Civ 5: Thumbs Up or Thumbs Down?

[Soro]

I'd certainly recommend it... you're missing out on the Giant Death Robot if you don't get the full game

Ah, well. I can contemplate death rates in Afghanistan from fighter drones if I want to consider robots at work. (A little dark humor so becomes the night.) In the meantime, I'll just watch and see how the developers deal with the AI.

You know, it was much easier to deal with AI in earlier versions of the game. The pile-on-a-tile approach meant you didn't have to worry too much about finesse, and that was just what the AI needed. But now? It just can't cope with all the new rules that really require an integrated overview and elaborate plan. I hope they do improve this, because--and this is just my POV--it's likely to prove one of the biggest stumbling blocks to acceptance of the title.

 

[Panda_Power]

Ah, the daily "what do you think of Civ 5" poll!

A resounding

 

[PotatoOverdose]

Thumbs up! Seems to me we have a very vocal negative minority on these boards, even though this poll does have a small sample size.

 

[DefoesRightBoot]

You know, it was much easier to deal with AI in earlier versions of the game. The pile-on-a-tile approach meant you didn't have to worry too much about finesse, and that was just what the AI needed. But now? It just can't cope with all the new rules that really require an integrated overview and elaborate plan. I hope they do improve this, because--and this is just my POV--it's likely to prove one of the biggest stumbling blocks to acceptance of the title.

I'm not sure about that, to be honest. I've only played one game so far but it seems the AI has a decent understanding of things like city positioning to reduce points of attack.

 

[Rexflex]

I would vote thumbs up, but having only played the demo I prefer to hold final judgement until my full version arrives. I don't think the "not played" options are suitable.

 

[Watiggi]

So the silent majority speaks... (finally)

 

[GreyIago]

Everyone keeps saying the AI and Combat AI sucks...has anyone tried a hard difficulty? I know Prince is too easy and my next game is getting bumped up.

 

[Mallipeep]

With respect, I differ--they're looking at early sales and either thinking, "Great!" or "Ugh," because I haven't got those numbers, and neither have you.

Since the previous post mentioned programmers, i have to disagree - sales are for managers, executives and such - programmers, testers and designers care about what users think a bit more then the sales ( except when users really like it but sales are still terrible ( two games I-War2 and Freespace come to mind)

 

[Revolucion09]

Thumbs down and I have NOT played the game. Based on reviews and user's comments, this game totally sucks, how could you even be able to play a Civilization game without religions? without setting the type of your government.. and being forced to play war-game??? this totally sucks, I bought the game but I am totally NOT eager to play it. Going back to Civ IV and Victoria II

 

[charon2112]

Thumbs down and I have NOT played the game. Based on reviews and user's comments, this game totally sucks, how could you even be able to play a Civilization game without religions? without setting the type of your government.. and being forced to play war-game??? this totally sucks, I bought the game but I am totally NOT eager to play it. Going back to Civ IV and Victoria II

So I guess you never played Civ I & II, since you require religion to be in a Civ game. I would like religion to be there too, but Civ V is a freaking awesome game even without it. I tried to go back and play IV this afternoon, and couldn't do it. I missed V.

also, there is an intricate social policy system for setting your government.

And Civ V is not just a war game, all other options to play and win are just as viable.

 

[zomg]

Thumbs up, great game but... I say this with the provisio that the AI needs some work still, its a little shy on growing. Also for battles I've had it do some great inital invasions when I had my back turned, but it cant seem to sustain any momentum against a human player and often wastes its units. It needs to be taught some better wargaming techiniques on forming lines.

 

[Bringa]

I love it so much I could burst.

 

[vamperium]

I'm not sure about that, to be honest. I've only played one game so far but it seems the AI has a decent understanding of things like city positioning to reduce points of attack.

Indeed, I witnessed the AI using a lake to embark a unit and flank a city while its artillery pounded it from another direction (on Prince). I was rather impressed.

 

[PreLynMax]

One bloody thumb numb up.
There's just one in-game aspect that makes me giggle like a school girl.
"Giant Death Robot". I don't know who decided to made that a unit, but the non-technical aspect of the name simply makes me laugh. It's like saying something that sounds dirty, but isn't; like "Picklenoodle".

 

[boredatwork]

I voted Meh.

I'm sure there are many people who love Civ5 as is.

In theory I should have loved it to as it was conceptually my dream game.

But having played 2 full games, and abandoned 5 others after 300+ turns I can't help being disapointed with Civ5.


I couldn't articulate why that was so until someone else in another thread put into words exactly what I was thinking.

I was expecting my dream game: Panzer General's combat grafted onto a Civilization's Empire Building.

Instead what I got was a simplified PG system grafted onto an empire building game that IMO feels almost more like a Total War game than a civ one.

While warfighting has improved immeasurably in the current edition it's still a "CIVilized" combat system - meaning it's fairly light weight. In the context of the original civ formula where War is only part of a whole package then it would be perfect.

In the context of Civ5 where the focus has shifted heavily to warmongering, the lack of tactical depth meant the novelty wore off pretty quick for me, and the rest of the game, without the joys of city spam and building spam lost it's "just one more turn" addicting qualities.

 

[Shiggs713]

Thumbs up, but not for the balance, various AI problems, and other bugs. Its basically a meh whatever, except for the HUGE potential I see in it with time.

 

[WuphonsReach]

It's a mix of "one more turn syndrome" and "ugh, the AI is stupid".

Ultimately, I suspect the "AI is stupid" is going to win out and cause me to put the game down and not pick it up again once I get past the exploration phase of figuring everything out. Bad AI means little to no replay value - and I'm not interested in multi-player.

 

[Shiggs713]

multi-player is a bad joke anyways. I logged hundreds of hours in MP for Civ4. Sadly it appear MP is dead unless they make some major renovations to its functionality.

 

[RX2000]

Looks like the thumbs ups have it.

Guess all the haters on the boards are really just the vocal minority.

 

[SidMeierGroupy]

Two thumbs down.
This from a guy who admires Meier greatly, has owned and played all the civs, smac and smax, and still keeps an older pc running and a ps1 around to play different versions of civ 2.
Why do proponents of civ 5 yell for people to 'go back to civ 4'?
Forget civ 4; civ 5 is the worst of any of the games in the franchise. From graphics to ui, to concept. And yes, it is dumbed down, to a horrendous level.

There's no sense of accomplisment when you look at the cities, they're uninspiring and distant, the policies you're forced to implement in a linear manner do not mesh with history and how civilizations progress, the much vaunted combat isn't intelligent at all. Shifting to hex-based non stacking unit's is not revolutionary and has been the modus operandi for most grognard specific games for decades. Really, one could take it or leave it, and Civs are supposed to be the epitome of the 4x game, not soley combat specific.
Aside from the intro video the artwork is cheap looking. People defending the diplomacy in this game, claiming it's 'more mysterious' and that they can read the intent of the other civ's by reading their expressions. Horse pucky. City states were also poorly implemented and it feels like they were put in as gate keepers to try to add more meat to a very scrawny diplomatic experience.
I wasn't expecting a perfect game that doesn't require patching, but this thing was pinched out of the developer's anus as quickly as possible.
Gads, what an uninspiring, boring mess. I didn't notice that many bugs, to be honest, it's simply the game itself that does not live up to the franchise's legacy. And of course there's going to be DLC's that we have to pay for that will provide things that should have been in the original release.
The ridalin addicted herd can shout same tired old slurs of 'hater' and tell me to go play civ 4, but you know what? I'm going to play civs 1 2 3 and 4, but definetly not this cheap strumpet's necklace.