Lord_Loffen
Chieftain
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2009
- Messages
- 9
I'm pretty sure Vikings are also included, at least if the teaser video is to be believed, but I might be wrong though...
I'm sorry then that i belong to the group of players that trusts the company to come up with a good reason for any of their choices, and i for one am happy that they dare to try something different instead of the same old same old. I have been playing civ since part 1 and do not find religion that much of a dealbreaker. Sure, if it's in i like it, but the way it's done in civ 4 is just that, done since civ 4. And not done all that well either. The system in which all religions are the same except for the name is lame, they should have had the guts to have cristianity have crusaders for example, and jews have +1 or or whateverBy removing the religion and espionage systems, Firaxis hopes to focus diplomacy more on specific strategic situations and less on the exploitation of more arbitrary game elements.
http://pc.ign.com/articles/107/1074732p1.html
assuming arguendo that some semblance of religion and espionage systems are in the game, the fact that these elements have been sidelined (in fact labeled as arbitrary elements) is a valid cause for concern for some players here who undoubtedly got so attached to these game concepts. count me in those who believe religion and espionage should remain if not improved upon in V.
I'm sorry then that i belong to the group of players that trusts the company to come up with a good reason for any of their choices, and i for one am happy that they dare to try something different instead of the same old same old.
It's a game mechanic. It doesn't take fifty years for a foot unit to travel across one 100-mile hex, either. At some point you have to sacrifice a bit of realism for game play.
The alternative is a 'battle map' like you suggested, but then the strategy involved in one-unit-per-hex goes out the window.
Religion was an interesting concept, but overall I did not like it. It seemed like a diplomacy gimmick to me.
I'm sorry then that i belong to the group of players that trusts the company to come up with a good reason for any of their choices, and i for one am happy that they dare to try something different instead of the same old same old. I have been playing civ since part 1 and do not find religion that much of a dealbreaker. Sure, if it's in i like it, but the way it's done in civ 4 is just that, done since civ 4. And not done all that well either. The system in which all religions are the same except for the name is lame, they should have had the guts to have cristianity have crusaders for example, and jews have +1 or or whatever
That's all that i wanted, i do hope for you an acceptable exchange has been made for religion.Sisko. Although I obviously got addicted to the civ series w/o religion, the introduction of religion in CivIV was-to myself & many others-a *major* step forward in the Civ Genre. By bringing it in, they made me even more aware of its absence in previous iterations. No it wasn't done perfectly, but a lot of new features in CivIII made it to CivIV in spite of their original imperfections. I, for one, am exceedingly happy about the bulk of the changes announced for CivV-from tactical warfare, to city states, to a more organic growth of your borders! However, having whetted my appetite in CivIV-with religions-I will be severely disappointed if that system isn't replaced with something at least as good (if not better!)
That said, having read the last part of the Gamespot article, I'm at least willing to hold off further criticism until *after* an official announcement of a more finished product is announced.
I probably might as well, still playing to this dayLast of all, though. This might be the very first time where I own-& play-two versions of Civ at the same time !
Aussie.
I know, i just believe it's prematurely, like being mad because the announced iphone doesn't have any dial buttons, but not knowing yet they will be touchscreeni am a fanatic too. i'd probably buy and like any game with CIV stamped on it. but i have only played III and IV, both games designed by Soren. I guess it would be hard for me to adjust to V the way things are now. It's an entirely different game philosophy with that I have longe been accustomed to. Be that as it may, it's perfectly understandable to have others here fuming mad. It's not trolling. You can't expect people who are angry just stifle their dissent.
Actually i even meant it on a city level, like coorporations in the later game, so anyone who has a city of it would benefit in that city. Holy city will still have other benefits perhaps.I don't think it is a good idea to give religions unique feature for the civ who founded it. Of course, this is for a normal game without "select the wanted religion" mode. It will end that early religions will be taken by the economically strongest (higher difficulty levels) of those who have the prerequisite Mysticism. The way you spoke of, I automatically thought of shrines.
If you meant : those who have only this state religion as prerequisite, then it's different and it destroys what I said in previous paragraph.
Cheers
I know, i just believe it's prematurely, like being mad because the announced iphone doesn't have any dial buttons, but not knowing yet they will be touchscreen
However, the kind of espionage we've seen in Civ is more like what happens naturally through normal exchanges of information. Technology just spreads, very rarely is it 'stolen'.
Dedicated spies are really for discerning enemy plans or setting up deceptions during wartime, and combat in Civ is really very abstract. There aren't really many opportunities to model this aspect of espionage. The enemy approaches, you see them and know exactly what they are up to.
You can get into a situation where if espionage is effective enough to be deemed necessary, then you're adding a micromanagement burden. If it's optional, then the player is just spinning his wheels over nothing.
Frankly, I think they were removed for purposes of mass appeal--more to cater to players migrating from consoles and handhelds--than for any other reasons. The tone of the original article even rings, to me a bit conciliatory, as if attempting to soothe existing players whom are rightly concerned about the removal of these elements. I guess we'll see and I'll wait until then to lend a real criticism of their absence, but I can't say I'm happy with the idea.
Yeah, one big conspiracy!
P.S. Has there been any mention of civics? Are the days of Theocracy or Emancipation gone? How about the whip? Any word on these at all?
P.S. Has there been any mention of civics? Are the days of Theocracy or Emancipation gone? How about the whip? Any word on these at all?
They've probably removed the 25 things you loved most about this game and changed them for 25 things you will absolutely hate. You know this in advance.