I wonder if Gandhi still tries to nuke the world...
One could only hope
I know this was an unintentional error in the early civ where an integer overflowed the he went from peaceful to marauder.
But making Gandhi using nukes in Civ5 was done intentionally. Isn't this pretty much shitting on his legacy, especially because most people haven't played Civ 1 and know Gandhi only by name. They could also make Hitler the messiah of the jews and Abe Lincoln the biggest slave trader in the Union, that would be fun too, right?
@Yamcha Well, Gandhi never had nukes so it's hard to say. Nevertheless, he was a human being and quite imperfect, even if some people choose to forget his failures.
@Yamcha Well, Gandhi never had nukes so it's hard to say. Nevertheless, he was a human being and quite imperfect, even if some people choose to forget his failures.
Plus he never actually was the ruler of India (and never in the position to have to make these kinds of decisions).
And the game is based off of history, it isn't suppose to mimic it.
However, India is one of the countries that do have nuclear weapons, so it mimics India as a nation and not the ruler's persona to pursue them.
With that, I really wish they'd release the specs for this game instead of these videos. I need to know if my laptop is capable of running it, or if I should start budgeting for a new one.
Had we adopted non-violence as the weapon of the strong, because we realized that it was more effective than any other weapon, in fact the mightiest force in the world, we would have made use of its full potency and not have discarded it as soon as the fight against the British was over or we were in a position to wield conventional weapons. But as I have already said, we adopted it out of our helplessness. If we had the atom bomb, we would have used it against the British.
Had we adopted non-violence as the weapon of the strong, because we realized that it was more effective than any other weapon, in fact the mightiest force in the world, we would have made use of its full potency and not have discarded it as soon as the fight against the British was over or we were in a position to wield conventional weapons. But as I have already said, we adopted it out of our helplessness. If we had the atom bomb, we would have used it against the British.
Actually, the full context actually reveals even more of Gandhi's military cunning, which is why I didn't share it. Gandhi is basically saying that, for him, non-violence is a weapon, and a more effective one than the suboptimal nuke. He was not really ahead of his time, but certainly smarter than most of his contemporaries.
In the world of today, using a nuke would actually be the ultimate sign of helplessness. Conventional weapons are but flashy fireworks, as per the original Chinese idea. The mightiest weapon in the world, as Gandhi teaches us, is one such that nobody perceives to be an object of offensive action. Charity is one such weapon and it's a shame it's not properly simulated in the Civilization series. As I see it, Civilizations in and past the Atomic Era should be immediately denounced and embargoed by everyone whenever it is revealed (via espionage) they are even planning war, and if they openly declare it, Civs non-friendly with them (perhaps with the exception of a few Civilizations who earlier declared neutrality) should form an alliance and oppose. Donating a few billions worth in humanitarian aid (and accompanying non-military personnel) to a warmongering City State interested in harming your competitors' interests would be acceptable, though. Commendable, even, 'cause you are just digging wells in the poor, arid areas, right? Another thing is that the Atomic Era should allow using Culture or perhaps Production as Misinformation/Propaganda, which would give enemy Civilizations an inflated impression of your military, economy and culture (as well as conceal any homicide you might be involved in), furthermore making enemy spies have a chance of stealing some harmful fake techs that e.g. give their Civ's nuclear power plants a risk of exploding like a nuke or their hospitals a risk of imposing a population drop due to a quack cancer cure. Such simple changes would make the endgame far more immersive than being limited to nearly nonexistent diplomacy, a space race (which is so Cold War silly) and peddling blue jeans.
I am excited about Civ 6, but I was never impressed with Civ 5, or Beyond Earth. After Civilization Revolution, I feel like the series has opted for being more "casual" or "Facebook Gamey" if that makes sense. I miss the depth. I recently played a few games of Alpha Centauri again and it still blows my mind that not only was that game in particular way ahead of it's time, in my opinion, it's still way ahead of Civ V.
Elevation? Weather patterns? Rising sea levels? The game was just miles more impressive than most of its successors.
Sid Meier's Starships (not the same sort of game, but it still applies) was a fun little distraction, but lacked anything that made it something I'd play more than once. It was about as shallow as Lake Makgadikgadi.
The sprawling city concept does appeal to me, but I worry that, giving the continuing trends, we'll be seeing a maximum of 20 cities on a normal sized map to be shared among 8 or so civilizations. I remember playing (heavily modded) versions of Civilization IV, where I could have 50+ civilizations and a map size bordering that on real world dimensions. Combine that with a marathon speed, or higher, it made for a very enjoyable experience I've yet to see in another game.
Oh, please, please pretty please, let Civilization 6 move the series FORWARD in these regards and not further backwards...
Alpha Centuari remains my favorite of the series, although for all its attempts to tell an interesting story, the gameplay felt the most mechanical, fitting modular bits together, of all of the series. I think the two key things that made AC my favorite are that I really enjoyed the way what we now call civics worked, and I thoroughly enjoyed designing and building my own units - especially putting settlers and workers in unexpected chassis. Flying settlers were just brokenly useful The satellites were a nice mid-late game boost as well, I'm not sure if any terrestrial Civ has done much with occupying space yet?
After Civilization Revolution, I feel like the series has opted for being more "casual" or "Facebook Gamey" if that makes sense.
Seriously? Civ Rev was the most "casual" title of the series so far, even Civ 5 far surpasses it in complexity. To me, Civ 4 is still the pinnacle of the franchise.
After Civilization Revolution, I feel like the series has opted for being more "casual" or "Facebook Gamey" if that makes sense.
Seriously? Civ Rev was the most "casual" title of the series so far, even Civ 5 far surpasses it in complexity. To me, Civ 4 is still the pinnacle of the franchise.
So basically you are reiterating exactly what I just said xD
I hated Civ Revolution, I didn't even finish one game of it. Civ 5 was pretty paltry as well. The expansions made it better, but Civ IV still blows it out of the water as far as I am concerned.
On another note, it really bothers me that Greek wonders are so inadequately painted in the Civ series. Though that strange cultural sentiment dates back to Mr Winckelmann's work on classical art, and probably also has to do with people thinking that painting on marble (which is nowadays viewed as expensive and decorative in itself) does not make any sense.
Anyone who's ever been to or read about Greece is aware that marble is omnipresent in the local architecture simply because it's a cheap and abundant building material, literally strewn all over the place. Even today, porches, balconies and gazebos in Greece most commonly feature marble flooring because it's what's readily available, not because their owners wanted to show off. And, yeah, in case you were wondering, the sculptures would get the graffiti treatment too, with colourful eyes and even body hair painted on.
If single, you may want to memorize this actionable knowledge for future use in dating
I hated Civ Revolution, I didn't even finish one game of it. Civ 5 was pretty paltry as well. The expansions made it better, but Civ IV still blows it out of the water as far as I am concerned.
That's the whole point, though - Civ Rev is not supposed to be the same type of game. It's supposed to be an arcade-style game that you can play in one or two sittings. It's a good portable game, for that reason. Comparing it directly in style or complexity to a Civ game is missing the point - if you never like sitting down to a short-but-sweet game, that's cool, of course.
Still, if the filthy casuals daring to play Civ games is the problem, you can always transition onto Paradox games. All Civ games feel kind of arcade-y and casual after you've played Victoria or Hearts of Iron (I still like them, but I'm not against arcade-y casual games). And then when you've reached the point of long-time Paradox fans of complaining how THEIR games are being filthy-casual-ified, you can move onto, I dunno, AGEOD or something.
I hated Civ Revolution, I didn't even finish one game of it. Civ 5 was pretty paltry as well. The expansions made it better, but Civ IV still blows it out of the water as far as I am concerned.
That's the whole point, though - Civ Rev is not supposed to be the same type of game. It's supposed to be an arcade-style game that you can play in one or two sittings. It's a good portable game, for that reason. Comparing it directly in style or complexity to a Civ game is missing the point - if you never like sitting down to a short-but-sweet game, that's cool, of course.
Still, if the filthy casuals daring to play Civ games is the problem, you can always transition onto Paradox games. All Civ games feel kind of arcade-y and casual after you've played Victoria or Hearts of Iron (I still like them, but I'm not against arcade-y casual games). And then when you've reached the point of long-time Paradox fans of complaining how THEIR games are being filthy-casual-ified, you can move onto, I dunno, AGEOD or something.
Oh I agree with you there, but then one has to ask themselves: Why did Firaxis abandon what made them famous? Civ IV was their last "proper" Civ game, and I sure as heck hope that Civ 6 will follow that example. To me, it makes little sense to isolate your fans, the people who made you what you are, by producing games only a few of them will enjoy, under the same name of the franchise they know and love.
That being said, Beyond Earth was abysmal to me as well, I know it wasn't meant to be a new Alpha Centauri, but that honestly to me felt like deciding that guns were just way too advanced and deciding throwing stones was a better option for war, as far as depth and gameplay is concerned.
As for Victoria and Hearts of Iron, I would love to get into those games--but the fact that they are "stuck" in a specific time frame/setting is what turns me away. I want to be able to create my nation from the ground up and watch it evolve and change through the ages.
If someone would just come out with a game similar to the "good old days" of Civ, with a diplomacy system as advanced as that seen in Space Empires V (creating your own treaties? YES PLEASE), I would be sold in an instant and would probably regress to a state of near constant gaming once again, lol
But yeah, I get what you're saying, but it ticks me off that Firaxis seems to have flat out ignored their loyal fans in the interest of trying to collect as many casual gamers as possible. I can tell you right now, those casuals are going to move on to the next Candy Crush and forget your watered down Civ titles, while your hardcore fans are going to be playing your classic titles until you finally come out with a proper title for them to consume.
All this sentiment for Civ 4 misses the point that the series peaked at Civ 2
I really miss the detailed text entries in the Civilopedia, the narration by Nimoy, and so many detailed touches that made it more than just another game, even if it lead just one more turn...
Civ 2 was grand, super easy to mod, tons of content out of the box (especially the gold version), it was also the first one I ever played in the series--so plenty of sentimentality for Civ 2. I would agree with you there.
If someone would just come out with a game similar to the "good old days" of Civ, with a diplomacy system as advanced as that seen in Space Empires V (creating your own treaties? YES PLEASE), I would be sold in an instant and would probably regress to a state of near constant gaming once again, lol
I've already heard that so many times. There's been a Blizzard's Warhammer Warcraft and a Mojang's Infiniminer Minecraft, among others, so I guess a Civcraft is in order as well, should anyone feel inclined to reverse engineer develop a one.
But I'm not a fan of this awkward naming convention. And I can't start a Kickstarter campaign without a catchy name
If someone would just come out with a game similar to the "good old days" of Civ, with a diplomacy system as advanced as that seen in Space Empires V (creating your own treaties? YES PLEASE), I would be sold in an instant and would probably regress to a state of near constant gaming once again, lol
I've already heard that so many times. There's been a Blizzard's Warhammer Warcraft and a Mojang's Infiniminer Minecraft, among others, so I guess a Civcraft is in order as well, should anyone feel inclined to reverse engineer develop a one.
But I'm not a fan of this awkward naming convention. And I can't start a Kickstarter campaign without a catchy name
If I only had the free time and the cash stores built up to develop non-stop for a couple of years
I do develop software for a living, but for a company--and thus so much of my time is spent working for them! Oh, poo.
Plus, I think a project like that would benefit greatly if it had more than a one man dev team...
So, you get the name, let's scrounge up one or two more developers, and get a prototype in the works! LOL
If someone would just come out with a game similar to the "good old days" of Civ, with a diplomacy system as advanced as that seen in Space Empires V (creating your own treaties? YES PLEASE), I would be sold in an instant and would probably regress to a state of near constant gaming once again, lol
I've already heard that so many times. There's been a Blizzard's Warhammer Warcraft and a Mojang's Infiniminer Minecraft, among others, so I guess a Civcraft is in order as well, should anyone feel inclined to reverse engineer develop a one.
But I'm not a fan of this awkward naming convention. And I can't start a Kickstarter campaign without a catchy name
If I only had the free time and the cash stores built up to develop non-stop for a couple of years
I do develop software for a living, but for a company--and thus so much of my time is spent working for them! Oh, poo.
Plus, I think a project like that would benefit greatly if it had more than a one man dev team...
So, you get the name, let's scrounge up one or two more developers, and get a prototype in the works! LOL
Hm... Civic Saga? Wait, no. King would insta-sue us
Oh I agree with you there, but then one has to ask themselves: Why did Firaxis abandon what made them famous? Civ IV was their last "proper" Civ game, and I sure as heck hope that Civ 6 will follow that example. To me, it makes little sense to isolate your fans, the people who made you what you are, by producing games only a few of them will enjoy, under the same name of the franchise they know and love.
They didn't. Civ V sold ridiculously well. Civ VI will also most likely sell ridiculously well. People often mistake the complaints of a loud and motivated minority for the majority.
Not that you're wrong to not like Civ V, of course, but you're still a member of a small, vocal minority and you should probably realise that is why Firaxis is not catering to you. Much smaller companies, making much lower-budget games, are the ones that cater to small minorities.
As for Victoria and Hearts of Iron, I would love to get into those games--but the fact that they are "stuck" in a specific time frame/setting is what turns me away. I want to be able to create my nation from the ground up and watch it evolve and change through the ages.
Then EUIV and Crusader Kings II are more up your alley, probably. They have centuries-long (millenia-long, in CKII, if you have the earliest start date) timelines and are more sandboxy (they're also easier to get your head around for you Civ casuals. ). Of course, they're all set in nominally real history; there's also Stellaris for non-real sci-fi 4x.
But yeah, I get what you're saying, but it ticks me off that Firaxis seems to have flat out ignored their loyal fans in the interest of trying to collect as many casual gamers as possible. I can tell you right now, those casuals are going to move on to the next Candy Crush and forget your watered down Civ titles, while your hardcore fans are going to be playing your classic titles until you finally come out with a proper title for them to consume.
Ha ha ha, people on the Paradox forums complained about Paradox catering to the filthy casuals because EUIV tried to have an intuitive UI and dumped some obtuse system mechanics from previous iterations of the series, using the exact same Candy Crush analogy.
EUIV is still far more complex than any Civ game.
In both cases the Candy Crush comparison is sort of absurd.
Civ V sold ridiculously well. Civ VI will also most likely sell ridiculously well.
Toilet paper sells ridiculously well, too, and it's neither something you need (tap water is cheaper, easier and far more effective to use) or want (mechanical damage caused by toilet paper makes the risk of developing haemorrhoids and similar pathologies skyrocket). Sales is no proof of a business' viability whatsoever, unless we're looking at short-lived heat-of-the-moment businesses which Firaxis is clearly not a specimen of. I said it many times and I will say that again: if you have a sufficient advertising budget and basic marketing knowledge, you WILL make decent profit off anything, even if what you peddle is your own dung in a jar.
In simple words, the three points to ponder are: 1. Firaxis is currently data-driven to an extent such that makes their production ineffective (due to irrelevant data overload, which hinders design) and their end products not sufficiently satisfying to a large, high value, decades-loyal group of customers (which could be easily avoided with proper community management in place) 2. Their marketing team acts incompetent and/or greedy and/or aligned in opposition to the company's business interests (I won't judge), suggesting to re-orient the focus to the casual gaming group (which has never been the company's core target) and thus cannibalizing much of the company's profits with unnecessary advertising 3. They are not making their product extensibility a priority, which - with their business model in mind - is a huge mistake from a financial standpoint, one such that vaguely translates to the difference between selling 'ridiculously well' (thanks to some extreme brand loyalty and complementary shove-it-in-their-arse advertising), this being profit that barely covers dev expenses and maybe pays for Sid Meier's week-long vacation on Mallorca, and honestly jumping some 200 places up in the ranking of most profitable gamedev companies on planet Earth, which is very doable if Firaxis underwent a much needed period of listening to their own community
I think what's lacking in this thread are convincing arguments that Firaxis is actually catering to "filthy casuals" and that Civilization V is actually a bad game. I mean, we definitely get the idea that some people don't like it, but ... not liking something doesn't necessarily lead to objective conclusions.
Comments
But making Gandhi using nukes in Civ5 was done intentionally. Isn't this pretty much shitting on his legacy, especially because most people haven't played Civ 1 and know Gandhi only by name.
They could also make Hitler the messiah of the jews and Abe Lincoln the biggest slave trader in the Union, that would be fun too, right?
However, India is one of the countries that do have nuclear weapons, so it mimics India as a nation and not the ruler's persona to pursue them.
With that, I really wish they'd release the specs for this game instead of these videos. I need to know if my laptop is capable of running it, or if I should start budgeting for a new one.
http://steamcommunity.com/games/289070/announcements/detail/892100538370620761
"If we had the atom bomb, we would have used it against the British" - Mohandas Gandhi
Had we adopted non-violence as the weapon of the strong, because we realized that it was more effective than any other weapon, in fact the mightiest force in the world, we would have made use of its full potency and not have discarded it as soon as the fight against the British was over or we were in a position to wield conventional weapons. But as I have already said, we adopted it out of our helplessness. If we had the atom bomb, we would have used it against the British.
Then you nuke them.
In the world of today, using a nuke would actually be the ultimate sign of helplessness. Conventional weapons are but flashy fireworks, as per the original Chinese idea. The mightiest weapon in the world, as Gandhi teaches us, is one such that nobody perceives to be an object of offensive action. Charity is one such weapon and it's a shame it's not properly simulated in the Civilization series. As I see it, Civilizations in and past the Atomic Era should be immediately denounced and embargoed by everyone whenever it is revealed (via espionage) they are even planning war, and if they openly declare it, Civs non-friendly with them (perhaps with the exception of a few Civilizations who earlier declared neutrality) should form an alliance and oppose. Donating a few billions worth in humanitarian aid (and accompanying non-military personnel) to a warmongering City State interested in harming your competitors' interests would be acceptable, though. Commendable, even, 'cause you are just digging wells in the poor, arid areas, right?
Another thing is that the Atomic Era should allow using Culture or perhaps Production as Misinformation/Propaganda, which would give enemy Civilizations an inflated impression of your military, economy and culture (as well as conceal any homicide you might be involved in), furthermore making enemy spies have a chance of stealing some harmful fake techs that e.g. give their Civ's nuclear power plants a risk of exploding like a nuke or their hospitals a risk of imposing a population drop due to a quack cancer cure.
Such simple changes would make the endgame far more immersive than being limited to nearly nonexistent diplomacy, a space race (which is so Cold War silly) and peddling blue jeans.
Elevation? Weather patterns? Rising sea levels? The game was just miles more impressive than most of its successors.
Sid Meier's Starships (not the same sort of game, but it still applies) was a fun little distraction, but lacked anything that made it something I'd play more than once. It was about as shallow as Lake Makgadikgadi.
The sprawling city concept does appeal to me, but I worry that, giving the continuing trends, we'll be seeing a maximum of 20 cities on a normal sized map to be shared among 8 or so civilizations. I remember playing (heavily modded) versions of Civilization IV, where I could have 50+ civilizations and a map size bordering that on real world dimensions. Combine that with a marathon speed, or higher, it made for a very enjoyable experience I've yet to see in another game.
Oh, please, please pretty please, let Civilization 6 move the series FORWARD in these regards and not further backwards...
I hated Civ Revolution, I didn't even finish one game of it. Civ 5 was pretty paltry as well. The expansions made it better, but Civ IV still blows it out of the water as far as I am concerned.
THIS is how you present a damn world wonder.
On another note, it really bothers me that Greek wonders are so inadequately painted in the Civ series. Though that strange cultural sentiment dates back to Mr Winckelmann's work on classical art, and probably also has to do with people thinking that painting on marble (which is nowadays viewed as expensive and decorative in itself) does not make any sense.
Anyone who's ever been to or read about Greece is aware that marble is omnipresent in the local architecture simply because it's a cheap and abundant building material, literally strewn all over the place. Even today, porches, balconies and gazebos in Greece most commonly feature marble flooring because it's what's readily available, not because their owners wanted to show off.
And, yeah, in case you were wondering, the sculptures would get the graffiti treatment too, with colourful eyes and even body hair painted on.
If single, you may want to memorize this actionable knowledge for future use in dating
Still, if the filthy casuals daring to play Civ games is the problem, you can always transition onto Paradox games. All Civ games feel kind of arcade-y and casual after you've played Victoria or Hearts of Iron (I still like them, but I'm not against arcade-y casual games). And then when you've reached the point of long-time Paradox fans of complaining how THEIR games are being filthy-casual-ified, you can move onto, I dunno, AGEOD or something.
That being said, Beyond Earth was abysmal to me as well, I know it wasn't meant to be a new Alpha Centauri, but that honestly to me felt like deciding that guns were just way too advanced and deciding throwing stones was a better option for war, as far as depth and gameplay is concerned.
As for Victoria and Hearts of Iron, I would love to get into those games--but the fact that they are "stuck" in a specific time frame/setting is what turns me away. I want to be able to create my nation from the ground up and watch it evolve and change through the ages.
If someone would just come out with a game similar to the "good old days" of Civ, with a diplomacy system as advanced as that seen in Space Empires V (creating your own treaties? YES PLEASE), I would be sold in an instant and would probably regress to a state of near constant gaming once again, lol
But yeah, I get what you're saying, but it ticks me off that Firaxis seems to have flat out ignored their loyal fans in the interest of trying to collect as many casual gamers as possible. I can tell you right now, those casuals are going to move on to the next Candy Crush and forget your watered down Civ titles, while your hardcore fans are going to be playing your classic titles until you finally come out with a proper title for them to consume.
I really miss the detailed text entries in the Civilopedia, the narration by Nimoy, and so many detailed touches that made it more than just another game, even if it lead just one more turn...
WarhammerWarcraft and a Mojang'sInfiniminerMinecraft, among others, so I guess a Civcraft is in order as well, should anyone feel inclined toreverse engineerdevelop a one.But I'm not a fan of this awkward naming convention. And I can't start a Kickstarter campaign without a catchy name
I do develop software for a living, but for a company--and thus so much of my time is spent working for them! Oh, poo.
Plus, I think a project like that would benefit greatly if it had more than a one man dev team...
So, you get the name, let's scrounge up one or two more developers, and get a prototype in the works! LOL
you are happy enoughit's catchy enough. I'll teach you to behappycatchy.smile, smile!Not that you're wrong to not like Civ V, of course, but you're still a member of a small, vocal minority and you should probably realise that is why Firaxis is not catering to you. Much smaller companies, making much lower-budget games, are the ones that cater to small minorities. Then EUIV and Crusader Kings II are more up your alley, probably. They have centuries-long (millenia-long, in CKII, if you have the earliest start date) timelines and are more sandboxy (they're also easier to get your head around for you Civ casuals.
EUIV is still far more complex than any Civ game.
In both cases the Candy Crush comparison is sort of absurd.
In simple words, the three points to ponder are:
1. Firaxis is currently data-driven to an extent such that makes their production ineffective (due to irrelevant data overload, which hinders design) and their end products not sufficiently satisfying to a large, high value, decades-loyal group of customers (which could be easily avoided with proper community management in place)
2. Their marketing team acts incompetent and/or greedy and/or aligned in opposition to the company's business interests (I won't judge), suggesting to re-orient the focus to the casual gaming group (which has never been the company's core target) and thus cannibalizing much of the company's profits with unnecessary advertising
3. They are not making their product extensibility a priority, which - with their business model in mind - is a huge mistake from a financial standpoint, one such that vaguely translates to the difference between selling 'ridiculously well' (thanks to some extreme brand loyalty and complementary shove-it-in-their-arse advertising), this being profit that barely covers dev expenses and maybe pays for Sid Meier's week-long vacation on Mallorca, and honestly jumping some 200 places up in the ranking of most profitable gamedev companies on planet Earth, which is very doable if Firaxis underwent a much needed period of listening to their own community