New Civ5 Preview on IGN (3/8/2010)

I'm pretty sure Vikings are also included, at least if the teaser video is to be believed, but I might be wrong though...
 
By 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. 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:gold: or:commerce: or whatever
 
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.
Last of all, though. This might be the very first time where I own-& play-two versions of Civ at the same time :)!

Aussie.
 
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 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.
 
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.

Or a leader who lives and keeps the reins of power for over 5000 years... :lol:

Personally, I like religions because it spoils relationship between civs early in the game; therefore provoking lots of war. Once in my games, I got all the religions and it was so peaceful and harmonious that it was boring (note that I was playing Highlands map without any trade route with other civs).
 
The biggest issue that I fear the most in Civ5 is the way culture border is growing. Of course, I can't make early decisive conclusions without any solid proof, but according to what they assert:

I conclude we have less control of tile choice since grasslands are prioritized; the way we works on tiles is kinda linear. Moreover, without workers, the tile improvement mechanics will "likely"(I ponder this word) ressembles to Final Frontier's. What I meant is the lack of worker use (their use in Final Frontier was limited to "roads" and "Starbases") signifies limitation in speed of production. With the aid of a certain number of worker (normal civ) you chose to produce, steal from a civ or barbarians...whatever, you can improve your tile at the speed proportional to their number. Then, it was possible to bring altogether my army of worker and prepare city tiles for the first level of culture border even before two pops. In Final Frontier, you had to build improvement to get the "tiles/planets" at their full potential. The problem lies in the speed of improvement: it was linear and unchangeable (except in case you let the stellar system grows or previously build a factory, which is in turn as long as doing the selected improvement). For example, in high levels (Final Frontier), it was unbearable :( !
I had no "other options" to accelerate improvement. BTW, if some people who played Final Frontier at regular basis and felt the same with improvement limitation, feel free to express yourself. Then I could convince myself I'm not alone on Earth who thinks that way.

Moreover, since the "bad" forest tiles and hill tiles are under control later, then production flow is a tad difficult to control. No chop rushing for example. Still, I can't conclude yet; the article says we can pay for tiles in order to expand faster culture borders. I have to wait to full appreciate their efforts to make the next Civ generations. :p
 
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:gold: or:commerce: or whatever

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 :cool:
 
Ugh, I am NOT liking the look of it. Not one bit. I mean:

- Removal of spyonage: It is a very defining factor of crucial importance on war. If it doesn't work, you tweak it completely, but you don't outright remove it.

- What the hell is the crap about the player not having control over where a city expands? Sorry, but I hate when developers decide to remove options from the player.
 
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.
That's all that i wanted, i do hope for you an acceptable exchange has been made for religion.
Last of all, though. This might be the very first time where I own-& play-two versions of Civ at the same time :)!

Aussie.
I probably might as well, still playing to this day :)

i 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.
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

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 :cool:
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 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

:lol::lol:
 
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'.

While, to some extent, you're right that technology spreads, the idea that it is rarely "stolen" is an erroneous notion. Arguably, that has never been more true than in more modern times, but the use of spies and informants has been important since the dawn of civilization itself.

The ancient Egyptians, the Greeks and Romans, the Chinese, all made extensive use of spies, sometimes for the express purpose of stealing technological information from rival cultures. Sun Tzu would dedicate an entire chapter to spies, and developed a network of his own for both subversion and theft of information (technical or otherwise).

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.

Speak for yourself. When I play Genghis, as an example, I've modeled a strategy using spies in much the same way as the great Khan.

Some are used as scouts in territories I don't even plan to invade for some time to come. I also use them to spread fear (i.e., unhappiness) in cities near my invading forces, cause cities to revolt as they are being attacked, open city gates (i.e., destroy walls), and attack strategic resources I might otherwise not be able to deprive an enemy of through pure military force alone.

These aren't mere abstractions and do model actual things Genghis did with his own, extensive network of spies.

Needless to say, I for one will miss the espionage aspects in Civ 5, at least when playing as the Mongols or Romans. I'll wait and see what the game is like, but I think it really is a shame that both religion and espionage were nixed--to me, their removal are also a massive flavor loss to the game.

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.

You could argue those points about *any* aspect of the Civ game, not just espionage (or religion). The fact is, both were (and are) strategic and tactical elements that, in Civ 5, will no longer be part of the grand story or the layers of game play available to us as players. What a shame ...

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.
 
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! :scared:
 
Yeah, one big conspiracy! :scared:

Um, yeah. That's what I said ...

FTA: "The first suspicions of a market-driven compromise are usually generated by the dreaded "A" word, accessibility. While it's true that some game systems, like religion and espionage, have been removed, fears that Civilization Revolution on the console has dumbed down the gameplay of the PC sequel are unfounded."

Are they unfounded? I know IGN is telling me that my suspicions are unfounded, but that is rather my point. Yes, I fear the market-driven compromise and won't be satisfied with simple allusions that such fears are "unfounded" because a IGN game writer tells me so. Sorry.

(I love how nonchalant he mentions the dropping of religion/espionage, as if they had but a passing role in Civ 4. Religion and espionage removed, game not dumbed down--all the same sentence? Hmm .... )

I just think it may be the same thing we've all seen with gaming in general, over the last decade. That is, a dumbing-down of gameplay toward the "lowest common denominator." It's no conspiracy, we've all seen it happening, time and again. I like to call it "console-fied," because generally speaking, that's what is going on. That Civ 5 won't be appearing on consoles is heartening, however. Mostly.

So, call it "conspiratorial" thinking if you like, but I think that had more to do with their decision to remove these entirely (and not just rework them mechanically). I'm *hoping* that isn't why something so central to play in Civ 4 (i.e., religion) was taken out, but I'm not counting my chickens just yet. We'll just have to wait and see.

In the end, I hope Civ 5 has the same, layered types of game complexities that generates a learning curve stretching into years. I mean, I don't know about you but I'm still figuring out mechanics and new strategies in Civ 4. Which is, you know, fantastic! :lol:

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're replaced with some complex social politics... stuff... I think... :shifty:
 
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.

You're right, I know it. However, the experience wouldn't be complete unless I stress out about it daily until the game is released. *eye twitches*
 
Top Bottom