Game News Civilization 5: Brave New World announced

[Whisky]

Tags: Civilisation V; Firaxis

A new expansion pack for Civilization 5 titled, "Brave New World," has been announced. It seems to be focused on domestic abilities, such as the ability to achieve a cultural victory and an increased focus on trade routes. A World Congress has been announced too, which sounds functionally identical to the UN in previous games.

Read more here.

 

[felipepepe]

Can I choose Ford as a God?

 

[Kahlis]

What is the Codex consensus on Civ 5 anyway? I grew up on 3 and then 4, the latter in particular I played religiously once the expansions came out. Civ 5 just feels so...wrong to me. The tone, the way all the buildings give such generic bonuses, universal happiness, this difficulty to appreciate what all your cities are contributing towards, bipolar AI, the heavy emphasis on military, it just doesn't feel fun to me.

 

[Hellraiser]

: x : x : x

It took this fucking long for potatoland to get added to civ and it took the most dumbed down civ game to do it (we do not speak of the console and facebook ones). The end is nigh!

King Casimir? I assume they mean Casimir III the Great, the last pureblood potato king in the piast line (after that it was his hungarian nephew and later his daughter who got to be king, hitmen kings and after the last one of those Sigismund II died various elected kings including some potato nobles). Which is an interesting choice as his achievements which earned him the "Great" part are surprisingly non-military*, he consolidated his rule after his father re-unified the country, founded the first university and modernized towns and castles (they say he received a poland made of wood and left one made of brick walls). Truly a king of

*he still doubled the size of potatoland during his reign, via map painting of course

 

[Zed]

I think Civ 5 is pretty good, but it needs more of what this expansion seems to bring. So good news, I say.
The fact that gustav adolf is playable from an earlier expansion (gods & kings?) makes this game twice as good.

 

[Zarniwoop]

What is the Codex consensus on Civ 5 anyway? I grew up on 3 and then 4, the latter in particular I played religiously once the expansions came out. Civ 5 just feels so...wrong to me. The tone, the way all the buildings give such generic bonuses, universal happiness, this difficulty to appreciate what all your cities are contributing towards, bipolar AI, the heavy emphasis on military, it just doesn't feel fun to me.

I don't know if there is a consensus but most agree it's not as good as IV. Or any other one. It's been vastly improved by the first expansion but in other ways still dumbed down. I think the AI is insane, not in difficulty but in behaviour. Metro and others feel they are just playing to win where they didn't before. Tech tree is largely scaled down but improved with the expansion. Culture has been crippled massively from IV (which maybe this expansion changes) Wonders are no longer the game changers they used to be and like everything else, generates very little culture, in fact most are pretty pointless. Especially the pyramids

Social policies are in my opinion incline over simply picking a government type. It's closer to Alpha Centauri's social engineering. Fighting is the best in the series for many reasons. Catapults and cannons etc can destroy stuff. Cities can defend themselves. No more stacks of doom. Terrain type has a bigger effect on combat, or maybe that's just me. Also no more infinite movement on railways. It's more realistic but does affect your deployment significantly. If you like crushing everyone with military might, it's worth the effort but if you prefer science or culture victories, not really. For some reason my civs end up stupidly rich every time, while in IV I could almost never hurry units.

Personally, my body is ready for this expansion. Once it's at least 50% off on Steam of course.

 

[pan]

Why is this called Brave New World? I realise that it's a reference to the book, but I don't see any justification behind that reference. Huxley's novel took it's name from a line in the play The Tempest. In both works the line is meant to be taken ironically, as the characters uttering it are faced for the first time with the degeneracy of so-called civilization. This video game has nothing at all similar to the situations of the play and the novel. It's just a bunch of new features pertaining to trade and a world forum. Perhaps those features could lead to a situation similar to the World State's governance in Huxley's novel? No, that is extremely doubtful, nothing like that has been done in previous Civilization games. I am going to make the assumption that the people who came up with this name did so because they were morons and thought it sounded cool.

 

[Zed]

 

[OSK]

I like the archaeology stuff. It gives you a reason to explore in the late game. The actual trade routes you need to protect sound good too. Civ 3 & 4 were pretty shit/meh until their final expansions, so hopefully this one will be a major improvement.

 

[Grunker]

Will it feature an actual Civliopedia? V is not my favourite game at all, but I'll be watchin' this from the side-lines.

 

[Metro]

Civ 5 was okay. Not nearly as bad as people panned it to be. Better than 4 in some aspects but worse in others. Some of the new features sound interesting but not enough for me to get back into playing. At this point I've mastered the AI sufficiently on Immortal to win most of the time. Deity is for masochists. Most games play out the same. I'd rather just stick to combat oriented 4x games.

 

[racofer]

: x : x : x

It took this fucking long for potatoland to get added to civ and it took the most dumbed down civ game to do it (we do not speak of the console and facebook ones). The end is nigh!

The Civilization series has finally scaled down to potato level.