Is the next patch where Civ V should have started?

[insaneweasel]

With the policy buffs, better wonders, improved UAs (though US still needs a buff), combined with the other patches, it seems as though civ may be the most fun it ever has been for the casual gamer.

The problem is, it's been many months since civ was first released, and many fans of
civ 4 left this a long time ago. If the game had been released in its current state, would it have been better received? If this had been the starting situation, to be improved upon, I think it would have gotten a lot less flak from people.

 

[Strategist83]

Leading question much?

Yes, obviously they released it way too early. I doubt it will even turn out to be correct that this next version should have been the first - they still aren't addressing multiplayer or the poor AI. It will probably be a few years before the game is finished - and 'finished' is the condition any game should be released in. So there.

 

[GenjiKhan]

Well,we got a problem. Most of these changes Firaxis took from many places, like mods from Civ 5 (For example,many ideas of the mod "Thal's balance Mod" was putted in this patch,like the buff of US's ua) from complaints of people in forums and the ideas and suggestions of people. basically, it's wasn't Firaxis that improve Civilization 5,but everyone that suggest a idea,point a issue,etc. I wonder if people like to wait at least 2 more years to play Civilization 5.

 

[vexing]

Is the next patch where Civ V should have started?

no, because the upcoming patch has not been thoroughly tested. they've clearly never gone through a thorough beta process and continue using the entire player base as beta testers. this will not the last major patch.

 

[muskokan]

will give the jewel case a dust off and try the newest version of civ5 beta a try. am seriously wondering why I got this though, still think that 4 was a finished release and 5 was something to appease shareholders!!

 

[Brichals]

No it just means that I got the game a year earlier than it would have been released and even though it was beta I still got to test it out. And the company got the cash 1 year sooner to avoid going broke and finance another year of work on the game. All companies do it now. It's almost standard practise to release a game and add features through patches.

 

[muskokan]

Brichals if this was just a cash grab for the company, should we hav enot allowed the company to go bellyup? survival of the fittest is the natural way of life, why is it not in gaming?

 

[Seek]

if this was just a cash grab for the company, should we hav enot allowed the company to go bellyup?

Um, because it's Civ?

 

[Furycrab]

Some features in the patch would have been nice additions if ready on release, but not stuff I would invest resources or really want to delay the initial release (Hotseat mostly, Replays might have been buggy and thus put on the backburner)

Other stuff (balance changes), I don't think they would have figured out without tons of players actually playing the game. Also people that say they gave up on CiV can always come back, these patches are free, and from posting behaviors of some people, I'd say that they probably will, well at least try it out.

 

[cman2010]

civ 5 should have been scraped and redone compleately.

 

[fmlizard]

As someone who has written AI behavior and recommendation rules for software before, one that has a ton of input variables and user behaviors like Civ does, I can say that it is not nearly as easy as it looks to hit a perfectly fair and balanced rule set on day 1.

Essentially, they released when (generally) stable and used the principles of user-centered/participatory design to polish the rest.

As others have said, they could have:

• Had a massive beta test phase and then charged you when it sold (net is the same)
• Did a huge internal test ($$$) and not let you play for a year - and still have to cover for all the exploits and bugs the larger community finds. Oh, and you still get charged.
• Released when they were stable and let the community play around for a year and figure out what works and what doesn't for them.

If you were Firaxis, which would you have picked? Most sane businesspeople would have chosen #3, and would have gotten more (earlier) $ and a better end product after year 1 for it.

 

[thadian]

I heard starcraft 2 has a good ai. i dont know if its true but i also heard galactic civilizations had a decent ai and i still say they should consider how an online pvp botter would play when designing AI behavior. not saying every AI should warrior rush but they could min/max their values toward their pursued flavor and manage their gold correctly. if they valued spending gold as much as they valued hoarding it, i wouldn't see an AI dow me with 5k gold and send in spearmen post civil service.

also, it should consider the worst moves. once i had a lancer NEXT to an enemy city pillaging. the city has a cannon and a GG. Guess who exits the city to stand on top of an iron? (hint, not the cannon).

Of course i don't know much about writing scripts but i wouldn't think a professional would have too difficult a time playing several PVP matches then design an AI that is prepared for how players will play the game and will make advanced decisions to account for what it can read. for example, an AI with 3,000 gold who is being invaded and has upgradable warriors and spearmen should immediately upgrade all of his units.

Instead of auto-retreating every damaged horse, when it has a healthy horse close enough, it could move the damaged horse next to the enemy and flank with the healthy one then retreat both.

how hard is it? ive played a lot of tactics games. disgaea, suikoden tac, final fantasy tac, final fantasy advance tac and none of them seem to have an AI that knows how to do anything so even a professional team has problems with this.

remember old school video game bosses? instead of being harder because its a "better enemy" its harder because it has 9999999 more HP and your weapon does less damage to it.

 

[Agent Cooper]

Let's just hope that this 'service' does not escape the software business and infect other product segments. I would hate to buy a new car and be forced to accept a disclaimer reading things like 'the airbags installed in you new automobile might not deploy on impact', 'the brakes might not funtion when driving faster than 60mph' etc...

 

[thadian]

or when walking into a resturaunt

"the food may or may not be an accurate representation of the item in the menu including product size, quality of ingredients, and freshness of the food. you hereby agree and declare complete liability for any damages accumulated while eating any food, or dining in any location of our establishment"

(thus your "quarter pounder" is actually a quarter pound sandwhich and not a quarter pound piece of meat being used.)

 

[Strategist83]

Thadian mentioned StarCraft, and I was just about to point to it as well.

StarCraft is a textbook example of professionalism in PC gaming. People's preferences vary - myself, I play CiV over SCII simply because I prefer turn-based - but there's just no comparison on the level of finish and respect for the customer being shown between the two games. Civ 5, while a good game simply and only because it's a civ, is an atrocity when it comes to respecting the customer. Had it been Blizzard-made, I assure you we'd be receiving not only patch support to put this pitifulness from 2k Games to shame, but also tons of free DLC and possibly even the option of a full refund for those interested.

 

[SpearMan153]

no I think the next, next patch

 

[Agent Cooper]

Le's just say that Blizzard has found a business model that puts DLCs to shame and make 2K look like amateurs

Starcraft might be the most well balanced strategy game off all time. When people talk about 'balance' or 're-balance' with regards to CiV, I'm some what lost. Civ games have never been balanced no matter the efforts put into it. By it's very design philosophy, CiV will never be a well balanced game. The civs differ to greatly from eachother and the deeper and more complex gameplay multiplies the effect.

 

[DOmar1990]

With the policy buffs, better wonders, improved UAs (though US still needs a buff), combined with the other patches, it seems as though civ may be the most fun it ever has been for the casual gamer.

The problem is, it's been many months since civ was first released, and many fans of
civ 4 left this a long time ago. If the game had been released in its current state, would it have been better received? If this had been the starting situation, to be improved upon, I think it would have gotten a lot less flak from people.

You're right... Im civ4 fan and that 5 dissapoints me. I uninstall it from my computer and Im waiting for an expansion release alike beyond the sword for 5 so I reinstall it and try it again.

 

[Nyanko]

Thadian mentioned StarCraft, and I was just about to point to it as well.

StarCraft is a textbook example of professionalism in PC gaming. People's preferences vary - myself, I play CiV over SCII simply because I prefer turn-based - but there's just no comparison on the level of finish and respect for the customer being shown between the two games. Civ 5, while a good game simply and only because it's a civ, is an atrocity when it comes to respecting the customer. Had it been Blizzard-made, I assure you we'd be receiving not only patch support to put this pitifulness from 2k Games to shame, but also tons of free DLC and possibly even the option of a full refund for those interested.

If it had been made by Blizzard, we'd be still waiting for it, and proberly for the next year. How long did it take them to make Starcraft 2?
I for one, enjoy the constant patchings. it makes things feel different, it reshapes the rules and makes the game more interesting and less stale, coming up with new strategies, not relying too much on old ones. I'd be a happy Nyanko if they kept on patching every two-three months. Whenever they put out a new patch, they garentee to drain another week or so of play from me where there wouldnt have been before

 

[PinkRose]

I agree with Nyanko.
I like Blizzard-made games, but I've been happy to play CiV for the last year instead of waiting.