I've played civ since civ 1 and i think civ 5 has some merit it works and is fun. At least, at first... it gets boring oh so quickly... the cuts of many features and simplification really bother me in a big way. I like depth in my games and detail- the greater complexity the better (and it should tend toward realism or be inspired by realism), though I hate too much micro-managing!
The bad of Civ 5:
- The AI is cheap and shabby. It can be so annoying it can give you a headache watching it-sometimes it moves units back and forth like a kid with ADD and loaded with hyper-stimulants. It is irrational and seems to have iron-shod rules in negotiations, even when facing total annihilation (now if the Civ Personality fits with that behaviour then I'm all for it, but I haven't yet played it enough to recognise otherwise). I remember in the very first Civ I you could make demands sometimes and actually get what you want-sometimes you felt like you had the upper hand or called the bluff on your opponent). Having said all that, I appreciate it is possibly hard to design and code a good AI, but I'm going to be dropping these kinds of games if companies don't make the required investment in this under-represented area. It goes for most games, really. A good AI isn't necessarily one that can "win the game", but one that feels real and different, sometimes it makes fatal judgements, sometimes it shows insightful tactics or prescience. For example, it would be cool for an "intelligent" personality to notice you had horses, it didn't have any, then research and build anti-horse units as a counter, or make a defensive pact with another civ if it's next to your borders (assuming you have shown aggressive tendencies and declared war unprovoked-ie began a "war of aggression" prior to these events).
- The illogical structure of the game design really damages the immersion for me at a conceptual level. I just can't get past the global happiness as a core gameplay mechanic. It's like the whole civilisation needs anti-depressants all the time, all at once as if it's an entity that is wed to it's ant queen's mood swings. "Happiness buildings"? .....Seriously? Does that represent true, civilisation building to anyone? It's also too politically correct imo and this is regretful. History needs to be less politicised imo. Allowing butchers like Joseph Stalin and disallowing Adolph Hitler, one of the most influential and powerful leaders of the 21st century (if not the most) is a continuing eyesore on the Civilisation franchise. Added to that, most of the European Civs have made extremely bloody repressions against certain groups. England and France have been brutal and killed hundreds of thousands over time, hell Spain (no doubt in an expansion to come) wiped out two or so civilisations and plundered their treasure and burned their cultural texts. But that's a bit beside the point, Questions and inconsistencies like these continue to bug me- every time I play I am thinking there must have been a better way to make it work more consistently and reasonably:
* How Chariot archers don't require Archery tech to unlock
* How elephant units don't require an elephant resource
* Why Horseback Riding requires The Wheel? Really? That is laughably ridiculous in the extreme. Genghis Khan and American Indians are rolling in their graves, literally.
* Why archers/crossbowmen can "bombard" gun units at range, but gun units can't return fire. wtf
* How cities can bombard without archery, and how they are hard to take in Ancient eras. Trashing native villagers and towns would have been child's play for a band of warriors, just like in Civ 1
* Why there is no gunpowder or copper resources? I would think they are amazingly important.
* Why marble isn't a requirement for some Classical wonders?
* Why some units require Iron, Coal and Oil, but others don't. That is simply ridiculous.
* You should be able to steal land tiles, but this gives the opposing player an option to trigger War (without Diplomacy warmonger rep). To steal a land tile, it might have to be occupied for a number of turns. Etc.
* No razing capitals/city states? A horrible design decision. At least give the option for releasing under a non-militarisation pact (no military units/garrisons/fortifications, but keep the city)
* No option for capturing or trading technologies. Seriously, you see wheels in the streets, and wouldn't use that? Just walk by the blacksmiths and ignore the amazing reflective materials?
* "Civil Service" in wait for it......Medieval Era? No, just No. Not in a time of universal Hereditary and Religious dominance (ie Monarchy).
* NO CIVICS/Permanent Government throughout the Eras......Wow, just Wow. In addition stack up random "social policies" for the entirety of a civilisation. The names representing these "social policies" don't make any sense and never show up in any other way. In short, they are meaningless, except for the bonuses for gameplay.
* List is much longer but I'll cut here.
Other gripes while I'm on the subject:
* No Swordsman in Bronze Age makes me QQ
* Where are the Axemen and Macemen? Those were pretty fun. Spearmen are an incredibly boring unit. Ouch, really. Any Camel units?
* I always liked the feel of Ancient trade (Caravans).
Global unhappiness -_-
In the sense the mechanic of Global Happiness might be passable for the 21st century game, but up until that point there should be different rules. And if this mechanic is to be useful, where are the revolutions? Why doesn't the civlisation become jubilant at vanquishing a foreign foe, as in the past (again, for the 21st century western 'neurotic' society hell bent on a foreign policy of making the whole world exceedingly happy and ebulient, it seems like a reasonable fit-for those political systems in particular)...but to impose it on *all civs* is ridiculous and 2 dimensional (which brings this point to the lack of civics and changing government types-a real deal-breaker for a game about governing civilisations), as is the case imposing it as a fundamental requirement throughout history.