Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by EmpireOfCats, Nov 20, 2010.
Anybody could play Civ IV, but when you got looked further there were a million possibilities.
I've defended 5 against the frequent "it's missing this" or "that's illogical" or "such and such is broken" claims over and over again, but I think the OP has identified the real problem with 5 compared to its predecessors: not enough happens because of your choices.
All I know is that while I love 1upt, I just can't play Civ5 with all the busted ai and mp stuff. I'm playing galciv2 (sods and all) until they update Civ5 and try again.
AI and MP is paramount. Riddle me this, batman, would checkers, one of the simplest of games, be more fun with a complex ai or a human player as opposed to a broken ai/player? No matter how simple or dumbed down a game is, a good challengeR/s is what makes a game truly good or bad.
How many NES/Atari 2600 retro gamers are out there that love x or y game even though it doesn't stand up like it used to? Nostalgia and the challengeR, dig?
Edit: I also agree with the OP. TONS of crap happens in Galciv2. So much, in fact, that I'm playing on small maps just to be able to manage the influx.
So .. Civ4 is for short-attention-span people, Civ5 is for people with more patience?
I like Civ5. I like to play Civ5 at epic speed. Obviously I didn't like Civ4 because there was just too much happening
Well, since you seem to enjoy sitting around and pressing the same button all day , I should tell you I heard they are hiring in George Jetsons section at Cogswell Cogs. Get that button pushing finger ready.
btw - I play epic also. I guess those apples to apples comparisons are a beotch, huh!
Lol, I think you are giving civ4 way too much credit there.
I don't like Civ 4 and I have to agree with your point. Civ 4 is too complex. Civ 4 has too many different units and buildings. The changing of the incredibly brilliant and working attack and defense values with just one value and dozens of "does 42% more damage when defending against bronze armored horse archer on irrigated hills" traits combined with stacking units is just... needlessly complex. The good old caravan and diplomat micromanagement game is back with the form of religion.
Add in 4th wall breaking terrain improvements like windmills and quarries (seriously why can't it just be food, shield and commerce improvements with slightly different graphics depending on terrain). Great leader system blown out of proportions to its own minigame. Coat this with unintuitive interface where words are replaced with symbol salad and pictures, 3d graphics straight from the 90's (sadly not the gameplay). One does not need 400 page rulebook for it because it isn't hard or anything, it's just complex which doesn't add to anything.
Now Civ 5 features most of this. But it streamlined and improved what Civ 4 established. We still have billions of ******** buildings (circus, water wheel etc... seriously), but the gameplay dictates us not to build everything everywhere. I think the unit amount is smaller compared to Civ 4? We have more clearer graphics, more text, less vomit.
But Civ 5 didn't bring back or improve the classic Civilization gameplay. I'm currently playing with a dozen of mods and this most likely won't change ever. In a sense Civ 5 is Civ 4 2 with the exception it is a sequel which actually makes things better.
Haven't played conquering games so far.
well if you do ICS there is constant stream of rewards after you settle something like 40 cities you can get to point where every turn you have to visit at least 5 cities
I am affraid what will happen after they finally nerf ICS heavily, right now I can get a lot of fun from the game, but with only 5+- production queues (the original intend of devs) I don't see to happen a lot of fun
Another thing you all have to consider, though, is constant doing actions != constant fun. If you're doing stuff all the time that isn't fun you got.... WORK! Not fun! So I think another factor in determine those that prefer civ5 to civ4 is the quality of said actions.
you're right of course. But for me it's always better to do at least something and pretend doing "important decisions in prod queue" then just pressing "end turn" (that was the case in 2 of all the games I played, 1 was 5 cities cultural victory and the other OCC cultural victory)
Yeah but pushing end turn is something albeit very poor quality.
Well, I've come back to a happy posting thread after trying to bury myself in the oh-so-hyped, oh-so-disappointing Civ 5.
"Happy" U, say? Yeah, as in; misery loves company. Glad(?) to know i'm not the only hardcore, longtime Civ lover/player that thinks & feels the corporate overlords really lost touch with the essence of Sid M's genius... what makes a classic game, whether it's Diplomacy, chess, or Civilization, is trade-off's. Having many choices & thus many outcomes, but only limited resources/units/options = excitement, anticipation, limitless possibilities... good & bad.
Since some posters have correctly stated that we should give praise where due; i want to thank 2K & the other corporate-profit-is-our-motive middle managers. They have FINALLY managed to help me break my Civ habit(!) by dumbing down & slicking up a classic. Oh yeah, & now i have yet ANOTHER invasive internet-connected program on my computer just so some perv's at yet another corporation can track when & how i choose to play MY game in the privacy of MY home or office. Nice work corporate kids. Hope U make alot of money selling such info to other corp's so they too know our likes & dislikes & gaming addictions(!).
Unfortunately it cost me $100 for the 1st-day-issued "collectors" version* & over $200 to upgrade my 2 computers' graphics cards & power supplies... just to get it to play. Now, if i want to actually SEE these wonderful new visuals thru anything but an screen 60% filled with interface nonsense that'll cost another $200 in upgrades.
To those that try to defend this "prettier, simpler-to-play" version, i submit to U, that this is/was a THINKING man's contest. Speed is NOT the issue, thinking & learning are the essence of a STRATEGY game. To follow some of the logic i've seen presented here defending this "improved" version, is like saying checkers is an improvement to chess.
Couple of true positives that can be said about Civ 5 are that the switch to hex-based maps is SO much better than squares & the attempt to bring warfare out into the field where most major battles are REALLY fought is commendable (now if U could find a balance between massive stacks of units & one-per-tile)
Enuf from this former fanatic, that is now just barely a fan... & >$300 poorer.
* speaking of poorer; any suggestions where one mite find a buyer for a "classic collectable"? It's barely been used; the cute little figurines haven't even been taken out of their foam & the background books have only been touched once. The seal on the disc of course was neatly plied open. Any offers?
Always look on the bright side of life.
And it feels great to have my freedom again.
What a silly theory.
Right now Civ 5 just isn't that great a game. Moreover the players know that some patches and mods will improve it in the next few months so you know if you play you will be getting an inferior experience than if you just waited.
If the AI was 3 times better 90% of this would go away. Everything about the game not being immersive tracks back to the AI being able to stop a 6 or 8 unit army, because once you have an army that size you need to consciously decide not to kill every other player immediately.
A horrible, horrible thread, with horrible, horrible internet science. I'd like to think the Original Post wasn't sincere.
Someone really needs to draw up a Bingo chart for these threads.
Tick a box when someone uses a "checkers & chess" analogy.
Tick a box when someone decries the end of the genre.
Tick a box when someone makes ridiculous hyperbole that doesn't really help anyone. ("Civ 4 is like a Rembrandt, Civ 5 is like my kid's fingerpainting.")
Take a shot when someone, somehow, manages to start talking about World of Warcraft.
Take a shot every time someone sarcastically mentions 'streamlining.' Take two shots if they've somehow managed to use it inappropriately.
The best explanation I've seen yet. And it applies to most other games as well.
Years from now someone may use the Civ 5 game engine to make a game that can hold my attention. Until then, it is gone from my hard disk.
"Internet science" ?
Recent experiments have shown that dopamine neurons are not directly modulated in relation to movements. Rather, they appear to code the rewarding aspects of environmental stimuli. They show short, phasic increases of activity following primary food and liquid rewards ("unconditioned stimuli") and conditioned, reward-predicting stimuli of visual, auditory, and somatosensory modalities. They also display smaller activation-depression sequences after stimuli resembling rewards and after novel or particularly intense stimuli. Rewards are only reported as far as they occur differently than predicted.
You can google the rest yourself, or, you know, go to a university library. Lady, if you are going to be offensive, at least do your homework first.
Negatives in the marketing world travel fast. How many more tick boxes are needed? The AI in game are well-versed in this "When they realize how pathetic you are they can't help but share." Not Civilization's finest hour.
This post has made it very clear that the only patch that will fix this game is...a dopamine patch *short drum roll with cymbal crash*
I really wouldn't know about the science but I concur with this. If you start playing a game of civ 4 you have some time where you press a lot of enter, too. But if I click on enter I wait a few seconds and it's my turn again. In civ 5 if I press enter, I have to wait for forever. I really wouldn't know how long I am actually waiting but it always seems a long time. I played one game through which I ended playing on the strategic map because I could no longer stand the wait to make my own turn. It is the only game I finished. I started a couple of other games because I really wanted to like it. I normally get to taking the first enemy city and after that my interest runs out. I'm bored, bored after playing for maybe 30 minutes to an hour.
It is possible that there are some nice features hidden in there but the game can't hold my attention long enough so I can come to appreciate them.
Separate names with a comma.