Will you be dumb enough to buy Beyond The Sword?

[Ming]

Originally posted by DrSpike
I think we'll have both.

And I hope people who post to this thread think twice about discussing the posters, and not the topic

[OzzyKP]

Anyone who would do that is a total idiot.

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by EyesOfNight
Realism is not what makes games good, it's called gameplay. The maintinence system kills any chance for a player to get ahead. It's WAY too overbearing, and it's this way with the AI in mind. The way they make the AI harder is to handicap the human player and not the AI. Deity in Civ2 was like this as well which is why it was not a good MP setting. The maintinence system is a good example of SP taking precedence over MP.

Trust me, good players can get ahead just fine. Dominae has kicked my ass repeatedly in this game. The maintenance system doesn't handicap good players, it just handicaps players who build a lot of cities quickly, which would otherwise be a dominant strategy.

The maintenance system gives you a direct tradeoff between GNP, and almost everything else that you'd like - the land, cities, production, food, resources, and future growth potential that come from expanding.

To gain an advantage, you need to make that tradeoff at the optimal time. For example, if your opponent has keshiks and you need to beeline to pikemen, you don't want to expand at the moment, because it will slow you down dramatically in tech. But if you've just successfully rushed and killed the only other player on your continent, you can afford to expand quickly. It might hurt your GNP for a while, but you're pretty well-protected from your opponents, and by the time you have to worry about them, your cities will have grown and your GNP will have recovered.

I have to agree, I ****ing hated pollution clean up. The health system is a really good idea.

Those sorts of things are what really make Civ4 the best installment. You spend more time doing things that are actually fun, like building up your cities, and you spend less time dealing with the boring elements.

Civ 3 was only "broken" because yet again, they tried really hard to handicap the human player. All they did was take the handicaps from Civ2 and make them much worse. The fact is they have never been able to create a good AI and so they make up for this with massive restrictions on the human player.

Civ3's AI was far, far better than Civ2's. It at least understood it needed to expand, although it did so rabidly and goofily. Civ4's AI is less silly, but just as competitive. A human player can still push them around pretty easily, but I think that's probably what most people want, anyway. If you want a devious opponent that will take advantage of your weaknesses, play MP.

Civ3's attempts to handicap the human player sucked. Really badly. Civ4's handicaps on big empires are much better. Some games, like Civ3, have crappy handicapping that just annoys the player who's ahead. Some, like Civ1, basically let one player expand on his lead exponentially and become unstoppable. Civ4 strikes a good balance.

There were some decent ideas in CIv4, but as I said in another thread, these ideas weren't taken far enough. The game looks incomplete and you combine that with incompetence on the part of the game designers and programmers (Seriously, Civ4 has the worst interface ever created) and you see why Civ4 turned out the way it did.

The interface is pretty weak, but that's something I'm willing to accept.

[EyesOfNight]

Trust me, good players can get ahead just fine. Dominae has kicked my ass repeatedly in this game. The maintenance system doesn't handicap good players, it just handicaps players who build a lot of cities quickly, which would otherwise be a dominant strategy.

As I have said ad nauseum in other threads, slavery has allowed the better player to gain somewhat of a lead. It's not much, but it makes the game playable. BTS will more than likely remove this ability. Also, clicking on buildings does not take skill, the skill in Civ has always been in the ability to expand while fighting. Civ4 removed this balance and this need which is why just about anyone can be decent at Civ4. I won't even comment on the fact that you think Dominae is a good player or the fact that you clearly have very limited experience in high level MP play.

Those sorts of things are what really make Civ4 the best installment. You spend more time doing things that are actually fun, like building up your cities, and you spend less time dealing with the boring elements.

Building up your cities is fun? Then go play simcity. Also, you'll die very fast if you sit there building up your cities. Not much of an MP player are you? Why is it that the people who love Civ4 tend to be SP players or people who have played very little MP? Tough call.

Civ3's attempts to handicap the human player sucked. Really badly. Civ4's handicaps on big empires are much better. Some games, like Civ3, have crappy handicapping that just annoys the player who's ahead. Some, like Civ1, basically let one player expand on his lead exponentially and become unstoppable. Civ4 strikes a good balance.

ummmmm...wow. Yet again I am left with a reminder of why it is that Civ4 turned out the way it did. Maintinence=Corruption. Pure and simple. In fact, the maintienence system is more overbearing and handicapping than corruption ever could be. The difference is that you just don't notice it as much because you don't see those nice little corruption icons in your city screen. All they did was take the game and put it on a smaller scale...the corruption level still exists from Civ3 and it's even worse, it's just that you don't notice it because you're dealing with fewer cities.

The interface is pretty weak, but that's something I'm willing to accept.

I'm glad you're willing to accept an interface that would be considered poor even by games from the 90s. In fact, I don't think i can ever recall an interface that is so unresponsive and sluggish.

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by EyesOfNight
As I have said ad nauseum in other threads, slavery has allowed the better player to gain somewhat of a lead. It's not much, but it makes the game playable. BTS will more than likely remove this ability. Also, clicking on buildings does not take skill, the skill in Civ has always been in the ability to expand while fighting. Civ4 removed this balance and this need which is why just about anyone can be decent at Civ4. I won't even comment on the fact that you think Dominae is a good player or the fact that you clearly have very limited experience in high level MP play.

There are also plenty of players who clearly aren't in my league at all. The better players do win most of the time, kind of like how Krill kicked your ass a few months ago.

I'm perfectly willing to admit I'm not a good MP player, and that Dominae's better than me. But if Krill can beat you, Dominae likely can beat you too, so you're in no position to argue from authority (not that being a better player makes you an authority on whether the game is good.)

Building up your cities is fun? Then go play simcity. Also, you'll die very fast if you sit there building up your cities. Not much of an MP player are you? Why is it that the people who love Civ4 tend to be SP players or people who have played very little MP? Tough call.

Well, I was talking about SP when I said building up my cities was fun. The fun of MP is that you're actually playing an opponent who knows how to capitalize on your mistakes. (And building up your cities too much is one of them.) I've played maybe 40 MP games or so, nothing too heavy, but I've played enough to know it's entertaining and not anywhere near as broken as you suggest it is.

ummmmm...wow. Yet again I am left with a reminder of why it is that Civ4 turned out the way it did. Maintinence=Corruption. Pure and simple. In fact, the maintienence system is more overbearing and handicapping than corruption ever could be. The difference is that you just don't notice it as much because you don't see those nice little corruption icons in your city screen. All they did was take the game and put it on a smaller scale...the corruption level still exists from Civ3 and it's even worse, it's just that you don't notice it because you're dealing with fewer cities.

Corruption isn't the same as maintenance. They serve similar purposes, but there is a pretty significant difference. Corruption in later cities in Civ3 made it impossible to build those cities up and make them worthwhile. In Civ4, you can build up a new city - it just costs you a lot until the city becomes solvent. That's a much better system.

[EyesOfNight]

There are also plenty of players who clearly aren't in my league at all. The better players do win most of the time, kind of like how Krill kicked your ass a few months ago.

That was back in November of 2005. Don't be a ****ing moron, I know it's difficult for you. Also, that was original Civ4. If you don't understand the significance of what I'm about to say then you should stop posting in this thread because you have a clear lack of understanding of the game. Krill refused to play on a duel mirror map, and in fact he spent 30min arguing with me before I finally gave in. What we played on was a small hub map...a map big enough for 4 players. If you know anything about original Civ4 then you'll understand what a map **** that setting can be, as I pointed out to him before the game. Stupid me for giving in and playing that setting.

I'm perfectly willing to admit I'm not a good MP player, and that Dominae's better than me. But if Krill can beat you, Dominae likely can beat you too, so you're in no position to argue from authority (not that being a better player makes you an authority on whether the game is good.)

I'm perfectly willing to play you right now and kick your ass so I can show you how little you know about what little there is to know about this game.

I've played maybe 40 MP games or so, nothing too heavy, but I've played enough to know it's entertaining and not anywhere near as broken as you suggest it is.

Oh, I see. Then I guess you'll have no problem explaining to me the MASS exodus of all the good players from Civ4 back in 2005/early 2006?

Corruption isn't the same as maintenance. They serve similar purposes, but there is a pretty significant difference. Corruption in later cities in Civ3 made it impossible to build those cities up and make them worthwhile. In Civ4, you can build up a new city - it just costs you a lot until the city becomes solvent. That's a much better system.

Again, the fact that you can't understand this simple concept speaks volumes. The reason you don't notice the maintinence system is because you don't expand very fast...which is to be expected of someone on your level. Even in Civ3 with original corruption levels you could still expand very fast. Yes, there was basically a city cap at some point, then again Civ4 has a city cap too. Until you get code of laws and currency, it is almost impossible to go beyond 5-6 cities in a 1v1 duel while still keeping military going. The cost of courthouses and marketplaces is so god damn high that it's not even worth it to build them and so you hit a city cap very quickly.

While we're on the subject, here's another nice little concept for you. Due to the smaller amount of cities that you're dealing with, and the subsequent cap that occurs, your window of opportunity to gain a lead and capitalize on it is very small. Somehow I don't think you even understand that.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by EyesOfNight
Building up your cities is fun? Then go play simcity.

Sim City wasn't turn-based last time I looked - although that was a long time ago. The Civ 4 model might not suit everyone's preferred MP play style, which is fair enough, but I think that SP probably make up the majority of Civvers world-wide, especially among those who like to play at their own pace. Building rather than warring has always been a valid playstyle for SP, and competing economically, culturally and diplomatically with the AI will always appeal to a lot of players.

I won't be buying BTS, not immediately at least, but I didn't vote in the poll because of the unnecessarily loaded question.

For those who see Civ 4 as fundamentally innappropriate for their gaming needs, are there not other games out there which do fit the bill?

[Colonâ„¢]

I don't like what I read about BtG. If/when I buy Civ4 I may be looking for a strictly Civ4+Warlords option.

If you want an expansion that's worth its buck, get GC2's Dark Avatar.

[EyesOfNight]

Sim City wasn't turn-based last time I looked - although that was a long time ago. The Civ 4 model might not suit everyone's preferred MP play style, which is fair enough, but I think that SP probably make up the majority of Civvers world-wide, especially among those who like to play at their own pace. Building rather than warring has always been a valid playstyle for SP, and competing economically, culturally and diplomatically with the AI will always appeal to a lot of players.

I won't be buying BTS, not immediately at least, but I didn't vote in the poll because of the unnecessarily loaded question.

For those who see Civ 4 as fundamentally innappropriate for their gaming needs, are there not other games out there which do fit the bill?

Unfortunately all games are following the path of Civ4. They are dumbing down the game in the interest of simplicity, which is just code for "We're dumbing down the game because we think players aren't intelligent enough to handle the obscene complexity of a computer game." Age of Empires 3, while not nearly as bad as Civ4, has pretty much removed micro from the game (It's a ****ing RTS). Then they made it so you could only build 3 TC's to slow down how quickly people could build up. Then they give you free ****ing units by clicking on a card. YAY! I could go on and on about how that game is made for 5 year olds. All games for the most part are following this path. It's an insult to my intelligence to play them.

[Krill]

Duel mirror, one city elmination, anc era an ok game for you eyes?

[Jaguar]

Re: Re: Re: Will you be dumb enough to buy Beyond The Sword?

Originally posted by Ming


Frankly, I think it's ok to have an opinion that someone doesn't like the game. And yeah, this may be trolling, but I know EON truly feels that warlords didn't add much. And as an MP player, I wonder if BtS is more focued on SP and nurfs combat to much so that it will hurt MP

No remember folks... be nice and discuss the topic and not the posters.

There, Ming, I played your little game and seriously discussed the game for a little bit and got him to resort to being a jackass, as usual. Now can we get the thread out of the OT?

[Krill]

oh, and BtS looks like it sucks ass.

[EyesOfNight]

2 city elimination, and yes, it's acceptable.

[Krill]

Games up eyes. pass is 411

[EyesOfNight]

on gamespy?