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

[vandyr]

Firaxis: "Can you build a Civilization game that will stand the test of time?"

This is getting getting ridiculous. It's starting to look like an mmo forum around here.

 

[pacificwing]

I've been a long time Civ player, going back to the Civ 1 days. I really have to mirror a lot of the comments here by expressing my dissapointment with Civ 5. I really feel it needed another 6 months of polish.

First off, let me say that I enjoy the new additions. I think the non-stacking units is great, along with the hex based tiles. I like the social policy additions, although they might be slightly flawed in their execution.

But lets face it: The AI is as dumb as a sack of bricks.

There seems to be no consistency in their behavior. One minute they're asking you for a pact of cooperation and trading luxuries, the next minute they are declaring war for no explicable reason. Then 20 or so turns later, despite them winning the war, they are willing to give away every city they have in order to make peace. You can raze all of their cities, and they don't seem to care that you've just committed a massive atrocity against their people. They have as much personality as a random seed generator.

And what is the deal with the computer moving units back and forth every turn between the same 4 tiles? Why do they charge ahead with horses into my spear-men? I'm fairly certain that I could pitch a multiplayer match against a schizophrenic monkey and still not see the sheer lunacy that I get from the AI. It's not finished. Plain and simple.

And that just tops all of the little things that seem to be missing as though they were quickly tied off before the game shipped.

I remember when I first loaded up Civ 4 and was completly blown away. From the epic opening cinematic, the powerful lion-king-esque "Babu Yetu" score which completely captured the spirit of the game, to the infamous Lenard Nimoy reading the historical quotes, to the end-game movies that actually rewarded the player for spending hours upon hours to beat the game (Spaceship launch blowing the dandelion seeds). The game managed to find the perfect balance between complexity and simplicity. It added new features, but it was as though the developers actually thought through the impact they would have on the game and spent the time to balance them appropriately.

Civ 4 was a game that screamed polish, care and consideration by its developers. Sure it wasn't without it's flaws, but it was lightyears ahead of this current incarnation.

Civ 5 feels like one step forward, eight or nine steps back. The game is still worth playing, and worth the money. As a stand alone game, it holds its own. But comparing it to Civ 4, I can't help feel a little let down.

Maybe they might patch it, but I think as a previous poster said, we will have to wait for Civ 6 before we see all these new concepts come to fruition.

 

[Atwork]

IMO, at the point of shipment, CIV4 and CIV5 are basically on par.

CIV4 required several major patches, subsequent expansions, and the constant interaction between gamers and the modding community before it became a great game. But, even then, it wasn't perfect.

CIV5, at this point, is a work in progress. There will need to be successive patches to deal with the bugs and to improve the AI. Expansions will be required to add some needed content (I'd like to see some form of espionage, corporations, and possibly religion placed back in the game). Lines of code will have to be tampered with for better balance and to make needed rule changes.....etc, etc.... Oh, and Steam sucks big time, but what can anyone do about that?!

So, it took a full 3 to 4 years of combined efforts between Firaxis, modders, and the community of players to bring CIV4 to it's greater capacity and I trust it will be the same with CIV5. Be patient CIVers (or get to modding!)

 

[superdudeman]

Since 1996, I have played all CIV series and mod packs.

Since 96? LOOOL omg n00b!

I've played since 92. I was playing Civ1 while you were still learning to walk kid. You're not an old player, you're a newcomer. Thus, your opinions is of little importance. I say Civ2 is the best and Civ3 is the worst. So there. This is fact, not opinion, because I have played since 92. I know more.

Now bow down to the you noob!

 

[pacificwing]

So, it took a full 3 to 4 years of combined efforts between Firaxis, modders, and the community of players to bring CIV4 to it's greater capacity and I trust it will be the same with CIV5. Be patient CIVers (or get to modding!)

Fair enough. And that could very well be the case.

I just tend to think of Civ 5 along the same lines of Civ 3. It's a bit of a series blooper. As a previous poster said, they changed too much at once and it threw the entire concept off the rails.

But then again, my affinity for Civ 4 could simply have been in the fact that it followed up the disaster that was Civ 3. Every game will always be measured against the one that came before it. In the case of Civ 4, you're absolutely right. It wasn't perfect, but it was so much better than Civ 3 that it was regarded as such. The expansions were icing on the cake.

They took some chances with Civ 5, and I applaud them for it. I sincerely hope they manage to create an epic game after a couple years of expansions and patches. I just happen to suspect we might have to wait for Civ 6 before we see another epic.

 

[war_mchine]

So much outrage! In my experience it takes a little time to sink in (or patch) before you can really judge. We love past Civs because we know them well - just feels right. I have enjoyed my time with Civ 5 so far. Some aspects are lacking, or missing, but I'd much rather be trying out a new (albeit flawed) Civ than 95% of the games on the market.

 

[Guardian_PL]

So much outrage! In my experience it takes a little time to sink in (or patch) before you can really judge. We love past Civs because we know them well - just feels right. I have enjoyed my time with Civ 5 so far. Some aspects are lacking, or missing, but I'd much rather be trying out a new (albeit flawed) Civ than 95% of the games on the market.

Well yeah, but how can I enjoy the game when I know that my AI "opponents" are just some monkeys, randomly pressing game buttons? You can't play chess with a monkey and enjoy it, and same way I cannot derive fun from Civ5 since whatever I do I know that out there, the monkeys are doing their silly things and as long as I don't see them I can pretend it's a Civ game. But as soon as one of them throws its excrement at me I know it's time to leave the zoo

 

[JudgeDeath]

1996 was when Civ2 was launched. Civ came out in 1991, and I've been playing it since then - probably spent more than 1000 hours on that alone.

The AI has always sucked TBH. My view is that the combat in this, by offering more possibilities is what's causing the problem. It seems to have been made aggressive, so providing it is more powerful it works OK. However it doesn't place the units well for defense (so it's easy to counter-attack too).

Is it suprising? Well consider chess. It's played on 64 squares. It only has 6 different units. And it generally takes longer than than Civ to come up with moving one unit, rather than dozens that Civ does at a turn. No, what would be surprising is if the AI was a hot tactican.

 

[mva5580]

The game is still worth playing, and worth the money. As a stand alone game, it holds its own. But comparing it to Civ 4, I can't help feel a little let down.

This sums up my feelings entirely. Civ V, on its own, is not horrible. But the point of a sequel (in my opinion at least) should be to make you want to completely move on from the game that it's following. And Civ V just isn't at that point for me yet. I hope it gets there, but for now I'm going back to IV.

 

[troytheface]

this "wait eight hundred years for expansions and modders" is like a howl of the deluded damned in the halls of forever

Fact- Civ3 and civ4- you played from the get go- got used to them and strategized

Fact- civ3's first expansion was a bust as i recall- making people more mad at the expansion then the core game (i liked ol ptw tho- multiplayer!)

the point?

the point is this- no one would/should wait four years to have fun playing a game

the AI will never be strong- never is- but there were compensations- fun looking units- crazy stacks at your gate, etc.

Now? Bland looking units, buildings, and a tint scale used for the graphics. (Amplified by white fog)

The tint scale says it all- watered down, non saturated, white all over the place -

here's a tip graphic boys- use a full chromatic scale on the game- not on a full screen boring leader that says something that you read

the evidence is clear

 

[katipunero]

this "wait eight hundred years for expansions and modders" is like a howl of the deluded damned in the halls of forever

Fact- Civ3 and civ4- you played from the get go- got used to them and strategized

Fact- civ3's first expansion was a bust as i recall- making people more mad at the expansion then the core game (i liked ol ptw tho- multiplayer!)

the point?

the point is this- no one would/should wait four years to have fun playing a game

the AI will never be strong- never is- but there were compensations- fun looking units- crazy stacks at your gate, etc.

Now? Bland looking units, buildings, and a tint scale used for the graphics. (Amplified by white fog)

The tint scale says it all- watered down, non saturated, white all over the place -

here's a tip graphic boys- use a full chromatic scale on the game- not on a full screen boring leader that says something that you read

the evidence is clear

yes. why should anyone seem so apologetic for a game? wow i don't understand why the great love for 5 at the get go. learn to complain people so others shouldn't make the mistakes you made. alryts.

 

[Rince]

Fact- Civ3 and civ4- you played from the get go- got used to them and strategized

And why do you skip this step with Civ5?

 

[WeneedmoreCivs]

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.

I'm with you. I've played all the Civ games (plus Call to Power 2, the pinnacle of the franchise), and this one has simply grown on me. I already like it better than Civ III and it's probably about to pass Civ IV in my heart with a couple of good mods. I have the Civ Gold mod for my Civ IV and that's the one thing missing from this game: countless empires with tons of unique units and buildings.

I like the stackable mods, which is something I don't think most people realize how amazing it is. I've already added a new civ and a clock to my game.

 

[troytheface]

slow turns

unimaginative graphics

falling asleep at like 8 o clock after playing for awhile

nothing new, things left out for no reason

its like going back in time

but you know what really tipped me off. The opening movie
they show this old wrinkled face and i suppose your supposed to think "wow , look at all the wrinkles and detail, what good art"

when in fact it is self indulgent crap art - and proves that Manet's bar maid is always going to be more famous then old man face paintings. for a reason. Hell, a stylized maiden with half the detail wearing a red cape or something shooting a fire arrow would be not only better art- it would have actually shown something- a scene- not a setting

the opening mug is a great metaphor

"look how detailed, look how realistic, look how he talks about boring crap, look how he does nothing and then gets up and opens a door" zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[Ricci]

I had a problem with the slowness at first, but I think it's ok now. In IV, by mid to late game I would sometimes have every building built in every city, which isn't very good. That doesn't require much strategy. There's no way you can do that in V though, you need to think much more about what you build...

What if I say to you there is indeed a way to do so? Will you suspect I could have won the game more than once by the time I had all the buildings in place? (i.e playing a too much easy game as to do anything I wanted!!) I would suspect you will..
Strategy comes primarily within the build order Charon.

 

[charon2112]

What if I say to you there is indeed a way to do so? Will you suspect I could have won the game more than once by the time I had all the buildings in place? (i.e playing a too much easy game as to do anything I wanted!!) I would suspect you will..
Strategy comes primarily within the build order Charon.

I'm sorry, I don't understand you.

 

[DarkSchneider]

I've been a long time Civ player, going back to the Civ 1 days. I really have to mirror a lot of the comments here by expressing my dissapointment with Civ 5. I really feel it needed another 6 months of polish.

First off, let me say that I enjoy the new additions. I think the non-stacking units is great, along with the hex based tiles. I like the social policy additions, although they might be slightly flawed in their execution.

But lets face it: The AI is as dumb as a sack of bricks.

There seems to be no consistency in their behavior. One minute they're asking you for a pact of cooperation and trading luxuries, the next minute they are declaring war for no explicable reason. Then 20 or so turns later, despite them winning the war, they are willing to give away every city they have in order to make peace. You can raze all of their cities, and they don't seem to care that you've just committed a massive atrocity against their people. They have as much personality as a random seed generator.

And what is the deal with the computer moving units back and forth every turn between the same 4 tiles? Why do they charge ahead with horses into my spear-men? I'm fairly certain that I could pitch a multiplayer match against a schizophrenic monkey and still not see the sheer lunacy that I get from the AI. It's not finished. Plain and simple.

And that just tops all of the little things that seem to be missing as though they were quickly tied off before the game shipped.

I remember when I first loaded up Civ 4 and was completly blown away. From the epic opening cinematic, the powerful lion-king-esque "Babu Yetu" score which completely captured the spirit of the game, to the infamous Lenard Nimoy reading the historical quotes, to the end-game movies that actually rewarded the player for spending hours upon hours to beat the game (Spaceship launch blowing the dandelion seeds). The game managed to find the perfect balance between complexity and simplicity. It added new features, but it was as though the developers actually thought through the impact they would have on the game and spent the time to balance them appropriately.

Civ 4 was a game that screamed polish, care and consideration by its developers. Sure it wasn't without it's flaws, but it was lightyears ahead of this current incarnation.

Civ 5 feels like one step forward, eight or nine steps back. The game is still worth playing, and worth the money. As a stand alone game, it holds its own. But comparing it to Civ 4, I can't help feel a little let down.

Maybe they might patch it, but I think as a previous poster said, we will have to wait for Civ 6 before we see all these new concepts come to fruition.

I've been playing since Civ I and I feel this sums up very well how I feel towards Civ V. I felt that Civ IV (and Civ II to a lesser extent) were extremely well polished sequels that improved every aspect of their successors. Civ III felt like 3 steps forward in some aspects, and two steps back in others. Civ V has a very similar feel, except it is currently 2 steps forward and 3 steps back.

If vanilla Civ IV and vanilla Civ V were both released simultaneously I would be drawn to Civ IV. Aren't computer games the one media were you generally expect sequels to exceed their predecessors?

 

[Scaramanga]

From the epic opening cinematic, the powerful lion-king-esque "Babu Yetu" score which completely captured the spirit of the game, to the infamous Lenard Nimoy reading the historical quotes, to the end-game movies that actually rewarded the player for spending hours upon hours to beat the game (Spaceship launch blowing the dandelion seeds).

Spaceship and dandelion seeds was Civ 3.

 

[Liambane]

I think that Civilization V is not a good sequel for Civilization IV that was way better.

Here's some things I don't like in Civ V:
the Diplomacy is so bad... No trade for maps, no techs, UNUSEFUL City State request and so on... You can play an entire game without using it.
The Music sucks... No more Medieval or Renaissance music... There is no music immersion like in Civ IV. (And don't understimate this.)
The Wonders are unuseful cause don't give good bonus and they cost like hell.
The Buildings are too expensive and don't deserve the price they costs.
No Spies and No Religion that was a good part of game in Civ IV.
Barbarians overspawn until 2500 A.D. at one hex from your empire with NO SENSE in wood village with assault rifle soldiers and keep attacking you with boring and unuseful attacks.
I.A. sucks.
Promotions with no huge difference like it was in Civ IV.
Units with no huge difference like it was in Civ IV.
City States are pathetic.
Natural Wonders are pathetic.
Damage System is not clear when enemy units will survive and your unit too, How long will take for recover healt.
1UPT is not so funny... I mean why not 3/5 UPT? Move units on the map is too damn hard now...

I can keep going but I'm tired and want to go to bed...

I'm so unhappy for Civ V: I imaged a CIV IV "powered" with graphic and innovations but I see a BIG STEP BACK in Civilization Saga...

Ok, it's a "first relase" and it's "another game" but looking forward i don't think there will be future "huge" improvements... Only could improve this bad game....

 

[charon2112]

I disagree with literally every thing you just said.

I think that Civilization V is not a good sequel for Civilization IV that was way better.

Here's some things I don't like in Civ V:
the Diplomacy is so bad... No trade for maps, no techs, UNUSEFUL City State request and so on... You can play an entire game without using it.
The Music sucks... No more Medieval or Renaissance music... There is no music immersion like in Civ IV. (And don't understimate this.)
The Wonders are unuseful cause don't give good bonus and they cost like hell.
The Buildings are too expensive and don't deserve the price they costs.
No Spies and No Religion that was a good part of game in Civ IV.
Barbarians overspawn until 2500 A.D. at one hex from your empire with NO SENSE in wood village with assault rifle soldiers and keep attacking you with boring and unuseful attacks.
I.A. sucks.
Promotions with no huge difference like it was in Civ IV.
Units with no huge difference like it was in Civ IV.
City States are pathetic.
Natural Wonders are pathetic.
Damage System is not clear when enemy units will survive and your unit too, How long will take for recover healt.
1UPT is not so funny... I mean why not 3/5 UPT? Move units on the map is too damn hard now...

I can keep going but I'm tired and want to go to bed...

I'm so unhappy for Civ V: I imaged a CIV IV "powered" with graphic and innovations but I see a BIG STEP BACK in Civilization Saga...

Ok, it's a "first relase" and it's "another game" but looking forward i don't think there will be future "huge" improvements... Only could improve this bad game....