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

Words. I`m going back to Civ4 RI too.

 

I love civ 5, it's pretty fun. I found it much easier to grasp than civ 4. My main annoyance has been the crashes, it almost seemed like there was a rule that said 1 crash per game. I haven't had a crash since the last update though.

 

Excellent post.

I'll have to check out that mod. Never tried it before.

 

Alright, a lot of Civ5 unlikers, then.

 

I am trying this mod as well, started this weekend. It has been fun and well balanced so far, I think.

 

Wrong direction.

- Diplomacy is horrible and a huge step backwards from the innovative Civ4.
- The economy is nowhere near as interesting. The removal of commerce seems like a mistake to me. Science from population is not the way to go.
- Tech tree is a step backwards. My advice would be to go back to OR-arrows and again allow dead-end techs.
- The idea that small empires should be just as powerful as big ones.
- Puppet cities. What and awful concept. It's like playing a first person shooter where you're not allowed to shoot.
- City states. Some strange mini-civ that plays by completely different rules than the rest. How fun is that? Not much. CS is so badly integrated into the game that you should think it was an expansion-pack feature. CS will hopefully be axed in Civ6.
- Removal of religion. Of course that's a step in the wrong direction. Even if you didn't like the exact implementation in Civ4, removing it can't be called a step in the right direction (in the real world however...)
- Global happiness. Well it's not entirely global anymore, but Civ4s maintenance and local happy/health was a much better system.
- Removal of foreign trade routes. Really doesn't need any comments does it?
- Research agreements. I'm not quite sure about this one. In one way, I like removing tech trading and bringing in a new mechanic. Shared research does make some sense, but the implementation of RAs is just so horrible that it's hard to call it a step in the right direction. Tech trades ala Civ4 was a lot better than Civ5-RAs.

 

While both Civ IV and Civ V were released with 18 civilizations, many of the civilizations in Civ IV had more than one leader. The difference in leader abilities could strongly affect how a civilization played.

 

In V, civs are actually unique and different.

 

While Civ V contains individual ideas which have a lot of merit, the game as a whole must be said to be a step in the wrong direction.

While Civ IV needed a streamlining and a gentler treshold for beginners, Civ V ended up being less streamlining and more a decimation. "We should fix the problems in Civ IV" should make you think "improve", not "castrate."

The greater focus on tactical combat sounds like a good idea initially, but a game can't be both a deep strategic game and an intense tactical game at the same time. A Civilization game where you spend more time worrying over troop dispositions than over city management and production queues isn't much of a Civilization game to my eyes.

The game has also lost its sense of history. While the Civiliopedia has always contained errors and have never been something you could mistake for a serious historical work, the one in Civ V is just beyond tragic. Add to that the removal of wonder movies, the very game-y introduction speeches for each leader, the low quality of the technology quotes and the over-simplified technology tree, and you end up with a feeling that to Civ V "history" is just a flat theatre backdrop rather than something the game takes a serious interest in.

More importantly, it's lost its balance. Civilization used to have a near-perfect mix of micro-decisions and micro-rewards which gave the games the infamous "One. More. Turn." feel. Civ V has lost this.

 

*shrugs* Maybe -- but seems to me that their differences actually matters a whole lot less to the way you play the game in CIV V than in Civ IV.

 

Er. Nope. Try Civ5 again. They have dramatic effects actually.

 

I think Leif has a point.

Like, a game played for cultural victory is essentially the same in Civ5 no matter the civ you choose. Almost the same with diplomatic victory - get allies and tech rush towards United Nations and not much else...

A cultural victory in Civ4bts could be entirely different from game to game and the civ you chose, could mean a big difference in the way you played for that win.

 

Yes, but, in my opinion, on quite narrow areas of the gameplay whereas the differences between civilizations in Civ IV appears less dramatic but affects almost all the gameplay to some degree. If you will, where Civ V civilizations make an impact like a splash of colour, the civilizations in Civ IV appeared as a general tint of the entire game.

 

What, are you telling me that a single unarmed Navy SEAL isn't more dangerous than an entire platoon of soldiers?

 

hahaha, thanks for making me spill my coffee on my keyboard

 

haters never left. they are lurking, watching, and skewing polls

Moderator Action: We try to stay away from the word "haters" on this site (much like we don't allow terms like "fanbois' either). It is seen as a little bit too inflammatory. Thanks.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

you mean the Civ:World expansion?

every game has a finite lifecycle. imho the length of civ5's lifecycle is heavily dependent on how many more DLC 2K plans to sell. after that count reaches zero, civ5 will be forgotten


the on topic part:
the biggest problem with civ5 is that it is simply not fun.
too much stuff got "streamlined" that there is really nothing to do on a turn by turn basis -> definitely a step in the wrong direction.

and firaxis wanted civ5 to appeal to the casual crowd? really?

 

Depends. Does he have a radio?

(After all, the second-most most dangerous thing in the world is an infantry soldier with a radio.)

 

hexes are the only improvement for me. add them to civ 4 and it's a finished product. you don't need to improve anything. civ 5 as it is now it's a lame product if it's considered to be a part of the civilization series, if is not then is a very good game, too bad that i don't like it at all

 

give it 12-15months.
its an unfinished early release pressured by greedy ###s
once the game is somewhat complete in 12-15months it'll be awesome.
i'm willing to give the game at least 12months to see how they will improve it seeing as since its release it has improved a lot, but then it had a lot of room to improve...

 

I've heard similar songs too many times before to give them much credence. In most cases cries of "it's just teething problems" is a sign that a computer project is in dire straits indeed. To paraphrase Bob the Angry Flower "I can't play possible games. I need actual games."