Civilization : Beyond Earth

[K-64]

Oh god that Will moron made an even stupider statement in the same article:

Will Miller: One good example of that is that, in my mind, there are two kinds of Civilization games. There's Civilization 4 and Civilization 5, then there's Civ Rev. Civ Rev is my favourite, it's the last Civ that Sid Meier himself has designed, that's in the Civ canon.

... Civ Rev is the weakest Civ title by miles.

The **** is "Civ canon"? The game is based around real world things, not its own lore.

 

[Patchouli Knowledge]

Yes, because Gandhi nuking the Celts in 1748 is a real world thing.

 

[Wellenbrecher]

You know what he meant...

 

[Goker]

But don't take my word for it, Sulla's analysis is very thorough:
http://www.garath.net/Sullla/Civ5/whatwentwrong.html

As a prominent member of Civ3 and Civ4 MP and modding communities, he got to participate in the testing phase of Beyond the Sword, and he definitely knows his stuff.

Even though the latest patch was supposed to counter Infinite City Sprawl (ICS), now many of the AI leaders seem to be playing the game in exactly that fashion, cramming cities into every possible location at the bare minimum three-tile distance. I saw the same thing on the other continent, with Nobunaga AI also planting one-tile island cities with no resources. So now we have one AI who refuses to expand, and another AI who does nothing but expand! I am... confused.

What really kills me about this is the fact that mass city spamming is actually the correct way to play the game. Theoretically, the AI should be playing like this, because patch or no patch, getting the maximum number of cities possible remains the best overall strategy.

Does this guy understand that there are various victory conditions in this game?

 

[Almalexia]

Well if nothing else I found the Civilization unique special abilities to be one of the best features of the game, which really made every culture unique, as opposed to varying combinations of leader traits and a couple unique units/buildings in its predecessor. They could give certain civilizations significant, noticeable advantages, like Wayfaring for Polynesia (my favorite), or Assyria's Treasures of Nineveh. This whole dynamic gave the game such a deeper, more interesting feel to me, and even though I in general disliked the greater restrictions imposed on the number of cities compared to Civ IV, the depth from the civilization abilities absolutely made up for it. That and the sheer creativity they put into many of the abilities was awesome, especially with many of the DLC and expansion civs.

 

[romandude]

Thought this was some space strategy game in space that wasn't related to Sid. Now. I'm surprised and excited.

 

[Wellenbrecher]

Sid Meier is like Tom Clancy at this point.
It's a title they slap on **** to sell more copies. ****, didn't Ubisoft even say they're going to keep using the Clancy thing even though the bugger is dead?

 

[Kevlar]

QQ

 

[Sir Prince]

Sid Meier has largely taken a backseat role in the development of their games for many years. The last few he lead the development of are their mobile and tablet games (although Patrol Ace is pretty good for a tablet game, but the Facebook game was utter **** and doesn't exist anymore).

 

[rebelknight]

We want to get to those XCOM fans who may not have played Civ because history wasn't their thing

The Civ dev really think the civ series is historical?

Paradox games are historical.

Civ game is just historically themed.

Since when a country has 3 cities only on a randomly generated map?
Since when boudica met the Queen of England?

You just build cities without any true economical or historical control over it, you send your 3 men army to fight other 3 men army.
That's why i hate this series.

I like the system tho, that is why i play game like Fallen Enchantress, Alpha Centauri and so on.
But calling it historical is cringeworthy.

Edit: I don't mind game who change history but have true historical background (Ex: Paradox Interactive games) but Boudica talking to the Queen of England is a nono for me.

 

[Splintert]

I don't think he was calling it historical persay, but from an outsider Civilization most definitely looks like a historical game. You can't say that everything that happens in EU3,4 or CK2 or any Paradox game happened in real life no matter how similar it is. Same for Civ.

 

[TheFlyingFishy]

Having not read the whole thread, am I the only one who doesn't like the idea of a Civ. game in space? I dunno, having only played Civ. 5, it just feels like they should be somewhat realistic. Maybe I'll come around to the idea, but it just doesn't feel right at the moment.

 

[Harkon Haakonson]

Since no Civ really feels realistic at all, I'm not sure what you're on about.
I'm certainly ok with it since it always felt a bit silly when taken historically seriously, might even be refreshing.

 

[The Nutty Pig]

Having not read the whole thread, am I the only one who doesn't like the idea of a Civ. game in space? I dunno, having only played Civ. 5, it just feels like they should be somewhat realistic. Maybe I'll come around to the idea, but it just doesn't feel right at the moment.

As long as they don't put any alien races or nations in the game I will be fine with it.

 

[shadowarcher]

I for one am all for it, it's nice to see them changing up the formula of Civilizations by mixing it with alpha centauri. Of course there is still a bit of skepticism involved but the only thing we can do is wait until they announce more features before throwing around our judgement.

 

[TheFlyingFishy]

Yea, I probably misused "realistic". More accurately, I think it's cool playing as actual nations and historical personalities.

 

[Wellenbrecher]

Having not read the whole thread, am I the only one who doesn't like the idea of a Civ. game in space? I dunno, having only played Civ. 5, it just feels like they should be somewhat realistic. Maybe I'll come around to the idea, but it just doesn't feel right at the moment.

As long as they don't put any alien races or nations in the game I will be fine with it.

Sid Meier's Alien Crossfire, i.e. Alpha Centauri 1.5

 

[Vermillion_Hawk]

Yea, I probably misused "realistic". More accurately, I think it's cool playing as actual nations and historical personalities.

Well when Stone Age Americans are fighting against the Mongols it's hard to say you're playing as an "actual nation".

 

[Mage246]

Having not read the whole thread, am I the only one who doesn't like the idea of a Civ. game in space? I dunno, having only played Civ. 5, it just feels like they should be somewhat realistic. Maybe I'll come around to the idea, but it just doesn't feel right at the moment.

As long as they don't put any alien races or nations in the game I will be fine with it.

Sid Meier's Alien Crossfire, i.e. Alpha Centauri 1.5

Ie the Civ 7 that travelled back in time to try to save us from Civ 5-6, but its warnings went unheeded.

 

[Wellenbrecher]

Huh? I haven't played it in years, but I remember only good things about it and I've never heard bad things from other folks either.