Is Civ V a Good Game?

[Yzen Danek]

My issue is that the best features of Civ5 if this were fundamentally a multiplayer game end up being its downfall when playing the AI.

The AI can't handle the chess match of single unit per hex combat. It just can't. All combat feels exploitative. Any competent player always ends up better managing the micro of combat better than the AI. Cata/Treb/Cannon ages? Anticipate where the attackers will come into range 2 squares away while stepping onto hills/forest/jungle, and you'll shred them while they set up to fire. Dynamite sets that dynamic to 3 squares; upgrade and position accordingly and you ruin the attackers. On attack, manage the geometry of a hexagon better than the AI and you wreck them. To wit: I've never seen the AI use the swap move to move an attacker who has movement points left out of harm's way. They're idiots.

The AI may get massive production bonuses at higher levels, but I shred them 3 or 4 to one on unit losses in combat due to the positional understanding the devs can't seem to give the AI. That's ruinous for the AI.

Add to that the fact that the AI will keep shelling you when they CAN'T WIN. If the AI's city and its ranged defender are merely leveling up your fortified attacker, 6 exp per turn, who has a adjacent square healer, wouldn't you STOP shelling them and leveling them up given the reverse situation? No difficulty makes the AI stop doing that. With no growing unrest for being at war, why would the player ever stop? I have had games where my units were literally shelled without dying for 100 turns. They get upgraded every age, and if any AI civ makes it that long I end up with 3 levels of accuracy/shock or barrage/drill, medic, +1 visibility, siege, etc. At some point I'm just simply paying for 1/3 of their equivalent army with equal effectiveness. Play Japan and it's just insane.

How is the AI supposed to ever win when all you have to is rotate your units within range of their cities and ranged attackers and thereby level them to level 10+ upgrades? Add to that the fact that all their produced units from that city have to move off of the city square, and you're shooting fish in a barrel.

In all of the games I've played, I always have a surplus of great generals waiting in the wings for Golden Ages when I need them, and 20% bonus through most of the game while my units stand there getting shelled to be ridiculously powerful when I need them.

It honestly makes me miss Montezuma ambushing me with four 50 unit stacks of doom in Civ4.

 

[spider1]

Diplomacy is a train wreck, but I still play the heck out of the game. I only play on the weekends now anyway. I'll smoke a bit, mix some Jack in my coffee, and off I go for about four to six hours. I have so many mods added into the game, I've completely forgotten what's it's like to play in it's vanilla form. I'm sure I wouldn't like it, hence all the mods.

But, in the manner in which I play the game, I like it quite a bit.

 

[Akbarthegreat]

Putting a poll here won't get actual answers, because people who have tried ciV and ditched it(includes me) don't check these forums.

 

[Camikaze]

Putting a poll here won't get actual answers, because people who have tried ciV and ditched it(includes me) don't check these forums.

This would include both people who ditched it because they didn't like it and people who ditched it because, although they liked it, it's a year and a half old, and many games have been released since. It would also include people who like it but don't visit the forums, and people who don't like it and don't visit the forums.

It's hard to draw any meaningful conclusion from the poll, you're right, but that goes both ways.

 

[Aristos]

... and people who ditched it because, although they liked it, it's a year and a half old, and many games have been released since.

That there, Sir, if true, would probably be the harshest veredict on the quality of the game... never before has been a version ditched after 18 months "because it's old and other games have been released"... exactly the market behaviour I would expect from another demography.... you may be right though, and that concerns me, because that is exactly the market they wanted: civ Light.

 

[Optional]

It's surprising to learn how many people stick with a game and its forum despite having a low opinion of a game's most recent edition. The Civ series is not unique here.

There's a poll in the Heroescommunity going on about Heroes 6, with 4 possible answers. As I'm typing this the most popular answer (42%) is: "I bought it in order to keep HoMM series alive.."
Until now it beats: 'I bought it cuz i like Heroes6 !!!' (29%)
Here's the poll: http://heroescommunity.com/viewthread.php3?TID=37113.
The reception of Heroes 6 in general is also quite mixed, like that of Civ 5.

It looks like fans of a big game franchises will let it be known if they don't like a game, there's no holding back of criticism.
You'd think if someone was very critical of a game that person would move on, but no, many fans stick stubbornly with their series.
Now that I think about it, this resembles the behaviour of football fans. They'll say it if their team plays rubbish, but their team will still be their team. Football fans are even more extreme, of course. I'm not sure if I would like it if game fans became even more like football fans...

 

[Camikaze]

That there, Sir, if true, would probably be the harshest veredict on the quality of the game... never before has been a version ditched after 18 months "because it's old and other games have been released"... exactly the market behaviour I would expect from another demography.... you may be right though, and that concerns me, because that is exactly the market they wanted: civ Light.

Well, I don't think it's the majority of people, but of course there are a lot of people that have moved on to other games. This would be true for previous Civ games as well. My point is that there are an awful lot of reasons someone would not vote in this poll, so it's difficult to draw any meaningful conclusions from it, or to speculate on what the poll results would be if an accurate sample of Civ5 players/owners were asked the question. We know that thousands of people play Civ5 daily (and presumably like it), but we do not know how many people no longer play it, and for what reasons they no longer play it.

 

[gozpel]

If 1 million ppl bought the game and 20k ppl play it daily on steam, I would say it says a lot. I'm one of the daily's and I can tell the game suck hardtime....therefore I suck even more.

The first 100-150 turns are great, but after that I rather start another game.

It wasn't like that in the older versions, you either got slammed early or grabbed a nice foothold and fought for the win. Now you can tell if you win or not by turn 150 on standard. Of course you can still win in a bad position here but the real challenge is gone.

 

[krasny]

There are some great ideas in Civ 5.

Alas the game whilst good, is not good enough to be considered Civ.

Also it's a poll of people who read the Civ 5 forum, therefore skewed in favour of people who like Civ 5. To be accurate the poll should be on the forums of each Civ. I look at the Civ 5 forum once in a blue moon.

 

[Optional]

To be accurate the poll should be on the forums of each Civ.

There's also the 'Off Topic' forum. Altough personally I find one of these polls is enough; why would a high 'accuracy' be relevant to you or me?

I like to read what others think. If I don't own a game yet it will influence my decision whether to get a game or not. But any comment of statistic would just be an 'indication' for me, nothing more.

 

[Alone]

It's not only a good game, it's a great game and for me the best in line of all previous Civilization games!

I basically wanted to say above sentence and that’s why I registered on CFC after several years of absence. Because whenever I wanted to read some discussions or article on any forum about CivV, I run into whining group of people who trash the game, and I was SICK of it.

(never played original Civ) Civ 2 was good, Civ 3 was great and Civ 4 was solid but this one is the best so far.

Compared with CivIV I especially like that there is no religion, espionage and corporations since I really disliked those parts (the way how they were functioning and they were unavoidable since they where part of the core game).

I hope that developers will stay on course and upgrade the game in direction that was going so far. I need more Civilizations better than any significant rules change.

 

[leckig]

It is a very good game. Not perfect, but I have not been able to find anything better.

One may say, Civ5 is just like "capitalism".

 

[Camikaze]

Also it's a poll of people who read the Civ 5 forum, therefore skewed in favour of people who like Civ 5. To be accurate the poll should be on the forums of each Civ. I look at the Civ 5 forum once in a blue moon.

No, no poll with this question is going to accurately answer the question, nor is it designed to. Rather, it answers the question of whether or not a particular sample of people like the game. I think it's inaccurate to say that those that read the Civ5 forums like the game. A lot of people would come here because they are having problems or facing some sort of annoyance. If you were perfectly happy with the game and your experience playing it, unless you're into internet forums, why seek one out? A sample from the forums of other Civ games would likely get people who play those other games, likely in preference to Civ5, which means they more likely than not to not like the game, especially when looked at comparatively (or if they don't play Civ5, do not necessarily have a reliable opinion on the matter). The OT forum is largely populated by people who have moved on from other parts of the forum, and no longer hold as much of an interest in the game(s). They are also therefore more likely to not like this game. The point being that this poll question, anywhere in the forum, is not going to give an accurate answer to its question. What is does giving a reasonably accurate answer to is how many of the people from that particular sample of forum users like the game. But that's not at all the same thing.

Whether it is a 'good' game is entirely a matter of personal opinion, not something objectively defined.

 

[Tatran]

Games are a matter of taste! The perceived value of a game depends greatly on the individual preferences of those who play it. Some players prefer games of luck; others prefer games of tactics; still others enjoy communicating with fellow players. Then there are those who like games based on reaction, manual skills, or memory, etc. But whether a game is considered good or of little appeal does not depend entirely on personal preferences. There are also objective criteria that must be considered:

Originality
Any new game must be original. It has to possess elements that have never—or at least not in this particular combination—been part of a game before.

Freshness and replayability
The more a game makes its players want to play again, the better the game. An important aspect of this is the course the game takes should be as different as possible each time it is played. A game lacking this quality will soon become boring. A good game will be as exciting each time it's played as it was the first time.

Surprise
A game should be rich in surprises. Repetition in sequence, progress, and events should be strictly avoided.

Equal opportunity
At the start of the game, every player should have an equal chance of winning. In particular, the first player should have neither an advantage nor a disadvantage over the rest of the field.

Winning chances
A similar rule applies to the end of a game. Every player must have at least a theoretical possibility of winning until the very end. This possibility might be infinitesimal, but it must be present.

No "kingmaker effect"
A game loses its appeal if, at any stage, a player who no longer has any hope of winning can somehow determine the winner. This problem arises primarily in strategy games.

No early elimination
All players should be involved in the game until it's almost over. No one should be eliminated until the very end.

Reasonable waiting times
Nothing kills players' interest as easily as long periods of inactivity while they wait their turns. Chess provides a useful counter-example: a player can use the waiting time to plan his or her next move.

Creative control
Any game that is not based on chance must give players the opportunity to affect its progress and direction. Nothing is more boring for a player than the feeling that he or she is being "played by the game" instead of the other way round. A good game should be challenging.

Uniformity
The title, theme, format, and graphics of a game must give a unified impression.

Quality of components
Durability, functionality, and the visual appeal of the materials contribute greatly to the perceived value of a game.

Target groups and consistency of rules
Games differ in the demands they put on their players. Some games require special skills. It is important for game rules to be consistent. A strategy game, for instance, cannot be influenced in any way by luck. Imagine a player conceiving a plan, deciding on a particular sequence of play, and then having to roll dice in order to execute them. Clearly, the two concepts are at odds.

Although it would seem logical to expect rules to be consistent, there are a great many games whose target groups are not clearly defined. It is often hard to tell whether a game is meant for players interested in strategy, luck, or some combination of the two, or maybe for people who like communication games.

Games of chance must have simple rules and offer few alternative possible moves. This should result in short turns and a generally fast-paced game. Games of strategy, at the other end of the spectrum, should offer abundant alternatives each move. This will let players realize their potential. It must be possible for a player to achieve mastery.

Tension
Every game has its own unique tension curve. But long periods of relatively low tension must be avoided in any game. The following is an illustration of a common tension curve:



This illustrates a linear increase in tension. Game A is preferable because it begins at an initial level of tension. To achieve this effect, one can shorten a longwinded opening and make sure that players get to the most interesting game-play right away. This has the desirable side effect of shortening the game.



This graph illustrates two games with multiple tension peaks. Game A with more frequent peaks and less-pronounced valleys is the better, more interesting game.

Learning and mastering a game
Surely it is an advantage for a game to start quickly and be easy to learn, and the clearer and simpler the rules, the better. A game also benefits from incorporating elements that players are familiar with from everyday life. These elements do not have to actually replicate real life; a general similarity or familiar logic will suffice.

Not all games suffer from having complex rules. In general, the more opportunities players have to influence the course of a game, the more readily the players will tolerate a complex set of rules.

Complexity and influence
Short, simple games must have short, simple rules. Complex games, on the other hand, may have more complex rules. These concepts are illustrated by the following graph:



The extent to which a player can influence the game increases along the x-axis, while the complexity of its rules increases along the y-axis. Once we place some games into this coordinate system, we immediately notice a void lying above the diagonal in Region 1. The games are all located below the diagonal in Region 2. The unavoidable conclusion is that complex sets of rules are acceptable only in conjunction with the players' relatively high level of influence on the course of the game.

Are good games necessarily successful?
Unfortunately, no. There are many good, even great, games that have had little or no success. In Germany, for example, several attempts have been made to market Twixt, Acquire, and Focus, all of which failed, sad to say.

There is more to a successful game than just being good. The game must be introduced to the market in the proper way. Marketing and advertising are of the essence, although even those strategies can do little to boost a game that does not reflect current taste. The special ingredients for success that a game needs to start an avalanche and keep delighting people for years to come would seem to consist of timeliness (zeitgeist), intuition, and luck. Never in a million years would I have anticipated the enormous success of such games as Trivial Pursuit, Magic: The Gathering, or Pokémon.

All this is not an attempt to instruct you on how to invent a good game. Rather, it's a set of guidelines on the kind of characteristics a good game should have.

These two sentences best express the qualities of a good game:

A good game will stay with us all our lives.

A good game makes us long to play it again.

- Wolfgang Kramer

 

[tenkk]

I would have to give it a straight No. It's not a good game. I was fascinated by the series since Civ 1, but this serving appears to be made for the masses..just to get that quick buy on steam or in the shop for an xmas present for the kiddy. Whatever. It's not for Civ fans.

 

[Ashwind]

Thanks for the interesting read Tatran!

 

[Montov]

Optional, please don't project your own disappointment on others!

I *played* Civ 4 intensively and I *like* CiV. And I've read many comments of other users, saying the same.
While you migth be right in a certain extend and I liked - for example - health in Civ 4 and would love to see something similar re-introduced in CiV. But I'm not *dissapointed* of the lack of this mechanism in CiV. And even more, I'm definitely *not* dissapointed about diplomacy in CiV!

The game is different at this points. That's all.

I agree completely.

 

[Optional]

That quote if fine, except it seems to presume some forum member called Optional likes Civ IV. I don't own Civ IV and haven't played it. Just want to clear that bit up.

 

[Derpy Hooves]

Intriguing read Tatran,
Reducing the amount of influence a human has was insanely enough actually a goal for the dev's, this is what their "Making diplomacy mysterious" eventually boils down to, same for removal of religion and the static nature of SP's.
I suppose this is why you don't let the guy from Panzer General design a game with a strong focus on diplomacy.

 

[MantaRevan]

Civ V is a good game, although it comes with it's own disappointments. For it popularity, it should have had more post-launch support. With that aside, it's quite nice.