Rate Civ V
- Thread starter The Navy Seal
- Start date
- Status
becase he is a moron.
Moderator Action: Stay civil or don't post. Such insults are not acceptable here.
Interesting. Now 52.55% of people rate it as a 5 or less. 
Interesting. Now 52.55% of people rate it as a 5 or less.
just think if we could get some of the people that left the game to come back it would probably be like 75% less than 5.
blind biker
King
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2009
- Messages
- 609
Civ V ratings: saved by the fleeing!
Öjevind Lång
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2005
- Messages
- 2,371
Interesting. Now 52.55% of people rate it as a 5 or less.
Those who like the game are too busy playing it to spend all their time here whingeing.
Moderator Action: Please don't call those who express views not in favor of Civ V whiners.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
redmosquito
barbarian bear
OK there is definetly a sample selection problem.
1. People who love the game are busy. They do not have enough time to vote
2. People who hate the game have already left the Civ5 forum. Therefore they do not vote.
Although I am sure that both arguments are to some extent true, IMO the second argument is way too dominant compared to the first one. If you love the game, you will probably visit the forum and spend 1 minute of your life to praise the game. This is not too costly. On the other hand, for a hater, spending time in the Civ5 forum has a high opportunity cost.
1. People who love the game are busy. They do not have enough time to vote
2. People who hate the game have already left the Civ5 forum. Therefore they do not vote.
Although I am sure that both arguments are to some extent true, IMO the second argument is way too dominant compared to the first one. If you love the game, you will probably visit the forum and spend 1 minute of your life to praise the game. This is not too costly. On the other hand, for a hater, spending time in the Civ5 forum has a high opportunity cost.
The results show a lot of disappointment and some hate. I haven't played CiV in weeks and played for a half hour the other night. I still don't enjoy it like IV. I pay attention to much of the forum as I am a FANATIC. 
I'm not getting rid of my copy as they may do something to fix it enough to make it more palatable. For now BtS is much more fun. 
I'm not getting rid of my copy as they may do something to fix it enough to make it more palatable. For now BtS is much more fun. Öjevind Lång
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2005
- Messages
- 2,371
Öjevind Lång;10156080 said:
Hey, mod! I wrote "whingeing", which comes with the noun "whinger" - not "whining". Just for future reference.
Moderator Action: If you have an issue with a moderators actions please take it up with them using a personal message in the future
redmosquito
barbarian bear
The median score is 5. If you consider buying this game I think this is the statistic that you should care about.
blind biker
King
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2009
- Messages
- 609
Öjevind Lång;10158318 said:
whinge (hwnj, wnj)
intr.v. whinged, whing·ing, whing·es Chiefly British
To complain or protest, especially in an annoying or persistent manner.
It's not more flattering than whining.
PedroAmaral83
Chieftain
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2010
- Messages
- 2
I gave it a 4, if it wasnt called Civilization I could have given a 6.
My experience with the game was bad from the begining. I went to a friend of mine who had just bought it and we sat down and I was eager to kick their asses and lol what a surprise no hotseat!! I couldnt believe it, but anyhow we started playing and after about two hours playing I fell asleep!! Gosh I couldnt believe it, I guess I was in sort of a denial, these was Civ V and I was thinking of buying a top quality computer and the main reason behind that was the game.
Still I went ahead and bought the computer, I needed anyway for my old computer was exactly old, and bought the game. I had to play it a bit more, c´mon these was Civ V!!! So I played for about two weeks and for some moments I enjoyed it, but got bored quickly enough.
Just to make clear I liked Civ IV Vanila and I believe BTS is the best strategy game ever, I am almost beating Immortal but still get my ass kicked over and over on Deity.
It seens to me that they had some very good intentions; the 1UPT concept is quite interesting and the idea of having ranged units shooting at distance sounded great; the idea of paying for the roads was also interesting; civilizations having unique abilities; cities can defend themselves; limiting the amount of units that each resource can provide lol I was curious about those things and I still believe one can make some sense out of any of these ideas BUT to me it just feels that it didn´t work at all, it feels like the game was watered down.
It seens to me that the main thing is that the change to 1UPT meant many other changes had to be made, first of all reducing yields and production times so that there would be smaller armies. As much as 1UPT could be a good idea and it does has some fun in it, it just doesnt seen to work. I find it painful to move an army that might have more than 7 units, and is even worse when you have neutral units on the way. On top of that since now we dont have so many roads it gets even worse.
The city states also seens to give limited options of interaction, and to me it feels like they dont add much to the game.
The social policies are interesting, even though I prefer the old civics which could allow you to change back if you felt like.
The wonders were completely watered down, many of then just dont seen to deserve to be called a "wonder" at all.
The unique abilities for each civilization are also very bad, some civilizations have abilities which are useless, for example the germans.
The AI is bad, or worse!! I mean perhaps all computer games have some limitation on AI, Civ IV has its share of AI flaws but on these game using these mechanic of 1UPT is just terrible.
Diplomacy is another aspect that is fighting with the AI to be the worst thing in these game.
The great people became watered down also, before you had more options with then, now it seens like there is not much to choose, you get a scientist you just pick a science or if much you wait to get a golden age, the other option is not worth at all and another flaw here is that you can just pick any science no matter the cost.
The resources management brought a concept that definetly should be added to the civ series, the concept that some resources can only support a certain number of units. But here again there is another flaw that just gives the feeling that the game was watered down; if I farm my cow it will give me the same extra food that I would get if I make a pasture!!!! and also the same extra food I get if I farm a food resource, meaning these resources became almost meaningless, of course the only advantage being that they gave one extra food, but all theses things just seens to water down the game.
Also I believe espionage and religion added to the game depth. On Civ IV founding a religion is a big plus and religion brings many interesting things to the game, it gives higher happy caps, increase culture, influence relations (which I believe it makes A LOT of sense, even nowadays it is still a big factor in the way different groups of people relate) so one had to balance all that. As for espionage I am not an expert in using it from the bits I read on these site, but I think it also adds to the game strategy, allowing you to find out what science your opponents are researching, destroying their resources and etc. I remember a game I was playing online against my cousin, we played on emperor level and had some computer playing with us, our idea was not to play on the higher levels because our main goal was to beat each other. On these particular game he had founded a religion and managed to spread it so his holy city was providing lots of gold, but these city didnt have a high production, therefore I left a few spies there and placed a lot of espionage points on him so that i could see what his cities were doing. When his holy city was 1 turn from doing the wallstreet, which would increase his money by 100%, I sabotaged his production bringing it back to zero, on these case meaning some 30 turns. I won the game on that, for if he had finisehd it he would have been able to increase his science rate and compete with me on the the tech race. So these is just an example of how espionage can be interesting and add to the game strategy. Also I believe the slider was a better way to control science, culture and gold.
Putting all these things together that´s what it makes me feel the game is watered down. I do understand that they thought these new concepts could be interesting, but remembering from the very first civ I see that each new civ brought changes, but none of then brought such deep changes and I believe it is as if these ones turned it into a completely different game, and I honestly think these one is an alright game but it shouldnt and it doesnt deserve to be called Civilization.
My experience with the game was bad from the begining. I went to a friend of mine who had just bought it and we sat down and I was eager to kick their asses and lol what a surprise no hotseat!! I couldnt believe it, but anyhow we started playing and after about two hours playing I fell asleep!! Gosh I couldnt believe it, I guess I was in sort of a denial, these was Civ V and I was thinking of buying a top quality computer and the main reason behind that was the game.
Still I went ahead and bought the computer, I needed anyway for my old computer was exactly old, and bought the game. I had to play it a bit more, c´mon these was Civ V!!! So I played for about two weeks and for some moments I enjoyed it, but got bored quickly enough.
Just to make clear I liked Civ IV Vanila and I believe BTS is the best strategy game ever, I am almost beating Immortal but still get my ass kicked over and over on Deity.
It seens to me that they had some very good intentions; the 1UPT concept is quite interesting and the idea of having ranged units shooting at distance sounded great; the idea of paying for the roads was also interesting; civilizations having unique abilities; cities can defend themselves; limiting the amount of units that each resource can provide lol I was curious about those things and I still believe one can make some sense out of any of these ideas BUT to me it just feels that it didn´t work at all, it feels like the game was watered down.
It seens to me that the main thing is that the change to 1UPT meant many other changes had to be made, first of all reducing yields and production times so that there would be smaller armies. As much as 1UPT could be a good idea and it does has some fun in it, it just doesnt seen to work. I find it painful to move an army that might have more than 7 units, and is even worse when you have neutral units on the way. On top of that since now we dont have so many roads it gets even worse.
The city states also seens to give limited options of interaction, and to me it feels like they dont add much to the game.
The social policies are interesting, even though I prefer the old civics which could allow you to change back if you felt like.
The wonders were completely watered down, many of then just dont seen to deserve to be called a "wonder" at all.
The unique abilities for each civilization are also very bad, some civilizations have abilities which are useless, for example the germans.
The AI is bad, or worse!! I mean perhaps all computer games have some limitation on AI, Civ IV has its share of AI flaws but on these game using these mechanic of 1UPT is just terrible.
Diplomacy is another aspect that is fighting with the AI to be the worst thing in these game.
The great people became watered down also, before you had more options with then, now it seens like there is not much to choose, you get a scientist you just pick a science or if much you wait to get a golden age, the other option is not worth at all and another flaw here is that you can just pick any science no matter the cost.
The resources management brought a concept that definetly should be added to the civ series, the concept that some resources can only support a certain number of units. But here again there is another flaw that just gives the feeling that the game was watered down; if I farm my cow it will give me the same extra food that I would get if I make a pasture!!!! and also the same extra food I get if I farm a food resource, meaning these resources became almost meaningless, of course the only advantage being that they gave one extra food, but all theses things just seens to water down the game.
Also I believe espionage and religion added to the game depth. On Civ IV founding a religion is a big plus and religion brings many interesting things to the game, it gives higher happy caps, increase culture, influence relations (which I believe it makes A LOT of sense, even nowadays it is still a big factor in the way different groups of people relate) so one had to balance all that. As for espionage I am not an expert in using it from the bits I read on these site, but I think it also adds to the game strategy, allowing you to find out what science your opponents are researching, destroying their resources and etc. I remember a game I was playing online against my cousin, we played on emperor level and had some computer playing with us, our idea was not to play on the higher levels because our main goal was to beat each other. On these particular game he had founded a religion and managed to spread it so his holy city was providing lots of gold, but these city didnt have a high production, therefore I left a few spies there and placed a lot of espionage points on him so that i could see what his cities were doing. When his holy city was 1 turn from doing the wallstreet, which would increase his money by 100%, I sabotaged his production bringing it back to zero, on these case meaning some 30 turns. I won the game on that, for if he had finisehd it he would have been able to increase his science rate and compete with me on the the tech race. So these is just an example of how espionage can be interesting and add to the game strategy. Also I believe the slider was a better way to control science, culture and gold.
Putting all these things together that´s what it makes me feel the game is watered down. I do understand that they thought these new concepts could be interesting, but remembering from the very first civ I see that each new civ brought changes, but none of then brought such deep changes and I believe it is as if these ones turned it into a completely different game, and I honestly think these one is an alright game but it shouldnt and it doesnt deserve to be called Civilization.
MasterMishi
Warlord
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2011
- Messages
- 251
8 - went back to iv found mp worse! quitters and blocking made it easier to get a decent civ v game for me. I dont really play sp. Still addictive and war is even better with ranged. Waiting between turns is slightly longer, but big maps on civ 3 lagged just as much.
I gave it a 3 as I feel this is the worst civ to date, its great if you like to war all the time but if your a builder its a snooze fest I just hope they can add more options for builders with a good expansion pack as it is now this game is garbage.
Multiplayer is worse in cIV?
To be honest I haven't tried multiplayer in Civilization 5 but I heard that it was a pretty big mess. Did they actually get this up to speed?
I am asking in all seriousness.
well it seems they have worked on this I remember on release it was unplayable.
jprc
My dog is smarter than me
4
I was tempted to click on 1, but it would have been over reacting and unfair.
Good ideas in it = 4 points
I was tempted to click on 1, but it would have been over reacting and unfair.
Good ideas in it = 4 points
- Status
Similar threads
