Is CiV a worthy succesor to the Civilization franchise?

[Derpy Hooves]

After the whole rather vaguely worded "Is CiV a good game" thread, I was wondering about this because many people that voted yes or inbetween attached disclaimers about the game simply not being an up to par continuation of the series.

Happy voting!

 

[Tokira]

I voted yes.

While Civ V has its flaws and it could definitely better it is, after all, a civilization game and it is fun to play it every now and then. It might not be as addictive, complex and challenging as the previous games in the series as the games though.

 

[FeiLing]

It is a worthy Civ game. I'm just not happy about the many technical issues and the lack of will to resolve them ("money has been made, so we don't care"... is my guess).

The rules or the content of the game are pretty good.

 

[El_Machinae]

Every game has 'rules', so there's a way of getting what you want by following a strategy. If the strategy is different, more difficult, or maybe more exciting .... I think the game is better than the previous one.

If you're doing the same thing as last time, then it's an issue. IMO.

 

[Chibiabos]

Civilization V is definitely my least favorite of the series thus far (not counting CivRev or CivWorld which I haven't tried and don't intend to; 'regular' Civs I-V I've all tried and up through IV enjoyed).

 

[Snoopaloop]

Yes, it needs an expansion though, not just these single/double civ dlc packs. Both Civ3 and 4 improved with an expansion pack or two.

 

[apocalypse105]

I voted a big NO

In all the series diplomacy has been a big part of the game. You can say it made the series.


And civilization withouth diplomacy and civilzation acting like humans and that favors war over diplomacy and basicly making it a war game basicly removes the feeling I had with the civilization series.


Building a civilization like you want it be peacefull and go science or culture or go dominate the world That was for me the reason why I started playing this game.

If I want a turn based war game I play advance wars with my friends or agains the AI its maybe even better then civ 5

 

[FeiLing]

And civilization withouth diplomacy and civilzation acting like humans and that favors war over diplomacy and basicly making it a war game basicly removes the feeling I had with the civilization series.

If I want a turn based war game I play advance wars with my friends or agains the AI its maybe even better then civ 5

Like in Civlization II right? I remember diplomacy was fine there.
Then MGE came out and it turned into a '100% WAR against every AI no matter what you do' game.

In CiV you don't have to warmonger all the time. Sure it's the easiest win and sure even if you would like to play a game without being dow'd that won't happen on deity. However you can defend and get peaceful with them again (for longer or shorter times). Moreover you'll only get guaranteed dows from the closest neighbors.
Only when you are warmongering, then everyone will hate you. Simple as that. Try not to start more than 1 war. Do not eliminate an AI totally (leave him a city) - then you'll not be hated by everyone.

In Civ2 MGE this wasn't the case. It was 100% war all the time.

Could it be that people don't even really remember how the old games were?
"The world used to be (much) better in former times."
herp-derp

 

[chazzycat]

definitely worthy. not perfect, but neither were those games. all I can say is it still keeps me up way too late at night.

 

[Gucumatz]

It is a better multiplayer experience than any other civ game (even with all the lag, crashes, etc.) except for maybe civ 4, but maybe even better than civ 4 multi.

Singleplayer? It is a vast downgrade from civ 4 by the simple fact the AI is lacking, features are lacking, fun is less.

But, nevertheless, I still voted yes.

 

[Camikaze]

What on earth does 'worthy successor' even mean?

I voted 'yes'. It's good that they changed things up a bit. A successor needs to be different, and Civ5 achieved that (for better or worse, depending on your opinion).

 

[Optional]

What on earth does 'worthy successor' even mean?

Hmm, yeah, like is Obama a worthy successor of Bush? What are you going to answer if you like Obama but didn't like Bush? Would your answer then be a no?
Or you find both of them equally worthless? Would your answer then be a yes?
And if you like one of the previous Civ games, but not the others, with which one do you compare Civ 5 then?

I found 'Is Civ 5 a good game?' a much more straight forward and less tricky question. It was asked by somebody who hasn't played the game at all. I'm assuming he just was interested in the opinion of those who had.
With this new poll, I'm not sure what the opening poster is after, and does it really add to 'Is Civ 5 a good game?' and some other opinion threads?

 

[Tabarnak]

If it wasn't good, i wouldn't play it. So i voted yes

Less complicated game than his predecessor, but the ''fun'' factor is still there. At least for me.

 

[qec]

I voted yes, but have only played Civ4 and CivRev. I had about 350 hours logged on Civ4 so was fairly familiar with it, and beat CivRev tons of times on the 360 and on the iPhone as well. From what I experienced with the other 2 mentioned games I totally think Civ5 is a worthy continuation.

 

[Tabarnak]

It is a better multiplayer experience than any other civ game (even with all the lag, crashes, etc.) except for maybe civ 4, but maybe even better than civ 4 multi.

Singleplayer? It is a vast downgrade from civ 4 by the simple fact the AI is lacking, features are lacking, fun is less.

But, nevertheless, I still voted yes.

Completely agree. Vast is a bit harsh though. 1upt is why the AI is really hard to program. There is some situations where he's kind of smart.

 

[apocalypse105]

It is a better multiplayer experience than any other civ game (even with all the lag, crashes, etc.) except for maybe civ 4, but maybe even better than civ 4 multi.

Singleplayer? It is a vast downgrade from civ 4 by the simple fact the AI is lacking, features are lacking, fun is less.

But, nevertheless, I still voted yes.

I do agree that the combat system is extremely fun in multiplayer and challenging. However the game has many balance issues

and there seems only one way to play online. Some options in the game are never used online kinda stupid

liberty the only best social policy
and research agreements beeing rare rationalisme opener is not worth it. You usally go liberty and then piety for the happiness and then a other social policiy thats it.

AND THIS ONE BUGS ME THE MOST :
For early wars there is only iron to be agressive because horses have city penallty and a player withouth iron is basicly screwed and will have a much harder time in the early game.


City states are ueless online so greece,siam unique ability are basicly useless
And some leaders are olmost never played online there are only a few leaders who are favored online

 

[gozpel]

I voted no, as I did for CIV4.

Main complain is that you can't play succession games anymore, which was my greatest delight of CIV3. Civ4 damaged that badly and civ5 killed it.

But as a successor in the series, it's still a weak no for me. It was bugged to infinity when I got it, then they made 2-3 gamerule changes within a few months. Like happiness and stuff like that.

Then seeing this omfg stupid AI, not showing 2 bits of intelligence in a whole game, it makes me almost cry. But hexes and a few other things, I DO like.

All in all, this game is weaker than civ4 in this status, which reminds me that civ4 is still weaker than civ3 in it's status. No matter that civ3 had endless SOD's coming for you and the AI was intelligent as rhubarb, it was such a great fun playing SG's.

I'm not sure they even CAN patch this game up, we need modders to fix most problems, I think.

 

[Tatran]

^
IIRC, the civ3 AI knew the map + strategic resources right from the start and it knew the positions of all units during the game.
And, Conquests introduced some annoying bugs, submarine dow + the AI didn't create armies anymore nor did the AI attack them.

 

[gozpel]

^
IIRC, the civ3 AI knew the map + strategic resources right from the start and it knew the positions of all units during the game.
And, Conquests introduced some annoying bugs, submarine dow + the AI didn't create armies anymore nor did the AI attack them.

You're right Tatran, all that happened and more. But it was more fun playing back then, especially on hard levels and 5 city challenge AND together with other people.

The normal SP could be as irritating as the newer version, because of the bugs you pointed out and maybe 49 other bugs/ai-cheats you didn't mention

But, the AI COULD build a formidable army in no time on Deity and would use it. If it wasn't against you, there would be a chance to win. But today, stacks of doom isn't really the type of combat we're looking for and there for the hex-play improved the game a bit.

IF only the AI could understand it.

 

[Haig]

Finally Civ game got rid of the awful stacks, combat has never been so much fun.
Also I like the unique abilities of leaders instead of the 'agricultural/scientific' style traits of past.

But I don't need every week these new polls, it's like their creators try to prove something to themselves like "yeah! did you see that? not everyone loves Civ V!".