Why are dev scenarios so now?

MarkC1

Warlord
Joined
Nov 22, 2002
Messages
242
Location
Texas
There's only a couple that look like they had some effort put into it... I enjoyed 'Fall of Rome'

The rest are a custom map and thats it.. I don't even think there's a special way to play them. The 'New world' scenario is god awful Its a bunch of settlers in a Random spot in the Americas map

Those scenarios were my favorite part of Civ 3 and 4. I tried a few player-made scenarios and they have a TON more effort but they usually end up crashing for me

I'm betting Brave new world isnt going to be giving me any new scenario i'd like either.. right? Why aren't they making these? I would gladly pay for them..
 
They just chucked them in as a bit of 'value add' ... I thought Fall of Rome was pretty basic really.
 
1. ItR is quite fun, but is tedious and long

2. FoR is fun, and so is the Steampunk (because it is quite a unique scenario)

3. the timed ones are the worst (since I feel under the pressure) which would explain why I loved the Polynesian one the best.

4. There's quite a hype around the African Scramble in BNW.
 
I'm glad the scenarios are so basic. That's time taken away from developing the main game.
 
I am dissapointed by the development of the scenarios. I enjoyed the civ3conquests scenarios and would like to see the like in civ5. I would also gladly pay for them. I like the scenarios more than the main game, because they are more specific and detailed in a given time period.

So in civ5 the scenarios are poorly designed, I want some real epic scenario with deep tech tree for the era and a lot of specific unique buildings and units, etc.

I also love the MEM mod for Civ3C, I would love to see something like that.
 
I like the open-ended scenarios (random maps, civ-like start with just a few cities or settlers) much better than the static, war-oriented (or exclusively military) ones. Of the latter group, I've only played the Mongol scenario more than once.

Contrary to the OP, I like the New World scenario a lot; it builds on the base game and zeroes in a more expanded look at one period in history with some special rules and special units. The Rome scenario does have some cool custom rules (like the decadent Roman policies), but at the end of the day, it's mostly just pushing units around a map. 1UPT made Civ 5 a better wargame, but it's still a terrible wargame. At best, the military-heavy scenarios are like little puzzles: you can try this approach and that approach, trying to get the Deity achievement or whatever. At worst, there's not even a puzzle element; you just do one boring thing over and over until you win. The upcoming Civil War scenario looks to me like watching paint dry. No supply lines, no diplomacy, no real modeling of officer traits, no morale—why bother trying to represent the war using such a shallow combat system?

I think some of the open-ended scenarios have been duds (the Polynesia map is just never very interesting, for instance, and the Smoky Skies scenario just isn't different enough from the base game) but I like that they've worked with the game's strengths, rather than trying to turn a Civ game into something it's not.
 
I tend to dislike the "pure war" scenarios as well, although I don't mind the Viking one too much (though the combat system antiquated by G+K is rather annoying.)
CotNW is actually one of my favorites; I'm fascinated by that period of history anyway and it is quite fun to send settlers/conquistadors over to the New World.
The Polynesian scenario gets a lot of flak, but I rank that up among my favorites. It's a fun scenario when you want to relax a bit because there's no time limit and the path to victory is good and simple.
I'd have to put EofSS as my favorite scenario because it is extremely fun and quite inventive.
The upcoming Civil War scenario looks like "same old, same old", but I'm really looking forward to Scramble for Africa.
 
Top Bottom