cf_nz
Prince
At the very least it's refreshing to read some criticism that is constructive.
Whilst I understand Sullla's points, and agree with some of them, I just want to point out to Sullla that Civ 5 was never intended to be Civ 4 BtS v2. This is a totally different game, same as Civ 4 was not Civ 3 Conquests v2.
If it's different in that it's unfun, what's the point? His critique holds, and comparison with other versions of Civ don't matter much there:
Whilst I understand Sullla's points, and agree with some of them, I just want to point out to Sullla that Civ 5 was never intended to be Civ 4 BtS v2. This is a totally different game, same as Civ 4 was not Civ 3 Conquests v2.
I didn't dispute that, read my comment. I said that Civ 5 is not BtS v2, which from all of his writings on Civ 5 is exactly what he wanted. He canes Civ 5 for NOT being BtS v2, which is unfair. Yes, Civ 5 has it's own share of problems, but not being BtS v2 is not one of them.
I didn't dispute that, read my comment. I said that Civ 5 is not BtS v2, which from all of his writings on Civ 5 is exactly what he wanted. He canes Civ 5 for NOT being BtS v2, which is unfair. Yes, Civ 5 has it's own share of problems, but not being BtS v2 is not one of them.
Whilst I understand Sullla's points, and agree with some of them, I just want to point out to Sullla that Civ 5 was never intended to be Civ 4 BtS v2. This is a totally different game, same as Civ 4 was not Civ 3 Conquests v2.
Sulla lashes Civ V for being "unfun" (as someone above said), not for not being Civ IV BtS. I think you're reading in that writeup (if you have even read it????) what you imagine in your own head.I didn't dispute that, read my comment. I said that Civ 5 is not BtS v2, which from all of his writings on Civ 5 is exactly what he wanted. He canes Civ 5 for NOT being BtS v2, which is unfair. Yes, Civ 5 has it's own share of problems, but not being BtS v2 is not one of them.
Yes, thanks for articulating this for me so nicely.How many of his criticisms wouldn't fit if this was the first Civ game?
When he brings up Civ4 he's simply pointing out mechanics that work since it is the obvious example to use. Still, you can remove the comparisons and the argument against the current game mechanics would still stand.
Are you claiming Civ V is totally different or just raising the question? As far as I'm concerned Civ V shares the same basic theme as all previous Civ games and is thus very much part of the series. The fact that a number of mechanics, some fairly core to the game-play, have been revised doesn't change that. It's not uncommon in sequels and series for this to happen, they invariably present an opportunity to start afresh.What's the point of calling a game Civilization V if it's a totally different game to it's predecessor? is'nt it reasonable to expect a similar game to the previous one? otherwise what the point of a series?
I didn't dispute that, read my comment. I said that Civ 5 is not BtS v2, which from all of his writings on Civ 5 is exactly what he wanted. He canes Civ 5 for NOT being BtS v2, which is unfair. Yes, Civ 5 has it's own share of problems, but not being BtS v2 is not one of them.
Definition:
[noun] the act of improving something; "their improvements increased the value of the property"
[noun] a change for the better; progress in development
Synonyms: betterment, advance
[noun] a condition superior to an earlier condition; "the new school represents a great improvement"
Synonyms: melioration
The fact that a number of mechanics, some fairly core to the game-play, have been revised doesn't change that. It's not uncommon in sequels and series for this to happen, they invariably present an opportunity to start afresh.
Sulla said:In every Civilization game, there is some kind of mechanic put in place to limit the expansion of empires. In the first three Civilization games, this mechanic was corruption, whereby every city would lose out on some production and commerce the further away they were located from the capital. The level of corruption ranged from nonexistent (in the original Civilization there was no corruption with Democracy for government, which was simultaneously overpowered and hilarious as a concept) to modest (the final patched version of Civ3) to catastrophic (in the original release version of Civ3). The whole point of corruption was that more cities would cease to be useful beyond a certain point, because they would be hopelessly corrupt. The whole concept never worked though; even if those extra cities were hopelessly "1/1" (one shield and one commerce), you were still better off founding them, and settler units were always cheap in Civ1/2/3. In the first two Civ games, the AI was feeble at expansion and it was easy to win even on the highest difficulty simply by out-expanding the AI civs. The Civ3 AI was programmed to be rapidly expansionistic, and therefore the Civ3 early game was always a mad rat race to see who could grab the most territory. Although that could be a lot of fun, the game mechanics meant that more cities was always better, without fail.
Sulla said:Global happiness was supposed to encourage small empires of large, vertical cities. Instead it does exactly the opposite, pushing players into mass spamming of tundra iceball cities. Why not? Once that spot has a colosseum, it's pure profit for your empire. The developers themselves have realized how badly they screwed the pooch on this one, backpedaling in the patch and changing the rules so that a city can't produce more happiness than its own population. If you have colosseum in a size 2 city, now it only produces +2 happiness instead of +4. This changes very little (since it's easy to grow your cities to size 4, and now you can simply cap them there to get the full benefit) while making the mechanic itself much more confusing. Unhappiness is now global, since your population always contributes to unhappiness, but the buildings that fight unhappiness work locally. Also, while a colosseum is limited in how much happiness it can provide by the local city, wonders are unaffected by this rule, as are luxury resources.
Directly from Toynbee's "Manifest of how to cover the truth"?
What's next? "Stay tuned for great news which I cannot reveal right now. But be invited to buy some more DLC in the meantime."
![]()
I think what Sullla expected was what everybody expected (well, except for those who took part in the development, in which function and how closely ever - and for which reward ever):
it is called "improvement".
Nobody was asking for a Civ4 version 2 with lesser graphics from a more demanding engine.
That is the strawman, which certain people always get out of their suitcase.
Some weaks ago, it was "you just have to play the game as intended". Now, after so many patches and changes, you have to change your line of argumentation?
Now it is "Oh, you wanted Civ4.5"
As others have stated already, the flaws and faults of Shafer_5 are more than just visible, whether there was a Civilization IV or not.
Whilst I understand Sullla's points, and agree with some of them