Wardancing
Warlord
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2010
- Messages
- 162
incomplete. the student wrote it in steam and i couldnt read it.
How do you rate Civ V after the first 4 weeks?
- Thread starter SirMaru
- Start date
The problem is that you said you graded Shafer 5 an "A" because you could play on a higher difficulty level right off the bat.
That to me, seems like it'd be a negative thing rather than a positive thing. If you can beat the computer on the very high difficulty levels so quick then you'd think it would get rather boring quite quickly. After all, where's the challenge?
Jury-6
Chieftain
I rated it a D, but I was on the fence between D and F.
There's just so much this game does that's just...wrong, regressive, and downright non-functional. There is no diplomacy, the AI is inexcusably awful, everything is severely unbalanced, glitches and crashes make the game a technical flop...you know, everything that's been gone over hundreds of times here. It vexes me that some people rate this game an A...
There's just so much this game does that's just...wrong, regressive, and downright non-functional. There is no diplomacy, the AI is inexcusably awful, everything is severely unbalanced, glitches and crashes make the game a technical flop...you know, everything that's been gone over hundreds of times here. It vexes me that some people rate this game an A...
I gave "D" for now. I'm not superbly optimistic about what the patches can do but I expect them to raise my grade a bit. "C" should be doable rather easily but both "B" and "A" require extensive and deep changes to the game - quite a bit more than I expect of them.
D.
Proper patching, AI able to handle hex/1UpT/naval, diplomacy that means something, and some additions to occupy the time during Next Turn fests - I could see C, even C+.
Built my first awesome killer death robot or whatever you call it this afternoon... Two capitals away from a domination conquest on deity... I wanted to see the super destuctor-bot shoot at something before finishing off the game.... CTD - and the sad part is that the CTD didn't make me angry about bugs, the sad part is that I didn't really care because the game wasn't holding my attention anyway- wasn't even worth seeing what my last autosave was.
Proper patching, AI able to handle hex/1UpT/naval, diplomacy that means something, and some additions to occupy the time during Next Turn fests - I could see C, even C+.
Built my first awesome killer death robot or whatever you call it this afternoon... Two capitals away from a domination conquest on deity... I wanted to see the super destuctor-bot shoot at something before finishing off the game.... CTD - and the sad part is that the CTD didn't make me angry about bugs, the sad part is that I didn't really care because the game wasn't holding my attention anyway- wasn't even worth seeing what my last autosave was.
Panda_Power
Warlord
I gave it an "A". I wouldn't have given it an "A" at release, but with the combination of mods I'm using with the game now, it's really excellent!
Well I can never go back to Civ4 now ... unlimited axemen from a single source of copper, spam axemen, arrange them into one single stack, take out nearest neighbours one by one, spam cottages, win ... 
So for me, the changes in Civ5 (especially relating to combat, quantified resources etc) make the Civ experience more entertaining and give it new life.
Because frankly, had another Civ3/Civ4 come out, I think I would have lost my interest in Civ.
That said, the game is still a B- for me because it needs quite a bit of work done on it to realize its potential.
So for me, the changes in Civ5 (especially relating to combat, quantified resources etc) make the Civ experience more entertaining and give it new life.
Because frankly, had another Civ3/Civ4 come out, I think I would have lost my interest in Civ.
That said, the game is still a B- for me because it needs quite a bit of work done on it to realize its potential.
DiabolicX
Chieftain
I gave it a D. Its just garbage and killing time honestly. I hated it when I first played it, didnt even finish the few games I started. Finished up a game I had on civ 4 rom and came back to it just this week. Now I am doing stupid things like seeing how fast I can do things, how much xp I can give to a unit, protecting all city states from dying, etc. Rediculous, I just finished a game where I had a 114 turn GA without using persia. Next I am going to do persia and go for a 200+ turn GA. Its so stupid its funny. Its civilation for settlers fans.
Wow, has it been a month already? I'd give it a D. With patches it might go up to a C but I doubt it would go any higher for me, especially considering the dev's persistence on reshaping the franchise with suspect mechanics and half-baked design. What was that about Rome wasn't built in a day? To say nothing of the many options and features that were hallmarks of the series being curiously omitted/forgotten.
As a matter of fact, I'd take an unpatched vanilla cIV over this any day.
As a matter of fact, I'd take an unpatched vanilla cIV over this any day.
Pratputajao
Warlord
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2005
- Messages
- 280
Aint that the truth! Its so hard to find good deep games anymore....its all action crap and RTS nonsence. Thats what sells....sadly.
However I do like civ 5 and voted B (understand and agree with some of the criticisms though)
Morningcalm
Keeper of Records
C. They did some things right--it truly is the most gorgeous Civ game to date. Combat is fun (if unbalanced, and unhinged by a dumb AI who never make air units). But gameplay just lacks depth and the huge variety of options that Civ IV vanilla offered--where are the UN Resolutions? Why do AI hate those who fight their enemies alongside them? Why do AI sign Research Agreements with people they have Pacts of Secrecy against?
And then there are the rough edges--a Civilopedia that lacks hard data and lacks entries on pacts of Cooperation and Secrecy, for example. City-states who make peace with dead AI, whose names show up as blank in the notification screen (yet you can see the flag tells you they made peace with the deceased Oda Nobunaga). Graphic pop-ins every time upon loading a game. I could go on, and on, and on. And some people already have. Just hope Firaxis is paying attention.
And then there are the rough edges--a Civilopedia that lacks hard data and lacks entries on pacts of Cooperation and Secrecy, for example. City-states who make peace with dead AI, whose names show up as blank in the notification screen (yet you can see the flag tells you they made peace with the deceased Oda Nobunaga). Graphic pop-ins every time upon loading a game. I could go on, and on, and on. And some people already have. Just hope Firaxis is paying attention.
Exactly my thoughts. I can't even get myself to play it right now. There's just no substance.
I think we all can agree now, Civ5 is below the Civilization-series par. Therefore D.
All I can say by comparing it to only civ game I own, the Civ4 vanilla!
If the Civ5 would've been my 1st encounter with civilization-series I'd give C.
It starts to get quite repetitive already. AI can only win by domination, and in order to achieve that a great deal of luck is required!
Plus most of my games in Civ5 have ended in domination victory, whereas in Civ4 I had very few domination or conquest victories.
Diplomacy is non-existent! There has to be valid reason why we can't trade maps or techs! My best guess is that AI is brain dead or better yet - brainless!
It's about warmongering now... About having the biggest and meanest meat grinder on the planet!
All I can say by comparing it to only civ game I own, the Civ4 vanilla!
If the Civ5 would've been my 1st encounter with civilization-series I'd give C.
It starts to get quite repetitive already. AI can only win by domination, and in order to achieve that a great deal of luck is required!
Plus most of my games in Civ5 have ended in domination victory, whereas in Civ4 I had very few domination or conquest victories.
Diplomacy is non-existent! There has to be valid reason why we can't trade maps or techs! My best guess is that AI is brain dead or better yet - brainless!
It's about warmongering now... About having the biggest and meanest meat grinder on the planet!
I voted D, no use of discussing the "good and not so good" of CiV again, it has been done numerous times now.
The fact is, for ME i can't take a fancy to it, it is first Civ sequel which doesn´t induce the magical "just one more turn..." feeling.
Still i have hopes, that it´ll change after some patches or even more probably after an expansion.
The fact is, for ME i can't take a fancy to it, it is first Civ sequel which doesn´t induce the magical "just one more turn..." feeling.
Still i have hopes, that it´ll change after some patches or even more probably after an expansion.
OneFootInThe...
Warlord
I rated it a D, but I was on the fence between D and F.
There's just so much this game does that's just...wrong, regressive, and downright non-functional. There is no diplomacy, the AI is inexcusably awful, everything is severely unbalanced, glitches and crashes make the game a technical flop...you know, everything that's been gone over hundreds of times here. It vexes me that some people rate this game an A...
QFT... exactly the same, I gave it a D, but was on the fence between D and F... your paragraph below is spot on.
I will also be really suprised if anyone manages to rescue this one even after extensive patching/x packs... but hope dies last thus = D.
Similar threads
