Why put out an unfinished game?
- Thread starter oPunchDrunko
- Start date
TheMeInTeam
If A implies B...
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2008
- Messages
- 27,995
Between turn delays, but also giving orders and then having to wait for them to be executed (apparently I can out-speed the pathing algorithm which is really annoying; I'm not some superhero).
Little annoyances like no queues etc are there too of course, but definitely the time between turns and general emphasis of pretty looks over core gameplay really rings sour with me.
Anthropoid
Grognard fantome
Yeah, that is what I am talking about as being a theme that started in CivIV and I expected was further elaborated in Civ5. We don't need little animated pigs and trees waving to play strategy games. All that stuff is precisely why it cannot be modded into a proper Civilization game: the processing load for a really big map would be enormous.
Here is my beef with Civ as tersely as I can put it. I want MORE complication and detail not less. Civ4 accomplished this in some ways (religion, espionage, etc.) relative to Civ3, but it simultaneously introduced a new graphics heavy system that made the possibility to create really detailed mods as far as I can tell impossible.
Earth is 24,902 miles in diameter. The minimum distance that should be required between any two major Earth cities is about 25 miles (Baltimore and DC Bonn & its neighboring city, I want to say Stuttgart, are all examples of modern day mega-cities and both those two dyads are about 25 miles apart). Assuming 1 city per hex, and the "Fat-X" sort of thing from Civ4 (an additional 2 map tiles/hexes in either direction) and at least a two tile gap between all cities each tile would need to be = 12.5 miles (or thereabouts). With that, and retaining the Civ4 Fat-X, each city could have the proper diversity of tile use that is needed to realistic reflect city development, and the map itself would be big enough to really allow for cities, and not states to be represented as cities. Indeed, the intuitive feel of Civ 4 to me implies that each tile is about that size.
Now these numbers don't have to be exact, but they should at least be in the ballpark right? How big of a map in terms of tiles would we need to come close?
At 12.5 miles wide tiles/hexes the map would need to be 1992 x 1314 tiles/hexes in size. At 25 miles wide it would need to be 996 x 657 (that is assuming the north-south dimension needs to be 1/3 less because of arctic regions).
With a very modern computer and the Civ3 engine you could probably get a map that big to work, but I have my doubts that Civ4 and Civ5 could do it.
So what does this mean for the level of realism in the game? I seem to recall that Civ4maps were in the ballpark of 50 to 60 tiles across (justifiably shorter north-to-south because of arctic regions taking up a 1/3 or so of the planet.
Assuming a planet that is Earth size, the following numbers of hexes to circum-navigate a Civ map these are the dimensions across those tiles/hexes:
50 = 498 miles
60 = 415 miles
70 = 355 miles
So even assuming the best of examples, a single "Warrior" unit in the game can manage to occupy a piece of land that is something like 355 x 355 miles on its sides. It is 358 miles from modern day Kuwait City to Baghdad That would make two or at most three hexes/tiles as big as all of Mesopotamia. In fact, at that scale, all of ancient Egypt be subsumed in about two tiles (it is 120 miles from Alexandria to Cairo).
Yet in the game, we found one ancient world city like Cairo and it automatically covers one entire tile, and draws from a hinterland that is an additional eight tiles!?
Had the games been developed to allow those of us who really want to get into the details to go deeper and deeper, I wouldn't have too much to complain about. Civ4 is obviously highly moddable. But even with the level of processing overload in that game, maps approaching realistic scales were as far as I can tell impossible.
Abegweit
Anarchist trader
Both farms and mines have been nerfed, meaning that a gold-based economy combined with Maritime CSs is practically the only way to go.. How many of them even knew the intricacies of IV, since they're telling you that V is dumbed down? In reality, they're not very different:
- You still are choosing between farms/mines and a more commerce/gold based tile improvement early on, with more options that are viable later
Comparing cottages, which were an interesting option, with trading posts is almost shameful. They are nothing alike. What's more "empowering specs" is not an either/or with trading posts. The most powerful option is to employ both in the right ratio - and that ratio is pretty much fore-ordained. In Civ4, you had to make choices.
Most buildings in Civ4 were interesting and useful. Civ5 is all about spamming libraries, colosseums and circuses everywhere. Civ4 wonders were, with a few exceptions, powerful and costly. There was a huge opportunity cost in going for them - along with a huge benefit. In Civ5, they are basically maintenance-free buildings. As for units, in Civ5 you just build a half dozen immortal units and upgrade them through the game. No opportunity costs.
Expansion is not held in check in Civ5 at all. It's nonsense to even suggest it. As for Civ4, the only ways I know to blow by the mechanics are the GLH and Corps. One is map-specific and eventually obsolete while the other is late game.
Actually this is not necessarily true in either game.
With the exception of space, every condition is vastly more interesting and challenging in Civ4. Since you bring up conquest, why in God's name can I win the game by stealing one city from a runaway AI?
Idiotic diplomacy. Boring tech tree. Repetitive building choices. All city sites are pretty much the same. Massive exploits. Far easier levels. I could go on.
I know you have this rant about UI problems in Civ4. The vast majority of us play normally and simply don't care.
Now THAT is optimistic. The fundamental problems in Civ5 will never be addressed. There is some chance or mods to make a game out of this lemon, but Firaxis will never do it. Not even in expansions. To do so would take a massive change in fundamental game play and they won't. They never have.
Quite honestly I thought you had better judgement and I have to say that I am more than a little surprised to see you defending this turd.
Abegweit
Anarchist trader
You just make stuff up, don't you? I defy you to find anywhere that I claimed it was a smooth release. It most definitely was not and the ATI problems were far from the only issue. All I ever said was that Civ4 did work with some ATI cards, which means that Firaxis and their Beta testers might well have tried the software out with ATI cards despite your rant about them. That was all. In your passive/aggressive manner, this somehow became an issue of me, my memory and sundry other mental defects.
Smug little bugger, aren't you? More passive aggression. Not that I was wrong about anything.
Oh. And you still haven't gotten around to explaining why you think that the bugs in the Civ4 release justify the game play issues in Civ5. Not that I expect you to.
Moderator Action: Please be a little less rude. Calling one a "smug little bugger" among other things is not appropriate for this forum.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Jharii
King
I never said it did. Please quote where I said any bugs in Civ5 are justified. Being understanding and patiend about bugged releases is much different than justifying it. And you're right, you didn't say Civ4 was buggy at release. Halloween season. A guess all of those masks all look the same after awhile.
You should probably fish elsewhere. You obviously haven't been interested in a civil conversation since you chimed in. Not interested in your bait any longer.
Abegweit
Anarchist trader
Funny this. It says volumes about the way that your mind works.
It shouldn't be necessary to say this but it obviously is. So...
I have never ever said anything - anything at all - about bugs in Civ5, still less about your reaction to them.
Edit: x-post with Moss. Fair 'nuff. For me, this is over. And you're right, I shouldn't have taken the bait.
TheMeInTeam
If A implies B...
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2008
- Messages
- 27,995
Yeah, we'll see how long these things remain true when people's precious "OP" tactics get nerfed. If maritime eats a big nerf suddenly our choices become more interesting again - you would need significant infra investment to grow onto trading posts, and grasslands might actually be appealing relative to plains. Sometimes. Imbalance does not mean the features lack complexity. It's still there, even if some alternatives suck too much right now. Also I caution hating on good features simply because so many of the others are bad.
Opinion, and opinion only. Over-investment into buildings held players back tremendously. The only true gimme was the granary for much of the game.
Kind of like how IV was all about spamming granaries, MAYBE courthouses, and MAYBE libraries "everywhere"? Both games reward specialization once you get past the obvious structures.
Most were costly...only a few were consistently powerful. Notice that in civ V, wonders can also be pretty powerful; oracle, great library, forbidden palace, etc can have big impacts, BUT
If you can't see an opportunity cost in civ V wonders, you aren't trying.
For every difficulty below deity, assuming you had the space you could hit double digit cities by 1 AD using just cottages and a basic
cap booster like resources, monarchy, or drama. On deity you rarely could expand to that many cities because room ran out. GLH and corps were nice, but they were *not* necessary. I proved it outright on immortal in one of my let's plays, getting 10+ cities on immortal before courthouses and winning easily. To make matters MORE fun, here's a familiar tactic:- Conquer 15+ cities by the early ADs using horse archers.
Does that sound familiar to you? As someone who has played civ V, it might, but comically it was almost as easy to do in IV...just less popular. I only pulled it off consistently on immortal, but sure enough top deity player Rusten did it on deity with plenty of success as a result. If you managed the slider correctly to bankroll some turns at heavy -gpt, you could turn things around (even from losing 50+ gpt at 0%!) and suddenly have a MASSIVE empire with heavy GNP potential very early. You're telling me civ IV checked expansion? That's pretty laughable. It's just as laughable as suggesting that happiness is a true hurdle. On some spawns it will slow you down, certainly, but similarly you have conquest, resource abuse, and SP to fall back on -----> this model is similar, and it's painful just how many people, rooks and experienced alike, somehow don't see it.
You lose your cities, you're dead. It's true in BOTH games, always. Now, sometimes that priority is taken care of without effort...especially in IV, but it is still numero uno - you fail at it and you lose. Diplo abuse in IV sometimes allowed that you had no military threats - a very cost effective way of military survival! However IV's HIGHLY RNG-based diplo had plenty of ticky tack elements, and even MORE incidence of AIs not trying than V. That was a serious problem on immortal/deity.
Diplo might be better once it's transparent and AIs use it to help their victory chances (opening opportunism for both sides). Tech tree is HIGHLY subjective. Repetitive building choices as "more dumbed down" is an utter joke. Did you actually learn how to play IV at a high level? So few buildings were necessary in anything but specific cities, other than the granary which went in EVERY city, usually first (or 2nd after a border pop building). That suuuuuuuuuuuure sounds more complex and dynamic
! Easier levels is a direct function of 1UPT. Exploits? HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHHHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH. Your entire paragraph of argument fails instantly:- 1st to theology and build apostolic palace. Insta win on all difficulties
- PERMANENTLY LOCKING AIS OUT OF WAR WITH YOU, even though it harms their chances of victory. Greatly.
- Mass up 60+ tactical nukes on an AI's borders. It won't care. Instantly eviscerate the #2 AI in the game in a single turn. Yep, no exploit here, move along.
- GIFTING tactical nukes to AIs to fire at other AIs mid-war, completely killing their stacks and stalemating them. Diplo penalties for the arms supply? Yeah, none.
- UN manipulation, including gifting a certain AI techs so it builds it first, guaranteeing your victory
- AI only knew how to pursue 1 VC - culture, and it was bad at it. Simply race one of those cities 1 turn before victory and keep going for whatever you were doing.
I could go on, but do note that these are all things available in the final patch. There was far more on release.
I hope you're wrong, because it would mean the vast majority of players are
sheep. Mindlessly staring at the wall, rather than using inputs that save them time. Watching an object trail back and forth with less pattern variation than a fly on the wall (meaning a cat might be doing something more exciting for the time difference between using hotkey inputs and dragging the mouse everywhere). Hey, if you openly admit that you like the equivalent of staring at a wall, more power to you, but don't use it as a point of pride in an argument because it looks pretty bad.Overoptimistic probably, but definitively saying they never will be is just as bad in the opposite direction.
You have no idea how much I fear you're correct. The problems IV retained from start to finish are a punishing and sobering reality. I'm afraid I can't argue with this, so all I can say is at least I have other games to play also while I hope :/.
I think you are confusing my pointing out that this is nothing new with defending the game. As you may be aware based on your comments about my criticisms of IV, I consider that game incomplete because it is (take a quick look at vassal code or how the AI picks UN resolutions before you try to argue). It was far worse on release than it is in BTS 3.19, where it still carries major flaws.
Some design elements of V are clearly better than IV, but that doesn't mean I endorse V as a good game yet (I think I rather clearly stated it is an INCOMPLETE game, on this very thread). I am criticizing IV too, and pointing out that V having a lot of sucky elements is far from anything new - there is a glaring and immediate precedent. I know my posts are wordy, but if you're going to go so far as to question my judgment (when in reality it's not too different from your own), I suggest you read them.
It's kind of like the good ole' explanation for the fanaticism government in civilization II: "the world has come to expect no better"
. Actually, on civFANATICS, that's kind of true, isn't it 
?He was bribed by firaxis. The last and must successfully tatic of shitter games sellers is to bribed agent whose spam "i love this game" at all gamers forums, using several false usuaries.
Moderator Action: Infraction for trolling. Please stop accusing people of being paid for their comments. It's not civil, and little more than baiting them.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Lone Wolf
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 9,908
A very large number of users of any product - from Civ to MS Word - don't use hotkeys. I've met many Windows users who aren't aware, that, for example, alt+f4 is a hotkey for "quit", and regard hotkeys as something difficult and arcane, as opposed to dragging the mouse. Learning all the hotkeys takes a lot of effort and is initially slower then the mouse, as you struggle to remember all the letters and combinations. It's like printing with two fingers vs. printing the professional way - though the latter is faster, many people use their two fingers, and that doesn't mean that they prefer slow typing. When they take printing courses, which teach them the "proper" printing way, at first the "proper" way is much slower for them.
ohioastronomy
King
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2005
- Messages
- 714
My concern is that the biggest problems in the game are deep in the design. In particular, no unit stacking is a disaster; I think that the Chick review at 1up accurately diagnosed this feature as the one that dragged the rest of the game down with it. The issues have been hashed out ad nauseum, but suffice it to say that I view it as unfixable - in the sense that it creates problems with game pace, the mechanics of moving pieces around, distorts production, and neuters a major AI advantage historically used in the series (boosted production.)
Global happiness is another bad idea, and I think it ties in to a false concept of "simplification". There can be some more complex underlying algorithm for the cost of adding cities - and it won't bother casual players a bit. That's different from making them do a series of complex things to, say, found a city. There are a lot of places in the game where simplified game concepts were confused with streamlined play. We could use more mints and circuses (where it mattered which luxury was which, and it matters where a city is.)
Global happiness is another bad idea, and I think it ties in to a false concept of "simplification". There can be some more complex underlying algorithm for the cost of adding cities - and it won't bother casual players a bit. That's different from making them do a series of complex things to, say, found a city. There are a lot of places in the game where simplified game concepts were confused with streamlined play. We could use more mints and circuses (where it mattered which luxury was which, and it matters where a city is.)
oPunchDrunko
Prince
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2010
- Messages
- 325
Wow this topic got terribly off-topic :S
TheMeInTeam
If A implies B...
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2008
- Messages
- 27,995
Yes, large #'s of people screw this up. Whether you gain or lose time via hotkeys is a direct function of how much you use the product and the rate at which you can learn them.
However, for people who are playing 100's of hours in civ, or interacting with MS word 100's of times, avoiding the learning of hotkeys is a clear and deliberate choice to be inefficient and slow - IE, they are essentially resigning to stare at the wall at that point.
Now, that's someone's prerogative. There is nothing illegal or fundamentally wrong about staring at a wall for leisure. If people enjoy doing that and wish to do that, there is no reason to stop them.
However, it becomes a SERIOUS problem when a software release denies efficient options to its users, or worse advertises that they exist when they do not work properly. Civ IV and V are guilty of both - in both games, it is possible to give an order that is not executed, consistently. It's one thing if you don't like to give orders that way, but that people are fine with the fact that the UI doesn't work up to snuff while the developers work on adding new features or graphics is, frankly, offensive. It is a slap in the face to any intelligent person who intends to play more than a few times, and it seems a huge portion of this forum is taking that slap like nothing.
People are complaining about barbs, diplo, etc when the GAME CONTROLS ARE NOT FINISHED, and so few seem to notice. Can the forum actually be filled with THAT many people content to stare at walls? Is that what's become of this esteemed community? I doubt it, but a little reassurance wouldn't be a bad thing.
Please tell me you are not advocating that any such algorithm be hidden. Don't do it. "Underlying" sounds dangerous.
And FWIW, I've not been bribed and if you're paying attention, such an idea is ridiculous based on my post history.
Lone Wolf
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 9,908
Don't be that harsh. Some people just find memorizing the controls to be a daunting task and never do it - because it's not an easy line to overcome. Many people are slow thinkers (a guy at Realms Beyond dislikes Epic speed because he always spends a very large time each turn to ensure that everything's properly micromanaged), so mouse stuff doesn't matter to them.
Also, to use the hotkeys, you need to know them - and they are listed on the last page of Civiliopedia, where most users just don't look. If Civ used classical Windows approach to indicating hotkeys, there'd be definitely more complains about the issue.
I can agree with that, though. It goes beyond that - Civ4 is rather badly coded, and I've often noticed that attempting to use hotkeys in overly slow programs leads to bad results, as the game struggles to process your requests.
Jolly Rogerer
Prince
- Joined
- May 16, 2008
- Messages
- 402
When I played Civ1 my computer didn't have a mouse and I used hot keys exclusively. I told a friend about that and he laughed at me. Then he watched me play and realized that I was spending about 10% of the time that he was messing around with the interface to get where I wanted to go.
Slayan
Warlord
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2006
- Messages
- 165
If only Firaxis would take a page out of Impulse's book, When they put out Elemental they soon found out from players that it was an unfinished game, so they have put out a number of patches and then anounced that everyone that got the game before Nov 1 will get the next 2 expantions free as a way to make it up to the players for getting an unfinished game.
Jharii
King
With all due respect (and it's Stardock, fyi), Civ5 was light years ahead of Elemental out of the box, and I am a huge fan of Elemental, its direction, and its vision.
ohioastronomy
King
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2005
- Messages
- 714
ohioastronomy said:
I agree with you that the players should know the rules. But from the point of view of a novice, they don't care if "new city costs 2 happiness" or "new city costs 1 happiness + 2 gold*(1 + 0.05*(Ncities)**1.5) or whatever. It isn't a simple formula that matters.
By contrast, making people build defenders for cities is more complicated than having cities defend themselves.
A lot of the things in Civ 5 look as if they created problems by insisting on simple rules (each city costs 2 happy, each pop costs 1, each luxury is worth 5...) instead of setting up rules that work well.
Q: Why put out an unfinished game?
A: cashflow
Its called a recession. Gaming houses (production or development) , since the y sell a "luxury item" are particularly vulnerable.
Ironic thing is, by releasing a franchise product early, they destroy the brand and actually make their long term situation way worse.
We've seen plenty of strategy houses blown away recently.....
A: cashflow
Its called a recession. Gaming houses (production or development) , since the y sell a "luxury item" are particularly vulnerable.
Ironic thing is, by releasing a franchise product early, they destroy the brand and actually make their long term situation way worse.
We've seen plenty of strategy houses blown away recently.....
