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

I agree with this. I really love 1upt as I hated stack of doom in cIV.

However, I miss being able to culturally take over a city. Those were the days.

 

A few months ago I probably voted wrong direction. But after a week of one more turning until 2 a.m. on work nights... I have to say Civ V is fun again. I'm not sure if its the updates or the fact that I bought a machine that can handle the bloated nature of this beast, but I am having fun.

I have been reading up on the strategy board and playing the Mac GOTM. I am addicted to trying to get 1000 beaker city online... and by doing so, I've learned so much about the little things.

I do have the feeling that there might not be enough complexity to the game as I've found myself slipping into a pattern of production, SPs, and tech... but I'm sure I'm only scratching the surface as to how the game can be managed and won.

Fun game... that's the bottom line. I no longer feel like I am not getting my $$$ worth.

 

3rd - opinions do not equal facts.

Why can't there be an expansion pack? There's no reason to assume they would be on any set schedule from 6 years ago. Civ V was clearly released in a state which needed a lot more patches just to get to where it is now.

Civ V has had a steady number of players on Steam since release, and there's no reason to think they wouldn't want to sell an expansion pack to that market.

Also, I think it is just overly negative to say the game is "beyond hope". Each patch has improved the game significantly, and there is still at the very least one more patch to come. People act like Civ V was dumped and that there is zero support for it, when quite the opposite is the case.

 

You're conflating hexagonal tiles/1UPT with being a war game. Just because (in your opinion) those two coincide doesn't mean one caused the other.

 

Well, if it's not the tactical wargame aspect of Civ V's hexagons and 1UPT that has people enthuse about them, what is it about them that some people love some much?

 

Like I said, under Sid's current gaming philosophy there's nothing to add.

Steady number? It peaks at 20k very rarely and 8k at the lowest point of the day, for a exclusively Steam game with 3 million people at the peak point of the day, that's pretty damn sad. Look at their DLC sales on steam, less then 1% of the population even bothered with the Polensian(sp?) faction. The earlier DLC didn't fare much better, so It shows people aren't having it.

Yah... and what are they using their primary development time on for this one? Trying to fix one of the major broken portions of the game? Ha. Fixing multiplayer? Ya right. No, their adding Hotseat, which I would beat my life on that less then a percent of the people who play Civilization care about at all. Considering multiplayer doesn't work at all, and not for connectivity reasons, its once again, another useless waste of time. And sure they'll put some minor changes to diplomacy and such in there, but it won't change either thing, its proven only a major major change would work.

 

The fact that it was completely plausible to have Civ V in its current form but with stacks of doom (which most people hate) and square tiles (almost universally disliked compared to hexes). Some people dislike that they think Civ V is a wargame, which is understandable, but almost nobody comes here saying they'd prefer there were no combat at all in it. And when there is combat, there's a general preference for 1UPT and hexes.

Plus, your mention of the "tactical wargame aspect of Civ V's hexagons and 1UPT" again conflates the two. I don't know if you mean this or not, but your posts come across as "if we didn't have 1UPT and hexes, this wouldn't have been a wargame." It's not a wargame because of those. If it is at all, it's because the diplomacy is poor and war is too profitable, not because they retooled the way you move troops.

 

What??? Sid supposedly isn't even involved in Civ V. Do you have facts to go with this?

Civ V is consistently in the top 10 of games played on Steam. No, it isn't going to come close to FPS games like COD, but would Civ IV have either? No way. Civ (any version) just is never going to have the mass appeal of a COD shooter.

http://store.steampowered.com/stats/

Where in the world are you getting your DLC stats? Do you just make them up or do you have a source? Facts are fun.

Diplomacy can easily be fixed. The problem is that "fixing" to you means making it into Civ 4 (which is never going to happen).

 

Sid still thumbs up or down all the decisions, he just doesn't actually do the work anymore.

The way its going, I wouldn't be suprised if dumbed down to the point your average COD player could play it.

Look at the global achievements for the game, and look at all the ones based on DLC, there at the dead bottom in the under 1% margin.

Glad to see functional AI is now one of those "outdated Civ4 features".

 

I've purchased a lot of DLC and I don't have any achievements. Your numbers simply cannot be gotten from there.

 

Not going to imply that 5 is perfect, but it is a huge step in the right direction. I still like to compare it to Windows Vista, lot of vitriol for changing stuff people had become comfortable with but ultimately necessary.

Also, like Vista, it's gotten much, much better with subsequent patches.

1UPT, huge improvement. New combat system, huge improvement (not having every fight be to the death). AI control of units, tragically poor (albeit improved with patches).

I could go on, but I'd just be parroting what others have said. I still play Civ4 for multiplayer, but single player is strictly Civ5. No matter the problems it had at release it's a strong upgrade for the series and is getting better with every patch. I'm happy I bought it and enjoy playing.

 

Ultimately Civ V had to depart from the previous games. II was a huge departure from the original Civ. III and IV, while they had their differences, didn’t distinguish themselves from each other like II did to the original. V went off in a new direction, and I think that’s good for the franchise. Its obvious V is not a polished game yet, and it might not ever be, but it’s still a very enjoyable game that is very different from the rest of the Civ series. And I like it for that. New for the sake of New is not always good, but in the case of Civ V, New is good.

 

Anyone here who's seen my previous posts knows my vote. I have no issue with franchises going in new directions. That doesn't mean I blindly forgive all faults. Civ V was ambitious, too much so for its own good. It has tried a lot of new things, some of which were good ideas and some of which were terrible ideas, and IMO very few of them have worked. It's no longer a civilization-building game so much as it is a tactical war game with bad AI. Thanks to constant patching, the game has improved enough to where I can play a round now and then when I'm utterly bored with everything else I have, but it'll never quite hold a candle to its predecessors.

 

I'm of the same mind, and I think Civ5 can be a better game ultimately. It's up to 2k/Firaxis where they take it.

They can add a lot of content in a major expansion of milk us dry with small content packs.

 

I believe it was a step in the right direction, mostly because in combat, you must think to win battles, whether that is with AI (which you think considerably less) or with people.

The policies are also a step in the right direction, just I wish they would have had governments with different social policies within them.

 

Definitely a step in the wrong direction. The biggest reason is the "streamlining" which equated out to dumbing down the game. ciV is a much less involved/complex game than cIV, which is why I've gone back to cIV. I've logged so many hours on cIV that I've long ago lost count and I STILL find it an interesting game full of different possibilities every time I fire up a game. ciV is boring by comparison.

 

Agreed, futurehermit. Civ IV had interesting decisions at every step of the journey, Civ V lacks that. It's also incredibly easy compared to Civ IV, and that is part of what makes it more boring for me. I find Immortal interesting, but too often it's an all or nothing affair. Not so in Civ IV. I have a fighting chance, and the rollercoaster rides to victory or defeat are all exhilarating. It's a pity Civ V lacks that "aura" of fun, intellectual challenge and reward.

 

Some of the very worst things about civ V were brought over from civ IV though. I pulled out a stopwatch and timed between-turn times in civ IV on a machine way better than people had when it came out and ridiculously higher than recommended specs. 30 second turns in mid-game huge maps. For people who have hotkey knowledge, such is frequently longer than the time it takes them to play a turn. V takes this to a further extreme.

Other big issue is user interface/controls. The games both play very slowly but V decided to take IV's ineptitude and carry it to a whole new level. Forget queuing, you can't even manage cities without going into them and then removing obstructive popup menus! To queue you have to do nearly triple the input actions of civ IV, which already had lots of interface problems.

This is one of the hardest things about civ V for me to get over; in a game released in 2010, it makes terrible UI mistakes that good games from the mid-late 90's didn't make. There is not a single excuse in the world Firaxis can come up with that is a valid defense of that.

 

Maybe it's because I'm bordering on OCD when I end up playing and that this is usually a good quality for people playing Civ... but I love that practically everything shows up as some form of warning, or that when I'm setting a city production I'm just a few clicks away from being able to manipulate when it's going to come out. I think it might be holding my hand a little too much at times. However I wouldn't want a game that would have me digging through menus every turn to figure out when a Deal ended, or when Production for something finished.

I just don't feel the need to use queue all that much, maybe because I've learned from many games that queuing is usually bad so I don't care much for it except for Modern wars and 95%+ of my games are already mostly decided before I get to Modern so *shrug*.

The trade off I think is that with stacks of doom being gone and the number of cities having dropped by a good amount, production is a lot less spammy.

 

Quick and concise for me:

Step in the right direction - some pretty revolutionary ideas, some hilariously bad implementations in some regards (hi combat AI) but if you have to step through some mud to get to the burger joint, it's still a step in the right direction.