should they skip Civ 5 Xpacs and go straight to Civ 6?

[m4gill4]

I think the opposite, Civ5 removed some elemental flaws of the series, like SoDs snd sliders.

Given that SOD's and sliders have been in every single civ up to this point, what you call "elemental flaws", I call "fundamental features"! If you don't like them, then it seems what you were waiting for is a game that is not civilization!

You're right, I won't bother answering, and I think about leaving this forum entirely.

Hey don't get down about it mate, your opinion is valid and lots of people share it. Not me, but if you can handle that lots of us are really pissed off about this game, then I can handle that lots of people seem to like it for reasons I do not share.

 

[wurstburst]

I definitely want them to continue work on Civ 5. If they do it right, they will introduce some new mechanics, some new civs and most of all, have the financial incentive to continue to improve the things that need improving - like the AI, unit balance, etc.

The last thing I want to see is a game that is one and done. The longer the payout period for the developer, the better the game will be over time.

 

[Deep_Blue]

On the poll question: I like to see Civ5 expansions, the game is still vanilla and needs sometime to become a fine product.. besides that for Civ6 I like to see a totally new game with a new game engine and it should take enough time in development unlike a rush expansion.

 

[Akka]

Yes they should let the wreck that Civ5 is, take it as a good example of what NOT to do, and go for the next iteration.

But ONLY if they fire all the incompetent [censored] that caused the disaster beforehand, or else it will be for naught (or at the very best, little).

 

[Polobo]

Skimmed the posts so forgive but:

If you are going to say "bring out Civ 6" you need to really give some idea of the kinds of changes you would expect that could/would not be incorporated into an expansion set.

My personal opinion about 5 is that they designers were too ambitious with their changes and, for whatever reason, had difficulties executing those changes. I vaguely recall Civ4 vanilla and that fact that I did not get that into the game but when I came back to BtS I found it to be quite addictive. Part of that was due to life circumstances but part of it is also the fact that any sufficiently novel design (and team) is going to stumble a little but the true measure of their worth is how they react. Going with "Civ6" marketing instead of "fixing" civ5 with expansions would, IMO, be an improper reaction.

 

[zomg]

Civ 5 is a bold step, but what could they do after Civ 4? Civ4 pretty much perfected what the previous civs were trying to do, so they had to throw in some completely new concepts and take a big step in a new direction. Personally I love the stuff they added. But the global happiness is too simplistic, there needs to be more management at the local levels around the cities. Stuff like health and cottage growth made cities more unique. Religion and spying can be added by expansion, as i have no doubt they will be.

 

[Akka]

My personal opinion about 5 is that they designers were too ambitious with their changes

Civ 5 is a bold step

Considering how much flak Civ5 has taken about being dumbed down/streamlined, being "too ambitious" or "too bold" is really NOT the problem here, on the contrary.
They didn't aimed too high and fell short. They aimed too low and shot their foot.

 

[arkguy]

Ok so we are divided on wether Civ 5 will be playable with Xpacs (expansion packs) or not. e.g. Warlords did not make Civ 4 better, but beyond the sword did. There are a large % of us that wont even play civ 5. so should Firaxis cut their losses on civ 5, pack it up and get it in the $5 bargain bin and work on Civ 6, or should they stick to their guns and round out a couple of xpacs for it first?
I think it's a moot point because they will deffinitely hit us up for xpacs because they are basically just mods that they can spin for more dollars. (Mods I must say that are often inferior to the free ones that can be downloaded from this and other sites).

But what would you like? I say they try for civ 6.

Actually I would vote for doing both. From what I’ve seen of the reviews they have been pretty mixed. I’d say move on to Civ VI and go back to what made Civ the great game it is to play by combining the best of the earlier versions & mods, particularly Civ III & IV and adding plenty of new thing to keep it exciting to play. By doing both you please both style of players giving the fans of the old game what they want and still providing expansion set for those fans of Civ V as there are many gamer that do like it. That way they provide 2 different styles of play to satisfy more than one style of gaming.

 

[Akkon888]

Civ5 would be so great if it had a better AI and diplo system, and resources, and road system, and happiness, etc.. I say work more on it.

However, some basic designs would remain flawed (like 1UPT), so they should also work on Civ6. Other basic designs are flawed as well but we have different threads for that so let's not go there.

Voted to expand Civ5, but I would also like to see work on 6.

 

[SuperJay]

Odd poll, but I do LOVE Fruit Loops.

I'd also prefer they kept working on Civ 5 - but patches, bug fixes, and free DLC. Not expansions. I already bought the game; I'd like Firaxis to make it more enjoyable so I can get some fun out of it before they start trying to sell me more products.

 

[AlpsStranger]

If they don't release any expansions for Civilization 5 I am done buying Firaxis stuff, period.

Any company that is held hostage by a loud minority to the degree that this would indicate would be circling the drain. Do what you think is best and pay attention to sales numbers. Those cannot be distorted by people who are willing to yell louder and speak more truth than any poll or rant ever could.

"True Hardcore" fans of every video game of every stripe, from Metroid to Civilization, have developed chronic case of entitlement. Show them who is in charge, and they *will* keep buying your stuff no matter how loudly they bluster. Even if they don't you can replace them with four more less whiny consumers.

Ahh... the Diablo 3 console port rumor. Please come true so I can take in all the fan rage and die a happy man.

 

[DaveShack]

What I dont understand is why someone other software developer hasnt jumped at the chance to steal Firaxis monopoly. No we dont want Firaxis to make civ 6 becasue that would be the same team that brought us civ 5. Why dont people get they need to change the people in charged unless they want more of the same?

With all the out of work IT people you'd like a few would get together in garage and hammer out some competition out school style.

You're not suggesting an illegal action like violating Firaxis' trademarks and copyright, are you? Because posting about that would be contrary to the forum rules.

Now perhaps you meant some garage programmers should create a new TBS game that meets your definition of a good TBS game? From scratch? Have any idea how much effort that is? If they're going to go to that much effort, why wouldn't they make their own game instead of remaking civ in your image?

 

[evrett37]

They should make their own game. I was suggesting someone make a new civilization style game to compete with Civ..like Call to power 2 with better grahpics...games werent always produced with huge budgets by megacorporations..~when I was you age~ some of the best software was written out of garages. I once wrote a Dragon Warrior clone in the top of a castle tower.

 

[Sofar Sogood]

My big question in regards to whether I think Firaxis should make Civ 6 or work on expansions for Civ (admittedly, reality will probably play out in favor of the latter) is whether Civ 5 is fundamentally broken. So much so that anything on the level of BTS still couldn't save it -- or whether it's even likely to actually fix these problems with DLC (after so much talk about making the AI act more like a real player, it doesn't seem likely that they'll make it significantly less temperamental).

Can ICS and an AI that gets upset with you because you walked out the door be fixed -- among the other issues? Depends. With a lot of dedicated rooting around at the core of the game, probably a lot of that could be fixed. Depends on how willing Firaxis is to mess around at the core of the game, particularly in regards to things like the AI, as mentioned earlier. Given that I suspect it to be unlikely this will happen, I'd endorse Civ 6, on the basis that they'd be more willing to mess with the Civ 5 formula with it.

 

[DaveShack]

Considering how much flak Civ5 has taken about being dumbed down/streamlined, being "too ambitious" or "too bold" is really NOT the problem here, on the contrary.
They didn't aimed too high and fell short. They aimed too low and shot their foot.

I don't think it is possible for us to know what they were aiming for, unless they come out and tell us. But speculation is fun.

My personal opinion as a professional software engineer, they hit exactly what they were aiming for and the majority of the fans who are disappointed had different expectations than the goals the developers had. The fault is in expecting too much.

 

[ezwip]

I think there is a good game with a lot missing. At some point they had to figure out how they were going to sell two more expansions. That's when the game hitting the cutting board and what you have now is a game with a lot missing. I think Dave is right we expected too much. Even with all the bugs fixed I want a game with as much content as BTS had, and this is far from it. For that reason I just won't be happy until the second expansion pack is out and I know I've got the entire game, with tons of content, and everything back that I loved.

 

[hussar]

What I dont understand is why someone other software developer hasnt jumped at the chance to steal Firaxis monopoly. No we dont want Firaxis to make civ 6 becasue that would be the same team that brought us civ 5. Why dont people get they need to change the people in charged unless they want more of the same?

With all the out of work IT people you'd like a few would get together in garage and hammer out some competition out school style.

This is perhaps the most luccid arguement I have ever read on these forums. I agree 100% with you mate. Someone is going to see the market space created by an otherwise incompetent Firaxis and we could be in for something special. Hell if any of the big developers see the niche available we should be in for some great new turn based strategy. I'm sure in light of what games are on the market a 'rip off' of Civ could easily be better than the origional. My dream was that Kael was going to be making or adapting fall from heaven to Civ 5, but that isn't going to happen now.

 

[ezwip]

This is when EA needs to capitalize on Alpha Centauri and drop the gauntlet on their heads. I don't see how they could do worse than Civ V.

 

[Minmaster]

i say no. i don't think civ5 is salvageable without a complete overhaul of most of the core.
therefore, i say start on civ6. i know i won't buy any expansion packs and waste even more money on this game and many others won't either.

 

[bonafide11]

Civ V is an excellent game, but with things missing and improvements that need to be made. People need to stop comparing Civ V to Beyond the Sword and start comparing Civ V to Civ IV when it *first* came out. Firaxis improved Civ IV a lot after it came out, and they'll do the same with Civ V. People complained like this about Civ IV when it first came out too.