Civilization 5 Announced

[Cyneheard]

There seems to be very little choice here. Build a monster capital, focused on production and a few artists, and build absolutely everything in it. Puppet everything you find, ally as many city states as you can. Chosing a proper tech order might be of importance. Press end turn alot. I would love to get behind the scenes on this and find the true payoffs and analysis and micromanagement, but I can't quite find it. It all looks very, very straightforward, and I'm afraid my last cultural victory is going to play out it pretty much exactly the same way as my first.

You forgot two things:
Spam Trading Posts in every single puppet state.
Avoid techs that allow puppets to build worthless barracks/armory/forge buildings.

But, yeah, it does seem like an optimal or nearly-optimal cultural win has already been figured out. How long did it take T-Hawk to decide on the best way to get a speedy cultural win in Civ4? 5 years?

[Gold Ergo Sum]

I find constant doom-n-gloom about Civ5's future and saying its problems can't be solved, without giving the devs an opportunity to demonstrate progressive improvements through patching, to be a bit uncivil. YMMV. Perhaps uncharitable would be a better word if you don't like that one.

Civility is a matter of presentation. Avoiding flame wars. Being courteous. Lack of civility has very little to do with "doom-n-gloom." Criticism isn't civil or uncivil inherently, it is all about presentation. And I've seen very little that strays into uncivil here.

As for uncharitable, in what world do I owe a video game developer charity? They OWE me something. I paid them $60. I expect that $60 to be repaid with a great product. Even if patches improve the game, that doesn't make up for the product being released in its current state. The bottom line is: the game isn't fun FOR ME. I get far more enjoyment out of discussing the game and reading other people's game reports than I do out of playing it. I continue to follow the game and its developing strategies, because if it does get fixed, I want to be up-to-date on how to play the game at a high level. But ever since my save glitched in my last game 3 turns before victory, I have zero desire to spend time on a broken game.

[Zed-F]

So wait for them to fix the game. But don't assume the game can't be fixed, or act as if it can't be fixed. That has yet to be determined.

[Gold Ergo Sum]

So wait for them to fix the game. But don't assume the game can't be fixed, or act as if it can't be fixed. That has yet to be determined.

This is the last I am going to say on this. But where did I say anywhere, or even assume anywhere, that it cannot be fixed?

"I continue to follow the game and its developing strategies, because if it does get fixed, I want to be up-to-date on how to play the game at a high level."

Why would I bother to do this if I thought the game would never be fixed?

[lossofmercy]

Zed-F, I would like it if you could please take your need for positivity elsewhere. The discussion here has been intelligent, concise, focused, and solidly based on prior gaming experience. It is one of the better critical evaluation for Civilization V out in the internet and I really enjoy reading the honest (and deep) criticisms from people who have played the game. Be it negative or positive, it is clear that they are trying to honestly evaluate the game based on their prior game experience. And I really appreciate that, because it helps me vote with my dollar.

If all you can read from that is the mood, then I would appreciate it if you could just deal with it and let everyone do their thing. Instead of trying to criticize people about criticizing, just try to get people hyped up if you really do enjoy the game.

[Kylearan]

But where did I say anywhere, or even assume anywhere, that it cannot be fixed?

You have not said this, but others have, either directly or between the lines. Especially Sulla, and that's where Zed-F entered the discussion. And I think he has a point: There is a lot of fatalism and negativism around here regarding the chances that Civ V will ever be fixed to become a fun game. It's understandable, as we all love Civ, have a very good grasp of the principles of 4X games and had high expectations for the new game, and now we feel let down. But that we don't give Firaxis a chance to improve the game is indeed a bit unfair, especially when it looks like they are trying to.

And it's funny how confrontational people can become when they accuse someone else of being too confrontational.

[Kylearan]

You don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. When an established series makes a sequel, gamers expect that the good stuff from the prior games will come along for the ride. Civ IV finally found the right balance of limiting factors (health/happy/maintenance) [...] why mess with core game mechanics that were so well balanced?

There's a fine line between simply producing the same game again with minimal improvements, and making a truly new game. It's also a matter of taste on the player's side whether he wants a sequel which at its core is the same as before, or which tries something new.

Take Starcraft, for example. For Starcraft II, Blizzard left all the core game mechanics that worked so well before and didn't "mess with them". I loved the brilliant single player campaign, but shelved the game after playing through it once because for me, the game is exactly the same as its predecessor, which I find boring because I had played Starcraft I quite a lot and had explored all the options it provided for me. I'm not a big fan of repetition, and I even couldn't force myself to replay the Starcraft II campaign on a harder level, this time making other choices on the way, because it felt like Starcraft I all over again... I for one would have really appreciated it if Blizzard had had more courage to try something new with the core mechanics.

So back to Civ, I'm very glad that Firaxis didn't just use the same core mechanics from Civ 4 again, simply because they have been balanced so well, but set out to try something new. YMMV, of course.

[SIZE="2"](Back to bed for me now, as I'm sick...)[/SIZE]

[Serdoa]

I do not think I have read here from anyone that Civ5 can not be patched into a fun game. Heck, even now some people are having fun with it. What people do not believe is that the issues with Civ5's core mechanics can simply be patched. And I tend to agree.

They simply created a tactical wargame with an added builder part. If you look at the new things:

- 1 UPT
- Hexes
- better graphics
- simplified builder part

And I have the feeling the whole builder part is only there to provide units for the wargame.

For me, that is the issue with Civ5. Might be that it will be sometimes a fun game (I had fun with some wargames) but if they do not radically change the builder part to make it more then it is right now, I do not think that it will ever be a Civ-game for me.

[Zed-F]

Serdoa, this is the kind of post I am referring to:

I don't see any way to solve this problem, because happiness is literally the fundamental game mechanic underlying Civ5. If you tighten it further to discourage city spamming, it will make the game all but unplayable for the large majority who aren't using this strategy and don't know how to manage happiness. Tweaking numbers isn't going to change this. You would need a complete rewrite of the game's whole economy, and that's not coming in a patch.

This in my view is coming close to saying Civ5 cannot be fixed, for the enjoyment of hardcore players such as the RB community. I feel that making such a statement, without even seeing what Firaxis plans to do, is premature.

Zed-F, I would like it if you could please take your need for positivity elsewhere. The discussion here has been intelligent, concise, focused, and solidly based on prior gaming experience.

Have I asked anyone to stop discussing things? No. In fact I have agreed that most of the commentary made on the game so far has been entirely valid. I just find the prevalent mood here has been more unhelpful than helpful, and think it would be in everyone's best interest to remain critical about the game but present those criticisms in a more constructive fashion.

I really don't think that's so much to ask.

[Zherak_Khan]

Take Starcraft, for example. For Starcraft II, Blizzard left all the core game mechanics that worked so well before and didn't "mess with them". I loved the brilliant single player campaign, but shelved the game after playing through it once because for me, the game is exactly the same as its predecessor, which I find boring because I had played Starcraft I quite a lot and had explored all the options it provided for me. I'm not a big fan of repetition, and I even couldn't force myself to replay the Starcraft II campaign on a harder level, this time making other choices on the way, because it felt like Starcraft I all over again... I for one would have really appreciated it if Blizzard had had more courage to try something new with the core mechanics.[/SIZE]

This is slightly tangential, and I don't mean to nitpick, but I feel there is very important point to be made here. For the hardcore multiplayer SC community, StarCraft II did not, even in a most general sense of the word, keep the core mechanics. There has been countless discussions on how SCII is dumbed down, or as they say, noobified.

The core mechanic of SCII at competitive level is its extreme requirements for APM, reaction speed, multitask. Essentially, pure mechanical skill is the most difficult skill to learn in StarCraft, and this makes it a very special game. Compare it, if you will, to correctly inputing long combos in a fighting game or accurately hitting someone's head in an FPS, except there is a beautiful combination of pure dexterity and mental multitask which I have never seen in any other game. Several changes in SCII, primarily a better UI including multiple building selection, threatened to eliminate this defining characteristic of SC, allowing mostly anybody to macromange perfectly with little effort.

Later on, multiple multitask demanding abilites very added to compensate for a better UI, such as the Chronoboost ability of the Nexus and Spawn Larvae and so on and so forth. I'm not sure if this was successful. I think it's interesting, regardless, how what superficially looks like much the same game and for the average player plays in much the same way, still upset many of the most active players, simply because the focus of the game at a competitive level is entirely different from a recreational one. Part of this probably goes for Civilization 4->5 as well, and many players will probably not even notice what some of us so dearly miss.