Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Civilization V vs Civilization IV v Civilization III - A brief set of thoughts

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Civilization V vs Civilization IV v Civilization III - A brief set of thoughts

    Having played Civ I, II, III and IV constantly since they were first released, and through the various incarnations of Warlords, Beyond the Sword etc., but having never played CIV REV, I was looking forward with a great deal of anticipation to the release of CIV V.

    I can't remember the last time a PC release found me waiting in the damp chill of autumn air outside my local Game before opening, but CIV V managed it. I know I could have bought it on Steam, but old habits...Having played the new version for the past few days, I would make the following observations:

    V reminds me of a camera I was once bought - it had a "auto" mode which did pretty much everything, and which didn't need any great experience with photography to use. However, clearly it was doing a great deal behind the scenes - and that was what I wanted to get at, and was frustrated I couldn't. With V, its a similar experiance - the turn-by-turn element as presented is simple, elegant and most of the important information can be seen at a glance. But it doesn't go into enough detail for me, as a veteran player - I want more, not less.

    V seems to force certain styles of gameplay on me - in IV I seemed to have more variety on how I was able to play, however I find in V I have to build armies early, or the barbarians will become a major issue. I have to choose certain policies to adopt in early gameplay, as the benefits of a few outweigh others in a developing civilisation. I must micro-manage my workers, or they do something silly. The early choices in Tech are now massively simpified as religion doesn't play a part, and this seems to give less choice early on as to what direction to take.

    Some common-sense programming standards appears to be missing; when I click edit, to change a city name, the focus is not on the name change box until I click it - and hitting return afterwards does nothing, I have to click on accept. This kind of lack of attention to detail does point to a rushed release, and, more importantly, it is a lower standard than I would have expected from Firaxis and Sid. My choices on the graphics menu are not always remembered on re-launch, but some are? This seems random, like some sort of annoying sub-game where you have to choose items in the correct sequence to get them to "stick"?

    I actually like the zones of combat and one-unit-per-tile restrictions. It forces you to think about terrain, and the strategy of 3 and 4 tile bombardment, whilst using faster forces in reserve. However, you can end up with grid-lock during large and busy campaigns, especially if there are multiple civs attacking, which can lead to such a severe lack of movement options you are foced to pull some units out. And that big red bombardment arrow is, well, odd - it looks out of place, I would have expected it to be the colour of your leader, but beyond showing you where you are going to hit (and you knew that anyway, as you just chose the tile), it seems to have little purpose.

    The leaders screens are great design-wise, and in DX11 look brilliant, but the responses are laughable - if I hear "would you be interested in a trade agreement with England" one more time, I will go to war. Seriously Firaxis, if that is the best you can do, leave them out. Marvin the Android from the text-based Infocom HHGTG from twenty years ago had a better range of vocabulary and responses. The diplomacy feels shallow in V, like an afterthought, but I do like auto-expiration after thirty turns - it makes you really have to cultivate relationships so they will be renewed, or go to war of they won't, depending on how badly you needed them.

    The [current set of reported] bugs are frustrating enough to ruin the experience. Whilst I can recall that CIV IV had a few issues on launch, I can't recall them being this severe, or wide-ranging. V feels like a release that is rushed, and not exhaustively tested on enough hardware platforms.Trouble is, it now ruins the experience for me - each turn I am dreading another issue, rather than focussing on the game itself. The most recent annoyance is a cease-fire with the Siamese nation that steadfastly refuses to expire, for either side, despite both parties having enough weaponry facing each other to provoke annihilation. The other things which makes me sorry for the release is how few people on various forums are raving about this release - surely they should be talking about the game in a positive light, rather than having to report bug after bug?

    The AI - again it struggles with large wars over continents - and shows a distinct lack of imagination, especially with ships and aircraft, leaving them sitting in unimportant locations, ready to be taken out. It also doesn't really make the most of opportunities for taking strategic or luxury resources, although I haven't yet played at the highest difficulty settings, so I will reserve judgement completely on the AI until I have.

    The "advisors" are laughable - worse than the over-acted if strangely likeable characters from Civ III - they now look exactly like the rest of the interface - more like a console port than a PC game. Its Civ - "dumbed down" and simplified, perhaps that is the intent? I can't see what benefit they bring, except for really inexperienced players to the genre.

    CIV V is a bitter-sweet experience overall. If you look "under the bonnet" there are some detailed and intricate mechanisms at work; however, they are often just out of reach, you can see what is happening, but not change it with enough granularity to really make the game experience unique. On the surface, its far too basic in my opinion - as my 10 year old son observed the other night - why do you just keep clicking on "change production" and "next turn" - where is the fun in that?

    Graphically, in DX10/11 it is great, and to be fair not terrible in DX9 with the fog of war tweaked. But the zooming feels a retrograde step as well, not being able to zoom out to see the full planet is missing, and missed by this player, but the zoom in seems less detailed, and ends further away than IV. I would have expected a much higher detail of zoom, especially when zooming in, after all "black and white" managed that years ago.

    For me V should have been the pinnacle of the evolution of the Civ series, but somehow, even though I keep playing, it feels a step in the wrong direction. I was expecting more in every sense, not a re-working, and a change in the strategy. Given modern platforms, and the fact that, despite the graphics the only time the engine is really calculating anything processor-intensive is during the AI phase, I would have expected really customisable units, down to not only name, but colours, standards and individual upgrades, that manifest themselves not just with combat capabilities but graphically as well. I wanted to see much more city-detail, zooming into the streets, perhaps and managing trade quarters, commerce buildings and ports, local government and rioting controlled by military units, in detail, graphically and managed. I want vassel states back, but with the ability to mutiny, and broker deals behind your back. I want rogue states which threaten the peace of the whole planet, and which have to have sanctions laid against them. I want to terraform and customise the landscape after the technology is available. I want mountains to be something more than useless. And I want religion back, for all it represents both good and bad in the Civ programs, it is part of the inherant ideology of our world; perhaps an early choice where a civ can choose to embrace it or not? And is it beyond the scope of the program to consider late-game satellite colonies, space stations and moon bases? After all, what is a game but an exploration of what could be as well as what is?

    Overall - I am disappointed. I keep playing, because I like CIV, and I feel I owe it to the obvious skill and dedication of the programmers to see if it gets better, and to find out what is round the next corner. so in that sense, it is addictive to me. But it could have been so much more, and better.

    But there is one good thing - this will encourage competition. If CIV V represents anything, it is what can happen without challenge or review, the perfect world of the monopoly. Without any competition, the designers have simply had to create something they feel works and will sell in 2010. Something that they are happy with, and that meets the designs of their brief. Sid / Firaxis can't be wrong after so many successive and successful titles? They saw off the competiton years ago when Call To Power started pushing up the daisy's. Without the spirit of competiton, the drive to be "the best" in a field of many, you get stagnation, a lack of innovation and dearth of new ideas. But, sincerely - thanks to Firaxis and the designers, the field is now wide-open once more for a thrid-party to step in and declare "we can do this better". And that can only be good for the rest of us.

    Regards
    Skybird
Working...
X