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

[Jester Fool]

I have played Civilization games for over a decade... <snip> That's why I made this long post. Shocked.

That was the most entertaining post I've read all morning. I couldn't stop laughing. Is it even possible to lose a game?

 

[Eejit]

About 45% of the United States?*

*Numbers provided by Nielsen

Er, actually that only says that 55% of people use the internet *daily*.
/facepalm

Also taking out religion was the second worst move. Why, just why? Oh well, another strategic layer of the game wiped out and for what reason? Political correctness? It's bad enough what PC has done to my country, now it's effecting my damn video games, get a freaking grip people.

Bull. Religion was already PC-ified in its Civ4 implementation. Remember before release when everyone was looking forward to historically accurate religion showing the bad with the good? Instead it turned out to be a happy-huggy isn't religion perfect system featuring several massively cheesy exploits for diplomacy, economy etc.
I'd rather have religion left out than another sanitized castrated and unbalanced version as in Civ4.

 

[patgarr]

Hmm i don t agree. I play board game and computer strategic game since 20 years now and i m very pleased with CIV V.

The best games are always more simple with light systems. That's why the American from avalon hill were dismish by the new german generation of board game, same in video.

 

[mattavich]

I am an old player and i have to say civ5 is the best

 

[Nutteria]

It is not about age and civ5 nor expirience and civ5.It is about unfinished product and civ5.

 

[Guardian_PL]

It is not about age and civ5 nor expirience and civ5.It is about unfinished product and civ5.

qft

There's no AI for crying out loud! There's no at least remote form of challenge. Emperor, Immortal, Deity - these unreachable peaks of all the other Civ installments have now elevators installed and instead of feeling on top of the world after finishing the game on such difficulty setting you feel "meh, that was easy and boring"

 

[bruntfca]

Hmm i don t agree. I play board game and computer strategic game since 20 years now and i m very pleased with CIV V.

The best games are always more simple with light systems. That's why the American from avalon hill were dismish by the new german generation of board game, same in video.

Hi, I used to play those old Avalon Hill Games. Panzer Leader, Squad Leader etc. What is this new generation of German games, and can you suggest some good ones? Cheers.

 

[moscaverde]

People that prefer a more 'gamey' civ like civ 5.
People that prefer a more empire building civ dislikes civ 5.

 

[lachootbg]

Why would you say a selected few want such a patch? Are you serious? If anyone wants cIV he could play it right away, as you happen to mention some lines above as well!! It amazes me the redundancy of your lines.
About the AI, a fellow gamer killed 80 enemy units with only 3 eternal units of his, not loosing a single one of his own, and the worst part is that he alleged he could repeat this situation almost in every game, unless he got very unlucky. And no he wasn't steamrolling lesser advanced civs, he did this in defense. This alone doesn't make for a bad AI, but a broken one. Not only this could almost never happened in cIV but actually it would never had happened in any other civ from I to III either.

i have a save with india on huge terra map with 22 civs +28 city states (the max possible) i won the game with 5 elephants+1 pikeman+1 scout+1 gr general. i didnt kill 80 i killed 800 units with these 5 elephants... because they are BUGGED + the AI ... there is no I in it. anyone who wants the save can msg me private. ah dificulty was prince(4).

 

[TheLean]

I have played civ since the first game in the beginning of the nineties. I love civ 5. The AI needs improvement and no AA in dx9 is a lame sellout to Nvidia (Even though it can be enabled by forcing it) but all in all I love the 1up, hexes, graphics and the fact that there is so much unnecessary cumbersome things taken away. Like for example I dont aim to build every building in every city. This opens up for some serious thinking. 2 more months working out bugs and the AI would have been nice but I have hope for patches.

 

[devily]

People that prefer a more 'gamey' civ like civ 5.
People that prefer a more empire building civ dislikes civ 5.

Hmm... That actually is very good description.. I really do like empire building games, and less war like.

But.. There is a reason why Civilization was father of 4X strategies.

Explore, Build, Discover, Conquer. That was always essential part of all Civilizations (Alpha Centaury even got Tech trees and base optimizations named like that), and they were pretty balanced before.

Civ 5 feels like someone pulled out one X and made it 3X, or even 2,5... Offcourse, those who didnt like 4th X or didn't use it, won't have trouble like it, others will have that "something is missing". feeling

 

[Blackadar]

He might mean expansion packs.

As almost just as long of a civ player (did not play civ 1, but did play smac and smacx) I think civ 5 is on par with vanilla civ 4 1.0

Pretty much this. Which is more than fine in my book because Civ 4 + BtS turned out to be pretty awesome. While there's things I'd like to see improved/added to Civ V, the core game is a lot of fun.

Unlike many folks here, I did buy Civ I back in 1991 (needed my roommates PC to do it!) and I've been playing ever since. So unlike the OP, I have just about 20 years of playing Civ. IMO, the only lousy Civ I've played is 3, because the endgame resources made it an absolute crapshoot to see if you could actually win or not.

Moderator Action: Cursing removed, please don't swear on these forums. Thanks.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Mathochism]

Gamey =/= warlike.

Gamey simply implies that the mechanics are not simulationist, a.k.a. not based off of how things operate in reality.

 

[devily]

Gamey =/= warlike.

Gamey simply implies that the mechanics are not simulationist, a.k.a. not based off of how things operate in reality.

oh.. Well I got no problem with that

It depends on game actually. In fact, I rarely analyse why I don't like or like something. Either I like playing game, or not. That's all that matters...

Offcourse, not liking something at one point doesn't mean I won't like it at some other point of time.. As I read somewhere "Only constant thing in the life is change"

 

[WeneedmoreCivs]

Actually that's a bad poll, because it's clear that most people haven't played all the Civs. In any case you can't expect a game 20 years old to compete with something much newer in loads of areas, but if you took which was the biggest game at the time, the original would win hands down. Won just about every poll and award going.

It's rather like Doom, which came out a couple of years later. Clearly today's FPS have a lot more things going for them, but in terms of the impact they make, none will ever be as big as id's genre maker.

Impact on the market and quality are not the same thing.
Civ 1 was a revolution in computer gaming and turned me into an obsessed dictator. I've played every iteration of Civ (other than Civ-Rev and Freeciv I believe) and I think that this version is wonderful.

It's like when people try to compare athletes:
"Bob Cousy was the best point guard ever!"...even though lots of HS guards could school him now.
"Rocky Marciano is the greatest heavyweight fighter of all time"...even though he was fighting in an era when "heavyweights" averaged about 190 pounds and today the weight class starts at 200+.
"Babe Ruth is the best baseball player of all time!"...even though the league he played in was made up of only white Americans who had never even imagined a batting cage.

Technology and evolution change things. Those three all had a major impact on their sports, but they'd be scrubs if inserted into today's world. Civ 1 was amazing when I played it for 12 hours straight on my Powerbook 170 on the flight to Australia, but today the game would not even be considered good for the iPhone.

 

[JudgeDeath]

As I said, standing on the shoulders of Giants.

Things evolve over time, so you can't compare old with new, except by comparing how they were in relation to what else was around at the time.

 

[OliverFA]

Hmm... That actually is very good description.. I really do like empire building games, and less war like.

But.. There is a reason why Civilization was father of 4X strategies.

Explore, Build, Discover, Conquer. That was always essential part of all Civilizations (Alpha Centaury even got Tech trees and base optimizations named like that), and they were pretty balanced before.

Civ 5 feels like someone pulled out one X and made it 3X, or even 2,5... Offcourse, those who didnt like 4th X or didn't use it, won't have trouble like it, others will have that "something is missing". feeling

I have to agree with you. The father of 4X games is not 4X anymore.

The funny things is that having a simpler Civilization is not a bad idea. But why didn't they make a CivRev for PC instead of dumbing down Civ 5?

 

[Ricci]

i have a save with india on huge terra map with 22 civs +28 city states (the max possible) i won the game with 5 elephants+1 pikeman+1 scout+1 gr general. i didnt kill 80 i killed 800 units with these 5 elephants... because they are BUGGED + the AI ... there is no I in it. anyone who wants the save can msg me private. ah dificulty was prince(4).

Oh dear...

 

[Tronicoz]

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 agree. But civ iv was to flawless so they couldt build the new game on that so they hade to change alot to make a new civ, but its hard to get it as enjoyable as 4, (didnt play 3)

 

[mrt144]

What was wrong with them was that their growth from not-that-useful to amazingly good over a bunch of turns, while cool, encouraged people to build cottages early and never switch to anything else, which I suspect was deemed by developers as less interesting than more swappable improvements.

I can see both sides of that issue, but I don't really like trading posts, thematically. Why does Boston circa 1950 have a bunch of "trading posts" around it? Do trading posts like that even exist anymore?

I think they should be called "suburbs" or something after a certain era, and retain the same behavior.

Disagree. I almost always built food heavy empires that utilized specialists until there was equitable returns in cottaging on good tiles. Terrain affected that decision as well as the Civ I was playing.