I'd put it as more a reflection of how positively Civ4 (in particular) is seen than of how Civ5 is seen. I mean, even those that actually do quite like Civ5 (such as myself) aren't necessarily going to vote it as superior to Civ4.
Which Civ is superior?
- Thread starter kochman
- Start date
I'd put it as more a reflection of how positively Civ4 (in particular) is seen than of how Civ5 is seen. I mean, even those that actually do quite like Civ5 (such as myself) aren't necessarily going to vote it as superior to Civ4.
Brian Shanahan
Permanoob
Nah Civ 5 is pretty bad. The only ones defending it are the 'Poly admins (and that's because they had some sort of semi-official position going in), the makers (well they have to), the Franky group, can't contractually diss I believe, and even then it is halfhearted - though Dale's position is really weird to say the least, first he tries to make out Sullla doesn't know what he's saying on his website (without going to the bother of reading a single article I may add), and then saying in his own thread that he doesn't like the game (about 1 day later) for pretty much the same reasons Sullla ripped into the game- and certain posters on the Civ 5 threads like aatmi (who incidentally hasn't made a contribution to the debate in about 6 months). The rest of us have pretty much realised that the game is a dog by now (some quicker than others).
mechaerik
Tuturuu!
Ive only played Civ4, CivRev (DS), and the Civ5 demo.
Rev was alright. Sure it was simple and flawed, but i wasnt expecting much out of it, just Civ "on the go".
IV was a great game, imo. Fun, relatively deep, and generally good. It had a lot of awesome mods available for it. Basic modding was also relatively simple, but advanced modding could also be done. I really like how they released its source.
5, or at least the demo, was alright. Seemed kind of off though. Probably not going to buy it though.
Rev was alright. Sure it was simple and flawed, but i wasnt expecting much out of it, just Civ "on the go".
IV was a great game, imo. Fun, relatively deep, and generally good. It had a lot of awesome mods available for it. Basic modding was also relatively simple, but advanced modding could also be done. I really like how they released its source.
5, or at least the demo, was alright. Seemed kind of off though. Probably not going to buy it though.
I realise you've been reasonably vocal in your opposition to the game, but I hope you can see it as a matter of difference of opinion, rather than an objective matter (like the 'goodness' of a video game can be objective). There have been some weird defences mounted, but there have been some weird attacks also. The Franky can diss it, and vocally have, largely through TMIT and Valkrionn, but even Dale has. The unreasonable positions are those on either side that don't allow for subjectivity and do their best not to yield any ground, but luckily they aren't really as dominant in the forums as some have come to believe.
Civ5 has serious flaws in its game mechanics that are obvious from analysis without even a need to even play the thing. And no, I'm not talking 'design choices that aren't everyone's cup of tea'... I'm talking objective weaknesses.
Any degree of serious play feels like a series of exploits... there are so many things either the AI or the game mechanics themselves can't deal with that I see very little between 'haphazard and unoptimised' and 'gamebreaking'.
I enjoy breaking games and fiddling around with mechanics in ways the designers didn't expect... but it's empty if the game can't handle mere competence.
*
Personal choice only enters when you ask whether it's worth playing regardless... some of my favourite games have serious flaws and rough edges in addition to love-it-or-hate-it design quirks.
If you really really want something consistent with the look and feel of later Civilization games that must not allow unit stacking, doesn't make combat much more intricate and you require the bells and whistles of a big budget used for style rather than substance (interface is more slick than useful, the lead designer is on record stating that trying to make a decent AI isn't commercially viable)...
then I suppose Civ5 may deliver exactly what you want.
But that's a tall order and corners had to be cut.
Any degree of serious play feels like a series of exploits... there are so many things either the AI or the game mechanics themselves can't deal with that I see very little between 'haphazard and unoptimised' and 'gamebreaking'.
I enjoy breaking games and fiddling around with mechanics in ways the designers didn't expect... but it's empty if the game can't handle mere competence.
*
Personal choice only enters when you ask whether it's worth playing regardless... some of my favourite games have serious flaws and rough edges in addition to love-it-or-hate-it design quirks.
If you really really want something consistent with the look and feel of later Civilization games that must not allow unit stacking, doesn't make combat much more intricate and you require the bells and whistles of a big budget used for style rather than substance (interface is more slick than useful, the lead designer is on record stating that trying to make a decent AI isn't commercially viable)...
then I suppose Civ5 may deliver exactly what you want.
But that's a tall order and corners had to be cut.
Akka
Moody old mage.
Civ 4 being very positively received is a certainty.
But it can't explain just how little votes Civ5 got. People who like Civ3 or Civ2 aren't necessarily going to vote for them either, and still Civ2 has about the same numbers of votes as Civ5, and Civ3 is far ahead.
And both are much older games.
Only real crappiness from Civ5 can explain such abysmal performance.
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
or perhaps that it was simply less good as civ4 and carries no nostalgia factor.
Akka
Moody old mage.
The nostalgia factor is overused, and I simply don't believe in it.
Civ 1 got ONE single vote, and it's by far the most susceptible to nostalgia.
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
I disagree, I think civ2 and civ3 are more susceptible to nostalgia for most voters. In fact I voted civ3 based on nostalgia and reading this thread found like minded folk.
Also, civ5 had a fun-factor that I never felt in civ4. Unfortunately it also had a boring-factor that civ4 didn't have, but I think, as I pointed out before, the disappointment was a bigger deal than the actual game's "objective" problems. It's not broken because both playing solo and playing with my brothers I have had a lot of fun with it, no exploiting going on anywhere. Granted we might play civ4 in the future, so it's not great.
Also, civ5 had a fun-factor that I never felt in civ4. Unfortunately it also had a boring-factor that civ4 didn't have, but I think, as I pointed out before, the disappointment was a bigger deal than the actual game's "objective" problems. It's not broken because both playing solo and playing with my brothers I have had a lot of fun with it, no exploiting going on anywhere. Granted we might play civ4 in the future, so it's not great.
The Civ concept is superior and without the Firaxis Civilization series business plan we cant accurately promise what the best will be. The best is what is developed, Civ4 bts isnt going anywhere, Civ5 could be improved. The Civ5 AI needs much more programming for it to be a challenge, but with that it might be the best title in the series.
aelf
Ashen One
You know what, if I had time and bought the game, I might actually like Civ5 enough to get into it and do some walkthroughs. Trying to fully understand and master a game is itself an interesting undertaking, provided there's enough depth to probe.
But I don't have time, so if a game isn't great in some way that appeals to me, and Civ5 doesn't sound like it is, I'm probably not buying it.
But I don't have time, so if a game isn't great in some way that appeals to me, and Civ5 doesn't sound like it is, I'm probably not buying it.
Akka
Moody old mage.
The problem wouldn't that you lack time. The problem would be the bolded part.
aelf
Ashen One
I think there is, though there's really no way to find out for myself except by playing it or by extensive trawling of the Civ5 forums. Echoing some comments about old vs. new games, some classic old games didn't really have that much depth, at least probably not more than Civ5, but they were still analysed extensively.
Brian Shanahan
Permanoob
A game that can be beaten on deity inside of a few weeks with the weakest choice of civ for the player doesn't contain depth.
aelf
Ashen One
That does sound bad. But if you recall, cottage and unit spamming were uber powerful in Civ4 and made the game patently (after a few times) unfun. The fun came in using SE or mixed economy and playing less aggressively, at least for me anyway.
There is some nostalgia, but most of the III voters really do like III better. Most of them have tried IV and didn't care for it. And the counterpoint is, the excitement of the new game would often make people like it better than the older game after they had played the other for years and were blase about it. Really, the awesome anticipation of the game (pre-ordering, counting the days) and the immense hatred after trying it were something to see.
Also, if you like very large maps, Civ3 runs a lot faster (provided you remember to hold down shift on the in-between turns). For me Civ4 had a large fun-factor, but that's completely subjective.
I doubt that nostalgia is a major factor between 3 and 4, the games are very different.
Either Civ3 is uncluttered, more elegant, more epic in scope and makes micromanagement feel right instead of being a mess of barely integrated features for the administration of barely integrated cities...
or it's bureaucratic drudgery that confuses effort required with true depth.
Either Civ3 is uncluttered, more elegant, more epic in scope and makes micromanagement feel right instead of being a mess of barely integrated features for the administration of barely integrated cities...
or it's bureaucratic drudgery that confuses effort required with true depth.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Which civ is superior? I'm not sure, they each excel for different reasons..
I think I had the most fun playing the original though. Civ4 is up there too, I put a lot of hours into BTS. I bought Civ5 and it is okay - haven't gotten hooked on it yet and have been mostly preoccupied with other games like eu3 and just cause 2.. which is actually kinda weird cause for the past 5 years I have mostly just played civ4 and not too many other games. For all I know I'll enjoy civ5 if I play it a little bit more - I have only put a couple hours into it.. I remember liking civ2 a lot once it came out because of the improvements to the original.. but in the end it doesn't rank as highly imo.. Civ3 was good too, but I can't really remember how much I liked it compared to everything else. I'm assuming that the travesties that were the call to power civs don't count? If they did they'd be at the bottom of the pile anyway..
Speaking in terms of superiority and not enjoyment is different.. If SMAC counts as a civ game it would win, I think. If not, maybe the original or civ4:bts.
I think I had the most fun playing the original though. Civ4 is up there too, I put a lot of hours into BTS. I bought Civ5 and it is okay - haven't gotten hooked on it yet and have been mostly preoccupied with other games like eu3 and just cause 2.. which is actually kinda weird cause for the past 5 years I have mostly just played civ4 and not too many other games. For all I know I'll enjoy civ5 if I play it a little bit more - I have only put a couple hours into it.. I remember liking civ2 a lot once it came out because of the improvements to the original.. but in the end it doesn't rank as highly imo.. Civ3 was good too, but I can't really remember how much I liked it compared to everything else. I'm assuming that the travesties that were the call to power civs don't count? If they did they'd be at the bottom of the pile anyway..
Speaking in terms of superiority and not enjoyment is different.. If SMAC counts as a civ game it would win, I think. If not, maybe the original or civ4:bts.
Similar threads
