On May 30 2012 05:38 murphs wrote: Played it during the free steam weekend. It's bloody awful in comparison to civ4. With their track record I don't quite understand how they put this thrash out.
LoL , now you can go sleep kid. Same same same .. haters talking.. Diablo 2 is better then diablo 3 ... starcraft 1 is better then sc2 ... civ 4 is better then 5.. I think some people are stuck in time.. and they wanna the same game after 5-10 years.. why making something new..
It's funny, Civ V has some really huge issues; including terrible AI, rather linear social policies selection, and an otherwise pointless diplo system. (at least some of which will hopefully be fixed in the expansion) But the things hardcore civ players complain about the most are the hexes and the 1 unit per tile thing; which are two of the best improvements IMO.
But there are SO MANY vey good mods for Civ 5...I dunno .. why people dont use them.. Vanilla civ 5 got for me like 7 out of 10 , with mods 9/10 .
You could say this about any game. Rome Total War had some amazing mods. But that didn't make me any happier about the rather shitty game I actually spent money on. That's like saying a restaurant that doesn't serve drinks is okay because there's a hotdog stand outside that gives away free water. I paid for the game, not the mods.
Mods can be fun, but at some point I want to be able to play Civ; that's why I bought this game.
I consider Rome Total War one of the worst entries in that series, if not the worst one outright. Many people consider it the best. I'm assuming that's because of the mods.
Mods to me are usually made by fans who are extremely passionate about their very specific style of play. There's usually a rigidity to the play style they offer and support. That's why I still prefer playing the base game.
I'd actually say Mideval Total War was the worst game in that series, as it was just Shogun but with mideval units. It was essentially just a mod for Shogun that CA charged full price for.
With Rome Total War, CA did completely build a new engine from the ground up and introduce a number of cool things. But the game design was just stupid. Taking creative liberties is one thing, but what's the point of making a historical strategy game if it's not even remotely based on reality? The three Roman Houses thing was basically ripped off Dune, and so many of the units had no basis in reality either. Cleaver wielding German women, REALLY?
Rome Total Realism mod saved that game, and I swore I'd never buy another CA game after that.
Yeah, most of RTW's appeal today comes from mods. Then again, the game itself was revolutionary in technical sense for its time, and it still looks good (especially with newer/mod unit models).
By the way I just realized you can switch to a "strategic view" in Civ V which basically looks like an old-school simple 2D hex map. Once I discovered that mode, I never went back. So much cleaner. I wonder if it can be played on my low spec laptop in that mode.
On May 31 2012 06:35 Talin wrote: Yeah, most of RTW's appeal today comes from mods. Then again, the game itself was revolutionary in technical sense for its time, and it still looks good (especially with newer/mod unit models).
By the way I just realized you can switch to a "strategic view" in Civ V which basically looks like an old-school simple 2D hex map. Once I discovered that mode, I never went back. So much cleaner. I wonder if it can be played on my low spec laptop in that mode.
Sadly that's the only way I can run the game on my Laptop with integrated graphics : / . Still looking to get some money to build a good gaming PC as it's even hard to play SC2 with the lag
I understand the argument that mods for Civ 5 make it a decent game. But if we include mods, Civ 4 is even more superior then imo. I loved the idea of the hex system but I quickly realized how poorly it actually works and I really shouldn't have to download third party mods to make the game enjoyable (other aspects like DLC pissed me off quite a bit as well). I haven't played in the last year (was disappointed the two times I went back to it in the first year) and I'm sort of itching to try it out again to see if it's improved. From this thread, it sounds as though it's gotten better which is promising. Maybe when the expansion goes on sale...
Civ IV is a ton better compared to V no argument there the fact that Firaxis is just reintroducing things that should have never been eliminted is stupid and everybody should be pissed.
Civ V is basically for dummies. What the series needs is a IV mixed with micro elements from the Total War series(Ministers, social aspects) and Victoria II(Trade, events).
I found religion and corporations in Civ IV to be extremely tedious and didn't care much for espionage. I didn't mind them removing those from Civ 5 as concentrating on the basics can be fun as well. What pissed me off was how terrible the game flow was at the start. There were buildings that were just not worth it because of their upkeep costs. They also placed too many restrictions to growing your empire and population, which is the most fun thing in the Civ series in the first place.
On June 02 2012 01:19 antilyon wrote: Did anyone else tried the Nights mod for Civ 5? It makes the game way, way better.
Eh, I've tried a bunch of different mods for Civ5 and been pretty unimpressed. If I recall, the Nights mod has really boring policy trees. They're far deeper than the ordinary trees, but they all give generally the exact same bonuses...every tree has some happiness, some hammers, etc. so you just pick whichever one fits your start and fill it out. I feel like most of the Civ5 mods haven't really done much to fix the issues with its core gameplay.
On June 02 2012 00:45 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Civ IV is a ton better compared to V no argument there the fact that Firaxis is just reintroducing things that should have never been eliminted is stupid and everybody should be pissed.
Civ V is basically for dummies. What the series needs is a IV mixed with micro elements from the Total War series(Ministers, social aspects) and Victoria II(Trade, events).
I disliked a lot with Civ IV, including the rather arbitrary religion system, and even the art style really bugged me. Something about Pokemon Ghandi really ruined the game experience for me.
I still say Civ V make some really good steps in the right direction, but you're right it's missing some stuff. The Social Policy system really didn't add much depth, depending on what type of victory you're going for you're probably going to get the same social policies everytime. Authoritarianism is pretty useless unless you're specifically going military victory for instance. The whole system needs to be revamped to put some depth back in the game. And they realllly need to fix the AI.
On June 02 2012 02:28 andrewlt wrote: I found religion and corporations in Civ IV to be extremely tedious and didn't care much for espionage. I didn't mind them removing those from Civ 5 as concentrating on the basics can be fun as well. What pissed me off was how terrible the game flow was at the start. There were buildings that were just not worth it because of their upkeep costs. They also placed too many restrictions to growing your empire and population, which is the most fun thing in the Civ series in the first place.
Look neither of these matter in online play - its all about choping and whipping the axes & cats, later trbuches and macemen. so its not a huge deal. same thing about the empire growing.. in pvp its again not possible, if you make more than 3 cities chances are your neighbours will come blunder them one by one with you unable to respond~~
Religion in CIV was actually pretty neat if you think about it: It was another way of managing your happiness, diplomacy and you got a possible new victory condition as a bonus. Corporations and espionage weren't so hot though (I usually turned esp off in single player because I truly hated the spam it generated with all AI civs just sending spies everywhere). CiV really ruined it for me by taking away government types and religion. Social policies don't give you even a tiny part of depth and possibilities the other two offer. And diplomacy in it has to be the biggest troll ever (and city-states in general).
On June 02 2012 02:28 andrewlt wrote: I found religion and corporations in Civ IV to be extremely tedious and didn't care much for espionage. I didn't mind them removing those from Civ 5 as concentrating on the basics can be fun as well. What pissed me off was how terrible the game flow was at the start. There were buildings that were just not worth it because of their upkeep costs. They also placed too many restrictions to growing your empire and population, which is the most fun thing in the Civ series in the first place.
Look neither of these matter in online play - its all about choping and whipping the axes & cats, later trbuches and macemen. so its not a huge deal. same thing about the empire growing.. in pvp its again not possible, if you make more than 3 cities chances are your neighbours will come blunder them one by one with you unable to respond~~
Online play doesn't matter in this series. Dunno why you're responding to me.
On May 30 2012 05:38 murphs wrote: Played it during the free steam weekend. It's bloody awful in comparison to civ4. With their track record I don't quite understand how they put this thrash out.
LoL , now you can go sleep kid. Same same same .. haters talking.. Diablo 2 is better then diablo 3 ... starcraft 1 is better then sc2 ... civ 4 is better then 5.. I think some people are stuck in time.. and they wanna the same game after 5-10 years.. why making something new..
Except that civ4 was better than civ3! and starcraft1 was better than warcraft2 and civ2 was better than civ1... ofc you will find a few people arguing this but seriously, civ5 is trash compared to civ4 :D
On May 30 2012 05:38 murphs wrote: Played it during the free steam weekend. It's bloody awful in comparison to civ4. With their track record I don't quite understand how they put this thrash out.
LoL , now you can go sleep kid. Same same same .. haters talking.. Diablo 2 is better then diablo 3 ... starcraft 1 is better then sc2 ... civ 4 is better then 5.. I think some people are stuck in time.. and they wanna the same game after 5-10 years.. why making something new..
Except that civ4 was better than civ3! and starcraft1 was better than warcraft2 and civ2 was better than civ1... ofc you will find a few people arguing this but seriously, civ5 is trash compared to civ4 :D
On May 30 2012 05:38 murphs wrote: Played it during the free steam weekend. It's bloody awful in comparison to civ4. With their track record I don't quite understand how they put this thrash out.
LoL , now you can go sleep kid. Same same same .. haters talking.. Diablo 2 is better then diablo 3 ... starcraft 1 is better then sc2 ... civ 4 is better then 5.. I think some people are stuck in time.. and they wanna the same game after 5-10 years.. why making something new..
Except that civ4 was better than civ3! and starcraft1 was better than warcraft2 and civ2 was better than civ1... ofc you will find a few people arguing this but seriously, civ5 is trash compared to civ4 :D
well I do prefer Civ V vs Civ IV.
Same. If they can fix some of the overly-linear aspects of Civ V it could be a really great game.
On May 30 2012 05:38 murphs wrote: Played it during the free steam weekend. It's bloody awful in comparison to civ4. With their track record I don't quite understand how they put this thrash out.
LoL , now you can go sleep kid. Same same same .. haters talking.. Diablo 2 is better then diablo 3 ... starcraft 1 is better then sc2 ... civ 4 is better then 5.. I think some people are stuck in time.. and they wanna the same game after 5-10 years.. why making something new..
Except that civ4 was better than civ3! and starcraft1 was better than warcraft2 and civ2 was better than civ1... ofc you will find a few people arguing this but seriously, civ5 is trash compared to civ4 :D
You forgot to add in my opinion , not everything you write is a fact. Trash means Civ V is really bad.. you thing is really bad ? Anyway if you love so much Civ 4 , you can make easy Civ 4 from Civ 5 with few mods , will be the same game , with better graphics.
IMO , with expansion set + some patches and mods , Civ 5 will kick Civ 4 ass really hard. You must remmember that civ 4 is old game , with 2 expansion and multiple patches , vanilla civ 4 was not that epic.
Dont know why a couple of people here are proclaiming Civ 4 > Civ 5 as fact rather than opinion. But in Civ V's defense I just want to say that I prefer Civ 5. But it is with great wtf??? with how they didnt include features (religion, espionage, etc) that were in Beyond the Sword in Civ V.
EPT
