Why not a new series?

[Ignorant Teacher]

I was wondering why 2k/Firaxis would release this new installment of Civilization that goes so far from the series and the trend it had been following of adding complexity and strategical depth. At first I was feeling betrayed, but then I came to realize that they see the "I want to just sit and win" folks as their market of the future. I can understand that. Now I don't feel betrayed anymore, just feel I've thrown $50 away.

What I'd really like to see was a sequel that could keep adding more dimensions to consider. IMO, it should be called Civilization, but, as I said last paragraph, it would be very hard because Civilization is very easily marketed. (To be true, Civ 5 should have been called Civilization Revolutions II or something). So, why not a paralel series for the players like me who don't like playing games like Civ 5? Tricks are for kids and I'm not a kid.

I mean, there's a big fanbase that would eagerly jump on such a release. How hard could that be?

 

[charon2112]

Here's what I've come to realize. Adding complexity does necessarily translate into a fun game. For instance, in IV vanilla you had a religion system, good. By the time BTS rolled around they added espionage and corporations. Two, IMO, not fun additions at all. So removing those has, again IMO, created a game that is more fun. Less complex, on the surface maybe, but definitely more fun.

I was wondering why 2k/Firaxis would release this new installment of Civilization that goes so far from the series and the trend it had been following of adding complexity and strategical depth. At first I was feeling betrayed, but then I came to realize that they see the "I want to just sit and win" folks as their market of the future. I can understand that. Now I don't feel betrayed anymore, just feel I've thrown $50 away.

What I'd really like to see was a sequel that could keep adding more dimensions to consider. IMO, it should be called Civilization, but, as I said last paragraph, it would be very hard because Civilization is very easily marketed. (To be true, Civ 5 should have been called Civilization Revolutions II or something). So, why not a paralel series for the players like me who don't like playing games like Civ 5? Tricks are for kids and I'm not a kid.

I mean, there's a big fanbase that would eagerly jump on such a release. How hard could that be?

 

[Ignorant Teacher]

Here's what I've come to realize. Adding complexity does necessarily translate into a fun game. For instance, in IV vanilla you had a religion system, good. By the time BTS rolled around they added espionage and corporations. Two, IMO, not fun additions at all. So removing those has, again IMO, created a game that is more fun. Less complex, on the surface maybe, but definitely more fun.

That's why I think they should split their audiences. Trying to keep everyone on the same boat will only lead to unhappiness.

 

[Korias]

And yet, the mechanics are rather deep. Social Policies is an intuitive system that shows how your civilization grows depending upon your choices. Hexes bring an entirely new layout to strategy, and the lack of naval transports (units can simply embark) reduces the hassle and micromanagement.

While Civ 5 does feel more like Civ Rev than Civ 4, it is still Civ at it's core. While it has dropped off many of the choices from Civ4, such as Multiple Leaders per Civ and Religions, the focus has shifted from complicated features that required micromanagement to a larger scale that focuses on the ability to manage an empire and pursue a victory type.

As for the parallel series, that's the opposite of what Firaxis wants. See, Firaxis is trying to bridge the gap between the hard core, number crunching, metagamers of Civ 4 with the Casual Gamers of Civ Rev, while still keeping everyone happy.

That, and the game has only just come out: It'll be a while before the real core assets of the game, the mods, come into play. Because once those mod tools are out, it's just a matter of time before the game suddenly explodes in terms of content.

 

[Scramble]

Too late now.

Plz don't make a million threads about how you hate this game. We know you like Civ IV... so go back and play Civ IV and save us all the time of reading your samey repetitive threads.
Many of us enjoy this game very much and see a ton of potential coming in the future with expansions, patches, DLC, mods and such. But whiny complainers with their inflated sense of entitlement keep making a small minority seem like an overwhelming majority by posting the same old threads over and over and over and over again. You do NOT speak for the Civ Community. You have a PERFECTLY GOOD GAME that you love so much called Civ IV... so go play it!

 

[Ignorant Teacher]

As for the parallel series, that's the opposite of what Firaxis wants. See, Firaxis is trying to bridge the gap between the hard core, number crunching, metagamers of Civ 4 with the Casual Gamers of Civ Rev, while still keeping everyone happy.

So far, it's not working so long as I'm concerned. I've already seen a couple of posts of people comlpaining how hard and competent the AI can be.

Too late now.

Plz don't make a million threads about how you hate this game. We know you like Civ IV... so go back and play Civ IV and save us all the time of reading your samey repetitive threads.

This is the 1st thread I started here, dude.

I'm not saying I want Civ 4 forever. I enjoyed it a lot, but it grew old (I knew where pretty much all resources were in the Earth Map for example). What I'm trying to say is that I understand that people like you were targeted as their market, but I'd like to have a game for me too. That's not bashing, that's not trying to spoil your fun, that's just what I think.

But whiny complainers with their inflated sense of entitlement keep making a small minority seem like an overwhelming majority by posting the same old threads over and over and over and over again. You do NOT speak for the Civ Community. You have a PERFECTLY GOOD GAME that you love so much called Civ IV... so go play it!

Never claimed to speak for anyone but myself. If you are happy with the new release, good for you. I'm not. I don't feel like shutting up until I've spoken enough for the money I spent buying the game.

 

[UKScud]

That's why I think they should split their audiences. Trying to keep everyone on the same boat will only lead to unhappiness.

Ah...but which audience makes the most money for the developers.

The mindless crowd that are happy to click their mouse-buttons all day long

or the relatively few strategy fans who like a game with real depth?

Why on earth would they invest money into the development of a seperate title for the few?
Never going to happen. Full Stop.

On the other hand...if Civ5 is as moddable as the hype made it out to be the fan base will develop their take on the game for the die-hard fans.

 

[charon2112]

And yet, the mechanics are rather deep. Social Policies is an intuitive system that shows how your civilization grows depending upon your choices.

I love social policies. There's so much good in V, like what they've done with strategic resources, making it so you can only have as many units as resources...that's a good change. Also making barbarians spawn out of camps, instead of randomly from any dark square...another good decision that makes V great. There's a lot to love here. and I'm no civ rev moron either, I hate civ rev, I love complexity, one of my fav games is Europa Universalis III, you don't get more complex than that. But I can't deny that Civ V is just a fun game.

 

[Ignorant Teacher]

or the relatively few strategy fans who like a game with real depth?

I don't know how few they are. Even Slackware has a lot of users. Imagine how many a game could get.

 

[Korias]

So far, it's not working so long as I'm concerned. I've already seen a couple of posts of people comlpaining how hard and competent the AI can be.

There were similar complaints when Civ4 was in effect. Really, those complaints can either be posted to one of three factors:

• The player underestimated the AI. It's new and it's improved. It WANTS to win now instead of just sitting there on the sidelines.
• The player is playing at too high a difficulty.
• The system takes some getting used to and the player has yet to adjust to it.

As you can see, the Player is the primary focus of it. I've had no issues with the AI, and have actually been impressed when it does things a Human player would do in MP games. You're making it sound like having a well crafted AI is a bad thing. Which is completely incorrect: a game is only as fun as the challenge it creates.

Now, as for the rest of the posts, Scramble has pinned it on the head. The game is a solid work of art, and while it misses some features from Civ 4 that I enjoyed immensely, I will continue to play both games equally and get enjoyment from both of them. Neither one is worse: They are both solid examples of how game design should be approached when dealing with a franchise.

 

[UKScud]

I don't feel like shutting up until I've spoken enough for the money I spent buying the game.

Good for you...there are far too many people on here that think they have the right to limit your right to post.

To those who don't like people who have an issue with the game and don't like the title of a thread why the hell read it? Skip the thread.

 

[Ignorant Teacher]

You're making it sound like having a well crafted AI is a bad thing. Which is completely incorrect: a game is only as fun as the challenge it creates.

That was my point. Mouse over the smile I put in the end of that post and you'll see it says sarcasm. The AI is NOT challenging.

 

[Ignorant Teacher]

Good for you...there are far too many people on here that think they have the right to limit your right to post.

They're called the moderators of the forums. If a moderator thinks I'm out of line, he/she will make sure to let me know. Not you.

 

[ExCivFan]

Civ 5 is a failure. I initially hated the changes, then I thought I'd just keep playing and learn to like it. Then the diplomacy problems hit and I slowly realized that the ai is terrible. And yes, I play on deity, I've played civ since the first day the first civ came out. Guys this game is a disaster; I'd rather play civ rev- it was designed by Sid and was fun even though it was simple. There are just so many things wrong with the programming, the gameplay, it seems everywhere I look even the things I initially liked seem to not work. I want my 50$ back

 

[charon2112]

They're called the moderators of the forums. If a moderator thinks I'm out of line, he/she will make sure to let me know. Not you.

I think he was agreeing with you.

 

[Jester Fool]

Alas, I think us old gamers are just to be discarded in favor of the new crowd. My suggestion - code your own game. I already started. Thank you 2K for giving me the motivation to learn C++ (and Microsoft for VS 2010 Express).

P.S. You never know, you might actually get some help. Remember, Kael created Fall from Heaven 2 because he wanted to (awesome mod BTW).

 

[charon2112]

Civ IV wasn't designed by Sid...did you hate that one too. diplomacy is better in V.

Civ 5 is a failure. I initially hated the changes, then I thought I'd just keep playing and learn to like it. Then the diplomacy problems hit and I slowly realized that the ai is terrible. And yes, I play on deity, I've played civ since the first day the first civ came out. Guys this game is a disaster; I'd rather play civ rev- it was designed by Sid and was fun even though it was simple. There are just so many things wrong with the programming, the gameplay, it seems everywhere I look even the things I initially liked seem to not work. I want my 50$ back

 

[Ignorant Teacher]

I think he was agreeing with you.

Whoops, arguing in a second language can trick you...

 

[charon2112]

Whoops, arguing in a second language can trick you...

I hear ya.

 

[Korias]

That was my point. Mouse over the smile I put in the end of that post and you'll see it says sarcasm. The AI is NOT challenging.

Except it is. If you aren't finding it challenging you're not playing on the right difficulty. That's the point of having difficulty levels in the first place.

I, for instance, play on the Prince difficulty. And I've had the AI perform naval invasions, perform cultural victories and even managed to out-maneuver me diplomatically to snatch away the last crucial vote for world leader. And this was on normal.

I play Immortal Difficulty on Civ 4.

The AI has evolved.

@ExCivFan: I'm sorry, but you're an obvious troll. First of all, look at how many people are clamoring over Civ 5. Then, look at how you are assuming that your opinion is solid fact and that we must accept it, and realize that your being a complete jerk. Your opinion is not mine, nor is mine yours. What you are doing is presenting yourself with false authority at the prospect that because Civ 5 does not meet your specific criteria, then it cannot possibly be a good game. Please provide some solid evidence as to what features aren't working now, and as to what things are wrong with the code. Code that, might I add, has been in the hands of some of this forum's finest modders and programmers for quite some time (See Frankenstein test group in the credits of the Manual).