I would have to say all my non-war games have been my funnest, It's the war games that quickly lose me.
Was there anything GOOD about streamlining?
- Thread starter Haig
- Start date
I would have to say all my non-war games have been my funnest, It's the war games that quickly lose me.
Hail
Satan's minion
let me remind you that getting 3100Before you say "but end turns!" let me remind you that getting 3100is not easy. And neither is keeping the tech pace for unlocking these buildings.
And there are at least 3 different ways to handle culture gains! Unlike in CIV4 in which you had only one option: religion. Okay, maybe two: religion + science or religion + espionage.
and "pressing end turn" are relatedculture in civ4(continued list):
Okay, maybe three: religion + culture slider + science(to unlock new culture stuff)
damn forgot one! -> Great Artist
damn! another one! artist specialists
o no! civics! (Caste System, Free Speech, etc.)
and wonders! particularly the Sistine Chapel( +culture to every specialist)
that's called a constant stream of rewards
games lacking such stream(e.g. rewards are far apart in time/space) always have stretches of playing time, where the player must force himself to go on. this effect happens because the "effect" of the last reward wore off and the next reward is not close enough.
time between turns of a minute or more is unacceptable.
for me watching the game play itself is not fun.
what you mentioned is called punishing the player for success(you would call "winning a war" a success?).
that's simply bad design, especially in the light of the fact that the game was aimed at the casual crowd.
what about AI's rage quits?
decline the reward for winning or suffer?
exactly
especially the "insult the player diplo feature" when an AI pops in diplo and says something negative about my civ. fun stuff!
on topic of streamlining
i have little understanding of what is meant by streamlining. what i think it means is removing tedious and/or repetitive tasks.
a prime example:
since all merchant/artist/engineer/science specialists are essentially the same, why not unite them into one slider per type?
this issue will rise in any mod that has lots of buildings with specialist slots. right now this problem results in lots of scrolling and lots of clicking
jacyp
Winter Lover
Yes, I can stand it, I play only on epic, on Civ 4 and Civ 5. Can you read at all? Or you just don't want to?
My post said clearly: the difference is that in Civ 5 you wait 25 WITHOUT HAVING ANYTHING TO DO BUT TO HIT THE END TURN BUTTON.
That's the point of my post.
My post makes no sense to you cos you simply didn't read it at all.
Why must you play epic?
Obviously, if you want the game to be QUICKER, then play QUICK *forehead smack*.
If I had to wait that long, I would be upset as well. However, I recognized that I could compensate with an overdue upgrade of a new computer. Currently, I never have to wait more than a couple seconds.
In OCC, purchasing hexes can be very useful. In some cases, it is a conversion of gold to hammers at a good ratio. You also always have that extra hex for the rest of the game.
Yeah, my turn times are pretty long as well, but it's on an almost 5 year old laptop, which I thought it was a pretty good job by Firaxis that it actually does run on it in the first place. But the new laptop will arrive soon
Honestly, reading these posts makes me think I played Civ IV wrong. I played marathon games and went for peaceful victories. Aside from the fact that standard is the new marathon, I see absolutely no difference in the "click next turn over and over, especially at end-game" problem. IV was exactly like that for me too. I guess people who played IV differently got something out of it that I never saw.
As for streamlining, it's not supposed to mean dumbed down. I also clearly recall the devs talking about how they streamlined it for people who considered civ games too complex. I also remember [and here's the part people forget because it doesn't suit their narrative] them then showing us that the complex stuff was still in the game for the hardcore player. They made it so you could ignore city management (mostly on lower levels) if you choose to, but choosing the city focus and specialists and deciding when to cap cities is all still there for them to discover when they get into the game more.
Most of what got cut out, imo, wasn't a sacrifice to the evil god Streamline, it was cut for other reasons. New vision, 1UPT, or it wasn't satisfying/worthwhile in IV. roads are the only example of streamlining that I think actually hurt the game. My last 5 games were OCC, so I kinda forgot about that one >.> Otherwise, it's not a big deal. V has huge, glaring flaws, but most of them don't have anything to do with that word so many of you have such an aversion to. At least that's my take on it, I'm sure plenty will disagree and insist that every cut and every decision was because gamers have gone from mathematicians to jersey shore rejects in just the past 5 years and we'll have to agree to disagree there.
As for streamlining, it's not supposed to mean dumbed down. I also clearly recall the devs talking about how they streamlined it for people who considered civ games too complex. I also remember [and here's the part people forget because it doesn't suit their narrative] them then showing us that the complex stuff was still in the game for the hardcore player. They made it so you could ignore city management (mostly on lower levels) if you choose to, but choosing the city focus and specialists and deciding when to cap cities is all still there for them to discover when they get into the game more.
Most of what got cut out, imo, wasn't a sacrifice to the evil god Streamline, it was cut for other reasons. New vision, 1UPT, or it wasn't satisfying/worthwhile in IV. roads are the only example of streamlining that I think actually hurt the game. My last 5 games were OCC, so I kinda forgot about that one >.> Otherwise, it's not a big deal. V has huge, glaring flaws, but most of them don't have anything to do with that word so many of you have such an aversion to. At least that's my take on it, I'm sure plenty will disagree and insist that every cut and every decision was because gamers have gone from mathematicians to jersey shore rejects in just the past 5 years and we'll have to agree to disagree there.
Although I can't speak for jacyp, personally I don't want the game to be quicker. I just want something more to do while playing.
In what way do you think does the roads streamlining hurt the game?
mixed with 1UPT it's a pain to move units, especially when another civ's scout is standing on your road. I also think it's asinine that it happened to begin with. Apparently a lot of people were complaining about "ugly spaghetti road spam," but I never considered it an eyesore and I actually liked watching my road network grow, so it's something I enjoyed that is missing because some people made an issue of nothing.
If you have an issue with other civ's scouts blocking your units, don't agree to open borders. It's not like open borders does that much anyway compared to Civ4. And nothing prevents you from spending a few gold per turn if you need to shift more traffic between your cities.
Selling open boarders is extremely useful (four early OB sales nets you enough gold for a research agreement with change left over), so yes it does do a lot and no, "don't open boarders" isn't a satisfactory solution. Neither is "build more roads anyway" because again, gold is important.
So? You have to make trade offs in this game. If you want the extra cash, accept that foreign units will get in your way.
See, but you're still telling me that in order to enjoy watching my road network grow (a point you're ignoring, and given that it's an empire-building game, seeing visual progress and growth of your empire isn't an insignificant point), and to avoid the added inconvenience of less roads mixed with 1UPT (btw, even without the AI scouts, it's still a hassle moving your own troops), a good solution is "play the game poorly." It's not. Especially not when the alternate solution I'm proposing is don't change something that wasn't a problem at all to begin with.
Also, it's funny that 96% of my post was actually defending the game, and now I'm in a "battle" over the 4% that wasn't >.>
Also, it's funny that 96% of my post was actually defending the game, and now I'm in a "battle" over the 4% that wasn't >.>
let me remind you that getting 3100
culture in civ4(continued list):
Okay, maybe three: religion + culture slider + science(to unlock new culture stuff)
damn forgot one! -> Great Artist
damn! another one! artist specialists
o no! civics! (Caste System, Free Speech, etc.)
and wonders! particularly the Sistine Chapel( +culture to every specialist)
In BTS there are of course even more options:
- Traits (Creative)
- Corporations and resources (Sid's Sushi, Civilized Jewelers, Creative Constructions)
- City improvements/National Wonders, such as Broadcast Tower and Hermitage
- Random events/Quests (Bard's Tale, Ice Sculpture, Runnings Bulls, Playwright, Favorite Son, Secret Knowledge, Too Close To Call, Sports League, Rabbi, Golden Buddha, Preaching Researcher, Dissident Priest, )
And now you might say "Bah, random events cannot be considered as options". Oh yes they can, because the entire thing with these events are that they only show up during certain conditions. For example, "Dissident Priest" gives you +2
and +2 
from ALL Libraries, but there's a catch:Prereq: Player is Egyptian AND City does NOT have the state religion AND is NOT the Capital AND does NOT have the Forbidden Palace NOR Versailles AND has at least 30 culture per turn.
Obsolete: PRINTING_PRESS
Getting 30 culture per turn in a city with no state religion, before Printing Press, while playing as the Egyptians, probably won't happen by accident.
Let's face it, Civ IV has so many options that many players don't even know about all of them. Whether you think this is good or bad is up to discussion, but it's just ridiculous to claim that Civ V gives you more options.
Hail
Satan's minion
precisely the point i was trying to make
sketch162000
Warlord
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2010
- Messages
- 221
This made me laugh because my opinion has been that this is EXACTLY the attitude that the dev team took--literally, "Hey, religion is fluff and it's easy to manipulate diplomacy with it. Scrap it." "Hey, SoD's suck. Let's get rid of stacking!" Would you care to elaborate on why you don't think that's the case?
For religion: It takes development time to add even if it was in a previous game. It exactly fits my case.
For stacks of doom: A 1upt system requires a lot more work. It's not scrapping anything at all.
LOL Civilization series are an extremely streamlined product from the first game. It is quite clear that every instant of the game has been produced for the avarage gamer. If people really want to play advanced strategy games there are a whole range of more advanced games that are incredible deep.
Now streamlining isn't bad by itself. Chess is an extreme example of how a streamlined strategy game could be designed. However if it's done bad like the whole Total War series it's just become boring.
Luckily Civilization 5 is an built on extremely good design and the developers have done an good job in making Civilization a good product... on the paper. There are some very serious problems with Civ 5 and mainly that's balance and AI. Many people doesn't really seem to understand that the reason why Civilization appears to be "dumbed down" are because the AI are quite incapable and the balance is skewed off. Patches will correct this I am sure.
When you are discussing if and how the game has been streamlined you are really talking about the design not the implementation of the design. I really don't care how easy it is to beat the AI and such because that's just mean the AI is bad not that the game has been dumbed down.
When I look at the Civ 5 design I see much more depth than any previous game in the Civilization series. Even Civ 4: BTS doesn't have such a depth as Civ 5. And once again the reason why people don't get that are because 1: the AI are BAAAD 2) there are some serioues balance issues that needs to be patched.
If the AI would have been better you would spend those 10 turns planning on how to advance your empire while pressing "end turn" wherever you want. That is what strategy games are all about... thinking... not acting. A few decision should be able to alter the whole game.
Now streamlining isn't bad by itself. Chess is an extreme example of how a streamlined strategy game could be designed. However if it's done bad like the whole Total War series it's just become boring.
Luckily Civilization 5 is an built on extremely good design and the developers have done an good job in making Civilization a good product... on the paper. There are some very serious problems with Civ 5 and mainly that's balance and AI. Many people doesn't really seem to understand that the reason why Civilization appears to be "dumbed down" are because the AI are quite incapable and the balance is skewed off. Patches will correct this I am sure.
When you are discussing if and how the game has been streamlined you are really talking about the design not the implementation of the design. I really don't care how easy it is to beat the AI and such because that's just mean the AI is bad not that the game has been dumbed down.
When I look at the Civ 5 design I see much more depth than any previous game in the Civilization series. Even Civ 4: BTS doesn't have such a depth as Civ 5. And once again the reason why people don't get that are because 1: the AI are BAAAD 2) there are some serioues balance issues that needs to be patched.
If the AI would have been better you would spend those 10 turns planning on how to advance your empire while pressing "end turn" wherever you want. That is what strategy games are all about... thinking... not acting. A few decision should be able to alter the whole game.
