rate the game (out of 5 stars)
- Thread starter amboo
- Start date
hewhoknowsall
Warlord
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2009
- Messages
- 294
Oh...somebody else posted a rating thread. Gahh.
sav
King
I'm liking it... the only problem I have is that I have to have all the graphics turned down, and it's still a bit jerky, unlike Civ4 which ran full speed on full settings. It's hard to get a feel for it at the moment, since it's so different and so slow, but one day I'm sure it'll replace Civ4 for me. Just not yet.
3 1/2 Stars, Civ4 was the better game.
Diplomacy overall is worse due to the fact I can't see any useful information.
Military is a double edged sword, more strategic and definitly better, however its a big headache moving a large army. After you've moved a 12 unit army you remeber why Civ4 added stacking in when you remeber that old Civ3 headaches you used to have, the same headache Civ5 now has again.
Economy overall worse, not being able to control which squares are next after each cultural expansion is not good in any way shape or form when your trying to make a city to specialize in production and hills are the last possible tiles cities seem to want to grow onto.
Game itself is far slower, with pauses between turns right from the start unlike the instant turns of civ4 (because the cpu's moved during the start of every turn rather then after.). Far fewer cities and units overall makes the game more boring to me, as I have considerably less to do. Overall there also feels like theres gaps in the content with no religions or such.
So maybe in a expansion or two the game might make me retire Civ4 for Civ5, but as it stands currently, its not even close.
Diplomacy overall is worse due to the fact I can't see any useful information.
Military is a double edged sword, more strategic and definitly better, however its a big headache moving a large army. After you've moved a 12 unit army you remeber why Civ4 added stacking in when you remeber that old Civ3 headaches you used to have, the same headache Civ5 now has again.
Economy overall worse, not being able to control which squares are next after each cultural expansion is not good in any way shape or form when your trying to make a city to specialize in production and hills are the last possible tiles cities seem to want to grow onto.
Game itself is far slower, with pauses between turns right from the start unlike the instant turns of civ4 (because the cpu's moved during the start of every turn rather then after.). Far fewer cities and units overall makes the game more boring to me, as I have considerably less to do. Overall there also feels like theres gaps in the content with no religions or such.
So maybe in a expansion or two the game might make me retire Civ4 for Civ5, but as it stands currently, its not even close.
wingsoverithaca
Chieftain
3/5
sarda's comments are basically a summary of how i feel about the game as well. the "blind" diplomacy is very disappointing. also can't find a way to turn off unit animations and stuff to speed up turns. simplified game with lots of content cut.
sarda's comments are basically a summary of how i feel about the game as well. the "blind" diplomacy is very disappointing. also can't find a way to turn off unit animations and stuff to speed up turns. simplified game with lots of content cut.
Tylerryan79
Emperor
I noticed the slow turn, and was surprised becuase I have a pretty good CPU(i7 860 @ 3.80). Then I realized as the AI takes it's turns I can still move around, click things, etc. So it's not like they are lagging, just takes longer for the AI to do it's thing. Also going around watching everyone move/fight is fun, kinda.
Sayounara
King
It has met my expectations. Well, not everything I wanted at the beginning, but in a way it is because I want a chance to learn everything about the game before they let me do my favorites in civilization.
I love the graphics - could be better, but impressive as is.
I love the graphics - could be better, but impressive as is.
sav
King
How can you say it's not as good as Civ4 after a few hours? Jebus. Civ4 has five years of expansions, improvements, patches, mods, etc. Civ5 has been out for 11 hours.
crag
Chieftain
2 stars. But that's mainly cause of stupid issues with the UI. You have to click more in this game. Even starting the game; click past which direct x (since the icon doesn't work for me), click past the opening movie (and you can't click/esc/spacebar past the corporate branding), and click past the music rating warning.
And minus 1 star for the TERRIBLE multi-player. My god.. you'd think they'd learn how to do this by now.
And minus 1 star for the TERRIBLE multi-player. My god.. you'd think they'd learn how to do this by now.
RD-BH
Human
I'm not amused with some of the bugs/issues,
... but once they're patched?
... We'll see.
... but once they're patched?
... We'll see.
BjoernLars
Warlord
Uh... what's with all the Jerry Seinfeld pictures?
sgrig
Comrade
Well, I gave it 3 stars. I don't think it's great currently, but I'm sure with some updates/patches/mods it will be really good. Just need some patience.
the343danny
Emperor
If it had better AI (especially on expansion and city placement; Im not complaining about 1 tile from coast or river but half the map away on a barren desert while there is still a whole lot of good expansion spots right next to their capital.
King Jason
Fleece-bearer
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2005
- Messages
- 2,090
4 stars right off the bat... As much as I might want to, I can't say it's better than civ4 right away. I can nitpick certain things (though, not the usual complaints by a long shot) ~ but I'm thoroughly enjoying the game. Strategic view = win. I never leave it.
Though, +1 star for Seinfeld.
Though, +1 star for Seinfeld.
Similar threads
