I Want Out

[JohnnyW]

They say there is no religion, which they want. When has lack of religion ever hurt Pac-Man, which has been lacking religion for 30+ years.

They say there is one unit per tile, but this has never seemed to hurt chess games, which don't allow stacking, either.

How can this be a problem for CiV and not any other game if they are not looking back to past games?

Clearly civ5 is a spectacular game. I mean let's compare it to ET for Atari. I think that's a more fair comparison than trying to hold it to the high standards of Civ4.

 

[Brian Shanahan]

How did they "make x worse" if there is not a complaint about a change from Civ4?

Well there is that, but the problem is not that it was changed but that the new system is worse than the old, Civ 4, one.

If the complaints are about gameplay in and of itself, there can be no "made x worse" because that would be pointing out a change.

This sentence does not compute. Of course calling something "made worse" is going to be about gameplay, because we're deriding mechanics which dictate how the game is played.

Outside of the crashing and the Steam requirement, I have seen few complaints that stand alone. People are comparing.

Then I'd have to say you're not looking, we've 1UPT craziness, lack of diplo, AIs "trying to win" (yeah right), incessant war declarations (to the point that Civ 5 Monty is only moderately insane), massive discrepancies in AI strengths within one game, AI idiocy in general, bad UI, bad coding, etc., etc., ad infinitum, ad nauseum. Now you may think some of them are not problems, but at the very least the coding problems, the UI and lack of diplo are universally acknowledged.

They say there is no religion, which they want. When has lack of religion ever hurt Pac-Man, which has been lacking religion for 30+ years.

Pac-Man is about eating dots, Civ is about building up a human society (at the macro level). Religion is going to be infinitely more relevant to a Civ game than a Pac-Man one. Try playing a game of Company of Heroes, without tanks or Nazis, and and you won't come back to us saying the point is valid.

They say there is one unit per tile, but this has never seemed to hurt chess games, which don't allow stacking, either.

Chess is a situational, tactical, no unit-build game. Civ is a strategic, empire, time based, unit building game. The comparison between the two is going to be at best superficial, but here it is completely invalid and deliberately misleading.

How can this be a problem for CiV and not any other game if they are not looking back to past games?

It is a problem for all games that don't look back to the past. How many successful sequels have you heard of that have thrown out every core mechanic and started anew with only the game? How many have done that and gone on to bomb badly?

As mentioned above it is not about this being new, it is about how the new version failed to build on the success of the predecessor, add in it's own new ideas sucessfully, and balance both tradition and innovation for a superior game.