I guess I will try clarify this as best I can. First start by saying, just prior to Civ V being announced years ago, either someone at Firaxis or Sid (I don't remember who) specifically said one thing... They said they were going to go back to the original CORE game of CIV for Civ V. Anyone have that link or remember where that was at? It may have been in a preview or interview with Sid I just don't remember. I do know for a fact that was exactly what was said and I am sure there are some here who can recall this.
This is what Firaxis has appeared to have done. We do have some people around here who are comparing Civ V to Civ III/IV. Well of course it makes sense because Civ V is the sequel but try this... compare it to the original games then see what you get. It may actually wake you up when you start realizing its Civ I/II but with hexes, city states, 1upt, and a few other goods thrown in and nice graphics. That is what Civ V is, its NOT a Civ III or IV but a Civ I/II on steriods for today's time. That is NOT a bad thing especially for the ones, who after Civ IV came out, were still claiming Civ II was best. Well you now have your Civ II again but this time with a steriod injection, just take off your blind fold.
So lets figure out what "going back to the core game" means. In order for this to be done, you have to go back and rebuild on a new foundation. So go to the foundation of the game, the very core, re-build on that and what made it what it is today. This means you have to take things out, such as religion which was never in the first two games. Introduce some new things at the expense of other things that do not have much of an impact on the game and build up from that point. This is exactly what has been done, they are trying to rebuilt it and I think its a great start. Also, remember, we are talking Civ V alone, with no expansions, many people compare BTS with Civ V, another thing that makes no sense. Hey is it ok that I compare the Sims 2 and ALL its expansions with the Sims 3 newly released? Thats BS people. You can now see that Sims 3 is far superior to Sims 2 since Sims 3 got a few expansions out under its belt. There were people there who claimed, Sims 2 is better during Sims 3 initial release, now they are no where to be found.
Maybe, just maybe, some of you should actually sit down, play the game and learn it before posting non-sense threads that do nothing but make false statements and give others the wrong impression of a great game (don't make me dig up the threads). I read a few "my review" type threads here on DAY1 and I thought that was totally pathetic. I mean how can anyone possibly judge ANY big strategy games (especially a civ game) after having it for ONLY one full day? I don't know, it took me over a week to make judgement on Civ V, I could only finish a few games so even that was not much to make judgement on. I know I had fun with the game but I certainly could not make judgement or comparisons then. I don't have time to play 24/7 which is what had to be done to be passing judgement on day1.
I sure hope this talks some sense into some of you. Ashame I even have to bring this up since many of you claim to be such hardcore civ fans. I would think more people would have already noticed how similar Civ V is to I/II, I seen a few mention it but not as I have here.
One last thing, if someone don't like Civ V, they can go away, play their Civ IV with its mods. Why are they hanging around in this forum? I mean, most people are enjoying Civ V so stop ruining the game for them. Posting links to ONE bad review claiming stuff like "i told you so" makes absolutely no sense. Polls like, "Who else agrees that Civ 5 has been dumbed down", totally pathetic and insignificant to say the least. A good thread..."Your two top things that would make Civ 5 better".
If anyone learns ONE thing from what I wrote, let that be THEY WENT BACK TO THE CORE DESIGN so before you're quick to say its been DUMBED DOWN, just think about that for a second. Remember dumbed down was Civ Rev NOT Civ V which is an enhanced core game. Well, I guess we live and learn. Problem is, some people live but forget to learn and must be taught at some point. Not trying to start flame wars, so take it for what its worth and perhaps just re-read what is wrote before you post.
This is what Firaxis has appeared to have done. We do have some people around here who are comparing Civ V to Civ III/IV. Well of course it makes sense because Civ V is the sequel but try this... compare it to the original games then see what you get. It may actually wake you up when you start realizing its Civ I/II but with hexes, city states, 1upt, and a few other goods thrown in and nice graphics. That is what Civ V is, its NOT a Civ III or IV but a Civ I/II on steriods for today's time. That is NOT a bad thing especially for the ones, who after Civ IV came out, were still claiming Civ II was best. Well you now have your Civ II again but this time with a steriod injection, just take off your blind fold.
So lets figure out what "going back to the core game" means. In order for this to be done, you have to go back and rebuild on a new foundation. So go to the foundation of the game, the very core, re-build on that and what made it what it is today. This means you have to take things out, such as religion which was never in the first two games. Introduce some new things at the expense of other things that do not have much of an impact on the game and build up from that point. This is exactly what has been done, they are trying to rebuilt it and I think its a great start. Also, remember, we are talking Civ V alone, with no expansions, many people compare BTS with Civ V, another thing that makes no sense. Hey is it ok that I compare the Sims 2 and ALL its expansions with the Sims 3 newly released? Thats BS people. You can now see that Sims 3 is far superior to Sims 2 since Sims 3 got a few expansions out under its belt. There were people there who claimed, Sims 2 is better during Sims 3 initial release, now they are no where to be found.
Maybe, just maybe, some of you should actually sit down, play the game and learn it before posting non-sense threads that do nothing but make false statements and give others the wrong impression of a great game (don't make me dig up the threads). I read a few "my review" type threads here on DAY1 and I thought that was totally pathetic. I mean how can anyone possibly judge ANY big strategy games (especially a civ game) after having it for ONLY one full day? I don't know, it took me over a week to make judgement on Civ V, I could only finish a few games so even that was not much to make judgement on. I know I had fun with the game but I certainly could not make judgement or comparisons then. I don't have time to play 24/7 which is what had to be done to be passing judgement on day1.
I sure hope this talks some sense into some of you. Ashame I even have to bring this up since many of you claim to be such hardcore civ fans. I would think more people would have already noticed how similar Civ V is to I/II, I seen a few mention it but not as I have here.
One last thing, if someone don't like Civ V, they can go away, play their Civ IV with its mods. Why are they hanging around in this forum? I mean, most people are enjoying Civ V so stop ruining the game for them. Posting links to ONE bad review claiming stuff like "i told you so" makes absolutely no sense. Polls like, "Who else agrees that Civ 5 has been dumbed down", totally pathetic and insignificant to say the least. A good thread..."Your two top things that would make Civ 5 better".
If anyone learns ONE thing from what I wrote, let that be THEY WENT BACK TO THE CORE DESIGN so before you're quick to say its been DUMBED DOWN, just think about that for a second. Remember dumbed down was Civ Rev NOT Civ V which is an enhanced core game. Well, I guess we live and learn. Problem is, some people live but forget to learn and must be taught at some point. Not trying to start flame wars, so take it for what its worth and perhaps just re-read what is wrote before you post.
I'm not one to get hung up on how different civ5 is to civ4, and I definitely don't subscribe to the view that civ5 has to be an upgraded version of civ4 for it to be a success.
, even Civ 1 had a better version if I remember correctly!
