So unimproved Civ 5 with skins and new tilesets? Uh...
-You'll go beyond earth as the title implies, making it more like Alpha Centauri.
- Out this Autumn
- You start on an alien world
- There are three types of worlds: Lush, Airy and Fungal
- You'll still be building cities like in CIv V but to expand to other planets you'll use outposts.
- You can be the first to explore a new planet and you may find some neutral creatures/races on those worlds. You can either destroy them or leave them be.
- Relics are still in.
- You can win the game by returning to earth. To do that you'll need to put a satellite in orbit around the earth and you can either return to earth to win or you can bring the refugees of earth to your home world.
- You can use diplomacy with other players right from the start.
- Fog of War is still present
- There are now orbital units that you can command like satellites.
Civilization Beyond Earth? - NeoGAF
and some screens:
So unimproved Civ 5 with skins and new tilesets? Uh...
Heh that's exactly what I was thinking. Seems like nothing more than a big Civ5 mod. I guess at this point they are just trying to milk the brand for all its worth.
Will the multiplayer still be horrible, unmoddable and laggy? Will the difficulty throughout a game still be rapidly dropping as time passes?
Will the mindset behind AI strategy remain "let the player win, it's more fun that way"?
I liked the civ ceries, but its pretty much the case book definition of incredibly iterative. I might pick this up when it hits the discount bin, maybe...
I will most likely buy this and regret it.
I want to like Civ5 more than I do. I like the map change. I do like the stacking change. But considering that with mods you can make 4 entirely different games out of Civ4.... I wonder a little bit at the thought process involved with all the rest. Civ4 was a huge success because of the modability. So yeah... fuck that. Lets make the next Civ a giant pain in the ass to mod!
There are mods to fix that, but still not to the extend of Civ 1. And you can't mod MP, which just flat out sucks.
The worst part of the difficulty remains that they made the AI start out with a massive headstart on higher difficulties, which makes the game really one true way to start or you'll never catch up while it's actually the late to end game that the AI is the weakest on moderate to harder difficulties.
Last edited by Quineloe; 04-12-2014 at 04:48 PM.
That interview definitely makes it sound very interesting.
I found the interview to be long and dull, talking forever about individual features. You could easily make an interview like that make BNW sound like the best Civ of all time, the general interview tone is just too positive. What's good about all these "diplomacy features" when the AI just sits in their territories, dick in hand, waiting for you to win a peaceful victory?
The only thing that would make me buy this is if the AI is VASTLY superior to civ 5... since you know its all about single player and 40 turns in you already win the game if you survive..
Some droned on. But details like AI varying by terrain seems to imply that concern is being addressed, plus them saying there's very little UNlike stuff in it.
And they did elaborate pretty well on faction being completely customized.
You've just got a chip on your shoulder about Civ5 , no matter what they said you'd birch.
And note on aggressive wins in Civ. Assuming realism, aggressive Civs haven't been super successful IRL in a 4000 year span - even the once Viking Scandanavians are peaceful for centuries now....
Realism makes for shitty long term gameplay.
The AI is god awful at 1UPT
Usually Multiplayer is good at countering that sort of thing, but getting matches in Civ V takes longer than playing through a single player game, and those I managed to get had horrible performance. 20-30 seconds of waiting time after everyone finished their turn and some really weird performance issues such as Barbarians being able to move on their spawning turn. Idiots at Civfanatics pretending this is also the case in single player doesn't help.
Eh, there's always enough citystates to warmonger if you care to. (you know, like modern military stuff mostly is... Iraq and Afghanistan come to mind...)
And on barbs, literally playing ATM to get some rust off, and had a settler walking past a barn camp with no units get stolen from one spawning and instantly moving to take it.
Maybe they're less situational in MP. But absolutely does happen UN SP in some cases quite clearly.
(also it's a bit amusing criticizing the AI being too passive, then that the barb AI is too aggressive in the next breath)
I've tested it repeatedly, barbarian units do not move on their spawning turn. Placed 5 scouts around a camp and put a settler next to the only open space. Barbarian spawned, didn't take it.
I'm not criticizing barbarians for being aggressive but for playing by different rules in multiplayer.
What I am criticizing is that the game becomes bland after 1/4th of the turns if you're going for a non conquest victory because the AI just sits by idle as you buy all the city states / massively increase tourism / run away with tech in your 4 city powerciv.
City state warmongering doesn't make for interesting gameplay, because they just drop dead if you look at them hard. They also suck at 1upt, even more so because they don't field 20 units.
I'll pirate this this time. I regret spending double money on steam for 2x Civ5 BNW and we ended up not playing it because it's not really that good once you're into it.
It's amusing you critique that method of winning in 5 while praising 1, where turtling one city was often trivial to win with even on the highest difficulties.
I don't understand why Vaclav is cupping Civ5's balls? I've played every Civ game 1-5 and AC, and 5 is by far the worst of the pack. It sucks. I'd be interested in this new AC if it was based off their old system, but it's based off of Civ5, so fuck that. They still owe me a refund for Civ5.
I ain't got a chip on my shoulder, I got a fucking boulder, and I don't give a shit. They ripped us off, it's as simple as that.
I got civ5 off humble and I feel ripped off -- it's that bad.
It looks pretty, I guess. Where was the gameplay though? Where was the adjusting AI? Where were the game mechanics to make each victory goal require completely different play styles?
civ5 was pretty with a lot of content, but the AI sucked major balls...for a game that is focused entirely on single player, and from a studio claiming to be AAA, its unacceptable and the sole reason I will not pay a dime for this game until I am satisfied with tons of reviews that the game is challenging and doesnt fall short once you're done watching the artifice of the first 40 turns with virgin eyes.
I really enjoy Civ 5. I must be doing it wrong.
civ 5 was fine... you nerds complain about everything.
Morons in the thread just don't understand that there are skill difficulties to the game that require you to rethink the way you play after each setting. If you think the highest difficulty setting is still too easy you can stop playing games altogether.
Krozman the Cavalier
Best of the Best Champion - Karana
Raid Leader of <The Darkwind> Antonius
Game has flaws. It's not SimCity, but its definitely not Civ 2.
hm civ6 looks like turn based starcraft2. the pc gamer article makes it seem somewhat interesting
the only way the game appears hard is because the difficulty levels affect mostly one thing: the headstart the ai gets. once you reach or surpass it, it is so dumb that you almost automaticaly win unless you are a mouthbreating moron.
Compare this to game like Eu4 where there are dozens more civilizations fighting for power, but its difficult from A to Z and the ai is smart (eventho it has its faults as well, they arent major like in civ5).
I enjoyed Civ 4 (and FFH2) as well. They're both fun to me.
Some things about 5 I really do like. Some things about 5 are very much steps backwards from 4. Civ5 is like Civ3, yo.
But it is very pretty and if you play it on a Standard map at a standard speed it's even pretty fun. But all the balances get grossly distorted if you start to try to go smaller or bigger.
I prefer 3 and 4 myself. Not making any claims 5 was perfect. (Japan minicampaign from 3 is still my favorite)
But EVERY version of Civ has had AI faults that were easily exploited and Civ5 while less brutal overall can't be cheapened into a joke by roping off areas with minimal units etc.
Civ games have never been about superb AI.
And everything this new version is claiming shows interest in fixing complaints in the thread so far. VariableAI including terrain and faction choices influencing them plus no UN type stuff and widely varying goals in the three 'religions' looks to push a lot of aggression plus the alien life will no doubt push some as well. (likely required to a degree by the quests mention)
Hell look at how many complaints were dealt with well in Enemy Within just months ago by the same people. We're talking about people with a good track record not EA.
Didnt one of the Civ4 expansions focus on space or have a space scenario in it?
And Alpha Centauri was amazing just for the lore/world it created. Would be great if they could recreate that here.
Final Frontier Plus
Theres 4 big mods for Civ4 that do more than reskin the game, they change the basic gameplay itself. Final Frontier Plus is space opera science fictiony. Fall From Heaven 2 (and Fall Further, the modmod for it) is high fantasy. Rhyse of Civilization makes the game more like an interactive pseudo-sims "push the button and watch it go" experience than an actual game, but it is strangely neat despite/because of it. And there's Planetfall, which is based on Alpha Centauri and does about the best job of porting that game into the new engine that you're ever going to get. It's not quite Alpha Centauri, it's not quite Civ4, but it does what its intended to do extremely well.
The Civ games all hold up, even Colonization and AC are still very playable today. I'm curious to see this, but hopefully it's not just a cash in.
Civ5 never really bothered me. I played it, liked it. But prefer to play previous iterations more. That's the great thing about this series. They never really get outdated unless graphics are really important to you.
I liked Civ 5 as well; but I agree, the AI felt out of whack. I think it was less about "dumbing" down, and more about the fact that because of 1UPT; the old way of increasing difficulty (Production advantages) had hardly no impact late game, because the AI couldn't make stacks of doom. Having to rely more on actual map strategy really highlighted how weak the Civ AI is. And the "combat" AI has always been weak--Civs have always derived most of their difficulty from empire management, not combat strategy. But really, combat AI is a problem in all grand strategy games though. Even ones with "good" AI, like CK2 and all, have major faults. Computer opponents have just been left in the dust by humans as games have grown more complex.
Honestly, the most exciting thing in games, for me, won't be something like the VR head sets--but rather a big leap in AI technology. I think I read somewhere that MS is working on algorithms that can sort and study saved games on the "cloud" in order to better adopt human strategies from similar move sets. Shit like that will be a MASSIVE leap forward in strategy games; if your computer can look at the situation, go and access a few hundred saves from people in similar situations and use their reactions to make better moves. Which is essentially how, as far as I know, a chess simulator can be so good (By simply memorizing all possible moves)--obviously this would be on a far more complex/larger scale. (I'm not holding my breath, though but If it could be done, it would be awesome.)
Going to love the day the computer is even "almost" as good as a human, so the games can be surprising and deeply complex; but I can still pause and save the game because I'm not wasting an actual person's time.
Last edited by Lithose; 04-13-2014 at 06:27 AM.
Well civ5 is def a civ game but its about par with civ3 and im playing it that much (or less) i should say, didnt even bother with BNW expansion since they wont fix the (higher difficult cheating) AI like they promised pre-release.
Im looking forward to this AC sequel since i cant find the disc on it for the life of mine. But will def hold out a few month for reviews and bug fixing or gold edition.
Also thx for naming the civ4 mods, never bothered to mod that one, will def check them out.
Civ 5 was great. It cured me of my 15+ year off and on addiction to Civ games. I actually had more fun and spent more time playing CivWorld on Facebook than I did playing Civ 5. And that's not an endorsement of CivWorld, it's just an illustration of how disappointing Civ 5 was.
Regardless, I'll likely try this out shortly after release. Even if the engine is based off Civ 5, the game itself should have very different mechanics so there's a good chance this can still be fun.
Honestly my complaint with Civ5 is no MP mods. It makes no sense to me. They have some seriously fucked up code if they can't allow two players with the exact same mods to play in a game together.
I wonder how much it cost them to use that song. At first I was like "oh. oh no.", but it only takes about 30 seconds to really get into it.
Well played, Firaxis. Well played.
So I have like one game into Civ 5, hell its not even done yet. Never been a big civ player. I think i have up to Gods and Kings, can anyone describe to a civ noob why i should buy four over getting BnW for 5?
Fall From Heaven 2, that's all you need to know.
[MOD] Fall from Heaven II - Civilization Fanatics' Forums
Oh, and I should add that this is a good mod/patch to run with FFH2 About this Mod - Civilization Fanatics' Forums It fixed a few things after Kael left.
Yup, I'll jump on the CivV hate bandwagon too. Civ4 was simply superior in so many ways, but what gave it such longevity for me (and causes me to still play it on occasion) are both the modability and the plethora of options. The favorite of them were the Always War and Always Peace options. I still have fond memories of the conquest victory I managed to achieve with the Always Peace option active. Cultural city flipping 4tw!
As for this game, well, I loved AC. I'd almost say it was better than Civ2 (almost). And the modable units were ingenious. If they said they were just doing a redo of AC I'd have been happy, but the fact that they stress this is NOT AC2 leaves me a bit worried. Still, I'll prolly buy this during a Steam sale, unless the verdict is that it's shit.
When haven't any of these games had AI issues. From Civilization (And all it's versions) to the Total War series. There isn't anything that ever goes right with the AI (Unless something is modded). I loved Civ 1. Played Civ 5 and didn't find anything wrong with it either. The only one I had a problem with was when I would steamroll tanks into a city and they would be beaten by Phalanx or something because they were parked behind city walls. (I think that was Civ 2, or 3 - it was ridiculous)
At any rate, this is a reskin/tile and it should be about 10 bucks.
Yes, I know I played Civ 1 too much when I still remember these details 20 years later.
^^ That must have been it then. I remember getting all cocky. Patton Vs the Romans. And... welp.
MadDjinn was able to play the latest C:BE build and is showing off some faction strategies in this video, they also talk about several different gameplay features ie affinities: FiraxisGames - Masterclass: Faction Strategies with MadDjinn - Twitch
The Reviews are dropping. Sounds like an adequate entry into the CIV series, but nothing truly special.
Many of the other reviews are 9+ so there seems to be a disconnect between those that think this is a strong title that builds on the Civ premise and those that see it as an also-ran.
It seems far too early to really say. You sort of need a week to decide if a civ iteration is any good.
Unless it is immediately, obviously, not.
My main fear with this title is that it's basically a re-skin of the shitty parts of Civ5 with some small feature changes. If so, it's going to be bad.
They really need to support multiplayer more than they did in Civ5. It was just completely awful how much of a step back they took from Civ4 with things like drawing lines, pinging, setting labels, etc. Not to mention the lack of mod support for MP - as stated above, Civ4 with expansions was great, but what made Civ4 one of the best games were the mods that supported it, like Fall from Heaven and kMod
I get the feeling some are going to downvote because it's not more a 'true' sequel to AC than anything else. Joystiq review mentions it feels more of a Civ 5 expansion then anything else.
Joystick is also retarded because the only things that carry over from Civ 5 are the graphics, the 1upt system and some UI elements
Affinities and the tech web as well as you being able to choose the starting boni give you much more customization options than what was possible in Civ 5 or any other Civ game before that
then theres satellites with which you can influence the landscape around you ie removing or spawning Miasma, giving boni to tiles or even spawning resources with a low %
espionage is closer to Civ 4, you can choose missions for your agents to steal energy (=money), steal tech beakers, incite a revolution or even setup a dirty bomb
Affinities are a bit like ideologies but you aren't locked into them, you can grab boni from other Affinities if you like
and then you have random missions with rewards that will either push you further into one affinity or unlock some new stuff for already researched/build units and structures, ie the Ultrasonic Fence unlocks a choice between increasing the fences radius of effect or give your trade units basically immunity to the aliens
there are some negatives such as wonders being less effective than in other Civ games, the AI is still dumb when it comes to naval battles (they only upgraded the AI for land and air battles it seems) and diplomacy feels a bit lacking
MP is there but without mods
if youre unsure if you like this one or not check out streamers when they start up, especially Maddjin is good at breaking any kind of Civ game over his knees while explaining very well what and why he is doing it in a particular way
Last edited by Teron D'Amun; 10-23-2014 at 06:49 PM.
Picked it up for $35 got a group of friends who all play Civ together so I'll get my money's worth
Yeah in case you wanna buy it, GMG has this VIP thing, you log in, click on the VIP thing and you get pretty big price cuts on a few games. It's 35$(or 35euros) with this on there, which for a new game is cheap as shit anyway.
After having watched a few hours of gameplay I feel like I have already played this game to death; if you are bored of Civ V and were hoping for something refreshing to mix it up then look elsewhere. It felt like I was watching a Civ V game with blander AI's, large insects, drab looking terrain tiles and near identical gameplay/diplomacy. There is nothing really new to see; everything different is a minor tweak of standard systems aside from satellites which work like the magical buffs you cast on cities from the fantasy themed Civ clones like Warlock. Granted there is only so much Firaxis can do and still have it be a Civ game but I would have at least expected a space layer of some sort in a "Beyond Earth" setting and perhaps alien life more interesting than Dune worms and purposeless insects that bounce around randomly and accomplish little more than take up space. When I think of settling on an alien world I would expect the new environment to be the biggest and most persistent challenge but all too quickly the roaches are squished/tamed, cities are plopped out left and right and the Civs are at each others throats like always. Meh.
Having a subterranean and space layer would actually be pretty fucking awesome. You could even have a few civs that don't settle planetside. They stay in orbit and/or travel around the galaxy (FTL) and occasionally visit. All of Earth wouldn't have the exact same strategy regarding what to do after leaving Earth.
I'm not too thrilled at this point. AC was a completely new game with many different mechanics, here in BE they copied Civ 5 in so many aspects. Health works pretty much exactly like happiness from what I've seen so far, energy replaced money, colonists halt city growth and so on...
Number of cities increasing unhappiness was already a questionable mechanic that made little sense, but founding city B now decreases health everywhere? Ugh.
Wow, even chopping down a forest gives +20 production in a city. Makes perfect sense, we have no knowledge of the properties of the trees, let's build shit out of it!
Last edited by Quineloe; 10-24-2014 at 12:38 PM.
Where are people seeing the $35 price? I'm seeing as $49.99 on GMG
Nevermind... it helps if I login first.
Last edited by Qhue; 10-24-2014 at 02:22 PM.
I just definitely feel that I'm simply playing a reskinned Civ V. Pretty much everything feels the same. I was hoping for something that would make this seem way more sci-fi, but I can't help but see everything as the same. Maybe it will feel unique later.
AC wasn't completely new. It was still an iteration on civ. Maybe half of AC was new. AC was great but it was still basically civ 2.5. MoM was like civ 1.5 I think!
Anyone have that endless legends? How does it stack up against Civ5?
Where is the option to change key bindings? Really hate using arrow keys to move around.
MWS Natural "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving black people approaches 1."
I was hoping it would have MP mods. Doesn't, so won't bother picking it up. There's almost no chance they'll add it since they said it was 'in the works' for Civ V at one point and it's clearly not going to happen there ever either.
AC had awesome writing for all the flavor stuff. This game feels like a mod.
Tech web is great, that's probably my favorite new addition so far. It adds a lot of variety in how you go about doing things. Orbital layer is cool too, and espionage is done well. Pretty happy with it so far, my only gripes are the noted lack of personality in faction leaders, and UI seems a bit less intuitive to navigate than civ5. It's no SMAC2, but it's a pretty solid game and hopefully an expansion or two makes it great.
The worst part so far is the AI. Nothing changed since civ5 so expect a lot of "we want open borders to pass through your land, so we'll offer it to you if you give us 7 luxury items and 40 gold a turn."
Last edited by Tol; 10-24-2014 at 04:36 PM.
I can see where some reviews were coming from with the lack of life in the game. In classic civ, you are reliving all of history, which is awesome. In Alpha Centauri, they did an absolutely awesome job of designing characters and a tech tree that set the atmosphere. 15 years later I can still hear 'I don't know but I've been told, Deidre's got a network node...' in my head, and there's so many more .
The alien nest thing is pretty good in BE and I felt like I was under an alien onslaught - but the setting, characters and techs really didn't do much for me. I know it's completely unrealistic to expect anything as good as Alpha Centauri, but still a bit disappointing. From a pure gameplay perspective, I'm having fun though and I prefer a lot of the mechanics to Civ5.
Why does the AI half way through the game start attacking outposts? And how do I prevent it without declaring war and just stomping their armies away from the outposts?
Do new outposts reappear or is the game basically outpost free by the end game?
new outposts can appear over the course of the game but afaik theres a limit
Sounds like this game is going to be awesome when its fully released in 18 months, I can't wait.
Because we only stand for being owned and used for profit by our own. Rererolled.org
The multiplayer is just as ass as regular BNW. We've played the first game with just three, and it takes forever between turns. We had to restart the session twice now too, barely 130 turns in after 4 hours.
Well I just played my first game of this on whatever hard setting was called this time and it was a snooze as far as challenge goes. The gameplay was engaging enough as like in Civ there is usually something to build or look at most of the time but I never felt compelled to do anything in response to an AI from beginning to end save for one random non AI station that I killed for blocking a city location I wanted. It all amounted to busy work while I waited for the most boring victory condition (Contact) to complete; you build two buildings after digging up two locations then you wait an unspecified time for the device to phone home... no interaction of any sort beyond that; it randomly decides when it's done and then it's GG. The only challenge this victory presents is that it cuts off all of your accumulating energy income but by that point in the game you really shouldn't need to be buying anything anyhow.
Combat was actually worse than in Civ V; I was declared on once out of the blue near the tail end of the game by a guy I traded with quite a bit and never bothered at all (nothing new I know) but he didn't stand a chance as he funneled all of his units into a hilly death trap and sent his artillery around it to be picked off one by one. He built one or two planes that died to interception instantly, had no trump card (no WMD's as far as I know of) and his cities fell in 3 turns to 1 melee and one ranged infantry (not artillery) unit. That's right late game 14+ pop cities falling in a couple of turns to a robot and a glorified archer . He also had inferior military tech by a few levels which is odd considering I didn't try too hard to navigate the tech web optimally and often went for wonders and dabbled in other affinities. Anyhow I've watched some "Immoral" setting games that were similarly easy; no AI hordes hemming you into a pen in the first few turns like in Civ V and a general lack of aggression and competence when following victory conditions.
Bottom line is the game is inferior to Civ in content, theme and challenge at the moment.
So it's kind of wierd to me that harmony never makes it so aliens like you or don't attack you. I was 12+ deep in harmony and aliens still attacked my guys and didn't give two shits.
I now wanted to post about my biggest gripe, with a screenshot about the "MODS" section still only showing single player but I got invited to another MP game before I even made it that far :/
is this still the case?
Last edited by Quineloe; 10-25-2014 at 10:29 AM.
its a snoozefest, wait for the DLCs when it all goes on sale.
Did not like it at all. It's a shame they are calling it a AC successor.
I'm enjoying it... prolly more because I skipped the last 2 civ5 xpacs. I'm terrible I know.
Regreting the pre order big time Everything has been said here along the lines of being a civ 5 reskin. AI is what kills it for me, I had foolishly hoped the AI would not be as horrendous as civ5, sadly its even worse especialy if you've been playing CK2 or EU4 the past year...
Brael, a Shadow Knight of EverQuest fame always posts on another board that I'm a part of. He's been doing lots of multi player civ 5, and definitely has some issues with it. Here is his post:
That post doesn't mean much to me because I'm not playing Civ, but I'm sure some of you are experiencing his frustrations.Originally Posted by Brael
They need a way to automate your trade routes so you can just have it keep renewing the same trade route every time automatically instead of having to micromanage them nonstop.
Yeah, Civ IV with expansions is my favorite iteration.
Haven't tried Beyond Earth - waiting for expansions. Hate that they now design their games this way.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)