Hello? Civ V is Civ I/II reborn...

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by Warspite2, Oct 6, 2010.

  1. Warspite2

    Warspite2 Prince

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2003
    Messages:
    496
    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.
     
  2. gazius

    gazius Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2007
    Messages:
    117
    So for those of us who came to civ at BTS3.13, why don't you tell us about the original and sequel.
     
  3. HiroHito

    HiroHito Prince

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2002
    Messages:
    523
    so it's a devolution then ??
     
  4. insaneweasel

    insaneweasel Prince

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2010
    Messages:
    329
    My first civ was 4, so I wasn't around back then; what core aspects of the first 2 games are in 5?
     
  5. Warspite2

    Warspite2 Prince

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2003
    Messages:
    496
    Core design never had religion, espionage, corporations, unit promotions, civics, and what else am I leaving out? Maybe a current Civ II player can help here? I will admit its been a very long time since I have played Civ II but I have played it a lot back in the days. So Civ V removes the first 3, then adds in more promotions and changes civics to social policy's. After playing Civ V, I started thinking, it reminds me of the older games for reasons I mention. That is when I remembered they said they would go back to the core design.
     
  6. Methos

    Methos HoF Quattromaster Moderator Hall of Fame Staff

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    13,100
    Location:
    Missouri
    Moderator Action: This thread is borderline troll thread, so drop the accusations and discuss the points of the argument, not the posters. Else, this thread will be locked!
     
  7. PieceOfMind

    PieceOfMind Drill IV Defender Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2006
    Messages:
    9,319
    Location:
    Australia
    For what it's worth, I agree with you Warspite (well, mostly). There definitely are people out there who still remember civ1 and civ2. ;) 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.

    Civ5 still has the same core design as the earlier civ games and in a way it's like what civ4 may have been had we been in an alternate universe. Almost as if it should be considered beside civ4 rather than an evolution of civ4.

    EDIT
    Mostly I'm just glad I didn't come to civ5 with ridiculously high expectations of it, and to be honest, I paid less for civ5 than I did for civ4. :)
     
  8. Doctor Phibes

    Doctor Phibes Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2010
    Messages:
    486
    Location:
    London
    Explain what you mean by 'CORE DESIGN' [sic - your caps, bro, sorry]. If you know Thing One about geometric algorithms then a lot of stuff stops being handwavingly trivial. Once you move the grid from orthogonal to hexes it's all gone. Once you move the tactics from stacking to 1upt it's all gone. IT'S NOW TOTALLY GONE. ;) They changed two deeply fundamental things at once and now it's a Charlie Foxtrot. Don't get me wrong, changing one of those two at a time might just have been good, but both at once..?

    I'll pass over your entirely bizarre idea that people should stop posting negative opinions about Civ5 because it might spoil other people's enjoyment of the game. WTF.
     
  9. pi-r8

    pi-r8 Luddite

    Joined:
    May 1, 2006
    Messages:
    2,527
    Location:
    Babylon
    Hmm it does actually have some similarities to civ 1/2 now that I think about it. those games were basically 1UPT, and combat was dominated by having a few elite units that could kill everything else and never die. Civ V also allows for "ICS" like those games did. Unfortunately there so many gimicky things that unbalanced Civ 1 and 2(like trade caravans, or hugely powerful wonders) that I'm not really sure what the "core design" of those games is.
     
  10. MarkM

    MarkM Cow Herder

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    681
    Location:
    America's Dairyland
    Speaking as one who was playing Civ in 1990, you make some good points, but then you ruin any chance of fruitful discussion ensuing from them at the end with a stream of insults to those with different opinions:
    That last sentence is a gem: if anyone reacts to this, it proves they are "pathetic." But ... I'm not tyring to start a flame war, no sir.

    If a person bought this game and have played it but doesn't like it, they have just as much right to come here and share their views as those who did the same and do like it. You have no right to tell them to go away. And if reading criticism here truly "ruins the game" for you, then ... I think that's saying more about you than them.
     
  11. mike_cf

    mike_cf Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2009
    Messages:
    88
    I won't understand why the next civilization (5) would be civ 1+2 remastered, it doesn't make sense. It's confusing and quite annoying if this was the intention. When I play Bla 5, I expect to include the best things of Bla 4 + adjustments of thing which didn't work well. I expect an Evolution and I know I'm not alone thinking like this.

    And btw, I want my palace back :D
     
  12. Plotinus

    Plotinus Philosopher Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Messages:
    16,817
    Location:
    Somerset
    Civ I had espionage. In fact it was a considerably more important aspect of the game than in later games, I think, since you could become a Democracy, rake in vast amounts of cash, and simply buy all your opponents' empires (apart from the capitals). It also had unit promotions.
     
  13. mike_cf

    mike_cf Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2009
    Messages:
    88
    I remember you could buy units with diplomats in civ 1, didn't know about buying cities. In civ 2 i think it was something like subvert city?!
     
  14. Plotinus

    Plotinus Philosopher Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Messages:
    16,817
    Location:
    Somerset
    Yes, you could buy any city that wasn't a capital. And you could do it without declaring war. To capture the capital, though, you had to do it by military means and declare war, which was impossible in a Democracy. So if you wanted to conquer the world by this means you had to have revolutions every so often.

    Civ I was certainly not 1UPT either, contrary to what someone said above. You could have stacks. The twist was that if your opponent attacked your stack, and defeated the defending unit, the entire stack was destroyed.
     
  15. CaptainBinky

    CaptainBinky Warlord

    Joined:
    May 12, 2010
    Messages:
    264
    Location:
    UK
    Actually one of the things I really liked in Civ I was the whole "this action has been overruled by the senate" thing. Basically meant there was no way you could take cities by force and not have it drilled into you that you are an evil fascist warmongering swine ;)
     
  16. a barbarian

    a barbarian Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2010
    Messages:
    38
    haha, nice thread, reminding me of good old civ 1 + 2 with
    - battle ships loosing against a swordman
    - diplomats bribing units left and right
    - buying up my enemies cities
    - light bulbs extending over the screen edge in my research city
    - and building my own palace, yeah!

    For me, Civ V is a simplified Civ with a better battle interface. If the battle AI would be better I would probably enjoy the new version a lot more. Atm if I want to go to war I play Civ V, otherwise I play Civ IV.

    Btw, the victory screens in Civ V are pathetic :(, even Civ 1 had a better version if I remember correctly!
     
  17. mike_cf

    mike_cf Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2009
    Messages:
    88
    It had a movie!!! Made with the in-game engine but nevertheless it had more than 1 screen with 2 lines of text.
     
  18. CaptainBinky

    CaptainBinky Warlord

    Joined:
    May 12, 2010
    Messages:
    264
    Location:
    UK
    A movie? I remember a shonky-looking spaceship with some scrolling dots followed by a picture.
     
  19. mike_cf

    mike_cf Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2009
    Messages:
    88
    The 'movie' consisted in a sequence of a couple of images IIRC . The conquest 'movie' showed how your enemies become trophies on your wall. Not what is considered today a movie, but it had some animation. Even the losing screen had 2-3 slides (i think). I can't find something on youtube to be sure.
     
  20. Zogar

    Zogar Warlord

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2010
    Messages:
    117
    Civ 5 is no closer to Civ 1/2 than to Civ 4. I don't really see your point :confused:
     

Share This Page