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

I also like the changes implemented by CIV V. City States, 1UPT, hexes, Social Policies, Limited Resources, and ranged combat have made this game into a new and fun play experience. I have enjoyed CIV4 over the past years, but I was looking for something new. I didn't want the new game to simply be CIV4 with shiny graphics, a MOD could do that.

I was looking over the new mod system and tools last night, it looks like this well definately be the best CIV yet for MODs!. This will ensure this game has legs for many years of fun, and I will certainly get more than $50 worth of entertainment from this game. Buy the time I'm looking at CIV6, I'd guess that will translate to $0.10/hour.
 
It could use a couple of tweaks (rivers), but overall it's fantastic, and I'm done playing IV for the foreseeable future.
 
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.

extended period of time? i thought the game was released like less than 15 days ago.
 
I'm only half-way into my first Civ V game (can't spend much time on it... have to work on my master thesis...:mad:) but I generally find it quite enjoyable thus far. As many pointed out already, I especially like the more realistic presentation style. The new combat mechanics and hex-grid are also welcome changes. But I do think there are some real annoyances too that need improvement.

My three biggest complaints are puppets, city states and lacking information.

I don't like that puppet cities always build some random buildings that make no sense, possibly wasting my resources and gold. This is especially bad because you can't even sell the useless buildings after you annex such as city.

I agree with the people that claim city states are basically just a "buy food" and "buy culture" option, because that really makes up about 90% of the interaction with them. They could have been made a lot more interesting.

My last complaint is that I miss a lot of information. Why can't I see what wonders have been built? Why do I have to enter diplomatic negotiations just to see how many luxury resources I have? Why do I have to declare war before seeing combat odds? Why can't I see the strength of enemy units? The civilopedia is also very vague on lots of issues. "Doing this and that increases unhappiness". Great. Care to tell me by how much, so that I can plan ahead?

But I'm counting on patches and the mod community to spice things up.
 
bugs and flaws? I have found none.

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.
 
I think Civ5 has promise and alot of forward steps (hexes, expanded radius, buying tiles, etc) but it is hell and gone from being the best Civ game at this point.
 
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.

Nicely put Shin.

I liked what I initially saw when I first started up Civ 5. Now after playing it for over a week, I like it even more. Once I got use to the UI differences between Civ4 BtS and Civ 5, the biggest frustrations I was having, the game got even more enjoyable.

What I like – The graphics, pure and simple. I guess it’s the little thing with me but I love the fishing boats. I love how they are out there with their little nets and throwing them out and hauling them in. It’s fantastic! Everything looks wonderful. I have to admit I’m not a huge fan of the trading post graphic but alas I guess there has to be something I’m don’t completely like.

Single happiness for your whole nation and the reason is just as Shin stated. I couldn’t have said it better myself.

I like how I have to think more about the decisions I will make. At first I have to admit I thought the way you need gold for almost everything was going to be too limiting, but I have to honestly say I’ve grown to love the concept. I find myself trying to position a few cities on the coast just to take advantage of using harbors for trade routes to the capital, thus reducing the number of roads I need. You actually have to think about which buildings to put up instead of just spamming them all. In BtS I usually found myself just spam building things because it was hard for me to decide which I needed for which type of city I was trying to build. I would confuse myself so I would just end up putting just about everything in every city. Now in Civ 5 the way they have it set up, it’s much easier for me to figure out which building I need to put in which city for the desired outcome.

Social Policies: I simply LOVE them. It allows me to customize my nation as I want it to be. Civics in Civ 4 always seemed to confuse me more than help me. The Social Policies are easy to understand and makes it so easy to set up a unique game experience.

No more SOD (unless you use a mod) and I’m very happy about that. I use to play Sierra’s Civil War strategy game and now the combat in Civ 5 reminds me of it. You actually have to think about where to place your units and not just throw 15 on one square and then say FIGHT.

There are some bugs, it’s a given. All new releases have bugs and other problems. Everyone also has to realize that everyone is going to have their opinions. Just like the above is mine. I think they did a great job with what they gave us and I think it will continue to improve with patches and releases.
 
I think Civ5 has promise and alot of forward steps (hexes, expanded radius, buying tiles, etc) but it is hell and gone from being the best Civ game at this point.

I disagree. I'm a couple of hours away from finishing my latest Civ 5 game. When the time comes to start a new game, I'm not going to start a Civ 4 one. I'll start another Civ 5 one (my fifth in about 1 week) because I find it more enjoyable.
 
...and another thing.

The map generator is much better than Civ IV. Much more balanced for all players, I haven't really seen much in the way of runt-of-the-litter starts.
 
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.

Most people can't handle any kind of complexity or difficulty anymore. People are too ADD and have much lower attention spans; they can't be bothered to focus at all. It's kind of sad, really.
 
I have been playing Civ games since civ 1. And I must admit civ5 is the best - of course if they will improve AI.
Many people say that there is no religion. Hell - in Civ4 I never put any effort in developing religion.
Also for me AI in Civ4 was very very poor. I had plenty of games where AI did not build many units. AI had only 1 unit defending city!
Am sure that Civ5 will be much improved within next few months/years. Wait for DLCs, expansions and patches.

What I love in Civ5 - grsphics, music but the best is no stacking, ranged battles... only if AI could use its archers more wisely...
 
With the youth of today, that counts as "an extended period of time".

I'm not a "youth", I'm almost 30 years old. But my point being that I didn't get bored immediately. The only other time I've played several games was Civ 1, which I played extensively in Afghanistan.
 
I'm not a "youth", I'm almost 30 years old. But my point being that I didn't get bored immediately. The only other time I've played several games was Civ 1, which I played extensively in Afghanistan.

So you're really not even competent to compare the games, since you never played the others more than once or twice.

Again, you play for not even 10 days and you think you've been playing much at all. Pretty ridiculous.
 
Most people can't handle any kind of complexity or difficulty anymore. People are too ADD and have much lower attention spans; they can't be bothered to focus at all. It's kind of sad, really.

It also appears most people can't handle change anymore and decry anything deviation from the norm as "appealing to the casual market". While I'm sure you enjoyed pretending sliders added "complexity" (despite the fact that there was nothing deep about it, a child can figure out that lowering the science budget when profits are low is probably a good idea), and that somehow roads to resources was a game-making concept (despite the fact that Civ I-IV encouraged you to just build roads everywhere, and indeed automated workers would do just that, while in Civ V they cost money and now must be planned for minimal upkeep while still providing maximum benefit), some people are happy they did away with these things that were either unrealistic or simplistic and yet somehow a "staple" of the series
 
So you're really not even competent to compare the games, since you never played the others more than once or twice.

Again, you play for not even 10 days and you think you've been playing much at all. Pretty ridiculous.

I've played off and on quite a bit, so your comment is a little off base. Despite being bored, when I'm deployed and internet access is scarce and I have some down time, I usually play something like Civ or Sim City to pass the time. Just because this is my favorite version and I'm not bored, but before this I was bored with anything other than Civ I and this, doesn't mean I didn't play the game a bunch. I own every version of the game (including the horrid Revolutions version for the iPad), and I always end up going back and playing every few months. Now I probably won't go back and play those versions because I like this one the best.
 
You just said Civ 1 was the only version you played more than just a few times.

Sorry, I should have said "several FULL games" and to be honest that was a bit of an exaggeration, as I admittedly have a tendency to do that :lol:. But I have a horrid habit of restarting games, even in games like Oblivion and Morrowind.. :crazyeye::crazyeye::crazyeye::lol:
 
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.

I'm not sure I'm ready to call Civ 5 the best of the series, but I think it's better than Civ 4, which I could never quite fall in love with. It's maybe as good as Civ 3, maybe better.

But I agree wholeheartedly with your sentiment about the overall design and presentation of the game. Graphically it has a very pleasant and mature feel.

Additionally, the music is again excellent. I actually listen to it at work.
 
Top Bottom