murph wrote:
So true. I don't see the point in paying $3 for an extra civilization (that happens to have the best civ bonuses, giving you a multiplayer advantage), or for extra scenarios. I can't possibly see this money being equal to the extra time it took to code in another civilization, or a few new map types, etc. I'd say this somewhat applies to Civ IV as well, and the future of Civ V when considering expansions. Why didn't they just add religion into the base Civ V game? Did it really require months of extra coding, warranting the cost of the upcoming Civ V expansion? In particular, religion was such an integral and cool part of Civ IV, I don't know why they would delay this feature in a sequel until years down the road.

You know how businesses work right? yeah people need money and can only make so much with so much money, as far as i am conserned you already got alot of free content for civ5 without needing the DLC, so complaining for stuff you belive should be free just makes you seem kinda like an asshat.



And as for balance, it about how you play the game.

Igncom1 wrote:
Just because a game is a prequel does not mean that the next interation of the game will be better or have more content.



Yes, maby they are charging alot for the dlc. but just because Civ 4 had more content then 5 does not mean that the community created content is somhow missing from the game, afterall civ 4 has meany mods and alterations that continue to make the game interesting, civ 5 however has not had the time to develop such mods and is often looked down upon becuse of it.



And in the end, yeah it is a bad bussiness practice.....or is it? As long as the business is making money why should they give a crap? as long as people, some people are enjoying their content why should it be a consern? its not moraly right for a busines to do these things but no one really cares, in the end most fans wount be happy untill Civ 5is exsactly like Civ 4.



And thats what lead to Call Of Duity, one of the most succseful games series in the world.

Your last line... You don't know how much truth you speak. People are so dumb that they bought the same game over about 5 times now? Why? Because they wanted something new, but have the game stay the same. I'm not sure why people bought it, but they ate CoD up so much. People know they haven't changed game engines since CoD 4 right? CoD 4 was the last game I got in the series, then they all went to hell. Kids need to learn what quality games are, play Battlefield 3.



Anyways, Civ 5 is fun, never really played Civ 4, but hey, I don't care

One thing I did like in 5 though was that battles were more balanced, archers wouldn't beat a tank like in 4 lol

Civ 4 has a great modding community which in my opinion, makes it more enjoyable than Civ 5.

Baerschke wrote:
The best Civ was Civ3!

Ah, Civ 3 it shall always have a place in my heart because it was one of the first strategy gamse I played but Civ 4 was better. As for Civ 5 it isn't as bad as people think its just that it wasn't as good as everyone expected it would be. It had a good combat system and I felt that the AI was better if still a bit schizophrenic but at least it would sometimes admit defeat when at war instead of fighting to the last man.

Them there be fightin words!

The best Civ was Civ3!

in the end most fans wount be happy untill Civ 5is exsactly like Civ 4.

This isn't true at all.

They made a 4X game and tried to make it appealing to the casual gamer.. the sort of gamer that plays farmville and doesn't want to think a lot .. but wants to be rewarded with eyecandy and fast action.

I was able to have hours and hours of discussion about strategies in Civ 4. Examples? good:

Whipping? How long to keep slavery?

Cottage economy vs. specialist economy?

worker start, boat start, warrior start?

civics and when and if to swap to a military setup?

How to specialize cities? (GP farms, production centers, money makers, research labs)

and so forth and so on.. everything could be altered and tweaked a little and everything had its advantages on some map sizes or starting positions.



This is not possible in Civ V. Because they oversimplified it and thats one of my problems with it.

Maybe the found more customers with that strategy but if I don't hear _lots_ of good things about the expansion pack I won't buy it. Whereas I didn't even think about buying Warlords, Beyond the Sword or Civ V .. I preordered all of those. Well they might not care.. because I'm just one customer but thats the way it is.

Zoto888 wrote:
Ok, firstly, that is buying power, and is a very bad business practice. Secondly, you mentioned that "They can only make so much with so much money". The game does not contain things which were in Civ IV, which would only have to have been adapted slightly to fit the updated engine. Thirdly, Civ V had 18 Civilisations, each with only one leader, while Civilisation IV had 18 Civs, with a total of 26 leaders. Both of those are without DLC. At $3 a civ (price of DLC), that means Civ would cost $56, and Civ IV $78. Now, I don't know about you, but I think they are charging a little too much for DLC. Besides, your point that "You get a lot of content for 'free'" is invalidated by the fact you got more for 'free' in Civ IV, a prequel.

Just because a game is a prequel does not mean that the next interation of the game will be better or have more content.



Yes, maby they are charging alot for the dlc. but just because Civ 4 had more content then 5 does not mean that the community created content is somhow missing from the game, afterall civ 4 has meany mods and alterations that continue to make the game interesting, civ 5 however has not had the time to develop such mods and is often looked down upon becuse of it.



And in the end, yeah it is a bad bussiness practice.....or is it? As long as the business is making money why should they give a crap? as long as people, some people are enjoying their content why should it be a consern? its not moraly right for a busines to do these things but no one really cares, in the end most fans wount be happy untill Civ 5is exsactly like Civ 4.



And thats what lead to Call Of Duity, one of the most succseful games series in the world.

Igncom1 wrote:
You know how businesses work right? yeah people need money and can only make so much with so much money, as far as i am conserned you already got alot of free content for civ5 without needing the DLC, so complaining for stuff you belive should be free just makes you seem kinda like an asshat.



And as for balance, it about how you play the game.

murph wrote:
So true. I don't see the point in paying $3 for an extra civilization (that happens to have the best civ bonuses, giving you a multiplayer advantage)

Ok, firstly, that is buying power, and is a very bad business practice. Secondly, you mentioned that "They can only make so much with so much money". The game does not contain things which were in Civ IV, which would only have to have been adapted slightly to fit the updated engine. Thirdly, Civ V had 18 Civilisations, each with only one leader, while Civilisation IV had 18 Civs, with a total of 26 leaders. Both of those are without DLC. At $3 a civ (price of DLC), that means Civ would cost $56, and Civ IV $78. Now, I don't know about you, but I think they are charging a little too much for DLC. Besides, your point that "You get a lot of content for 'free'" is invalidated by the fact you got more for 'free' in Civ IV, a prequel.

As it came up in a thread of mine I wanted to give it the proper discussion room it deserves.

Civ IV vs Civ V, I think if we compare vanilla actually Civ V can keep up with its predecessor. Granted it doesnt have the depth of Civ IV - Beyond the sword but the vanilla version of Civ IV wasn't that good either.

But then when you add Beyond the Sword the picture changes.. a lot... I liked Civ IV for its good mix up of playability (casualness) vs depth.. and the 5th part is just to shallow... Most of the decisions are no-brainers (but maybe the expansion pack will give us something there)

but then again Civ V also has its advantages.. no more stack of doom... yes.. thats a big one... I also think the fighting concept in general became a lot better.



But if you want to totally crash Civ V in the comparison compare it to a modded Beyond the Sword (Fall from Heaven II, Dune Wars to name the ones I liked best)

these mods gave Civ IV a replayability and a depth that could rival nearly all the games I played in my life.

If you look at the mods for Civ V.. well there aint many... and most of them aren't good.



and the last thing i hated about Civ V... They sold me HALF A GAME. (if you dont buy DLCs)

compared to what I got when I bought Civ IV Civ V is laughable. There are not even half the nations (not even talking about the ones that had more then 1 leader) I got in the predecessor and there are wonders missing too. That for me is the biggest part why i don't play it much... I can't help but get angry when I start it and see all those DLCs that should've been in the regular version in the first place

They sold me HALF A GAME. (if you dont buy DLCs)

So true. I don't see the point in paying $3 for an extra civilization (that happens to have the best civ bonuses, giving you a multiplayer advantage), or for extra scenarios. I can't possibly see this money being equal to the extra time it took to code in another civilization, or a few new map types, etc. I'd say this somewhat applies to Civ IV as well, and the future of Civ V when considering expansions. Why didn't they just add religion into the base Civ V game? Did it really require months of extra coding, warranting the cost of the upcoming Civ V expansion? In particular, religion was such an integral and cool part of Civ IV, I don't know why they would delay this feature in a sequel until years down the road.

Well I think combat was the biggest issue in Civ IV it always ended in the "Stacks of Doom" the one with the bigger stack won.. and usually huge stacks of axeman was the endall weapon to everything.

With the end of the Stacks, the limitation of directions to attack from and the introduction of ranged combat, strategic deployment is actually an issue now. Mountain ridges, swamps and forrests must be considered. Landing operations now need to be thought through to be able bring the full force of your army. I think that was a huge step forward.

I feel like it improved its playablity to new comers of the Civ series, and yeah they really should of built upon the succsesses of the last game.



But im suprised about your thoughts on the combat system, to alot of people thats amount to herasy! and i too like the new one.





In the end, lets hope that step back was so we can make 2 steps foward.

Well its just a feeling but after a game like Civ IV (with all its expansions and all its depth) shouldn't a successor build up on that?

Its not like they had to design everything from scratch again.. Civ IV was the logical successor and improvement to Civ III.. with Civ V I don't have that feeling.

It feels oversimplified, it feels too shallow and it doesn't feel like the successor to Civ IV should feel.

The only exception to that is the combat system.. this was done well in Civ V. but everything else feels like a step back.



edit: Maybe they will be able to fix this with the expansion.. but that still doesn't redeem them

Well the main problem is that Civ 4 have had how many years under its belt?



Modding and expansions take time, afterall you said that vannila Civ 4 wasn't that great either.



A better comparison would be between the new Civ 5 expansion thats coming out and Civ 4 beyond the sword.



And the people that say the DLC civs make the vannilla civ 5 a 'half game' they were delveloped after civ 5 was released, and are indeed optional along side all of the modded civs out there now. Its the game mechanics that makes civ, not the additional civilisations.

The changes to reduce complexity in Civ 5, combined with a rather useless auto-build AI completely ruined the game for me. It took far too long to accomplish anything in it as compared to Civ 4, and technology upgrades were even more meaningless in 5. If you had the resources put into tech to actually get anywhere you would be researching fast enough that you could barely build a unit before it was replaced by something else.

stevenmc409 wrote:
Liked both, Civ 4 with beyond the sword was great but I lost it and vanilla Civ 4 so now I play Civ 5 a lot and I find it pretty good just not as good.

Same by me. They are both good but Civ4 is old a bit and most i play online with friends and my friends do not have 4



The thing with the DLC is very annoying. Payed so much and got only a half game.

Liked both, Civ 4 with beyond the sword was great but I lost it and vanilla Civ 4 so now I play Civ 5 a lot and I find it pretty good just not as good.