So this expansion...

[Angelscotboi]

Hey folks.

Just wondering...

Civ V wasn't a good game. In fact it's pretty safe to say it sucked.

Apart from a few fun innovative things that were positives, for the most part it did not improve on Civ IV in any way.

I have detailed why I don't like Civ V before in other threads so I won't get into it in depth, but I found a number of things hard to deal with.

The engine is slow, and poorly optimised. I've got a decent (but not the best in the universe) computer that can run Skyrim on HIGH graphics level at 25 to 32 fps. With no problems. Civ V the Turn Button changes to "This Unit Needs Moved" button and you do stuff wi the unit, and the game takes at minimum a full minute to change back to the Turn button.
Global Happiness was a beyond stupid idea, that was poorly implemented. Can't say more than that about it - it just sucked. Happiness was global - but still affected cities locally? Really? So conquering a city, and having it happy could cause your whole empire to go "STFU!" to you? Really?
There were CTDs, and serious bug issues to contend with; and patches repeatedly broke the game worse. Also there were serious balancing issues like with navies being useless - etc.

There r other issues I had with the game but those were the "main" things I recall really hating.

Civ V felt like it was made by committee by people who had never worked on Civ before, never played Civ before, and only had a rough idea of what Civ was about.

So my question is...

Does this expansion improve the game so that it doesn't suck anymore?

Thanks!

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

I can only say I do hope so as I am planning on getting it

 

[Angelscotboi]

Well with the Steam Summer Sale on I have been swithering back n forth about getting it.

I bought Civ V (and thus had to install Steam cos its required) and regretted it. Fallout New Vegas is what kept Steam on my comp.

So I fot id ask...?

 

[mr_happy96]

Your question isn't really going to get a decent response.
I would say no, the expansion does not improve the game to the point that it doesn't suck. It improves the game, but in my opinion the game never sucked. It had problems, as do most new release games, but many (not all) were subsequently fixed.
If you do not enjoy Civ V then it is unlikely that you would enjoy Gods and Kings.

 

[Angelscotboi]

So what your saying is the expansion doesnt fix the balance issues, bugs, and more egregious problems with the engine in terms of optimisation of it?

In the way that every other Civ expansion before it had?

Then my question to that is, what's the point of this expansion if it's not doing anything beyond flinging more stuff in?

EDIT:
I get the distinct impression that you never actually properly read my OP mrhappy. Perhaps you ought to?

 

[skallben]

I'm sure you know the answer. You hate the game, how could an expansion change that?
It's still the same game, just quite a bit better than vanilla.

 

[Tatran]

Why don't you play the G&K demo, let's say, for a week ?
The religion concept is tricky; it won't open a whole new world, it's mainly another layer of resources.
The demo won't let you play with spies, but it looks similar to the espionage system of civ3.

 

[mr_happy96]

Your original question was:
'Does this expansion improve the game so that it doesn't suck anymore?'
I answered that with:
'I would say no, the expansion does not improve the game to the point that it doesn't suck. It improves the game, but in my opinion the game never sucked.'
To expand on this, the point of this expansion is to improve the game by restructuring the tech tree, combat and unit balancing. It also adds 9 civilizations, 3 scenarios and two major game mechanics religion and espionage. These factors all improve the game but if you are unhappy with your original purchase of Civ V, why waste the money buying an expansion in the hope that it fixes the all the problems you have with the vanilla release?
On a side note I would like to suggest that you do not resort to rudeness when you don't receive the answer you are looking for. I also think that it is totally ignorant to completely disregard the effort the Civ V developers put in to making this game.
'Civ V felt like it was made by committee by people who had never worked on Civ before, never played Civ before, and only had a rough idea of what Civ was about.'

 

[civnoob13]

Hey folks.

Just wondering...

Civ V wasn't a good game. In fact it's pretty safe to say it sucked.

Well, no, you may not like it, but many did, and saying 'it sucked' as a universal fact for those who did like it means you're unlikely to get many sincere responses. Anyway, moving on...

The engine is slow, and poorly optimised. I've got a decent (but not the best in the universe) computer that can run Skyrim on HIGH graphics level at 25 to 32 fps. With no problems. Civ V the Turn Button changes to "This Unit Needs Moved" button and you do stuff wi the unit, and the game takes at minimum a full minute to change back to the Turn button.

Patches have greatly improved turn times since release but unfortunately the expansion made it worse. It wasn't as bad as it was on release but there are some major issues. Turn times can still take an age, there are bugs like the camera sometimes uncontrollably scrolling in a random direction in between turns, when you're half way through commanding a unit the game will suddenly move you to another one, combat animations, especially planes, far far too long and there are sometimes pauses at the end. It's pretty unnaceptable to be honest for these issues to not have been addressed yet.

Global Happiness was a beyond stupid idea, that was poorly implemented. Can't say more than that about it - it just sucked. Happiness was global - but still affected cities locally? Really? So conquering a city, and having it happy could cause your whole empire to go "STFU!" to you? Really?

Personally I think global happiness is a much improved mechanic since release and I think it works well. If you hated it so much on release though you may not agree. You'd have to try that out for yourself; there is a G&K expansion after all.
There were CTDs, and serious bug issues to contend with; and patches repeatedly broke the game worse. Also there were serious balancing issues like with navies being useless - etc.

Patches & G&K have resolved any balance issues I can care to think of (although I am no expert). Navies especially are a very useful (and in some cases vital) source in the expansion; with melee and ranged naval units and an vastly improved military AI, especially naval, you can't just ignore your navy anymore.

Does this expansion improve the game so that it doesn't suck anymore?

Most people here would tell you it didn't suck to begin with, so you might not get what you're looking for, but I think G&K vastly improves the game. The new religion mechanic adds depth and makes the game more fun, diplomacy is infinitely better than it was in release (although it is still pretty poor sometimes), the city-state system has been completely overhauled so it's not just simply buying them off, you can have meaningful diplomatic relations, the military AI is much better (although still pretty poor sometimes), espionage, although a little disappointing, is a good addition, and naval warfare is vastly improved. I think ciV G&K improves the game in pretty much every area.

If you didn't like the initial game there's a good chance you still won't like it now, but I think it's much better. You should at least give the demo a try.

 

[The_J]

Why don't you play the G&K demo, let's say, for a week ?

Moderator Action: This.
And then you might try it again with a better OP.
Thread closed.