Reply With QuoteReligion is a lot of fun.
If you liked Civ5 then you definitely need to get G&H.
If you hated Civ5... religion and the city states improvements certainly improve the game, but nothing in the expansion improved the game enough to overcome its flaws.
Yes
NO
Bananas, I have not bought it yet
Notice the verb was, and the third choice. Don't vote no just because you think it will be bad.
Religion is a lot of fun.
If you liked Civ5 then you definitely need to get G&H.
If you hated Civ5... religion and the city states improvements certainly improve the game, but nothing in the expansion improved the game enough to overcome its flaws.
Last edited by OzzyKP; June 20, 2012 at 11:37.
Captain of Team Apolyton - ISDG 2012
When I was younger I thought curfews were silly, but now as the daughter of a young woman, I appreciate them. - Rah
>but nothing in the expansion improved the game enough to overcome its flaws.
Except that the main complain was about tactical AI, and there they made great improvements.
The game feels different now, it lost its linear feeling of Civ V. I definitely can say that this is what Civ V meant to be. This is the first time I felt lost in options, not because this game is new, but there are many of them and lots of interesting decisions to make.
At the same time I played only about half a game, so, I may change my mind after few more games, but right now it feels better than Civ IV. Yeah, I said it. Religions arguably implemented BETTER than in civ IV, espionage is about the same, but I do like it a bit better here, without having extra units to deal with and with aspects of city states. Diplomacy I am not sure about, since I played limited number of games, but intrigue brings quite interesting aspect, so I would say that it is about the same as in Civ IV (I hated the impact of religions on diplomacy in Civ IV - it felt so artificial, not so in Civ V). What else? I do like combat now more than in Civ IV. The only thing which is missing is corporation, but hey, this is just first expansion. Instead of corporations, Civ V has city states, which is now really, really fun to play with.
So, kudos to Firaxis team, I think they pulled that off!
Last edited by MxM; June 20, 2012 at 14:34.
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
-- Bertrand Russell
Nikolai (June 21, 2012)
Yes from what little I have been able to play of it. But was it worth $26 after the full retail price I paid for Civ V already? Logically no, but it's been a couple years so the pain of that transaction has worn off a bit.
Now the smart people waited and picked up the full editions for $10 or whatever on Steam then got G&K.
You forgot a fourth choice:
"I preordered Civ V via Steam, but thanks to Steam releasing the DLC later if you don´t live in the USA, I cannot play it yet"
What's interesting that this attempt to get another 30$ from gamers for allegedly fixed Civ Rev II does not even pique my interest to check it out, is quite remarkable after being excited by all things Civ, SMAC and CTP for about 20 years...
I am not even curious!
Socrates: "Good is That at which all things aim, If one knows what the good is, one will always do what is good." Brian: "Romanes eunt domus"
GW 2013: "and juistin bieber is gay with me and we have 10 kids we live in u.s.a in the white house with obama"
Only $22 with the Apolyton discount!Originally Posted by OneFootInTheGrave
Captain of Team Apolyton - ISDG 2012
When I was younger I thought curfews were silly, but now as the daughter of a young woman, I appreciate them. - Rah
Worth buying?
Yes. For me, Gods and Kings is very fun.
Of course, I actually liked Civ5. Like I liked Godzilla 98 and the movie for Voyage of the Dawn Treader while everyone else in the respective fandoms detest both.
I don't know what I've been told!
Deidre's got a Network Node!
Love to press the Buster Switch!
Gonna nuke that crazy witch!
I have puchased it and it is quite worth buying....
For those that have it, here is a chance for you to have gotten the game for free....
http://apolyton.net/showthread.php/1...n-V-Gods-Kings!
Just write a review and post it... you can be a winner
Keep on Civin'
RIP Baron O
Having now played two games. I have to agree with the above. This is how Civ IV should have been from the start. Not only did they add a couple major things, but they fixed a lot of minor programming issues that drove me crazy. The game is a lot more fun. If they waited and released this, we wouldn't have been *****ing for the last year.
Mike
Yes
So far I'm still in the first game and enjoys it. I'm player on a lower level as usual, so I can spend more energy in learning the new religion and spy systems. I'm playing as Maya (the name of my wife is Mayann, so it seemed like a good civ to start with), who gets a nice religion bonus from the start of the game
To be honest my first game (which I quit very early) was at a higher level, but I was surprised how fast the AI got faith. Most of the AI's had gotten patheon (or however it's spelled) within no time, they all had gotten it before I even had my first faith and I was aiming to get faith as fast as possible
This space is empty... or is it?
A couple of civilizations are able to generate Faith before they can build Shrines--for example, the Celts get 1 free Faith per turn from having unimproved Forests within their city's territory.
Second, they may have gained Faith from exploring. One of the possible rewards from "goody huts" is a lump sum of faith points. Also, when you meet a Religious City-State, they will give you a few Faith points as a gift up front.
Those who live by the sword...get shot by those who live by the gun.
I can understand that, but it just seemed weird that 9+ civs got enough faith before I got my first faith
This space is empty... or is it?
True, it seems that several civs are ahead in creating the pantheon but not important since you have enough religions to choose from and still more then half of the other civs are behind you. (My first game I was worried and too but now I know it is not that big a deal.)
I liked Godzilla 98 only because of Jean Reno and Hank Azaria--the rest was crap. The Dawn Treader movie was irredeemably terrible, even with the awesome kid who played Eustace and Georgie Henley both trying their respective bests.
Both my impression and reviews from oldtime Civ players I respect say that Civ5 is terrible; for that reason, I'm content to say it is in fact terrible, without playing it. You may say this is unfair, but that's what Drake said when I bashed 300: "don't ***** about a movie you haven't even seen, stupid!" So I checked it out from the library a few years later and watched it and it was even worse than it looked and now the damned thing is stuck in my memory neurons, taking up precious space with its dancing oily thong warriors and attack rhinos and garish nightclub color scheme. Someday I might want to learn something new and not be able to because the space in my head it would've occupied is already taken up by a nine-foot-tall punk-rock emperor and his fat-guy-with-sword-hands executioner. I've learned my lesson: Civ5 is bad. No, I will not play it to find out. Not until the game is free and technology exists to expunge its oily stain from my soul in the likely event that I am right about it.
1011 1100
This has happened to me also(twice) but both times I was the first or second person to found a religion and that is the key.
Speaking of religion is there any reason to spread it to your enemies?
Mike
Depends on the circumstances.
Most of the founders beliefs are directly affected by either the number of cities following your religion, or the numbers of followers.
Therefore yes, it may be beneficial for your own empire to convert your enemies cities.
This is especially the case if the enemy is the founder of the religions which his own cities currently adhere to,
as every city converted to your religion is one city less that gives your enemy benefits becauzse of his founders beliefs.
Civ 5 has about $70 worth of DLC so far... making this a $130 game (assuming you bought everything upon release).
Most of the DLC is content a single person with a moderate amount of modding experience can make in a day... extra civs, useless scenarios, etc.
G&K seems like something that should have been in the game in the first place. Civ 5 had a considerably less amount of features than fully expanded Civ 4. It seems completely unjustified to me for a company to release a product inferior to the previous title. It also seems to be very unethical from a business standpoint to purposely designate content as "DLC" and keep it out of the initial retail release.
But if they can get away with it, why not?
The only thing we can do is complain about it and hope that this negative feedback dissuades potential buyers from purchasing the game and/or additional content.
bought it, it´s better, but still fundamentally lacking in a number of ways.
Need to play while in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean where there is no Internet . . . Really. I am still wondering if I should get it????
More on the useless AI:
http://www.quartertothree.com/fp/201...ivilization-v/
IMHO this is connected to the question whether you should play Civ V or not ...
if you still play Civ V, go end get the expansion, as it definitely enhances gameplay ...
if not ... well, while enhancing gameplay G&K definitely doesn´t turn Civ V into Civ IV
that, and the game is utter garbage... people would and will pay for DLC's if the game is fun... like I waste money on scorched TF2 crates... if you spend time you will not mind the money, but unfortunetely civ V is so rubbish that well, there is no hope + given their Civ Rev + 5 focus, there is little hope there will ever be something better than Civ IV BTS with current mods...
Socrates: "Good is That at which all things aim, If one knows what the good is, one will always do what is good." Brian: "Romanes eunt domus"
GW 2013: "and juistin bieber is gay with me and we have 10 kids we live in u.s.a in the white house with obama"
Considering the law of odd and even Civ version numbers, there is a lot of hope that Civ VI will be a game that far surpasses Civ IV in terms of depth, number of features and entertainment value
An important question: Is the game faster? The first few turns take 3-5 seconds on my machine. That is too long and the game overall makes you wait far too much. Any change in the right direction?
Diplogamer formerly known as LzPrst
Rather a change into the opposite direction ...
the game has become a little bit slower with G&K (at least on my machine ... not a problem for me, as my rig still processes turns fast enough for my taste, but I can imagine that it ia s problem for slower rigs)
my rig is actually quite good, but I need a new ssd where I can fit both OS and games if I want more speed I suppose. Though the difference from civ4 to civ5 is huge. civ4, 1 second per turn in the early game. Civ5 3-5 seconds per turn in the same epoch. and that increases as the game progresses, making the whole thing a passive affair. Is there more to do per turn now? Because the wait would be tolerable if the game has evolved from just hitting end turn button...
Diplogamer formerly known as LzPrst
I would definitely say yes ...
with sending missionaries around and using spies there is a little bit more to do aside from the usual shuffling of military units.
It also has become a little bit more of a challenge to keep a positive gold balance in early game, as they shifted the ability to build trading huts to a later medieval game tech (1 or 2 technologies further down the road).
An additional positive change with G&K is, that the AI Diplomacy has become less insane now. The AI players aren´t always out for war (not even if they are your direct neighbors) and will offer peace earlier if they see you are superior (sometimes after only a few battles and without you needing to conquer a single of their cities
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks