Civilisation V

[Luk3us 63]

So I got the game yesterday, haven't played a Civ game in a while, its a little different streamlined somewhat. Which is both good and bad I suppose. I guess the most glaring change in the removal of stacks of doom. Its a bit of a juggling match to arrange all your troops properly to assault positions.

 

So anyone else get this 'renewed' classic?

[dbjs2009 25]

It's an interesting game, but I haven't played it before ..

 

[Doctor Destiny 41]

Never touched a Civ game before, don't need to touch one now.

[Inferno 22]

What DD said

[Nmenth 290]

I have touched a Civ game before, don't need to touch another one now.

[Gben 20]

I've picked one up in the shop... and then I put it down... does that count?

[Nmenth 290]

I've picked one up in the shop... and then I put it down... does that count?

It depends... did you absorb the game content through psychic osmosis?

[Luk3us 63]

And you guys call yourself gamers.

 

You're all casual gamers! YES I SAID THE C WORD!!!!

[Guest Stevie_K]

I was just about to buy it yesterday, but I want to know whether all the hype about the game is just warm air.

[Malovolpe 3]

Civ 5 is pretty cool. Civ 4 is still better though.

[Chronojam 3]

C&C3? No thanks, I've already got a C&C.

 

Starcraft 2? No thanks, I've never had a Starcraft.

 

Incomprehensible attitudes aside, Civ V is a pretty addicting game, very subject to "just one more turn!" syndrome and a good successor to... Civilization 2. Unfortunately it has several irritating bugs that were never caught pre-release due to firing all the testers a month before the game came out or something silly like that, and the multiplayer's synchronous turn system can be a bit frustrating (especially when it's got turn timers, and the camera insists on zooming you across the map to units you don't want.. instead of the one you just selected to follow up on a successful attack in the same general area).

[Doctor Destiny 41]

I'm sure one of those flippant remarks is directed towards me. I cannot stand turn-based strategy games, which is what the Civ series mostly is. I've never been keen on that genre. You can claim up and down how great things are but I still would not enjoy the game one bit. Hence my statement of never played one before, not playing this one.

[Inferno 22]

I'm sure one of those flippant remarks is directed towards me. I cannot stand turn-based strategy games, which is what the Civ series mostly is. I've never been keen on that genre. You can claim up and down how great things are but I still would not enjoy the game one bit. Hence my statement of never played one before, not playing this one.

Not even Advance Wars?

[Nmenth 290]

I cannot stand turn-based strategy games, which is what the Civ series mostly is. I've never been keen on that genre.

Yeah, that's one of the reasons I dislike the series too, among a few other things.

 

The game I have is Civilization II, it is quite boring and not at all addicting. I suppose they may have improved since its release, but I doubt it...

[Doctor Destiny 41]

Not even Advance Wars?

Never got into Advance Wars either.

[Luk3us 63]

The turn based strategy is certainly not for everyone even less so with the current, 'I want it ****ing now' generation coming through. But there is nothing like watching a plan come to fruition and those dastardly Roman cities fall one by one!

 

Even if that plan does take 30 turns. :|

 

 

But I can only play the 'normal' and 'fast' games, I can't stand playing games that take literally days to finish. A good four hour slog over a few days is more my cup of tea.

[Inferno 22]

1.5 hours is about my maximum attention span

[Chronojam 3]

I'm sure one of those flippant remarks is directed towards me. I cannot stand turn-based strategy games, which is what the Civ series mostly is. I've never been keen on that genre. You can claim up and down how great things are but I still would not enjoy the game one bit. Hence my statement of never played one before, not playing this one.

I am turned off by a lot of turn-based strategy games, but Civilization has a bit of a different focus over things like the previously mentioned Advance Wars series, or a game like the long-running Final Fantasy Tactics series. I can't ****ing stand most of the Final Fantasy Tactics games, and as much as I enjoy the mechanics of the Fire Emblem series, it is a brutal, permadeath, low-on-consumables strategyfest that I guess I'm not cut out to win. It might be worth giving a shot considering that you've never actually played one before, once it inevitably goes on sale on Steam.

 

If you want it to function more as an RTS (which I assume you like?), multiplayer has synchronous turns with a timer that merely indicates when your movements refill and your production queues click over; you can give "move here" orders that are automatically executed as a turn clicks, build queues on your buildings, etc. If you're a Korean Starcraft pro with 900 actions per second, you might grow restless, but I actually find myself rushing to assign orders to all my troops and workers and tweak my construction plans before each clock turns over. Units do NOT stockpile movement points, so if you left them idle you can't move twice as fast suddenly.

 

 

Yeah, that's one of the reasons I dislike the series too, among a few other things.

 

The game I have is Civilization II, it is quite boring and not at all addicting. I suppose they may have improved since its release, but I doubt it...

Yeah I remember playing Civ II back on my family's old Windows 95 computer when Red Alert was brand new, with a whopping 200mhz Pentium II with MMX technology. We could only allow one application to control full sound card access then. I guess you could doubt that 14 years later we would consider 6ghz on two cores typical with nothing unusual about 2 gigabytes of video card RAM faster than older CPU caches, but things do trend to improve over time. For example, the full set of non-UI graphics do not fit on a single sprite sheet anymore.

 

You don't have to like the game but don't make ridiculous statements.

[TheBlackOut 6]

I am loving Civilization V myself, just with school, work, and life, it's hard to sit down for hours on end and play it man. I loved Civ IV too and I recognize Civ V is so different, yet I still like it about the same. Both are just fun to me.

[Nmenth 290]

Yeah I remember playing Civ II back on my family's old Windows 95 computer when Red Alert was brand new, with a whopping 200mhz Pentium II with MMX technology. We could only allow one application to control full sound card access then. I guess you could doubt that 14 years later we would consider 6ghz on two cores typical with nothing unusual about 2 gigabytes of video card RAM faster than older CPU caches, but things do trend to improve over time. For example, the full set of non-UI graphics do not fit on a single sprite sheet anymore.

We were talking about gameplay, graphics are irrelevant. For instance, C&C1 > C&C4. 3D models, orchestrated soundtracks, and abundant visual effects do not make a game good, they never have and I certainly hope gaming standards never fall so low that they ever will.

 

You don't have to like the game but don't make ridiculous statements.

Seriously? You are going to start pulling this argumentative drivel yet again? Do you ever discuss a topic and not feel the urge to whip it into some sort of fight or debate?

[Chronojam 3]

I'm not the one making ludicrous comments here. Actually, let's look at what you said, because it helps illustrate my initial point (that in 14 years, a series can change). I can't imagine you are actually trying to suggest that there aren't gratuitous differences between C&C1 and C&C4, or that they are merely cosmetic (so we'll ignore that tangent on looks), but those differences make a great example!

 

Assuming that's not a typo, and even if it was, comparing C&C1 to C&C4 is a good way to review how a sequel can become so derivative (in a bad way) or evolved (in a good way) compared to the original product. With C&C4, MCVs are gone, base building is absent, tiberium harvesting is a thing of the past, the singleplayer is a joke, the internet aspect is radically altered (no LAN, must-be-online, no second disc for a buddy, gaining XP for playing to unlock your army), you can't hide single infantry in trees anymore and infantry themselves are hugely different (you can't plunk down a barracks to churn out ground stompers ultra fast) not to mention the whole upgrade system. This is just scratching the surface.

 

You might not like C&C4; and to step back a few generations, you might not have liked Generals. But the reason why was probably not because it felt too much like C&C1. In fact, for a lot of people, it's the fact they were entirely different games that turned them off! I'm not looking for an argument here, because that is practically history at this point; I'm merely bringing it up to show a comparison that people here should be able to easily digest. I know that RA3 gets mixed reviews. I thought it was fantastic, but it precisely many of the changes to the formula that helped get it there. Even some concepts that sucked about ye olde Generals were refined into something workable and enjoyable.

 

Much the same, Civ V is very different from Civ II A lot of people are upset because of significant changes from Civ IV, the game immediately prior in the series and not by many years, with the last expansion released three years ago. We're talking about fourteen years of change, eleven years more change than the departures some folks are already handwringing over, but yet you would doubt that anything has shifted in that time...?

 

It is still pretty funny that you used the C&C1 to C&C4 example when your core sentiment was that clearly things don't change, simply because you apparently latched onto "graphics then versus graphics now." I hope you won't paint me as argumentative for enjyoing that C&C4 is literally unrecognizable as a C&C game if you showed it to any of our younger selves (except for the 14 year olds who weren't even born back in the day!).

[Nmenth 290]

It is still pretty funny that you used the C&C1 to C&C4 example when your core sentiment was that clearly things don't change, simply because you apparently latched onto "graphics then versus graphics now."

I was not talking about change when I compared them, that was not intended to be implied, hinted toward, or even remotely assumed. That point of that statement was "Graphics do not make a game good" and that alone.

 

You are completely correct in saying that C&C4 is not like the rest, but C&C4 is not an example of what game franchises normally do, it is the rarely witnessed ugly creature spawned from the sewage systems of Los Angeles. You cannot use C&C4 as an example unless you are saying Civ II was a putrid waste of resources and Civ V is a pearl pulled from the swine pen or that Civ II was genius and Civ V an utter failure.

It seems to me that neither are the case and you believe both to have been good games. As such, C&C4 as a base argument for change is invalid.

 

If, however, you are indeed saying that Civ II sucked like a hungry vampire and Civ V gilt that forsaken series, than I will admit I was hasty in saying they have probably not improved in 14 years (but not wrong, as it is still an opinion). Otherwise, the change you speak of is a mere transition like C&C1-C&C3, which are still C&C (even if EA threw out the canon when they tossed Westwood).

 

A minor evolution of a series that maintains its core values is not the "change" I speak of (although I did not use that word). If I can play Civ V and say, this reminds me of Civ II, then Civ V has not improved as far as I am concerned.

 

As for your argumentativeness, I am referring to your use of words like "ridiculous statements" and "ludicrous comments". I don't care about your personal opinions about the game, your opinions of my opinions, or even me, they are your opinions and you have the right to them.

[Chronojam 3]

I was not talking about change when I compared them, that was not intended to be implied, hinted toward, or even remotely assumed. That point of that statement was "Graphics do not make a game good" and that alone.

I know that. But, it was a great example that I had not thought of, so I ran with it.

 

Please don't fall for the trap of 'every opinion is right and equally valid' though. Without resorting to hyperbole about ancient wars or modern politics, if somebody honestly believes that (to use our common love) C&C 4 is the pinnacle of real time strategy... well, their opinion is totally wrong, and they have clearly not heard of (if we're keeping it modern) Starcraft 2. I don't even like to play Starcraft 2. If I try to tell you that firing all the testers a month before Civilization 5 was released was proper business and development procedure, be sure to tell me off immediately, because it means my opinion is not grounded in reality and I should not be taken seriously on the subject.

 

(for context there, all the testers were fired a month before Civilization 5 was released so it has some goofy bugs, and it was a terrible idea)

[Nmenth 290]

Please don't fall for the trap of 'every opinion is right and equally valid' though. Without resorting to hyperbole about ancient wars or modern politics, if somebody honestly believes that (to use our common love) C&C 4 is the pinnacle of real time strategy... well, their opinion is totally wrong, and they have clearly not heard of (if we're keeping it modern) Starcraft 2.

No, everyone has the right to an opinion, not the right to be right. Opinion is not fact, never has been fact, and never will be fact. Opinion ≠ fact. If you believe in something that is fact, it is not an opinion. Opinion and fact cannot exist simultaneously.

 

An opinion cannot be "right" or "wrong", because it would have to be fact, in which case, it is not an opinion.

 

If you think C&C4 is the pinnacle of real time strategy, it is your opinion, not fact, and you are entitled to have that opinion at the expense of everyone with a brain larger than a pea calling you an idiot. Nevertheless, no one can tell you you are not permitted to believe in that lapse of judgment, to do so would be bullying at best, tyrannical at worst and extremely arrogant either way.

 

Granted, "pinnacle of real time strategy" in open to interpretation and under some circumstances will enter the realm of fact, such as sales or specs. For the most part though, unless there is a irrefutable proof of something, it is not fact, and if it is not fact, it is opinion of which anyone can possess no matter how stupid it may seem to the majority. Statistics are not fact, if 99.999% of people say C&C4 sucks, that does not make it fact. If 99.999% of game critics say C&C4 is wonderful, it is not fact.

 

This has nothing to do with Civilization, of course, but I felt it necessary to respond.

[Chronojam 3]

No, everyone has the right to an opinion, not the right to be right. Opinion is not fact, never has been fact, and never will be fact. Opinion ≠ fact. If you believe in something that is fact, it is not an opinion. Opinion and fact cannot exist simultaneously.

 

An opinion cannot be "right" or "wrong", because it would have to be fact, in which case, it is not an opinion.

 

If you think C&C4 is the pinnacle of real time strategy, it is your opinion, not fact, and you are entitled to have that opinion at the expense of everyone with a brain larger than a pea calling you an idiot. Nevertheless, no one can tell you you are not permitted to believe in that lapse of judgment, to do so would be bullying at best, tyrannical at worst and extremely arrogant either way.

 

Granted, "pinnacle of real time strategy" in open to interpretation and under some circumstances will enter the realm of fact, such as sales or specs. For the most part though, unless there is a irrefutable proof of something, it is not fact, and if it is not fact, it is opinion of which anyone can possess no matter how stupid it may seem to the majority. Statistics are not fact, if 99.999% of people say C&C4 sucks, that does not make it fact. If 99.999% of game critics say C&C4 is wonderful, it is not fact.

 

This has nothing to do with Civilization, of course, but I felt it necessary to respond.

If 99% of people say C&C4 sucks, it turns out that C&C4 sucks. If, on a scale of 1-10, 99% of people rank it a 1, it is of dubious merit to claim that it ranks higher than 1 or even that it should. It be a fact that the overwhelming majority think C&C4 sucks. You would be suspect to announce that it was the greatest thing ever, because that does not reflect its true reception.

 

Opinions based upon faulty premise, willful ignorance, or that are simply inconsistent with reality lack merit... the degree to which they lack merit of course is proportional to how "wrong" they are in the face of evidence. If my opinion is that aresnic consumption lengthens your lifespan, that opinion is clearly wrong. If I declare that cilantro is the best tasting seasoning and should be used in all dishes, I am being rather intellectually dishonest unless I clarify that I mean for myself; it is very well documented that a portion of the population tastes a bitter, soapy taste instead of the more desired lemony taste.

 

The belief that all opinions hold equal merit, or cannot be right or wrong, or (at an extreme) should not be judged gives way to conspiracy theory and at worst breeds ignorance. We could probably make a thread about this