Rate Civ V

Really simple games don't have to be bad. Canabalt for example is as simple as they come (your controls consist of a jump button) and the aesthetic is very simple by today's standards... but it's incredibly well executed in both gameplay and style.

Complex games typically become more and more enjoyable to me as I find new strategies and more nuances to old ones... to decline when I'm finding less and less new things and more and more flaws and limitations. Degenerate strategies, exploitable AI behaviour, interface limitations that don't let me automate things that have become routine... all of these result in less time spent on meaningful decisions and more time spent on going through the motions.
Games that offer extreme freedom and variety can remain deep and fun as an unequal challenge even after the realisation that they are utterly broken (venerable examples: MoO, MoM), but the Civ series never came close to that... they need to be robust enough to work as a semi-honest challenge. Civ5 isn't.

AfterShafter said:

Solo, points are well taken. I guess this might just be a clash of how different people read 1's and 10's. I'll leave the subject be.

Click to expand...

Glad to hear it. Civilization 5 certainly isn't the worst game ever but it's certainly perceived as being mediocre or worse by about 50% of the people on these forums. Roughly the same split as it has been for the last few months.

Thormodr said:

Civilization 5 certainly isn't the worst game ever but it's certainly perceived as being mediocre or worse by about 50% of the people on these forums. Roughly the same split as it has been for the last few months.

Click to expand...

Good point. One could set up an extremely simple poll: Civ V: thumbs up or thumbs down. Two choices only. And I suspect there the divide would be very clearly visible, with a 50%:50% split down the middle.

blind biker said:

Good point. One could set up an extremely simple poll: Civ V: thumbs up or thumbs down. Two choices only. And I suspect there the divide would be very clearly visible, with a 50%:50% split down the middle.

Click to expand...

I disagree.
In such a poll, I would expect roughly the 70:30 in favour of the game.

There are many new players, who sign in here and who are attracted by having something new.
Then there are the ones who haven't given up hope ("the game has potential, so let's rate it based on our hope")
Many players have already left this forum, because they've just dropped the game (guess, for which reason?)
And then, of course, there would be the die-hards of both camps.

It is similar like the decision to get rid of the SoD by going for 1upt:
With extreme options (and "thumbs up" or "thumbs down" is an extreme option, as you cannot differentiate) you get extreme results.

lschnarch said:

I disagree.
In such a poll, I would expect roughly the 70:30 in favour of the game.

There are many new players, who sign in here and who are attracted by having something new.
Then there are the ones who haven't given up hope ("the game has potential, so let's rate it based on our hope")
Many players have already left this forum, because they've just dropped the game (guess, for which reason?)
And then, of course, there would be the die-hards of both camps.

It is similar like the decision to get rid of the SoD by going for 1upt:
With extreme options (and "thumbs up" or "thumbs down" is an extreme option, as you cannot differentiate) you get extreme results.

Click to expand...

You forgot the people who, while having their reservations, still think it's an enjoyable game, so they'd rather give it a thumbs up than a thumbs down.

Gotta agree it would tend toward "thumbs up." After all, currently polling in a forum dedicated to discussing the game by nature is biased in favor of people who currently play the game. Presumably this would mean more fans than non, even if there are a lot of us here trying to get the game taken back to expand upon previous visions.

Edit: For what it's worth I gave a 4. Would have given a 4.9 if possible, because I don't feel it's quite at a 5, but better than 4.

At the time of this post the poll is EXACTLY 50/50 if we consider 1-5 a thumbs down and 6-10 a thumbs up.
Which i guess reflects my opinion as well. Civ5 is a mediocre game. It can be fun but only occasionally.

Sorry AfterShafter. That is NOT what I meant to imply. I meant to imply that the people on Gamespot you were talking about had no life, as opposed to us here. God now I feel like a complete idiot.

ruskyandrei said:

At the time of this post the poll is EXACTLY 50/50 if we consider 1-5 a thumbs down and 6-10 a thumbs up.

Click to expand...

Yes, that's why I think that, if a poll was set up with only two choices (pass or fail, good or bad, yay or nay... you get the point), it would go fünfig:fünfzig

AfterShafter said:

Got to ask, if this is a "really simple game" "with little So much theatrics in the forum now, all centered around denouncing or applauding this game.

Click to expand...

he he denouncing - accidently ironic?

It's not easy to rate a game, because it depends so much on what you look at. If I was a professional reviewer, I would probably do something like this:

Graphics: 9/10
Amazing graphics for being a strategy game, even though some part seems rushed, such as the rivers. The art deco style is also very refreshing.

Music: 7/10
A bit repetive, but each Civilization has their unique tunes, which really adds an extra dimension.

Replay value: 10/10
As always... Just... One... More... Turn.

Performance: 6/10
Runs slow during the modern ages on slower computers, but otherwise there's not much to compalin about.

Overall: 8/10

But the this is, a review like that is completely meaningless. Because graphics aren't important when it comes to a game like Civ. Music is nice, but I often turn it off. And as a reviewer I would see tons of different civilizations and immediately give it a top grade on replay value.

Still, when I voted with my heart, I gave it 3/10. Because it's so boring that I can't stand to play it for an hour straight without looking at the clock. Sometimes the battles take so long that I forget what I'm researching.

You want to know the game I play instead? The original Colonization, full of flaws, bugs and exploits. But it doesn't matter, because it's fun and challenging, and full of rewards! Sail to the other side of the map and you settle near inca, who gives you a lot of food, silver and that will educate endless Expert Farmers. Send out a few scouts to find treasures and FoY's. Collect liberty bells to gain founding fathers. It's min/max:ing all the way and incredible fun even after 17 years.

Bad Brett said:

You want to know the game I play instead? The original Colonization, full of flaws, bugs and exploits. But it doesn't matter, because it's fun and challenging, and full of rewards! Sail to the other side of the map and you settle near inca, who gives you a lot of food, silver and that will educate endless Expert Farmers. Send out a few scouts to find treasures and FoY's. Collect liberty bells to gain founding fathers. It's min/max:ing all the way and incredible fun even after 17 years.

Click to expand...

I second that. And I hated Civilization IV: Colonization, which IMO dumbed down the game and took the freshness and joy out of it. Even so, there are good, experienced gamers who enjoy Civ IV: Colonization.

Currently, I'm hoping for a revamp of the original X-Com, with as few changes as possible except for bug fixes and, of course, better graphics. And being able to see the faces of your soldiers throughout the game.

Bad Brett said:

Replay value: 10/10
As always... Just... One... More... Turn.

Click to expand...

This is where I disagree.
Replay value: 1/10. Clearly, there's so little challenge and variability in the game for me that there's no point in replaying the game, wontrary to the previous iterations.
A good measure for such a game would be the 'expected number of hours of fun'.
For Civ V I'd rate it around 40hours, for Civ I,II, IV, I'd rate it infinite.

Gave it a 3.
Truth be told, the 3's only like giving an "E for effort"... even though I'm unsure that much effort was made to actually make the game any good.
The game as it is deserves a 1... the extra 2 points? Some good concepts... too bad they weren't implemented correctly.

Öjevind Lång;10133897 said:

I second that. And I hated Civilization IV: Colonization, which IMO dumbed down the game and took the freshness and joy out of it. Even so, there are good, experienced gamers who enjoy Civ IV: Colonization.

Currently, I'm hoping for a revamp of the original X-Com, with as few changes as possible except for bug fixes and, of course, better graphics. And being able to see the faces of your soldiers throughout the game.

Click to expand...

1.) Next X-Com game is going to be an FPS. No, I'm not kidding.

2.) You can get the original X-com and Terror from the Deep on Steam. Cheap, too.

LDiCesare said:

This is where I disagree.
Replay value: 1/10. Clearly, there's so little challenge and variability in the game for me that there's no point in replaying the game, wontrary to the previous iterations.
A good measure for such a game would be the 'expected number of hours of fun'.
For Civ V I'd rate it around 40hours, for Civ I,II, IV, I'd rate it infinite.

Click to expand...

Wel, I agree with you. I was just trying to think as a professional reviewer. Because compared to adventure games or puzzle solving games, the replay value is good. It's repetitive, but that's not the same thing. Counter-strike and World of Warcraft are also repetitive, yet people got obsessed with those games. So it really comes down to personal taste. But since no game is the same and you always can get better by learning new strategies/tactics, the replay value is good compared to many other games.

Of course, I grew tired of it after 10-15 hours. The mechanism were so stupid, it felt as I was playing something a kid had designed (which, of course, is partly true).

Bad Brett said:

Wel, I agree with you. I was just trying to think as a professional reviewer. Because compared to adventure games or puzzle solving games, the replay value is good. It's repetitive, but that's not the same thing. Counter-strike and World of Warcraft are also repetitive, yet people got obsessed with those games. So it really comes down to personal taste. But since no game is the same and you always can get better by learning new strategies/tactics, the replay value is good compared to many other games.

Of course, I grew tired of it after 10-15 hours. The mechanism were so stupid, it felt as I was playing something a kid had designed (which, of course, is partly true).

Click to expand...

Now hold it. There are some excellent games designed by kids. Got any idea how old the guys at Bungie were when they made Marathon? Around the same age Shafer is now (Edit: 23 to be precise), and Meier was only 28 when he made Civ I. Do not underestimate them younginns'.

Solo4114 said:

1.) Next X-Com game is going to be an FPS. No, I'm not kidding.

Click to expand...

Actually, there are *TWO* distinctive projects already announced;

a) 2K-Marin has setup a teaser site for its FPS version due Q3,4 this year. Take it from the source here.

b) Firaxis has been more than just rumored to having development & design staff at work on another "different" sequel... in this specific case, i'm perfectly willing to wait and gamble it might even become much closer to the real TBS X-Com titles by the Gollop brothers (to fill Öjevind Lång's wishes in fact!) than what slot a)..bove seems to predict. Here's where i read about the strange coincidental projects. It was discussed here at CFC, too!

Might as well link you to what i just found also with some earliest 2K-Australia Interview.

LDiCesare said:

This is where I disagree.
Replay value: 1/10. Clearly, there's so little challenge and variability in the game for me that there's no point in replaying the game, wontrary to the previous iterations.
A good measure for such a game would be the 'expected number of hours of fun'.
For Civ V I'd rate it around 40hours, for Civ I,II, IV, I'd rate it infinite.

Click to expand...

I agree 100%. I too loved the graphics and music. But I cannot agree that Civ V has much replay value.

Solo4114 said:

1.) Next X-Com game is going to be an FPS. No, I'm not kidding.

2.) You can get the original X-com and Terror from the Deep on Steam. Cheap, too.

Click to expand...

There's also an indie developer making an "in all but name" remake of xcom called Xenonauts, which should be out in the next 6 months or so. Looks pretty sweet!