T-Hawk I don't think the game mechanics are going to play out as bad as you predict. Most of them do seem to give interesting choices, and its going to take a lot more than three games to figure out which ones are best.
Darrell
Darrell
|
Civilization 5 Announced
|
|
That is sad then, because I am no Civ IV expert, and I won an OCC space race on Emperor the other day, and I even got declared on by a rival civ (built four infantry at one turn each and an artillery and played defense against grenadier stacks). So if it is much easier on Civ V, then it must be way too easy.
1Up's review is quite negative. And, I think most of the posts here suggest he's more or less on point. Example: he doesn't simply forgive/gloss over the AI.
sunrise089 Wrote:1Up's review is quite negative. And, I think most of the posts here suggest he's more or less on point. Example: he doesn't simply forgive/gloss over the AI. He is right about the AI, wrong about the social policies (Ah come on, change your government when it is convenient?), mostly right about not seeing what the other CIVs did (You see wonders of the map and you see "Consul" before an enemy AI if they took Liberty). Quote:What's more, the game loves big messy numbers. Numbers in the dozens, hundreds, thousands. You'll have piles of unhappiness, heaps of culture, clumped maintenance costs, and truckloads of food. Large numbers perch at the top of the screen like crows. Traditionally, the Civilization series has been about discrete bits and pieces, each an icon lined up in neat rows on elegant screens, easy to read at a glance, and easy to relate to the game world. A hammer here, a piece of food there, a coin, a flask, a bushel. This boardgame elegance is almost entirely gone in Civilization V, despite its attempts to streamline the gameplay. What? In CIV V you have elegant numbers. I know exactly why my civ is unhappy. I do not get this at all. Maybe he misses having each city with its own unhappiness/unhealthiness, but strangely I do not miss that either. I am suprised that Sulla does not like the design decisions, because if you ask me it took CIV III and CIV IV (comparable to MOO II) and reduced it to CIV V (comparable to MOO I). I like it.
Sorry for the doublepost. The AI is not bad, it is braindead.
I tried out to workersnatch this game around and managed to score a worker who retreated to the seemingly safety of a hill. I got it and was on my way when the turn after the AI puts its settler alone on the hill where I snatched their worker before.  Seriously? That is bad. Picture: http://img545.imageshack.us/f/braindeadai.jpg/ Gold Ergo Sum Wrote:Japan was always willing to pay me 300 straight up for 30 turns of luxury use (definitely do this before declaring war, since it doesn't have to be a per/turn trade)The AI is back to giving lump sums of gold for luxury per-turn deals again?  Let me guess: There's no period of enforced peace after such a deal, right?From what I've read, the AI is also settling cities in the middle of your empire again, far-away from home and surrounded by your cultural borders. It's also declaring war even if it's very far away again while having only a very small number of outdated units near your territory. It's also selling cities for gold again. It's also giving nearly all its empire for peace again even if it's not really in danger during war. It seems it's also open to ROP-rape again (this is a fault with game mechanics, not with the AI itself). All these mind-numbing things we had in Civ 3 had been fixed in Civ 4. I'm deeply disappointed that apparently Firaxis has forgotten all that they had learned over the years and do the same mistakes all over again. 
There are two kinds of fools. One says, "This is old, and therefore good." And one says, "This is new, and therefore better." - John Brunner, The Shockwave Rider
Kylearan Wrote:All these mind-numbing things we had in Civ 3 had been fixed in Civ 4. I'm deeply disappointed that apparently Firaxis has forgotten all that they had learned over the years and do the same mistakes all over again. Yeah.  I've never played Civ 3 but from what I hear about it, it doesn't seem like anyone working on Civ 5 actually played Civ 4 (or, if they did, at least liked it).
I guess the bad news is that the AI is really terrible, so SP right now is not really great either.
The good news is that this might be fixable by a mod (well maybe - how much is known about the modability of Civ 5 so far?), and it's not a core game mechanic (like city states are or religion was in Civ 4) - which means SP has potential? Of course, having to rely on a mod to fix the game isn't really what I hoped for 
Oh my days - What Kylearan says is shocking...
CIV III I played only briefly but found soooo many things annoying that in the end I gave up and waited for CIV IV, which, after a couple of patches, was a million times better. So many really bad mechanics, AI whims were removed and the game flourished - I'm still keenly playing today! Why o why could they not have kept the fundimental CIV IV core gameplay and added things like: hex tiles, 1upt + ranged units etc... Until some things are patched I can see that CIV IV is still going to have shelf life! |
