EPThttp://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=421614
Civilization V + DLC's, G&K, BNW - Page 31
| Forum Index > General Games |
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=421614 | ||
|
Kinetik_Inferno
United States1431 Posts
Maybe, if hell freezes over, I might actually pay attention to these things called "winning" and "strategy"  | ||
|
feaynnewedd
Germany41 Posts
Thanks for answers | ||
Zooper31
United States5714 Posts
On May 06 2011 16:10 feaynnewedd wrote: Hey all, I played civilization 2 - 4, and I love complexity above all. What's your verdict, is Civ 5 worth it? Is it more or less complex than IV? Is it infected with the "Simplify so console gamers play it"-disease? Thanks for answers Civ IV was my first time buying a Civ game and I thouroughly enjoyed it. Civ 5 is just as complex, except with better graphics and a couple new options, etc. Love Civ 5 better imo. | ||
|
Longshank
1648 Posts
On May 06 2011 16:10 feaynnewedd wrote: Hey all, I played civilization 2 - 4, and I love complexity above all. What's your verdict, is Civ 5 worth it? Is it more or less complex than IV? Is it infected with the "Simplify so console gamers play it"-disease? Thanks for answers Yes it is, quite a few things are removed or simplified from Civ IV and it annoyed the crap out of me. It's still a decent game I guess but I'm sick of the trend of dumbing games down for console users. It was the same with TES: Oblivion and Dragon Age 2. | ||
|
hefty
Denmark555 Posts
On May 06 2011 16:10 feaynnewedd wrote: Hey all, I played civilization 2 - 4, and I love complexity above all. What's your verdict, is Civ 5 worth it? Is it more or less complex than IV? Is it infected with the "Simplify so console gamers play it"-disease? Thanks for answers Played Civ I, II & III but later on turned to alpha centauri for its comlexity. Since my point of reference is primarily alpha I might be biased, but I think Civ V is dumbed down. Many things are now global (like happiness) which means there is a lot less reason for tweaking/micro management. Also, the game mechanics are made so that you chose to build a healthy empire from fewer cities, which to me means that there isn't enough to do each turn. Combat is changed. Don't no if I like it more, but changes can be good and it works well. I hate that cities now defend themselves (and can only have one garrison) though - it makes for heterogenous city battles. I liked some of the new diplomacy aspects, but the one thing that matters - managing your empire - is a lot less interesting to me now. I grew bored of this game waaay to fast. | ||
|
Golden Ghost
Netherlands1041 Posts
(And perhaps find out how to quickly see in game which technology leads to what like in Civ IV. At the moment I can only find out per technology what it directly leads to and not the big picture whith a chart so I can see the path for a technology 5 steps ahead.) | ||
|
dartoo
India2889 Posts
And sadly no fast workers :D | ||
|
Iplaythings
Denmark9110 Posts
Ski warrior is dumb when we dont have mountains lol | ||
|
Golden Ghost
Netherlands1041 Posts
Denmark is the sole Vinking country/civilization -> Vikings settled in Iceland and Greenland -> Iceland and Greenland are cold and have snow -> Hence Vikings must have been good at skiing and thus must have a special ski warrior in Civ V. | ||
|
Zootre
Denmark180 Posts
On May 06 2011 17:31 Iplaythings wrote: Denmark shouldve had Dragon ships (which actually were an authestic thing). Ski warrior is dumb when we dont have mountains lol Its Norwegian Ski warriors  so its alright | ||
|
Seronei
Sweden991 Posts
One thing I found frustrating is that you can't save multiplayer games and continue them later as was possible in Civ 4. Disconnecting and having to restart completely :/ | ||
|
BeMannerDuPenner
Germany5638 Posts
On May 06 2011 16:10 feaynnewedd wrote: Hey all, I played civilization 2 - 4, and I love complexity above all. What's your verdict, is Civ 5 worth it? Is it more or less complex than IV? Is it infected with the "Simplify so console gamers play it"-disease? Thanks for answers i played civ 2-4 over the years from time to time. never "hardcore" but i really enjoyd them. but civ5 i playd maybe a handful of complete games and after a week never touched it again. it didnt really feel like a civ game and def was made more simple. so if you just look for a game that entertains you for a few hours sure get it, should be quite cheap now and it atleast will give you more singeplayer time then most of todays shooters (hi CoD clones,homefront etc). but if you look for a civilization to play for a long time then just stick to civ4, its the better game. tho at the time when i playd civ5 the mod community was just starting so maybe there are now mods which improve the game alot. | ||
|
ImHuko
United States996 Posts
 | ||
|
Robo-boogey
Australia110 Posts
I spent longer getting Civ 5 to run than I did playing it. Terrible game, so disappointed. | ||
|
sjh
Canada136 Posts
I've played nearly every civ game since civ I, and I found that at first I wasn't into Civ V but that once I got used to it I really enjoyed it. It is unquestionably a civ game, and it adds some features that are really great. I definitely recommend it. | ||
|
AntiLegend
Germany247 Posts
On May 06 2011 16:10 feaynnewedd wrote: Hey all, I played civilization 2 - 4, and I love complexity above all. What's your verdict, is Civ 5 worth it? Is it more or less complex than IV? Is it infected with the "Simplify so console gamers play it"-disease? Thanks for answers If you like complexity that much it's very likely you won't like it, since complexity was reduced quite significantly. For example city growth is now limited by a single empire-wide resource (happiness) instead of two (health + happy) per city, there are fewer tile improvements (+1 food,+1 production, +1 gold), the way science and gold are accumulated is different (1 citizen = 1 science, tiles yield gold instead of commerce. so no more sliders). Nonetheless there is still plenty of stuff to manage in your empire, and imho the combat is better (only 1 unit per tile, ranged attack), but the AI isn't really good at fighting. Just check out some "Let's play" videos on youtube, e.g. this guy has some: http://www.youtube.com/user/biborkiraly | ||
|
AntiLegend
Germany247 Posts
On May 06 2011 20:40 ImHuko wrote: Just noticed this thread, I bought Civ 5 awhile ago, was casually playing but during the campaign or whatever, for some reason I couldn't finish killing certain cities. I would get them to basically like 1hp or whatever, and then nothing else would do damage. Kind of made me lose interest in the game cause I couldn't go any further. How do I go about fixing this? Ranged attackers (e.g. archers) can only bring down a city to 1hp, to conquer a city you have to use a melee unit. | ||
|
Furycrab
Canada456 Posts
On May 06 2011 16:10 feaynnewedd wrote: Hey all, I played civilization 2 - 4, and I love complexity above all. What's your verdict, is Civ 5 worth it? Is it more or less complex than IV? Is it infected with the "Simplify so console gamers play it"-disease? Thanks for answers Civ 5 is easily my favorite experience of all the games, and I definitively don't think they simplified things for casual gamers. The stuff they put in is very crisp and makes sense and isn't useless. The stuff they took out made me skeptical, but when I read the reasons and then compared play experiences I now fully agree that the game feels better. My favorite change though is that enemy AI's actually play to win and aren't complete idiots to scripted AI. I often times consider them "somewhat" predictable, but at the same time they make decisions that I consider a human player would take. For instance, I always found it dumb that in Civ 4 if I spread my religion across my continent, the guy breathing down my neck was more agreeable than the guy on the other side of the world who I couldn't possibly attack until super late game. Or how the AI would still be super friendly and agreeable, even if you had 2-3 stacks of dooms on their borders. Or if you crushed everyone else on the map and it was super clear you were going for a domination victory.  | ||
|
AzurewinD
United States569 Posts
I loved Civ IV for its perfect balance of complexity and simplicity. The game had personality to it, there were always a plethora of things to consider each turn, especially in late game situations. Death stacks were admittedly a strange concept, and I do like what Civ V did to make combat a more positionally oriented affair. Everything else though was terrible. The idea of two tech trees was completely unnecessary. Social policies pretty much replaced leadership traits, which now seem utterly arbitrary and random. Germany gets a 50% chance for a barbarian to join your side and give you a paltry amount of gold when defeated. -_-' Yipee, a trait that becomes obsolete once everyone has done a modest amount of exploring. Meanwhile the Arabs get bonus gold from trade routes and twice the amount of oil. The perpetual pissed off look Bismarck has is probably due to the fact that he got shafted with a relatively useless trait. The most glaring problem is the terrible UI. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/aqbzx.jpg) Even at 1400x900 resolution, the GUI looks like it was designed for the visually impaired. Why does the portrait in the lower left need to take up almost a quarter of the screen space? Why are the circular icons for technologies so huge? Every information box has a massive amount of empty space http://i.imgur.com/cKhHv.jpg Again, the bombard's unit portrait takes up a massive portion of screen space and offers 0 functionality.Additionally if you're playing online, instead of making the chat transparent with messages appearing in the top center of the screen, the chat box is aptly (lol) placed in the upper right hand corner of the screen and eclipses the menu buttons such that you can't interact with those buttons and chat at the same time. The chat box itself is also a massive component, taking up another huge quadrant of screen space. Nitpicking aside. I also find it rather foolish that the game forces you to move or explicitly idle every single unit before you're allowed to end your turn. Numerous times the game would bug on me and not actually allow me to end my turn despite all units having acted. This also happened online, in which case, have fun when that happens because you're probably going to need to remake the game. Which brings me to another point. I'm not sure if they patched this, but when you bring up the menu online, there's no "save game" option. It's just not there. This lead many to believe that the developers wanted you to finish an entire game of Civ with your friends in one sitting. That is, until it was quickly discovered you could just press cntrl + S to bring up the save dialog, and the developers actually just forgot to add the button in. Needless to say I went back to Civ IV pretty quickly. Thats just my take on it though, your mileage may vary. It can be a very good singleplayer experience, especially for those who have yet to play a Civilization game. | ||
| ||
