|
On July 29 2016 04:18 Latham wrote:
I just wanted to ask why do so many people dislike Civ 5? It was pretty ass at launch, but nowadays which game isn't? It's so good now after the Xpacks. Only thing I'm missing is speeding up building with slavery lol.
I also get the love for Civ IV because it really was *that* good but I just think people are afraid of change at this point.
I started playing V just before BNW was released so I cannot compare before that. But I really liked V
And from what I can gather from these leader videos I'd that most mechanics from V after expansions will return in some form.
The lead designer for VI is Ed Beach, who was also involved in the design of the expansions for V, so I am not worried when it comes to design
|
I think the devs should learn a lot from Endless Legend ones. I don't see any reason to buy this new episode (except for the realistic-historical enviroment) when the EL game mechanics surpassed Civ ones by far in almost any aspect. My opinion could look biased, I should probably explain it better, but still, now they have a serious contender to the throne and they should react with brave and interesting innovations, even copying from EL (like EL did from Civ) if it's necessary. You do not release a "space mod" full price (Beyond Earth?) meanwhile the others are innovating the genre and your vannilla game cannot even stand a multiplayer game (without continuos disconnections and bugs loading files etc), not with my money.
|
i think you are biased. endless legend was still quite a bit less popular than anything the sid meier franchise has created.
it's not through word of mouth or great reviews that a game like endless legend gets to the same level, it comes with the actual gameplay.
you may prefer the tactical RPG aspect, but to many people who are a fan of this kind of strategy genre, all that combat is just added fluff, and it did drone on in endless legend because of the family system. you're forced to farm replacements in the way they set out and do combat at somewhat pre-designated times in order to bring the new guys up again. it's elongated progression especially nearer to the start.
Civ still appeals to many more people and was already quite complex.
you think the studio has quite some money left in order to work on an entirely new formula? i do not.
|
On July 29 2016 04:18 Latham wrote:
I just wanted to ask why do so many people dislike Civ 5? It was pretty ass at launch, but nowadays which game isn't? It's so good now after the Xpacks. Only thing I'm missing is speeding up building with slavery lol.
I also get the love for Civ IV because it really was *that* good but I just think people are afraid of change at this point.
For many people that dislike Civ 5, the expansions never fixed the core problems. Diplomacy is still a mess, AI is still completely clueless, traffic jams from 1 UPT and road maintenance still suck, tile resources are still boring, having to research literally everything is stupid, and cities all just grow super big and build everything eventually. Specialization is pretty much dead and everything becomes the same.
In addition Bnw killed the pacing even more with the city science penalty making it take too long for new cities to pay off. The game is supposed to be an empire building game, but you stop building settlers for a really long time.
They've added enough for it to be playable in it's own right, but it's still got the exact same problems since launch.
|
On July 29 2016 20:48 nanaoei wrote:
i think you are biased. endless legend was still quite a bit less popular than anything the sid meier franchise has created.
it's not through word of mouth or great reviews that a game like endless legend gets to the same level, it comes with the actual gameplay.
you may prefer the tactical RPG aspect, but to many people who are a fan of this kind of strategy genre, all that combat is just added fluff, and it did drone on in endless legend because of the family system. you're forced to farm replacements in the way they set out and do combat at somewhat pre-designated times in order to bring the new guys up again. it's elongated progression especially nearer to the start.
Civ still appeals to many more people and was already quite complex.
you think the studio has quite some money left in order to work on an entirely new formula? i do not.
I do not make argunents judging the financial health of a company, it looks like a false premise since I don't know their money. What I know is that there are priorities in a development of the game, and some focused work on the game formula I think it's critically needed. Semplifications or detailifications have the same value in this and can be applied in many crucial factors to have a more smooth and enjoyable result. Even for me battles are a "added stuff", but what about let's say race's characterization, this is something can be improved greatly in Civ6 like EL demonstrated. Will Ghandi keep launching nuclear attacks? But Indians can have a lot of popolutaion you know... This poor level of characterization is so lame that it almost looks like racism.. There are a lot of things that are just done better without adding anything, and this doesn't mean they should be copied, but that the limit for the improvements just moved a lot forward. Can they keep up?
|
Hmm.. while I did really like EL's unique races, there were definitely problems with the game. You note the combat, but to be honest I think that's one of the weakest points of the game. It's so easily exploitable with ranged units, coupled with the bad AI, meaning that I usually avoided war because it completely trivialized the game. There is a similar problem in Civ V, but it's even more pronounced in EL due to the active battle system it has.
I also feel that while having all these various systems to play around with is kind of fun at first, it really breaks down in the mid and endgame. I've played around 15? games of EL, but only like 3 to completion, because going through the motions is incredibly boring in my opinion. Again, this is also a problem in Civ V, but I feel like it handles it better due to more focused mechanics, centralizing things like World Congress.
sidenote - the biggest problem with EL is the bugs; I've had a bunch of questlines be un-solvable or just broken, which ended games of mine. Though this is more a problem with it being a smaller company.
Summary: I'd rather Civ VI solve problems that a lot of 4X seem to suffer; terrible AI, and a boring endgame when the game is all but determined already. Not sure how they can do that. The other things that EL did well are just different approaches, not necessarily superior IMO. I'm curious what specifically you think Civ should adopt from EL.
|
IMO, the best way to solve a boring endgame is to end the game already. Rubber band mechanics a la Total War series just make it worse.
|
Civ 6 is already implementing two things from EL: cities that are on more than one tile and civilizations that are more than just some cosmetic changes although this second part is not receiving enough changes.
Although I am not sure what else they could implement as EL is more focused on combat than Civ games.
|
|
|
I really detest the cartoon graphics.
|
The ingame graphics are fine for me, but the leaders design are terrible.
|
|
|
On July 29 2016 04:18 Latham wrote:
I just wanted to ask why do so many people dislike Civ 5? It was pretty ass at launch, but nowadays which game isn't? It's so good now after the Xpacks. Only thing I'm missing is speeding up building with slavery lol.
I also get the love for Civ IV because it really was *that* good but I just think people are afraid of change at this point.
1upt basically killed combat strategy and army composition, cities felt super lame (no super science or super production or super army or backwater resource cities. Plus minor states and poor ai really messed things up and made it to easy. I Quit when on high difficulty made my invasion of another continent impossible. Not because I couldnt kill his units but because I couldnt kill them fast enough to move forward. He had units on every single land tile and some in the water.
|
So a dumb question;
As i am about to become a parent for the first time, and i see this game, i'm thinking 'hey, maybe i can play this one".
However, i'm a n00b for Civilization, never played it before.
Is this a suitable game for me? 
Won't it consume me/my time?
Is it worth the $/€?
|
On August 03 2016 20:40 Beany wrote:So a dumb question; As i am about to become a parent for the first time, and i see this game, i'm thinking 'hey, maybe i can play this one". However, i'm a n00b for Civilization, never played it before. Is this a suitable game for me? Won't it consume me/my time? Is it worth the $/€?
congratulations  It's very addictive so yes, it can be time consuming but you can stop and continue playing anytime if you want, so it all depends on you. I have 300 hours on Civ 5 so for me it was definitly worth the €, it's actually my third most played game on steam after DotA and EUIV.
But of course I can't really tell if it is suitable for you. You have to like that kind of strategy/tactical games.
|
On July 30 2016 00:06 EchelonTee wrote:
Hmm.. while I did really like EL's unique races, there were definitely problems with the game. You note the combat, but to be honest I think that's one of the weakest points of the game. It's so easily exploitable with ranged units, coupled with the bad AI, meaning that I usually avoided war because it completely trivialized the game. There is a similar problem in Civ V, but it's even more pronounced in EL due to the active battle system it has.
I also feel that while having all these various systems to play around with is kind of fun at first, it really breaks down in the mid and endgame. I've played around 15? games of EL, but only like 3 to completion, because going through the motions is incredibly boring in my opinion. Again, this is also a problem in Civ V, but I feel like it handles it better due to more focused mechanics, centralizing things like World Congress.
sidenote - the biggest problem with EL is the bugs; I've had a bunch of questlines be un-solvable or just broken, which ended games of mine. Though this is more a problem with it being a smaller company.
Summary: I'd rather Civ VI solve problems that a lot of 4X seem to suffer; terrible AI, and a boring endgame when the game is all but determined already. Not sure how they can do that. The other things that EL did well are just different approaches, not necessarily superior IMO. I'm curious what specifically you think Civ should adopt from EL.
With my mates I tried serveral times to start a multi and never passed the turn 30 for disconnections, bugs, unable to load again, endless loading times...that your lament for bugs in EL (which to be honest i've never found at least in missions) it's laughable to me..At the end we were playing in 2 just to reduce the possibilities of various problems, and still, never finished a multi in Civi5 for various problems. And you know... the problems with AI are a worldwide problem of technology, not just in games.. I think investing money in it when you can have real players with real brains.. But can you load the savefile in 2016? civi said no to us, several times, and asked full price money for aliens mod. I think we're again at the point when diablo3 met path of exile, marketing and brand against new realities trying to risk and improve.. We'll see
|
Some Youtubers are posting videos with commentary of their gameplay from the event 2K did a few weeks ago. Quill18 playing as England+ Show Spoiler + and Marbozir playing as Brazil + Show Spoiler +
Now these 2 are the only ones I follow, but I'm sure more will pop up in the coming days. If you want to see a little bit of the game if you're undecided as of yet, do watch.
|
On August 03 2016 21:52 TerransHill wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2016 20:40 Beany wrote:So a dumb question; As i am about to become a parent for the first time, and i see this game, i'm thinking 'hey, maybe i can play this one". However, i'm a n00b for Civilization, never played it before. Is this a suitable game for me? Won't it consume me/my time? Is it worth the $/€? congratulations It's very addictive so yes, it can be time consuming but you can stop and continue playing anytime if you want, so it all depends on you. I have 300 hours on Civ 5 so for me it was definitly worth the €, it's actually my third most played game on steam after DotA and EUIV. But of course I can't really tell if it is suitable for you. You have to like that kind of strategy/tactical games.
Haha stop. Continue.
Hahaha.
He'll never stop. Just like the rest of us. There will have to be severe threats from family members for that to happen.
|
On August 03 2016 20:40 Beany wrote:So a dumb question; As i am about to become a parent for the first time, and i see this game, i'm thinking 'hey, maybe i can play this one". However, i'm a n00b for Civilization, never played it before. Is this a suitable game for me? Won't it consume me/my time? Is it worth the $/€?
Hi Beany,
First thing I would do is find a youtube video showing gameplay of Civ 5 (the last game) and see if it is something you like. Much like the same idea of gettting someone to watch sc2 games to get them into sc2.
I would also wait a few days after civ 6 releases and try to find a review on it.
Is this a suitable game for me?
Depends.
If you like city managing, or want DF like game, without the migraine of looking at the wiki every 5 secs, go ahead. For civ 6 itself, it features a new mechanic called districts, but other then that, i don't see anything wrong playing it for your first civ game (unless if it ends up being bad rofl.) But honestly, if you want a good taste of the overall idea of civ, buy Civ 4 (19.99$) on steam, or just watch videos.
Most of the game, you will be either looking at menus to build/research things, or moving units around to do X thing.
Won't it consume me/my time?
any game will consume your time. Civ allows you to save and quit each turn, and each turn takes anyways where from 30-5mins(late late game). Only time that changes is in multiplayer, where it depends on the players wants.
Game speed can also be altered to either speed up or slow down game play. And what era you start on also can be changed as well.
Is it worth the $/€?
If you find it fun, then yeah, it is worth it  . I've personally gotten my money back out of it in civ 5 and its DLC. I cannot speak for Civ 6, as it hasn't come out, but check back here, and I am sure you will find people's opinion on it really fast.
|
Civ may allow you to save and quit every turn but for me, I end up playing too long because I'm afraid I'll forget what I'm planning when I come back to the game. That keeps me playing way past my bedtime.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
