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

Hopefully Firaxis won't make the errors they made in Civ IV and will produce fixes for old issues instead of ignoring the old issues in favor of releasing even more broken mechanics.

But given how many things they're at least making improvements on if not outright fixing, it seems they're on track. Now we just need to hope they don't decide to introduce peace-vassals and magic fairy dust.

 

Remember people, people thought IV was a step in the wrong direction in the beginning, but it was given time, and look what a gem it is now.

 

I feel like it's 5 steps in the right direction and 4 in the wrong, so it's hard to say. Overall, some of the wrong direction steps are much worse, and my opinion changes daily.

 

Your post made me laugh. Seriously.

I think you are being sarcastic here, but I still don't know.

 

those are some surprising poll results up there.

I think combat was a step in the right direction.everything else feels like a basic foundation to be built upon later. *crosses fingers* hopefully.

 

Civ III had a level higher than deity called Sid. Civ IV removed the Sid level. More people seem to able play deity in Civ V than previous versions. This might be a logical progression.

 

no sarcasm. i really do think CivV will be awesome in 12months.
only question is will the Modders beat them to it or will the developers improve it

but the last part i said how they had a lot of room to improve.
if you bought the pre-ordered the game and played it the day of the release or even beta...it was pretty bad and they couldn't really do much more wrong
they left the only option which is to improve because they honestly exhausted the "how can we screw this up" option

 

I did pre-order the game, but I don't think it improved all that much. It's playable, but not enjoyable.

 

Right direction, absolutely. The game is also far superior right now to what it was at release. Very happy with the support/updates.

 

The Idea is a step the right dirrection but it is bad made currently.
i love the combat system just like chess but then in civilization. Olso the hexes are a great improvement...

Hower i dont thinx it is currently going to the right direction know because of the many bugs and extremely rondom AI. Olso the denouncing system is really anoying and i personnaly find it that it makes a less cool gameplay experience

Currently i dont thinx it is going to the right dirrection because of the bugs and the diplomacy system But it could be improved by patches !!!

Sow we shall see in time

 

No, I mean the Civ V expansion.

I'll guess you're trying to be clever and imply that Civ V has been abandoned for Civ World, which is very disputable considering that Civ V still has another patch coming out (and probably many more).

The fact that people compare a game which had years of patching and expansion to a game that had a few months of patches is silly. If you don't like the game now, that's your opinion. However saying that it will never be anything better is pointless in my opinion.

 

alright, no need to go that far. Compare it to Civ 4 Vanilla

 

Right:
- graphics
- hexes
- 1upt
- single hex cultural expansion
- global happiness
- happiness golden ages
- great people (not random, better golden ages)
- culture spent on social policies
- strategic/operational ai split (although this is an under the hood thing)
- diplomacy design philosophy

Wrong:
- poor quality: performance, crashes, balance, combat ai, skitzo diplomacy ai
- missing content

Wish List:
- like to see a 1 army per tile 1apt system rather than a 1upt: army attacks as single unit, limited number of armies (generals), soft cap on number of units per army (general's command ability)
- foreign trade routes based on a trade agreement
- cultural exchanges (like cultural CS but with civs)
- more city state interaction beyond bribes
- a civic system integrated into the social policy system with civics unlocked based on SP selection

 

civilization was never a war game and shouldn't be made into one. I play very few games, but I loved civ 4. It was like they got everything right. The ai can beat me, if I get annoyed by certain rules I can turn them off, and so on. Civ 5 is a horrible game. One unit per tile is awful- it's an artificial limit that clutters the game and makes it tedious to play. I don't care what opions anyone for it has, it's broken and those who support this system are fools lacking the intelligence to handle stack composition. Civ is not a war game; it simulates a civilization growing through the ages- not a 6000 year way. Screw Schafer and whoever else made this piece of crap I spent half a c note to own. I'm glad the bastard left civ and I hope he repeatedly gets fired and ends up begging on the corner. I still can't fathom that he came up with beyond the sword- maybe he was struck by lightning that day or his girlfriend broke up with him and he decided he was going to try an ruin the series. Social policies? Another joke for retards and little kids because it takes away from the purpose of the game. And since most intelligent people left the forum and don't play or care about what 60 IQ fanboys say about the game, I'll remind everyone what the purpose is again: simulating a civilization growing over 6000 years. If you can't figure out why civ 5 sucks or don't think it does, you are the audience that ruined our game. Thanks a lot

Moderator Action: This post is trolling/flaming. Not a good start to posting here...
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

So wait, explain to me again how you have to be an idiot to like V? It's not just a war game.

 

Tell that to the 107 people who voted that it's a step in the right direction.

 

This. Really, if many IV-fanatics would give it a serious chance, especially after the continual patches, they'd realize it does have a lot of potential. I loved IV, and i'm really enjoying V. It has a lot to offer.

 

Ive given it a chance every single patch, every single dlc. Its still a sad pathetic joke compared to 4. If 100 hours logged on this garbage doesn't equal a serious chance, then I can't give it anymore then that. Its not a matter of patching that will fix it, the very base concepts its developed on are its flaw.

Could have fooled me. Since there's with no religion, real diplomacy, espionage or anyway to solve anything besides war war war. I spend about 5x as much time fighting in this game then any previous civ and I don't even play for conquest victories, 95% of these wars wouldn't have even occured in the previous as the AI leaders are now all paranoid bi-polars with a dash of schizophrenia and a whole lot of chronic backstabing syndrome.

1st, there won't be a expansion. We'd have heard MONTHS ago if one was being made, and theres nothing to add, everything in 4 that's not in 5 Sid himself said he didn't like in his developer confrence speech. Actually, we'd already have heard news of the SECOND expansion by now if we went by 3 and 4's timetable.

2nd, like I said earlier, the very base concepts 5 is built on is what makes it so bad. The patch isn't going to remake the game, at best they can polish flawed concepts but they'll never be much more then that are now.

 

I am a big fan of 1UPT, that's perfect, I love this game!

I start playing Civ from Civ 2, and I definitely believed that Civ 5 is in a right direction.

 

That's the one argument I really don't get from the people who like Civ V. I mean, I love hexagonal, tactical war-games too -- Panzer General, Battle Isle, The Battle for Wesnoth, Advanced Strategic Command et al -- and compared to what's already out there (and has been for ages) Civ V's tactical combat just isn't up to snuff. As a hexagonal war-game, Civ V is mediocre at best. So why all the praise?