the concept of religion didn't change, but they added a few wonders that interact with religion - most importantly the apostolic palace - so arguably the religion system did change somewhat between vanilla and BTSOriginally Posted by HKY09
the concept of religion didn't change, but they added a few wonders that interact with religion - most importantly the apostolic palace - so arguably the religion system did change somewhat between vanilla and BTS
True, but the basic concept remained the same
I've genuinely never had a crash on civ V. Even in early stages, never a crash. Few graphical glitches on my old terrible PC with the release version.
And setting a deadline of 3 months, even if you had any sort of power, authority, or respect that might make people listen to you, when it isn't a medium sized bug fixing patch is ridiculous. You're asking them to fix literally every single bug in the entire game, which no game is able to do, find a new leader for Civ V, get them to work well with everyone, hire a large number of testers and reprice the Exp. which tonnes of people have preordered and is coming out on steam in four days.
Alternatively, you want them to create an entirely new game in 6 months.
All of which shows that people that ask for things like this are just children, with no idea how the real world works and were most likely pampered by mommy and daddy their whole lives. This is why devs rarely respond to these kinds of posts. It would be like someone making fun of you because you couldn't sprout wings and fly...you don't take them seriously because they've clearly lost touch with reality.
Couldn't havve said it better myself. But the problem is they aren't kids, are ignorant adults that got the mind of a 10 year old. See facebook it's filled with such remarks and demands. As I've said in my previous post, how immature can you be to repeat the same stuff that "civ V sucks, and civ IV rullz" on every civ V related news ?All of which shows that people that ask for things like this are just children, with no idea how the real world works and were most likely pampered by mommy and daddy their whole lives. This is why devs rarely respond to these kinds of posts. It would be like someone making fun of you because you couldn't sprout wings and fly...you don't take them seriously because they've clearly lost touch with reality.
Don't like Civ V, think it sucks, you keep playing Civ IV, fine, but do you really have to repeat the same sentence everytime there is a news about Civ V ?
That I can't understand, and I'm only 23, but boy many gamers behave like spoilt brats that like to rant and complain.
OP hasn't posted again which is generally tell-tale signs of a troll, but he has been registered since 2010 (I think). Maybe he thinks he's spoken for the whole community (excluding stupid fanboys of course) and he no longer needs to participate?
I didnt like civ5 nearly as much as civ4... but somehow i have around 485hours on steam.... If some of you dont like the game, simply dont buy it... raging will not make the game any better or worse. Bottom line is, 30 bucks is nothing... i spend 40 every few days on greens alone..... I got way more entertainment hours for my 30$....... I mean, its just so pointless, unless u want to write a review, which again has to based not on that you want the game to be, but rather on that it actualy is, so i guess ud fail there too.....
Oh, and if u still complaign that 30$ is too much for ur gaming hobby... u picked a wrong hobby.... In fact, if that sum is an issue, u shouldnt be playing games in a 1st place, and focus on RL so as to fix that issue ASAP...
Complain all you want, I still love Civ 5 and cant wait for GaK to come out, I have tried to run some Civ 4 again, but the combat system which relies mostly on the computer brainlessly spewing out stacks of doom every few turns is just so mindbendingly stupid that it more than equals out that everything that isn't combat works mostly better.
So I for one will thank the team behind Civ 5 for making a game that I personally find to be overall better than Civ 4!
I agree with you on this one. Combat in Civ IV for me was really annoying, frustrating and chaotic. Not much strategy involved, only spawn huge number of enemies. To me combat in Civ V is the biggest improvement, and makes the game more clean to look at and play, it felt so bloated in Civ IV. This for me is the element that made me want to play civ V more then Civ IV.Complain all you want, I still love Civ 5 and cant wait for GaK to come out, I have tried to run some Civ 4 again, but the combat system which relies mostly on the computer brainlessly spewing out stacks of doom every few turns is just so mindbendingly stupid that it more than equals out that everything that isn't combat works mostly better.
So I really don't get what's so "dumb down for retards" in civ V, compared to Civ IV. The combat in Civ IV doesn't involve any thinking, nor strategizing, only build huge numbers of troops. The diplo AI is as stubborn and dumb as in Civ V. If you wanted to trade a tech with it, he wanted two or three in return, and you couldn't negotiate. Of course it was a tad bit better since it didn't declare war so quickly and with no purpose.
If the issues with diplomacy are fixed in G&K i'll be more then happy. Cause now what bothers me the most is the fact that you get attack too soon if you settle near the enemy AI(no matter what answer you give), which is really frustrating.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote