You know what... I do want CIV IV.5!
- Thread starter RobAnybody
- Start date
falconne
meep
Two words: Paradox Interactive
Indeed. Wonderful company that really listens to their fans. I love those wacky Swedes.
Is he the Civ game murder? j/k
http://www.quartertothree.com/game-talk/showpost.php?p=2413263&postcount=3639
He was on holiday and just came back. Hope there will be something in next couple of.. month.
http://www.quartertothree.com/game-talk/showpost.php?p=2413263&postcount=3639
He was on holiday and just came back. Hope there will be something in next couple of.. month.
sketch162000
Warlord
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2010
- Messages
- 221
Maybe you are just too good at the game.
From what I can tell, the problems that a lot of players have lie in the sweeping nature of said game mechanics.
If I'm managing my cities well, everyone has enough food, and gold production is positive, why does happiness tank and growth plummet to a standstill just because I captured some smallville miles and miles away?
Why am I taking culture penalties across the board when I found MORE cities? Isn't it bad enough to sacrifice growth while building a settler?
Why is my decision to adopt a warrior caste to beat back invaders in 2000BC PERMANENT and still the case 4000 years later, while I'm trying for a diplo win?
In previous Civs it seems that making decisions on the fly and adapting your Civ through the evolution of history was a solid method of play. In Civ V, an overarching long-term strategy seems to be encouraged, and flexibility and reactionary tactics are punished harshly. There are several ways to win, but there's almost like a strict recipe to achieve each kind of victory. It's a rigidity that makes me uncomfortable.
Production should not be a problem; Using most of the buildings should not be a problem; Happiness should not be a problem...if you plan millennia in advance, that is. Say what you will about players who are not proficient enough to plan that far ahead.
I built military centers in Civ IV all the time. Barracks+Stable+Drydock+Forge+Military Academy+Great Generals. The difference is, I didn't HAVE to make military/production centers to keep my civ going.
No one is saying that Civ V doesn't have any new features that are immersive in its own right, just that Civ V REMOVED several features from previous games. I agree, proxy wars are very cool, but would I be willing to totally ignore the massive influence of religion, intelligence/espionage, and health/plague over the course of human history, just so I can orchestrate a proxy war instead? Not a chance.
[/TEXTWALL]
The big problem with Paradox - and they're far and away my favorite shop - is that they're very niche. They do historical strategy titles and some nice military strategy titles abstracted to fantasy games/etc.
They simply don't have the budget to tackle a title like Civ -- nor do I think they're necessarily suited to it. They make conscious decisions to keep their strategy titles focused - which allows them to give the renaissance or WWII or whatnot the TLC that deep history buffs really want.
Personally - my true dream game would be taking something like Civ IV BTS RoM/AND, add in some of the richer religious themes and perhaps some thinking on colonization of EU3, borrow the military, leadership, and OOB aspects of Hoi2, the economic and trade modeling of Vicky - abstract some of the event concepts.
But then - games would literally take months to play (which wouldn't bother me in the least). It would be darn near impossible to make the game accessible - everything I'd want would make for a truly crowded UI. It would also be very inaccessible -- my thought is add a lot more effects, but make them more minor -- the idea being, like health and happiness in IV, they would be things you COULD pay attention to and get bonuses, but wouldn't be gamebreakers if you chose to ignore them.
Problem is, I'm not sure there's a market for "Super Civ" -- the aim and direction seems to be dum...sorry... did it again... "streamlining" and "accessibility" over deeper, richer, more granular play.
Indeed. Wonderful company that really listens to their fans. I love those wacky Swedes.
People complaining about 'bugs' in Civ sure haven't played a Paradox game. It is usually 3 full expansions into a series before any of their games are playable (and i've played most of them). I'm still waiting to 'play' the latest hearts of iron - even after the payed-for patch (err expansion) called semper Fi.
EU 3 'complete edition' (with 3 or so payed-patch/expansions) was still a joke of blobbing nations. Only the user generated mods saved it.
So, please, enough with the praise of the crappy Parodox titles.
falconne:
Being able to defeat the AI through rushes and unconventional approaches does not signify proficiency with the game systems - only that the AI has performance issues.
polypheus:
I think most people don't get historical immersion from the game because they're failing massively at the economic and builder aspects of the game, while simultaneously beating the hardest AI levels through war and conquest. Civ AIs have always traditionally been weak in war - I don't understand how this can be construed as untrue for Civ V.
So, you get players who win wars, but who are unable to assimilate their gains into productive cities. Then they complain that this is not possible and that it's not immersive. Clearly, this is not the case, since I am not very skilled and I can assimilate captured cities just fine.
Civ V's current skill level of players doesn't have a whole slew of players who can tech to Mechanized Infantry or at least Riflemen in 500 AD, and yet this was relatively common Deity play in Civ 4. Heck, I played at Emperor and I did it. How is this historically immersive?
Modern and even Industrial Era games in Civ V don't involve a world with lots of nations and competing interests. Mostly, it was just three to five super-power nations controlling every single square foot of civilized land. How is this historically immersive?
You have situations in Civ V where you have religious blocs singing kumbayah and practically never declaring war on each other. This makes no sense whatsoever. Religiously similar people tended to be neighbors and they tended to make war with each other quite enthusiastically. French and English? Yeah, both Christian. With the Islamic states down south, you'd think they'd call it quits and invade - but no. Not that the Islamic states were any threat. They were too busy butchering each other over mutual accusations of heresy.
Religion is a great historical force, but the way Religion was implemented in Civ IV was detrimental to historical immersion most of the time. I mean seriously, how many Civilizations in history flip-flopped their State Religion constantly in order to get better deals at the bargaining table? How many nations switched up between Caste Systems and Slavery on a regular basis?
More historically immersive than Civ V? You must be referring to some other Civ IV I haven't played.
Being able to defeat the AI through rushes and unconventional approaches does not signify proficiency with the game systems - only that the AI has performance issues.
polypheus:
I think most people don't get historical immersion from the game because they're failing massively at the economic and builder aspects of the game, while simultaneously beating the hardest AI levels through war and conquest. Civ AIs have always traditionally been weak in war - I don't understand how this can be construed as untrue for Civ V.
So, you get players who win wars, but who are unable to assimilate their gains into productive cities. Then they complain that this is not possible and that it's not immersive. Clearly, this is not the case, since I am not very skilled and I can assimilate captured cities just fine.
Civ V's current skill level of players doesn't have a whole slew of players who can tech to Mechanized Infantry or at least Riflemen in 500 AD, and yet this was relatively common Deity play in Civ 4. Heck, I played at Emperor and I did it. How is this historically immersive?
Modern and even Industrial Era games in Civ V don't involve a world with lots of nations and competing interests. Mostly, it was just three to five super-power nations controlling every single square foot of civilized land. How is this historically immersive?
You have situations in Civ V where you have religious blocs singing kumbayah and practically never declaring war on each other. This makes no sense whatsoever. Religiously similar people tended to be neighbors and they tended to make war with each other quite enthusiastically. French and English? Yeah, both Christian. With the Islamic states down south, you'd think they'd call it quits and invade - but no. Not that the Islamic states were any threat. They were too busy butchering each other over mutual accusations of heresy.
Religion is a great historical force, but the way Religion was implemented in Civ IV was detrimental to historical immersion most of the time. I mean seriously, how many Civilizations in history flip-flopped their State Religion constantly in order to get better deals at the bargaining table? How many nations switched up between Caste Systems and Slavery on a regular basis?
More historically immersive than Civ V? You must be referring to some other Civ IV I haven't played.
I don't think I nor the original Paradox praiser have "bug" complaints about V -- we just think the gameplay is horribly simplified to the point of no longer being Civilization.
I bought both the Hoi3 and EU3 vanilla -- and actually, for a Paradox title -- they've made a lot of stability progress relative to previous iterations. CTDs far fewer, etc.
What I love about Paradox is that they don't chase the casual gamer... Their titles are deep, they know their core base of players prefers their titles deep, and they never jeopardize that fundamental philosophy. Sometimes implementations work, sometimes they don't -- but they never take features whole cloth and sacrifice them at the altar of 'streamlining'.
In short - and I hate to make this sound this way, but it's the best way to put it - Paradox never lustily eyes the 'casual gamer' and puts off its loyal fans to chase them.
After V -- I cannot say the same thing about Firaxis.... It feels an awful lot like they knew "we" would all buy V regardless of what it was, and most probably even give an expansion or 2 a shot -- and thus, didn't really pay much mind to the fact that many civ players prefer "more" over "less".
deanej
Deity
@Roxlimn: I don't remember the AIs changing religion at the drop of a hat. Also, remember that England did go Protestant simply because the king wanted a divorce. Don't say the game isn't historically immersive because you deliberately made choices to break immersion.
As for number of civs, there may be a lot of countries around today, but are they really impacting world politics? Disclaimer: the rest of the post will be filled with American ethnocentrism. You have been warned. From the perspective of someone from the US, today the amount of civs can be basically boiled down to the US, Latin America, India, China, Europe, Africa, Russia, Israel, a few other nations in the Middle East, Australia, and perhaps a few others. Well within the limit of a typical civ4 game with vassal states turned on, especially if you started with more than 18 civs. If we go the RFC route, you can represent even more with independent cities.
As for number of civs, there may be a lot of countries around today, but are they really impacting world politics? Disclaimer: the rest of the post will be filled with American ethnocentrism. You have been warned. From the perspective of someone from the US, today the amount of civs can be basically boiled down to the US, Latin America, India, China, Europe, Africa, Russia, Israel, a few other nations in the Middle East, Australia, and perhaps a few others. Well within the limit of a typical civ4 game with vassal states turned on, especially if you started with more than 18 civs. If we go the RFC route, you can represent even more with independent cities.
Every company will have bugs. It's pretty well a given these days, sad to say.
Paradox is no different. However, they really do listen to their fans. Their communication skills are a few tiers above what Firaxis and 2K Games have given us. There's an advantage to being indie. (The disadvantage being that they don't have the resources of Firaxis and other big companies.)
For example, look at Victoria 2. They had many Developer Diaries detailing what was going to be in the game. They really kept us abreast. Then they had beta AARs written by the beta testers. A whole lot less secrecy going on.
Sorry you don't like their games. I find they do a pretty good job and reward their fans. I really like the idea that they let people design games using their old engines and give them the ability to sell them. Gives the modders incentive to stay invested in their products. Firaxis, not so much.
I like their niche titles. The day they start to try and make their games "accessable" (code word for "dumbed down") will be a sad day indeed.
Mustakrakish
In 'Node' We Trust
deanej:
Yes, all those nations comprise every living space occupied by people living in the world today. Wait, no. There are lots of nations in the world today that are not covered by your enumerated bodies!
Moreover, Europe is not politically united, so they can't be just one Civ, Israel is way too small, Latin America is even more fractured, and I can't even understand how Africa is united enough in any manner to be considered one entity.
As for Civs changing religions - it was one of the advantages to playing a Spiritual Civilization. If you weren't taking advantage, well, you weren't using the trait to full effect. There are no nations or civilizations I've ever heard of that changed State Religions every 5 years or so to facilitate negotiations.
Sure, you could not do that, but you could also not do some of the things people have griped about in Civ V. Historical immersion seems to be a matter of what you're willing to ignore. So, you might be willing to ignore all manner of ridiculous religion mechanics just as long as the word "religion" is there - more historical immersion for the win!
Yes, all those nations comprise every living space occupied by people living in the world today. Wait, no. There are lots of nations in the world today that are not covered by your enumerated bodies!
Moreover, Europe is not politically united, so they can't be just one Civ, Israel is way too small, Latin America is even more fractured, and I can't even understand how Africa is united enough in any manner to be considered one entity.
As for Civs changing religions - it was one of the advantages to playing a Spiritual Civilization. If you weren't taking advantage, well, you weren't using the trait to full effect. There are no nations or civilizations I've ever heard of that changed State Religions every 5 years or so to facilitate negotiations.
Sure, you could not do that, but you could also not do some of the things people have griped about in Civ V. Historical immersion seems to be a matter of what you're willing to ignore. So, you might be willing to ignore all manner of ridiculous religion mechanics just as long as the word "religion" is there - more historical immersion for the win!
deanej
Deity
@Roxlimn: Has the fact that Latin America, Africa, etc. are comprised of distinct nations and not one big one been an effect on world politics, well, ever? My guess would be no. And the EU actually is a political entity now, that the Lisbon Treaty (really a constitution, but renamed so that it would get passed), but again, the fact that Europe is composed of separate nations hasn't been relevant since World War II (since you could conglomerate the ones aligned to the USSR into Russia). Does it match up perfectly? No. Is it close enough for civ? Yes.
@For Nall: Being a sequel, one would assume it would increment the previous version, not be completely different. And there are a lot of us that would have likes to see civ4 development continue, or failing that, a civ4-like civ game.
@For Nall: Being a sequel, one would assume it would increment the previous version, not be completely different. And there are a lot of us that would have likes to see civ4 development continue, or failing that, a civ4-like civ game.
r_rolo1
King of myself
I would like that someone would point the persons that want civ 4.5 besides the guy that made a thread with that title
sketch162000
Warlord
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2010
- Messages
- 221
So your argument is that those who dislike the game just suck at it?
Several criticisms of Civ V deal with the feeling that it is simply too rigid for many players. It is certainly possible to successfully assimilate conquered cities--it's just that you have to go about it in a very particular way. This is why Civ V seems to be less immersive. "Streamlining" has meant that Civ V has generally replaced several smaller game concepts(health, religion, distance to capital) in favor of a larger, sweeping and abstract concepts (global happiness) which ends up restricting the ways that players can handle problems. Want a cultural victory? Keep it at 5 or 6 cities. Want to expand your empire? Develop social policies a, b and c. There's very little wiggle room. What if I want to refocus my Civ halfway through the game? Too bad...
And in Civ V you can win by spamming a few cavalry units early. It's not like the devs meant for players to have mech infantry at 500AD, just that players exploit the game and figured out how to beat the system. It's a symptom of giving players a lot of options. The problem with Civ V is that the devs just decided to throw a lot of the options out of the window instead of just balancing the system better.
I'm assuming that you meant "Civ IV" when you said
What's your point? It's not like Civ V does any better in this regard. For the entire series of civ games, there has never been a high enough level of detail to simulate the myriad of ways that nations are born--you just get a handful of influential civilizations that ride it out from the dawn of man in every game. No splinter nations, no nations born from a fallen empire like the Soviet Union, no nations born from revolution, etc.
As far as a few superpowers covering all the land, I'd say this is closer to the truth. In the real world, nearly every last inch of inhabitable land is claimed by somebody, even if no one lives there. Nobody owns half the globe, but that's just an effect of many more nations in real life which, as I have stated above, is not simulated very well in the Civ series. In Civ V, it's common to reach the modern age and still have vast tracks of virgin unclaimed land. WHAT??
I agree somewhat with your assessment of religion. There were definitely issues that could be checked. Nerfing religion's effect on diplomacy, adding schisms and limiting the frequency that a Civ could switch religions are examplre of fixes that might have made things more realistic and balanced. However, you (and the Civ V devs by design) are suggesting that instead of implementing changes to make religion work better, we just throw out the baby with the bathwater and ignore religion's impact on history entirely, just because it didn't work perfectly the first time. That's the problem, someone got a little too happy at the recycling bin.
And you HAVE to in civ5?
Yes, you do. It's well documented that specializing cities is the way to avoid floundering around in debt because you have built several buildings you don't need. On a pure immersion level, its a bit confusing (Wait, so the people in my science city don't need a market to shop at anymore? How do they enjoy my lux resources?) However this is being fixed in the coming patch by allowing you to sell buildings and switch up a city's focus.
This goes back to the argument on philosophy, and it's really the heart of the Civ v debate, IMO. You are right, to not switch religions with a spiritual civ is to not use the trait to is full potential. But that only really matters if you are playing the game purely to win. Many of us are not just playing for the win.
I'll give you an example. My favorite civ is Egypt. One of my goals in every game is to build the Pyramids, the Great Lighthouse, and the Great Library, not because there is any strategic advantage, but because that's what happened irl, and trying to recreate history is FUN. I will work to research theology first as the Romans and then never switch from Christianity. I will focus on founding (and keeping) cities in the new world as Spain. I will found Judaism as the Germans because that's just a little funny. As Japan I will rush to the Manhattan project and nuke America. I will play pacifist as Montezuma. I will try to work the advantages of all these things for a win, sure, but winning is not the be all end all. History becomes my creation. That is the reward in itself.
Civ V will punish me harshly for doing anything that illogical and scatterbrained without planning far in advance and preparing for major losses. Civ V works like a balanced board game. There are checks and balances. If you don't employ a grand strategy and set your sights to win, you won't even survive. The leaders don't have a historical personality really, they are just trying to "win" like human players. Players are actively held back from just cutting loose and having fun, in favor of cold, hard strategy. It's like working. Ugh.
The beauty of Civ IV was that you could play any way you wanted. You could slingshot to civil service, tech to mech infantry by 500 and crush the other civs under your well-oiled treads. You could play religious speed chess, manipulating everyone, or you could just make Ghandi a crazy warmonger.
There are players who like to "play" and players who like to "win." Civ V caters to the "winners" exclusively and no wall of text, patch, or even a mod or expansion is going to bridge that gap, I'm afraid.
[/HOLYCRAPTEXTWALL]
The counter argument is why not make the game so that it is fun and seems more realistic than that?
Similar threads
