Civ 5

[motiv-8]

Uh why is that stupid?

Have you ever even played a Civilization game before?

I doubt that any knowledge will break through here, but it's worth asking.

 

[Habelo]

Have you ever even played a Civilization game before?

I doubt that any knowledge will break through here, but it's worth asking.

No worries. I will take it as an apology, you dodging a simple question with another question.

 

[Kanaric]

Haha, you're not even old enough to remember the first Civs. I barely am.

The Civ series is great because it reinvents the wheel with every game rather than just updating the graphics.

A lack of content is not reflection of the game itself but how the financial model for high budget games development is evolving into downloadable content, digital content and episodic gaming.

I played the first civ about 2-3 months after release.

There has been a "lack of content" in the games. Its just that Civ 4 with its scripted events, many civs, and addons plus the features that were removed at this point right now is more entertaining with replay value than this game is.

Right now this civ game is still inferior to civ 4. If its because they made 4 expansions, so be it that may be the case. However this game doesn't even have the features of civ 4 release.

Civ doesn't reinvent the wheel every game. They think "what features make people cry the most on forums, lets remove them". That has been their recent design model. Corruption, now balancing tax levels, simplifying happiness, removing features they admitted made the game "hard" like disease and pollution.

Clever features introduced in Civ 4 are not even in the game. They just shouldn't wholesale abandon entire game concepts. They didn't do that with Civ 3 or Civ 4. They tweaked what was there. Nuke/paradrop was broken, fixed in civ 3. They tweaked corruption between the previous two games.

There isn't enough in this game right now to keep my attention to it.

Compare previous sequels of civ, even with expansions Civ 4 was just as much in the gameplay features side as Civ 3. This civ 5 is no where near close Civ 4. I was expecting some scenarios and things AT LEAST but we only got that with mongol DLC. This "panzer general" style combat is underwhelming, its just Civ 4 combat without stacking and ranged attacks.... that vanish from certain units later game. I think everyones gripes with this game pretty much covers anything else I would have to say about this.

I expect this game to be good by its 1st "expansion" or however they are going to do that now.

At this point they should of just done something new. Reconcile differences with whoever owns SMAC and make a sequel to that and work on a Civ 5 for a few years and come up with a featureful game. I could not recommend a Civ 4 player this game as it stands right now. Hell, they could of even just made a space colonization civ game LIKE smac that doesn't use the same IP but has similar game play. However we have to work with what we got, like I said i'm sure this game will be what I want it to be probably a year or two from now.

Map - Terrain caching fix that could cause problems for certain video cards (the "glowing red orbs" seen on the map are an indicator of this).

I have a huge problem with this, flickering terrain and red orbs. Doesn't annoy me enough to not play though.

 

[motiv-8]

No worries. I will take it as an apology, you dodging a simple question with another question.

How sad, somebody has never heard of Socrates. What are they teaching you kids in school these days?

 

[Cougar109]

Civ doesn't reinvent the wheel every game. They think "what features make people cry the most on forums, lets remove them". That has been their recent design model. Corruption, now balancing tax levels, simplifying happiness, removing features they admitted made the game "hard" like disease and pollution.

This I disagree with, Civ up until Civ V did reinvent the wheel every game. A matter of fact they reinvented the wheel so much they began straying more and more into the realm of micromanagement then the series ever intended to go. It was turning more into an empire management game then a game that focused on allowing the player to shape a civilization. That's why I didn't mind the dumbing down in Civ V where as I normally would have gone on a pointless tirade, it was starting to transform the series into something it never really intended to be, making itself more complex in the areas it didn't need to be. There are some features I do miss from Civ 4 that will no doubt get implemented through DLC or expansions with mods shoring up the rest.

Has to be the first time I've ever said dumbing down a game was the step in the right direction.

 

[thatguy]

I still can barely play, get to turn 350-400 and its impossible to play.
Entire screen fuzzes up, stops working, have to restart.

 

[Habelo]

How sad, somebody has never heard of Socrates. What are they teaching you kids in school these days?

Oh, i didnt know that Socrates knew anything about graphics. Please explain.

 

[Henry X]

Asking questions pertains to critical thinking skills.

The fact that Motiv-8 asked you a question in response to yours is a practice Socrates was known to use. THough I also recall Plato using it.

He was not dodging your answer in the least. The Civilization games are not known for their graphical capabilities, but their gameplay. His point was, commenting only on the graphics was a rather pointless remark since they are known for their aforementioned gameplay.

Now, if you were to answer yes to his question, then your statement become one spoken that would be right at home coming out of a fool's mouth.

EDIT: And I know I'm getting trolled answering that.
If you were to answer no, then you have no place criticizing the game's graphics, as you have no reference to go off of.

Motiv-8's point here is that it is rather stupid to comment only on Civilization's graphics.

And no, Socrates did not know anything about graphics, he was known for answering questions with questions, causing others to think for themselves.

 

[Vic Vega]

Hey does anyone else find liberation pointless,unless you want to own that player yourself just for the sake of it. I liberated Suleiman and the next turn he told my army to GTFO of his land and won't trade with me, making peace with the civ that destroyed him along the way. Sigh......(overall CIV5 is a great game).

 

[Habelo]

Asking questions pertains to critical thinking skills.

The fact that Motiv-8 asked you a question in response to yours is a practice Socrates was known to use. THough I also recall Plato using it.

He was not dodging your answer in the least. The Civilization games are not known for their graphical capabilities, but their gameplay. His point was, commenting only on the graphics was a rather pointless remark since they are known for their aforementioned gameplay.

Now, if you were to answer yes to his question, then your statement become one spoken that would be right at home coming out of a fool's mouth.

EDIT: And I know I'm getting trolled answering that.
If you were to answer no, then you have no place criticizing the game's graphics, as you have no reference to go off of.

Motiv-8's point here is that it is rather stupid to comment only on Civilization's graphics.

And no, Socrates did not know anything about graphics, he was known for answering questions with questions, causing others to think for themselves.

Sigh, you his second account i take it?
Well, i will explain it to you why graphics are important:
Graphics are very important to games, if not the most single important aspect of a game, without graphics you see, we cannot play the game. No matter how good the mechanics are. If we cannot see on the screen we cannot enjoy it. So, if i find it weird that civ4 was easier on the eyes then my civ5 is that really so stupid? It seems pretty clear to me that the younger a game is the better graphics it has. This is why i asked if it was some kind of bugg, or if it was my computer that was crap. You know, intelligent people like to do that, questioning your own quality before questioning the products. I did got my answer, but i also got some know-it-all that made a stupid and unconstructive remark.

I just had to pwn him alill with his own medicine

ps. and dont complain on the wall, u were asking for it ;D

 

[charles the hammer]

Sigh, you his second account i take it?
Well, i will explain it to you why graphics are important:
Graphics are very important to games, if not the most single important aspect of a game, without graphics you see, we cannot play the game. No matter how good the mechanics are. If we cannot see on the screen we cannot enjoy it. So, if i find it weird that civ4 was easier on the eyes then my civ5 is that really so stupid? It seems pretty clear to me that the younger a game is the better graphics it has. This is why i asked if it was some kind of bugg, or if it was my computer that was crap. You know, intelligent people like to do that, questioning your own quality before questioning the products. I did got my answer, but i also got some know-it-all that made a stupid and unconstructive remark.

I just had to pwn him alill with his own medicine

ps. and dont complain on the wall, u were asking for it ;D

Well that was a retarded answer,nice job taking it to an extreme, but you know that is not what he meant, and to echo what others have said graphics dont matter and no it is not the most important its the least important.

 

[Babri]

Sigh, you his second account i take it?
Well, i will explain it to you why graphics are important:
Graphics are very important to games, if not the most single important aspect of a game, without graphics you see, we cannot play the game. No matter how good the mechanics are. If we cannot see on the screen we cannot enjoy it. So, if i find it weird that civ4 was easier on the eyes then my civ5 is that really so stupid? It seems pretty clear to me that the younger a game is the better graphics it has. This is why i asked if it was some kind of bugg, or if it was my computer that was crap. You know, intelligent people like to do that, questioning your own quality before questioning the products. I did got my answer, but i also got some know-it-all that made a stupid and unconstructive remark.

I just had to pwn him alill with his own medicine

ps. and dont complain on the wall, u were asking for it ;D

Graphics don't matter much for games like Civilization. If your priority for graphics is so high, try playing Total War series. (btw ciV graphics are quite nice except the rivers.)

 

[Habelo]

Well that was a retarded answer,nice job taking it to an extreme, but you know that is not what he meant, and to echo what others have said graphics dont matter and no it is not the most important its the least important.

The irony is that you are the ones who are extreme. In response to kids/noobs who only look for graphics you have gone all mental on anyone even commenting or caring for graphics at all. I understand this, however graphics are still a part of gameplay and some graphics can be easy on the eyes, and some can be plain out annoying.

So, just becuse i have a wider perspective and dont let my hate for noobs controll my attitude towards peoples opinions doesnt mean that i automatically is a "graphic-noob". Mkay?

In many games the hitbox and graphics need to go hand in hand otherwise the mechanics of the game will not be as funny as it is intended to be. Same with Civ5, if there are red dots and all over the map and i dunno wtf im looking at then my gameplay will be not be as good as the game mechanics. Mkay.... mkaay

 

[charles the hammer]

The irony is that you are the ones who are extreme. In response to kids/noobs who only look for graphics you have gone all mental on anyone even commenting or caring for graphics at all. I understand this, however graphics are still a part of gameplay and some graphics can be easy on the eyes, and some can be plain out annoying.

So, just becuse i have a wider perspective and dont let my hate for noobs controll my attitude towards peoples opinions doesnt mean that i automatically is a "graphic-noob". Mkay?

In many games the hitbox and graphics need to go hand in hand otherwise the mechanics of the game will not be as funny as it is intended to be. Same with Civ5, if there are red dots and all over the map and i dunno wtf im looking at then my gameplay will be not be as good as the game mechanics. Mkay.... mkaay

true, graphical errors shouldnt exist, but they also shouldnt really effect your game at all. Graphics are lowest on the totem poll at least to me.

 

[removeduser_487563287433]

Sigh, you his second account i take it?
Well, i will explain it to you why graphics are important:
Graphics are very important to games, if not the most single important aspect of a game, without graphics you see, we cannot play the game. No matter how good the mechanics are. If we cannot see on the screen we cannot enjoy it. So, if i find it weird that civ4 was easier on the eyes then my civ5 is that really so stupid? It seems pretty clear to me that the younger a game is the better graphics it has. This is why i asked if it was some kind of bugg, or if it was my computer that was crap. You know, intelligent people like to do that, questioning your own quality before questioning the products. I did got my answer, but i also got some know-it-all that made a stupid and unconstructive remark.

I just had to pwn him alill with his own medicine

ps. and dont complain on the wall, u were asking for it ;D

Google Dwarf Fortress. Graphics do not make the game for people.

 

[Ascarona]

Google Dwarf Fortress. Graphics do not make the game for people.

Oh god no, I'm all for horrible graphics but I can't get a decent fort started no matter what I do.

 

[cenkiss]

Civ 4 had 2 expansions.

3.
Does not colonization count as an expansion?

 

[Neb]

Civ4:Colonization was a remake of the original colonization that came out in 94. The original was not an expansion or based on civilization. The newer edition was not similar to civ4 in mechanics, but did use the same engine.

I wouldn't call it an expansion to civ 4 because it is a stand-alone game, and replaces civ4 gameplay rather than building on it.

-Neb

 

[motiv-8]

Graphics are very important to games, if not the most single important aspect of a game, without graphics you see, we cannot play the game.

LOL, what? Have you really never heard of a MUD?

Oh, wait, I'm sorry, at this point you are inescapably confused because I asked a question instead of making a declarative statement. Let's fix that: There are these things called MUDs which are games with a limited, barely extant GUI (that's Graphical User Interface, "Graphics," lest your nose crinkle up in yet more confusion) that still to this day attract a huge following because they let people exercise their free will to fill in setting, character, etc.In other words, they're games without graphics that are still games that can be, like, totally played and everything. Is your mind blown yet?

Graphics don't make a game. They are a sufficient condition to crafting the work, but not a necessary condition. They are a visual canvas on which an actual game is put on, not a end-all-be-all solution. Pretty graphics doesn't make a bad game good, but a good game can still be good without drool-inducing, award-winning, cutting-edge technical graphical representation. Someone with your attitude is someone who spends all day staring at shiny trinkets rather than actually making something useful out of them.

to make this even somewhat on-topic after all the absurd meandering and ignorance, THIS:

is just as good a game as THIS

Some more relavent reference work for you, since you were clearly ill-prepared for this discussion formatively:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method

 

[Knight of Heaven]

Please this dicusion is pointless in the end it resumes in one thing, people who have brains like to play civ 5


In my opinion Civ 5 is very well acomplished, it is more simple to play, more easy to learn then before ( i mean it is better organized) and graphics and animations yes they are better. yet i miss more options, more ramdom maps, more civs , and i miss the old days of call to power, the futuristic cities and tech. etc. I like also the new utopic project as well. How the player can use the culture points to buy politic slots and pave the way how the empire goes politicaly. the adition of city states brings more to the game as well. diplomacy s good, but is hard to bring alies to you side. at least it makes you feel you arent in control of that. wich is good i supose. Sometimes at least.

 

[Scipio Afracanis]

Strategic Command, Legion, Sparta, (TBS games but still some of my fav.)

I was gonna buy Civ 5 because the graphics looked really nice, but after alot of negative reviews from here I will wait for some encouraging news.
(Sunk my money into another work in progress, Elemental:War of Magic. Only can afford one of those a year)

 

[Fight!]

Can we get back to stories of conquests and failures? The stories are the only reason I come to this thread, considering I don't have the game

 

[last_name_left]

Sorry if this has been mentioned already, but any views on the apparent inability of Civ5 AI to negotiate water and conduct overseas invasions? [Now where have I heard that before....?]

 

[Tia]

Please stay on topic, I don't want a moderator to make a post about being off-topic here.

 

[Knight of Heaven]

Sorry if this has been mentioned already, but any views on the apparent inability of Civ5 AI to negotiate water and conduct overseas invasions? [Now where have I heard that before....?]

Yeah i did find diplomatic relations very dificult to acomplish unless the Ai likes you, wich is almost never it is kinda weird the paratemers to diplomacy i think ehey are badly made. when we talking to Major Civs.

 

[Fight!]

You know, you guys could always start a thread for this argument.

Instead of, you know, derailing the thread.

 

[Henry X]

You know, you guys could always start a thread for this argument.

Instead of, you know, derailing the thread.

GTFO with your sense and logic.

Habelo is digging his grave in this arguement, we're just providing the shovels.

As for the game, I'm letting my friend play it while I get to play Rhye's and Fall of Civilization on Beyond the Sword.

And I'm enjoying it quite a bit.

 

[Fight!]

GTFO with your sense and logic.

Anyways, in a more related note, are the techs relatively the same as past games, or have they been changed around?

 

[Kanaric]

You know, you guys could always start a thread for this argument.

Instead of, you know, derailing the thread.

There is nothing to talk about other than mods until they patch this game anyways.


Well I guess we could talk about what we would like to see.

I have a fairly powerful computer so I have played with all civs on the largest map without long turn times, I would like to see a larger map size and more civs. I want to play a 30-40 civ game on a ridiculously huge earth map with a game mode that takes longer than Marathon but has reduced time for production.

I like marathon but production other than very late game if you have perfectly located super cities is ridiculous.

I have had in Marathon the ability to build death robots in 5-8 turns depending on city. Though I was playing as India with mega cities.

Monopoly have no graphics. I cant think a single computer game that dont have graphics, that is why you fail

I can think of several. Zork and Nethack are two off the top of my head. They literally have NO graphics. Unless you consider Nethack's ascii art graphics. Zork is just text.

 

[Henry X]

When I was playing it on my friend's computer, the techs didn't seem too different, but that was a couple of months ago when I played it, so my memory might be a little ferby.