is flawed and you know it. You might as well admit that is not worth mentioning again.

That's nice. Please tell me how an oromo warrior has less personality than a maori warrior. The latter has special abilities, the former has "personality"? Really?

What? You want me to explain to you how an oromo warrior has less personality than a maori? You're wearing the wrong shoes, buddy. You are the one who has argued in favor of DLC by saying it offers more creative units. Thus far you have ignored everything I said about the costs of it and went straight for the "creative units" argument. Tell me how a maori warrior is any more creative then an oromo warrior. As far as I can tell it isn't. Both are historical units used by each country they are from. You have tried to say that all of the other historical units are not creative enough. I'm sorry that history has not provided enough "creative" for you to appreciate it.

I was saying the exact opposite. Instead of inflation we are paying more because we are actually getting more. This is not oil or bread, where the prices go up and the product stays the same. We are paying more and getting more. yes, part of that is art, which you don't like. Yes, part of that is uniqueness of civ and unit abilities, which you don't like. So what you are doing is saying that you don't want to pay extra for improved features. You want a 70s car. Now for me, I'll take my airbags and satnav thank you very much.

We are not getting more, we are getting less. For the last time, go to the bts info center and see what Beyond the Sword came with. I have already stated the price of the game and how much you get for it. You have done nothing but stated over and over again that the units from the DLC of civ V are more creative and have better graphics as if it were an axiomatic statement. I have tried to explain to you that the graphics are not important but you are oh too fond of them, and I have made it clear that the only thing uncreative about the BTS units is your desire to dislike them. You compare it to a 70s car without air conditioner. You keep ignoring everything else I have said about civ v (the gameplay sucks, the game is slow, the ai are stupid, multiplayer is far form complete, and much more) and everything else the rest of world has said. What makes you think it civ v is the car with the A.C.? If you really want to make the analogy that civ iv is an old 70s car than you are ignoring the fact that the manufacturers of civ v are intentionally leaving out the engine and other important parts and then trying to sell them back to you for rip-off prices.

Moderator Action: A lot of this post isn't very civil. Please improve the tone of your replies.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[nokmirt]

That seems to be false logic. They wouldn't have dared to put out the game in the state it was in if they didn't have the Steam system in place. They knew they could get away with it and so they released a half baked game in order to please 2K Games' shareholders. So your scenario of being DOA is inaccurate. They would have insured that the game was up to snuff before releasing it if that was not the case. They never would have dared to pull the stunt they did in the past.

Steam is good for some things. Indie game producers can get more exposure and produce their games cheaper. On the bad side of things, Steam is basically a crutch that they can lean on. Steam also helps promote laziness from the developers. The game isn't ready yet? Doesn't matter. Let's release it anyway and then patch it up as we go.

It's also interesting that you mentioned consoles. Console games used to be released with very few bugs out of necessity. That's no longer the case. I wonder why that is?

Well said and I completely agree. Developers are lazy. Games come out broken, because they know they can patch over time, and they know they will get a steady stream of income over time from selling DLCs. Steam is their most important tool for making this happen.

 

[TW_Honorius]

@starrywisdom

consumers in general are idiots. we will buy a game that graphically looks awesome and plays poor with bugs. Until human ways of thinking change, the gaming industry will continue to thrive.

 

[cman2010]

DLC is not 'ruining the industry'. How you would come to this conclusion is beyond me. DLC is done quite well by a great majority of companies. Not to mention that if you watch any developer panels you'll see that much content provided by DLC would just plain out not exist, since they wouldn't do a full on expansion pack. Just because x company does DLC wrong does not mean DLC 'is bad'. My local Subway is awful and can't make sub sandwiches worth a hoot - that doesn't make sub sandwiches bad.



Who said anything about scraping a system - I said the ability should be made more 'generic'. Reworking an implemented system =/= scrapping said system

it is ruining the industry how you would come to the conclusion it is not is beyond me. I remember a time when you got new maps ext for free and you could get tons of extra new fetures and gameplay options plus civs for 30 bucks.

 

[j-d-s]

Since i don't get why i should pay for imaginary goods like DLCs and why Patches shouldn't be for free nowadays, i did never bought any DLC or Download-only Game and will continue to do so. In the case of Civ5, it's no great loss, since i'd be able to play DLCs anyways, but Civ5 is completely crap, so i don't have any interest in playing it.

Another factor is that 2K continues to lie, as they promised before the release to include every MP mode that's included in Civ4.

I refuse to be the cashcow for these grabbers at Take-Two.

 

[Ravellion]

And how exactly do you use any of the other special units from civ v any different than their normal counterparts? you don't.

Have youa ctually played Civ5 DLC? I doubt it. You use Keshiks just like knights? Slingers just like archers (you can, but that would not be optimal)? Have you tried to use the naval capabilities of berserkers? And even in the normal game, you have camel archers, Longbowmen, Janissaries etc. that all open new strategic possibilities. That is what I call creative. Slapping on a few strength points or promotions has also been done with a few CIv5 UUs, yes, but it was standard with all civ4 UUS except the ballista elephant (but then, that sucked and was often voted worst UU of all)

They are the same thing just with a different name and a few less hit points. Also, a unique unit should not be game changing, even if they were, which they are not.

And I think it is fun if they do change the game, and open up new strategies. If it's just a little more effective, what new experience does it add? Why should I pay for it? Supporting expansion power creep?

Alright, first you accuse me of knowing nothing about history because I said that a cataphracts is a unique unit. What that tells me is that you think a unique unit has to be something we've never heard of before. So how about this. The unique unit is now a giant squid that shoots lasers and can also build great wonders in 0 turns. There is something you have never heard of before, is that a good enough unique unit for you?

No, that unit is stupidity, and you know it. I want creativity in implementation, not fantastical creations that do not fit either in the game's atmosphere or the balance of the game.

Also, you have no right to call me ignorant of history based on the context that I gave you. Than you say I am projecting this lack of knowledge upon someone I don't know?

You say to me "I guess you've never even heard of cataphracts!". I look at that sentence and analyse it. The only reason why you would post that sentence is because you think cataphracts are something arcane that few people know about. On that, I am sorry to disappoint you, you are mistaken. Because of that judgement call on your part, I then analysed that you were projecting your lack of knowledge about cataphracts on me. If you wish to avoid such comments from me and others in the future, phrase your statements in a less offensive manner. It would have been far better had you posted "Cataphracts were really creative to me! Civ 4 exposed me to the existence of these armored horsemen for the first time!".

Of course, this isn't a very creative unit type for Byzantium, it is a pretty easy fit, but it doesn't need to be creative either. Some more creative implementation would have been nice though. But then I am reiterating my previous argument.

Same thing. Here you go again using the exact same arguments towards every creative unit I gave you.

Because they aren't creative at all. Just because it is a unique unit, does not automatically make it creative. A unique unit can be creative in two ways:
1) In idea: Byzantine death ray cannon shooting mega squid. I think we can both agree that is not what we want. We want UUs to match some aspect of the civs history. So that is where we need very little creativity.
2) In implementation: a creatively implemented unit is a unit that is more than a slightly buffed regular unit.

All of the units I have given you are significantly better than their regular counterparts. This creates and advantage for any player who chooses them in the given era of the unit's use.

So I am paying money for more powerful units only? I might as well open the XML files and do that myself.

Tell me how a maori warrior is any more creative then an oromo warrior. As far as I can tell it isn't. Both are historical units used by each country they are from. You have tried to say that all of the other historical units are not creative enough. I'm sorry that history has not provided enough "creative" for you to appreciate it.

Again, creative in implementation. Creativity with history (what I referred to as "idea" above, or your squid monsters) would be so stupid IMO, that I did not even feel the need to explain that in my previous post. But now I have, and I hope clearly enough.

We are not getting more, we are getting less. For the last time, go to the bts info center and see what Beyond the Sword came with.

Number of Civs doesn't mean anything to me if all they are is two traits, slapped together, and then add a unique unit and a unique building that do the same as the regular one (but then slightly better). This shows no creativity, cookie cutter crap, that I could easily have done myself, but didn't feel the need to, because it adds little to the game. Oh, and because I apparently need to spell it out: no creativity in implementation.

Civ5's Keshiks, the polynesian ability to embark immediately, the Inca's focus on a hill and mountain based civilization: those are creative, those I would not be able to mod in (and playtest) myself, so those I am willing to pay for.

Other Civ 4 BTS features such as corporations and espionage were poorly implemented. Admittedly, I kinda liked corporations because you could do really broken things with them, but that does not improve the product a lot.

What we are left with then, is a few wonders. One of these only worked for the AI (statue of zeus - the AI had serious reduction in war weariness, so building the SoZ didn't hurt them at all). So, BTS: €20 for a few wonders and a few lacklustre civs? Give me Civ5's €3.50 for a truly unique and creative civ any day. And if they release a really lacklustre civ I can even choose not to buy it.

Also every now and then you posted a few arguments that basically boiled down to civ5 itself being crap/unfinished. I choose to ignore those because we are discussing DLC/Expansions here, not the core game itself.

 

[Thormodr]

A Byzantine Squid Death Ray cannon is no less stupid than Giant Death Robots. Particularly so since there isn't even a future era. They stick out like a sore thumb.

Also, how are Siam's unique unit in any way even creative? It doesn't even require ivory to build, plus the name is idiotic.

Camel Archers are oh so creative. Nice to see that you require horses to build them. Lol.

I would say that most of the Unique units are quite uninteresting to be honest. Quite a few of them just have improved stats or do better against certain units. *Yawn*

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for the DLC, of course they will make them more powerful since they want to sell more units. Sounds pretty much like power creep to me.

Beserkers really aren't that exciting. 1 extra movement and an amphibious promotion for free? Meh, seen that before with marines.

Norwegian Ski infantry (Couldn't find a Danish unit I guess) get extra movement in certain terrain. Woo hoo! Always funny to see them in desert hexes.

Maori Warriors are kind of cool I'll admit. It is pretty thematic when they are, you know, Maori Warriors. Makes zero sense when they are say rifleman. I can picture them doing a war dance and get mowed down by enemy rifleman who strangely enough wouldn't be intimidated in the slightest.

Slingers aren't really that interesting. Not terrible but nothing special. Likely it's to offset the Inca's UA and UB which are very good.

Conquistadors do something intriguing in being able to found cities on foreign continents. Kind of cool but usually useless as the map fills up so quickly. Can't have huge maps anymore it seems. Embarkation with defence isn't too exciting either. Not any different than Songhai's UU.

Tercios are very exciting. Basically just uber pikemen. *Yawn*

Bowman are somewhat drab. An improved archer. Whoo!

The Mongolian UUs are kind of cool. Can't argue with that. The Mongols have always been my favourite Civ. They actually portrayed them pretty well. Of course the Mongolian UA is pretty bad unfortunately.

All in all, they did an average job with the DLC UU wise. Hardly the bargain you think they are.

 

[jtb1127]

Have youa ctually played Civ5 DLC? I doubt it. You use Keshiks just like knights? Slingers just like archers (you can, but that would not be optimal)? Have you tried to use the naval capabilities of berserkers? And even in the normal game, you have camel archers, Longbowmen, Janissaries etc. that all open new strategic possibilities. That is what I call creative. Slapping on a few strength points or promotions has also been done with a few CIv5 UUs, yes, but it was standard with all civ4 UUS except the ballista elephant (but then, that sucked and was often voted worst UU of all)

The only way they are any different is because the mechanics of Civilization V are not the same as civ iv. In case you haven't noticed you cannot bombard cities or units using archers or other siege units. I think that this bombardment is one of the few improvements from civ iv, but that is not what we are arguing about. The uniqueness of these units is simply just switching around the mechanics of bombardment and movement. This makes it no more creative then simply "slapping on" a few strength points or promotions. In response to you first question: I love how you are so quick to make rash assumptions. I have downloaded Polynesia, Inca, and Spain and as far as I can tell they are no more creative than any other civs. And even if they were more creative that still doesn't justify them being overpriced.

And I think it is fun if they do change the game, and open up new strategies. If it's just a little more effective, what new experience does it add? Why should I pay for it? Supporting expansion power creep?

Well, like I have said, the UUs of civ iv are not different than that of civ iv. You have claimed the creativity of them but I have explained that this is non-existent. The UUs of civ iv ( no matter how uncreative you claim them to be) do offer that civ a unique advantage in the given era. There are some that are useless but many are not. The immortals of Persia alow for great ancient era conquests. The Indiamans of the Netherlands allow colonization years before other civs can catch up. I would not call these "game changing" but rather "era changing" and that is the way they should be.

No, that unit is stupidity, and you know it. I want creativity in implementation, not fantastical creations that do not fit either in the game's atmosphere or the balance of the game.

No, you want an ahistorical unit that can be deemed as creative. There you got it. You won't except the unique units of the Byzantines as creative on the grounds that "too many people have heard of them". So here is your solution: something that no one has ever heard of that can also be called creative.

You say to me "I guess you've never even heard of cataphracts!". I look at that sentence and analyse it. The only reason why you would post that sentence is because you think cataphracts are something arcane that few people know about. On that, I am sorry to disappoint you, you are mistaken. Because of that judgement call on your part, I then analysed that you were projecting your lack of knowledge about cataphracts on me. If you wish to avoid such comments from me and others in the future, phrase your statements in a less offensive manner. It would have been far better had you posted "Cataphracts were really creative to me! Civ 4 exposed me to the existence of these armored horsemen for the first time!".

I really enjoy how you change my quote around and add extra punctuation as to give the effect that I said it in a rude manner, when I was simply stating in a sarcastic manner that that particular unit will probably not fly with you because you probably have already heard of it. Then you go ahead and jump the gun calling me out on my knowledge of history?

"Cataphracts were really creative to me! Civ 4 exposed me to the existence of these armored horsemen for the first time!".

Here we go with the phrasing again. The way you just worded that obviously is methodical to say that I'm some sort of yellow bellow. Even if I hadn't heard of cataphracts before civ iv, I definitely would not admit it in your presence.
Any way, to me, this is exactly what you want out of a Civ V UU. To had never heard of it to the point that it is probably not even an actual historical unit. For example: The Inca Slinger. Yes there are accounts of its usage by some Europeans, but I feel that it is really sort of silly. Its usage is far more notable by other civilizations like the Vikings, so this leads me to believe that they were only placed in the game for the sake of creativity. You would probably just deem it uncreative like you have done with the cataphract had they placed a real historical unit like the Quecha from civ iv.

Of course, this isn't a very creative unit type for Byzantium, it is a pretty easy fit, but it doesn't need to be creative either. Some more creative implementation would have been nice though. But then I am reiterating my previous argument.

Again, you want a unit that you have never heard of before. And again, implementation could not be done better based on the mechanics of civ iv. This is not something that can be used to attack Beyond the Sword, but civ iv itself. I'm not here to defend the mechanics of civ iv, but to defend the quality of its expansions and to attack civ v's DLC.

Because they aren't creative at all. Just because it is a unique unit, does not automatically make it creative. A unique unit can be creative in two ways:

1) In idea: Byzantine death ray cannon shooting mega squid. I think we can both agree that is not what we want. We want UUs to match some aspect of the civs history. So that is where we need very little creativity.

I have provided you with units that match some aspects of the civs histories, but you have just rejected them by saying they aren't creative.

2) In implementation: a creatively implemented unit is a unit that is more than a slightly buffed regular unit.

I will continue to say it: Implementation can not be provided better than it already was based on the mechanics of civ iv. Many of the UUs from civ V DLC are simply matching different characteristics of units. A calvary that can bombard and then retreat, so on. Also, there are a lot of civ v UUs that are simply buffered versions of their regualr counterparts. In total, the creativity does not amount to much more than that of civ iv. Like I have said in previous posts, creativity is a completely bent thing to argue over due to the fact that either one of us can determine what is more creative or not.

So I am paying money for more powerful units only? I might as well open the XML files and do that myself.

Yeah, and you might as well open up the XML files and do the same with Civ V. Also, you could use the great modding community of civ fanatics and use all the great civs they have created along with UAs and UUs. At least that way you won't be paying for it and the developers will find out that people would rather get free stuff of the same quality. Then maybe they'll step up their game a bit. But that will never happen if people keep buying their rip-off products.

Again, creative in implementation. Creativity with history (what I referred to as "idea" above, or your squid monsters) would be so stupid IMO, that I did not even feel the need to explain that in my previous post. But now I have, and I hope clearly enough.

Again, different mechanics.

Number of Civs doesn't mean anything to me if all they are is two traits, slapped together, and then add a unique unit and a unique building that do the same as the regular one (but then slightly better). This shows no creativity, cookie cutter crap, that I could easily have done myself, but didn't feel the need to, because it adds little to the game. Oh, and because I apparently need to spell it out: no creativity in implementation.

The leader traits are really a separate argument in itself. I, and many others, find the leader traits are better suited to giver the player a quality gaming experience. Oh and because I apparently need to spell it out : creativity is a silly thing to argue over because I can say the fly that just landed on my arm is more creative then Isabella's face.

Civ5's Keshiks, the polynesian ability to embark immediately, the Inca's focus on a hill and mountain based civilization: those are creative, those I would not be able to mod in (and playtest) myself, so those I am willing to pay for.

All you are saying to me there, is that you think it is a good thing for the map type to determine the out come of the game. I really don't. It should be player skill and nothing else. I find it ridiculous that on civ would be screwed on one map type while it would thrive on another.

Other Civ 4 BTS features such as corporations and espionage were poorly implemented. Admittedly, I kinda liked corporations because you could do really broken things with them, but that does not improve the product a lot.

You really just swept away every other feature BTS came with under the notion that they were poorly implemented. You and I both know that that is completely unfair. Corporations and espionage (no matter how poorly implemented you think they are) added new layers to the game that had previously been in experienced. All the DLC is doing is adding one single new playing experience as a given civilization.

What we are left with then, is a few wonders. One of these only worked for the AI (statue of zeus - the AI had serious reduction in war weariness, so building the SoZ didn't hurt them at all). So, BTS: €20 for a few wonders and a few lacklustre civs? Give me Civ5's €3.50 for a truly unique and creative civ any day. And if they release a really lacklustre civ I can even choose not to buy it.

No, you are left with a lot more than "a few wonders".
You forgot:
-New leaderheads
-unique buildings
-new buildings
-New units
-New technologies (practically advancing the game into a whole new stage- the future era)
-Tech tree modifications
-random events
-victory changes (mideivel age is actually fun now with the implementation of the Apostolic Palace and the Space Race is more complex
-colonies
-LOTs of scenarios (don't tell me RFC is not one of the funnest scenarios you have ever played)
-Many patches and updates improving gameplay in all directions
I'm just wondering, did you think I wouldn't notice when you said "all we have left..."?

Also every now and then you posted a few arguments that basically boiled down to civ5 itself being crap/unfinished. I choose to ignore those because we are discussing DLC/Expansions here, not the core game itself.

DLC/expansions are quite relative to the sucky nature of civilization V. It is important to note the over all fashion of releasing an unfinished game, patching it up over the next year, while simultaneously selling DLC for huge prices. Many of your arguments also highlight how you think civ iv is bad too.
Please read Thormodr's response because he said many things I would have said and also added a few new points.

 

[Watiggi]

**This is an opinion thread, meaning that you state your opinions here. Now, let's all play nice while on the forums.

So, let's get to the point: I miss the old expansion packs. This new "Pay nearly five dollars and you get one civilization!" is kind of ridiculous. Also, map packs? Seriously? Yeah, they may just be trying to maximize profits, but what ever happened to content? With any other Civilization game, you used to get multiple civilizations, new units and buildings, and multiple kickass mods. All for less than thirty dollars. They can suck nearly forty dollars from you with all of their downloadable content, which is about the same cost of both of the Civilization Four expansion packs, with less than half of the content.
In conclusion, I think they should start thinking (at least a little) less about money and more about their faithful customers.

I'll be back before the end of the day to check this thread.

Edit: I am no longer maintaining this thread. Do whatever you want with it.

Yeah I'm not a fan of it tbh. When Blizzard started doing stuff like that - making mounts and stuff in WoW for sale and making multiple expansions per game (where at one time they said they would only make one expansion per game) - they at least made something of high quality and was priced appropriately.

With Firaxis and Civ5 - especially seeing that thread with a heck of a lot of the artwork taken from stock photos - the quality doesn't match the price imo. And because quality doesn't match the price, I question their motives for doing it this way.

There are some benefits though for doing it this way - being able to pay for what you want and not pay more for stuff you dont want - but having the extra content overpriced to begin with ruins that ideal imo.

 

[Ravellion]

I apologise for blowing the cataphract comment up larger than was necessary, but it came across to me as needlessly confrontational and insulting. I now understand that you really did not understand my point and were not trying to insult me or project anything on me.

Nevertheless, I keep being painted as someone who would like ahistoric insane units as UU, despite the fact that I used four paragraphs to explain that that is something I explicitly do not want. I don't mind conversing with someone who has a different opinion than me, but I refuse to converse further with someone who pins an opinion on me that I don't have. I am out of this thread. There are other points where I still don't agree with you, but we will never get anywhere discussing this.

 

[Ahovking]

I Hope seening that most people are still playing Civ4 and not Civ5 (Which Do You Play Mostly:Civ:1, Civ:2, Civ:3, Civ:4 or Civ:5) they would not put out an expansion pack and start looking into a Civ6 that Incorporate's civ3, civ4 and civ5 altogether

 

[Becomedeath]

Based on your extensive survey of 144 people?

Out of the 165,812 that means you have approximately polled 0.08% of the player base using numbers from October....clearly, not doing well.

Source: http://www.vgchartz.com/weekly.php?reg=America&date=40454&console=&maker=