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

[Thormodr]

Gotta agree with the Op. 19 years of playing Civ and it's the first time that it has left me with no desire to play the latest iteration of Civ.

Straying away from the original vision of Civ and the improvements that were subsequently made has been disastrous.

Dumbing down a game for the mass market will not lead to good results.

Hopefully this iteration of Civ will not sell better than cIV and they'll cut that crap out.

 

[Mesopotamian]

i love Civ 5 so much

 

[Guardian_PL]

i love Civ 5

i love it to the degree that i'm up playing all night (4:00am) will be missing my morning lecture (9:00am) and will wake up to play it first thing tomorrow

Well then, good for you (no need to repeat yourself btw).

Just a question - how many games of Civ5 have you finished by now? I'm asking because at first I too had sleepless nights spent on playing. But like in Aforess' review after finishing five games right now I'm finding myself staying late at night only to post on civfanatics and check whether the patch/cool mods are out there, since somehow I can't convince myself to even start the game, much less complete it.

...Which is a good thing, because whole night yesterday till like 9:30AM I was reading this awesome manhwa called "The Breaker" - it's the best thing I've read in a loong time, and it was a night well spent

 

[Disorganisation]

That's interesting... do you mean better for the time it was released, because it certainly was. Do you mean that Civ I would still be a better game if both were released today?

I mean it's more fun to play now.

 

[Peng Qi]

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?

Exact opposite here. Also have played all Civs since the beginning, and love Civ5. Will never go back.

 

[Mesopotamian]

Just a question - how many games of Civ5 have you finished by now?

six, and I'm playing the seventh right now

the slower the game pace the better the experience, hence I'm playing currently on marathon

i honestly think the game is so bad if played on normal or quick, it's acceptable on epic and love it on marathon (it has to do with the technology units building time thing for me) i played them all

stem reported me playing for 65 hours (so far)


and about the repeat sorry i didn't notice that i posted twice, my bad

 

[arosenberger]

I think that I'm rather unique in that I really disliked Civ IV BTS when I first encountered it about 2 years ago. Then I discovered ROM and AND this spring and became addicted. I didn't play Civ IV when it was just released, but I'd say that civ V is about the same maybe a bit worse than vanilla BTS. 1UPT is great and really improves the combat in my opinion, and I like the concept behind the changes to diplomacy (despite their poor implementation). I also like the sliderless system, it always felt rather artificial to arbitrarily control the focus of your empire. The longer build times and building maintainance costs force you to specialize your cities in science culture, happiness, gold, or military production which I see as a positive step from the "build everything" in civ IV. Plus, the road sprawl is gone which is nice. On the other hand, social policies are bleah, culture spread is horribly slow, rivers look like @$# especially at their origins, AI is really dumb (I expect the AI to be dumb but not this dumb) the infinite peace treaty bug is annoying, I miss religions, trade routes (there is NO foreign trade in civ V which is total BS... no silk road or US/China trade) individual city happiness, health, revolutions, huge tech trees, future/transhuman eras, privateers, etc... I guess my problem with civ V is that I've been spoiled by ROM.

Thank God for mods and modders.

 

[afa2000]

Excellent argument. Devoid of any attempt of a rebuttal, uses vague generalities, and contributes nothing to the thread.

If people were afraid of change, your mods wouldn't become so popular. I'm pretty sure AND has a way lower rejection than Civ V and you know how your mod looks a whole new game.

The point is, how the hell should a company, making profit, removing many good elements, not be blamed for making something way worse than you and the others did for free ?

 

[StrategeryBush]

The problem with Civ V is not technical. The problem is boredom, Civ V is MOO 3. I've deleted it from the hard drive and have gone back to Civ IV BTS.

 

[Deep_Blue]

I want to comment about the argument that some people start "it is a different game":

I dont mind a different game in fact even change it to pokemon like game if you want as long as the game is fun. But when people say the game is boring and not fun, then this cant be answered by arguments like this. A game is by defenition is for fun and entertainment first and content comes second!

people are not afraid of change people are afraid of spending money on a game that gives no fun in return.

 

[robertb]

same here. RoM AND is the current mod playing. I think i will wait for a another 6 month hoping there will be a major mod making the game playable.
so far a few promising mods been done, but its not enough....

 

[Jediron]

Good on Marathon ? OMG. That's the worst scenario. Superslow gameplay and thousands of "next Turn's" with nothnig much to do. Can't believe anyone would love such a gametype

 

[jjkrause84]

Huh....

So maybe Civ5 is the reason my 9am WWII lecture was BARREN today?

 

[SuperJay]

Huh....

So maybe Civ5 is the reason my 9am WWII lecture was BARREN today?

Heck, I would have come - Civ or no Civ. (Well, definitely would have come given that Civ5 doesn't keep me up late.) If you don't mind me asking, what aspects of WWII are you teaching currently?

(Just curious as I've recently rekindled my inner history buff - just started "The Victors" by Stephen Ambrose the other day, and just recently finished reading the abridged version of Churchill's "Memoirs of World War II." You know, 'abridged' meaning 'only 1,200 pages.')

Maybe this is better for a PM...

 

[Saarud]

Good on Marathon ? OMG. That's the worst scenario. Superslow gameplay and thousands of "next Turn's" with nothnig much to do. Can't believe anyone would love such a gametype

I love that gametype as well. In Rise of Mankind 2 mod for Civ4:Bts I always play with the snail speed (3000 turns... mind you). Civilization is played through 6000 years why be in a hurry to finish?

I think Civilization 5 by far has the best gameplay of all the games in the Civilization series. I just hope they program a better AI because that is for me the single reason I can't enjoy Civ 5 as much as I enjoy for example Paradox games.

Civ 4 btw has a terrible AI as well but as it could use SoD and outbuild humans on harder difficulties it seemed harder. 1upt really requires a robust tactical combat AI to be really fun to play.

 

[Jediron]

I love that gametype as well. In Rise of Mankind 2 mod for Civ4:Bts I always play with the snail speed (3000 turns... mind you). Civilization is played through 6000 years why be in a hurry to finish?

I think Civilization 5 by far has the best gameplay of all the games in the Civilization series. I just hope they program a better AI because that is for me the single reason I can't enjoy Civ 5 as much as I enjoy for example Paradox games.

Civ 4 btw has a terrible AI as well but as it could use SoD and outbuild humans on harder difficulties it seemed harder. 1upt really requires a robust tactical combat AI to be really fun to play.

Don't get me wrong; i always played on huge maps, lots of Civs and slow speed. I say played, because i am cured now. In CIV 5 , its boring, extremely boring. More boring then ever.

That's why i said what i said. CIV 5 is boring on normal and it only gets worse, the longer the gameplay. May i ask you: what are YOU doing the first 100 turn ?

If you find 1 upt warfare challenging; good for you. To me there's hardly anything "Tactical" about it. Let alone realistic. Archers fire two hexes, while rifles don't ? Crap!
Archer fire and halt, just to wait to be butchered by what's left of the enemy's melee unit ? Crap! If you can't see it's a broken mechanic; good for you!
For me, it's broken and therefor i can't enjoy the warmongering part of CIV 5. Just because of the two examples above, the game-mechanic is broken. So i don't even montioned the AI, which was always a weak factor in all CIV's.

The other gametypes are more or less broken either; so in the end there's nothing much left to like, to me.

City-States is another "game-breaker" to me. Thought CIV was a game to make a grand empire and compete with other civilizations. Now we get "dummy-states" as a bonus, throw in a dollar or 2 and you get free food, resources and units. More funny, when you here someone of the gamedev. say they left Religion out of CIV 5 because it was too "gamey" ....lol Yeah, right, CS are more realistic Archer fire two hexes on a world map, yeah right, that so "realistic".

They ripped the soul out of CIV, and made it more "gamey" then ever; that's a better description for the current game.

 

[zonk]

Don't get me wrong; i always played on huge maps, lots of Civs and slow speed. I say played, because i am cured now. In CIV 5 , its boring, extremely boring. More boring then ever.

That's why i said what i said. CIV 5 is boring on normal and it only gets worse, the longer the gameplay. May i ask you: what are YOU doing the first 100 turn ?

If you find 1 upt warfare challenging; good for you. To me there's hardly anything "Tactical" about it. Let alone realistic. Archers fire two hexes, while rifles don't ? Crap!
Archer fire and halt, just to wait to be butchered by what's left of the enemy's melee unit ? Crap! If you can't see it's a broken mechanic; good for you!
For me, it's broken and therefor i can't enjoy the warmongering part of CIV 5. Just because of the two examples above, the game-mechanic is broken. So i don't even montioned the AI, which was always a weak factor in all CIV's.

The other gametypes are more or less broken either; so in the end there's nothing much left to like, to me.

City-States is another "game-breaker" to me. Thought CIV was a game to make a grand empire and compete with other civilizations. Now we get "dummy-states" as a bonus, throw in a dollar or 2 and you get free food, resources and units. More funny, when you here someone of the gamedev. say they left Religion out of CIV 5 because it was too "gamey" ....lol Yeah, right, CS are more realistic Archer fire two hexes on a world map, yeah right, that so "realistic".

They ripped the soul out of CIV, and made it more "gamey" then ever; that's a better description for the current game.

Believe it or not --

I really, really dislike V - to the point of thinking it's an abomination -- but for whatever little pleasure I get out of still trying to find some way to enjoy it, playing Marathon is the only way I can.

If nothing else, it slightly nerfs the balance problems -- building and unit builds "fit" better in the timeline.

I always played eternity/snail on RoM/AND - so I'm completely down with the "what's the rush."

In V - it absolutely does draw out a lot more and a lot longer "Next Turn phases".... but the balance is better for those few dozen scattered dozen turns where you have something to do.

 

[Saarud]

Don't get me wrong; i always played on huge maps, lots of Civs and slow speed. I say played, because i am cured now. In CIV 5 , its boring, extremely boring. More boring then ever.

That's why i said what i said. CIV 5 is boring on normal and it only gets worse, the longer the gameplay. May i ask you: what are YOU doing the first 100 turn ?

If you find 1 upt warfare challenging; good for you. To me there's hardly anything "Tactical" about it. Let alone realistic. Archers fire two hexes, while rifles don't ? Crap!
Archer fire and halt, just to wait to be butchered by what's left of the enemy's melee unit ? Crap! If you can't see it's a broken mechanic; good for you!
For me, it's broken and therefor i can't enjoy the warmongering part of CIV 5. Just because of the two examples above, the game-mechanic is broken. So i don't even montioned the AI, which was always a weak factor in all CIV's.

The other gametypes are more or less broken either; so in the end there's nothing much left to like, to me.

City-States is another "game-breaker" to me. Thought CIV was a game to make a grand empire and compete with other civilizations. Now we get "dummy-states" as a bonus, throw in a dollar or 2 and you get free food, resources and units. More funny, when you here someone of the gamedev. say they left Religion out of CIV 5 because it was too "gamey" ....lol Yeah, right, CS are more realistic Archer fire two hexes on a world map, yeah right, that so "realistic".

They ripped the soul out of CIV, and made it more "gamey" then ever; that's a better description for the current game.

While pressing end turns I usually read a book, perhaps doing some paper work or just talk to my kids. Slow pace works wonderful for me.

I agree with some of your statements about archers and riflemens and such being ridiculious but to be honest I really don't give a damn. I haven't played an unmodded CIV 4 game since maybe 1 month or so after CIV 4s release and I fully did know that it would be the same with CIV 5. So this first... is it 3 weeks now? since the release of CIV 5 I have tried playing the game in different maners to see what I enjoy. I am modding things as I go to make the game more fun for me. So basicily I was mostly looking for how the gameplay was designed in this iteration of Civilization to see if it can be modded to be more fun than a modded CIV 4 game and for me that's a definatly YES. The main issue I want Firaxis to deal with is the AI. And since I am an optimistic person I do beleive that Jon and the boys will shape the AI up to a reasonable standard.

 

[Jediron]

Well, i am happy for you guys that you still seem to get something out of it. I am about to delete it from my pc, i have waited long enough for a CIV with something like a real AI in it. It is not there, it is as dumb as ever; higher difficulty only means the dumb AI gets more free goodies.
It is just anoying.

Checkers, Go or Chess; i rather play those, against real humans for a change ;-)

 

[Celsus]

I just registered to post. I've played Civ since 1991 and Civ5 isn't the worst - that's Call to Power - but it's the second worst. I intentionally avoided going online to look at strategies initially because I wanted to make up my own mind. Having loved Civ4 (my last new game in cIV was barely a month ago), I was dying for Civ 5 to come out - I bought the collector's edition and I've now played it several times. I too love big huge maps at slow speed, but that's way too boring to play these ones. When I saw how boring "Huge" actually was (thinking I should maintain a small empire as the game is "meant" to be played) I actually quit my first ever game and restarted on a normal size.

So I started at Chieftan as Rome. Won the game without even the slightest bit of strategy involved - I don't recall a single tough decision I had to make (e.g. what wonder to build, whether to go to war). So ok that was Chieftain, next Warlord as the French - again the game passed without a blink and I still enjoyed it but I think I managed a wonder shutout of the AI (maybe they got the Great Lighthouse) so Prince had to be next. Played as the Siamese and again won without breaking a sweat - my jaw dropped the first time the AI decided to abdicate their entire civilization to me after they declared war on me then I simply killed their attackers and they decided to give me every city they owned. Then I played King with the English (I figured that was going to be a challenge). But the AI units were so ******** and the barbarians so annoying (archipelago map) that I got sick of playing. Eventually I got a cultural victory.

Since then I've rolled a few games but never managed to complete them. Everything other than domination victories are just too boring to achieve because it means playing all 400 turns or whatever against ******** AI. I don't see there being any choices to make, they're all a matter of "good choice vs terrible choice" which isn't a choice at all. Obviously you go with the good one (e.g. spam trading posts, befriend city states, get the Oracle instead of the Great wall, etc). I've never even tried this so-called ICS strategy that people say has broken the game but I can't see how it's possible to be militarily defeated in this game unless you absolutely don't build any units. And once you have a couple of units you're itching to use them to give you something to do and before you know it you've steamrolled the entire map.

Sadly I will go back to Civ4, where I've never actually beaten the game at King without cheating (custom maps etc). That's how terrible Civ5 is at the moment - it's just not fun because there is no challenge.

Stuff I like:

Hexes, Ranged units, 1UPT

Stuff I hate

Global happiness, culture grind, dumb AI, boringness of every other victory path except domination (my civ 4 prefered win style is cultural or space victories - I actually loathe combat as a playstyle preference in Civ4 because the empire part is so much more fun), long turn times at endgame, dumb AI, oversimplified interface (impossible to figure out how things work so you have something to tweak i.e. to do), imbalanced civilizations (and not enough of them), dumb AI, tech vs hammer imbalance (makes space race excruciatingly boring), etc

I really wanted to like this game, but I can't find any joy in it It's not a bad game - everything works the way it says it works. But its just unengaging and that combination with the imbalances already mentioned just make it no fun.