Civilization: Beyond Earth Rising Tide E3 Gameplay Video

Skeptical. I'm a huge Civ fan, and BE didn't do much for me. That other Starships game was also morel like something I would have expected to play on a tablet. Not impressed with Sid.
 
Been gradually playing more and more BE games lately, guess it's growing on me. Using all the essentially wasted water space looks like an interesting idea, going to make some very busy and fill maps by the looks of it.
 
Cannot get excited for this and I love Civilization. Half the fun of Civ was the iconic leader/faction, tech tree and wonder flavor. Beyond Earth is just generic and sterile in comparison.
 
Ducman69 said:
Skeptical. I'm a huge Civ fan, and BE didn't do much for me. That other Starships game was also morel like something I would have expected to play on a tablet. Not impressed with Sid.
Click to expand...

Civ V was pretty lame without its expansions. I feel the same way about BE, it's not finished yet.
 
DeathFromBelow said:
Civ V was pretty lame without its expansions. I feel the same way about BE, it's not finished yet.
Click to expand...

That seems to be the status quo for Firaxis/2K, release sequel after sequel of the same IP, and the game kind of sucks until an expansion or two come out to actually give it new/useful features, but by then people are already turned off on the game.

Oooh you can make water cities now.... there was a civilization type clone ages ago that already did that, they also allowed space cities too IIRC.
 
+1 For Endless Legend, it's everything Beyond Earth should've been and more. Wish steam had their refund program back then. I couldn't even play BE because it didn't support 144hz monitors properly.
 
Vulpesveritas said:
More and more as I read comments I fear I may be the only person who truly enjoys BE.
Click to expand...

Hehehe, don't let the internet heard mentality get to you. I like BE, quite a bit actually, if you like it great!
 
Brantoc said:
Endless Legend is a MUCH better game IMHO.
Click to expand...
DarkAngel_ZERO said:
+1

Best steam sale purchase I've made in a while. I'm debating on picking up the DLC pack for it, but the user reviews are flakking the hell out of it.
Click to expand...

Endless Legend is a completely different game than BE or Civ5. It was made to be a longer, more challenging and more diverse experience than what Civ is made for. Civ is made for a quicker and better Multiplayer experience, something you can play in a decent amount of time. It is also a bit more balanced. This also goes for Galactic Civ3, which is designed to be a longer game than the Sid Meier's Civ series.

The problem a lot of people have is they want more and more complexity and diversity in the game, but that doesn't lend itself well to multiplayer. Over the years, the Civilization series has been designed more as a good multiplayer experience. With multiplayer you need a lot more balance to the game. The more diverse you make the game, and on top of that lengthening it, makes it much more susceptible to balance issues. For all the great things in Endless Legend, it still has a number of balance issues.
 
NoOther said:
Endless Legend is a completely different game than BE or Civ5. It was made to be a longer, more challenging and more diverse experience than what Civ is made for. Civ is made for a quicker and better Multiplayer experience, something you can play in a decent amount of time. It is also a bit more balanced. This also goes for Galactic Civ3, which is designed to be a longer game than the Sid Meier's Civ series.

The problem a lot of people have is they want more and more complexity and diversity in the game, but that doesn't lend itself well to multiplayer. Over the years, the Civilization series has been designed more as a good multiplayer experience. With multiplayer you need a lot more balance to the game. The more diverse you make the game, and on top of that lengthening it, makes it much more susceptible to balance issues. For all the great things in Endless Legend, it still has a number of balance issues.
Click to expand...

The problem is BE is nothing new. It was a broken buggy mess and essentially a crappy reskin of Civ5. I loved Civ5 but they shouldn't have gotten away with charging full price for what basically amounted to an expansion pack that had no previous testing. By the time the first patch rolled out (which still didn't fix my issue) I was over it.
 
Ducman69 said:
Skeptical. I'm a huge Civ fan, and BE didn't do much for me. That other Starships game was also morel like something I would have expected to play on a tablet. Not impressed with Sid.
Click to expand...

Same, was hyped about it, played it for a few hours but just didn't feel it like past Civ games.
 
Ducman69 said:
Skeptical. I'm a huge Civ fan, and BE didn't do much for me. That other Starships game was also morel like something I would have expected to play on a tablet. Not impressed with Sid.
Click to expand...

Ditto. Didn't even buy BE. I might get it, if it goes on sale for $2, but it really doesn't look worth it.

The historical aspects of Civ are partially what make it worth playing. Put it in space and it becomes uninteresting to me.

I'd buy annew version of Colonization. Or a Civ 6 with a new engine/game dynamics in a heart beat, but this? No thanks.
 
NickJames said:
The problem is BE is nothing new. It was a broken buggy mess and essentially a crappy reskin of Civ5. I loved Civ5 but they shouldn't have gotten away with charging full price for what basically amounted to an expansion pack that had no previous testing. By the time the first patch rolled out (which still didn't fix my issue) I was over it.
Click to expand...

Except it wasn't. BE is not Civ5, nor was it ever meant to be. I am not sure what the the "buggy mess" is about, it always worked well for me. As far as an expansion pack, not sure what that is about either since it really isn't the same as Civ5, so not sure how it could be an 'expansion pack'? I think people are just putting unreal expectations on a game.
 
Zarathustra[H];1041704161 said:
Ditto. Didn't even buy BE. I might get it, if it goes on sale for $2, but it really doesn't look worth it.

The historical aspects of Civ are partially what make it worth playing. Put it in space and it becomes uninteresting to me.

I'd buy annew version of Colonization. Or a Civ 6 with a new engine/game dynamics in a heart beat, but this? No thanks.
Click to expand...

I really liked Colonization, I wouldn't mind seeing another version of that. But I think it would wind up being a bit watered down much like Civ5 and BE compared to the previous versions, mostly because of all the demands for multiplayer for every game these days.
 
They should give this free to save their name. Firaxis has turned to crap with their original release of Beyond Earth.
 
NoOther said:
Except it wasn't. BE is not Civ5, nor was it ever meant to be. I am not sure what the the "buggy mess" is about, it always worked well for me. As far as an expansion pack, not sure what that is about either since it really isn't the same as Civ5, so not sure how it could be an 'expansion pack'? I think people are just putting unreal expectations on a game.
Click to expand...

Apparently you didn't get the game Day 1 because it was literally Arkham Knight. The first few weeks every review was a thumbs down and they were sitting under 50% user raiting. The game was a broken mess and plenty of people have posted their opinions on why the game was a failure from launch.
 
NoOther said:
I really liked Colonization, I wouldn't mind seeing another version of that. But I think it would wind up being a bit watered down much like Civ5 and BE compared to the previous versions, mostly because of all the demands for multiplayer for every game these days.
Click to expand...

I found Civ5 to be very watered down when it first came out, coming from Civ4 Beyond the Sword. Two expansion packs later, I find Brave New World to be up there with the good Civ releases.

Civ 4 was actually the same. The original release was a let down, but by the second expansion, it was really really good.

This seems to just be a Civ thing :p
 
Zarathustra[H];1041704161 said:
Ditto. Didn't even buy BE. I might get it, if it goes on sale for $2, but it really doesn't look worth it.
Click to expand...
I swear the advent of Youtube "lets play" type videos of people who are in no way related to the gaming industry (i.e. shills who give good reviews based upon funding received from said products) has stopped me from buy many games I probably would have bought no questions asked.
 
Nope. Bought at launch (for a good discount but still). I am not buying individual DLC again. Maybe when it hits the bargain bundles with all the DLC included for $5. Game is no bueno.
 
NickJames said:
Apparently you didn't get the game Day 1 because it was literally Arkham Knight. The first few weeks every review was a thumbs down and they were sitting under 50% user raiting. The game was a broken mess and plenty of people have posted their opinions on why the game was a failure from launch.
Click to expand...

Actually I got it and played it day one, multiplayer with a few friends.

Zarathustra[H];1041704714 said:
I found Civ5 to be very watered down when it first came out, coming from Civ4 Beyond the Sword. Two expansion packs later, I find Brave New World to be up there with the good Civ releases.

Civ 4 was actually the same. The original release was a let down, but by the second expansion, it was really really good.

This seems to just be a Civ thing :p
Click to expand...

Yeah, that seems to be the gist of things lately. Firaxis spoke about this before how their first release of the game they are trying to make it more multiplayer friendly and balanced, and then back it up with an expansion to give all the added complexity people want. They found in the past when they started with the complexity it was was a lot harder to keep the game balanced. I believe they learned a lot of this tactic from Blizzard who does the same thing with their releases, balance, then added complexity.

When I first got Civ5 I thought just the base game played a lot smoother than the previous Civs, but I was really disappointed with the lack of complexity compared to Civ4. Of course many times we are comparing the launch of a game to the maturity of its predecessor which isn't entirely fair. Also they have had to water down and simplifly a lot to appeal to a larger audience. That is why other games such as Endless Legend exit for those of us that want all the complexity they can muster.
 
I can't imagine playing any of the Civ games in multiplayer... yuck! Just have people rage quit when they start to lose, and have to wait on their ass every turn... bleh.
 
Ducman69 said:
I can't imagine playing any of the Civ games in multiplayer... yuck! Just have people rage quit when they start to lose, and have to wait on their ass every turn... bleh.
Click to expand...

That is why you find a group of buddies that play it, and play with them. Multiplayer Civ games are a lot of fun.
 
NoOther said:
That is why you find a group of buddies that play it, and play with them. Multiplayer Civ games are a lot of fun.
Click to expand...

+1 it's great fun.

Can make for a relaxed atmosphere lan game around the table too.
 
NoOther said:
That is why you find a group of buddies that play it, and play with them. Multiplayer Civ games are a lot of fun.
Click to expand...

I've only done it once, with a former roomate. We only got through about half the game before he moved out. While it lasted, it was fun though.

Civ 5 lets you do turns simultaneously, provided you are far enough apart and not at war with each other, so it cuts down on the waiting.

I'd love to do it again, but it's tough to coordinate such a massive game in multiplayer. Great fun when it works though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top