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

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

dickens

Chieftain
Joined
Jan 16, 2003
Messages
31
Location
China
Since 1996, I have played all CIV series and mod packs. As a big fan, I spent at least 1,000 hours in CIV.

But I have to say CIV 5 is the worst. The graphics turns better, the game concept becomes better, but it lacks the most important thing of previous CIV series: the excitement. The game runs smoothly, but I can not feel the excitement which I experienced in CIV2, CIV3 and CIV4. It seems that I play only for the purpose of the play. Nothing in this game gives me a WOW feeling.

Does anyone have the same feeling for this game?
 
I like CiV, but I don't think it's as good as CIV, or even finished for that matter. Sadly, I don't think I will have anything other than civ 4 to compare it to.
 
Carver said:
He didn't say all mod packs and he did say at least 1000 hours.

Also, his substantive point seems correct.
Click to expand...

all CIV series and mod packs

The OP's point is not substantive, it's a personal opinion. I'm glad the OP has a personal opinion. I also have a personal opinion. :mischief:
 
Everyone says they have played every Civ Game and therefore feel betrayed, etc etc... So many people say that that it loses all value...

I have too, and I love the hell out of Civ V.
 
Civilization 5 is really growing on me atm.

Right now I'm playing a standard continent map and I reached the point where Alexander and me are the only ones that own the two major continents in the map now and a major war has broken out. Naval warfare is so much fun but it's really hard and I'm starting to get the upper hand now after I pushed back Alexander's invasion and succesully counterattacked and managed to capture one of his cities on his continent. He is going down! Overall the combat system is great IMO.

I am planning for a cultural victory and focusing on the culture you really start to see the point of the social policy. The major impacts it has on your empire are amazing and it's really fun combining the different social policy that fits the way you're running the empire.

City states are amazing as well. The benefits of allying with a city state that has a vital luxury resource are great.

Diplomacy is also starting to make sense to me and I really enjoyed pushing Suleiman around in the beginning of the game when he was my only neighbour and I had superior military forces. He was like "Don't buy any more land near my empire" or "don't settle to close to my empire" and I could just say "it's none of your buisiness, I'll do what ever the f*** I want". I was making pacts of secrecy with all the other AI's against him and was constantly making ridiculously demands. He didn't give up much but I had a great time showing him that I was in no way afraid of him and when he chose to cancel our cooperation pact I went for "you'll pay for this!" and went straight for war, not losing any diplomatic relations with the other AI's since I had been running these pacts of secrecy against him.
I really do think that the diplomacy has more depth than what first meets the eye.

I was a non-believer at first but I am starting to see the light now :-D

Sorry for the bad gramma. I'm really tired. Been playing this round for 8 hours and I really need to go to bed but I finaly had the "just one more turn" syndrome with Civ 5.
 
Scramble said:
Everyone says they have played every Civ Game and therefore feel betrayed, etc etc... So many people say that that it loses all value...

I have too, and I love the hell out of Civ V.
Click to expand...

I envy you, I wouldn't feel I've wasted $50.
 
How can you love this game in its current state? I went from 0 to hero after realizing that the only course of victory in this game is abusing the AI's senseless insanity. It cant do diplomacy, it cant fight, and it sure as hell cant make any kind of strategic decisions other than building a 100,000 trading posts.

Its disgusting to me that people who have actually gotten to the heart of Civ 5 can even claim it to be a successor to the previous acclaimed release. Sure the graphics are pretty, and the new combat is fun for an hour, but as the OP said: the game just isn't exciting. Why? Likely because the AI they programmed to play their game is incapable of doing so.
 
The bottom seems to be the same in all these posts: people fear change. It seems to be even more so when it comes to the video games said people are/were good at. Look at "competetive" FPS games, they have been identical for about 15 years now simply because none of the players want to learn anything new.

I've played every Civ game since Civ 2 on my playstation 1 (didn't have a PC) and Civ 5 is an outstanding game with bugs that will be fixed. Since so many new ideas have been added to the series, some gameplay tweaking will also be done.

Just be glad this won't get the console treatment like Civ Rev and just be left to rot with all that game's problems once they have your money.
 
GlobularFoody said:
The bottom seems to be the same in all these posts: people fear change. It seems to be even more so when it comes to the video games said people are/were good at. Look at "competetive" FPS games, they have been identical for about 15 years now simply because none of the players want to learn anything new.
Click to expand...

Excellent argument. Devoid of any attempt of a rebuttal, uses vague generalities, and contributes nothing to the thread.
 
I dont fear change, I fear change for the sake of change. I also fear change for the sake of bringing in masses of new players who get a cheap thrill out of a newly accessible title, and leaving those who have supported the genre since its infancy out in the dark.

Civ 5 is like buying a used car with half an engine. At first your proud because it looks good and handles well, not as good as your used to mind you. You get about 2 hours down the road and suddenly notice the engine lights on. Waving it off as a mild hiccup you continue driving for another few hours until the goddamn wheels fall off. Then you realize you've been sold a bill of gods and that underneath the hood you have a smoking pile of twisted metal.

Thats my feeling of Civ 5 from a strictly automotive perspective.

It sells itself based on shine and look, but at the core of the game theres... not much. Unless they overhaul the game in terms of what the AI can actually do, there is very little point to playing past round 4, the round when you realize you can just storm the entire world with a few well placed military units.
 
Afforess said:
Excellent argument. Devoid of any attempt of a rebuttal, uses vague generalities, and contributes nothing to the thread.
Click to expand...

It wasn't my intention to argue with anyone. I am stating the reason why this forum all of the sudden became flooded with posts whining about how bad civ 5 is.

What exactly does your post add to anything other than your ridiculous post count?

Moderator Action: Civil discourse please.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
 
GlobularFoody said:
It wasn't my intention to argue with anyone. I am stating the reason why this forum all of the sudden became flooded with posts whining about how bad civ 5 is.
Click to expand...

People aren't whining. Read my review. There are legitimate problems.

GlobularFoody said:
What exactly does your post add to anything other than your ridiculous post count?
Click to expand...

He's seen through our clever ruse. Uh... Well, I think your post is stupid too.

Moderator Action: Civil discourse please.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
 
Its become flooded because it takes about 3-4 games before the redundancy sets it. NOTHING CHANGES, nothing, every game is essentially the same as you squash the computers bumbling attempts to defend/attack, then research the same linear tech tree, and oh hey maybe you stop along the way to bribe a city state before you crush them and take their resources.

Your cities can be customized to a VERY limited degree and many of the buildings you would use to do this are simply built in all of them as... well theres really no reason not to? Ultimately your going to see more and more die hard Civ fans coming back with a curious sort of robbed look on their face.

This is Civ Rev with a new paintjob.
 
Hi,

As far as I have played Civ 5 (2 complete games), it seems a preliminar release. If the game will be only as it is now, I would prefer by far Civ IV.

I guess there will be several "patches" and add-ons but you will be obligated to pay additional money for those "expansions". This methodology is now a classic: first the producer sells a version that is basic and has some bugs not corrected yet, later the producer delivers patches and even later publishes (and sells) the, so called, add-ons.

The point is: commerce, if the publisher waits until the product is really bug free, his income will be late and if the publisher sells the product complete at first instance, his income will be considerably minor.

On the other hand, it is a good thing to receive game material step by step :), when the original game is almost boring.... you can receive an add-on to revive the enthusiasm !

By now, I agree.. Civ 5 currently is not as good as Civ IV.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

The_J
April Fool's: 2K buys Paradox, Millennia is the "next civ game in development"
2
Replies
35
Views
2K
Quintillus
Quintillus
thecrazyscot
Civ 6 is probably where I hop off the series
2 3
Replies
44
Views
10K
Cheekbones
C
Navelgazer
Dream Civs/Leaders for Civ 7
2 3 4
Replies
61
Views
3K
Alexander's Hetaroi
Alexander's Hetaroi
V
TSG 238 Announcement
Replies
5
Views
2K
lerrocco
L
Lord Lakely
First Impressions: I kind of hate playing Millennia.
2
Replies
38
Views
3K
Lonecat Nekophrodite
Lonecat Nekophrodite
Top Bottom