Would you be happier with Civ 4.5?

[Fabiano1979]

Last night I played my first 5h-6h of the new total war: shogun 2.

I agree with this review: http://www.gamepro.com/article/features/218512/the-first-three-weeks-total-war-shogun-2/

Its refinements are important, and it is good to be challenged again, but in most ways, Shogun 2 is the same game we've always known.

Shogun 2 has improve the AI (the combats are amazing) and some other features, but overall is the same game of the earlier editions of the series.

I can see people getting tired of Shogun 2 very quickly, but Im not amongst them.

Im really happier with shogun 2 than with civ V.

Civ V is more ambicious than shogun 2(I think), it changed a lot of the mechanics and tried to bring something new for the civ series.

But I cant simply enjoy the game the way it is now (for the same reasons that most plp who dont like ciV already point out).

Do you guys think that civ V went too far? Or plp like me just dont like changes?

Im pretty sure that I would prefer that civ 5 had the same features of civ 4, improving only graphics, hex map, 1upt and thats it.

 

[Hormagaunt]

Yes, with the caveat that other things should also be included.

If they had started from Civ4, added hexes, selectable 1UpT, ranged combat, expanded Religion, Espionage and Corporations, then they would have had a good base for further expansion.

 

[Kerosene31]

The AI in Civ 4 would still be terrible with 1upt.

 

[CivFart]

I would like to see a little bit combination between civ 3 and civ 5. I could never go back to civ 3 now today, but there is some aspects of civ 3 that I truelly miss.

The civ-team was never able to make a fast game. I've experienced gameplay delays with all civilization games using top-notch computers for the given times. I Don't know why they are not able to create a fast game.

 

[Nicol.Bolas]

I would like to see a little bit combination between civ 3 and civ 5. I could never go back to civ 3 now today, but there is some aspects of civ 3 that I truelly miss.

The civ-team was never able to make a fast game. I've experienced gameplay delays with all civilization games using top-notch computers for the given times. I Don't know why they are not able to create a fast game.

see its people like you.....


"omg make the AI better"

"omg make the turn delay lower"

these two things are exactly opposite, and its not uncommon to make the AI more limited, so people like you are happy.

also name 1 thing that was better in civ3 the civ4.


also to OP:
try civ4

 

[CivFart]

see its people like you.....

Yes its me, you know, people who think differently, people who does not always go along with the crowd. Different kind of people.

"omg make the AI better"

I have no idea who you are quoting here.

"omg make the turn delay lower"

I have no idea who you are quoting again.

these two things are exactly opposite, and its not uncommon to make the AI more limited, so people like you are happy.

You just proved a point that you set yourself. You are basically arguing with your own mind.

also name 1 thing that was better in civ3 the civ4.

I have no intention of setting any civilization series up against each other like you do, you seem to be favoring one civilization, when and if I like something about an earlier civilization doesnt mean that civilization kills the present civilization game. I see the present civilization game as an attempt to improve an earlier one, I don't see it as a competitive one to an earlier one like you do.

I am not saying they should specifically extract a feature of an earlier civilization and implement it in the present one, but they should always be on the lookout to create a crossbreed if it adds to the fun factor. You do not always have to make an identical copy to transfer fun factor along.

 

[builer680]

This is a loaded question and is more of a talking point for fanboys than it is a genuine attempt to discuss the points brought up against CiV by people who expected more from it. Their use of this stupid argument to mock others for wanting improvements on an old game, which is what sequels ARE, is their way of shouting down actual comparison between a model that adds to and improves on ideas that came before and were honed over 2 decades, and the model in CiV of jumping off the deep end and jettisoning half of everything that's been learned in fine tuning this series... and using ill conceived and untested concepts to balance the game around.

Loaded question, stupid thread.

Moderator Action: Please don't be so disrespectful of other members.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Nicol.Bolas]

This is a loaded question and is more of a talking point for fanboys than it is a genuine attempt to discuss the points brought up against CiV by people who expected more from it. Their use of this stupid argument to mock others for wanting improvements on an old game, which is what sequels ARE, is their way of shouting down actual comparison between a model that adds to and improves on ideas that came before and were honed over 2 decades, and the model in CiV of jumping off the deep end and jettisoning half of everything that's been learned in fine tuning this series... and using ill conceived and untested concepts to balance the game around.

Loaded question, stupid thread.

I just don´t understand anything you just wrote

 

[Fabiano79]

This is a loaded question and is more of a talking point for fanboys than it is a genuine attempt to discuss the points brought up against CiV by people who expected more from it. Their use of this stupid argument to mock others for wanting improvements on an old game, which is what sequels ARE, is their way of shouting down actual comparison between a model that adds to and improves on ideas that came before and were honed over 2 decades, and the model in CiV of jumping off the deep end and jettisoning half of everything that's been learned in fine tuning this series... and using ill conceived and untested concepts to balance the game around.

Loaded question, stupid thread.

The funny thing is that you wrote the same thing I did, so I really dont understand why you calling this a stupid thread.

"others for wanting improvements on an old game, which is what sequels ARE" = This is what I wanted...and is because of this "the model in CiV of jumping off the deep end and jettisoning half of everything that's been learned in fine tuning this series... and using ill conceived and untested concepts to balance the game around"...that I dont like ciV.

I think you did not read the thread carefully.

 

[builer680]

The funny thing is that you wrote the same thing I did, so I really dont understand why you calling this a stupid thread.

"others for wanting improvements on an old game, which is what sequels ARE" = This is what I wanted...and is because of this "the model in CiV of jumping off the deep end and jettisoning half of everything that's been learned in fine tuning this series... and using ill conceived and untested concepts to balance the game around"...that I dont like ciV.

I think you did not read the thread carefully.

You're right, I didn't. I just saw the question in the title. It's a big pet peeve of mine when people don't read what they're responding to completely, and I just did it myself. My apologies.

 

[Truthy]

There is a fine line between too much change and not enough change and this line went undistinguished during the development of ciV. Hexes were probably ambitious enough for a sequel.

 

[Afforess]

Yes. I stated in a previous thread that I would have paid the 50 dollars for the modding browser, multi-core support, and improved graphics for Civ4.

 

[SpearMan153]

There is a fine line between too much change and not enough change and this line went undistinguished during the development of ciV. Hexes were probably ambitious enough for a sequel.

While it's a fair point that in hind sight civ5 went for too much change but I'd want slightly more innovation in a sequel then just adding hexes...

 

[Windsor]

I don't mind at all when developers choose a more evolutionary approach to sequels. With a tight budget and short time-frame evolution instead of revolution makes even more sense.

Audi does it with cars, works great. Apple does it with mobile phones, works great there too.

 

[Hail]

if civ5 was to civ4 as civ2 was to civ1, than i am willing to buy it even for $50

 

[Nicol.Bolas]

thats a good point.....

for me it was this way...

civ2 was king for me. loved it
civ3 improved on it, loved it. except I hated them for messing the scenarious up
civ4 improved on it again. love it. it is the king now

the answer which I am not getting a straight answer to, is if civ5 improved on it as well.
the previous managed to improve but keep the core concepts intact.
viv5 changed and simplified many core concepts and it just desn´t seem right.... even looking at ss, it seems to be done for 6yr olds

 

[Hail]

thats a good point.....

for me it was this way...

civ2 was king for me. loved it
civ3 improved on it, loved it. except I hated them for messing the scenarious up
civ4 improved on it again. love it. it is the king now

the answer which I am not getting a straight answer to, is if civ5 improved on it as well.
the previous managed to improve but keep the core concepts intact.
viv5 changed and simplified many core concepts and it just desn´t seem right.... even looking at ss, it seems to be done for 6yr olds

yeah, civ2 is awesome for it's time. even more so since it's still playable today

civ3 rant

Spoiler :

civ3 for me is like meh.
crusaders killing my fortified infantry pissed me off big time, and, guess what, such BS happened almost every game i played. and this unbeatable corruption thing. wtf? seriously why the player not be allowed to build a giant, productive empire in the late game? i have no problem with corruption as an anti-ICS mechanics, but why make it unbeatable??

civ4 is awesome though

 

[Nicol.Bolas]

yeah, civ2 is awesome for it's time. even more so since it's still playable today

civ3 rant

Spoiler :

civ3 for me is like meh.
crusaders killing my fortified infantry pissed me off big time, and, guess what, such BS happened almost every game i played. and this unbeatable corruption thing. wtf? seriously why the player not be allowed to build a giant, productive empire in the late game? i have no problem with corruption as an anti-ICS mechanics, but why make it unbeatable??

civ4 is awesome though

still civ3 was huge improvement, finally, after an endless wait and failed spinoffs.
trireme vs battleship is notorius in all civ games, but in civ2 and civ4 it was severely softened, almost impossible

I liked that I didnt have to manage too many cities, but I like the way in civ4 more, its an evolution

 

[JamesCivFan]

The AI in Civ 4 would still be terrible with 1upt.

That.

It's far easier for an AI to move massive stacks and attack a city or another stack, than having to actually think tactically. I don't know if it will ever be a 10/10 tactical AI, but at least they are trying...

 

[Drawmeus]

Yes, with the caveat that other things should also be included.

If they had started from Civ4, added hexes, selectable 1UpT, ranged combat, expanded Religion, Espionage and Corporations, then they would have had a good base for further expansion.

This raises a definition of terms question. If we have hexes, 1UPT ('selectable' is misleading because frankly the game has to be designed around one or the other, too much else comes out of this decision to fully support both - e.g. lowered production rates, limited strategic resources and embarkation are all consequences of 1UPT), and ranged combat, we're most of the way from civ IV to civ V anyway, so what do you mean by Civ 4.5?

If we're just asking "Would the game be more fun if they added in more polished, fun systems like updated religion, espionage and corporations" - yes, it would be. Unfortunately, game development does not work this way.