Why are people comparing Civ V vanilla to Civ IV BTS?

[Revoran]

While watching one of quill18's Civ V LP's on Youtube, he mentioned that people were comparing CIV BTS to Civ V vanilla, where the former has had like 3-4 years of development and latter has had 3-4 years of development plus 5 years of continual patches and what is essentially constant playtesting and feedback by the community over 5 years.

Now if any of you have version 1.0.0 of CIV vanilla and you want to give that a run before comparing objectively the two, be my guest (hell, criticise the game as much as you like) - otherwise don't bother, i'll know your opinion is worth nothing.

 

[AriochIV]

We're comparing Civ V to Civ IV BtS because that's the game we were just playing. Civ V isn't a replacement for Civ IV vanilla, it's a replacement for Civ IV BtS.

Doesn't matter whether it's fair or not, that's the reality.

 

[ButSam]

More accurately, comparing Civ V a week after release to Civ IV with 2 expansions that have been patched for major issues when they were first released. Civ IV vanilla and Civ IV BtS were both plagued with bugs that made them "unplayable" for the first few months after they were released, now look where they are at.

 

[milk steak]

So you're saying that they forgot the 3-4 years of development plus 5 years of continual patches worth of experience when developing CiV?

 

[troytheface]

people?

no one i know makes this comparison

i compare civ5 to civ3 play the world and civ5 loses

it comes out over super mario borthers but beneath pong tho

 

[Palfouri]

Because it's easier to justify your whining if you conveniently forget that you probably complained about Civ IV at release as well.

Whining just to whine, really. We'll do this with Civ VI as well, even the people loudly declaring they'll "never support Firaxis again" as they buy the next expansion.

 

[Chief of Staff]

We're comparing Civ V to Civ IV BtS because that's the game we were just playing. Civ V isn't a replacement for Civ IV vanilla, it's a replacement for Civ IV BtS.

Doesn't matter whether it's fair or not, that's the reality.

Civilization V is hardly a replacement for BTS as it belongs to completely different generation than BTS is. We're essentially back to the start for a generation right now like we were when Civ4 originally came out following last Civ3 expansion packs before expansion packs were subsequently released for Civ4.

 

[Abremms]

why compare it to anything? its a brand new game. let it sink or swim on its own merits. it has problems, but when you stop trying to make it live up to BTS it gets alot better.

 

[heartCORE]

because it's easier to justify your whining if you conveniently forget that you probably complained about civ iv at release as well.

Whining just to whine, really. We'll do this with civ vi as well, even the people loudly declaring they'll "never support firaxis again" as they buy the next expansion.

preach it!

 

[charon2112]

Why are people comparing Civ V vanilla to Civ IV BTS?

Because some people are idiots.

Moderator Action: Please don't troll.

 

[QuantumPion]

The difference is that Civ4 was such a huge leap in quality (even vanilla 1.0) over Civ3. Bad 2d graphics to good (even by today's standard) 3d, no more annoying features like ICS and terribad AI, and cool new mechanics like resources and religion. In short, Civ4 removed all the bad aspects of Civ3 and added a ton of new awesome aspects.

By comparison, Civ5, while it does add good new features (hexes, 1upt), I feel it takes away far more than it added from Civ4. Furthermore, its graphics, while nice, are not really technically any better than Civ4's - it has a more realistic style compared to Civ4's cartoony style, but it's not really substantially better.

I think Civ5 has potential, but I think we'll have to wait until Civ6 before we get a really revolutionary and amazing new game. Civ4 -> Civ5 feels much more like going from Civ2->Civ3 than Civ3->Civ4.

 

[Chief of Staff]

I think it's more likely that Civ5 requires more polishing than expected when the devs thought they got game polished enough to get released. I'm sure the patches will resolve those issues eventually as well the expansion packs that follows.

 

[DarkSchneider]

The difference is that Civ4 was such a huge leap in quality (even vanilla 1.0) over Civ3. Bad 2d graphics to good (even by today's standard) 3d, no more annoying features like ICS and terribad AI, and cool new mechanics like resources and religion. In short, Civ4 removed all the bad aspects of Civ3 and added a ton of new awesome aspects.

By comparison, Civ5, while it does add good new features (hexes, 1upt), I feel it takes away far more than it added from Civ4. Furthermore, its graphics, while nice, are not really technically any better than Civ4's - it has a more realistic style compared to Civ4's cartoony style, but it's not really substantially better.

I think Civ5 has potential, but I think we'll have to wait until Civ6 before we get a really revolutionary and amazing new game. Civ4 -> Civ5 feels much more like going from Civ2->Civ3 than Civ3->Civ4.

That's exactly how I saw it as well. I've always wondered why people liked Civ III so much, and why they are defending Civ V now. Civ IV was the most polished and complete Civ game while Civ's III and V are both rough around the edges.

Although who knows, maybe the save game corruption bug, or the fact there is a hard limit on total population is souring me.

 

[Danei]

We're comparing Civ V to Civ IV BtS because that's the game we were just playing. Civ V isn't a replacement for Civ IV vanilla, it's a replacement for Civ IV BtS.

I don't think Civ V is a replacement for Civ IV BtS. I think of it as a different game (one which just came out, for that matter). There are things I do and don't like about both of them. Sometimes I'm in the mood for one, sometimes I'm in the mood for the other. If people are thinking of Civ V as a replacement for Civ IV BtS, no wonder they're so disappointed.

 

[petey]

The reason is that they could have taken all the fixes and upgrades that they spent the past few years putting into Civ IV and walked them down the hall to the Civ V developers. As QP just said, Civ V isn't as much of an upgrade over Civ IV as the latter was over Civ III and is, in fact, a step back in many ways.

It's true that they are going to be improving it dramatically over the next couple of years with patches and the Warlords and BTS equivalents. We are playing it now, however, and have gone from a game with all the improvements added in to beta testing a preview edition of the next version. That leads to various annoyances. Complaining about these annoyances last time got us Warlords and BTS, so it makes sense to bring them up again to bring about similar improvements in quality.

 

[Dark_Jedi06]

Because people are irrational.

 

[Revoran]

Even then it wouldn't be that bad if they complained about it in a constructive way, and some people do I suppose, like this guy:

The difference is that Civ4 was such a huge leap in quality (even vanilla 1.0) over Civ3. Bad 2d graphics to good (even by today's standard) 3d, no more annoying features like ICS and terribad AI, and cool new mechanics like resources and religion. In short, Civ4 removed all the bad aspects of Civ3 and added a ton of new awesome aspects.

 

[Vader1025]

That's exactly how I saw it as well. I've always wondered why people liked Civ III so much, and why they are defending Civ V now. Civ IV was the most polished and complete Civ game while Civ's III and V are both rough around the edges.

Although who knows, maybe the save game corruption bug, or the fact there is a hard limit on total population is souring me.

Wait...there is a hard cap on population? Are you friggin' serious? Is this related to only being allowed 69 cities/trade routes?

 

[RobAnybody]

Civ IV vanilla came out in 2005. To compare CIV V vanilla to CIV IV vanilla is to compare it to a FIVE YEAR OLD GAME. Civ IV: Beyond the Sword came out in 2007. To compare CIV V to CIV IV:BtS is to compare it to a THREE YEAR OLD GAME.

If Civ V can't hold up to a game released 3 years ago, why do you expect people to instead compare it to a game released 5 years ago? How does that help? I don't get that line of thought - "well, sure it doesn't hold up against a 3-year old game, no one should expect it to; you should instead compare it to a 5-year old game!"

 

[Jimbo30]

So you're saying that they forgot the 3-4 years of development plus 5 years of continual patches worth of experience when developing CiV?

Well that's exactly what they did between civ 3 and 4?