hooked gamers preview

"You can also sell techs and enter into research agreements with friendly civilizations when you have researched Education."

Had we seen this already?
 
Where have you seen that? That article is way too short for my liking :/

That Page 2 button is WAY to small.

I also don't like how he used the word "Religious Belief" when refering to Follower Belief.

He also forgets to mention Austria was one of the 9 new civs :|
 
"You can also sell techs and enter into research agreements with friendly civilizations when you have researched Education."

Had we seen this already?

I'm pretty sure the latter was common knowledge. However, this is the first I've seen that we'll be able to sell techs. Wasn't the whole point of Research Agreements to do away with Tech trading? Given that we've only seen this here and I can't see why it would be included I'd wait for some other review or commentary before we start speculating on how that'll work.
 
I hope we can't trade techs again, this has exploit written all over it.
 
I doubt it.. this article has so many errors...
Austria msising from the lsit of the 9 civs
my poor spelling (joke)
Religous Belief instead of Follower Belief.
That selling stuff.
 
I learned four things from this review:

You can sell techs at Education (which actually may be false anyways)
The reviewer is Finnish
The reviewer doesn't like the Social Policy system
The reviewer doesn't like "You're trying to win the game the same ways as us"

Honestly, I pretty much stopped caring at "Gods & Kings aims to make Civilization V fun again..." It's obvious when a reviewer writes a line like that, where they decide that their narrative is the objective Truth, that they're not actually out to give a review/preview of the game, but are rather trying to make a point. And at that point they're not really reviewing/previewing the game so you can decide what to think about it, but rather have already decided what you should think and are doing what they can to make sure you think the same. Because heaven forbid the entire internet not agree with them.

I'd be fine if someone that didn't like the game wrote a review; there are plenty of reasons not to like Civ V. But this is an absolutely awful preview on its own merits anyways, which bears my hypothesis out. The first two paragraphs are essentially a rant about CiV Vanilla. It's fine to lay out the status quo before you jump into the changes, but honestly, the preview would have lost nothing by cutting the entire second paragraph. All Hail the New Kings is a trainwreck (please, Marko, tell us more about Gustavus Adolphus's neck injury). May as well have just posted a link to Arioch's Well of Souls. Would have given us much better information and wasted an awful lot less of our time. And the last two paragraphs are equally useless. We get it: you don't like Social Policies. Now please review the game you said you were reviewing instead of spreading your own gospel. Or if you're going to do that, find a web forum to do it on.

Sorry. Don't know why I'm ranting about this to people who obviously had nothing to do with writing the preview. But man, was that some sloppy work. I hope if Marko Susimetsä is a paid contributor he's capable of producing better quality writing than that.
 
Should change the thread title, since this is a preview, not a review. The article itself even states it is a preview.
 
Yes, we don't have "reviews" before the game is finished.

Honestly, I pretty much stopped caring at "Gods & Kings aims to make Civilization V fun again..." It's obvious when a reviewer writes a line like that, where they decide that their narrative is the objective Truth, that they're not actually out to give a review/preview of the game, but are rather trying to make a point.
Except that I agree with his point 100%. Civilization V's biggest flaw is that it's too victory-condition-focused, and constantly reminds you that it's a game instead of encouraging you to become engrossed in the experience of the game. And that the expansion may improve on some of the weaker points of the game, but doesn't change this fundamental flaw.
 
Except that I agree with his point 100%. Civilization V's biggest flaw is that it's too victory-condition-focused, and constantly reminds you that it's a game instead of encouraging you to become engrossed in the experience of the game. And that the expansion may improve on some of the weaker points of the game, but doesn't change this fundamental flaw.

It's not a flaw. This is a game. The entire Civ series has been a series of games, not a simulation.

If you want simulators, there's plenty out there. Civ is not one. It rides the line between the two sometimes, but it can't be mistaken for a simulation when there's obvious ones out there. It's a 4X game, there are victory conditions, you must win or lose.
 
It's not a flaw. This is a game. The entire Civ series has been a series of games, not a simulation. If you want simulators, there's plenty out there. Civ is not one. It rides the line between the two sometimes, but it can't be mistaken for a simulation when there's obvious ones out there. It's a 4X game, there are victory conditions, you must win or lose.
Nonsense; Civilization has always been both. The previous Civilization games had a very strong simulation element, despite being much more challenging as a "game" than Civ V is.
 
Nonsense; Civilization has always been both. The previous Civilization games had a very strong simulation element, despite being much more challenging as a "game" than Civ V is.
Having played the Europa Universalis series, I feel I can safely assert that Civilization has never really even attempted to approach "simulation." Some iterations are more or less simulations than others in one or another way, but I think that calling Civ V less of a "simulation" than Civ IV is either disingenuous or the result of selective memory.
 
Having played the Europa Universalis series, I feel I can safely assert that Civilization has never really even attempted to approach "simulation." Some iterations are more or less simulations than others in one or another way, but I think that calling Civ V less of a "simulation" than Civ IV is either disingenuous or the result of selective memory.


Ditto. If you can maintain the illusion of historical immersion while building the pyramids as the United States in Civs 2-5, then more power to you I guess but I can't pull that off even a little bit.
 
Nonsense; Civilization has always been both. The previous Civilization games had a very strong simulation element, despite being much more challenging as a "game" than Civ V is.

I did say it 'rides the line' in the post you quoted.

The quality of Civ 5 has been poor (vanilla) but that's a different issue. It's been getting better with most patches. Civ 4 had some very badly implemented features that happened to find a balance point between them, even with them not being good. That's not a 'good thing', but more of a 'oh well' thing.

By "simulation" I am referring to the sandbox "build your own civilization" element of the game, not having everything play out in a historically accurate fashion.

that's what slower speeds and lower difficulty settings will get you.

More time to 'build your empire' without an annoying AI trying to win. But it's still a game, not a sandbox. The AI is just not built 'to win' with those settings. It's been that way for the whole series.
 
A game should cater to both. In Civilization IV there were many times I was not worried about winning, because I was having fun playing. I cannot say the same for CiV, because for the most part everything you do is concerned towards winning, there is little deviance from that. This does take some fun away. To make a game more fun it needs more immersion and depth, to help you think about other things than just trying to win, which is why they have added religion and espionage.

In many respects CiV is not a simulation though. A simulation would be a game like Europa Universalis, Hearts of Iron, or the Total War series. These games are simulating history and military strategy. Total War goes about doing this from a very realistic POV, real battlefield graphics and tactics etc. The other two have historically accurate functions which simulate history, but without the realistic graphics.

In a game like Fall of the Samurai, you of course have a victory goal, but you do not have to choose any certain way to play at the outset. The game is more engrossing in this way, CiV sadly is not. When you play V, pretty much your going to know what victory condition your going to try for, which sets the stage for your whole game. With FoTS that varies as the game goes on depending on what happens with rival provinces etc, and what you end up focusing on. There are tons of variables. CiV does not have a fraction of these choices. The game is simply about winning, and it is designed to make sure that is all you care about the entire game. Making the right moves, so you are closer to victory. I scoff at this, because it gets old and monotonous. With the XP CiV will be a few more steps ahead with regards to the fun factor. CiV still will not be a history simulator, and it should not be, but it will be more enjoyable to play.

Let me give you an example. In my current game of CiV, I have already lost. Victory has been out the windown since 1861 AD, when I lost my capital and most of my empire on the continent, I began the game on. The reason I am having fun is simply because I am not worried about winning. I have made it to the Terra continent and I am just content building up and micromanaging my new cities. Really it is the most fun I have had playing in some time. My plan is to do this until GnK comes out. No sense starting a new game.
 
that's what slower speeds and lower difficulty settings will get you. More time to 'build your empire' without an annoying AI trying to win. But it's still a game, not a sandbox.
Again, there's no reason it can't be both, and difficulty level has nothing to do with it. Removing the "tinkering" elements (like changing social policies) and diplomatic possibilities from Civ V did not make it any harder or more challenging. It just made it less fun.

Naturally when we're talking about "fun" it's a matter of personal opinion, and I can see we will not readily agree on this, so let's let it go at that.
 
Do you know when real big reviews start popping out?

Is it before or after the release?
 
Do you know when real big reviews start popping out?

Is it before or after the release?

usually 'reviews' aren't going to happen for this type of game. The previews tend to be the only thing that some sites will do (zero punctuation being the obvious not a pre-viewer style).

So you'll have to rely on forumites for the 'real' breakdown of how it is (give or take the usual random BS threads).
 
Top Bottom