Money has been tight lately, as most of you can probably understand in our current economic climate. Having always been a TBS fan, I had to make a decision as to which game I would buy this fall. I've been anticipating Civilization 5 and Elemental for quite some time, but I had to go with the latter, and I still don't regret it.
I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm getting pretty tired of the Civilization series. It's starting to remind me of Madden: Release the same game, add a few features, and call it the best thing since sliced bread. I've played every one of them, and every spin off since Civ 1 and the whole tour through history bit is getting a bit long in the tooth for me.
So I'm left with Elemental, which kind of feels like the old pick-up truck your dad gave you. It doesn't exactly run all that great, needs a new set of...well, everything, and doesn't impress your friends all that much. So would I rather take the old pick-up truck that can potentially take me to places I've never been before, or do I stick with Civilization, my shiny ten-speed that's always been safe and reliable my whole life?
I've read all the reviews, seen all the crap hit the fan, and even felt a bit of disappointment in the past few weeks. However, there's something about this game that just gets me excited, something unique, and something I don't feel very often with games. Even with all of the bugs and problems this game has, it has something special that I can't quite explain. With Stardock's commitment to improve things, I am giddy with anticipation as to where we will be led in the next few months and years. It's expecting the unexpected with Elemental that is holding my interest. It's hoping that perhaps one day Elemental will defy it's launch in a way that we have never seen before.
I'm sure that Civilization 5 will get reviewed really well, I'm sure it will be everything that everyone has hoped it would be. I'm sure it will be polished, stable, and relatively bug-free. I'm sure, at the core of it all, it will still feel like the Civilization we've grown to love. Unfortunately, this is where I become bored. I'll take the old pickup-truck, but I'm not sure why.
Perhaps Trinity had the answer: Because you have been down there Neo, you know that road, you know exactly where it ends. And I know that's not where you want to be.
Minimum Requirements
Recommended Specs
Minimum requires a graphics card that is 4 years old (which now costs like 30 dollars). Sure is state-of-the-art...
Civ 4's system was created to stop this happening. The difference to other games is the strength stat is linked to the unit's health, so it goes down as the health decreases. This is actually more realistic than what most 4x games use, where attack and defence stay the same even if the unit is at 10% health. In fact, the only way for a warrior to kill a tank would be if the tank is at less than 2% health and even then it's iffy. I think this is fine because you can assume a tank that damaged is basically non functional, and the warrior is just waiting for the guy inside to come out so he can hit him with a stick.
A unit can also have multiple strengths. The Fall from Heaven mod (and possibly the other fantasy mods) use different values for attack and defence, just like other games, but it's better because those values go down with health - so you'll never get some superstrength monster killing everything in sight because it's too hard to roll an attack that's larger than it's defence.
Well so do I, but I don't consider the combat model in fantasy games tactical either. It may have more stuff going on than the Civ model, but it's still an abstraction developed for boardgames that has nothing to do with realistic tactical battles. It's essentially battle chess with freedom of movement and ranged combat.
Proper tactical combat is what the Total War series does. Or Close Combat - now that's real tactical warfare. Those games make you feel like you're directing a battle, not solving a puzzle. Unfortunately the Total War games' AI just cannot handle the strategy layer, or I'd be playing them over and over.
Just to put things in perspective, my system can play games like Borderlands, Bioshock, Fallout 3, and StarCraft II without a problem, but it can't play Civ 5, a turn-based game. Now tell me there's not something wrong with that picture.
Oh you can't play it?
Where'd you get your advance copy?
Bioshock requirements:
CPU – Pentium 4 2.4GHz Single Core processorSystem RAM – 1GBVideo Card – Direct X 9.0c compliant video card with 128MB RAM (NVIDIA 6600 or better/ATI X1300 or better, excluding ATI X1550).Sound Card – 100% direct X 9.0c compatible sound cardHard disc space – 8GB free space
Starcraft requirements:
Borderlands:
Minimum System RequirementsOS: Windows XP/VistaProcessor: Pentium 4 @ 2.4 Ghz or equivalentMemory: 1GB (2GB recommended with Vista)Hard Drive: 8 GB freeVideo Memory: 256mb video ram or better (GeForce 9 series or higher/Radeon R8xx series)Sound Card: Windows compatible sound cardDirectX: 9.0cKeyboard and MouseDVD Rom Drive
Fallout 3:
Minimum System Requirements:
Windows XP/Vista1GB System RAM (XP)/ 2GB System RAM (Vista)2.4 Ghz Intel Pentium 4 or equivalent processorDirect X 9.0c compliant video card with 256MB RAM (NVIDIA 6800 or better/ATI X850 or better)
----------------------------------
So, 3/4 of the games you listed require a GPU only ONE generation behind Civ 5. One of them requires a generation AHEAD of Civ 5. They all list a faster processor (Civ V only requires a "dual core" processor).
And you're right, it's TURN BASED, NOT AN FPS OR REAL TIME STRATEGY, you know what that means? You can deal with somewhat slow frames and still be able to enjoy the game without enemies completely destroying you. On top of that, you have no idea how Civ V will run on your PC because the minimum requirements are not universal and vary from developer to developer.
At least wait for the demo before you start to whine and bitch about its STATE-OF-THE-ART, MONSTROUS system requirements. If you can play all those games without problems, I doubt you'll have problems with Civ 5.
Assuming the minimum requirements are accurate (the biggest thing is that none of the games I listed require a dual core CPU). But that won't stop me from checking out the demo. Worse that'll happen is that it will simply crash like the Arkham Asylum demo.
To be fair the elemental system is similar with regard to damage rolls and such. You get a little more control over the fight but whether or not you win is still largely a part of the RNG luck. For now anyway.
Firaxis can craft excellent games with a high degree of quality. Not buying Civ5 would be a mistake IMHO.
That's not always true. Civilization 4 had some serious problems at launch that took several patches and expansions to completely sort out (and even then there are still some outstanding quirks that Civ fanatics grumble about to this day). Sid Meier's Railroads needed a patch to address performance issues that made it virtually unplayable late game, and it really could have used a second patch, but when it didn't sell as well as they hoped, they cut support and moved on to their next project. With Civ 5 being a massive and massively complex game that adds a ton of new features and play mechanics, I expect that it, too, will have some growing pains. Probably not as extreme as Elemental, but anybody expecting Civ 5 to be perfect out of the box is only setting themselves up for disappointment.
Well, you left the part about me freely admitting that I am comparing 2 games (one of which has not yet been released). Perfectly valid to call both myself and the OP out on this as its a moot point for 14 more days. Firaxis would have to royally screw the pooch for me to eat any crow on my opinions on this thread. As buggy as Civ 4 was, it was definitely balanced and playable. I played until 3AM the night of release.
I bought Civ 4 at launch, and I remember all the problems I had in the beginning (mainly they went away after 1st week IIRC).
I also remember the incredible fun I had with the game for months, and then with mods for years. Sadly (no sarcasm, I really am sad) Elemental is far, far away from that robust gameplay.
I won't be buying Civ V because I already bought Elemental, and I'm sticking with it, but Civ V will be a blast IMHO!
Sam here, problems but loads of months for years for me. Railroads was fun too but yeah, lots of problems late game that, till this day, make late game pretty much unplayable. I don't recall anyone claiming that Firaxis was perfect either. The thing is though, do we really need to have a competition as to which games are the worst now? Is that the real defence... because if you are reaching down and saying hey, these games are worse, I'd say that is a problem in itself.
That's completely false in Civ 4. The battles are pretty deterministic, with some RNG thrown in. But if you ever have a warrior beat a tank in Civ 4, go buy a lottery ticket. (Unless the tank was at 5% health or something, and if the tank is falling apart anything can beat it. )
Absolutely not
I love both games, and I'm sincerely baffled by the amount of people bashing a franchise like Civ wich, IMHO ("h" not being a sarcastic addition, but really representing my humble approach to the discussion) has evolved and added to it's own formula over the years. Especially since the latest addition to the franchise is still some weeks away!
Also, I'd like to point out that while Civ IV had serious issues at launch, the mechanics in the game were robust and fun from the get go, something that (sadly) Elemental lacks ATM.
I don't like the idea of 1-unit/hex. This kills Civ 5 for me. I prefer n-units/hex and battles resolved on separate combat screens - more realistic approach. Elemental's the way to go, but needs some improvemets ofc. There are some great ideas in Disciples 3 that could be inherited.
Its hard to compare elemental and Civ5. Sure they are both turn based strategies, but a car and a motor cycle are both modes of transportation.
They differ in many different ways and supply completely different experiences.
That being said I'm going to pick up Civ 5 as well as the copy I have of elemental. I see no reason not to I alreadly really like Elemental and I can myself liking where it is going. I'm pretty sure I'm going to like Civ 5. I have a feeling though that Civ 5 is going to be full of DLC that you can buy (good and bad).
I don't mind steam I just wish I didn't HAVE to use it for multi player.
Some of Civ 4's critical problems stuck around for quite a long time. A lot of people don't know about them because they weren't quite as "in your face" as a crash to desktop. For instance, if you ever wondered why some bonuses weren't as effective as you expected, it's because they weren't being applied.
I disagree. I think Elemental is very enjoyable in its current state, and it's only going to get better.
You have to use it for single-player as well. That is my meaty beef with Civ5. Of course, I feel like a hypocrite for getting it anyway. I really don't want the idea to catch on.
It's not so much a competition as it is a reality check. I still have a hunch that if Elemental had Sid Meier's name on the box and all other things were equal, it would have been given a far more charitable reception. You would have seen a lot of reviews using phrases like "Despite these problems..."
I respect your opinion. But still I'm totally unable to find the game fun ATM. There's no strategic layer, no balance, no AI ---so--> No game, just a sandbox "let's see what happens next" mode. Much more than a couple of bonuses not adding!
But, hey, who am I to tell you how to have fun? Seriously! I'm happy you enjoy the game! (again, no sarcasm at all!)
Stop fanboying between two different 4x games. You should never pick between them, you should have them all. It is the only genre worth having a complete collection of. There is absolutely no excuse for not having both Elemental and Civ V.
But Civ 5 will come out at launch as the golden child of 4x games this year, their level of refinement and testing is up there with Blizzard , the previews of Civ 5 , scream 9.0 or higher.
I personally chose Elemental over Civ 5, because of the community and the developers, both of which I feel I have a voice that is heard by them.
I will also be getting Civ 5, but not till its on sale.
Civ V isn't out yet so no one can really say how good it will be. I expect it to be highly polished but also dumbed down in several respects. I also expect the AI to be bad, solely due to the "one unit per tile" rule... AIs were never any good at that level of tactical complexity in any game.
That said, I still think Civ V will be way, way better than Elemental in its current, sorry state. It's hard to imagine to get a worse release than Elemental.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
