Old timer's, what are your thoughts so far?
- Thread starter wiggawuu
- Start date
chrisge
Chieftain
I apologise. I was unfairly suspicious of what seemed to me to be a bit of a dispassionate company line post. I would prefer not to make this worse by referring to it. I am just dealing with the fact that the favourite game of my life seems to have taken a direction that is too much a departure from Civ 1 - 4 for me. For those that have been with the series from Civ 1 like me and made the transition through the Civ gears up to 5 without feeling like the gears are now grinding, then you are lucky.
I still don't understand how so many early Civ 5 reviews were so overwhelmingly positive when we still have this schism today. If it weren't for these very positive reviews then Civ 6 might be more in line with what a lot of the older community were hoping for.
When I read through all the posts here, I believe I am correct in saying that the majority of us were hoping to have something that feels more like a natural transition from Civ 4. However it's not looking like that right now.
When the lead designer admits that he got some core mechanics in Civ 5 wrong, then aren't we trying to build on shaky foundations?
I think the schism is largely the product of a very small very loud minority. So yes there is a schism among a small community of CFC posters. Civ fans as a whole? Nah. Granted schisms like this are common as we heard Civ3 was better complaints back when Civ4 was out. At the same time, that was a different era when more newbies and casuals posted in forums like this.
As those people have moved to Youtube let's play comments sections and Steam, you have the partisans left. so the effect may be to amplify those narrow voices. I would posit that Civ4 is beloved to a point there is natural inertia to reject changes made, no matter how Civ5 was in reality. So I generally discount appeals to tradition type arguments that often raised. Especially when Civ as a franchise has discarded many features with each iteration and people who are wedded to Civ4 appear to only selectively pick ones Civ4 kept as being 'traditional'.
The narratives that have built up since, seems to me, in retrospect to be a lot of self-reinforcing myths about how bad the game was.
When 60K players are on Steam playing the game on a Saturday six years after the game launching, Schism is hardly the word I would reach for. It's largely fantasy within a bubble. And people are certainly entitled to that opinion but there are other outlets (like that Civ5 rants thread with the same 5 people bumping) or the Civ4 forums. Refighting those arguments on 1UPT and hexes on a game like Civ6 which is essentially an evolved Civ5 seems like a losing battle from my POV, and is more less just setting yourself up for disappointment.
3 years later when he was selling a new game. His motives should be called into question as I doubt you'd put as much weight in it had he doubled down in that interview. A bit of a confirmation bias there.
Soren Johnson's newest game is an RTS economic sim. Shall I infer he has disowned the TBS genre and Civ3 and 4 were mistakes?
@chrisge:
There is a difference between having an inherently-flawed idea, and executing that in a flawed manner. Furthermore, to say that the lead designer on the base game before expansions touched it admitted his work wasn't perfect, is worlds apart from saying "this game is inherently based on flawed foundations".
And no, you aren't in any majority. That's a very basic linguistic technique to make it look like your voice speaks for more than yourself. It doesn't.
There are plenty of aspects from CiV onwards that hold true to the earlier games. To magnify the ones you found divisive just to try and imply Civ VI suffers similarly . . . is that what your aim is here? If you've already decided not to like it, and are adapting developer quotes to suit your agenda, how can any wholesome debate ever occur?
There is a difference between having an inherently-flawed idea, and executing that in a flawed manner. Furthermore, to say that the lead designer on the base game before expansions touched it admitted his work wasn't perfect, is worlds apart from saying "this game is inherently based on flawed foundations".
And no, you aren't in any majority. That's a very basic linguistic technique to make it look like your voice speaks for more than yourself. It doesn't.
There are plenty of aspects from CiV onwards that hold true to the earlier games. To magnify the ones you found divisive just to try and imply Civ VI suffers similarly . . . is that what your aim is here? If you've already decided not to like it, and are adapting developer quotes to suit your agenda, how can any wholesome debate ever occur?
elitetroops
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,706
Played 1 as a kid, was completely hooked immediately. Played a ton of 2 and 3 as well. Got 4 the day it was released, still playing today.
Never played 5. I have it, but never even installed it. Mainly because all my available gaming time is taken up by Civ IV. After 10 years, there's still so much to learn and discover about this game, even without mods. (And probably another reason I never installed V is that I've been hanging out too much in the Civ IV section of this board, where the reviews of V aren't always that favorable...
)
Based on those game play videos of VI, it looks quite promising. I kind of like the graphics, and even if I didn't, I find graphics to be the least important aspect of games. I'd take a good game over a good looking game any time. Many of the mechanics seem interesting. My main worry is how well they will be able to balance all the things, so that there isn't one clear best path to take every time. For example the deck of cards, I hope there's more than a few cards that you actually want to use.
I like the idea of having terrain requirements for wonders and making the surrounding terrain have more impact on how you develop your cities. If implemented well, this could turn out very well.
The randomized hidden AI objectives are interesting, but could also possibly cause some problems, mainly for competitive HoF play. It would suck if they have too much impact on the game, to screw some games over on T0 without any way of knowing it until very long into the game.
I also liked the idea of mini objectives to give boosts for research and those civic cards, whatever they were called. Again, if implemented well, it could make for some interesting decisions throughout the game. That's what I want the most. A game that forces you to make important decisions all the time. Decisions without one clear best answer are the best.
Overall, based on what I've seen so far, it might very well be I play VI before I ever play V.
Never played 5. I have it, but never even installed it. Mainly because all my available gaming time is taken up by Civ IV. After 10 years, there's still so much to learn and discover about this game, even without mods. (And probably another reason I never installed V is that I've been hanging out too much in the Civ IV section of this board, where the reviews of V aren't always that favorable...
)Based on those game play videos of VI, it looks quite promising. I kind of like the graphics, and even if I didn't, I find graphics to be the least important aspect of games. I'd take a good game over a good looking game any time. Many of the mechanics seem interesting. My main worry is how well they will be able to balance all the things, so that there isn't one clear best path to take every time. For example the deck of cards, I hope there's more than a few cards that you actually want to use.
I like the idea of having terrain requirements for wonders and making the surrounding terrain have more impact on how you develop your cities. If implemented well, this could turn out very well.
The randomized hidden AI objectives are interesting, but could also possibly cause some problems, mainly for competitive HoF play. It would suck if they have too much impact on the game, to screw some games over on T0 without any way of knowing it until very long into the game.
I also liked the idea of mini objectives to give boosts for research and those civic cards, whatever they were called. Again, if implemented well, it could make for some interesting decisions throughout the game. That's what I want the most. A game that forces you to make important decisions all the time. Decisions without one clear best answer are the best.
Overall, based on what I've seen so far, it might very well be I play VI before I ever play V.
I've been playing since the very beginning in 1991. Civ III was my favorite, then IV. I'm looking forward to Ed Beach "making civ great again". 
So far, 6 looks to be very promising.
So far, 6 looks to be very promising.
Well, addressing the first point. I honestly and truly feel bad for you and any others feel that way. Civ is such an institution, I know I would be beyond bummed if I hated a new version of it. I read about Civ 1 in a gaming mag and called the software shop every week to check on the release date. Bought it the day it landed in the store. Went sleep deprived for weeks afterword. I have owned every single iteration and offshoot.
Second point. Reviews are overwhelmingly positive because it is a fantastic game and my favorite version to date, although 1 has a place in my heart. You stacked units only rarely as one loss and the stack was poof in Civ 1. I wish 4 had done that. Anyway, Civ 5 is in the top 10 of games being played on steam about every day, 6 years after release. I put in 2000 hours the last 6 years. About 5 times what I played Civ 4.
You are not correct in saying the majority wished for more Civ 4 and I am absolutely part of the old gaurd. As Dex pointed out, it's a subset that for some reason liked 4 better.
Are you referring to Jon Shafer on your last point? I got the feeling he felt maybe some things vanilla didn't work as intended. I am very grateful for his vision as it turned out great and Ed Beach also needs to get a nod for fixing up, improving and making a classic. The foundation is strong and I can't wait to play 6.
chrisge
Chieftain
Thank you for your opinions, I appreciate the lively debate and I respect that you don't agree with me and I have no problem with that. If I am to continue just playing Civ 4 because so many people have moved on then that is my problem. Chess never needed a graphics update
For me 1UPT (for example) was based on Panzer General which was played on a far, far smaller map. For me it takes me right out of the immersion to only be able to have one unit on a tile that is the size of a large city. If you say that the AI is now capable of playing intelligently with its own system well that is good and it is my loss for not giving it more of a go. I apologise for any undue irritation.
For me 1UPT (for example) was based on Panzer General which was played on a far, far smaller map. For me it takes me right out of the immersion to only be able to have one unit on a tile that is the size of a large city. If you say that the AI is now capable of playing intelligently with its own system well that is good and it is my loss for not giving it more of a go. I apologise for any undue irritation.
Acken
Deity
Either way its too soon to judge civ6.
Thank you for your opinions, I appreciate the lively debate and I respect that you don't agree with me and I have no problem with that. If I am to continue just playing Civ 4 because so many people have moved on then that is my problem. Chess never needed a graphics update
For me 1UPT (for example) was based on Panzer General which was played on a far, far smaller map. For me it takes me right out of the immersion to only be able to have one unit on a tile that is the size of a large city. If you say that the AI is now capable of playing intelligently with its own system well that is good and it is my loss for not giving it more of a go. I apologise for any undue irritation.
No irritation at all. You seem like a good bloke. Did you play Civ V with the expansions where you gave it a try?
Aristos
Lightseeker
Thank you for your opinions, I appreciate the lively debate and I respect that you don't agree with me and I have no problem with that. If I am to continue just playing Civ 4 because so many people have moved on then that is my problem. Chess never needed a graphics update
For me 1UPT (for example) was based on Panzer General which was played on a far, far smaller map. For me it takes me right out of the immersion to only be able to have one unit on a tile that is the size of a large city. If you say that the AI is now capable of playing intelligently with its own system well that is good and it is my loss for not giving it more of a go. I apologise for any undue irritation.
Hey brother, don't apologize. NEVER apologize for some wrong you DID NOT commit. We have enough of that PC BS around the world, not needed here. You ARE entitled to your own opinion as much as anyone else, AND to express it freely as long as you are not openly insulting/attacking anyone (and you did not any of that). If someone is "offended" by your opinion about the quality of a game or not, then that person has other issues that need solutions.
Keep sharing your opinion.
Oh, and yes, you are right, the "designer" himself said that he "always wanted Panzer General but with cities", and that is exactly what he created. Ed and team came after he "decided to depart" and saved V from an almost guaranteed disaster. I was relentless in my critics of V vanilla, but came to like the after-Shafer version of BNW, made by Ed. My point is, I was on the extreme opposed side also, and I love IV, but I am enjoying BNW a lot too... maybe you can give it a try now that it's dirty cheap?
Agree, Chrisge was just giving an opinion. Not ramming one down everyone's throats like some here.
As for Shafer, didn't he design Beyond The Sword? Second question, did he really say Panzer General with cities? Yikes. Panzer General was a fantastic game and a pretty good combat system but that's a bit out there.
I'm in my 30's so i played them all to death since i was a kid. I've liked all as well, even Civ 5 which may have taken the most hours out of any civ so far. Only 2 things I hated about Civ 5 was the AI had no idea how to play the new rule set and bomber animations.
I really like what i see with Civ 6 so far except only 50 science techs, I tend to have lots of science and culture in Civ 5 so it will probably mean shorter average game length for me.
I really like what i see with Civ 6 so far except only 50 science techs, I tend to have lots of science and culture in Civ 5 so it will probably mean shorter average game length for me.
chrisge
Chieftain
Thanks. Ok, yes Jon Shafer did really say Panzer General because he was a huge fan and that is what he based Civ 5 on. So he created a game with hexes of something like 100 squared kms that only one unit can be on. This ruins the immersion for me completely.
So older Civ players love Civ so much that they have adapted to a game that was a bad design to begin with but was saved to some degree in the end. But now we need to continue down a path that is acknowledged to be a bad idea Aristos?
When you are used to 25 years of a MUPT system it is not easy for everyone to make the transition.
So older Civ players love Civ so much that they have adapted to a game that was a bad design to begin with but was saved to some degree in the end. But now we need to continue down a path that is acknowledged to be a bad idea Aristos?
When you are used to 25 years of a MUPT system it is not easy for everyone to make the transition.
ldvhl
ніщо
- Joined
- May 15, 2013
- Messages
- 2,182
Except it sounds like most of the non-tech techs (chivalry, etc.) got moved to Civics.
See, what I got out of his statement pre Civ 5 was that combat kinda sucks in Civ which I 1000% agree with in Civ 4. He based it on Panzer General which is true. I love it. The rest of Civ was Civ. Hexes and better combat got me excited for Civ 5.
I never read anything that said he wanted Panzer General with cities.
gunnergoz
Cat Herder
I've played since Civ 1 and enjoyed them all, Civ V included, especially since the expansions. I'm looking forward to 6 very much indeed. Since I play for fun, I try not to over-analyze the experience. As I've gotten older I find it hard to take games to the end more than once or twice. I hope Civ 6 has staying power and is done right from the git-go. So far, so good, from what I've seen. I'm even getting used to the "cartoony graphics" since they seem to be evolving in a direction I like.
Everyone is giving their opinion on here. Nobody is ramming their opinions down anyone's throats.
For five plus years, any criticism of Civilization 5 was cordoned off into one thread. So perhaps some people have forgotten that these forums (fora?) are for the free exchange of ideas and opinions.
Not everyone liked Civilization 5 and have big hopes that most or at least some of the mistakes made won't show up in Civ Vi. This is the appropriate thread to express those ideas, hopes and opinions.
Everyone is giving their opinion on here. Nobody is ramming their opinions down anyone's throats.
For five plus years, any criticism of Civilization 5 was cordoned off into one thread. So perhaps some people have forgotten that these forums (fora?) are for the free exchange of ideas and opinions.
Not everyone liked Civilization 5 and have big hopes that most or at least some of the mistakes made won't show up in Civ Vi. This is the appropriate thread to express those ideas, hopes and opinions.
Could be a bad choice of words. I really meant people who claim to speak for everyone or state their opinion as some sort of fact.
Correct: I think Civ 5 is dumbed down.
BS: Civ 5 is dumbed down and everyone thinks so.
Fair enough. Perhaps I misread your intent.
Anyway, I have always figured that when posting on forums such as this that I am giving my opinion. I kind of figure that's a given.
