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

Well the sulla-saurs who prefer not to think for themselves and rely on a completely outdated review from a former civ player speak for themselves don't they?

Personally (I played civ 3 to Civ 5), I enjoy Civ 5 the most out of the 3. Civ 4 was an inferior product to civ 3 for the longest time and it took until BTS to match Civ 3. Civ 5 is already a superior product in my opinion to both of them with just the first expansion, lets see how the 2nd expansion improves it.

For multiplayer, Civ 5 just tears Civ 4 to shreds. Most of the multiplayer community has long since moved onto Civ 5, simply because this is a game made for Human intelligence. Where AI may be lacking in SP to an extent, Civ 5 Multiplayer (outside of a buggy interface at times...) is miles better than Civ 4 ever could dream to be.

Moderator Action: Please do not use insults to make your point, Sulla-saurs?
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

Good point on the multiplayer, Humans make so good of the civ5's combat system. Single player mode is basically a tutorial mode you spend 1000 hours in. Your real battles are with other players.

Gucumatz said:

Well the sulla-saurs who prefer not to think for themselves and rely on a completely outdated review from a former civ player speak for themselves don't they?

Personally (I played civ 3 to Civ 5), I enjoy Civ 5 the most out of the 3. Civ 4 was an inferior product to civ 3 for the longest time and it took until BTS to match Civ 3. Civ 5 is already a superior product in my opinion to both of them with just the first expansion, lets see how the 2nd expansion improves it.

For multiplayer, Civ 5 just tears Civ 4 to shreds. Most of the multiplayer community has long since moved onto Civ 5, simply because this is a game made for Human intelligence. Where AI may be lacking in SP to an extent, Civ 5 Multiplayer (outside of a buggy interface at times...) is miles better than Civ 4 ever could dream to be.

Click to expand...

Sulla-saurs? A little over the top there, don't you think? Not to mention a wee bit insulting towards peeps who actually agreed with his assessment. Just because I happen to have agreed with Sulla, doesn't necessarily quantify me as being unable to think for myself.

As for MP, that is a personal opinion of yours, not necessarily fact. Just because I happen to enjoy playing BTS MP with quite a few online friends, doesn't signify that we all lack human intelligence or are unable to dream.

Moderator Action: If you consider something an insult or to be trolling, please report the post and let the staff handle it instead of responding to it.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

Getting better and better, like a better tomorrow

Willem- If your so on the fence the odds of a sale before the next expansion are very high. Just eye ball steam time to time. Complete Civ 5 right now is a good game. Yes there are a few issues.

But then I found out about Communitas mods... Hey Civ 4 I love you but... Civ 5 is great now so bye.

Every month it gets updated. It also takes lots of pointers from Civ 4. Modders have most of the code now. Thal project is open and has lots of help. When Brave new world comes out I'll play it for a month or so until Communitas is in BNW.

Hope this helps.

Hawawaa said:

Willem- If your so on the fence the odds of a sale before the next expansion are very high. Just eye ball steam time to time.

Click to expand...

No thanks, I don't buy things online. I can't in fact as I don't have a credit card, and don't want one even if someone were to give me one. And there's no way in hell that's going to happen considering my financial situation. I'll wait until Civ Complete is out at least, if even then. At least I've somewhat gotten over my aversion to using Steam. I still don't like it, but as far online activation is concerned it's probably the lesser of all evils these days.

Moderator Action: Can we stop this senseless bickering over Civ5 versus Civ4? They are different games and each of us has our preference. Do not think anyone will convince another that his preference is better, so why do we try and end up in trolling fests? Enough!
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

Willem, have you considered watching any "Let's Play" videos of CiV by advanced players? Perhaps they would be indicative of any complexity you feel the game may or may not be lacking. It's also a fun way to preview a game before buying it. Just started watching this one, if you'd like somewhere to start:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtTEgO3HE40&list=PLO2TQ35QuC4GOTG_ahWT8hI_b7qD59Gby

Funky said:

Here in the Civ 5 forum most replies will obviously be positively biased towards Civ 5.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure, the fans are sometimes the harshest critics. Also see how Heroes 6 has been received in the Heroescommunity; they're crying murder. A year back or so here in the Civ 5 forum there was a poll asking 'Is Civ 5 a good game?' and if I remember right some 6 out of 10 thought it was a good game, not a great score. This was well before Gods & Kings by the way, the expansion has made people a lot more positive about the game.

Willem said:

Well that's the thing with me. I enjoyed the increase of complexity of Civ 4 over the previous versions of the game and I was hoping that Firaxis would take yet another leap in that direction. Yet they seemed to take a step backwards instead.

Click to expand...

I didn't play Civ IV, just Civ III, but diplomacy and trade is still quite thin in Civ 5. The Gods & Kings expansion hasn't done much here, but religion for me does compensate a lot for what I find missing in other areas.
The City State diplomacy I find satisfying, it's not hugely deep, but the City States are interesting pawns in the game. I thought you guessed somewhere there are just 2? No, there are double the amount of City States in each game as there are ordinary civs; they're scattered all over the map.
Where I find Civ 5 having more complexity than its predecessors is in its combat. One unit per tile makes it more like chess. Not everybody likes it, it gives space issues, so you have to move your units about carefully, making sure wounded units can retreat, leaving space for reinforcements to advance, etc. You can't just throw all your units on a big stack, which is undoubtedly much simpler, and easier for the AI to handle as well. Complexity and the AI don't make such a happy marriage, although the tactical AI is quite good now. Retreating of wounded units doesn't always happen, but the AI is good at assessing what force is needed to take a town, how to position its units in a siege and in which order its units should attack. The AI does have its moments; it's impressive at times.
What I also find quite good in Civ 5 is the individual civ design. Each civ has a unique leader trait and either 2 unique units or a unique unit and a unique building, although some have a unique improvement instead of a building. For me this is a huge step forward from Civ III with its generic traits and 1 unique unit per civ (sorry, I don't know how Civ IV looks in this respect).

For the upcoming expansion diplomacy and trade will see some attention, somehow I don't think it'll make a difference of night and day with what we have now, but I do have some faith in the current development team that they'll at least add some nice touches.

I've been disappointed with the game, but it has become better and better for me.

Funky said:

That's not implying that those who like Civ 5 are inferior. In the end it is fun we seek. Less complexity and lack of historical plausibility equals less fun for many players, but that doesn't necessarily have to be so for everyone.

Click to expand...

I don't want to imply that those who like Civ 4 are inferior. Mechanically following strategy "rules" equals less fun for many players, but that doesn't necessarily have to be so for everyone.

The one thing that both Civ4 and Civ5 players seem to agree on is that it is much easier for the computer to mechanically play a good game of Civ4 than to play a good game of Civ5. Civ4 has more rule complexity (especially given the very rich mods available), but once you figure out the rules and how they interact, it gets to be a reasonably shallow game. At least that was my experience and why I stopped playing it (and I stopped well after the last expansion). Civ 5 requires deeper thought for me.

My view is that if you like rules and figuring out how to take advantage of them, then CiV 4 is an excellent game for you. The rich mod environment that's developed for Civ 4 makes it even more attractive - much more exploration of how tweaking rules and settings can change things. People who like to play "Magic, the Gathering", an extensive rule following game, a lot may tend to like Civ 4 better.

Civ 5 is a somewhat different experience. It's not nearly as deep as go or chess, but I would say that people who prefer games like that will prefer Civ 5, in general.

There are lots of people who prefer Magic to go or chess, and vice versa. There's room for both.

Who's Sullasaur? I hear that name often when CIV4 vs CIV5 is mentioned.

Optional said:

What I also find quite good in Civ 5 is the individual civ design. Each civ has a unique leader trait and either 2 unique units or a unique unit and a unique building, although some have a unique improvement instead of a building. For me this is a huge step forward from Civ III with its generic traits and 1 unique unit per civ (sorry, I don't know how Civ IV looks in this respect).

Click to expand...

This is pretty much how things are in Civ 4 as well. Each civ has 2 traits in fact, though possibly Civ 5's traits are more exclusive, plus 1 unique unit and 1 building. There are no unique improvements however.

JanghanHong said:

Who's Sullasaur? I hear that name often when CIV4 vs CIV5 is mentioned.

Click to expand...

This person had a review of civ5 right after it released, basically claiming 1upt doesn't work based on mainly some exaggerations and bias points. Regardless, due to all changes in civ5 since it is released, sulla's review is totally obsolete. Interestingly, many of civ4 fans still refer to sulla's review as if referring to the bible.

I didnt read the entire thread so might have been stated already; CiV was the worst in the series. CiV with the new expansion is the BEST in the series It really made that huge difference... The expansion proved what many critics were saying when the game first came out; The game had huge potential but lacked depth. The game is significantly more complex with the 2 new systems, Spying and Religion. And while im not saying its as complex as Civ IV in terms of strategi, the battle tactics compensates. Overall the endgame is imo a lot more fun than in Civ IV!

Civking5 said:

This person had a review of civ5 right after it released, basically claiming 1upt doesn't work based on mainly some exaggerations and bias points. Regardless, due to all changes in civ5 since it is released, sulla's review is totally obsolete. Interestingly, many of civ4 fans still refer to sulla's review as if referring to the bible.

Click to expand...

The main problem with 1UPT (ignoring the immersion damaging scale issues) is mobility. Very little has been done to improve this since initial release. In fact the only thing which has improved is navel embarked / ship stacking.

I feel a lot of the criticisms in the review are still very relevant.

kamex said:

The main problem with 1UPT (ignoring the immersion damaging scale issues) is mobility. Very little has been done to improve this since initial release. In fact the only thing which has improved is navel embarked / ship stacking.

I feel a lot of the criticisms in the review are still very relevant.

Click to expand...

I'd say mobility is a challenge(as in it is an improvement). Explain why you think its a problem?

Wow, some people here really react thin-skinned. Why so much hostility? Why do you feel insulted when some say they don't like the game? It's natural that people have different opinions, can't we lay out our reasons for liking or disliking a videogame in a civil way without attacking the other side? Isn't it interesting to hear what gripes some players have with the game and what they would like to see improved?


Regarding Sullla,

Civking5 said:

This person had a review of civ5 right after it released, basically claiming 1upt doesn't work based on mainly some exaggerations and bias points. Regardless, due to all changes in civ5 since it is released, sulla's review is totally obsolete. Interestingly, many of civ4 fans still refer to sulla's review as if referring to the bible.

Click to expand...

Interesting that the only two people who mentioned Sullla were you and Gucumatz, both vivid Civ 5 fans. Why do you feel the need to insult his efforts? His essay was not based on "exaggerations and bias points", but represented an in-depth analysis of the flawed elements in the game's design. His accomplishment was not to reveal these flaws - a large portion of the players back then had noticed the problems long before his essay had been written. If you look back in the forum to the time of the game's release, every second thread was about the different elements of the game that didn't work very well. The reason his article attained a certain amount of popularity is that he explained the cause of these issues in an extensive and very articulate manner, which corresponded with the experience of many other players.

Especially those who like Civ 5 should be very grateful for this and other attempts to lay out the problems the game had, since improvement mainly comes through criticism. While the review is far from obsolete - the core issues are still present today - the game has been enhanced dramatically and many of the flaws have been addressed, at least partially. Without any criticism, the game would be a lot closer to the terrible state it was in initially.


Regarding multiplayer,

Gucumatz said:

Most of the multiplayer community has long since moved onto Civ 5, simply because this is a game made for Human intelligence. Where AI may be lacking in SP to an extent, Civ 5 Multiplayer (outside of a buggy interface at times...) is miles better than Civ 4 ever could dream to be.

Click to expand...

This seems illogical to me. Isn't the multiplayer experience based on our individual liking of the game? You prefer Civ 5 as a game, so obviously you will prefer Civ 5 multiplayer as well. I like Civ 4, hence I greatly enjoy its multiplayer option. What you may be refering to is that the difference between SP and MP is larger in Civ 5 due to the AI not being very challenging. But I'm pretty sure that most of those who prefer Civ 4 strongly prefer Civ 4 multiplayer as well.


Regarding Civ 4,

CrispyCritter said:

Civ4 has more rule complexity (especially given the very rich mods available), but once you figure out the rules and how they interact, it gets to be a reasonably shallow game. (...) People who like to play "Magic, the Gathering", an extensive rule following game, a lot may tend to like Civ 4 better.

Click to expand...

I have to disagree. After eight years I still sometimes spend fifteen minutes or more on single descisions, although I believe I understand the rules quite well. My reason for liking the game is not actually about the rules at all, it's about the feeling I have while playing, i.e. having choices which seem meaningful and making desicions which are historically plausible. I realize that at least concerning having meaningful choices, many players may have the same feeling for Civ 5, which I personally can't comprehend, since my own experience was very different, but I certainly can accept it. I find it misleading and somewhat insulting to make such definitive statements about the players of Civ 4, since I for one (and I'd assume most players) don't belong in the category you are putting them into. I never played "Magic" either.


Not reacting so aggressively towards criticism is ultimately for the benefit of us all. Relax, and have a good day.

Me and my wife play Civ 5 many times a week together over LAN. I can only remember us being able to finish a game two times... Its very very buggy. Half the time you are staring at the loading screen and the other half you are saving, reloading and praying it will work.

But as a single player game Civ 5 have become better than i could ever imagine with the Gods and Kings expansion.
With another expansion around the corner i would say its probably the best Civ game ever made.
And yes, ive played them all, for thousands of hours. (1613 hours on Civ 5 alone now... just checked...)

TLDR; Singleplayer is perfect. Multiplayer is a nightmare.

Verry balanced game and the Ai actualy is a challenge its just like civ 4 if you don't know what you're doing the AI will win by a science victory

as a negatif point diplomacy is still bad

JanghanHong said:

Because of lack of avatars and the same opinions, I thought the posts complaining about CIV5 were all from the same person.

Click to expand...

LoL. You should have seen the forum when the game came out. Thousands of threads with the same complains.

@OP :
It really depends on what type of game you want with Civ. If you want an "immersive" game with lots of units and cities, stay with Civ 4. If you prefer a "board-type" game with fewer units and cities, go with Civ 5. Complexity is not really relevant, different game is different.

@ CrispyCritter : I like go but I like Civ 4 and don't like Civ 5. And I don't like chess (feels too narrow). And I like Magic. Go and chess are different !

@ Everyone : Stop quoting Sulla or Schaffer, it becomes annoying, get your own mind on the game. Sulla is a fine read and will probably help the OP make a decision, but his opinion is only an opinion. By the way, his point was that 1 upt destroyed the immersive feeling of previous Civs, and I don't see how it could be obsolete since 1 upt is still here. His review could be summarized by "Even if it was fixed, CiV is not a game i would play" and that's really all he's saying, he doesn't want to play with 1 upt.