Search results

This Civ series has always emphasized player choice. You get to pick where your cities go; what your cities build; technologies you research; religions; policies. This particular idea - forcing players to pay to work around the AI - simply doesn't fit with the rest of the series. It was...

Y'know, people are allowed to dislike the current version as well as to like it. Seriously, the saving grace of the Civ series is that they don't just tweak different versions. Civ 5 is, by far, my least favorite (I don't count Civ Rev as a serious entry.) But I will see what happens with...

Put me as another person hoping that they simply develop a new game in the series and learn from the mistakes that they made in this one. What makes the Civ series different, and interesting, is that they don't tend to just tweak the formula from one version to the next. Sometimes the changes...

There were numerous deep critiques of the game at release. The "you just want Civ 4.5" put-down was tired and pointless the week after release, and it hasn't improved with age. The critique is that the Civ series has never been terribly good as a wargame, and the map scale is totally...

It retains the lack of stacking, which in turn drives a lot of bad consequences in terms of simulation and empire-building. It retains the emphasis on war, the weakest link in the Civ series. When I tried Civ 5 I found that there were other games that did what it did better. There don't...

You picked a single phrase that was secondary to my point and attacked me because they removed it in an expansion that I don't have. The actual subject of discussion, prior to your aggressive nit-picking, was about how the poster felt that Civ 5 failed at providing the illusion of a historical...

I've seen the text in diplomatic messages in the base version. I'm not willing to waste more money on DLCs or expansion packs that don't fix basic design flaws in the version of this game that I enjoyed the least by a wide margin. But it certainly does represent progress that they removed a...

The older versions of Civ at least had the feeling that they could be historical simulations. People got angry when wars went on too long, for example; or religious fanatics would demand that you convert or face the sword. Civ 5 has people attacking you because "you're trying to win the same...

The Civ engine didn't have to deal with this problem before, and from the games I played it appeared to be a major contributor to lag. I'm not referring to this as an AI problem per se, as opposed to a performance problem. (I would say, however, that optimizing tactical position on arbitrary...

The awful performance is made worse by the no-stacking rule. Basically, each piece has to avoid all of the other pieces on a crowded map, and the net result is a tremendous amount of computational overhead. That's the sort of completely predictable thing that can chew up a large amount of...

I have to wonder if you have actually played Civ 4. The Civilization series has developed a balance - in technology progression, city development, victory conditions, and military. Civ 5 started with a rigid concept - no stacking - and the numerous problems in the game stem from this terrible...

Your arrogance is galling. There have been numerous, long thread where people with many years of experience detailed the problems with Civ 5. The scale is wrong for tactical combat; it distorted the production system; and the AI is objectively terrible at dealing with it. Furthermore, all of...

Civ 4 isn't crippled with a tragically misconceived combat system and a designer who wanted to turn an empire building game into a shallow wargame. Civ 5 is. That doesn't make Civ 4 perfect, but at least it isn't a train wreck like Civ 5.

Sorry, that doesn't wash. Many games get very good reviews from customers. Users can review the reviews, and the ones that receive a lot of recommendations get promoted to the top. Uncritical 5 star and one line 1 star reviews don't get this treatment. Oddly enough, the customers are only...

An absolute chasm has opened up between professional reviews and user reviews. The professional reviews are almost uniformly glowing, while the user reviews range from extremely positive to extremely negative. Civ 5, Dragon Age 2, Mass Effect 3 and Diablo 3 are just a few recent examples of...

It appears to keep the fatal flaw (no unit stacking), so I doubt that it will do anything for anyone who isn't already a fan.

Religion in Civ 4 was not "broadly unpopular". Like most game concepts, it had people who very much liked it and some people who really did not like it. The removal of religion in Civ 5 triggered numerous complaints. Espionage really did have more critics than fans, largely because of the...

In the real world waging war can be ruinously expensive and nations at peace have large economic benefits from trade. Civ 5 doesn't just fail because the computer algorithms perform poorly at giving a good war game. It fails because it provides such a poor simulation of history and the actual...

There have been many thoughtful critiques of Civ 5, and the single unifying thread in them is that the lack of stacking (on a strategic map) is an absolutely fatal flaw. The AI just can't cope with it, and it's inappropriate for the scale of the game. Furthermore, the needed adjustments in the...

The limitation on city spacing is unusually severe relative to prior versions of the game. For me, the idea that you can't direct natural city growth (by telling the city which tile to pick next) was an exasperating triumph of aesthetics over game design. You get to decide where a city goes...