Civ 5: Thumbs Up or Thumbs Down?

[FionnMacCool]

Thumb down.
Idea of 'one unit on one tile' is very good for me. That plus is most remarkable at the first glimpse of an eye.
Unfortunately, overall bored me, and as guy above, i bet on modmakers.

 

[SuperJay]

I feel sad for you reasonable peeps that are so disappointed in it. That's gotta feel like a huge let-down.

I'm loving it, but I do sympathize if it's not something you enjoy. (Until and unless you're one of those overwrought, hyper-dramatic "it's an abomination and the end of the world" kind of folks. In that case, QQ MOAR NOOB.)

 

[Grotius]

Big thumbs-up from me. I'm having a blast with it. Glad to see that a majority of voters seem to agree with me.

I loved Civ 4, but I already own that game, so I'm glad Firaxis has given us something different. I love the hexes and 1upt; it will be tough to go back to squares and stacks of doom after this. City-states are a cool new feature that I appreciate more with every play. Social policies add a second tech tree, but one that you can't possibly finish researching; this makes culture more interesting than just the amassing of 50,000 points. The new happiness system and the changes in tile improvements mean we have to learn new techniques for specializing cities (which is at least as important now as it was in Civ 4). The foundations of any good Civ game are still here: building cities and buildlings and Wonders, agonizing about guns-vs-butter, managing tradeoffs between expansion and happiness, etc.

For me, the various new features more than make up for what's been left out in this version (e.g., religion, health, espionage, corporations), not all of which I miss. I wouldn't mind if some of those features (some of which were in BtS, not vanilla Civ4) make a comeback in an expansion, but for now I'm having a great time with Civ 5 as is.

Sure, it's not perfect. The AI needs help navigating the new grid, but they've already started to patch it, and besides the old AI wasn't Deep Blue either. But for me, the proof is in the pudding -- many many hours of enjoyable Civ goodness. Back to it now.

 

[boredatwork]

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.

I witnessed the AI use a lake to embark and land 4-5 units 3 hexes away from my southern city while 90% of my army was fighting off another civ in the north.

I was *almost* impressed.

Until, having me at his mercy, rather than actually attack he proceeded to re-embark and dither around off shore where the city and the sole archer in range killed off all 5 units while afloat.

 

[Akkon888]

The AI ruins the game. The high expectations I have had for this game are not met. Between meh and thumbs down, I gave it a thumbs down for the utter lack of prowess (as well as the bugs) in the AI. Sure the bugs can be fixed, but I would call it a stretch to say that the AI can be fixed and improved enough (w/o expansion) to even be called a thorn in my side, let alone a challenge.

Also, even if it might be my fault, the specs of my computer barely meet the requirements. I notice a lot of lag, and sure I probably should have purchased a better computer/graphics card but why would I invest so much in a game that does not provide that much fun?

I can't believe I am torn on Civ5. I should be loving it, but in all honesty I am not. I like aspects (except social policies, which suck), but the whole does not seem coherent. I know they made a big step forward in ideas, but their AI simply prevents the fulfillment of these visions.

So, my advice - I suggest for people to at least wait for bug patches before buying the game, if not wait for an expansion. For now, I'll stick with my Civ4.

 

[Ashbery76]

Ten people who speak make more noise than ten thousand who are silent.

 

[jamescat]

I'm somewhere between Thumbs Up and meh. I think this game has a lot of potential with some fixes. But at the same time, I couldn't ignore the nagging feeling that I was playing a beefed up version of CivRev for PC. I think once I have more time to adjust to this whole new system I'll enjoy the game more. There are just so many changes. Like when you're "spamming" units (that being a relative term in this new combat system) you can't just lower the science slider to pay for the units. And so on.

So the jury is still out on this one. I'll keep playing, and try and get a better grasp on the gameplay. Hopefully some aspects of the game will be improved via patches and such in the near future.

 

[Monsterzuma]

I happy to have seen this thread.

 

[lorno47]

According to steam I've played 31 hours so far, love it :x

 

[Wolfwood]

Played through my first game (in Europe, so we got it late) and I loved every minute of it. Well, except for the last 40 turns when I was just waiting for the victory to be confirmed while I wondered about the existence of Giant Death Robots...

Ten people who speak make more noise than ten thousand who are silent.

They did the same when Civ4 came out.

 

[lodester]

Good poll. Deserves a sticky for a couple of weeks?

 

[Scramble]

I am glad to see that the people screaming are simply posting repeatedly, and that it is not as hated as the forums would imply...

I LOVE CiV

Those who hate CiV are trying so damn hard to undermine everything that has to do with it.
Those who love CiV are too busy playing it to defend it.

 

[CandleJack]

Thumbs up. Great game, needs some work though, but will be the best.

 

[Gath]

Meh. Its fun, but I don't think it has longevity.

 

[ohioastronomy]

I am glad to see that the people screaming are simply posting repeatedly, and that it is not as hated as the forums would imply...

I LOVE CiV

Those who hate CiV are trying so damn hard to undermine everything that has to do with it.
Those who love CiV are too busy playing it to defend it.

If you really support the series then you don't uncritically praise anything that they do with it.

 

[Crowqueen]

Thumbs up - but I haven't played it. As an avid Civ player for about ten years now, I don't think I'll get it to run until I massively upgrade my hardware, but hopefully I should get to it sooner or later.

 

[DarkReign]

Dont like it. Nothing means anything in the game.

Unhappy? Doesnt matter.
Starving? No problem.

Here is a tip: Build an army from the very get go and march on your nearest enemy. Puppet every city, do not stop making units...ever. Run out of money? Who cares! Keep marching.

What a total letdown.

 

[mamba]

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

How are you able to play Civ without religion ? Easy, play any version other than 4

I like the removal, I never liked the religions in 4.

You still set your government style, just in a different way.

Maybe you should give the game a try, you already bought it after all, so what have you got to loose ?

 

[mamba]

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.

Yes, Civ 5 clearly has the worst graphics in the series, NOT.

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 too would prefer to know where I am standing with a civ.

Whether I like City States or not, I do not know yet, for now I mostly ignore them (do their requests but otherwise ignore them and eventually conquer them).
So far I think they are an ok addition as they add some variation, but not a major addition.

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.

yes there will be DLC, I am tired of the argument that it should have been in the base game however. Why is it that DLC should be in the base game but expansions are ok ?

 

[WuphonsReach]

According to steam I've played 31 hours so far, love it :x

A bit over 24 hours here so far... but I'm playing Large/Marathon and still figuring things out. The AI is not putting up much of a fight. Which goes back to - it's a "meh" with not a lot of replay unless they fix the AI.

Because for a 4X:

explore - we have that
expand - got that, and it's challenging
exploit - the map? or the AI?
exterminate - um yeah, way too easy

Keeping the AI at bay is simply done by outgrowing them, then parking a large army in the fields and hills near their border and ignoring the rest of your territory. I have yet to see an AI that I'm at war with field a naval force and land it behind my front lines. And at the start, barbarians are basically a non-event even on maps with large empty unwatched areas. In Civ4, you'd get crushed early if you didn't have fog-busting done by about turn 100 because the barbarians would suddenly spawn in huge numbers and make a beeline for your cities and improvements.