Are there any HardCore Civ fans who like CiV?

[Ambo]

I played Civ 1 on the Amiga and Civ 2, 3, 4 and 5 on PC. There are other games I play more but I've put in hundreds of hours on each iteration (except 5... yet).

Personally, I like Civ 5 but I do find it's weaknesses to be a killer for the game's long term appeal. The biggest problem of course, is the AI. I actually spend most of my gaming time in MMOs (Eve and, in the past, Planetside). I generally like my games with a healthy dose of multiplayer. Unfortunately, with Civ, multiplayer is just not what I'm after. It's all about the singleplayer game for me and that is totally compromised by the terrible AI.

That said, there are many things I like about Civ 5. 1UPT is a great change and long overdue. It's just a shame the AI can't handle it.
Hexes! \o/
The method by which cultural borders expand is much better.
Ranged units actually having a range is good. I understand that having your archers fire arrows from one end of england to the other on an earth map is not exactly accurate but it undoubtedly makes for more tactical fights & manuvering. (Or it would if the AI wasn't so poor)
City states are a nice addition but imo there are numerous details of thier implementation that could be improved. Also, the AI seems to have trouble making effective use of them.

I could go on. In short, there is much to like in the latest Civ. Unfortunatley, it is all semi-overshadowed by either the terrible AI or wasted potential.

I have no doubt that future patches and expansions will correct the worst of the problems though.

 

[TPQ]

Ow wait, i make no sence. But the person that i was responding to, who said "CIV 5 feels more realistic" ; is ?

Ah, I think that was me. Just stating my opinion. Not trying to start an argument.

Civ V just feels more realistic to me than previous versions. No doubt there are good arguments against that, but I'm not analysing it on an intellectual level, its just how the game makes me feel.

If you want to, you can pick apart all of the Civ games and find problems with their abstractions, realism, game mechanics and so on because all of these games are a compromise to some extent.

The only thing I'm really quite disappointed with, with Civ V, is that it was released with so many bugs! It makes me feel like an unpaid beta tester! I'm actually quite excited to play the game when it's finished!

 

[hclass]

So you're proud of your dates

Not really, unless that entitle me for free Civ5 and future version.

and doubt my "hardcoreship"?

Not really, but I reserve my right to doubt any claim without proof.

but should I point out that for example I didn't have an Internet connection until the year 2008? Should I have acquired Internet connection to prove myself? Or should I have sit in a library on the "30min per person a day" PC looking for people who love civ?
I didn't even have a PC... As a poor student I couldn't afford one, especially with Internet connection. I was playing civII at my nephew's place for years, then I was playing civIII at my nephew's place, then I was playing Civ4 at my cousins place. Then when I could afford it I bought a laptop specifically to play civ with a phony reason of "It's for my studies". Then it wasn't enough for me and I bought a better stationary PC so it would run civ4 better, this time without a phony reason...
That makes me less of a "civ lover"?

All your points are heard. Again they do not prove anything nor do they support your claim that the forum join date means nothing.
The fact is nobody will doubt about I have played Civ at 2003 or earlier (see my join date, didn't you), if it is not enough, just do a search for my ealiest post, eh eh eh...

But for your case, it will take a little more effort to claim so... I don't think talking poor student story will help.

 

[Rince]

I want a god game design and not a board game design. I want to feel immersive, deep gameplay that really makes me feel like I'm building an empire.

How is Civ5 less a god game than Civ4? Because of the lack of sliders? Or because the hexes remind you of Settlers of Catan?

Why do you find Civ5 do be less immersive and less deep, and why don't you feel like you are building an empire?

I have the impression that the discussion around Civ5 is more and more shifting from real gripes to some fluffy concepts (immersion, depth etc.)

Civ5 is just as much a Civ game as all the other installments before. Don't talk yourself into the "everything was better" perspective. If you can't stand to play Civ5 anymore (not even after the next few patches), maybe you have grown tired of the Civ concept as a whole.

 

[Fistalis]

How is Civ5 less a god game than Civ4? Because of the lack of sliders? Or because the hexes remind you of Settlers of Catan?

Why do you find Civ5 do be less immersive and less deep, and why don't you feel like you are building an empire?
Less immersive in a number of factors to me. The Social policies do not require deliberation and constant weighing of benefit and despite what social policies will have us beleive countries and empires do reinvent themselves, The removal of religions, The AI which is deliberately programmed to "play to win" not to "play like a leader", the fact that any unit can instantly become a boat, The fact that tech production is directly related to population. Happiness is now just a game dynamic where one can build a city in BFE with tons of happiness buildings to make people on the other side of the world happy. Seriously I could go on all day about why its lost immersion but there are very valid reasons some people feel this way.


I have the impression that the discussion around Civ5 is more and more shifting from real gripes to some fluffy concepts (immersion, depth etc.)

Civ5 is just as much a Civ game as all the other installments before. Don't talk yourself into the "everything was better" perspective. If you can't stand to play Civ5 anymore (not even after the next few patches), maybe you have grown tired of the Civ concept as a whole.

And nope.. i still play civ IV and get tons of enjoyment out of it.. Civ V however just don't do it for me.

 

[JLoZeppeli]

As always something may be better, something may be worse... Civ V did, apart the AI and umbelanced expolits, some game basics really bad.

The global happiness kills micromanaging, as well the absence of cultural expansion over AI tiles and the maritime cities giving a bonus to every cities... So in the end you must build not specifically for the city, but for the empire. So as i do often, i build when it is necessary something to highen the happiness (where is of no importance) and buid up a lot of trading post, spamming everywgere buildings as the market (no manteince olny bonus to gold), i build up only improvement on luxuries and the few roads i need. For food i manage from Maritime, only few farm because is better to have low population and more cities...

If it may be called a good improvement for builders, than no one know how good it was on Civ IV...

 

[valrond]

Hi. I'm one of the oldest members of the forum that have posted in this thread. I haven't contributed much, but I've been play CIV since II. A lot. And there is something that Civ V doesn't have.

With all previous civs, I was so addicted that I could (still can) play for hours. I started playing Civ V the day it was released, I had it on preorder. At first, the novelty, you start seen the new things, but after a while, it gets old, and I simply get bored. It never happened before in a Civ game. So that's it, I don't like it.

It will get better with patches and mods, but I'll still get bored and not care about the game.

 

[Saarud]

I've been playing CIV since 1991 and I am one of the few that actually thinks that the gamedesign is the best of all the CIVs so far. The release however was disastrous with some great balance issues and above all a substandard AI that actually are worse than most other strategy games I have played the last few years. I think it's strange that Firaxis release a game that is so not ready. If it has to do with 2K being publishers I hope that Firaxis looks for another publisher company that actually knows what they are doing.

The design for CIV 5 clearly needs a strong tactical combat AI (yes it's actually possible I've seen much stronger tactical combat AIs in other games) and as the always so optimistic person that I am I DO think it will be patched together in the near future. The core elements in the gamedesign for CIV 5 also require absolute balance. When this work as intended the game will be a totally other game than what people see today.

So am I happy with the game? YES very much indeed. I've gotten pretty bored with CIV 4 even with mods such as FFH2/RoM2/Rhyes/Planetfall and I was hoping that this new iteration of CIV would have some drastic changes and indeed it did have. The problem though is that the game is not ready and I feel for those that are dissatisfied.

 

[ohioastronomy]

How is Civ5 less a god game than Civ4? Because of the lack of sliders? Or because the hexes remind you of Settlers of Catan?

Why do you find Civ5 do be less immersive and less deep, and why don't you feel like you are building an empire?

I have the impression that the discussion around Civ5 is more and more shifting from real gripes to some fluffy concepts (immersion, depth etc.)

Civ5 is just as much a Civ game as all the other installments before. Don't talk yourself into the "everything was better" perspective. If you can't stand to play Civ5 anymore (not even after the next few patches), maybe you have grown tired of the Civ concept as a whole.

My problem with Civ 5 is that I dislike the design. The early pace is too slow; the is AI too aggressive and glitchy. Global happiness is a bad concept, and no unit stacking just doesn't fit the game. The controls are clunky and touchy. Peaceful builder games are like watching paint dry; the game is boring as sin without war. And I played better wargames on the Apple IIe.

 

[Pratputajao]

I'm just curious if there are any hardcore civ fanatics who actually thinks civ V is a fantastic game.
All the ciV fanboys I have seen are new members from october 2010 with 1-10 posts, and could basically be 1 person making multiple profiles.
Again, I understand that any average content customer wouldn't seek CFC, nor type fanatical fanposts. They would simply be playing Civ V.

So the question is (and I'm not out to crucify anyone) are there anyone here that considers themselves for Hardcore fans of the Civilization series (modders, regular gamers, long time CFC members etc) that finds Civ V a great game?
And if you could kindly write why. (dont have to be whole pages, keywords can do)

Cheers

I have been playing Civ since #1 in 92 so I am not sure if I am "Hardcore" but I have played almosy every Civ game since, even call to power (Though I did avoid the Super NES version of Civ 1 and never played Civ Rev).

I find I like this Civ about as well as any other upon 1st release, actually like it more than I did IV when it was 1st released. Its just a good game. Do I like all the changes- Nope. Though I dont think I have liked all the chages in the differant versions since #2.

 

[ohioastronomy]

Because you're of the opposite opinion of me, of course. If I was of the same opinion as you and said I was a Deity player, you'd just take it for granted.


I must be missing a huge important point on why this game is no longer a builder game. It has to be more than just local happiness to have so many people enraged. I feel that it needs more to the builder aspect, but I for the life of me can't name the exact reasons. Please, give me a specific point.

I'll give a specific for a reason that I think Civ5 lends itself to the builder aspect over Civ4. I think the splitting of the currencies into gold / science / culture gives added thought into the customization of a city. Now I need to weigh which gives me more building power: gold or hammers. I also need to consider culture past the BFC even if I'm not going for a culture victory.

I really like the Civ 5 treatment of science; yanking sliders around always felt artificial to me. You can actually achieve much the same thing in late game by having many tiles available and swapping them around.

But you just lose too much in the way of fun little choices. There are too few bonuses where a building is better with a local resource. The tiles are very similar so you don't get a big bump when you build something. The improvements are bland - you mostly make trading posts. Workers run out of things to do, which is a symptom of not much to build. And, obnoxiously, they cost a lot of money to keep around in the late game. The buildings are similar - no chrome. Individual cities are thus pretty generic to me. You get magic maritime food and they sprout up; they all sort of look the same. The course of a game is getting to a good enough cash surplus to be able to buy stuff and scatter it around all of your cities. Generic play, generic AI opponents, generic strategy. I'm glad to see that others enjoy it and would like to see some depth - but since I never did BTS, and haven't done Civ 4 in a couple of years, maybe I should go back there and pick up some mods instead. Food for thought...

 

[Jediron]

Ah, I think that was me. Just stating my opinion. Not trying to start an argument.

Civ V just feels more realistic to me than previous versions. No doubt there are good arguments against that, but I'm not analysing it on an intellectual level, its just how the game makes me feel.

If you want to, you can pick apart all of the Civ games and find problems with their abstractions, realism, game mechanics and so on because all of these games are a compromise to some extent.

Oke, that's fair. Aldo i just can't "grasp" your idea of realism.

 

[man-erg]

Bought my first home PC to play Civ1 soon after it came out. Civ 2 was instantly a huge improvement. Civ 3 I didn't like at first, slowly grew to like it more. Had the right ideas, but the implementation was rough. When Civ 4 came out, I could hardly play it as my machine wasn't up to it. (I had upgraded since Civ 1, though!) . Came back to it after an upgrade a year or so after release and soon got totally hooked more than any other in the series. I remember lots of complaints about bugs and poor performance of Civ4 - justifiably so as performance was truly awful on release. I don't remember much complaint about the content and design, though.

Civ5? Still not sure about it. It feels like Civ3 to me in that there are good aims that don't seem to have been implemented well. IMHO the only major flaw with Civ4 is that to win on higher levels requires much more micromanagement and knowledge of AI exploits, NOT superior strategic genius! So I'm all for reduced micromanagement. But not at the cost of any management at all.

I was hooked on Civ5 for, oh, about a week. Since then, I've lost interest in it. After a couple of straighforward victories and a couple of false starts, I'm not playing Civ5 till the major patch. Lost interest in it even quicker than Civ3. There are some good things in it. I prefer the *idea* of the new cultural victory as in 4 it involved too much micro. Less road spam is good, as is the auto-boat boarding. There are a couple of things I find majorly underwhelming, though: the 1upt hex system and the utterly tedious city states. ie the main new design elements!

 

[Rince]

My problem with Civ 5 is that I dislike the design. The early pace is too slow; the is AI too aggressive and glitchy. Global happiness is a bad concept, and no unit stacking just doesn't fit the game. The controls are clunky and touchy. Peaceful builder games are like watching paint dry; the game is boring as sin without war. And I played better wargames on the Apple IIe.

Again, these are not real arguments but merely observations or feelings. Of course, if you don't find any fun in the game then there is not much to do. Except maybe distance yourself from the game for a while and see if you can approach it later without prejudice and with a fresh desire to discover the game.

 

[Kark]

In fact, I'm there. It's not as addictiv as BTS after all the patches, but I like hexes, ranged fire, 1 unit per tile and some other new stuff. Playing just now as a warmonger, it's quite a different game from BTS.

 

[Zogar]

How is Civ5 less a god game than Civ4? Because of the lack of sliders? Or because the hexes remind you of Settlers of Catan?

Why do you find Civ5 do be less immersive and less deep, and why don't you feel like you are building an empire?

I have the impression that the discussion around Civ5 is more and more shifting from real gripes to some fluffy concepts (immersion, depth etc.)

Civ5 is just as much a Civ game as all the other installments before. Don't talk yourself into the "everything was better" perspective. If you can't stand to play Civ5 anymore (not even after the next few patches), maybe you have grown tired of the Civ concept as a whole.

Hola. Lots of things to answer here.

Civ 5 is less a god game and more a board game since it follows the idea 'Less is more' of the board games. The game has been stripped of many little things that added to gameplay without being so important that you couldn't avoid them if you wanted to.

The game philosophy is changed, and you don't build an empire and then try to win, in Civ 5 you try to win and therefore build an empire (or don't build an empire in fact). Every decision is now weighted to win the game, you don't have anymore a lot of small things not relevant to winning that you can play with and that many players liked. This is why immersion doesn't feel good at all, and you get bored pretty easily.

The hexes have nothing to do with it and are actually a good change.

If I (or any player) can't stand playing Civ 5, I just play Civ 4. That has nothing to do with being fed up with the Civ Series. Actually only someone who didn't play all the Civs would say something like you, Civ 5 has changed more core designs than any sequel before, and the game is not the same anymore. There are more differences between Civ 5 and any other Civ than between Civ 1 and Civ 4, which in itself says a lot. It is bound to disappoint a lot of people.

Releasing the game in the state it is now just disappointed a whole ton more people who were open to change. It is borderline taking people for idiots.

Again, these are not real arguments but merely observations or feelings. Of course, if you don't find any fun in the game then there is not much to do. Except maybe distance yourself from the game for a while and see if you can approach it later without prejudice and with a fresh desire to discover the game.

The problem is, you play 3 games you have nothing to discover anymore. You've seen all the new things, the good ones and the bad ones, and you know how to exploit the AI.

 

[Mustakrakish]

Not really, unless that entitle me for free Civ5 and future version.

Not really, but I reserve my right to doubt any claim without proof.

All your points are heard. Again they do not prove anything nor do they support your claim that the forum join date means nothing.
The fact is nobody will doubt about I have played Civ at 2003 or earlier (see my join date, didn't you), if it is not enough, just do a search for my ealiest post, eh eh eh...

But for your case, it will take a little more effort to claim so... I don't think talking poor student story will help.

And all your points are heard. And as I said I'm not heartbroken about your doubts. As you said it yourself, you have the right. As do I... don't really feel the need to prove anything to anyone, sorry. I know Internet forums are serious business, Right!? But you can consider me an unbeliever.
I still think forum join date means nothing, how about that? Do you still feel the need to prove me wrong or should we stop this before moderators get angry?

 

[KroninW]

Not true!

Even though someone who join this forum today might actually have started playing Civ since 15 years ago, but bear in mind that someone who claims so could be lying... who knows?

This forum's join date at least set a upper bound for how much one can lie about how early he has started playing Civ.
If I join in at 2003, I must have played (or at least known about Civ) at 2003 or earlier... so the join date definitely means something!

This is one of the most pessimistic + arrogant things I've ever read on this forum. I've been reading this forum since 2005, but didn't bother signing up to post until many years later. Not sure if you know it, but you can read the posts without signing up! Sure I COULD be lying, but going through life believing everyone else is a liar sure isn't a way I would want to live.

On topic: I like civ V a lot. I liked I, II, III, and IV a lot too. I've been a hardcore PC gamer since 1992. Not just civ but all PC genres. The Civ franchise has always been one of my favorites, and V is a nice reset button on series. It needs some love and attention, especially with regards to the AI, but if the series didnt evolve and change, it would simply die as the # of dedicated players with enough time to justify purchasing the game dwindled.

Game series need change. Some hardcore fans will like the change, some won't. As long as the series attracts new fans and new blood, while providing a fun base to build expansions upon, it is a success. Putting out CIV IV part 2 with only a graphical upgrade would have been a huge mistake. If you would like to see what happens when you put out a game without enough change see HoMM 3 to 4.

HoMM 3 is widely regarded as the greatest of the series. 4 was widely considered to suck terribly even though the base gameplay is essentially identical, with a graphical update.

 

[r_rolo1]

Game series need change. Some hardcore fans will like the change, some won't. As long as the series attracts new fans and new blood, while providing a fun base to build expansions upon, it is a success. Putting out CIV IV part 2 with only a graphical upgrade would have been a huge mistake. If you would like to see what happens when you put out a game without enough change see HoMM 3 to 4.

Do you actually know that those are not the only options regarding this ? Manicheism is still well and alive, I guess ...

 

[Rince]

The game philosophy is changed, and you don't build an empire and then try to win, in Civ 5 you try to win and therefore build an empire (or don't build an empire in fact). Every decision is now weighted to win the game, you don't have anymore a lot of small things not relevant to winning that you can play with and that many players liked. This is why immersion doesn't feel good at all, and you get bored pretty easily.

Still don't get your point about empire building vs. trying to win the game. This hasn't really changed between Civ4 and Civ5.

I can see what you mean regarding the small things not really relevant to winning though. If you really enjoy micromanaging various little details (like in Paradox games for example) then Civ5 has less to offer than Civ4. For me this streamlining is an advantage. I also think that streamlining does not mean reduced complexity but simply reduced apparent complexity.

Once the core game is balanced, polished and improved, expansions will surely add back layers of complexity just like Civ4 expansions pack did.

If I (or any player) can't stand playing Civ 5, I just play Civ 4. That has nothing to do with being fed up with the Civ Series. Actually only someone who didn't play all the Civs would say something like you, Civ 5 has changed more core designs than any sequel before, and the game is not the same anymore. There are more differences between Civ 5 and any other Civ than between Civ 1 and Civ 4, which in itself says a lot. It is bound to disappoint a lot of people.

Sorry but I have played all the previous Civs extensively and I never said that Civ5 isn't different. Civ5 has changed a lot (fortunately) but still has the Civ spirit IMHO and I can't understand how people can claim that it is not.