Civilization V (5) - any good?

[lupi]

I think that the final "review" of civ 5 would be that it was destined to be a failure among long time series fans with all the changes it brought to the system. The challenge will be for the designers to complete the cycle with 6 having all these new/changed features expanded to their fullest while still feeling like you're playing the old game.

 

[JoshGuru7]

People definitely hated the gameplay changes in Civ 4 as well. I remember the threads about how "real" Civ fans were going to be sticking with Civ 3 forever, and if not for the forum cleaning would link to a few.

Personally I like Civ 5, hexes and single units are just more interesting to me than the stacks of doom marching everywhere. I also think that happiness as the contraint to expansion works just as well as the income constraint to expansion in Civ 4 did. At the same time, it doesn't bother me at all if somebody doesn't like it, since that will just make the expansion packs cheaper.

 

[minmaster]

don't even compare civ4 initial reactions to civ5's.
civ5 has fundamental core issues that is most likely unsolvable. they would have to redo the game from the ground up to take care of these major issues.
civ4 didn't have these issues, most of the issues were small fixable things that didn't expose any major core game mechanic problems.

 

[StinkyPinky]

I think the game has potential and I've been playing Civ since the early 90's.

It's basically broken by terrible diplomacy. Fix that and the game will be much more enjoyable.

 

[Chriscross3234]

http://www.garath.net/Sullla/Civ5/whatwentwrong.html

Sullla pretty much hits the nail on the head for several of Civ 5's flaws.

 

[tedrodai]

I'm a huge fan of the Civ series, though not a hardcore player by any means. I've always just chosen the 2nd easiest difficulty and had fun exploring, expanding, fighting, building a huge empire, trying to meet different win conditions...just having fun.

I played a very short match using the demo after all the comments at launch, so I haven't experienced much of the game yet. I was testing my limits in the game, and after I did something rediculously costly, I just quit the game to restart...only, I couldn't get up the desire to start a new game. The only major issue that bugged me was Liet touched on:

One of the biggest problem is that time FLIES. There's no feeling of being in any particular era. By the time you build a legionary and get it near an enemy city, it's time to upgrade to Laser Battle Hovertanks.

I decided not to buy the game, but I got it as a 'free bonus' with my Sandy Bridge CPU + motherboard last week. If that issue can be resolved by some good community mods, I'll definitely give it another shot, cause there are some fun things about the game. I just can't personally stand the pace mismatch between technology advances and production/exploration.

 

[Highmodulus]

Its good, not great. BTW- Civ 3 was the worst of the series. Not as good as 2, and rapidly eclipsed by 4 (especially after the first expansion).

Blame the crappy console version launched after 4 for many of the woes. Stupid Xbox kiddies- you ruin everything!

 

[sandorski]

I was going to buy it the day it came out, until I tried the Demo. I've played all the previous Civs, Civ 2 is still my favourite, but I play CivIV these days.

 

[Anteaus]

I love IV and V. Bugs aside, because they can be fixed, both games offer a different approach, therefore it is only natural for some people to be gravitated to one or the other. V simply hasn't been out long enough to contain the extensive feature set of IV which took multiple expansions, so I don't think its fair to use that comparison. Everyone has their own personal complaints for either game.

Ultimately your either going to like the new direction they went or not. It's really as simple as that. All the rest is just fluff. I don't understand the civil war going on between the IV and V fans these days. Aren't we all Civ fans?

 

[sigurros81]

I love IV and V. Bugs aside, because they can be fixed, both games offer a different approach, therefore it is only natural for some people to be gravitated to one or the other. V simply hasn't been out long enough to contain the extensive feature set of IV which took multiple expansions, so I don't think its fair to use that comparison. Everyone has their own personal complaints for either game.

Ultimately your either going to like the new direction they went or not. It's really as simple as that. All the rest is just fluff. I don't understand the civil war going on between the IV and V fans these days. Aren't we all Civ fans?

You're either naive or a peace loving hippie, or both

Yeah, we're all Civ fans, that's why we believe Firaxis took a step backwards in design mechanics when it comes to Civ5. If I wasn't a fan, I wouldn't give a rat's ass. I too enjoys Civ5, but the game is nowhere as fun and intelligently designed as Civ4, and the majority of fans tend to agree with that statement.

 

[Anteaus]

You're either naive or a peace loving hippie, or both

Yeah, we're all Civ fans, that's why we believe Firaxis took a step backwards in design mechanics when it comes to Civ5. If I wasn't a fan, I wouldn't give a rat's ass. I too enjoys Civ5, but the game is nowhere as fun and intelligently designed as Civ4, and the majority of fans tend to agree with that statement.

See that's where its apples and oranges. I feel that V is much more fun than IV so saying it's not as fun can't be universally true. In my opinion the greatest improvement came in the abolition of the "deathstack". V definitely needs work with AI and balancing, but not being able to bulldoze with a skyscraper stack of units is a great shift forward. My guess is that many of these weaknesses will be solved with expansions. Not my ideal fix, but then again IV gained much from expansions also.

Anyways, my point was that we shouldn't be snobbish about these games when newcomers come to the series. It's obvious V isn't as complex as IV, but the idea that somehow it can't stand on its own is silly. It is a great entry point to any new Civ player. In fact, I find it funny that people take it all as seriously as they do. I'm starting to think the Civ community is becoming as quick tempered as the wow community over the smallest of things.

 

[sigurros81]

See that's where its apples and oranges. I feel that V is much more fun than IV so saying it's not as fun can't be universally true. In my opinion the greatest improvement came in the abolition of the "deathstack". V definitely needs work with AI and balancing, but not being able to bulldoze with a skyscraper stack of units is a great shift forward. My guess is that many of these weaknesses will be solved with expansions. Not my ideal fix, but then again IV gained much from expansions also.

Anyways, my point was that we shouldn't be snobbish about these games when newcomers come to the series. It's obvious V isn't as complex as IV, but the idea that somehow it can't stand on its own is silly. It is a great entry point to any new Civ player. In fact, I find it funny that people take it all as seriously as they do. I'm starting to think the Civ community is becoming as quick tempered as the wow community over the smallest of things.

I don't think it's snobbish or quick-tempered to voice your opinion and disappointments on a game, especially if you've been a long time fan. Everyone's entitled, especially if they've paid hard earned cash for it.

Let's not get too philosophical about "universal truths" now, and let's keep it simple as how the majority of the community feels. If you think Civ5 is better than Civ4 just because it does not have stack of doom, then you've not read all of the posts in this thread, or are not open-minded enough to see the other side of the argument You said it yourself that they simplified Civ5, and that's the point where a lot of strategy gamers are having issues with, and rightfully so.

Like I said, Civ 5 is not a bad game by any means, it's just rather a big disappointment for old time fans how much they simplified the gameplay and how unpolished the presentation is.

 

[Sulaco]

See that's where its apples and oranges. I feel that V is much more fun than IV so saying it's not as fun can't be universally true. In my opinion the greatest improvement came in the abolition of the "deathstack". V definitely needs work with AI and balancing, but not being able to bulldoze with a skyscraper stack of units is a great shift forward. My guess is that many of these weaknesses will be solved with expansions. Not my ideal fix, but then again IV gained much from expansions also.

Anyways, my point was that we shouldn't be snobbish about these games when newcomers come to the series. It's obvious V isn't as complex as IV, but the idea that somehow it can't stand on its own is silly. It is a great entry point to any new Civ player. In fact, I find it funny that people take it all as seriously as they do. I'm starting to think the Civ community is becoming as quick tempered as the wow community over the smallest of things.

I just don't think "simplification" was necessary, and the vast majority of fans agree.

I was 9 years old when I started with the Civ series. Sure, it took awhile to get the hang of everything, and become a competent player, but it was never daunting or frustrating for me as a player, even as a kid.
The fact that Firaxis felt they needed to stop building on many of the foundations of what made the game so deep, and instead actually remove complex elements, for the only rational purpose of bringing in new players who simply weren't/aren't interested in the series or the style of gameplay, just felt like a colossal step back, not forward.

I also didn't help that I bought it on release day after anticipating it for months and payed $50.

 

[minmaster]

from what i gather in the civ community sites, most of the civ5 fans are from civrev (the console title) so the game is definitely not targeted to make old school PC civvers happy.

 

[Mike Gayner]

from what i gather in the civ community sites, most of the civ5 fans are from civrev (the console title) so the game is definitely not targeted to make old school PC civvers happy.

Bullshit.

 

[datalink7]

Bullshit.

Hey, you can like it and that's fine. But it certainly wasn't the game most Civ fans were hoping for.

 

[Mike Gayner]

Hey, you can like it and that's fine. But it certainly wasn't the game most Civ fans were hoping for.

Fact - most Civ fans are whining, bitching douchebags. Always have been.

 

[Sulaco]

Bullshit.

Most (not ALL, but again, MOST) old Civ fans are not too happy with Civ 5. This thread is just more evidence.

Whether that has anything to do with Revolutions or whatever who knows, but the second part of his statement is pretty accurate.

 

[minmaster]

now y'all made me go find the post:

I haven't had a chance to listen to it, but it's a pod cast http://fronttowardsgamer.com/2010/1...o-episode-28-dennis-shirk-for-civilization-5/

and an excerpt that CPA is referring to on civfantic's front page:

"Shirk mentioned how Civ 4 with BtS was considered to be near "perfect balance" by hardcore fans. Making Civ 5, they knew that making a better balanced game would be--"How do you make something over Beyond the Sword?" So they decided to change game concepts and such. And yes, as BtS pleased the hardcore fans, they decided to make 5 appeal more to those who might have loved Rev and wanted something more--but who may not be ready to leap into Civ 4's complexity.

Social Policies were made permanent because Shafer wanted people to develop a system over time that would be meaningful and not simply switched around. Shafer would be able to answer more fully the question why Social Policies are permanent, Shirk emphasized--but historically the idea is that you put "ideas into your people"--Americans who are democratic would be hard pressed to suddenly switch to Communism, is the *imo pretty good* example Shirk gave.

"Balance is ongoing"--esp. with the Civ series. To quote, Shirk said the testing team was a "fraction of a fraction of a percent of the total number of users" and that therefore future feedback and current feedback will play a part in later balance patches etc.

"We love the people who make enormous complex mods"--Shirk mentioned he knew forumers would include people who analyze, down to tiles and such--who would deliver constructive criticism--and really angry forumers, and people who were ecstatic--and people somewhere in the middle."

 

[datalink7]

Fact - most Civ fans are whining, bitching douchebags. Always have been.

And how is that relevant?

 

[imported_Alx]

Let's take a look at the civ4 genius which civ5 cannot compare to.

Stacks of units so big you can't even see what half of the units are, let alone be able to judge how the units and their promotions will perform against your own megastack.

Captured Paris with its cathedrals and wonders? Sorry, that city no longer has any cultural value and no, you can't work any tiles around it because they're all under the influence of the magnificent size five city close by with a temple in it.

As soon as one civ discovers a new technology, every other civ in the game suddenly has it due to instant, unlimited tech trading.


Just scratching the surface here. What a tremendous game civ4 was

 

[monkeh624]

To all the people who find the standard game boring (as I did) and who don't mind modding it, try the following:

Download the balance mods from here, (or get the names and download them from the in game mod browser):

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=385737

I didn't bother with any of the other mods in the list, only the balance ones. I find that enabling both 'Balance - City improvements' and 'Balance - Terrain Improvements' gives too much production (if you can believe that), so I normally enable one or the other (usually enable city improvements).

Then make a small modification to one of the games XML files, which is found here:

C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\steamapps\common\sid meier's civilization v\assets\Gameplay\XML

The file your looking for is called GlobalDefines.xml
Edit this in notepad and look for <Row Name="MIN_CITY_RANGE">
This tells the AI how many hexes must be between its cities. Its default value is 2, which (in my experience) leads the AI to place dozens of cities right next to each other.
This makes them extremely annoying to fight against, and when you take any of the cities they are next to useless as they are so close to the others.
Try increasing the value to 3 or 4 (experiment a bit to see which you prefer), then save the file.

Start the game, enable the mods and then go play!

Doing this actually made the game fun again. Try it, you might like it

 

[heat901]

Im going with 5 was doomed way before they even started making it.... 4 was just tooo good. It was either going to be a bad game or a game that was exactly like 4 which would not have been good either. I still do not know why people buy game on launch day/pre order.....I still wait for reviews or some word of mouth or if the price is right.

 

[CraigRT]

http://www.garath.net/Sullla/Civ5/whatwentwrong.html

Sullla pretty much hits the nail on the head for several of Civ 5's flaws.

I actually read the entire thing.
I don't think I could put to words my exact reasons for not enjoying the game, but he said them for me.... Everything he said is true, and the game sucks because of it all. Shame.. Back to Civ4.

 

[minmaster]

anyone try the game w/ the new patch?