CIV 5, 10 months after release

[Sven Anka]

The thing that's so great with Civ IV is that it's perfectly possible to ignore many of these variables, without it affecting the overall gameplay too much. For example, if you don't like religion, espionage or corporations, you don't have to use it. You can still win the game. But, when you've conquered the world with axemen and catapults a few times, or when you've done the cottages spam over and over again, it might be interesting to try something new.

You can make gold by spreading your religions. Or you can try focusing on trade routes and improve them with Temple of Artimis, Great Lighthouse, Custom Houses and Free Market. Or simply run a SE.

If you want to build units, you may want to have a lot of mines. But, you can also adapt Slavery and focus on farms instead. Or use your workers to chop trees.

And the absolute proof of how good the game is... is in fact the complains. Have you heard these before?

- Civ IV was too easy, all you did was whipping Axemen
- Religion was OP, all you had to do was to spam missionaries
- Cottages were OP, all you had to do was to spam cottages
- The Pyramids were OP, all you had to do was to spam specialists
- Corporations were OP, all you had to do was to spam executives

Well... These things sure are powerful. But, there is no way you can do all these things in the same game. On highter difficulty levels, it's almost impossible to combine an axemen rush with building the pyramids or spreading your religions. So when these people complained, they actually showed us in how many ways the game can be mastered. And that's the difference.

Well put! I couldn't have said it better myself!

 

[Toadman]

I am still bored by the time infantry come along. There is nothing much to do but drag unitsone by one city to city to conquer.

I miss spies, diplomats, missionaries, and everything else that did not have to do with war but could effect the game.

I have played this game so manhy times, and only finished it twice because I just can't stand the last eras. they come to fast, and no reason to build them because the game will be over before you can really implement them by some other victory.

First part of the game is great, second half sucks!

 

[chrissifniotis]

I know the question might well have been answered already, but I'll chuck a reply.

It's impossible for anybody to tell you whether you'll like it now since you didn't specify why you didn't like it the first time. There has been many changes to the game - and it still has tremendous problems.

I very nearly completely agree with this statement, I personally didn't find many problems, and of them only a couple of any real gravity, with Civ V and since the release have played the game and gotten the DLCs, but my own opinion of the game is moot here. In order to help you, I'll try to outline the changes.

First of all is my personal bugbear at the release; Social Policies. Before the patches the Social Policies were a huge problem in achieveing new policies, much less cultural victory. The patches hve edited the policies t an extent now that social polies are far easier to gain more culture, and thus more policies to improve your civilization and its status.

Hot Seat multiplayer has been recently added to the game. This gameplay is pretty clunky due to the technical aspects of the game, but the diplomacy between human and computer players is on form. I'm still playing a game at this point.

Other than those two things the rest of the updates are primerally technical and mechanical fixes, updated outputs and two new city improvments; the Aqueduct and Stone Mason.

Depending on way you found faults in the game, hopefully this reply will help.

 

[Camikaze]

I think Civ5 is certainly appreciable by Civ4 addicts. I didn't get the game on release, so I'm not sure what it was like then, but when I did get it, I didn't have any major issues with it. And there have been improvements since then. Civ4 is a hard yardstick to measure anything by, and making a comparative assessment may not be doing Civ5 much justice. I think it's a good game of its own accord, but being addicted to Civ4 won't necessarily mean you like Civ5.

 

[trickofthehand]

Just watched a brand new Chinese frigate allow itself to be bombarded to death by a city 4 hexes from friendly territory. Probably one of the reasons I don't play Civ 5 much.

 

[chrissifniotis]

I think Civ5 is certainly appreciable by Civ4 addicts. I didn't get the game on release, so I'm not sure what it was like then, but when I did get it, I didn't have any major issues with it. And there have been improvements since then. Civ4 is a hard yardstick to measure anything by, and making a comparative assessment may not be doing Civ5 much justice. I think it's a good game of its own accord, but being addicted to Civ4 won't necessarily mean you like Civ5.

I agree, purely on the basis that Civilization IV is the height of the potential of a Civilization game. I've always believed and maintain now that Civ5 is suffering from the 'better than the last' effect, because of how fantastic Civ4 has become. Civ5 is a great game and it won't be realised until the game fixes its problems and ages.

 

[Yashed To]

I stopped playing months ago and returned to Civ 4 (Vanilla!), which surpasses Civ 5 by a wide margin. Heck, even a round of Civ 1 on DOSBox once in a while is more enjoying than that poor excuse Firaxis published as a Civ game ...

I'm with Civ since 1991, but beginning with CivCol I stopped hoping for any real improvement in this series and stick to the older versions. At least they were fun.
Civilization was never meant for casual gamers, so Civ 5 simply had to fail.

 

[valrond]

If you just accept the fact that there is no diplomacy to talk about, you will learn to appreciate the game for what it is. The actual combat (on land ofc. naval is a no show) is more interesting than in civ 4 i must say. All in all CiV is nowhere near as addictive as 4. You get tired of it very fast. Then you go away from it, hoping vainly that next patch will add that extra something that you miss, try it again a few times....well and this will probably go on for most of us that dont want to stop dreaming of a good civgame.

Thanks for this answer. I also bought the game with a pre-order and left it after a couple of tries. It's still the same crap it seems, better balanced, but still boring.

 

[mtrein]

I bought the game as it came out, played a bit, stopped for 6 months, came back for 2 weeks, stopped for another 5 months and tried it again a for a few days. It hasn't changed much at all, and now I know it never will.

And this is funny.

These are just my opinions. Some of your concerns have been addressed in patches I think.

* I miss the old civ 4 specialist economy.
You can run much more powerful SEs in this one if you choose the right policies and wonders. Citizen management in general is better and more complex imo.

No it isn't

* Civics used to be fun "what civic serves my civilization best right now" options to play around with while it also had impact on diplomacy. Choosing civics that can't be changed fells boring and even unrealistic.
Policies are excellent after patches.

How so? And even if you do manage to explain what "excellent" means for you, your answer makes no sense with the quote above it. You still can't change policies.

* The game felt a bit dumbed down to attract more ppl to play it (alot of ppl didn't like civ 4 because it was "too complicated").
That's a matter of opinion. I didn't like Civ4 because of all the cartoony fluff.

You did not like CIV4 because of... the... "Cartoony fluff"? Ok, I'm starting to understand why you prefer CiV then

* Multi player didn't work at all, it took forever for next turn to load and was very laggy.
Never played it but seems so.

I tried to play it twice. Never again, no matter what patches say

* The AI was very poor, almost ********.
Tactical AI is still poor. I think the diplomacy is good but more humanlike than in Civ4. It tries to win. I like it to be honest, and I think I understand it.

You're right, on the other Civs the AI tries to lose.

Oh wait, you say you *THINK* you understand it? And you think it is more... human-like? Wait, do you live near a mental hospital?

* Unhappiness was very hard to deal with early game unless you had the right resources, witch made the starting location very important.
It can be a bit slow early on but there are various strategies around this. I often have to use the avoid growth button in smaller cities. Global happiness means you really have to calculate where you want growth to occur. Macromanagement is more complex and satisfying than in Civ4, where you could basically aim to max each individual city.

It REALLY DRAGS early on, and the more you advance, the more it drags. That alone makes you want to stick to small empires so it doesn't drag so much, and then it gets more boring, you end up going forward in turns just for the sake of it until you're fed up and just let it go.

* Maintenance was a huge issue since roads, building and units was expensive. I got the impression that I really couldn't work out a wide spectrum of tactics. Whatever I tried in different games it all ended up pretty much the same, but with a little tweak. In civ 4 you could go do a wide spectrum of tactics specialist cities, wonder rushing to get huge benefits, warmongering, rushing to get a lot of cities before your enemies, cottage spamming to tech like hell or eve go with a spy specialisation.
I think the patches allowed more strategies to be viable whilst removing some of the overpowered ones. Civ4 had plenty of exploits aswell.

The patches certainly have tried to change things, but it is difficult when there is not really much patches can change. The best thing to do is save the effort and just spend it on Civ6 instead.

Have at me, fanboys

 

[Brichals]

Spoiler :

I bought the game as it came out, played a bit, stopped for 6 months, came back for 2 weeks, stopped for another 5 months and tried it again a for a few days. It hasn't changed much at all, and now I know it never will.

And this is funny.


No it isn't


How so? And even if you do manage to explain what "excellent" means for you, your answer makes no sense with the quote above it. You still can't change policies.


You did not like CIV4 because of... the... "Cartoony fluff"? Ok, I'm starting to understand why you prefer CiV then


I tried to play it twice. Never again, no matter what patches say


You're right, on the other Civs the AI tries to lose.

Oh wait, you say you *THINK* you understand it? And you think it is more... human-like? Wait, do you live near a mental hospital?


It REALLY DRAGS early on, and the more you advance, the more it drags. That alone makes you want to stick to small empires so it doesn't drag so much, and then it gets more boring, you end up going forward in turns just for the sake of it until you're fed up and just let it go.



The patches certainly have tried to change things, but it is difficult when there is not really much patches can change. The best thing to do is save the effort and just spend it on Civ6 instead.

Have at me, fanboys

Well the mental hospital bit did make me chuckle slightly. I did try to give my opinion although I wrote a bit of bull, your reply is mostly hyperbole considering you don't play the game. It's not a matter of being a fanboy it's a matter of not being negative. I can't understand why Civ5 still gets so much negative press here, it seems a whole culture has developed around it.

 

[Thormodr]

I find it laughable that anyone could complain about cIV being too cartoony.

Civilization 5 tells you about who has the pointiest sticks and who likes shiny things the most. What a joke. (of a joke) Lol.

As far as not understanding why Civilization 5 still gets "bad press" around here, if it wasn't stunningly obvious enough, it flat out isn't very good. Even after 10 months of trying to salvage the mess by nerfing this and changing that. Firaxis/2K Games lowered the bar and quite a few people aren't content with that .

Like a house built with rotten cement, it's best just to tear it all down and start again.

 

[Brichals]

I find it laughable that anyone could complain about cIV being too cartoony.

Civilization 5 tells you about who has the pointiest sticks and who likes shiny things the most. What a joke. (of a joke) Lol.

As far as not understanding why Civilization 5 still gets "bad press" around here, if it wasn't stunningly obvious enough, it flat out isn't very good. Even after 10 months of trying to salvage the mess by nerfing this and changing that. Firaxis/2K Games lowered the bar and quite a few people aren't content with that .

Like a house built with rotten cement, it's best just to tear it all down and start again.

Yes I was overdoing it a bit there but I was responding to this.

* The game felt a bit dumbed down to attract more ppl to play it (alot of ppl didn't like civ 4 because it was "too complicated").

This reasoning is a pet hate of mine. Was Civ1 dumbed down with its limited unit and terrain types? It had sliders and so on but I think it was not more complex than Civ5. You could argue more atmospheric or balanced and so on but that's subjective. Of course I don't really hate that opinion, but I cannot understand it at all.

 

[mtrein]

Yes I was overdoing it a bit there but I was responding to this.



This reasoning is a pet hate of mine. Was Civ1 dumbed down with its limited unit and terrain types? It had sliders and so on but I think it was not more complex than Civ5. You could argue more atmospheric or balanced and so on but that's subjective. Of course I don't really hate that opinion, but I cannot understand it at all.

Brichals, no offense intended in my earlier post, but you must understand that the game's options have gone down considerably from the last installment to this one. It is there for anyone to see. I hate to have such a strong negative opinion about a Civilization game - I absolutely love the series and have been playing from the first -, but the fifth installment is absolutely terrible. Even though it brings about some highly favourable ideas, they have been very badly implemented.

Indeed, there is not much improvement to be made in a house built on sand.

 

[chazzycat]

I find it laughable that anyone could complain about cIV being too cartoony.

Civilization 5 tells you about who has the pointiest sticks and who likes shiny things the most. What a joke. (of a joke) Lol.

As far as not understanding why Civilization 5 still gets "bad press" around here, if it wasn't stunningly obvious enough, it flat out isn't very good. Even after 10 months of trying to salvage the mess by nerfing this and changing that. Firaxis/2K Games lowered the bar and quite a few people aren't content with that .

Like a house built with rotten cement, it's best just to tear it all down and start again.

Someone seems to believe their opinion is fact. "It flat out isn't very good" and "They lowered the bar" are definitive statements that cannot be backed up. There are plenty of people on the other side, myself included, who are diehard addicts and have played civ for over a decade...and love this version along with the others.

My biggest thing is 1UPT. Even if the AI needs a little work, I really enjoy the tactical nature of warfare. It's just a lot more fun and interesting than the stack of death strategy from civ 4. I don't want to go back to that, ever.

Some people just want to watch civ5 burn...

 

[Brichals]

Brichals, no offense intended in my earlier post, but you must understand that the game's options have gone down considerably from the last installment to this one. It is there for anyone to see. I hate to have such a strong negative opinion about a Civilization game - I absolutely love the series and have been playing from the first -, but the fifth installment is absolutely terrible. Even though it brings about some highly favourable ideas, they have been very badly implemented.

Indeed, there is not much improvement to be made in a house built on sand.

Yes no offence taken. I do wonder why I'm getting stuck into this debate though, it just goes round and round. I seem to be developing a serious procrastination problem is probably why.

 

[Thormodr]

Yes I was overdoing it a bit there but I was responding to this.



This reasoning is a pet hate of mine. Was Civ1 dumbed down with its limited unit and terrain types? It had sliders and so on but I think it was not more complex than Civ5. You could argue more atmospheric or balanced and so on but that's subjective. Of course I don't really hate that opinion, but I cannot understand it at all.

Games in general are being dumbed down. It's not just Civilization 5. It's par for the course in the industry. Look at games like Final Fantasy XIII, Dungeon Siege III, Empire Earth III, Dragon Age II, etc. Next will be Skyrim.

Basically, any multi platform game tends to compromise itself so that the developer can churn it out as quickly as possible. Civilization 5 isn't multiplatform you say? I think it was developed that way. Civ Rev II seems to have gotten cancelled. It's possible that that was to be Civilization 5 for consoles but I still contend that they have a Civilization 5 for consoles in the works.

Anyway, Civ I was the original game. It wasn't dumbed down from anything. The series generally built on that foundation, making the game better and better. At least until the fifth iteration that is.

Anyway, these quotes seem to be spot on. It's not just computer games. It's movies and the entertainment industry in general.

1. Dumbing Down

1: The process by which products are stripped of depth and complexity in order to simplify them for the masses.

2: The removal of complexity for the purpose of mass appeal.

3: The homogenization of entertainment and media.
"Plots, Scripts, and Stories are all too complicated for the general masses. By dumbing down movies we can broaden their mass appeal."

"Thanks to the Dumbing Down of Spore many found the game to be uninteresting and unenjoyable once the initial gimmick wore off."

"The Discovery Network achieved higher ratings by Dumbing Down it's programming."

5. dumbing down

The act of taking a product and watering down elements of it to make it appeal to a broader mass market. This often damages or destroys the very elements that gave the product any appeal in the first place.
Today, many video games are dumbed-down in an attempt to reach mass market audiences for higher profits, instead of loyal hardcore niche audiences.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=dumbing-down

 

[spider1]

Someone seems to believe their opinion is fact. "It flat out isn't very good" and "They lowered the bar" are definitive statements that cannot be backed up. There are plenty of people on the other side, myself included, who are diehard addicts and have played civ for over a decade...and love this version along with the others.

My biggest thing is 1UPT. Even if the AI needs a little work, I really enjoy the tactical nature of warfare. It's just a lot more fun and interesting than the stack of death strategy from civ 4. I don't want to go back to that, ever.

Some people just want to watch civ5 burn...

On the bolded part of your post, yeah, it would seem those who post on the internet are like those who stay at a Holiday Inn, they are all experts.

Thormodr doesn't care for Civ V, and I love Civ V. Both of us will probably keep posting our opinions anyway despite those who disagree with us, and we'd both probably at least agree on the fact that if you don't like our posts, don't read them. But to your point, chazzycat, it does indeed get wearysome after a while when folks think their opinion of a game is fact and all those who disagree with them are wrong. It just doesn't work that way with anything in the entertainment field from computer games to movies and TV shows; everybody has their own likes and dislikes.

 

[Thormodr]

Someone seems to believe their opinion is fact. "It flat out isn't very good" and "They lowered the bar" are definitive statements that cannot be backed up. There are plenty of people on the other side, myself included, who are diehard addicts and have played civ for over a decade...and love this version along with the others.

My biggest thing is 1UPT. Even if the AI needs a little work, I really enjoy the tactical nature of warfare. It's just a lot more fun and interesting than the stack of death strategy from civ 4. I don't want to go back to that, ever.

Some people just want to watch civ5 burn...

Not at all. You see, the opposite of love is not hate. It's indifference.

If I truly wanted Civilization 5 to fail and crash and burn, I wouldn't be on here at all.

When the source code is finally released (probably in 6 months to a year), dedicated modders will fix this debacle. Civilization 5 will be saved and redeemed somewhat in the end.

Rolling over and accepting this half baked game will only encourage 2K Games to pull the same stunt they did again if they ever get around to Civ VI. Force Firaxis to release it far too early and starve Firaxis of resources in order to placate their shareholders.

 

[Brichals]

Well what I think is, the 'one more turn' feeling doesn't come from the open ended aspect of the game which Civ4 did very well. It comes from the feeling where you are always halfway to your next miniproject. It's always "I will play until I get that wonder", then, "oh but now I can change government in 5 turns" etc.

That's the core Civ strength I think. Civ4 had it aswell as the open ended aspect so it is so appealing. But I think that removing some extra things does not remove this, it also doesn't necessarily make the game less complex. I don't think it's dumbing down like you referenced. From what I can gather Civ2 was the most addictive game and that was stripped down compared to Civ4.

I also didn't like Civ5 until recently but lately I can easily lose a Sunday on it. That disconnection from the outside world is what a lot of people look for in Civ and you can get that with Civ5 now (believe it or not ) .

 

[chazzycat]

Not at all. You see, the opposite of love is not hate. It's indifference.

If I truly wanted Civilization 5 to fail and crash and burn, I wouldn't be on here at all.

When the source code is finally released (probably in 6 months to a year), dedicated modders will fix this debacle. Civilization 5 will be saved and redeemed somewhat in the end.

Rolling over and accepting this half baked game will only encourage 2K Games to pull the same stunt they did again if they ever get around to Civ VI. Force Firaxis to release it far too early and starve Firaxis of resources in order to placate their shareholders.

I get what you mean, I'm sure you are doing what you think is right in fighting for something you care a great deal about. I just want to point out that not everyone agrees with you. Your opinion that the game is a "debacle" and needs to be rescued by modders is not a fact, and to state it that way comes across as a bit arrogant IMO.