New Civ V Expansion Announced: Call Everyone Else Heretics and Fill Their Cities With Spies

[Captain Shrek]

If you disagree that she is recognizable, why would she be a good marketing pick?

You tell us.

 

[Captain Shrek]

They just wanted more 'wimmin' as rulers to balance it out. That's the marketing bit...CIV V, A GAME FOR ALL (TRANS)GENDERS!!!!

Ninja'd.

 

[sser]

If you disagree that she is recognizable, why would she be a good marketing pick?

Are you being serious with this question?

They're not selling Dido, they're selling the woman.

 

[JarlFrank]

Oh, okay. Guess I'm just not rooted in modern society's way of thinking enough to really get this marketing trick, then.

 

[Captain Shrek]

Oh, okay. Guess I'm just not rooted in modern society's way of thinking enough to really get this marketing trick, then.

Have you heard what EA is celebrating this month?

 

[JarlFrank]

No, I haven't. Probably something like women's gaming month?

 

[Harpsichord]

Somehow, women have something to do with LGBT.

*shrugs*

 

[Kalin]

The Civ games would be much better off without specific leaders. The one exception is Alpha Centauri, where they had actual personalities and the whole gene theraphy thing at least offered an explanation for their longevity, but to see animated cartoonish faces of Shaka, Dido and Lincoln pop up all throughout the ages provides nothing of value.

 

[Marsal]

The Civ games would be much better off without specific leaders. The one exception is Alpha Centauri, where they had actual personalities and the whole gene theraphy thing at least offered an explanation for their longevity, but to see animated cartoonish faces of Shaka, Dido and Lincoln pop up all throughout the ages provides nothing of value.

I liked those portraits in Civ games (not as much in Civ V, though). I think they "flesh out" opponents, making them less abstract and add to IMMERSHUN. I also liked leaders (spy and scientist reports, too) in MoO 2.

 

[Malakal]

The Civ games would be much better off without specific leaders. The one exception is Alpha Centauri, where they had actual personalities and the whole gene theraphy thing at least offered an explanation for their longevity, but to see animated cartoonish faces of Shaka, Dido and Lincoln pop up all throughout the ages provides nothing of value.

Wut. Leaders had personalities both in civ 4 and 5. Comparing Alexander to Mansa Musa isnt even possible since they both play by the different rules and have different goals. Your point is completely missed. Different leaders do give your opponents more spirit and immersion - after all you KNOW what to expect of the Ghenghis Khan dont you?

 

[Kalin]

Well, sure, the choice of leader affects bonuses and priorities, which in turn affects the outcome of the game, but Civ leaders are not realistic national leaders. Personally, I would much prefer if they simply did away with the whole character aspect in favour of, say, pictures depicting the cultures and their current levels of advancement.

Not to say that the combinations of traits and bonuses should be removed, of course, just the cartoonish nonsense that surrounds them.

 

[Father Walker]

The Civ games would be much better off without specific leaders. The one exception is Alpha Centauri, where they had actual personalities and the whole gene theraphy thing at least offered an explanation for their longevity, but to see animated cartoonish faces of Shaka, Dido and Lincoln pop up all throughout the ages provides nothing of value.

Civ games wouldn't be the same without Abe Lincoln sending his club wielding cavemen to conquer your village.

 

[kris]

Realism invictus is good. Lacks the problems Renegen talks about and the AI is really good.

Thanks, I'll try it. Hopefully it doesnt increase difficulty by adding more bonuses for the AI (which works but is very annoying in a fair game sense).

I tried playing Master of Mana but was put off by how easy it was.

I have not looked into it, but I am sure it do cheat. But I was more talking about its behaviour and how it puts up good offensives. Its biggest problem really is that it aims for your nearest cities normally, which makes putting up a defense easier.

 

[attackfighter]

Yeah the Civ leaders are really shitty. They don't have any personality beyond "I am Shaka and I shall declare war often", or "I'm Saladin and I care about religion". It's very basic and playing against a gang of famous historical figures makes the game even more campy than it already is. Alpha Centauri was better in this regard because the leaders were fleshed out and taken seriously.

 

[Malakal]

Fleshed out and taken seriously HOW exactly? They are exactly the same as in civ 4 and 5. One is a warmonger, one likes diplomatic voting, one is a fanatic, one is an industrialist etc etc. I am Miriam and I want fundamentalist or WAR and give me techs or WAR. Great fleshing out.

Just so you know Civ 4 leaders also have favorite civics (= policies in AC). They are even more advanced due to more options coming in civ 4.

 

[IDtenT]

Fleshed out and taken seriously HOW exactly? They are exactly the same as in civ 4 and 5. One is a warmonger, one likes diplomatic voting, one is a fanatic, one is an industrialist etc etc. I am Miriam and I want fundamentalist or WAR and give me techs or WAR. Great fleshing out.

Just so you know Civ 4 leaders also have favorite civics (= policies in AC). They are even more advanced due to more options coming in civ 4.

Yeah, but they had some in-game personality, which complimented their out-of-game personality.

 

[attackfighter]

AC leaders have flavour texts and are characterised by more than just basic desires. Miriam isn't simply a fundamentalist - she's a fundamentalist who opposes uncontrolled technological progress and is deeply upset about Planet usurping the role of God as an object of worship. They also have more in-depth bonuses/penalties to reflect their agendas, such as Miriam getting -2 research and -1 planet (amongst other things).

Civ leaders are literally just portraits with some basic behavioural differences and minor, interchangeable bonuses that are so vague that they often don't even make apparent sense (i.e. why the fuck does Washington, a guy who spent most of his life in the military and who's ticket to fame involved his military exploits, not have the military trait? or why does Stalin have the military trait when he was a political leader?). That is why they are basic. As for why they aren't taken seriously? That goes without saying, but I will say this: playing a game with a bunch of pop-history leaders mashed together for no good reason and represented by cartoonish graphics is one of the more campy moments in video games.

 

[IDtenT]

AC leaders have flavour texts and are characterised by more than just basic desires. Miriam isn't simply a fundamentalist - she's a fundamentalist who opposes uncontrolled technological progress and is deeply upset about Planet usurping the role of God as an object of worship. They also have more in-depth bonuses/penalties to reflect their agendas, such as Miriam getting -2 research and -1 planet (amongst other things).

Civ leaders are literally just portraits with some basic behavioural differences and minor, interchangeable bonuses that are so vague that they often don't even make apparent sense (i.e. why the fuck does Washington, a guy who spent most of his life in the military and who's ticket to fame involved his military exploits, not have the military trait? or why does Stalin have the military trait when he was a political leader?). That is why they are basic. As for why they aren't taken seriously? That goes without saying, but I will say this: playing a game with a bunch of pop-history leaders mashed together for no good reason and represented by cartoonish graphics is one of the more campy moments in video games.

 

[Grunker]

AC leaders have flavour texts

oic

 

[Malakal]

You know what? Civ 4 leaders have quite more texts going for them. This guy Alexander the Great? Read up on him, youll see.

This is a pathetic argument. Those leaders are the same, guided by the same principles that is by numbers in their "favors" behavior file. Civ 4 leaders have way more flavor because they are based on historical figures. I see Alexander and I know what to expect.

BTW Stalin commanded an army during the Polish-Soviet war, probably didnt know about that - he was an army commissar.

AC leaders have flavour texts

oic

True.

 

[attackfighter]

Those texts aren't tied into gameplay except for vague references (Alexander was aggressive so he gets aggressive perk). Asides from those references they mean nothing. If you see Alexander, do you know that he's going to invade Persia and raze their capital? No you don't, which makes the majority of his wikipedia flavour text in the Civipedia irrelevant.

As for Stalin being commissar - yeah I'll bet that was the height of his career.

 

[Grunker]

Khan is just as aggressive in playstyle as aggressive AC leaders, and on top of this have favourite civics and perks.

Are you trying to say cIV-leaders do not have gameplay personalities (i.e. act with prefered strategies and tactics)? Because that is completely, utterly wrong. There's even an option to turn gameplay personalities off so that all leaders are assigned random personalities.

 

[attackfighter]

I never said that.

 

[Multi-headed Cow]

http://www.greenmangaming.com/s/us/en/pc/games/strategy/sid-meiers-civilization-v-gods-kings/
$23 for a preorder (Steam key, since it's Steamworks) at Greenman Gaming with the code CIVGO-DSAND-KINGS if anyone is so inclined.
And if you don't have a Greenman Gaming account you can use this referralmajigger link to get $2 in credit (And give me $2 in credit) after you buy something. Wouldn't count toward this order, but it'd be available for your next. http://www.greenmangaming.com/?gmgr=munahatu

Kinda thinking I'll wait. I like Civ 5 alright, but I barely played it compared to Civ 4, and I don't really have enough faith that the expansion will really turn me around on it. Especially before reviews are out.

 

[Dim]

If you have 10-15 cities which is common in the late game the micro management piles up quite a bit

Play CEVO. Seriously for all that think micro is a must PLAY CEVO. Best sp civ experience i have ever had. http://www.c-evo.org/
And i was really hoping Civ5 would give up the source so i could play some good mods.