I remember, some time ago, there was a big illustrated review (preview with an early copy?) of Civilization V. It was from one of the big names here, I think (though I'm not sure! It could be someone well known from apolyton?), of a guy that had been part of the development of some of the other Civ games, I think. I remember the review was REALLY scathing, with him saying he wasn't sure he was going to buy the game until it was patched sufficiently, and showed some issues with the AI being all arbitrary as far as diplomacy, it showed issues with the strategic combat system, and it showed something weird with the AI...fishing villages, I think? It showed a lot of play, turn by turn, and something to do with the guy playing not knowing why the AI turned on him -- even the civs he had been aggressively courting the entire game -- and it ended with him losing a game, and upset that he hadn't actually made any bad choices that led to the loss. Can someone please link me to that? I would be much obliged. Thanks!
Help me find an old Review/Preview of Civ 5? From someone here... a big name...
- Thread starter Gavinfoxx
- Start date
Hail
Satan's minion
Ravellion
Prince
They are rather dated now though - the patches have killed a lot of what he disliked.
They weren't particularly unbiassed even when they were written. He evinces no idea of why enemy Civs are angry at him, even though they point out the behaviors they don't like in convos, and the things that piss them off tend to be similar game after game. It's just more cleaned up and transparent now.
His article looking at the different intro videos for the series is quite interesting. 
Patches really haven't addressed the fundamental problem with the game and Sullla's opinions on the game are still quite valid.
Patches really haven't addressed the fundamental problem with the game and Sullla's opinions on the game are still quite valid.
*Yawn* That's a cheap cop out that many people who vigorously defend Civilization 5 use. It's just not valid, however.
The vast majority of people that don't like Civilization 5 don't want cIV.5 as much as they just wanted an excellent game that truly built on the series. Unfortunately, we didn't get that and Sullla's opinion reflects that quite well.
That's not to say that cIV.5 wouldn't be a far superior game to Civilization 5, however.
Thormodr:
Civ IV does NOT build on the series. It is a radical departure in many ways, not the least of which was that cities costed maintenance, while buildings did not. Wanting a game building on Civ IV instead of going back to classic Civ mechanics is exactly what I said: Sullla and others of similar persuasion find fault with Civ 5 at every turn precisely because it is not Civ IV.
It is not a cop out, especially because as you just said the very selfsame thing yourself.
Civ IV does NOT build on the series. It is a radical departure in many ways, not the least of which was that cities costed maintenance, while buildings did not. Wanting a game building on Civ IV instead of going back to classic Civ mechanics is exactly what I said: Sullla and others of similar persuasion find fault with Civ 5 at every turn precisely because it is not Civ IV.
It is not a cop out, especially because as you just said the very selfsame thing yourself.
Building maintenance did a quite effective job of curbing ICS. It did a much better job at that than the draconian corruption punishment in Civ III. The developers had the hubris to throw away a mechanism that worked quite well and make their own. Global happiness is not only a stupid concept that requires amble suspension of disbelief but also punishes the player in a similar fashion as corruption did in Civ III.
This isn't about wanting cIV per se. It's about wanting a game play mechanic that makes sense and actually works. They effectively dealt with the ICS problem in cIV then threw it all away for no good reason at all. Why?
When you have a good idea or concept, you should either retain it or build on it. Not scrap it.
For example, City States are a good idea in my opinion. How they were implemented in Civilization 5 is horrendous of course. (Vending machines really) If in Civ VI they just nuked the whole concept and left City States out entirely, I'd be critical of that. I am pretty sure that people wouldn't accuse me of "Just wanting Civilization 5.5" though.
I am a fan of good gameplay mechanics and a solid, deep, enriching game play experience. If the best example of those things happen to come from cIV, so be it.
Thormodr:
You mean city maintenance, don't you? Just clarifying.
Moving maintenance to cities and not on buildings worked - so long as every city isn't making more than what it costed to maintain, both in itself and globally. In that sense, Civ IV developers did not, in fact, deal with the "ICS problem." They just hid it a little better.
You still get rampant ICS once you get Corporations, and you get seaside ICS any time you can acquire The Great Lighthouse - literally, every city you found made you that much wealthier. It's not a solution. It's a workaround, and not too effective at that.
Even with city maintenance, it still made the most sense to pack the cities in close - my default distance for Civ IV city distancing is 3 squares, which is only one more than ICS's two.
Civ V has dealt conclusively with ICS. You can't ICS in Civ V. How? They just banned it outright. You cannot make cities within 3 tiles of any other city, period. It's a blunt manner of dealing with the problem, but in that you can never bypass it, it's a more comprehensive solution.
Implementation isn't horrendous. Simple, but not that bad. The UN vote is pretty bad, and the way the AIs behave is also bad, but it's probably not as simple as you think it is, because I suspect that you don't really know play with City States as much as you flatter yourself to know.
For instance, did you know that you take a diplomatic hit when you ally a CS that another civ covets? It's a serious diplomatic consideration, and not one to take lightly. It says something about Sullla that he doesn't mention this at all, and then rages when every civ on the planet hates him for his slovenly diplomacy.
It's not. This is precisely what I'm talking about. You THINK Civ IV is all that, but it isn't, and you then rage when every Civ isn't made in the image of civ IV. Sullla's commentary is biased the same way, so it's hard to take either of you all that seriously.
You mean city maintenance, don't you? Just clarifying.
Moving maintenance to cities and not on buildings worked - so long as every city isn't making more than what it costed to maintain, both in itself and globally. In that sense, Civ IV developers did not, in fact, deal with the "ICS problem." They just hid it a little better.
You still get rampant ICS once you get Corporations, and you get seaside ICS any time you can acquire The Great Lighthouse - literally, every city you found made you that much wealthier. It's not a solution. It's a workaround, and not too effective at that.
Even with city maintenance, it still made the most sense to pack the cities in close - my default distance for Civ IV city distancing is 3 squares, which is only one more than ICS's two.
Civ V has dealt conclusively with ICS. You can't ICS in Civ V. How? They just banned it outright. You cannot make cities within 3 tiles of any other city, period. It's a blunt manner of dealing with the problem, but in that you can never bypass it, it's a more comprehensive solution.
Implementation isn't horrendous. Simple, but not that bad. The UN vote is pretty bad, and the way the AIs behave is also bad, but it's probably not as simple as you think it is, because I suspect that you don't really know play with City States as much as you flatter yourself to know.
For instance, did you know that you take a diplomatic hit when you ally a CS that another civ covets? It's a serious diplomatic consideration, and not one to take lightly. It says something about Sullla that he doesn't mention this at all, and then rages when every civ on the planet hates him for his slovenly diplomacy.
It's not. This is precisely what I'm talking about. You THINK Civ IV is all that, but it isn't, and you then rage when every Civ isn't made in the image of civ IV. Sullla's commentary is biased the same way, so it's hard to take either of you all that seriously.
*Sigh* I know how to play the game and I do have an informed opinion. The game mechanic of City States was of the things I was most excited about. To see them implemented so poorly was very disappointing. They aren't deep at all and are easy enough to understand. I mean, how difficult is it to use a vending machine?
I am well aware that you take a diplomatic hit if you are on good relations with a city State that an AI covets. Way too many negative modifiers in diplomacy and precious few positive ones.
Repeating that hoary old chestnut "You just want cIV.5" is nonsensical. Myself and many other Civ fans wanted a deep, enriching game with solid game mechanics. Sadly, we didn't get that.
Thormodr:
It isn't nonsensical. It's clarification, which you still won't see. When you say "Civ Fans," you mean "Civ IV fans," because many Civ Fans like me like Civ V just fine. When you say "a deep enriching game with solid game mechanics," what you mean is "a game that builds on Civ IV," by your own statement earlier on.
Essentially, you're saying that Civ IV fans like you would have wanted more Civ IV, which is perfectly understandable, but you just won't see how it is because you think it makes you sound unreasonable.
Ennumerate the negative penalties and the positive ones. There are a lot of players like you who say they understand the diplomatic game in Civ IV, but can't maintain an ally through the entire game to save their skins.
So here's your chance. Tell me all the things you need to not wage any war in Civ V throughout the game. And don't tell me it can't be done because I've done exactly that.
It isn't nonsensical. It's clarification, which you still won't see. When you say "Civ Fans," you mean "Civ IV fans," because many Civ Fans like me like Civ V just fine. When you say "a deep enriching game with solid game mechanics," what you mean is "a game that builds on Civ IV," by your own statement earlier on.
Essentially, you're saying that Civ IV fans like you would have wanted more Civ IV, which is perfectly understandable, but you just won't see how it is because you think it makes you sound unreasonable.
Ennumerate the negative penalties and the positive ones. There are a lot of players like you who say they understand the diplomatic game in Civ IV, but can't maintain an ally through the entire game to save their skins.
So here's your chance. Tell me all the things you need to not wage any war in Civ V throughout the game. And don't tell me it can't be done because I've done exactly that.
Similar threads
