Interview with Dennis Shirk on Front Towards Gamer

[Hashishim]

bottom line CIV IV still rocks, lol but the hexes are lovely, the c ity states to and the 1upt was a good move, but just as people mentioned above theres to many "permanent" restrictions on the game which limit you from doing other things besides war to win it. Like in Civ IV, you could of been peacemaker amongst civz and stopped them from making war, and could really go through the game without declaring war, by being diplomatic, over here its impossible and to top it off the tradeposts are junk and they provide hardly any bonuses compared to the cottages.

 

[Le Sage]

I really dislike the trade posts because they look like stupid circuses with clowns, bears and hairy ladies. What a stupid change. I'd rather have the cool small towns like in Civ4. I bet some talented modder will make villages for us though, and maybe the graphics from Civ4 could be used for buildings.

 

[AncientOne]

I don't even think of myself as some hardcore civ player and now I have played civ 5 only a little, but already I saw many problems. For example when some AI declares the war, you just have to survive it, don't even have to attack, you don't have to raise your military power, but when you wait enough, then enemy offers a lot of money, resources, etc when signing truce. WTH?

1UPT may in some ways be good change, yet it comes to be a problem when in open borders treaty some foreign unit with whom your relations are good is actually holding a blocade. Or even your own units, when you build a road and there is your own worken building something else on this tile, and you can't use the road to move one unit of troops by, then you ask yourself how are some workers for example preparing a farmland in the way of these troops. At least workers shouldn't be counted under that rule.

And civilization bonuses are really out of balance. I could only choose among few civs to play as other wouldn't have any real bonuses.

For playability in a way I even understand the choosing policies permanently, but true is, that actually there should be some way to choose them again. It is really weird if you at first in ancient and medieval play for example all for the strength and authority and then you can't turn to really different policies when world changes.

Mostly I like the change from Civ 4 to Civ 5 (I like how it doesn't look so cartoony anymore, and I like many new features), but they really have to solve many problems and balance issues.

 

[Sark6354201]

Well there you have it, there's very little reason for people to argue that the game isn't dumbed down. Firaxis is basically admitting as much here.

And apparently, the people at Firaxis have no concept of history or change over time. Of course Americans wouldn't switch to Communism tomorrow, but America has existed in a time frame of 200 years. Civ spans thousands of years.

Besides, there are even examples of quick and radical changes in government and society. Russia went from an Autocratic Monarchy to a Radical Communist State in the span of a decade (including the civil war where the Bolsheviks stamped out supporters of the old regime as well as Democracy). But hey, the whole Russia turning communist thing is pretty obscure, can't expect Firaxis to know of such historical examples like that

Not only that, but the "America and Democracy" example isn't even the best. People were seriously questioning Democracy and Capitalism in the 30s because of the great depression. If it wasn't for FDR's social programs and WW2, who knows what might have happened. But I guess Firaxis likes to subscribe to the kind of monolithic, simplistic history that you might see taught in an elementary school which has little bearing on reality.

 

[Frasco]

And yes, as BtS pleased the hardcore fans, they decided to make 5 appeal more to those who might have loved Rev and wanted something more--but who may not be ready to leap into Civ 4's complexity.

God! They could have told me that BEFORE I bought this usless game... Instead they said that "The latest Civilization game takes those basics and layers onto them new features that make moment-to-moment gameplay feel more dynamic than in the past."... I am now truly displeased and have at last understood they don't intend to make this game any better.

 

[gaiko]

Yes, pseudo-"realism" arguments aside, a fixed SP line of approach would be an improvement over the easily manipulated Civ4 civics, IF going down a particular SP path had diplomatic consequences in relations with the AIs.

That's a feature I'd like to see in connection with SPs, as this would add an interesting angle to the diplomacy, probably one of the weakest aspects of CivV, without re-introducing the predictable diplomatic manipulations of Civ4 in re civics.

Social policies are tied to a civ's culture and reflect the cultural attributes of that civ. I can see why hardcore players want to be able to switch - the number-crunchers who insist on ultra-efficiency and maximization in every game that they play - but I'm just putting forward an argument from the point of view of a less mathematically-minded player who doesn't mind social policies being fixed and lasting decisions. And to me it feels superior to the endless switching of civics to get specific bonuses and the tedious anarchy periods of Civ4.

 

[Psyringe]

God! They could have told me that BEFORE I bought this usless game... Instead they said that "The latest Civilization game takes those basics and layers onto them new features that make moment-to-moment gameplay feel more dynamic than in the past."... I am now truly displeased and have at last understood they don't intend to make this game any better.

Don't tell me you're trusting review sites.

 

[SkyknightXi]

Gaiko: Well, you did have an element of that in Civ4. Each leader had a particular social engineering trait that they would instantly adopt once it became available, and would never relinquish it. Meanwhile, if YOU had the trait in question, you'd get a diplomatic bonus with them, because your political philosophies are consonant. (Now if only there were also hated traits that they'd never adopt, and you adopting them would result in a diplomatic debit. Besides heathen-to-them religions, that is.)

 

[Frasco]

Don't tell me you're trusting review sites.

Heh... no... I was actually trusting Sid. Now I'm just sad

 

[Hashishim]

maybe in an expansion they'll include all the "complexities" as he mentioned, in the first post, for now just getting the normal non hardcore fans a taste of civ, like a hook, and when the next iteration of civ5 comes out they'l include the stuf that is missed from civ iv. Hopefully:/ And hope they bring more control to the economy!

 

[Frasco]

Why would they? At least not if their primary goal was another kind of gamer...

 

[Hashishim]

who knows why reason why i said "hopefully" and im trying to be positive on a game that has potential to be better than civ iv. Can only happen if that hope comes true, otherwise yeah it'l be big slap in the face for the "hardcore" fans whos tuck with the franchise in buying the games for past couple years. And if that happens well then i guess the company should just get the finger

 

[Ranbir]

If you wanted to make a Civ for Civ Rev fans....make Civ Rev 2. >>

Civ is now feeling more linear, Civs and Leaders have traits to encourage a linear focus on an overall strategy, rather than adaptive ones.

I really do love Civ and this game has yet to hook me. For the first time, CivAnon is something I don't need to sign up for. Unless I start playing SMAC again, which I will.

 

[New Weird Order]

I have not been able to access the game through Steam since the update. Says game not available, try another time.

wrong thread, sorry

 

[Hian the Frog]

We can discuss years and years about the qualities of such or such parts of Civ 5 but what i'm sure of is that Civ 5 is at that time worst than Civ 4, BtS.

Some weeks ago, i made a post where i said that this game wasn't made for PC and real Civ lovers but for the "mass". In one word, a game that can be sold to be played on Xbox and other Nintendos (clearly: making money). It seems that i wasn't wrong.

Now, i see that this is even worst than i first thought. Civ 5 is full of bugs and balance problems.
My first question is: Was it really tested ? Deeply tested i mean. It seems it wasn't. How can a game be sold with so many problems ? It seems to be an amateurish way of doing.
My second question is more crucial: all Civ games are/were addictive. We all meet (or met) the problem "one more turn and then going to sleep". Civ 5 isn't. It's simply boring, linear.
Last but not least: will Civ 5 be improved drastically to be played and modded on PC ? The success of Sid Meier's Civ series is linked to PCs, modders and a strong fan community. I'm sure that they won't find a strong community of Civ lovers among X-box players.

Personnaly, i see only a very few components of Civ 5 as really interesting. An example among a few: the hex system.
OTOH, some components are absolutly stupid. An example: the combat system. Is Civ 5 a tactical game or a deep strategic/historic game ? To avoid the Civ 4 unit stacking problem, the combat system was totally changed. My opinion is clear: it's clearly worst than in Civ 4. Archer in Civ 5 have a longer range than a RL modern LRM (or close to). Stupid.

I hope they will quickly make revisions. Huge revisions.

 

[Bastian-Bux]

Actually there are possibilities to avoid the "switch SP thrice between breakfast and lunch" exploit which doesn't force people into ahistorical "stagnation". Hmmm ... if my time would allow I'd make a mod ... but do I have so much time for a game?

 

[Selous]

I don't know if you're familiar with Soren Johnson's player typology. Soren described three types of Civ players: challenge players (who enjoy to "beat the game"), narration players (who enjoy to actively take part in the unfolding of a believable alternative history), and sandbox players (who just enjoy the atmosphere, the feeling of building up a civilization, and who don't want to be bothered too much by opponents). Your whole argument is focused on challenge players, for whom the question "policies vs civics" is a question of strategizing, number-crunching, and potential exploits. Even if you try to understand people with different preferences, you're still arguing solely from the perspective of a challenge player. And by coincidence, this is also the design philosophy with which Civ5 was developed. But fact is, there are large groups of players who had a very different way of enjoying civ. For these players, being forced to develop their civilization with completely ahistorical government limitations means a serious setback for their enjoyment.

nice post!! didnt realise why i didnt really like civ5 before, just that i dont ... im a sandbox player and i enjoy that .... this game just kinda sux

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I'd say I'm mostly a Narration Player, with a bit of Sandbox player thrown in for good measure. I do love a game that gives me the "building up a civilization from scratch" sensation, but I'm also keen on playing out alternative histories-& role-playing throughout the game. I most certainly am *not* a challenge player-which is why I always play Diplomacy Games & *not* regular MP games!

Aussie.

 

[taylor_cu]

I don't think he said that. He said it's less complex, which isn't the same as dumbed down at all. You can have simple but deep games, go and chess being classic examples.

Have you already played civV ?

 

[taylor_cu]

In Civ4 you won the game by spamming dozens of axemen from a single source of copper and then spam cottages in all the conquered territory. In order to defeat enemy towns and SoDs you spammed catapults and canons and suicide-bombed them. What was go complex about all that?

OMG what a n...