Civilization V

[RPGmasterBoo]

Come to think of it its ridiculous that Civ IV had to wait for two expansions to include the Byzantine civilization. I mean, it lasted for over a 1000 years which is more than you can say for most of those included in the vanilla game. Like the Mongols which lasted for two centuries, and its even debatable if they're a civilization considering they didn't last long or have much of an impact.

 

Christ you'd think they'd have someone to advise them on world history if they're making a civilization building game.

[Thorton_AP]

Sounds like someone just has an axe to grind now.

 

Muffin.

[Zoraptor]

Come to think of it its ridiculous that Civ IV had to wait for two expansions to include the Byzantine civilization. I mean, it lasted for over a 1000 years which is more than you can say for most of those included in the vanilla game. Like the Mongols which lasted for two centuries, and its even debatable if they're a civilization considering they didn't last long or have much of an impact.

 

Christ you'd think they'd have someone to advise them on world history if they're making a civilization building game.

Yo, RPGMasterBoo imma let you finish but the Mongols had the largest empire of all time OF ALL TIME!

 

They also had two successor states make the 19th century, if only barely, blatted the east slavs badly enough that it took centuries for them to recover, conquered China, squished the arabs so badly that they never recovered, set the stage for Safavid Persia, etc etc. Better targets of ire, from a historical perspective are the Aztec and Inca, both important less than a century; Mali which lasted barely longer; the Sioux, the Celts and Vikings who were never organised 'empires'; the Holy Roman Empire (famously none of the three post Chuck the Great) etc.

[Nepenthe]

AFAIK Hagia Sophia was built as a church (cathedral?), then became a mosque, then became a museum.

 

Civ IV took the modern setting of our world and viewed it in a retro way (like USA being a seperate nation from the very beginning, while it was actually formed from British colonies, etc.).

 

So, I'd say Hagia Sophia being a "world wonder with minarets" (the most recent form) is more or less accurate, in the context of Civ IV.

 

 

Civ IV didn't care about being historically / chronologically accurate, anyway...

 

Having been there, I kind of doubt that it's a wonder of the world as a museum. Considering it was built as a church (to Holy Wisdom), and was later converted into a Mosque, it kind of defends on what bonus the wonder gives, is it faith based (look towards original use), or epic war booty...

 

That said, the "current" image is probably the most sensible way of approaching it, the one that doesn't seem like an obvious political statement.

 

It is also completely misleading as it implies (to those who may not know) that its the product of another civilization. It stood as a christian church for a thousand years and is the crowning achievement of the Byzantine civilization, not the Ottoman turks which just tacked on the minarets and ruined the internal decoration. It was a world wonder in a true sense up until larger cathedrals came to appear in Europe, and the only thing that makes sense to me is for it to be represented in its original form - in a tribute to those who actually created it.

 

Whatever was done after Byzantium fell is irrelevant as it doesn't change the fact that the Ottoman empire has really nothing to do with it.

 

So you're basically agreeing with me, but just being more polemic?

[Wrath of Dagon]

What's even more outrageous is that in ETW St Petersburg exists in 1700 insead of 1703 and starts out under Swedish control!

[Styx]

I too would prefer a Alpha Centauri (If you ask me, the best game ever!) 2 though I don't know how good it would actually be since a lot of the lead people on it are gone now. On the other hand, I am still looking forward to Civ 5. Just 'cause it isn't the best game ever doesn't mean it won't still be pretty fantastic!

[Nemo0071]

Well, if you want to get technical about it...

 

It stood as a christian church for a thousand years

It also stood as a mosque for about 500 years.

 

the Ottoman turks which just tacked on the minarets and ruined the internal decoration

They also added these support column thingies which are the reason Hagia Sophia is still standing to this day, AFAIK.

 

 

No point in arguing about it though... Like I said it's just a computer game which doesn't even care about being historically correct.

 

We are talking about the game, aren't we?

[RPGmasterBoo]

Come to think of it its ridiculous that Civ IV had to wait for two expansions to include the Byzantine civilization. I mean, it lasted for over a 1000 years which is more than you can say for most of those included in the vanilla game. Like the Mongols which lasted for two centuries, and its even debatable if they're a civilization considering they didn't last long or have much of an impact.

 

Christ you'd think they'd have someone to advise them on world history if they're making a civilization building game.

Yo, RPGMasterBoo imma let you finish but the Mongols had the largest empire of all time OF ALL TIME!

 

They also had two successor states make the 19th century, if only barely, blatted the east slavs badly enough that it took centuries for them to recover, conquered China, squished the arabs so badly that they never recovered, set the stage for Safavid Persia, etc etc. Better targets of ire, from a historical perspective are the Aztec and Inca, both important less than a century; Mali which lasted barely longer; the Sioux, the Celts and Vikings who were never organised 'empires'; the Holy Roman Empire (famously none of the three post Chuck the Great) etc.

 

True, but really:

 

Civilization (or Civilisation) is a term used to describe a certain kind of development of a human society.[1] A civilized society is often characterized by advanced agriculture, long-distance trade, occupational specialization, and urbanism. Aside from these core elements, civilization is often marked by any combination of a number of secondary elements, including a developed transportation system, writing, standards of measurement (currency, etc.), contract and tort-based legal systems, great art style, monumental architecture, mathematics, sophisticated metallurgy, and astronomy.

 

= Mongols (or the rest you named)?

 

No.

 

@Nemo: are you being dense on purpose?

 

If you include a wonder of a certain civilization in a game, it only makes sense that the wonder be represented as a product of that civilization. Fixes and changes might not be relevant on minor issues, but changing religious imagery as a result of conquest to make it seem like its something its not is a major issue.

If they wanted to include a famous mosque, by all means - if you want to put in Hagia Sophia the minarets are plain nonsense.

 

Unless you're suggesting that support columns are this wonder no other civilization could ever think of, therefore the Ottoman turks get some sort of credit for keeping HS around?

 

I like the Byzantine civilization, which is why crap like this pisses me off.

Hell they aren't even in Civ 5 but Iroquois, Aztec, Siam and Songhai are. WTF is Songhai??

[Nemo0071]

@Boo: Missing the whole point AND insulting. Well done.

 

In Civ 4 (I'm not sure about the other Civ games) any wonder can be built by any civilization, and wonders are represented in an "as is" fashion. Oh wait, I feel like I've done this before...

 

Again, you're talking about historical accuracy. And your favorite civilization.

 

 

I couldn't resist: JUST FTR, yes, the need for those support columns is something that would go unnoticed by any other civ. Ottomans had kind of a genius architect at the time (Sinan) that saw flaws in the design / stability of the building. No, it doesn't give Ottomans any credit for building / creating that building, but for giving it its most recent form. Which was the point.

 

Can we drop it now, please? I know I will...

[Tigranes]

I've been really looking forward to this and pre-ordering at some point, but from what I hear, they're launching with a full, bloated series of exclusive DLCs, which is really putting me off. There seems to be something like 3 or 4, if not more, 'special content' packages (maps / civs?) that are each exclusive to certain retailers, and there also seems to be a Day One DLC that is free with some packages, if not others.

 

So what does this mean? We're getting further fragmentation of the product into various packages and bonuses and specials and deals, but the problem is, there seems to be no one package available - not even the massive special collector's edition - that has it all. And if your region offers package A, will you be able to get the stuff on package B without buying the game a bloody second time?

 

I'm not clear on all details yet so wait and see, but screw that - right now my thinking is I'll get the regular edition. I'm sure I might enjoy some of the bonuses that are offered, but that's the thing. The whole business model is about roping you in to a market where rules of exclusivity and distribution ensure that you don't have the intiative in what you buy, you sit there and wait for whatever packaged offerings emerge. It's a system that disadvantages the customer and pretty much seduces them into being hooked on micro-payment packets. No thanks - I'll be much happier not giving a crap about the whole menagerie and buy, you know, a bloody game, which I buy, then play. Shopping for micropayment crap is not my idea of fun.

 

And people weren't worried about DLCs or DRM a couple of years ago, yeah? It's amazing how "it's not that bad" leads into a slippery slope and the market transforms so quickly to extract money from you. (Sure someone will say "dont like it dont buy it", but I prefer to think that at least some of us can grasp the concept of market contexts and commodity situations...)

 

As long as the regular game by itself hasn't been crippled, it's still a good buy. We'll see how it turns out, but they're definitely upping the ante here with money money money.

[pmp10]

Civilization 5 may be a special case with regard to DLC.

It

[Purkake]

They also released the system requirements (via Shacknews):

 

System Requirements

 

Operating System: Windows XP SP3/ Windows Vista SP2/ Windows 7

Processor: Dual Core CPU

Memory: 2GB RAM

Hard Disk Space: 8 GB Free

DVD-ROM Drive: Required for disc-based installation

Video: 256 MB ATI HD2600 XT or better, 256 MB nVidia 7900 GS or better, or Core i3 or better integrated graphics

Sound: DirectX 9.0c-compatible sound card

DirectX: DirectX version 9.0c

Recommended System Requirements

 

Operating System: Windows Vista SP2/ Windows 7

Processor: 1.8 GHz Quad Core CPU

Memory: 4 GB RAM

Hard Disk Space: 8 GB Free

DVD-ROM Drive: Required for disc-based installation

Video: 512 MB ATI 4800 series or better, 512 MB nVidia 9800 series or better

Sound: DirectX 9.0c-compatible sound card

DirectX: DirectX version 11

Other Requirements: Initial installation requires one-time Internet connection for Steam authentication; software installations required (included with the game) include Steam Client, Microsoft Visual C++2008 Runtime Libraries and Microsoft DirectX.

[Morgoth]

Quite steep for a game that looks like an indie-production.

[Purkake]

There's also a pretty good preview up on Rockpapershotgun.

 

Personally, I'm waiting for Stardock's Elemental: War of Magic.

Edited August 8, 2010 by Purkake

[Thorton_AP]

Bump due to impending awesomeness. Metacritic score so far is 95 too!

[Tigranes]

Metacritic is worthless, though, as it depends on *shudder* vg reviewers.

 

I'm going to buy Arcania & PES 2011 next month, and quite possibly F:NV... so I was going to give this one a miss, especially with Steam, but man it does look quite delicious. They've done a very good job at making it look very inviting with the combat animations, UI and so forth.

 

In the end, though, I've never been the biggest fan of Civ, it doesn't have the longevity appeal for me - I'll wait and hear from you guys how much it's been changed & refreshed?

[Thorton_AP]

I disagree that Metacritic is worthless, but that's neither here nor there.

 

 

But watching a fair bit of video footage I am super stoked!

 

http://www.joystiq.com/2010/09/16/civiliza...kthrough-video/

http://www.gametrailers.com/video/review-h...zation-v/704829

 

 

I'm a fan of Panzer General so the new combat has me excited!

 

I'm also a Civaoholic

Edited September 20, 2010 by Thorton_AP

[Tigranes]

Fair enough, I won't be obnoxious about it. But yes those two vids look great, it's good to see the franchise continue.

[sorophx]

oh, when somebody brings up Panzer General, I can't help but feel excited too

[Thorton_AP]

I have already alerted my friends and family that if they have any important requests on my time, it's best to get them in today

[kirottu]

That did look pretty sweet.

[Nightshape]

Quite steep for a game that looks like an indie-production.

 

/Facepalm.

 

Specs is for AI, not for GFX.

[Morgoth]

Quite steep for a game that looks like an indie-production.

 

/Facepalm.

 

Specs is for AI, not for GFX.

You think the AI is so much better than in Civ IV? Why didn't Civ IV had so high requirements then?

[Rosbjerg]

You think the AI is so much better than in Civ IV? Why didn't Civ IV had so high requirements then?

 

It actually did have quite high requirements at the time it was released I remember being quite surprised .. especially since I couldn't find anything that justified it.

[Thorton_AP]

What buggered up world do you live in that Civ 5 looks like an Indie-production?