Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by RobAnybody, Oct 11, 2010.
I've seen people he say they liked Cvi1, then Civ2, then Civ4, then CivRev
See what I did there?
You never played CIV IV and you are upset with people who say that they like CIV IV more than CIV V?
Ahem, please, let me clear this matter up first.
I don't care what anyone plays. I"m not mad with anyone, dissapointed in the fact everything is taken to the utter extremes.
As I stated, I like Civ5, simply because it is the first one I have played. Yet, I have several friends who agree and disagree with me.
It is a matter of choice. Do people really need to post a new topic every single day complaining about the same exact issue that was explained the day earlier? No. It is just spam and usless points.
The only issue I personally have is the fact that this game is being patched and updated and such. Which means that in time it WILL get better.
Complaining over and over again over pointless things like, "I want Civ4!" is just a ******** waste. Why not focus on possibly helping report bugs and issue instead of complaining?
Well, now. Call me old fashion, but that is what I'd do.
wait, one mroe time
What are you doing right now?
just one more for good measure:
Moderator Action: Flaming
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
To put it succinctly --
Because a lot of us aren't just unhappy because of bugs -- a lot of feel that the underlying mechanics of the Civilization series have been irreparably altered.
I'm not trying to play the "I go back to I, II, III, and IV; while you've just played V" card -- but there's no way around it... Civilization was never a war-centric 4X game. Yes, warfare was always a key part... In some iterations - it was even the 'most key' part.
It has become that in V -- fix the AI and maybe you'll have a decent war-centric 4X game, that has more of a nod to resource gathering, city building, and diplomacy than your standard Age of Empires or what not.
But that's not Civilization. At least, it never was before -- heck -- developers from the previous releases used to in fact rebut complaints about quecha rushes or axeman rushes by point blank saying "Civilization is not meant to be a war game!"
If you prefer the building side of Civilization - and only dabble in the warfare aspects, I'm just not seeing anything that can fix V. Whatever route you go -- if you skip war -- you're looking at little more than a lot of next turn marathons waiting for the SP level... or the next tech... or the next building to be built....
Gentlemen, we can rebuild it, we have the technology. We have the capability to build the best Civilization game. Civ V will be that game; better than it was before. Better, stronger, faster.
xD That is amazing.
I really don't mean to sound rude or anything. It is all just my way of thinking on this subject...
Exactly. Shafer chose to ramp up the war game part of it with an inappropriate tactical Panzer General system. But he totally dumbed-down the non war-game part of it. That is the essence of the problem.
If he had put the same effort towards the non war-game part then that would be one thing. Heck,he could have thrown out all of Civ4 and redid it with more complex economy, multi-Civ pacts all sorts of new stuff and at least we are getting a Civ game, you know, one where you develop your Civ and war is only one component. But he seemed to want to make Civ primarily a war game as if you don't play it as such, there is almost no fun in it as the rest of the game is so shallow.
Well guess what, if that's all I want I will just play "Rise of Nations". That is a much better war game than Civ5 will ever be! Heck Rise of Nations non-wargame aspect is even better than in Civ5!
You don't see an inherit conflict between these two statements?
Hey, I've been lurking here since the announcement of Civ V at E3, but this post was so honest and unapologetic that I had to comment. I wholeheartedly agree with you, Civ IV.5 would have been killer! It's so frustrating, because all Firaxis had to do was improve on BtS and Civ V would have been great! Instead, they tried to reinvent the wheel and came up with a mess of a game
With that said, I'm a little more harsh than you are about what we should scrap from Civ V...
Hexes are debatable, they don't really add anything except curvy, organic landscapes. In fact, they removed two directions, which is troublesome considering that 1upt forces you to arrange units in a formation.
Agreed on City States, however CS's are frankly a little annoying with the quest spam. The incentive for interacting with CS's should be more than just sheer boredom. From what I've seen, they usually don't seem to command game breaking resources or strategic positions that the AI is willing to wage war over (or the AI doesn't really care,) so it kind of devolves into a popularity contest. I think the gold/influence mechanic is a bit unrealistic. Why not cultural influence? This would be a great application of religion.
The borders-expanding-one-tile-at-a-time REALLY irks me, so I think it should be changed back to the Civ IV style. It takes entirely too long to determine the borders of your nation this way, and part of what made the early game of Civ IV fun was the land grab IMO--squabbling over strategic territories, vying for resources. Border conflicts, are less likely overall until later in the game, nigh impossible on a huge map. It rather seems like you have a collection of city-states rather than a unified nation. Maybe a system where cities have a workable radius(CiV style expansion) but there is also a cultural national border (cIV-style pulsing) would work more realistically. With national borders, it would be clearer where the AI draws the line, so that they are not knocking on your door complaining about arbitrary "land that is rightfully theirs."
I do think that the 1upt is one of the better additions to the game, although limited stacking and the ability to move several units in formation with one click would make for less traffic jams.
Heh, I had forgotten how much fun I had with Rise of Nations. In retrospect that game was really ahead of its time.
I think that there may be a bit of a philosophy problem in this release that you are hinting at. To paint with large brush strokes from my perspective, I imagine that people who enjoy CiV seem to be players who appreciate it more as a strategy game, like Risk or Stratego. There's a set of rules, there are different strategies, as long as the game balances, they are happy. The interesting context of human history is a bonus.
On the other hand, people who are upset seem to appreciate the game as a simulation of human civilization, in particular. Changing history, sparring with famous leaders, impersonating a great nation, leading your people from the dawn of man into the future, culture, religion, monuments; All these cool things got nerfed in favor of the raw strategy component. (read:streamlining)
And you know -- that's what generally pushes me from sad to mad...
They could have seriously just kept all the non-war bells and whistles from BTS -- maybe tossed us the Social Policies bone as an add-on to Civics system, but focused on hex 1UpT as the 'main' evolution for V... and I think I would have been happy.
It's not that I never fight wars - it's that it's not why I play Civilization. If I want to play a wargame - I generally load up Hearts of Iron or an AoE-type title.
Probably the best thing you could do is go spend a few dollars on a budget game called Civ4BTS...won't cost you much, quite old now. Play it a few times...try a few mods...
...and then come back and see if you understand what the fuss is about.
that is like buying "pong"
it is still fun too
the evidence is clear- Civ5-for the moderns
i agreed with the 3d starter, only a reflession:
the hexes and the 1UPT rules can be one of the best improvment in the civ series, can bring to us a fantastic mix between tattical and strategic combat-move and, if you attach to this the new comunication network policies ( few road imply more value of these for supporting the front lines or transfer rapidly troop during defenses) , we can reach a completly newly level of combat....similar to historical "napoleonic strategic thought"
I really like it and i can see a pre organized plan too reach it behind the CIV V bugs, give time and we can have one of the best civ ever ( if they still wanna work on it)
...who think Civilization should be primarily focused on warfare.
The game flat out sucks. Keep dreaming and hoping. Firaxis clearly dont have the money or resources.
Those have to be really large brush strokes I could point Sullla as a example of how a player that basically plays as much of Risk and previous civs and that does not talk about civness or whatever when he criticizes the game, but of core inbalancements due to not so well thought core rules ... that lead to the fact , like he said "Civ V is a very strange game", agame where you should raze instead of keep, where having more than 4 pop is actually a mistake and where buidngs are normally a bad investement .
To be honest, I don't see how this game as it is can satisfy either the risk side or the historical simulation side. A game where you are better razing than keeping will not bode well for the first group, a game where cities with no buildings are the way to go will not bode well for the second.
Like I asked once, I really don't see what was the target group for the game as it is. Maybe Jon Shafer ?
Separate names with a comma.