A Look at Civilization V: Gods & Kings

  • 62 results
  • 1
  • 2
#51 Posted by BisonHero (6247 posts) -

@Alex said:

@Divina_Rex: To be honest, I didn't really get a great sense of how different the combat was in the one game from the other. I actually played original Civ and the expansion back-to-back a couple of times, and combat didn't feel radically different to me. I know the developers have talked up this new combat system, but just me personally, I had a hard time differentiating.

I'm guessing the big difference is that if you're outclassed by technology, there will be an even greater difference. Before, on the ten point scale, if a tank attacked a spearmen unit, the tank would obviously instantly kill it, but the spearmen unit would somehow take off 10% of the tank's health (leaving the tank at 9/10 HP). I'm assuming that under the new system, that same spearmen unit would do significantly less damage than 10% of the tank's total health.

But yeah, when units from roughly comparable eras clash, I imagine the new combat system is probably going to function almost exactly the same.

#52 Posted by BisonHero (6247 posts) -

@Crispy said:

I would have never, in a million years, pegged Alex for a Civ guy.

Well, if you'll recall fall 2010, Ryan was also a Civ guy (or at least a Civ V guy), possibly because Civ V tried so hard to be approachable to players who hadn't played the series for a while. I'm willing to bet Ryan wasn't any good at it, because when the hell else does he ever play strategy games, but even he was interested in it.

Civ seems to transcend genre preferences, especially since it's fully turn-based, and doesn't tax your multitasking/reflexes like Starcraft II or the battles in Total War.

#53 Edited by ThatFrood (3375 posts) -
That new functionality comes in the form of espionage and religion, two things that slide so easily into the old Civ V gameplay, you'll be amazed they weren't there all along.

This is a really funny sentence.

I don't know, there are still other issues I have with Civ V, but this is definitely a big step in the right direction.

#54 Posted by Fin (85 posts) -

I really really do not enjoy Navarro's writing.

#55 Posted by vinsanityv22 (1064 posts) -

I'm no fan of Civ, but if it'll bring about another great Dave and Vinny Quick Look, I'm all for it! That's all I care about :)

#56 Posted by ArsenalFan (71 posts) -

Military-grade blimps? Just when I thought I was out... they pull me back in.

#57 Posted by MrKlorox (11209 posts) -

Nice. Too bad the game didn't ship with some of these features, like previous Civ games. At least they're adding mechanics instead of merely more civs and units.

#58 Posted by Obinice (274 posts) -

I completely coincidentally got dug into Civ 5 again about a week ago, then heard about this expansion.

MY BODY IS READY

#59 Edited by TeenageJesusSuperstar (170 posts) -

Probably not the best idea to label your previews "A Look At" considering the focus the site has on Quick Looks. Kinda confusing; the messaging could be clearer, more distinct.

#60 Posted by Zeg (83 posts) -

@FollowSmoke said:

This should've been in the original Civ5 build. It's the exact same stuff Civ4:BTS had. They stripped it away for Civ5 and are re-selling it.

Exactly. I wasn't "amazed they weren't there all along" as before Civ5 even came out we knew they weren't and that pretty much the same thing happened to Civ4. Maybe the more amazing thing is that its taken this long for them to make this expansion.

The only reason I ended up with the full round of Civ4 expansions was because of a Steam sale, so maybe I'll play this in a couple more years or something...

#61 Posted by Erdrickgr (1 posts) -

I don't really understand the comments saying that it's strange for this to come out in 2012 when the original game was in 2010. The Civ franchise doesn't come out with a new game every 2 to 3 years, and it certainly doesn't churn out roster-update games every year. We only get a new Civ game every 4-5 years, so it makes perfect sense to try to space the additional content further apart than most games do.

#62 Posted by Wuddel (2079 posts) -

MY BODY IS READY ;)

All the concepts from Civ4 without the "Stack of Doom" crap. Yay!

#63 Posted by RVonE (4607 posts) -

@Erdrickgr said:

I don't really understand the comments saying that it's strange for this to come out in 2012 when the original game was in 2010. The Civ franchise doesn't come out with a new game every 2 to 3 years, and it certainly doesn't churn out roster-update games every year. We only get a new Civ game every 4-5 years, so it makes perfect sense to try to space the additional content further apart than most games do.

Absolutely. The difference with last Civ cycle is perhaps that those expansions came once a year (or so) while this time we had to wait two years for a product update. It makes me wonder how far out Civ VI still is.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.