UnforcedError
Settler
That explains it! Global happiness is the way to goOf course they're happy. They don't have to listen to that stupid circus music in the capital.
Reasoning behind divide among civ players
- Thread starter MantaRevan
- Start date
Why did I dislike Civ 5? Well, for one thing, the stupid nickname people gave it- but that's hardly the game's fault. I also think that 2k figured they'd take what has become the standard practice these days of releasing a game in what is essentially a late beta state and (functional, but heavily flawed) and patching it until it's right. While this isn't such a bad idea in theory (after all, you get thousands of beta testers and loads of feedback), it backfires pretty badly when it comes to a deep strategy game, much less one that is part of so long-running a series.
When it first came out and the complainers were given cries of "Civ 4 wasn't so great when it was first released either", I promptly reinstalled 4 on a second computer and ran it simultaneously with a game of BTS. Yes, it was flawed, unpolished and had problems, but it wasn't the buggy mess 5 was.
When it first came out and the complainers were given cries of "Civ 4 wasn't so great when it was first released either", I promptly reinstalled 4 on a second computer and ran it simultaneously with a game of BTS. Yes, it was flawed, unpolished and had problems, but it wasn't the buggy mess 5 was.
Civ 5 is just another game on the path of big corporate tactics taking over game production.
There is a parallel to the movie industry that the gaming industry is going through. Its not surprising since the gaming industry has become multibillion dollar industry and attracts corporate types from other industries...
The new formula is to take all games, and then make it easy enough for an eight year old to win but require a large time investment so even a mature gamer feels like he "earned" it. This works great for MMORPGs especially.
Civ 5 is a dumbed down, idiot's version, of civilization 4. Its slick interface was created and built with with what looks to me an eye to porting it onto console platforms (which are taking over). It is less complex, has more advice, and takes forever at the end of the game as units spam everywhere.
It is just another victim on the path of corporate greed that drives gaming companies to spew out content for people that equate effort with reward. It betrayed Civ IV where it wasn't about working harder, it was about working smarter.
There is a parallel to the movie industry that the gaming industry is going through. Its not surprising since the gaming industry has become multibillion dollar industry and attracts corporate types from other industries...
The new formula is to take all games, and then make it easy enough for an eight year old to win but require a large time investment so even a mature gamer feels like he "earned" it. This works great for MMORPGs especially.
Civ 5 is a dumbed down, idiot's version, of civilization 4. Its slick interface was created and built with with what looks to me an eye to porting it onto console platforms (which are taking over). It is less complex, has more advice, and takes forever at the end of the game as units spam everywhere.
It is just another victim on the path of corporate greed that drives gaming companies to spew out content for people that equate effort with reward. It betrayed Civ IV where it wasn't about working harder, it was about working smarter.
AdamCrock
Polish Pirate
I couldn't agree more. World is coming to an end I guess. Civ games are being dumbed down which makes me sad. Moguls and big game corporations are taking over and boy they have a little interest in how You feel about them and their games. Thay cannot see nor they care what are the consequences of their actions. When the history end's at december 21'st 2012 AD (with US claiming 'best score' victory 
) Im seriously considering not to "click" "Wait... just... one more turn..!" 
... click or not to click ... this is the question 
This is what happens with so many good things. They begin, get to be great (IV) and then start to decline for the reasons you stated. Maybe my age is showing. I'm pessimistic about Civ VI if they ever get that far.
Good thing we've got mods for CivIV, such as RFC. With so many mods, there are many different types of CivIV.
Disgustipated
Deity
Which reminds me of the biggest reason I won't play Civ5 any more. It's slow as hell. Turn times are too great. Even the interface is slower. I can't imagine how slow the game would be if I actually ran a mod.
I didn't realize the difference was so great until I did go back to Civ4 (after a 2 year hiatus) last week. Despite running a hefty mod, the game is slick and fast. It seems to me Civ4 plays like a newer game than Civ 5.
I bet you if you ran a blind play test to a group of people who never played Civ games before, and they didn't know what game was what, and what year they were released, they'd say Civ5 is the older game because how slow and clunky it is.
I didn't realize the difference was so great until I did go back to Civ4 (after a 2 year hiatus) last week. Despite running a hefty mod, the game is slick and fast. It seems to me Civ4 plays like a newer game than Civ 5.
I bet you if you ran a blind play test to a group of people who never played Civ games before, and they didn't know what game was what, and what year they were released, they'd say Civ5 is the older game because how slow and clunky it is.
Civ 5 felt less like a sequel and more like a reboot. It didn't take what was good from its predecessors and try to improve on what was poor. Instead it felt like it was different for the sake of being different, and lost a ton of the institutional awesomeness that built from 1-4.
MantaRevan
Emperor
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2011
- Messages
- 1,541
I understand your point, but I tend to differ. In the gaming market where developers are too afraid to change their games whatsoever and hash out the same product every year, I think it's nice to see a game that tries to innovate and be creative.
Not if it fails and betrays longtime fans.
lp60068
Chieftain
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2010
- Messages
- 14
Lots of good answers and criticisms in this thread.
Some of my reasons for disliking Civ 5:
* City site planning seemed like it was deemphasized. City placement in Civ 4 can be crucial and it seemed like it doesn't really matter as much in Civ 5.
* Being a builder and trying a peaceful strategy is out in Civ 5
* Social policies lock you in for entire game and remove a whole strategic side of the game.
* Civilopedia - I never realized how much I use that in Civ 4 and it was just lazy for the developers not to update it.
* Civ 4 has a nice pacing - there is always something to do every turn. Civ 5 seems like it had less decisions for you to make and there were times you just wanted to hit next turn several times.
* Civ 4 offers many ways to win - and sometimes you change your strategy mid-game based on what is happening.
Some of my reasons for disliking Civ 5:
* City site planning seemed like it was deemphasized. City placement in Civ 4 can be crucial and it seemed like it doesn't really matter as much in Civ 5.
* Being a builder and trying a peaceful strategy is out in Civ 5
* Social policies lock you in for entire game and remove a whole strategic side of the game.
* Civilopedia - I never realized how much I use that in Civ 4 and it was just lazy for the developers not to update it.
* Civ 4 has a nice pacing - there is always something to do every turn. Civ 5 seems like it had less decisions for you to make and there were times you just wanted to hit next turn several times.
* Civ 4 offers many ways to win - and sometimes you change your strategy mid-game based on what is happening.
strijder20
Wallowing in irony
Culture, Space and Diplo are all viable in CiV. However, you're indeed pretty much bound to get attacked at some point, but you don't have to take enemy cities - just kill the invaders.
markusbeutel
NiGHTS
All 3 of these work very differently from IV, though - in ways that don't favor a builder play-style.
For Culture, you limit yourself to 3-5 cities so as not to increase policy costs (which go up with each additional city you control), then limit yourself to unlocking a set amount of policy trees, then build a "Utopia Project." Seeing as policy trees unlock based on the era you are in, you'll pretty much always take every single policy in the first 3 unlocked policy trees. It's an incredibly narrow and stifling victory type that allows for little to no variation and locks you in to a set play-style throughout the whole game. If you choose to go for a culture victory, but have already built 10 cities, well that's just not going to happen.
Diplo victories consist of you saving up your money until yourself or someone else builds the UN, then spending all your money to buy up all of the city states for their votes. It's a pay to win mechanic, and it's viable for pretty much all play-styles, but it's also incredibly shallow - and the AI is therefore most efficient at it compared to any other victory type due to their gold bonuses.
Space victories are similar, except you have to manually move your spaceship parts to your capital once they're built. Needless to say, with the state of the current tactical AI, AI opponents never really get this victory type if you're paying any attention at all to what's going on on the world map.
By the time any of these are viable options, you might as well have just taken out all of the AI capitals for a domination victory...
Victory types are one of the areas I would hope get some attention once the .dll is released, (along with the points system, as right now there's no incentive for getting early wins, as this isn't really reflected in your final score).
strijder20
Wallowing in irony
Civ4 does not really encourage switching to culture vic after generating 3 Gpeople either.
Pretty broken indeed, although G&K makes it slightly better (throwing gold is only half as effective).
AdamCrock
Polish Pirate
I was reading through som ctrl+alt+del (by Tim Buckley) web comisc and I found this one Imho this is how some people feel about Civ 5 I thought I should post it here
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
EDIT (continued)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Imho this is how some people feel about Civ 5 I thought I should post it here 
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
EDIT (continued
)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
digitalcraft
Warlord
The biggest issue of CivV for me is just that the choices you make aren't interesting. its really not fun to push units around one at a time, it's not fun to plan out roads etc.
Civ4 just has more interesting decisions. I'd rather just stack up my units and go smash things. Honestly, I even get tired of pushing stacks of Civ4 units around, and joining up stacks as cities produce.
I'd much rather a unitless civ game where you have more a military production slider and you have generals that handle the units, you just point to the area you want them to conquer.
Civ4 just has more interesting decisions. I'd rather just stack up my units and go smash things. Honestly, I even get tired of pushing stacks of Civ4 units around, and joining up stacks as cities produce.
I'd much rather a unitless civ game where you have more a military production slider and you have generals that handle the units, you just point to the area you want them to conquer.
There's a lot of variety in Civ4 cultural victories. The most direct way (compact empire just enough for national wonders. Killing science for more culture in the Renaissance) is very different from a modern-era Cultural Victory leaning on corporations and the entertainment wonders.
Both are feasible, as is something in between with a split economy: artists in the culture cities, or all commerce on culture and specialists elsewhere. I'm partial to a split between culture and espionage because early dedication to culture means winning from a position of weakness where espionage shines for both advancement and diplomacy.
Far from a cookie cutter approach. Civ4 is generally quite good at offering different but equally valid alternate paths. It can afford to be, because the underlying mechanics are robust and open-ended enough to let players try different things.
Gzz
Warlord
Honestely i quite like Civ V , more for the absence of WB directley viable in-game , and be a bit less hard ( in Civs IV on King i go insane , in V i can handle it )
Rusty Edge
Deity
Welcome to the Civilization Fanatic Center Forums, Civ IV division!
Civ is a game and it's meant to be fun. Feel free to play the version and the style and dificulty level which you most enjoy. Because whatever you do, unless it's multiplayer or game of the month or hall of fame, you're not hurting anybody else with your playstyle choices.
Forgive us if we sometimes sound like ,well ... Fanatics.
I for one, think BTS is the greatest game ever designed for anything including computer/console/board/smart phone. I can get a little passionate about it sometimes.
Thanks for your input to our discussion, feel free to come back any time.
I hope you give IV another try if and when you ever lose interest in V.
Absolution
King
You simply can never get tired of CivIV.
