For those who don't play the game anymore... Is Civ5 salvageable?

Is Civ5 salvageable?

  • Yes

    Votes: 76 35.2%
  • No

    Votes: 71 32.9%
  • Possibly

    Votes: 69 31.9%

  • Total voters
    216
Status
Not open for further replies.
Umm, not to nitpick, but can I just point out the option "Possibly" is completely meaningless and is probably skewing the results? Because when you ask whether something is "salvageable", you are essentially asking whether it is possible for it to be salvaged. So the answer is either "Yes" or "No".

Under such circumstances, "Possibly" really means the same thing as "Yes". Though I suspect those who picked it meant to express a lower level of confidence in the probability of Civ V being salvaged.
 
Umm, not to nitpick, but can I just point out the option "Possibly" is completely meaningless and is probably skewing the results? Because when you ask whether something is "salvageable", you are essentially asking whether it is possible for it to be salvaged. So the answer is either "Yes" or "No".

Under such circumstances, "Possibly" really means the same thing as "Yes". Though I suspect those who picked it meant to express a lower level of confidence in the probability of Civ V being salvaged.


I actually didn't vote, because IMO everything is possible, so everyone should chose this option (thus it is meaningless). I think the poll should have go along "likely" or "unlikely", or just remove that "Possible" option.
 
EDIT:
For example I have the feeling that it won't be salvaged but can't express it here since I can't assert that it is not possible...
 
I actually didn't vote, because IMO everything is possible, so everyone should chose this option (thus it is meaningless). I think the poll should have go along "likely" or "unlikely", or just remove that "Possible" option.
You are right. I just interpreted it in the "can it be salvaged if Firaxis puts the maximum realistic effort into it and modders get the optimum out of it"-way.

It's still no, because while the game can, in theory, be rewritten from scratch, that is just not realistic. And the modders can only do so much (like add/tweak) some content, but not re-design the GUI or fix the game engine. :(
 
I voted no.

Of course everything is possible. A mutation could give wings to pigs next week. But when something is so improbable as to make the chances of it happening a miracle, then I prefer to be brief and say it is impossible.

Semantics aside, the fundamentals of this game are not what I liked in the Civ games before. They have picked up the least interesting (to me) and tweaked it, and removed which was genuinely interesting.

That's another thing to consider: all these opinions are personal, influenced by our experience with the game. I'm an old hand, playing it since the first version, on a Window 3.1 machine. I've got used to a certain set of parameters that are not there and cannot be added, or are not working any more.

One of those parameters is the AI. Civ 4 failed in that sense. Winning in Civ 4 was easier than winning in Civ 2, even though the AI cheated more. Adding the mods like RoM and AND only made things worse, in that department: you had to play in the highest possible level, handicapping yourself in some way (like, for example, staying with one city until the year 0), in order to make the game challenging.

A game like Civ 5 needs a much better AI to even try to achieve balance. And that is not happening. To improve the AI, the whole engine would need to be remade.
 
A mutation could give wings to pigs next week.

Problem is that you may consider this game like a game lacking 2 expansions before it can be considered a base game. And 3 more to be at same level or better than Civ4. The question rather is that whether Firaxis and the community thinks it is worthy to put hard work into it in the future. Although chances are low, but not like pigs next week. AI can always be refined both at core level and via scripting. It can be modded as well. That's not that big issue.
 
I chose "no" because 2k would never allow it. All 2k cares about is making money. Thank you, Sid Meier, for selling your perfectly legit developer to a McDonald's-like corporation that doesn't give a crap about real Civ fans.
 
Problem is that you may consider this game like a game lacking 2 expansions before it can be considered a base game. And 3 more to be at same level or better than Civ4. The question rather is that whether Firaxis and the community thinks it is worthy to put hard work into it in the future. Although chances are low, but not like pigs next week. AI can always be refined both at core level and via scripting. It can be modded as well. That's not that big issue.

AI is the core issue, and explaining why would take a book. Just two examples:

1. The computer never learned to use stacks properly before. In Civ4, all you needed was some espionage to know what they had and where, and then build a stack that would be undefeatable by their available units. Result: owning half the planet by the 2nd century.

In this one they changed from overarching war strategy ("stacks of doom" running rampage) to a tactitcal battle strategy (1UpT). But the core AI is the same --so, since the computer was too dumb to use SoD properly, how can anyone expect it to be smart enough to organize a proper attack in the 1UpT mold? For that you'd need to consider: a) melee front units; b) main force, ranged units; c) fast units right behind; d) reinforcement units to enter as soon as a tile is freed; e) garrison units to remain in conquered land after.

Result: computer *sucks* at tactics, which is to be expected since it already sucked at strategy.

2. Strategic (ergo, military) resources are limited. Which is realistic, since the resources are supposed to be consumed. But it's dumb to implement it when the computer has such a poor AI.

Let's say they have iron and build the max of swordmen: 5. If you trick them into being in bad terms with the civ on the other side of their territory, they'll be exposed on your side. You can backstab them, and get deep into their land before the swordmen are back to defend. By then, they'd be suing for peace (offering you all their cities, but that can be fixed).

So, making something more realistic (something that on paper seems good) does not work due to the limitations on the AI. The civ you attack cannot just build newer swordsmen on your side, and early in the game moving their swordmen to your side is going to take them too long.

All the changes are in that vein. Awesome, if you were playing another human (or a computer with true AI), but miserable when playing the same ol' "intelligent" engine from 10 years ago.
 
1. The computer never learned to use stacks properly before....


Fine, but why do you think this is unsalvageable? What if they hire a talented programmer for expansion 1 who will fix the AI? Is there anything in the engine that apriopri prevents it? No. Is it impossible to program or script this? No.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom