Auncien's Skeptic's Review

[angelus512]

Quick question does anybody know if we still have the option to Puppet/Vassal states like in Civ4 BTS?


And yes Im aware when you capture a city you can puppet the city but have no control over its production. Im not really interested in that.

I'm talking about old school puppeting/vassals like we had in Civ4 BTS. I really loved that feature, as a small 5-7 city grouping of powerful cities you could quite happily enslave half the world as vassals.

 

[Venereus]

Well done review and an honest testimony from a real fanatic. Thanks a lot, Auncien.

Quick question does anybody know if we still have the option to Puppet/Vassal states like in Civ4 BTS?


And yes Im aware when you capture a city you can puppet the city but have no control over its production. Im not really interested in that.

I'm talking about old school puppeting/vassals like we had in Civ4 BTS. I really loved that feature, as a small 5-7 city grouping of powerful cities you could quite happily enslave half the world as vassals.

There is no vassal system in Civ V.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Thanks for that review Auncien, it definitely means a lot. On the basis of this review, & Lemmy's walk-through, I reckon I will be purchasing the game when it comes out tomorrow!

Aussie.

 

[Brian Boru]

Auncien, thanks for a breath of fresh air here today. Fine review.

I've only played one demo half-game. Different, interesting, fun are my initial impressions.

 

[goodolarchie]

I come from a similar (and skeptical) background, I have to say I agree with the OP. I've played through as Ramesses and Rome on Prince. The former was a culture victory based around 5 cities, the latter an easy 1200 ADs domination win from Legionnaires, cannons, etc.

Civ 5 has organic gameplay without any of the life, thus I can only conclude that the gameplay is comprised of nano-robots bent on domination that will hopefully succeed. The metastrategy of 4 was rather formulaic, but at least it had structure.

For instance: worker management REALLY mattered in 4. Build order always went Worker first, unless Seafood+fishing were there. I'm not really sure why I build workers now, or spend time managing them. Luxury resources are ridiculously good, and I guess normal or food tiles can add up in the long run. Still, I don't really care if a barb trireme is blockading my fish or one of my workers dies. I lose 2 gold that turn (tooltip says food: bug?). For a game that emphasizes so much on the strategy of hex placement, hexes really don't mean as much as squares and I could care less if I lost one that didn't have a luxury on it.

Another example of the vapidity: I really don't see how it's fun to pursue anything but domination victory now. Combat is pretty much the only glue that provides mental stimulation, and when you're not attacking, your units are hopelessly blocking one another, or other civs. I'm not really sure why the other civs are in the game now. Replacing them with more city states I'm pretty sure most games would go down the same way, if they warred one another. I have no idea what the diplo climate is like at any given moment, nor do I care. When I'm ready to kill everyone, I'll let them know with cannons on their door...

 

[Watiggi]

We need to create a new medical condition:

PBNISD - Post Buyers of a New Iteration of a Series Depression.

 

[wilebill]

Excellent review! You gave it a 9.2. Gamespot gave it a 9.0.

There is a lot I see wrong with the game in its release state; but I think 9.4 or 9.5 would be reasonable anticipating what the game will become with fixes, tweaks, dlc, expansions, and mods.

Gamespot cited an overly aggressive AI and minor annoyances in multiplayer. Both of these are fixable, assuming that you think the AI is overly aggressive in the first place. So, I think Gamespot was on the low side as far as its rating goes.

If you watch the Gamespot Video Review, it should have got a 10.0! Sometimes I wonder about Gamespot.

 

[Crezth]

As the old saying goes: American game companies release unfinished, unpolished, and buggy games.

With that in mind, Sid is an all American boy, alright.

As another saying goes: best to say nothing than to open one's mouth and let the demons of stupidity enter the world.

 

[PPK]

I've completed a playthrough with Rome and feel quite the same. Diplomacy is disappointing, there is no way to get a feel for the AIs. When I watched pre-launch interviews where they said they added the leader cut-scenes to make them feel like real people I was excited! But the voice acting leaves a lot to be desired. If it had been better perhaps I could have glossed over the fact that there is no way to know what they think of you. Napoleon, to cite but one example, sounds like a formal and boring language teacher, not a conqueror! I also miss the big inter-state relations diagram from IV, it was the ideal way to quickly verify what alliances were in place and who had a defensive pact with who.

There's also the issue of battle AI. In my game China jumped me early on when I had a single warrior and 2 scouts and she had 3 archers and 3 warriors. I was certain I had just lost the game but it turns out I managed to counter effectively. Perhaps the added complexity of hexes is too much for an AI that doesn't seem to have aged particularly well... I love hexes though, it gives a much more tactical feeling to battles.

I also dislike how much information the interface fails to show. But that's not a fatal flaw : surely some sort of BAT mod can correct the problem. In the end it's a mixed bag, but I do like the game - to a point. If it gets better with mods I probably will not go back to IV. The new combat system with a better interface and more transparent diplomacy would make a terrific game of civ.

Technically, I've had only one CTD in 14 hours of game time so it's not too flawed. And I think the CTD I did have was my GPU overheating, so that's probably got nothing to do with the game's code. Graphical glitches are plentiful though. This might be limited to my computer but when I don't look at a part of the map for a while and then come back to it, it needs to re-buffer the terrain, starting from ugly patches of untextured ground. I can actually see it 'working' it's way up the screen... Not exactly pleasing for a game that's supposed to be pretty, but I assume that's something that can be patched out.

If I had to rate it, I'd give this game an honest 8.

 

[Pangaea]

Good review. 92 or 100 is an odd ball though, given what you actually write. I'd give it a 7 of 10, and I think that would be fair. Official reviews giving it 10/10 and such can't be sensible or honest. But that's a feeling I've had with official reviews for a long time. Seems like their main job, especially for "big" games, is to sell it.

You're probably right in saying there is potential, but it's a lot of work until we get there.

 

[Auncien]

Hey all. Thank you for the feedback.

I wanted to add that I also really like how the social policies give you a reason to churn out culture and I really enjoy how you can build your empire from a sort of roleplay perspective and at the same time contribute additively to your power in a gameplay sense, so there's another win for the developers. I forgot that bit earlier and I feel like you don't really do the game justice unless you mention the social policies because there's a lot of depth and customizability there. It really does play differently when you choose different SP trees. Good fun.

 

[Q cumberR]

lol'd @ 10-ish people still wondering why he gave such a high score when he already answered that question

 

[lietkynes]

Civilization V doesn’t quite feel complete yet, but it definitely provides a very, very, very strong and worthy foundation on which the designers can complete it.

I feel like this also, the game is already great and I am loving it, but we should remember it's vanilla. Think about what this game will be in the next months, with mods, expansions, pathces, ecc.

From a non-normative standpoint I’d say it’s a fantastic game that nobody who enjoys strategy games in general or Civilization should miss, although it still needs a lot of work and expansion.

Thanks for the review, very well written.

 

[V. Soma]

Great review, man!

 

[Mivo]

The result is that the AI opponents don’t feel like people. They don’t have the personality of the foes from past games. They just feel like AIs that are all plotting against you in some rudimentary, 1990s AI kind of way that you really don’t need to think about too much.

In a game that is mostly aimed at single-player, this alone should justify a subtraction of at least 15 points. If the AI is junk, the game's longevity is in jeopardy. A 92/100 score doesn't reflect the weaknesses at all, particularly not the significant ones like the absence of a competitive, smart AI.

 

[VikingMaekel]

Good review. It's well written and addresses the shortcomings of the game although I have fewer reservations. I do think that patches and expansions will polish this one into one of the best Civ games.

 

[Veshta]

Good run-down of the ups and downs, end score would be lower if it was me though especially considering the rudimentary AI. It does excel at the research/gold/happy/culture bit so that evens it out some but enough for >85 if you ask me.
It is a shame the demo only allows 100 turns as that is when city-states start making an impact with lots of chores to do .. but they do appear to have a possibly game defining impact from what little I have been able to glean.

My main problem with it is the absolutely insane amount of clicking I have to do to get anything done.
All the overview screens stay open so doing the F2-F9 dance to see whats what necessitates a flurry of ESC hits to close them all again.
Only have very basic information available, rest is 1-2 clicks deep in the interface.
Build queue is horrible, a tickbox with minuscule icons for manipulation. Why they didn't retain the CTRL/SHIFT modifier system from Civ4 is beyond me.
Civilopedia is missing quite a few entries and the arrangement of information makes scrolling/clicking necessary for a lot of entries .. has search though and that is a huge plus.

 

[ErichRommel]

Nice to see you kept word with your review auncien Cant aggree more (though have only played the demo yet). Wouldnt there be that city states it wont be that what i expected and it really feels somehow unfinished and rushed.. But im pretty sure it will be finished and polished with patches, still this is a major thumbs down for Firaxis imo.

 

[Thormodr]

Excellent review. I think ciV has tremendous potential and could end up being the best of the series when the expansions and mods are made.

It is pretty unpolished at the moment though. I don't blame Firaxis however. I think 2K Games put pressure on them to get the game out early. 2K Games isn't the most financially stable company out there.

So, I can put up with some of the little things like crappy rivers and roads and hope that the more major problems like a crappy AI can get fixed soon.

Personally, I'd rate it a 8.5 out of 10 now with the potential to be 9.5.

 

[Louis XXIV]

On diplomacy (still playing the demo):

First game, I had pretty much the same experience. The AI was just there. Elizabeth did her thing and I mostly ignored her until I decided to attack her at the end.

The second game, the AI was more active and sought me out. Alexander asked for a pact of secrecy with me against Bismark and later asked me to declare war. I got the impression that one was directly related to the other. If you didn't agree to the war during the pact of secrecy, he wouldn't really like you as much. It's hard to get a feel for how accurate my impression is here, but I feel there are subtleties to the system that are hard to grasp right away.