Is civ 5 a step in the right direction or the wrong direction.

[cman2010]

I will start off by saying that I have been a die hard civ fan since civ 3, I loved civ 4 before and even played civ rev. I pose a simple question to you is civ 5 a step in the right direction or the wrong direction? I want to base this on the latest patched version. Please keep the conversation on topic and be civil.

Here are the things I think were a step in the right direction.
1. I may be in the minority but I like the idea of 1upt, I think it would have been better to allow the formation of amrys but I like the idea behind 1upt even though its a mess some times I think with a few teeks it could work. I would allow for amrys to be made that way multiple units could fill a tile but not just huge stacks of doom.

2. I like the social policys, I like that they add some to the game.

3. For the most part I like the ua of the civs that came with the game.

4. citys are hard to take untill you get to gunpowder I like this as it should be hard to take citys in anchent times.

Here are the things I think were a step in the wrong direction
1. I dont like the addition of city states as it relates to diplo victory it still just feels like you can just hold on to your money and bribe the cs before the vote and win. I miss how diplo felt in civ 4 it was a hard fought victory not just a bribe.

2. I dont like that you are punished so much for expanding it fine that you get punished for it but it should not be so sever if you pupet nothing, no one is mad but if you anex they are this makes no sense puppets would be just as mad.

3. poor combat ai while I can live with it as it is its still not up to civ 4 standereds.

4. The ai is broken and needs to be fixed I hope they fix it but in general RAs, declorations of freindship, and denouncements are broken. I feel the ai is really in a bad spot.

5.the general sense of the game being dumbed down.

I feel it is the wrong direction but still a decent game.

 

[Save_Ferris]

It doesn't have to be either. Civ IV and Civ V are different games, V is not a step forward or back but sideways.

 

[Pouakai]

Depends what part of Civ 5. I mean, hexes are about 5 steps in the right direction, I can't even play civ 4 anymore.

 

[The_J]

It doesn't have to be either. Civ IV and Civ V are different games, V is not a step forward or back but sideways.

Good remark .

For me...[x] i don't know. In general changes are needed, else the game developement will stagnate, so adding new stuff is sure the right direction. Implementation is another thing.
The new not-so-optimized features can be made fun, the same as probably every other feature from past iterations (well...besides cleaning up pollution maybe).

maybe i'll also take the "sideways" option .


With one thing i'm sure:
The "living world" approach with preset non-civ actors and unique features on the map is the right direction. That should result in more interesting exploration (which the people like) and should theroretically offer more options and more tactial planning with city settlement and other things. Here i'm positive, that's the right choice.

 

[cman2010]

It doesn't have to be either. Civ IV and Civ V are different games, V is not a step forward or back but sideways.

its a sequal so it has to be either a step in the right direction or the wrong direction.

 

[Babri]

I think the step is probably in right direction. Even if you don't like ciV you still have to admit that 1UPT was a revolution in civ series & a HUGE improvement. Other noticeable improvements are UAs & more interesting UUs with their promos carried over.Though these big changes have made rise to new problems such as AI but at the end a fully polished ciV would be superior to ciV Bts.

 

[The_Quasar]

I think the step is probably in right direction. Even if you don't like ciV you still have to admit that 1UPT was a revolution in civ series & a HUGE improvement. Other noticeable improvements are UAs & more interesting UUs with their promos carried over.Though these big changes have made rise to new problems such as AI but at the end a fully polished ciV would be superior to ciV Bts.

Several good points there... the AI will improve, after all, it did need to be completely rewritten for 1upt, and that will take time, which they didn't have to begin with... I am hoping Fraxis will do some serious work on it soon.

Post the last patch, things have improved considerably too, the game is more of a challenge, and unlike some above, I like CSs, and think they make a big improvement... however, I don't like diplomatic/economic victory as it is, I tend to turn it off these days. Hopefully that will get sorted soon.

 

[Ddude97]

I like the concept f 1 UPT, but not the implementation, So I think this is a step back, (I'm for a soft cap where unit strength degrades with number of units, it could even be so ridiculously severe that in battle you have 1upt or die, but the logsitcs with a soft cap would be so much nicer) but Citystates are a nice touch (though not the diplo victory). Overall, I'd go with the Save Ferris and The J and say "sideways"

 

[snarzberry]

I like 1UPT combat but I think it suffers from a feeling of being 'small scale' compared to when 2 giant SoDs engage. I want army V army battles in 1UPT to feel more...epic. Deity/Imm level do much better at providing this kind of feeling than emperor or lower but I think it could be more intense.

 

[digitalcraft]

Its definitely a step in a different direction. I like all the strategy and politics in Civ4, and I feel like they were purposely going more towards combat tactics which I don't like as much so to me, its a step in the wrong direction. Some people might like it more though if they're looking more for a civilization combat game.

I like the hexes, I think that's nice. I don't mind the city states, though I wish that people wouldn't go ballistic if you decide to conquer one. I think that if one is super weak, and you're close allies they should let you annex them peacefully.

I really miss changing governments, I don't like the 1upt. I didn't mind the stacks of doom, I felt that it was more realistic that an army took up the same space on a map. I wish they'd go back more in the direction of combining units in to a single army, I think that works best.

I like that overall tile yields are smaller numbers, makes those numbers more important. I think my favorite change though is the limited resource yield. That is a good change.

I don't like the new happiness system, kinda lame. I love how city expansion works with individual tiles being expanded to and belonging to the city so when they flip the area flips.

I hate how bows are ranged yet gun units aren't. So fake and chincy.

 

[Camikaze]

Of the complaints against Civ5, I think more are about implementation than direction. The game seems to be to be a step in the right direction in that regards. The paradigm shifts of the game (1upt, hexes) are looking to solve what were existent problems, so even if the implementation leaves something to be desired, the direction is good.

 

[Lyoncet]

A bad step in a good direction.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Right direction: more civ

Wrong direction: features that do not function as designed, do not function at all, or are poor by year 2000 standards.

Design changes are fine. For future reference, however, firaxis should actually implement them.

 

[BobDole]

I'd sort of say sideways (although I enjoy V more than IV). I think they were trying to make combat more tactical (good), make the game easier to understand (good) and reduce some of the stuff they thought was overly complex (good/bad, depending on your point of view). I like that this version of Civ is somewhat easier to grasp, unlike Civ IV where I personally felt hopeless till I went through some guides here (and even after that, it's still daunting, which is again, good and bad). I think they just rushed some of the things they were trying to mix up and didn't think all of it through. Diplomacy being more "gamelike" with the AI "trying to win" is a nice idea for example, but the AI also tends to be incredibly obnoxious and unfriendly as a result. My last game was quite great, where I got denounced by all buy one Civ in a 12 player game, with some of those denunciations coming for seemingly no reason. City States are also cool, but at the same time, they have made a diplomatic victory feel even less satisfying than in past games, where it was never really an exciting victory to begin with. It's cool in a way that the AI doesn't just hand you a victory, but now all you have to do is hand out bribes and you're good to go.

If they keep working on things, and (maybe) release an expansion that introduces so more game mechanics (figure they'd be more likely to do it in an expac than patches) then it'll feel more like forward.

 

[Krill]

A bad step in a good direction.

Fair point, actually. So many things sounded decent before release...and then we saw the game.

 

[Jim Bro]

civ5 poor diplomacy and AI can't make me say it is going in the right direction.
however, it is still very addictive and it has great graphics.

 

[SpearMan153]

two steps forward and one step back

 

[GenjiKhan]

There are 4 things that Civilization 5 have stepped forward:
-The combat system,that prioritize quality instead quantity,even with the problems of diversity of units.
-The Cultural Victory,that allows to win with one capital city,instead a huge empire is a good step forward,because in other civilizations,you could never dream to win with only one city.There are problems to choose this victory,but I hope Firaxis fix them.
-City-States.I think City-States is the greatest step that Civilization 5 has done now,because it allows many civilizations to get in this game.They have a great Potencial,that wasn't fully enjoyed.
-Changing Squares to hex.

btw.I agree that civilization have 2 stepped forward and 1 step back.

 

[Keejus]

Right direction, definitely. 1UPT, greater civ diversity, city states are all fantastic additions. Some implementations like diplomacy and the diplomatic victory need more work, but all the major design changes are cool beans

 

[AlpsStranger]

This is a tough question to answer.

On the one hand, I think Civ4 is a far better game than Civ5.

On the other hand, I think Civ5 had the right "big picture" for expanding the series.

The problem is in all the details they got wrong. 1upT didn't quite work out, so the production pacing is all wrong, for instance. Problems compounded problems until the end result was, ultimately, pretty unplayable.

If you had someone like Soren using Shafer's "big idea" you might have ended up with a real improvement.

I now feel that pure 1upT was a mistake, but I still think we need something better than Civ4's combat. Perhaps "Total War lite" armies that avoid both extremes?