What worries you the most about the Civ 5 yet?

[MrBanana]

This game is not being dumbed-down just because they are scrapping some tedious micromanaging apects. As for me, I'm happy the game is leaning more to tactics then economy.

The landbuying is the main form of expansion, btw, so expanision is MORE based on economy.

 

[X_nemesis_X]

Somewhere i read that there will neither be any information about the relations between the player and the ai (except the leader's body languages), nor between the ai-civs themselves...

I think there has to be more transparency in context of diplomacy issues. U have to understand the reason for someone's actions.

It's killing fun when u get attacked for no good reason (e.g. you're stronger, gracious and never betrayed anyone, but u get attacked just like that, because u rejected to join a war). It's even worse when u dont even know this stupid reason!

I really hope they will improve diplomacy, but i'm worried about a lacking transparency.

 

[Szpilman]

This game is not being dumbed-down just because they are scrapping some tedious micromanaging apects. As for me, I'm happy the game is leaning more to tactics then economy.

The landbuying is the main form of expansion, btw, so expanision is MORE based on economy.

I wholeheartedly agree, though it sure is but one way to view it, especially when we don't really yet know how things will turn out. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, to echo some others.

 

[sdlufkin]

My only concern at this point is how solid the AI wll be on default and above.

 

[Schuesseled]

This game is not being dumbed-down just because they are scrapping some tedious micromanaging apects. As for me, I'm happy the game is leaning more to tactics then economy.

The landbuying is the main form of expansion, btw, so expanision is MORE based on economy.

uuh no its an additional form of expansion, you don't use up culture to expand tiles, and its done automatically. Culture is the main form of expansion, gold is just an optional way of speeding it up at a severe cost.

 

[fresca]

I'm worried about the user manual - every edition of Civ has had a juicy manual that I've enjoyed picking tidbits out of well after release. Now with the trend of jewel case pamphlets, I fear a page of installation instructions and technical support info.

I'm afraid I won't have the fun of annoying my husband by reading the manual for hours in bed after I've already stayed up until my eyes are bleeding from playing the game

 

[Thormodr]

I am a bit concerned that they are "babying the player" a bit too much now.

For example, goody huts no longer give negative results. Only positive results. Why?

The problem with combat odds has been discussed in another thread. People whined so much that Firaxis caved in.

Random events are now gone. No more bad events to hurt player's feelings I guess. At least have them as an option.

Personally, I like the game to be challenging and to be able to overcome the bad events. I like playing games with no reloading so when I do succeed, it's actually a big accomplishment.

I feel Firaxis is taking away some of that I feel.

 

[Szpilman]

I am a bit concerned that they are "babying the player" a bit too much now.

For example, goody huts no longer give negative results. Only positive results. Why?

The problem with combat odds has been discussed in another thread. People whined so much that Firaxis caved in.

Random events are now gone. No more bad events to hurt player's feelings I guess. At least have them as an option.

Personally, I like the game to be challenging and to be able to overcome the bad events. I like playing games with no reloading so when I do succeed, it's actually a big accomplishment.

I feel Firaxis is taking away some of that I feel.

Well, as long as those random treatments are given to everyone, you can just up the difficulty, so the AI will give a harder time. You as well as them are only getting good huts & events.

 

[SJSerio]

I am a bit concerned that they are "babying the player" a bit too much now.

For example, goody huts no longer give negative results. Only positive results. Why?

The problem with combat odds has been discussed in another thread. People whined so much that Firaxis caved in.

Random events are now gone. No more bad events to hurt player's feelings I guess. At least have them as an option.

Personally, I like the game to be challenging and to be able to overcome the bad events. I like playing games with no reloading so when I do succeed, it's actually a big accomplishment.

I feel Firaxis is taking away some of that I feel.

I know what you mean about "Babying the Player". I liked Random Events too. Too many people were complaining about getting the "bad" events. To me, they added flavor and challenge. But I guess, challenge is too much for some people. They just want everything to go their way. Yet, they complain when WE complain about the changes.

 

[Lyoncet]

But I guess, challenge is too much for some people. They just want everything to go their way. Yet, they complain when WE complain about the changes.

Yeah, that's why most of those players for whom "challenge is to much" are playing on immortal and deity. I mean I could be wrong here, but it looks like you're just looking for someone straw man to blame your frustrations on, unless you can point me to a sizable number of people who think random events in CIV were so bad that they should be removed from the franchise forever.

 

[SJSerio]

Yeah, that's why most of those players for whom "challenge is to much" are playing on immortal and deity. I mean I could be wrong here, but it looks like you're just looking for someone straw man to blame your frustrations on, unless you can point me to a sizable number of people who think random events in CIV were so bad that they should be removed from the franchise forever.

Just look around this forum... or better yet, start a thread entitled "Why no more Random Events" (or something similar) and I guaruantee that you will be bombarded by posts from haters who didn'l like the "negative affects" or that it is stoopid to lose an improvement for "no reason".

 

[12agnar0k]

My only worry is that the game will be too good and I will be stuck playing it every night for the next few years and never leave my mums house or get a job or any dullard thing like that.

 

[Anony1200]

I really don't get why everyone hates it being a STEAM exclusive.Napoleon:Total War was a larger STEAM exclusive game and,yet,no one complained.It's not like a humongus computer-eating virus-spewing blob of a thing,it's more like a game manager with a build in IM system...that works in-game by the way.I've had it for 3 years and had no problems with it yet...

Anyway,I'm going with balance problems here:Some of the traits are just outright useless(Germans,Ottoman) and some of them you can tell are going to be broken from the start(America,Rome).

 

[Psyringe]

Yeah, that's why most of those players for whom "challenge is to much" are playing on immortal and deity. I mean I could be wrong here, but it looks like you're just looking for someone straw man to blame your frustrations on, unless you can point me to a sizable number of people who think random events in CIV were so bad that they should be removed from the franchise forever.

Just look around this forum... or better yet, start a thread entitled "Why no more Random Events" (or something similar) and I guaruantee that you will be bombarded by posts from haters who didn'l like the "negative affects" or that it is stoopid to lose an improvement for "no reason".

I think you're both correct, but you're talking about different groups of players. There are players who just don't want to be frustrated in any way when playing a game (and to whom a bad random event is therefore a major discouragement). And then there are players who play on very high difficulty levels which require a good "game plan" from the start, who spend hours developing strategies and calculating minute differences between different approaches, and who then see all their efforts going down the drain due to something they can't control.

Personally, I like strong random events. For me, the challenge in "standing the test of time" is not so much to develop a static game plan that will let me beat a given difficulty level, it's rather to adapt dynamically to events out of one's control. I do understand that there are people who prefer a different approach though. There are games which have an option to let players set the strength of random events, that's probably the best approach to the problem from a game design perspective.

 

[Sneaky Snake]

The whole Steam part of the game was the biggest disappointment for me.

 

[Thormodr]

I think you're both correct, but you're talking about different groups of players. There are players who just don't want to be frustrated in any way when playing a game (and to whom a bad random event is therefore a major discouragement). And then there are players who play on very high difficulty levels which require a good "game plan" from the start, who spend hours developing strategies and calculating minute differences between different approaches, and who then see all their efforts going down the drain due to something they can't control.

Personally, I like strong random events. For me, the challenge in "standing the test of time" is not so much to develop a static game plan that will let me beat a given difficulty level, it's rather to adapt dynamically to events out of one's control. I do understand that there are people who prefer a different approach though. There are games which have an option to let players set the strength of random events, that's probably the best approach to the problem from a game design perspective.

That's a pretty astute observation. There are many different types of players and they all want different things.

I remember Sid Meier talking about this idea. He said he observed different people playing Railroad tycoon. Some liked to build huge rail empires and test the limits of the system.He also noticed one player who actually wasn't interested in railroads much at all. That player sold almost all his tracks and resources and just played the stock market for the rest of the game. That was what was fun for that particular player. So, he stated that there are many different types of players and he hoped to design his games to accommodate that.

I kind of like roleplaying sometimes and playing with handicaps and rolling with the punches. Changing my strategy when opportunities spring up and when misfortune strikes. I understand that that wouldn't appeal to some people who are bound and determined to get the highest score possible on the highest difficulty levels.

Anyway, I think random events should be in the game as an option. I also think goodie huts should be able to be either totally disabled, give good and bad events or only good events. That way everyone should be happy.

It also makes for very entertaining stories and promotes creativity from some of the excellent gameplay writers on these forums. I think the AARs will be not quite as interesting in that aspect.

Still, as long as the rest of the game is solid then these elements can be modded in hopefully.

 

[SJSerio]

I think you're both correct, but you're talking about different groups of players. There are players who just don't want to be frustrated in any way when playing a game (and to whom a bad random event is therefore a major discouragement). And then there are players who play on very high difficulty levels which require a good "game plan" from the start, who spend hours developing strategies and calculating minute differences between different approaches, and who then see all their efforts going down the drain due to something they can't control.

Personally, I like strong random events. For me, the challenge in "standing the test of time" is not so much to develop a static game plan that will let me beat a given difficulty level, it's rather to adapt dynamically to events out of one's control. I do understand that there are people who prefer a different approach though. There are games which have an option to let players set the strength of random events, that's probably the best approach to the problem from a game design perspective.

Excellent points! I have to be honest, though... to me, the people you described who "play on very high difficulty levels which require a good "game plan" from the start, who spend hours developing strategies and calculating minute differences between different approaches, and who then see all their efforts going down the drain due to something they can't control" are not as good as they think they are if they cannot adapt to situations. That is what strategy is about... adapting to the unforseen in order to meet your goals!

That's a pretty astute observation. There are many different types of players and they all want different things.

I remember Sid Meier talking about this idea. He said he observed different people playing Railroad tycoon. Some liked to build huge rail empires and test the limits of the system.He also noticed one player who actually wasn't interested in railroads much at all. That player sold almost all his tracks and resources and just played the stock market for the rest of the game. That was what was fun for that particular player. So, he stated that there are many different types of players and he hoped to design his games to accommodate that.

I kind of like roleplaying sometimes and playing with handicaps and rolling with the punches. Changing my strategy when opportunities spring up and when misfortune strikes. I understand that that wouldn't appeal to some people who are bound and determined to get the highest score possible on the highest difficulty levels.

Anyway, I think random events should be in the game as an option. I also think goodie huts should be able to be either totally disabled, give good and bad events or only good events. That way everyone should be happy.

It also makes for very entertaining stories and promotes creativity from some of the excellent gameplay writers on these forums. I think the AARs will be not quite as interesting in that aspect.

Still, as long as the rest of the game is solid then these elements can be modded in hopefully.

And I agree a thousand times! The beauty of Random Events in Civ IV was that it could be disabled! Completely removing just because a few people complained about them is NOT catering to your whole audience.

 

[Schuesseled]

they didn't remove random events because people complained, they did research, and it showed that a majority of players would just load an auto save if a random event wasn't a good one, and thats not what civ is supposed to be about.

 

[SJSerio]

they didn't remove random events because people complained, they did research, and it showed that a majority of players would just load an auto save if a random event wasn't a good one, and thats not what civ is supposed to be about.

So... take it away instead of leaving it as an option because some people decided to reload?!? Punish me for abuse by other people?

I'm sorry, that is a poor excuse! One should know to put little faith into such vague research projects such as that. A "sampling" of players is not all inclusive! I was never polled or viewed while playing! I am sure that many here haven't been either. That is just completely bogus!

 

[Schuesseled]

a sample of their target audience is never going to be all inclusive.