• Civilization 7 has been announced. For more info please check the forum here .

As a old player of CIV series for 15 years, I have to say CIV5 is the best

IrishGold

Chieftain
Joined
Sep 29, 2010
Messages
6
Location
Seattle
Ultimately what I think I enjoy on the whole about Civilization 5 is that it is very much 'back to basics' and a reinvention of the series. It stripped out all the B.S., the extraneous, the draconian, the archaic and went back to the simple concepts the series was founded on.

Civ 3 and 4 tried very hard to expand on what Civilization 2 was, most especially 4, but in that they started weaseling out into this or that abstract element, tacked on a heavily aged body that was failing to support its own weight (religion, civics, multiple leaders, etc.). Lots of arbitrary design elements lingered in 3 and especially 4.

In 5, they absolve that and go straight to concept. They ignore all the mouse holes in the walls and instead focus on decorating the room - the place where you'll actually be. Streamlined and efficient, all elements a part of one another and all elements with a distinct purpose beyond "this is an addition to what you already had" - the game flows so well, and has such a strong focus.

I find it very easy to appreciate, and it has me hooked like when I was a kid discovering Civ for the first time. It ultimately builds its self into what it is - Civilization, not 'Civilization 4: Part 2'.

I'd also like to say I really enjoy the aesthetic approach of the game, not just visually in the graphic department, but also how mature and respectable the presentation of the game is. 4 and more so 3 always had 'wacky' humor elements, weird bouts of favoritism or villainy placed on different Civs and every leader was heavily characturized. In 5 everyone has a more 'lifelike' design, and everyone is given an equal and positive ground to stand on - as said, I find that much more mature and respectable.
 
Civ 5 is my favorite, honestly. The first time I've truly been hooked on the Civ series for an extended period of time. Yes, I played and played the old versions, but it was off and on. Now when I am bored and waiting around for work to start or something, I'm thinking about how to make my next move and reading the forum. Never had that inclination before.
 
I tend to agree. And I know that's a minority opinion (at least on most of the boards I've read). But I do feel like for the most part they really trimmed the fat from the Civ series. I do miss some of the elements from Civ IV in a way. Spreading my religion to the heathens was always fun. But for the most part I have to look at Civ V for what it is, it's own game; not, as you said, "Civ IV: Part II."

I also like a lot of the visual design choices they made. I was baffled by one written review that chided the "cartoony style" of Civ V. I had to scroll up to the top to make sure I was reading a review for the right game. I think the more realistic approach to the leaders is very welcome and immersive.

Now for the bad: the AI. In general the AI can make some horrible decisions. It is routinely baffled by the best ways to attack a player. And it seems to fear both the Water and the Air. Granted the AI in Civ IV was more solid, but the fundamental aspects of it hadn't changed since the series started. That's a lot of time to refine an AI algorithm. Still, I'm hopeful for a major AI patch soon. Plug those holes and give me some opponents worth playing and this will be one solid game.
 
Have to agree completely. Of course, this won't be a 30 page hit like the "I hate Civ 5" threads, but we can work to keep it on the front page :)

Lovin this game, but the AI definitely needs work.
 
I'll perhaps agree when AI will have been rebuilt.

But I like the way Civ 5 has been done : removing some added stuff frim civ 4 which were making this game very complex with some many game mechanics/possibilities that it was really difficult for an occasional player to really enjoy at 100% the entire game.

I understand why civ4 addict players are crying, but for common players this game is really more reachable than civ 4+ addons was.

lets wait for balance corrrections and AI adjustments !
 
I tend to agree. And I know that's a minority opinion (at least on most of the boards I've read)...

Actually if you look at most of the polls on this site Civ 5 actually is received very favorably by most. As usual the loudest are those that are complaining so it may not seem that way.

I think people just have trouble accepting change, as has been said before. They find lots of "reasons" that mask this fact, but I predict as people play more they will find this is one fantastic game. I enjoyed my first game but I enjoyed my 5th game even better.
 
Ultimately what I think I enjoy on the whole about Civilization 5 is that it is very much 'back to basics' and a reinvention of the series. It stripped out all the B.S., the extraneous, the draconian, the archaic and went back to the simple concepts the series was founded on.

Health is B.S, draconian and archaic?!
Rodes to resources is B.S, draconian and archaic?!
Each city has it's own happy/health state is B.S, draconian and archaic?!
Having trade routes with other nations is B.S, draconian and archaic?!
A budgeting tool (the slider) or espionage are too B.S, draconian and archaic?!

Well all the freaking life must be B.S, draconian and archaic. I thought the objective of the game is to rewrite this world's history not the idiocracy's world history.
 
Hmm. I was curious about someone's opinion who likes the game, so I opened the thread, started to read ... and then the post was suddenly finished without saying anything concrete. ;) No offense - I really was interested in reading which parts of the gameplay you liked, but you didn't mention any. Actually, the whole post reads like a generic marketing speech trying to sell a reduced product with a "less is more" approach. This may sound harsh, but it's actually easy to prove. The post is so generic that it can easily be applied to a totally different product by merely changing some labels:

Car Salesman said:
Ultimately what I think I enjoy on the whole about the new Ford Foo Whatever is that it is very much 'back to basics' and a reinvention of the series. It stripped out all the B.S., the extraneous, the draconian, the archaic and went back to the simple concepts the series was founded on.

The Foo 'PreviousModel' and 'OldModel' tried very hard to expand on what 'EvenOlderModel' was, most especially the 'Previous', but in that they started weaseling out into this or that abstract element, tacked on a heavily aged body that was failing to support its own weight (cup holder, power steering, multiple airbags, etc.). Lots of arbitrary design elements lingered in 'Old' and especially 'Previous'.

With the 'Whatever', they absolve that and go straight to concept. They ignore all the mouse holes in the walls and instead focus on decorating the room - the place where you'll actually be. Streamlined and efficient, all elements a part of one another and all elements with a distinct purpose beyond "this is an addition to what you already had" - the car drives so well, and has such a strong focus.

I find it very easy to appreciate, and it has me hooked like when I was a young man driving a Foo for the first time. It ultimately builds its self into what it is - a Foo, not 'Ford Previous 2.0'.

Interesting that nearly all of the statements stayed exactly the same ...
 
I never heard of the Civ fans who wanted the Civ series to divert from the Civ games until now. I dont remember people clamoring for the series to take 5 steps back and simplify (until now).

Im going to divert from the Civ games, thats great, but I dont need a Civilization game for that, its going to be Fallout New Vegas.


And the silent majority as it is called is less than 70%. That is a very significant number of people displeased with this release on a Civilization fan board. When I first played this game I was so excited for it, I was in denial and told myself it was good for over a day. On the 23rd I finally got too bored with it I havent touched it since.

And I know a so many people who do like it havent been top the forums yet because they have been playing 24 hours a day for the past 8 days



People are going to like the game, and they are entitled to and arent ignorant for liking it. But to criticize people who are displeased for being scared of change, and just wanting a continuation of the actual Civ series isnt fair.
 
I'll be honest, I'm fine with the AI as is. I'm not an amazing player so it's definitely still challenging for me. Only a couple of times did the AI seem to screw up last night in my epic 5 hour long battle to take one city...they positioned an already decimated elephant unit within range of my artillery, but that's really it.

I honestly didn't care much for Civ IV, for whatever reason. And what I don't get, is if people hate Civ V so much but love Civ IV so much, why not just continue to play Civ IV?
 
You want some "concrete" observations and opinions? Here ya go.

Visual style. I think the visuals are a major upgrade for the series, even if they aren't revolutionary in terms of what today's hardware can accomplish. The hex-based maps really do lend themselves to more organic-looking maps. The battle animations are solid, and enjoyable to watch. There are quite a few minor animations that really bring the world to life. All nice touches.

Core gameplay. While many of the more complicated (or in some cases dare I say convoluted) mechanics have been trimmed down or stripped out completely, what remains is a game that is still full of meaningful choices. Choosing where to place your cities and how best to lay out their tile improvements is still a process full of options to weigh, and considerations to take in. It is a challenging mental activity, which tends to make for an enjoyable strategy game. The technology tree has removed many of the techs that previously weren't that interesting, but were needed steps to more advanced techs. (Mysticism, anyone?) The tree branches in a way that can make for some interesting ramifications in the context of actual history. I had a civ that developed the Radio before they figured out Rifling.

Combat. One unit per tile makes for much more enjoyable combat. I had an encounter last night where my Greek Hoplites were facing off against Russian Swordsman and Archers. By using terrain elements such as rivers and forests I was able to hold a solid defensive position, and flank with additional units who crossed the river upstream from the main combat. It was so much more gratifying than the stack of doom.

Diplomacy. I'm convinced this system is more nuanced than it first seems. For as whacky as the AI can be, I often feel I've identified a method to the madness. I think the major issue actually revolves around the UI design; particularly the lack of feedback. People can intuitively read people. People have a harder time reading computer code. As it stands right now it is difficult to tell where you stand with a given AI. It's mostly Love or Hate, Black or White. Without additional feedback, the shades of gray are missing. But I definitely feel a though what I do has a clear impact on the AI, I'm just not sure what all those triggers and responses are just yet.

I guess that is my general opinion of Civ V. The decisions you make during the game still have weight, despite many older mechanics being trimmed out. And that weight can make for some truly gratifying experiences. As I've already stated, the AI needs some major work, but hopefully that will come in time.
 
Given how many bugs and flaws there are anybody saying "I'm a fan for 15years and its the best" cannot be taken seriously. If it was just the missing content, that would be different thing. But making that statement now..oh well, countertrolling I suppose.

This especially is true if I am reading the following:
"Choosing where to place your cities and how best to lay out their tile improvements is still a process full of options to weigh, "
Clearly you haven't played the game, because otherwise you wouldn't have made a statement like this. Where to place your city = must place it near a river + lots of hills, what improvements = strat ressources and lux. that your people want. any other tile= trading station. Thats it.
 
Clearly you haven't played the game, because otherwise you wouldn't have made a statement like this. Where to place your city = must place it near a river + lots of hills, what improvements = strat ressources and lux. that your people want. any other tile= trading station. Thats it.
And how is that unrealistic from the real world? Most major cities in the US are located on rivers, harbors, and other water ways...and if they are old (like Pittsburgh where I'm from) on defensible locations between or on a hill etc.

And many cities serve just a purpose to feed employees to factory of some sort, be it a car plant, meat packing, etc...and if those places close, the city folds. Etc.

And furthermore you have cities that serve only to basically serve a military base that produces troops.

All very realistic.
 
I'm very much liking it.

The things that I especially like:
- I've yet to see an AI declare war on someone it can't beat.
- The AI knows you're planning an attack.
- Diplomacy is two way and relevant to the game with options like 'don't settle here' and the 'research treat'.
- Puppet states and annexed city unhappiness act as solid brake on just steam rollering every city in sight.
- The hexes.
- The social policies are nice, would be nice if it wasn't just good though. Perhaps some negativess could be added in expansion packs
- The reduced variety of units
- The fact that running a small empire is entirely possible thanks to City States and the fact that strategic resources have limited value.
- The fact you get gold in enough quantity to have decisions about whether to buy influence, buildings, units, upgrades, tiles etc. A whole new world of options rather than the tradition rounding error off your research/ unit upgrade kitty.
- City States, I've seen some people say they don't care about them, and granted they haven't got a face to get emotionsal about, but I feel their plight. Also, the fact I live in one perhaps helps me associate with it better. It's nice for us little countries in real life to have some in game recognition at last too.


What I'd like to see (back in from IV)
- Better combat AI, but I think this will come. Civ IV's combat AI was junk at launch and got much better.
- Tile animations so I can see what's being worked and the map is livelier
- The options for a complex interface. I like it that they can present the game in a really simple way but it is frustrating when you just can't get the data you want.
- I think there are some unit, building, improvement balance issues. I'd say these are really pretty trivial though. The level of beta testing they'd need to do to drive out the number of clever approaches to the game that you get from one week of full release means I forgive this. So long as it's patched up sharpish. They're still patching Starcraft I for balance!

So yeah, I'm happy with it, but surprised to be routing it at Emperor already. I also think that having reset so much of the game they need now to slowly build the complexity back in with teh inevitable expansion packs.
 
Clearly you haven't played the game, because otherwise you wouldn't have made a statement like this. Where to place your city = must place it near a river + lots of hills, what improvements = strat ressources and lux. that your people want. any other tile= trading station. Thats it.

This is really not accurate.

So long as your Civ has reach to luxuries and strategic resources the other cities have a pretty free hand. The tile improvements serve to make almost every location useful in the end.

One of the really good things about Civ V is that there aren't acres of useless landscape that are unplayable.
 
Health is B.S, draconian and archaic?!
Rodes to resources is B.S, draconian and archaic?!
Each city has it's own happy/health state is B.S, draconian and archaic?!
Having trade routes with other nations is B.S, draconian and archaic?!
A budgeting tool (the slider) or espionage are too B.S, draconian and archaic?!

Well all the freaking life must be B.S, draconian and archaic. I thought the objective of the game is to rewrite this world's history not the idiocracy's world history.

Excuse me? Health and putting roads on every single resource (hell every single tile) is indeed archaic (extraneous) B.S. that failed to add any value gameplay-wise.

Why should every city have it's own happiness/health? To me, anyway, it's weird. You're supposed to be the overlord of an entire nation - not one city. Would, say Congress, care if the people of Tampa, FL needed a new stadium because the people were unhappy there? No, and besides Tampa residents could theoretically travel to Miami to watch games at their big stadium and be happy there. Indeed, does every city need a state-of-the-art top-notch stadium to be happy? According to Civ4's logic - YES!

It's not as if a concept like "health" doesn't exist in Civ5 - it's just embedded now in happiness. Doesn't health and happiness go hand-in-hand? Besides, health, as it was handled in Civ4, doesn't really jive with real-life. In Civ4, poor health hampered a city's population growth - but does the lack of a healthy lifestyle stop population growth in the slums of Mumbai? If health were to be properly implemented it should have an effect on the population growth of the entire nation like Europe after the Industrial Revolution. Again, an argument for Civ5's approach.


In Civ3 and Civ4 it felt as if you were only controlling a collection of cities. There was more personality to be found in individual cities than in your nation. I enjoy the more abstract and streamlined approach to history and nation management Civ5 offers. One, it makes more sense. Two, stuff like health was annoying and, really, not all that meaningful in Civ4. I mean, what is being lost, apart from the novelty of having it there, with "health" missing from the game? Indeed, you could ask this very same question about all the other mechanics Civ4 had like espionage, religion and the budgeting tool. In addition, these were all mechanics which the A.I. couldn't handle yet which the player could easily abuse.

Everything that makes Civ great is in Civ5 and improved on stuff that actually matters - like getting rid of annoying, unrealistic unit spam and stacking.
 
Clearly you haven't played the game, because otherwise you wouldn't have made a statement like this. Where to place your city = must place it near a river + lots of hills, what improvements = strat ressources and lux. that your people want. any other tile= trading station. Thats it.

LOL. Well I'm glad you've got the game all figured out then. Hate to think there'd be any challenge left. Just spam trading stations = win huh? Whew, glad we cracked that one wide open. I was worried there might be more than one way to play. Time to move on.

Also, bonus points for reading one statement and making broad generalizations about someone else's knowledge. I am in awe of the depth of wisdom displayed, and especially the humility.
 
You want some "concrete" observations and opinions? Here ya go.

Visual style. I think the visuals are a major upgrade for the series, even if they aren't revolutionary in terms of what today's hardware can accomplish. The hex-based maps really do lend themselves to more organic-looking maps. The battle animations are solid, and enjoyable to watch. There are quite a few minor animations that really bring the world to life. All nice touches.

Actually, I'd prefer a more cartoony approach in Civ's visual style. Honestly, the graphics in Civ5 are pretty bland and amateur-ish. Very "50's Soviet-esque", I'd say. They need to ditch the dumb background view they have now with leaders in Civ5 and bring back the leader portraits from Civ3 which also changed accordingly to the proper era. Why am I hammering out a trade with Napoleon while he is astride on a horse, anyway? Dumb, dumb, dumb. I can't believe they were actually TOUTING this as a "new feature".
 
Ashin -

Along what you said...I think that's why I disliked some of the Civ 4 elements...just like the latest Sim City...

As a manager of an entire empire, let alone a city, you are more in a broad role. You're not supposed to be micromanaging everything.

Like you, I like to think in a general term of happiness, not concerned with the happiness in each city.
 
Top Bottom