OP of 'Is it Really That Bad?'

[Alex53]

I just browsed for a thread I created a couple of weeks ago asking for people's opinion on Civ5. At the time I got a couple of replies, I repled to those saying I'd try the demo, and left it at that.

Now I came back to post there again but unfortunately it's been closed after 13 pages of...(I have no kind word for it)...

I'm reall sorry that the thread developed that way and I had no idea the issue was going to be that contentious. It's just a game after all. I wouldn't like to see you guys trying to debate something that is actually important

Anyway, in page 4 SuperJay said;

I hope Alex53 will come back and tell us what he ended up deciding to do. People always leave us hanging with these threads. C'mon man, we need to know who won!!

Well to answer that (although I don't see it in terms of who won or lost), I tried the demo. It crashed twice, but that alone wouldn't have killed it for me, though my PC has been stable on every other game and application I run.

However I have to say the game itself was a bit underwhelming. It simply lacks what made me get into the other Civs, the constant attention to detail that optimises your bigger plan as you play, and which made me want to play one more turn, then one more turn, then just one more, and realise I'd been playing for 4 hours.

On the plus side I liked the hex 'board'.

For me the effect of the demo was to run off to take the dust off my copy of Civ4, which I did.

On my wish list, maybe they could somehow split the series into a more 'console' style faster simpler game for people who prefer that, and a more Civ4-style game, but incorporating updated graphics and hex instead of squares.

 

[DaveGold]

On my wish list, maybe they could somehow split the series into a more 'console' style faster simpler game for people who prefer that, and a more Civ4-style game, but incorporating updated graphics and hex instead of squares.

I'm afraid this is what they tried to produce; a CIV style game with a console style which was faster and simple with updated graphics. We got CIV5!

 

[Alex53]

I'm afraid this is what they tried to produce; a CIV style game with a console style which was faster and simple with updated graphics. We got CIV5!

Sorry, I meant 2 separate games rather than one game trying to be both things. After they released the console game and called it Revolutions, it could have worked by having Civ5 (progression of Civ4), and Civ5:Revolutions (console style game brought to the PC)

 

[sketch162000]

For me the effect of the demo was to run off to take the dust off my copy of Civ4, which I did.

It's good that you were perceptive enough to gather that Civ V isn't for you just from the demo.

I, on the other hand, had to waste the $50 first.

 

[Venereus]

It's good that you were perceptive enough to gather that Civ V isn't for you just from the demo.

I, on the other hand, had to waste the $50 first.

Amen, brother.

 

[SuperJay]

Well to answer that (although I don't see it in terms of who won or lost), I tried the demo. It crashed twice, but that alone wouldn't have killed it for me, though my PC has been stable on every other game and application I run.

Haha, that "we need to know who won" comment was a tongue-in-cheek remark. Facetious humor doesn't translate well on forums, but basically I was just poking fun at the constant need to turn every discussion into "haters" vs "fanboys" throughout the Civ 5 - General forum.

I'm glad you got a chance to try Civ 5, and I can certainly understand why you opted to forego buying it for now. Hopefully it'll get to a point where the "one more turn" feeling comes back, but for now I guess I'm skeptical about its future.

 

[JohnnyW]

For me the effect of the demo was to run off to take the dust off my copy of Civ4, which I did.

Bravo. You also might want to check out EU3 if you're looking for another good strategy game.

 

[m4gill4]

Bravo. You also might want to check out EU3 if you're looking for another good strategy game.

I second that. But again, do try the demo (assuming there is one) because some folks don't care for the rather steep learning curve.

 

[Maxor127]

The excellent reviews and how much I liked the previous Civs are what made me confidently pre-order the game. I've been underwhelmed too for the same reasons. I might be able to overlook its faults if multiplayer worked, but that's probably the worst aspect. Which is funny because the game was touted as the most multiplayer-focused and mod-friendly Civ game ever. But multiplayer is broken and their own mods don't even work in multiplayer.