Haven't read anything on Kotaku since they shat on the whole esports/competitive gaming community with a badly written and un-researched article, now I see they think Civ is a real-time strategy game. I wonder if anyone at Kotaku actually plays video games or whether they just sit around searching for cosplay pictures while counting their money.
Kotaku names Civ V one of the best 12 PC games
- Thread starter Putmalk
- Start date
The Mad Russian
Armchair Dictator
Honestly, the first thing I did when I saw this was laugh, and pretty hard. Maybe if they fixed the bugs, AI, MP, institute changes they've been talking about for months, and finally fixing diplomacy, then perhaps it has the chance.
Other than that, thanks for the laugh.
-Mark
Other than that, thanks for the laugh.
-Mark
Civ 5 is in my personal top 5 favorite computer games ever, but that's just my opinion.
I never read Kotaku and don't plan on starting, but that's a pretty brutal error in the article stating Real Time Strategy', a quick Google search of the game would reveal its turn based.
I never read Kotaku and don't plan on starting, but that's a pretty brutal error in the article stating Real Time Strategy', a quick Google search of the game would reveal its turn based.
absolutely right. There are also those who realy liked Civ5, but now since they are pretty much borred of playing it, only rant about all the flaws that were not that much appearant when they started.
And, there are those like me. My first Civ was Civ5. Now that i know that i like civ's gameplay and everything, i'd also like a "deeper" game, such as civ4. I bought it, played it about 10 turns, and uninstalled it. Why ? Somewhat poor graphics, and ugly interface. I realy would like to play, but i just cannot. And it's not like i can't stand poor graphics, i started pc gaming somewhere around 1998, and there are those old games that i still play from time to time.. it's just that civ4 never had a chance to leave a good mark on me.
So, if i had to vote somehow, i'd be obligated to vote for civ5 over the others, althought i'm absolutely sure that civ4 was a much better game.
wannabewarlord
Prince
kaltorak got a point, I agree. But yours is an absolutely unfounded statement. How can you be "absolutely sure that civ4 was a much better game" when you simply haven't played it (10 hours don't count)?
I can accept people having an opinion if they know both (or all) alternatives (unfortunately that is not always the case. There's a lot of parrots around...). But simply stating something like this because you read more negative threads than positive is absolutely ridiculous.
headcase
Limit 1 Facepalm Per Turn
Everyone's entitled to typos, but "real time strategy"? Like saying Skyrim is an Japanese RPG.
Also, while I love Civ 5's engine, the vanilla game has some work to do yet.
Also, while I love Civ 5's engine, the vanilla game has some work to do yet.
You got a point, my statement was wrong, there is no way for me to be "absolutely sure" of such a thing. I tend to abuse these two words "absolutely sure", not only on forums but IRL as well. (by the way, i didn't play 10 hours, only 10 turns). I was only trying to point out that i "strongly think" civ4 is a much "complicated" game, whats in my opinion makes it a much "better game", but i just cannot play it because of the outdated visual.
The only Civs I'd start saying have "outdated visuals" that may have some effect on my enjoyment are probably 1 and 2. Can't put my head in the sand, even though I've been playing games since the 80s, it is hard to get back to the early 90s interfaces and graphics, especially in strategy games. But Civ 4, really? Jesus.
Becephalus
King
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2005
- Messages
- 725
Kotaku is a mainstream site that is mainly a site written by writers who happen to like gaming (as opposed to the better gaming sites, which are by gamers who happen to like writing).
Their opinions about games are not well researched or informed, and they frequently have people writing about genres they know little about.
It is what it is. This isn't so much "The best 12 computers games". As it is: If you had to pick some recent games to give someone a feel for what this platform has to offer across different genres what would they be? I am shocked they didn't include an MMO, seems like an odd oversight and I haven't played an MMO in 6 years.
Their opinions about games are not well researched or informed, and they frequently have people writing about genres they know little about.
It is what it is. This isn't so much "The best 12 computers games". As it is: If you had to pick some recent games to give someone a feel for what this platform has to offer across different genres what would they be? I am shocked they didn't include an MMO, seems like an odd oversight and I haven't played an MMO in 6 years.
headcase
Limit 1 Facepalm Per Turn
There's something about Civ4's visuals that do rub me the wrong way now (even with the beautifying mods). However, that may be just the diamond grid talking.
In some ways, 4 is superior to 5 in visuals. Things look different according to era which doesn't seem to happen at all in 5.
DizzKneeLand33
Fall from Heaven 2 still rocks
I actually appreciate the graphics MORE in Civ IV now that I've played my share of Civ V. Then again, I still play Civ III occasionally, so what do I know.... 
Gamewizard
Emperor
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2011
- Messages
- 1,234
Civ V is a great and addicting game, even with some of its flaws.
Maniacal
the green Napoleon
A Gawker owned wannabe gaming journalist blog and it is pretty mediocre most of the time (like everything to do with Gawker). They also stored every user account information and passwords in plain text and it was stolen a year or so ago.
If you want a gaming news website/blog that has actual journalism and produces good content try Rock Paper Shotgun.
rschissler
King
I wonder if he is refering to embarkation.
donsig
Low level intermediary
Well, they were right about old time civ players not liking Civ 5. I think I'd rather play Civ 2 than Civ 5.
PhilBowles
Deity
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2011
- Messages
- 5,333
Not read the article, but just from the quote cited I already know not to expect an insightful or detailed critique...
This too.
I'd more charitably assume that the reviewer is unaware that 'real-time strategy' is a literal description that contrasts with 'turn-based strategy', rather than a generic genre label for 'strategy games on a computer'. Given how arcane some genre titles this is possibly a forgivable mistake - look at how R&B is bandied around as a name for a musical style with no relationship to either blues or even the style for which the rhythm & blues label was originally coined.
In fairness not always true - Civilization IV is commonly considered the best game in the series, but most of its new elements were little more than cosmetic, and rewarded much the same playstyles as previous games (yes, Civ IV famously killed ICS, but ICS didn't really exist until Civ III anyway). It's mostly as well-regarded as it is because of added detail to mechanics already well-established and because the AI was superior to either its predecessors or its sequel rather than because of a couple of added mechanics (and those that were new could have been better-realised). It can't be considered especially original.
Likewise. Of course one could question a definition of 'best' that, taking the above at face value, implies a game likely to alienate up to 8 million gamers.
While this is probably true, bear in mind that you're talking about players whp have "loved Civ since Civ I". Civ I was a much simpler game to grasp than either Civ IV or Civ V - limited resource types, fewer techs, units or buildings, only 21 Wonders, no great people, only seven civs, no UAs, UUs or UBs, farms, roads and mines as the only improvement types, no borders, no culture, five or so mutually exclusive governments rather than civics or social policies ... I could go on. It's likely to be a minority who actually started playing the franchise with Civ IV, and for those who did the added detail of Civ IV may be less meaningful - the whole reason for players of previous versions of a game to buy a sequel is to enjoy the experience of playing the same game with more detail added, but this isn't a relevant consideration for players new to the franchise. Civ IV wasn't designed for new players to the franchise, it was designed for people who already knew how to play the game from experience dating to its simple beginnings.
He said 10 turns, even, not hours. Those are very slow turns...
I date to the early days of computer games - I started with Civ I when it came out, picked up Master of Orion as soon as it came out, all the rest. I go back far enough to know that the truly great computer games are often the simplest ones that get their job done. If push came to shove, I'd have to admit to preferring Civs I and II to Civ IV, which coming from the older games felt unduly cluttered. It also scaled badly, only coming into its own in the later game, the very part of Civ games I've tended to find least interesting.
Some changes I like in principle I feel didn't work well (including religion), and others I liked at the time I found lacking on a recent replay session - principally maintenance, which oversimplifies, well, maintenance concerns and I feel is a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. In order to dispense with ICS, they simplified the system to remove or marginalise unit and building maintenance costs and the trade-offs they impose, when the older system wasn't the essential problem - ICS hadn't been an issue in Civs I or II under the original corruption system.
I found, as others here have posted, that stack of death combat was a bit too offputting to return to Civ IV for an extended period, while the vaunted diplomacy put me off by allowing some situations that in retrospect are absurd - in particular entering the city of someone you have open borders with in order to attack their allies (since your relations with their allies don't count against your relations with them).
As for Civ IV's "ugly interface". Yes, it is. Compare with Civs I-III, it's pretty horrid visually. But I can't see comparing it with Civ V and calling it ugly - Civ V's ghastly-looking interface put me off playing that for a long time before I found it on sale.
It happens in Civ V - tile improvements and embarked units change visuals as you tech up. Sadly Great Person improvements don't, which is a shame since the Motte & Bailey from the 1066 scenario is a great visual that could be adopted for European Medieval era citadels (the existing visual seems to recall 19th Century European designs whenever it's constructed). City graphics I'm less sure about - I haven't noticed. But then neither Civ IV nor Civ V has the old 'city view' where you can look at individual buildings in the city screen.
Civ IV scores with its battle animations, though the way it zooms in every time you attack/defend is annoying. Though it loses out in not having mobile 'inactive' units - I'll set my worker to farm and as soon as he does so he stands frozen with his rake rather than continuing to farm, and so forth.
wannabewarlord
Prince
I agree with the graphic thingy being "bad". I am like that too. I played Civ4 extensively and it provided me great joy. But after a while you've seen it. Graphically and gameplay wise. Hence the reason why I so vehemently defend Civ5 whenever I come across those who bash it with more or less (often the latter) funded observations and opinions. Civ5 provides me with the same joy and looks better too. It also provides me with enough new/alternate content to play it extensively for a while again until I will inevitably tire of it.
Sullla
Patrician Roman Dictator
You can post this as many times as you want, but it still doesn't make it true. Civ4 doesn't play anything at all like Civ3. The former game has no cottages, no Great People production from cities, no religion, no corporations, no vassal states, no unit experience, corruption instead of maintenance, and a completely different diplomacy mechanic. Civ3's internal economy is based on hitting specific artificial growth points (4t settler pumps, 1t worker pumps), accumulating as much gold as possible, and trading/brokering for all technologies, often with resource sales and use of gold per turn credit. Civ4's internal economy is based on researching your own technologies through use of a cottage economy, specialist economy, or some combination of the two; you can still trade for some techs, but you need to research (or lightbulb) most of them yourself. The games play nothing alike. Warfare is completely different as well (unit XP, siege units doing collateral damage, units countering other unit types, etc.) The fact that you continue to post this only indicates how little experience you have with Civ4.
Here's a high level economic game from Civ3: http://www.garath.net/Sullla/Civ3/Epic47.html
Here's a high level economic game from Civ4: http://www.dos486.com/civ4/adv38/
Do they play anything alike? I'd beg to differ that these changes are merely "cosmetic."
Oh, and "ICS didn't really exist until Civ3"? Really? Did you actually play the first two Civilization games? ICS was the overwhelming, cannot lose, dominant strat for the first two Civs. Cities every two tiles planted endlessly across the map. 100, 200, 300 cities not uncommon.
With no disrespect intended, it's pretty obvious that you didn't play these games at a very high level, and don't really know what you're talking about. I mean no offense by that, but your posts betray a serious ignorance of these games.
rschissler
King
Based on prior posts, I'm sure Phil is referring to religion and health as the "cosmetic" changes. Not that I agree with him.
Aristos
Lightseeker
Your dissertation could have fooled many up to this point.
That point shows clearly that you really didn't play, and therefore, do not know, Civilization 4 as much as your amount of wording may suggest to the naive.
I won't even give you the explanation why this is the proof. The really long term, expert Civ4 players know the answer.
Facts are way stronger than words, you know.
