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

[King Rad]

Arioch, I think you hit the nail on the head. CiV to me is a decent game with some problems. At the same time, it removes some of the things I didn't like (others did) like spys and corporations. And it added the hexes and 1UPT which I've always favored (at least, in a modified state) and wondered about the first time I played one of the civ games. Did they get it perfect? obviously not. but I personally like it better than the old movement system. Of course, that probably comes from a background with board games that used the hexes like the Avalon Hill series. Bottom line, a lot of people like the game - probably more than the percentages of this forum might suggest, because most people simply don't participate in something like this unless they have a complaint. This forum is called "civfanatics" and it's composed of those who really, really get into the whole civ thing. It also means there are more people on this forum who will find fault with the game; sometimes because it's a poorly designed, which is going to happen with any game, no matter how much time and energy go into its prep; and sometimes because it's simply different from what we expected or not what we specifically wanted. as stated earlier, i like no espionage or corporations; others loathe that V doesn't have them. to each his own.

 

[Peregrine]

"entitlement" --WRONG.

I don't feel entitled to anything. I looked the game over, tried it (demo), and decided not to purchase. It was clearly a bad version. ONCE AGAIN, what does it MATTER to YOU? If you like the game, GO PLAY IT or POST IN THE "favorite etc." threads. What on earth motivates someone to DEFEND IT?! Clicking on a thread in order to post is a VOLUNTARY ACT. If criticism of the game offends you for some insane reason, DON'T POST. If you enjoy it, wonderful. Have a blast. WHY argue with critics? They/we don't like it. This forum is exactly to place to voice our criticisms and our opinions. If it wasn't, mods would have stepped in by now and put a stop to it. That the mods haven't done so simply verifies this assertion.

Perhaps you attack dogs should get THAT "through your heads." Wherever the hell they may be.

 

[vandyr]

=>No, as said before, there is no reason why they would forgot things between Civ4 and Civ5.
When they developped Civ4, they didn't need ten years to improve on Civ3, even though it was the time from Civ1 to Civ3... Following your logic they should have, after all they're supposed to forget everything and start from scratch each time !

Civ IV was exactly the same. Vanilla Civ IV was bare bones compared to what Civ III was at that time and what Civ IV BTS is today. They didn't 'forget' anything, and again, this is all part of the sensationalist drama queen movement that pervades these forums on a daily basis. CivIII and Civ IV released as completely workable stand alone games that were fleshed out by future expansions, and Civ V is no different.

 

[Akka]

Civ IV was exactly the same. Vanilla Civ IV was bare bones compared to what Civ III was at that time

I'm afraid your bias is showing, because it's just ridiculously false.

 

[Supr49er]

Keep working on Civ 5.

 

[Peregrine]

"Drama etc."

This is precisely what I'm pointing out. Yet another attack doggie. And, no, this idea is incorrect. I examined IV. Liked it. Purchased it. Despite two annoying bugs that were repaired by the first patch I downloaded, the game was clearly a good game. Engrossing, complex, with a host of problem-solving dilemmas that appeal to moi. So . . . Purchased BTS. Even more of what I enjoyed with the vanilla version. Barebones logic; Good game, followed by purchase of expansions, leading to even better gaming.

Pseudoreasoning; comparison of apples and oranges. The inapt comparison or flawed analogy.

V released. Tried it out. Clearly a bad game. So . . . no purchase of expansions, even if they appear. Expansions aren't intended to FIX a flawed game. They are just what they are literally called; EXPANSION. Expanding something that is already a good game with elements that will IMPROVE gameplay, making the game more enjoyable.

Feel as if I'm communicating with children. Don't take that personally, after all, it's just my opinion.

 

[vandyr]

I'm afraid your bias is showing, because it's just ridiculously false.

Here comes that selective memory again.

 

[vandyr]

"Drama etc."

This is precisely what I'm pointing out.

What, exactly? This is what I'm pointing out:

I examined IV. Liked it. Purchased it. Despite two annoying bugs that were repaired by the first patch I downloaded, the game was clearly a good game. Engrossing, complex, with a host of problem-solving dilemmas that appeal to moi.

V released. Tried it out. Clearly a bad game.

Sensationalist drama and over exaggerating , and I wholeheartedly agree that there is a ton of entitlement floating around here. I get that you don't like V, but others do. The game isn't "clearly bad", obviously....but that statement is.

 

[Akka]

Here comes that selective memory again.

Yep, that's exactly what I thought when you posted this joke.

 

[vandyr]

Yep, that's exactly what I thought when you posted this joke.

Like it or not Akka, we're rehashing Civ IV release all over again. You can deny it all you want, but its in the history books, and its all archived for your viewing pleasure, thanks to that wonder of the world we call the internet.

 

[Akka]

Like it or not Akka, we're rehashing Civ IV release all over again. You can deny it all you want, but its in the history books, and its all archived for your viewing pleasure, thanks to that wonder of the world we call the internet.

And it's why it precisely shows how much you're wrong.

Oh, and Civ4 being "barebones" compared to Civ3 doesn't require scanning the forums, you can just install them both, compare, and realize how much ridiculous the claim is.

Now, can you please stop cluttering threads with biased misrememberings and false information ?

 

[vandyr]

And it's why it precisely shows how much you're wrong.

Oh, and Civ4 being "barebones" compared to Civ3 doesn't require scanning the forums, you can just install them both, compare, and realize how much ridiculous the claim is.

Now, can you please stop cluttering threads with biased misrememberings and false information ?

Since your fingers are apparently broken:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/archive/index.php/t-149440.html
Thread titled: Why Civ IV sucks.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/archive/index.php/t-144588.html
Thread titled: Civ IV a waste of cash.

http://opiniondalek.blogspot.com/
Ten reasons why Civ IV sucks.

http://www.stormoverciv.org/forums/showthread.php?t=455
Civ IV sucks!

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/anything-goes/8097-civilization-iv-sucks-2.html
Civilization IV Sucks!

That took all of ten seconds of searching, and a lot of it is mirrored in the posts you'll find here over the last three weeks. There's literally pages and pages of hits about how much "Civ IV sucks" on forums and blogs all across the interwebs.

I played Civ IV at release, and went back to Civ III. I didn't start seriously playing Civ IV until much later. When Civ V came out, I dropped IV altogether.

 

[sketch162000]

Civ IV vanilla was/is an excellent game, once the bugs were patched. I should know - I am playing Civ IV vanilla most days of the week, and I find it much less repetitive and much more challenging and immersive than Civ V. With Civ V it's just drudgery, physical work, brain falls asleep... Civ IV, on the other hand, gives you a bit of options, a bit of fantasy, challenges, choices, upturns, facets. It's just betta'!

I love how this was ignored.

This is exactly what throws a wrench in the argument that you need to compare vanilla Civ IV to Civ V...some people do, and Civ IV is STILL the better game in their opinion.

 

[vandyr]

I love how this was ignored.

This is exactly what throws a wrench in the argument that you need to compare vanilla Civ IV to Civ V...some people do, and Civ IV is STILL the better game in their opinion.

It doesn't throw a wrench in anything. Civ V should still be compared to vanilla Civ IV, which is exactly what was said. If you believe vanilla IV was better than V, fine, I could probably agree (marginally) except that imo 1upt wins it for V, but that has nothing to do with expecting a Civ V on par with IV BTS.

 

[Akka]

Since your fingers are apparently broken:

Wow, you found threads saying Civ4 is bad, I would never have guessed !

Of course there was people disliking Civ4. My point is that it was in a MUCH LOWER density than Civ5. Most people liked it. It's visible even through the very links you posted, and these links show that even most of the critics agreed that there has been good fundamental ideas in the game - many critics about Civ5 complain about the very basis of the change.
Nice own goal.

By the way, you still come back to the (false) pretense that Civ4 was as bad received as Civ5, while the point that I said was ridiculous was how Civ4 was "barebone" compared to Civ3. Funny how the main point mysteriously vanished !

 

[vandyr]

Wow, you found threads saying Civ4 is bad, I would never have guessed !

Yea, didn't you say I was wrong about that?

Of course there was people disliking Civ4. My point is that it was in a MUCH LOWER density than Civ5.

Says who? You? heh...you think those four or five posts I linked are it? There's more Civ IV hate on the internet than Civ V by a long shot at the moment.

By the way, you still come back to the (false) pretense that Civ4 was as bad received as Civ5, while the point that I said was ridiculous was how Civ4 was "barebone" compared to Civ3. Funny how the main point mysteriously vanished !

Not quite. Keep deciphering those little figures on the screen. They're words, and words mean things. Read them. Civ IV released with little more than Civ V has right now, compared to a fully expansioned, patched and modded Civ III. Granted, Civ IV had more to it than V, but V has 1upt, and as far as I'm concerned, that combat system is the holy grail. I hated combat in IV and generally avoided it, as later on in my Civ IV playing days, all my late games became diplo wins. In V I love it.

 

[vandyr]

Wow, you found threads saying Civ4 is bad, I would never have guessed !

Yea, didn't you say I was wrong about that?

Of course there was people disliking Civ4. My point is that it was in a MUCH LOWER density than Civ5.

Says who? You? heh...you think those four or five posts I linked are it? There's more Civ IV hate on the internet than Civ V by a long shot at the moment.

By the way, you still come back to the (false) pretense that Civ4 was as bad received as Civ5, while the point that I said was ridiculous was how Civ4 was "barebone" compared to Civ3. Funny how the main point mysteriously vanished !

Not quite. Civ IV released with little more than Civ V has right now, compared to a fully expansioned, patched and modded Civ III. While I will agree that Civ IV did release with a bit more, the combat system sucked. SoD was so bad that after while I quit doing conquest at all in Civ IV because I hated it. In V I love it. Just the fact that V released with 1upt and hexes makes it a better game to me.

 

[Akka]

Yea, didn't you say I was wrong about that?

No, but you already proved you had lots of reading comprehension problems so I'm not surprised.
For the record, I said (several times) that Civ4 had people complaining about it at release, but that it was much less than Civ5, and targeting MAINLY (I emphasize it because if not you're going to find five threads about the gameplay problem and pretend it's a statistically valid representation) the bugs problems, with the design being largely praised.

Your selective memory is really showing.

Says who? You? heh...you think those four or five posts I linked are it? There's more Civ IV hate on the internet than Civ V by a long shot at the moment.

No there is not. And even if there was, I'd like to remind you that Civ4 has had five years to build up the number of threads talking bad about it. Civ5 is either already above, or at least a serious contender, in barely two monthes. Whichever way, you lose.

Not quite. Keep deciphering those little figures on the screen. They're words, and words mean things. Read them.

Considering how many times you ignore/misread/misunderstand things, you should really refrain from such misplaced arrogance.

Civ IV released with little more than Civ V has right now, compared to a fully expansioned, patched and modded Civ III.

You're wrong. Plainly, bluntly, completley wrong. Civ4 had ALL the core mechanics of Civ3 (great persons, culture, borders, specialists, wonders - with movies, unlike Civ3 - , national military budget, artillery, air missions, ressources, etc.), new crucial ones (a far-impacting reworking of the terrain improvement and of specialists, health, city-based maintenance, religions, multi-path tech tree, promotions, siege units, civics...), and on top of that much more refinement in Civ3 mechanisms (spillover, diplomacy, ressources, endings not being simply a textbox, trade routes...).
Have fun trying to find core concepts that were in Civ3 and not in Civ4. Have fun trying to find better-implemented concepts in Civ3 than in Civ4.

The only thing Civ3 had and Civ4 lacked was scenarios, and they hardly count in the core gameplay, and immersion, but that's a very personnal opinion in this case. Oh, and the palace. I deeply miss it, I admit, but it's not enough to make look Civ4 "barebone", especially considering the crapload of new concepts and features it brang. Maybe the field airport, but it's one less terrain improvement against the SEVERAL new ones, so either way it's a gain for Civ4.
So where exactly was Civ4 "bareboned" compared to Civ3 ?

You're simply horribly biased and of utter bad faith, or with serious memory problems.
Or maybe you just went back to Civ3 so fast you didn't even got the features of Civ4 right.
Saying Civ3 with its add-ons was richer then Civ4 at release is simply RIDICULOUSLY LAUGHABLE.

Granted, Civ IV had more to it than V, but V has 1upt, and as far as I'm concerned, that combat system is the holy grail. I hated combat in IV and generally avoided it, as later on in my Civ IV playing days, all my late games became diplo wins. In V I love it.

You have fun with Civ5. Good for you. Doesn't make you right on any of the points above.

 

[sketch162000]

It doesn't throw a wrench in anything. Civ V should still be compared to vanilla Civ IV, which is exactly what was said. If you believe vanilla IV was better than V, fine, I could probably agree (marginally) except that imo 1upt wins it for V, but that has nothing to do with expecting a Civ V on par with IV BTS.

I guess my point is that YMMV. It dosen't matter if we compare Civ V to vanilla IV or BTS because a lot of people are going to dislike it anyway, which comes down to major design decisions. What's the point in trying to shoot holes in complaints by talking about which version it should be compared to? To some people V is a step back from IV, period.

 

[vandyr]

No there is not.

I see what this is. We're in 'Akka's World' where no is yes and green is blue. Keep claiming the sky is falling and spreading your sensationalistic doom and gloom while worshipping the cd case your Civ IV copy came in. It is what it is, whether you want to admit it or not. Civ IV wasn't perfect, and had its own share of hate when it released, much more than you're willing to admit. Anybody with a connection to the internet can figure that out in about ten seconds.

I guess my point is that YMMV. It dosen't matter if we compare Civ V to vanilla IV or BTS because a lot of people are going to dislike it anyway, which comes down to major design decisions. What's the point in trying to shoot holes in complaints by talking about which version it should be compared to? To some people V is a step back from IV, period.

Not arguing that really, I was merely supporting the statement that Civ V vanilla can't realistically be compared to Civ IV BTS. As far as which of the two was a better vanilla game at launch, I go with V personally, and the main reason behind it being 1upt and hex maps. But, as you say, YMMV, nothing wrong with that.