So how's the state of Civ 5 these days?

Civ 1 will always be the 'true' Civ for me - the sequels are good games based on the classic, but just not the same. Of course it's been unplayable due to changes in formats and system specs for many years, and unlike many classic games has never been made available via Good Old Games or Steam, so it is likely to forever remain a nostalgic memory.

I played Civ1 just last week. It is still playable under DOS-Box. It's only challenging when you can restrain yourself from using exploits (of which there are lots and lots), but when you get into the spirit of it and play it as a simulation, it's still a very enjoyable experience. In some respects, it's still the best: the clarity of the design, the pacing, the documentation, the immersion tricks (optional setup that puts civilopedia entries and city screens "in your face" at appropriate moments rather than making you click for them). The graphics are awfully dated, but it doesn't matter so much because they don't even pretend to be a miniature world. (Oddly enough, the animated rivers look nicer than those from Civ5 20 years later.)
 
@ Phil; Thank you. I appreciate the updated observations you presented with the latest patches and updates. My sons and I have been vigorously debating on whether to go ahead and invest in the whole thing or not ( especially with the new expak coming out soon) for each of us. We all have vanilla, but have been really reluctant to make any further investments for a variety of reasons. So far, I haven't really been swayed to go ahead and purchase G&K yet, but I do appreciate your input. I think I'll wait for Lemon Merchant's observations ( she's actually going to give it another try, GASP! :D ) before I make up my mind.
 
I played Civ1 just last week. It is still playable under DOS-Box. It's only challenging when you can restrain yourself from using exploits (of which there are lots and lots), but when you get into the spirit of it and play it as a simulation, it's still a very enjoyable experience. In some respects, it's still the best: the clarity of the design, the pacing, the documentation, the immersion tricks (optional setup that puts civilopedia entries and city screens "in your face" at appropriate moments rather than making you click for them). The graphics are awfully dated, but it doesn't matter so much because they don't even pretend to be a miniature world. (Oddly enough, the animated rivers look nicer than those from Civ5 20 years later.)

I always liked the boardgame unit graphics as squares with unit icons (I think in part this is why I'm puzzled by accusations that Civ V 'feels' like a board game as though it's a bad thing - my vision of Civ is still based on the first game, which was itself of course partly based on a board game. and that's always been a part of the series' feel that I've treasured and - indeed - one that I don't think has been recaptured as well by other more recent releases as by Civ V).

@ Phil; Thank you. I appreciate the updated observations you presented with the latest patches and updates. My sons and I have been vigorously debating on whether to go ahead and invest in the whole thing or not ( especially with the new expak coming out soon) for each of us. We all have vanilla, but have been really reluctant to make any further investments for a variety of reasons. So far, I haven't really been swayed to go ahead and purchase G&K yet, but I do appreciate your input. I think I'll wait for Lemon Merchant's observations ( she's actually going to give it another try, GASP! :D ) before I make up my mind.

Overall I'd say that the patches and updates have had overwhelmingly positive effects on the game, and that's as someone coming to the game since after its first big patch (even some Civ V diehards accept there were severe problems with the initial release).

I like the originality behind the battering ram's idea, but it's a definite lapse that the AI wasn't adjusted to reflect the fact that it's not just a unique spearman - maybe now there's at least one more melee siege unit in the game the AI will be adjusted to accommodate this unit type (if Assyria insists on treating siege towers like catapults they'll be even worse than the Huns as an AI). Lapses in combat AI combined with a civ that relies on combat and is overly aggressive towards players make for a very weak AI civ.
 
My thoughts don't merit their own thread, and are too positive to go in the rants thread, so I'll post them here, where they'll do no harm (or good).

When Civ V came out I had a PC that wasn't up to the job, so the decision wasn't "should I buy Civ V at full price?" but "should I buy a new computer and then pay full price for Civ V?" I was messing around with parts lists when user reviews made me say forget it. What really dissuaded me was a succession game where they beat deity using an ICS strategy like weeks after release. I took the negative reviews users posted much more to heart than the almost entirely positive ones written by games reviewers.

So I waited. Here it is, three years and an expansion later, and I have a new PC that can hack Civ V. Civ IV doesn't run on it due to Win 7. Civ III does, but I couldn't get back into it. If I wanted to play Civ, I had to go with V.

One complaint about V that never impressed me was the Steam issue. Steam is pretty dang good in my book: economical and convenient. So when a sale popped up for a package deal, I got it. I've played the hell out of it, too. 291 hours, according to Steam. Steam's handy for stuff like that.

So, V has some good points for me. I think the biggest is the streamlined mechanics. I like that that Wonders don't go obsolete now or would prefer that in order to build a musket unit you should need a supply of saltpeter, a gunsmith, and a shoe factory.

I also like the different Civ abilities, which make for a more varied game. Persia is a much different experience than, say, Germany. I like that the Americans don't suck this time out. The map looks pretty good. In fact, when I see a city view screenshot from IV now, I think it looks ugly.

Not that appearances should matter all that much. Civ V-- and many other games as well-- suffer under weight that has nothing to do with the core game. The first time I started V, I watched the introductory movie. Impressive. The animation was so realistic that it was well on uncanny valley. I remember thinking "wouldn't it have been cheaper to hire actors?" and "that was nice, but I'll never watch it again." If a strategy game came out that didn't have an introductory video, or, for that matter, music, speech and ambient sound, I'm not sure I'd notice. I certainly wouldn't miss skipping them and turning them off. I don't miss the bloody wonder movies, either. The map is what matters.

Speaking of gewgaws, do I really need to be whisked away to Elizabeth's throne room for a private audience every time she has a thought? Why must I leave my cities or fronts and go to an unchanging forest clearing whenever Hiawatha wants to renegotiate the price of crabs? Streamlining is Civ V's best feature, but it still grinds to a halt every other turn so I can see that Swede's fireplace again. It's like they wanted to design a car and glued a bunch of framed paintings to it to class it up, so while you're driving, one flies loose and the view is completely blocked by a portrait that you've seen a bunch of times already. You're bored and distracted at the same time.

Hexes are nice, and should have been in from the beginning, or at least by Civ III. By picking up the game so late I've missed most of the unit problems that seemed to plague the game early on. I'm of the opinion that the stack of doom was a problem that didn't need a solution but for whatever reason the designers had to go fix it. It works OK now. Combat in Civ has always been wonky, it's just wonky another way now. Sneak attacks were easier with stacks (including AI sneak attacks). 1 per hex looks and feels a bit more realistic to me.

One thing I have to ask is why are we still messing around with workers? Why not improve tiles with gold or faith or hammers whatever from the map, and, for that matter, purchase tiles as well. It's good that in V you at least don't have to open the city screen to choose production. Some of the interface with V is quite good, IMHO, for instance the tech tree.

I have more thoughts about Civ V-- I should, after 300 hours-- but this is already TL;DR.
 
@ Dave; Since when does Civ IV not run on win 7? my PC is a Win 7 machine, and BTS runs great. All you need to do is check the "run as admin" box if your having issues. Just curious.
 
I've tried that and running it XP compatible and a few other things. My PC has problems with older games, not just Civ IV.

lol, ok. I am familiar with that problem. My middle son has the same issues with GalCiv II. Chalk another one up on the weird-o-meter.
 
Not that appearances should matter all that much. Civ V-- and many other games as well-- suffer under weight that has nothing to do with the core game. The first time I started V, I watched the introductory movie. Impressive. The animation was so realistic that it was well on uncanny valley. I remember thinking "wouldn't it have been cheaper to hire actors?" and "that was nice, but I'll never watch it again."

Heee, I agree the Civ5 intro is impressive. Sulla once analysed all the Civ intros. It's an interesting read even if (like me) you think his take on the Civ5 video is a little harsh:

http://www.garath.net/Sullla/introvideos.html

By the way, I always had a feeling that the old guy in the Civ5 intro, after telling his son the Civ5 "is your future, not mine", fired up Civ4 the moment the son left his tent.
 
Top Bottom