To anyone dissatisfied, I have a hypothetical question.

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by Flavorable, Oct 12, 2010.

  1. MadMaligor

    MadMaligor Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2005
    Messages:
    78
    Not too long ago I had the unfortunate experience of loosing my ISP for a while and at the same time having to whipe the hard drive my Civ IV files were on. That meant loosing RoM, and going back to an unpatched Civ IV:Bts for a short while till my ISP was repaired. The experience was...well...unbearable is the best description I have. If you don't believe me, try it sometime.

    It is wierd what we view as neccessity, after having become accustomed to it for so long.

    Come to think of it...where is my cell phone...??

    :)
     
  2. Ogrelord

    Ogrelord Prince

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2005
    Messages:
    503
    Location:
    Montreal
    Had no problem with the original title, merely helping the OP not getting into a flamebait debacle. ;)
     
  3. Leif Roar

    Leif Roar Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    121
    The potential is there, although I'm worried about the apparent design decision to shift the game away from city management and building. That said, "I can't drink possible beers"
     
  4. CornPlanter

    CornPlanter Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2005
    Messages:
    1,067
    Location:
    Lithuania
    Yes I believe it has a huge potential. That's why I am still playing it, and enjoying it in a sense.
     
  5. SuperJay

    SuperJay Bending Space and Time

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2010
    Messages:
    3,273
    Location:
    Shacklyn
    I'm gonna give you a solid "maybe" on this one. ;)

    If all of those things happen, it will certainly improve the game tremendously. Whether those improvements confer additional potential - and whether that potential leads to "greatness" - is completely subjective. I will say that improving the existing mechanics will only go so far, for me; unless they add more mechanics and make the restrictions more nuanced or provide the player with more tools for managing them, I may still find Civ5 too bare and shallow to keep playing it for several years.

    That said, I'm encouraged by the changes in the upcoming patch, and I'm glad to see Firaxis is aware of the problems and working on them. Cautiously hopeful for now.

    FWIW, I don't hate the game, I'm just not playing it right now for the same reason I don't spend my time watching paint dry.
     
  6. klokwerk

    klokwerk Prince

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2006
    Messages:
    433
    Location:
    Paris
    Civ 5 >> Civ 4 in every way.

    No amount of hate from the 3 % of dissatisfied users will change that.

    They're the same people who complain about every change. They whined about Civ 2, Civ 3, Civ 4 and now Civ 5.

    They'll get bored long before real Civ fans though and leave the board. Then fans will be back. The same old story...

    Moderator Action: Yes it is the same old story: using broad generalizations as a way to provoke others and try to shut down the argument. If you are going to pretend your facts are true, please try to include some pretend data also. this type of post does nothing to add to the discussion. Please refrain.
    Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
     
  7. Gath

    Gath Warlord

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2008
    Messages:
    221
    Even if they fix all that, the game will still lack all the depth of the previous incarnations. Fewer strategic choices and options does not a better game make.

    And probably 99% of people who play civ never play multiplayer. Why they waste their time on that feature is beyond me.
     
  8. CornPlanter

    CornPlanter Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2005
    Messages:
    1,067
    Location:
    Lithuania
    So many baseless statements and not a single argument.
     
  9. lschnarch

    lschnarch Emperor

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2010
    Messages:
    1,296
    (emphasis mine)

    If I read the question correctly, your are asking if the game will have the potential to become a great Civ game after being improved in all aspects?

    Or, to turn it more obviously: "Do you think that after everything has been improved, it may become good?"

    What kind of question is this? :facepalm:

    But to answer your question:
    Yes, I think after the game mechanics have got a complete overhaul, after lessons learned from Civ3 and Civ4 have been re-implemented, it may become a great game.
    Yet, I don't see this happen.

    The combat AI will always suffer, yet you cannot help the AI with more units, as there is only that much terrain left.
    Diplomacy should be recreated from the scratch.
    City States need a complete re-design as well.
    The intended "punishments" for having more cities have to be completely reworked, else the ICS will still reign.

    In short: stop any work on Civ0.V and go directly for Civ6.
     
  10. zonk

    zonk Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2005
    Messages:
    572
    That's quite a contribution to the discussion...
     
  11. zonk

    zonk Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2005
    Messages:
    572
    It's probably not 99% -- but I agree... I mean - MP has never really worked in any of the titles, yet - it never seems to have hurt sales.

    Frankly - in the great "why are professional reviews so glowing debate" - look no further than whether the reviewer spent any time on MP. I think it IS fair to say that a sizeable majority of Civ players don't care about (we can quibble over 70%, 80% or whatever) -- so generally the minute MP comes up in a review, my mind immediately goes to "gamer who plays Civ" rather than "Civver who also plays other games".
     
  12. Shafi-is-back

    Shafi-is-back Prince

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    360
    Location:
    Sri Lanka
    how can one refute such a compelling argument? :rolleyes: And of course anything but agreeing with you would be like :wallbash:
     
  13. stealth_nsk

    stealth_nsk Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2005
    Messages:
    5,514
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Novosibirsk, Russia
    I see no problems with diplomacy (except for dumb AI and a couple of bugs). The general idea of trade-driven diplomacy is good and fun.
     
  14. JLoZeppeli

    JLoZeppeli Prince

    Joined:
    May 11, 2009
    Messages:
    598
    If they patch the game AI and tweak some of gamebreaking exploit and the multi, it will be a game worth of his price, in my opinion.

    To became a great Civ, some basic need to canghe and i think only an expansion can do that.

    Improve diplomacy, the City state interaction is way too poor, so have little interest besides paying for bonuses

    Things to change are the victories, as Science and culture re mirrored, diplomacy with the bias of using 1 turn before building United Nation your money to buy votes form city-state.

    1UPT, that, as an experienced hex player, is not well impemented, neutral unit not stacking, movement issue due to scale (including line of sight for ranged unit, that is actually not so good), naval transport not escortable.

    Global Happiness is to simple and exploitable, far better is global food distribution, so the Maritime city state will be useful but not overpowered as now.

    Bring back culture expansion, it's related to cultural victory issue, i like to overtake tiles from a less advanced civilization as it was in Civ IV, is far better for builder and pacific players.

    These things are important in the first place to builder and pacific players like me, that have way less option in this game than warmonger.
     
  15. Shafi-is-back

    Shafi-is-back Prince

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    360
    Location:
    Sri Lanka
    i am talking o the psychotic behaviour of the AI specifically. They just seem to rush in to war at the drop of a hat.

    Also, i really would like to know why an AI met on turn 4 of the game turns hostile on turn 5? The game has hardly progressed so what could i have done?

    Can anyone explain this behaviour? And more importantly is is rational?

    Dont get me wrong, a game should have a Monty and a Shaka to make it interesting but when all the AI in the game start acting like "civ IV Monty" X 10 ... :eek:
     
  16. PieceOfMind

    PieceOfMind Drill IV Defender Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2006
    Messages:
    9,319
    Location:
    Australia
    Were you leading the game in score?

    Generally I've found I get attacked a lot more if I'm doing well, and tend to get left alone if I'm behind the pack.

    Also, if it was on turn 4 as you say, do you expect all leaders to behave rationally? Is that what you want, predictable leaders?
     
  17. Antmanbrooks

    Antmanbrooks Prince

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2007
    Messages:
    436
    Location:
    The Cheshire Plain.
    There, fixed for you.
     
  18. kaltorak

    kaltorak Emperor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2009
    Messages:
    1,522
    Location:
    Madrid
    agree. It will be a great game.
     
  19. ProkhorZakharov

    ProkhorZakharov Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2009
    Messages:
    69
    If the Civ IV engine was flexible enough to create FFH2, it's reasonable to assume that the Civ V engine will be flexible enough to allow changes just as drastic. I think the only thing about Civ V that is both new and unchangeable is the hexes, and ultimately they don't have that much of a gameplay effect. The two biggest weaknesses of the game are the poor AI and the stripped-down empire management, both of which have huge scope for mods to improve.
     
  20. Shafi-is-back

    Shafi-is-back Prince

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    360
    Location:
    Sri Lanka
    I dont know if i was leading in score in that game, i didnt check, i doubt it.

    Like i said one or two nutters like Monty or Shaka is fine. Each leader should be different. for me personally leaders should have some character but maybe instead of being hard coded like in civ IV where they were very predictable they can use their falvours or whatever they call it to make their behaviour fluctuate within certain ranges.

    What i'm saying is right now all the leaders are like psychopaths. And right now they are all predictable ... all they want to do is go to war. In the game i mentioned, it was the Siamese guy that got Hostile on turn 5, in another game the babylonian dude (nebuwhatsisname) got Hostile on turn 9 (i only met him on turn 8), kind of weird behaviour isnt it?
     

Share This Page