Aye, CK2 was great out of the box.
Frankly, I'd argue that it's a bit worse these days due to feature bloat a rather large increase in scope instead of in detail.
He's making that Mars game, I think.
That's Soren Johnson who made Civ 4
In my opinion, this game is great for people unfamiliar with Civ V. In other case, you won't find it very exciting (maybe for the first play, but not more).
No it wasn't
Are u fucking retard? gay? sadism? psycho? idiot? What is wrong with u?
I don't usually read reviews as 99.7% of them are useless and misleading. BUT as a 15+ years Civ fan with thousands of hours played, I have to say, this review is actually spot on when it comes to Beyond Earth. I love Civ5, was so excited about CBE but it really ends up disappointing and boring.
With the passive AI and leaders with zero personality, the fact that so many decisions really don't make a difference, nonwonderful wonders, a billion tradevessels u have to reassign way too often, it's nice that they limited the amount of tradeslots in each city but it's still too much combined.
Most stations gets annihilated by aliens early, ruining possible sidequests which would have made the game more interesting.
I have nothing against the 1unit pr. tile solution, I think it's way better than the tedious and repetitive untispamming in earlier Civs. They cleaned up and simplified it all with Civ5 without really dumbing it down. And yes, CBE is pretty much Civ5 in a different skin, only worse.
I can understand it's harder to make the nations interesting and give em personality and behavior in CBE compared to other Civ games where it's all in the world history and therefore easy to transfer into a game but there is for sure a lack of imagination in CBE on this part. Also the fact that upping difficulty just gives some flat bonuses to the AI leaders instead of actually making it harder through i.e more aggressive play. After a couple of playthroughs I actually kinda wanna go back to Civ5. Either way, after a patch or 2 + some adjustments and maybe a couple of DLCs or an expansion it might actually take form for the better and become a more complete and fulfilled game. It does feel kinda halfhearted and "cheap" as it is now.
I want to "defend" the game but it's really hard atm :P
After playing a couple games of CivBE this is the only review I agree with. It's the same shit as the original Civ 5 release, except less innovative and more optimized (because they're using the exact same engine that they optimized before with Civ 5). It's not a game worth 50 bucks at all. Maybe after they finish it with expansions and balance it with patches, a couple years down the line.
Thank you for this review. I bought this game without reading any reviews - first time i did this, since i felt Firaxis had earned my trust. But while playing, the disappointment started to grow. I think you nailed the core with the catamari part: all the choices are fairly inconsequential, you hardly have to worry about the AI in any way, the most problem i had was an alien nest fairly close to my first city, which was finished with an army of 3 marines.
The wonders being jokes really disappointed me, the most powerful ones gave farms +1 food or were basicly an oracle.
All in all i feel i'm playing Civ 5 with some fancier graphics, even simpler city states, passive unchallenging AI and a lot of next turning. I was also really disappointed that a lot of usability stuff disappeared. I'd like to see what building my city build, i'd especially like to see the stats i'm deciding about in a quest pop-up screen. I would like to reduce the number of resources i offer an AI (if i click on the '5', it just goes away). I would like favors to matter more than roughly 100 energy (this was a huge disappointment since i felt the favors were a tangible improvement upon the temporary diplomacy bonus in Civ 5).
After playing Civ 2-5, colonization and Alpha centauri, this is so far the first of their games to disappoint me. It feels like a beta test where the feedback of the players hasn't found it's way into the actual game yet. I really hope they will put in some usability fixes, even if they pass on the AI (which seems hard). And then something to give the game another form of dynamic play. If they are working on this: kudos for them, i hope you can make it work.
After reading a few user reviews that were critical of many of the game's features, I decided to check out some critic reviews. The first I checked out was from Game Informer. 9 of 10. It read like a Firaxis sales sheet. Not a single criticism or mild disappointment. I'm happy I read this review. It seemed honest and closely resembled the spirit of the user reviews of not very satisfied players. Thanks for not being a sellout.
That's how Republicans make decisions.
Tom posts a low score for a revered franchise, most of the comments seem to agree.
I'm scared.
Games pretty boring honestly. My first play through I tried to be strategic and plan out the techs I would need to have a viable colony that could last what was sure to be a long game. I never once got attacked. Nobody ever came near my territory. Zzzzzz hours later a random screen pops up and I guess the game ended for whatever reason. My second play through I just rushed through the tech web to one of the many many victory conditions and hours later zzzzzz a random screen pops up and I won. Third time I just raged and attacked everyone but the combat is sooooo boring. Glad I pirated the game. What a waste of 60 bucks. Maybe they'll patch it up and the DLC will be fun. Possibly would be interesting and worth playing on multiplayer but I have a feeling it's just going to be a race through an op tech path to end the game. Oh well
Yeah I also really appreciate the AI review and the specific examples. The aircraft AI fail is something that makes me feel Firaxis doesn't deserve my money. I understand really good AI is expensive and difficult and probably unprofitable as not enough people care, but there's a certain bar of competence that needs to be reached.
SHUT UP. THIS IS THE BEST ONE SO FAR
I completely agree with this review and yet I will be playing this game for a while. But, like civ5 I'll tire of it quickly and will move on much ,ore quickly than I did for civ 2, smac, or simcity4. Hope patches fix some of it, I think this game's replayability goes away once I learn what the new techs and so forth are since they're all new.
i am still learning... if you ask can i rape everyone in civ 5. easy as fuck. i am gonig to say to this one. take time to adapt
Hey, xHadex. I don't know if you're a reflective kind of guy or not. But if you come back to see this, take five minutes to really think about whether "rape" is a good word to use right there.
I agree with review.
I played CIV games from Civilization 1 on Amiga 500.
It is hard to believe but in Civilization 1 , and Civ 2 AI was more competitive and the game more playable than Civ 5 series.
This game should still be in development, at least for year before it is released.
They served their fans a half-product just to get their money.
If they put same level of AI in the next Civ VI , civilization series will die - forever...
Agree that the wonders are pretty weak. I think the idea is that people who dedicate themselves to wonders are going to pick up wonder-buffing Virtues (there is at least one significant culture-producing one) making the investment retroactively worthwhile. Except the AI is aggressive in building wonders, so it's very, very easy to get sniped.
More importantly, I kind of think that the one-unit-per-tile rule should be the litmus test for reviews. If, like me, you don't mind the one-unit rule, a good third of this review just doesn't apply. If I were to write a review it would be largely positive and would gloss over the one-unit rule and someone like you would find the game much worse than I say.
Having said that, I hate stacks of doom. The Endless games--glad you name checked it!--have about the best stack system that I've seen. It's really a question of what kind of bad AI you want. Do you want an AI that can build up an insanely powerful stack that it can throw mindlessly wherever it would like, or do you want to create the possibility of interesting decisions that will be rare because the AI isn't particularly brilliant at actually managing units?