How do you rate Civ V after the first 4 weeks?

i'm quite sure who is voting A is more than blind drunk...

i can understand B, but the AI si too much awful to vote A...

I bite my tongue and go away from that brand new audiance of civ players, grognards line up and leave peacefully ths section, we need to surrender....

Pretty harsh results from a website that you would expect to be full of Civilization fanboys. They've got their work cut out for them.

mva5580 said:

Pretty harsh results from a website that you would expect to be full of Civilization fanboys. They've got their work cut out for them.

Click to expand...

Definitely true, but you also should consider that Civ Addicts can grasp the full extent of a game's flaws. I obviously can't speak for them, but I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of players are content with the game simply because they aren't as good and don't understand it as well. Also, most people on this forum played other Civ games, and comparisons fly. If Civ 5 is the first civ game you've played, you probably enjoy it more when you aren't constantly going "where's the religion??"

Still, they definitely do have their work cut out. Here's hoping for some good patches.

GambleFish said:

I'm pretty sure he didn't say that. He said he thinks it's funny people would play 80 hours of a game they gave a D. That doesn't have anything to do with not being eligible to rate the game if you haven't played 80 hours. Where did you even get that?

Click to expand...

By starting with "let me guess" I was clearly implying that I was making an assumption that wasn't literally based on his words. I have just witnessed the said phenomenon quite a few times (most often with television series where criticism is often answered with suggestions to stop watching, or if the critic has already done that with claims that he's unable to justly rate the show because he's not watching and the show has improved so much that only an idiot wouldn't like it).

To put it short it was sarcastic comment loosely based on the original message spiced up with a healthy dose of experience about similar statements. Why so damn serious

Let me guess, you think civ 3 is a lot better than civ 5.

Click to expand...

While you don't actually think this I reply anyway: I haven't actually played Civ3 at all. I've had the game and all expansions for two three years now but never found time to try it.

kuukkeli said:

By starting with "let me guess" I was clearly implying that I was making an assumption that wasn't literally based on his words. I have just witnessed the said phenomenon quite a few times (most often with television series where criticism is often answered with suggestions to stop watching, or if the critic has already done that with claims that he's unable to justly rate the show because he's not watching and the show has improved so much that only an idiot wouldn't like it).

To put it short it was sarcastic comment loosely based on the original message spiced up with a healthy dose of experience about similar statements. Why so damn serious
.

Click to expand...

WHY SO SERIOUS DAMMIT??

Nah, I'm reacting because a lot of the discussions over Civ 5 go pretty well for about 30 minutes, and then 10 posts in someone goes "I bet you never even played above Settler!" or "Why don't you take off your rose-colored glasses fanboi?" and the thread gets shot to hell. Not you in particular.

And since we got on the subject of Civ 3, I wouldn't recommend it

B. Game certainly isn't perfect (my main problems are AI/diplomacy) but I still find it addicting and with a lot of potential. Civ IV wasn't perfect at release, but by BTS it was near perfect. I think Civ V has the chance to end up following in IV's footsteps, hopefully it does.

the voters:

A = sandbox players, they are enjoying the exploration
B = sandbox players upset by an aspect or two
C = a mix of everything, more pessimistic sanbox players, or overly optimistic challenge players
D = challenge players who are holding out for future patches and expansion packs to fix myriad of problems
F = challenge players who have given up hope already considering the dire straits situation the game is in

KahunaGod said:

What really kills me is that I have been salivating at the mouth while waiting for this game for YEARS......and...................................................*grown man cries

Click to expand...

Bingo, this right fooking here!
We get this pile of dogshyt instead of civilization.

I have been waiting for years to get a game that keeps me entertained like the civ series.

I must have told about 50 people to buy this game, talked about it on other forums, saying its the best ever series and involves alot of depth. But no...firaxes makes me go and look like an idiot instead.

First of all, don't vote based on what the patch might end up doing. For all you know it makes things worse. And even then, if you wanted to be 'doing it right' you'd start a separate poll for postpatch, instead of lumping them in with these.

Also, 80+ hours on a game I rate a D? Do you know how hard it was for the first 12 hours to admit that it wasn't good? I wanted it to be SO GOOD, and kept thinking "Oh, maybe I just need to do..." but it just wasn't going anywhere. (I've played like 50 hours). The rest of the games are just my pretty normal fanatical approach to 'solving' games. I want to know how best to beat them, in different ways and settings. I have still not finished doing that with civ 4.

Civ 5? Yeah, takes maybe 25 hours at BEST. Even after 12 I was pretty sure that CS were they key to most victories.

I have a hard time understanding the players who are voting A. If you enjoy playing games that challenge you and have real depth to them you simply cannot be content with Civ 5 at this point in time.

Getting to the level of an Immortal player in Civ 4 took years of understanding the game for me. Fumbling my way through Diety on my fourth game to an easy win on Civ 5 does not make for an "Excellent" experience.

I voted D but the longer I play the game, the more likely I would be to vote F.

Played all Civs since Civ 1, and this is clearly the worst. F. Gone straight back to Fall from Heaven 2.

I bought the newest Civ game expecting an "A", just as it is tradition in the franchise.

And i found a "C" game. Its not a bad game, but also far from what i had expected. So i am disappointed.

+

I normally dont buy "C" games. If i hadnt trusted in the Civ name and preordered, i would have saved my money if i had known how it turned out.





i really tried to like it, but it just feels shallow and unfinished.

OK, been a silent member here for a while. Its time to say something very important!

I voted B.
When I get my first huge megacity I will vote A.

Shillen said:

Exactly my thoughts. I can't even get myself to play it right now. There's just no substance.

Click to expand...

Agreed, voted F. Having more fun on the forums really.

How do I rate it after 4 weeks?

Same as I rated it after 2, because I haven't played it since.

D - Below Par.

I voted D.

The game just feels so. . . unfinished. I don't feel like I got what I would normally get paying $50+ for a major game studio release, let alone Civ.

I've played five or six games and have all but lost interest, I played Civ4 Warlords from it's release till Civ 5's and never got bored. For all of those who fall back on "well you just don't like it because it's Civ 4" -save it, it's BS. I was excited to see 1upt, Natural Wonders, loosing Religion based Diplomacy, all the new bells and whistles, the problem is they forgot the engine and breaks. There's a lot from Civ 4 that just worked well and they should have stuck with. More than anything Civ 5 lost points for:

Just not having "enough". There are pretty much 8-9 different buildings, mostly just different "tiers" of the same building. Most feel useless and have absurd build times even on Quick. I could not, for the life of me, imagine playing this on Epic or Marathon.

Sweet! I got muskets! Oh, I just made five and they're obsolete. . . well hey, that building I started five techs ago should be done by the time I research five more!

Natural Wonders are massively disappointing, there's no "wonder" aspect to them, they're just mountains that give subpar bonuses when worked (I'll take a river tile any day).

Food Resources are uninspired, restrictive and useless. Once again, I'd rather have a river tile so I can at least choose what I can build (although it will probably be the almighty Trading Post)

The game is very, very, very easy. Civ 4 I played Monarch having started at Warlord, I beat Deity on my third game of Civ 5.

The AI is bad, incapable of fighting/making reasonable decisions. Diplomacy feels useless as the AI Civs are all just bathorsehocky insane, bland and dumb.

Overall game balance is poor.

No option to stop unit cycling, more than anything, this has made me quit games. Fighting a 3 front war is like trying to catch a bouncy ball.

Releasing online for "DRM" seems like an excuse to more easily sell DLC. There was a cracked version of the game 2 weeks after launch. . . The fact that they're charging for Babylon even in the wake of releasing an obviously unfinished game really turns me off from the company, which yes, does affect how much I enjoy the game.

1upt for non combatants is useless and just annoying when building roads or setting way points, what is the purpose of this again? To stop my Stack of Efficiently Traveling Workers?

More, and more.

There are benefits: I hated the stack of doom, 1upt is cool, but you should be able to stack units with a -33% strength penalty for the sake of traveling and choke points. Attacking units should be able to select which unit in the stack to attack. This makes sense as you could cram soldiers together, but they'd be less able to function due to being crowded. It makes sense and adds more complexity and risk/reward (should I stack these units to make it through this choke point knowing they might all get picked off by archers?).

Units tied to resources is great too, how about making Food resources worth anything.

I gave it a D rather than an F because I think the game has a lot of potential, most likely coming from the modding communality, since I have little faith in 2k after this.

OneFootInThe... said:

the voters:

A = sandbox players, they are enjoying the exploration
B = sandbox players upset by an aspect or two
C = a mix of everything, more pessimistic sanbox players, or overly optimistic challenge players
D = challenge players who are holding out for future patches and expansion packs to fix myriad of problems
F = challenge players who have given up hope already considering the dire straits situation the game is in

Click to expand...

Not true, I'm for the most part 90% sand box player. Oh, a natural wonder, seen one seen them all.

Oh, you mean two Civs gobbled up the entire continent across the ocean again. I wonder how that happened (Civ A declares war against Civ B, Something happens, one Civ surrenders 5 cities. . . every game. . . )

Oh cool, my neighbor has Silk! I better just go take it since there are no consequences and I can easily beat several if they declare war on me, and if I choose to be friendly with them they'll just sell me out the second the plop a city in the middle of one of my trade networks. . . I could ask them not to settle by me, but they'll just hate me. . same thing every time. . .

Cool, sheep. . . I love finding useless things. . .

Oh cool, it's Elizabeth, maybe we'll have some naval battles. . .oh, wait. . .

The only good part for me as a sandbox players is the default map scripts are better. .

SirMaru said:

Look at the poll results as of today, Oct 18, 2010, at 4:36 PM EDT. The largest single category in terms of percentage is "B" = Good. Its true for both the CivFanatics Forum and the 2K Games Forum.

I voted "A." A lot of folks said it was very bad but still the largest voting block was "B."

Just watch how that changes after the patch is released.

Click to expand...

As of today, the 19th of October, combined A&B votes are 6 more than D&F. There being more F's than A's.

Assuming a 0-4 point scale the game scores a 49%. . .

A=4pts, 48x4=192
B=3pts, 131x3=423
C=2pts, 98x2=196
D=1pt, 120x1=120
F=0pt, 63x0=0

470 votes x 4 possible points =1880 possible points total.

192+423+196+120=931

931/1880 = A pretty big F.

I only gave it a D based on the mod community, nothing on the part of Firaxis. Even if the patch covered every major issue and completely fixed AI- a 49% is a pretty big flop for a launch.

Anyone care to start a poll on the best nuclear explosion animation for a civ in the series? That might help clear the air as to where civ 5 currently stands.

edit: nevermind, i did it myself.

I like most of the core design differences compared to Civ4 but am quite unsatisfied (gaming experience wise) with the bugs, stability and balance issues. Feels like playing a beta version. I did not vote in the poll for it would just be like "how much do you dislike the bugs & balance issues?". And I don't know for sure how it will be like when those things are addressed.

C4, and BTS, were both "B". BTS with my own tweaks an "A". Civ5 I expect will be probably comparable to BTS - a "B" untweaked and "A" when tweaked.

katipunero said:

Anyone care to start a poll on the best nuclear explosion animation for a civ in the series? That might help clear the air as to where civ 5 currently stands.

Click to expand...

Heh... are we awarding "cleanest uniform" trophies already?

Here ya go, Civ V -- you get a trophy, too... because you're special, too!