CIV 5, worth buying?
- Thread starter Ex.plode
- Start date
King Patrick
Warlord
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2011
- Messages
- 233
Civ5 has beautiful graphics, and the switch to hexes from squares is a big improvement. I think those are points even the worst critics concede. 
I never played Civ4 (old computer was too old), but from what I understand, Civ5 has much less micromanagement, and the one-unit-per-tile rule eliminates the old "stacks of doom" in warfare. You will see complaints about a "carpet of doom" instead, but I've never had it happen in any of my games so far.
I've had no serious problems with bugs, crashes, or performance, though I started playing in March after several initial patches. Subsequent patches have only made the game better, improving gameplay, balance, and the AI.
The AI is pretty good on strategy at this point AS LONG AS YOU ACCEPT the design premise that they also want to win the game and are not intended to be a strict historical simulation of their respective empires (though each civ does play with a different flavor). Nearly all the complaints you will see about the AI stem from a refusal to accept this premise. Tactically, the AI can use some more work, but it continues to improve - AIs are better at protecting siege units and organizing naval invasions now, although still not perfect (neither am I!).
The DLC civs are all interesting additions to the game and worth getting, in my opinion, if you can afford them. My favorites are the Inca and the Polynesians, both of whom give the game a different "feel" from other civs. The map packs don't seem really necessary to me, although the explorer pack has some interesting random map seeds.
Hope that helps!
I never played Civ4 (old computer was too old), but from what I understand, Civ5 has much less micromanagement, and the one-unit-per-tile rule eliminates the old "stacks of doom" in warfare. You will see complaints about a "carpet of doom" instead, but I've never had it happen in any of my games so far.
I've had no serious problems with bugs, crashes, or performance, though I started playing in March after several initial patches. Subsequent patches have only made the game better, improving gameplay, balance, and the AI.
The AI is pretty good on strategy at this point AS LONG AS YOU ACCEPT the design premise that they also want to win the game and are not intended to be a strict historical simulation of their respective empires (though each civ does play with a different flavor). Nearly all the complaints you will see about the AI stem from a refusal to accept this premise. Tactically, the AI can use some more work, but it continues to improve - AIs are better at protecting siege units and organizing naval invasions now, although still not perfect (neither am I!).
The DLC civs are all interesting additions to the game and worth getting, in my opinion, if you can afford them. My favorites are the Inca and the Polynesians, both of whom give the game a different "feel" from other civs. The map packs don't seem really necessary to me, although the explorer pack has some interesting random map seeds.
Hope that helps!
I first found Civilization on an old IBM computer in my school's lab. I loved it and got addicted. I bought Civ 2, 3 and 4 and loved them all. When I bought Civ 5 I sat down and played it, and of course... I loved it.
After a few days I began to realize the AI was stupid as a bag of rocks and many of the aspects of the game seemed unbalanced. Also, I couldn't look up stats. I like to compare myself to other Civs, and I couldn't. Since then, patches (and the infoaddict mod) have effectively solved these problems for me and as far as I'm concerned Civ V is one of the best strategy games I've ever played. Of course any game can be improved, but Civ V did a hell of a lot more right than it did wrong.
That's just imo.
After a few days I began to realize the AI was stupid as a bag of rocks and many of the aspects of the game seemed unbalanced. Also, I couldn't look up stats. I like to compare myself to other Civs, and I couldn't. Since then, patches (and the infoaddict mod) have effectively solved these problems for me and as far as I'm concerned Civ V is one of the best strategy games I've ever played. Of course any game can be improved, but Civ V did a hell of a lot more right than it did wrong.
That's just imo.
I finally broke down and bought Civ5. I've been playing it now for about a week (bought it on the GG 66% off sale), and I have to say... I've been playing the week out of an "obligated" feeling to give the game a fair shot. But it's just not entertaining. 1UPT seems like a great idea... only it causes logistical nightmares that have no place in a Grand Strategy game.
It feels like my worst fears break the game for me: 1UPT makes it feel like a tactical wargame... only very slow. If the game wanted to be a tactical game, build times should be ridiculously low and tech times much higher.
It feels like my worst fears break the game for me: 1UPT makes it feel like a tactical wargame... only very slow. If the game wanted to be a tactical game, build times should be ridiculously low and tech times much higher.
Good:
Hex system. 1UPT. Really make wars fun. Graphics are very pretty, game is overall a fun game (it's civ after all). Interesting strategic choices in game (vast improvements in this). Modability / freely available world builder and mod tools.
Neutral:
Despite what people say, the AI / diplomacy was always bad in civ games, but in civ 5 it's more noticable imo. There have been many improvements to the AI, especially in the latest patch, but of course it's not perfect and probably never will be. Part of this is that using stacks doesn't require a particularly smart AI, but using a 1UPT system requires the AI to have spacial intelligence.
Whether or not you like social policies / civics is more a personal preference thing.
Bad:
Still a lil' buggy on occasion, probably won't affect you.
It's very demanding on your computer.
If you think that civ really NEEDS espionage, religion or corporations then you will be dissappointed.
Multiplayer in particular is a little unpolished, though single player is pretty polished.
Don't believe all the naysayers, Civ V is a very good game and has improved greatly since launch, but whether it's your personal cup of tea is another matter.
Hex system. 1UPT. Really make wars fun. Graphics are very pretty, game is overall a fun game (it's civ after all). Interesting strategic choices in game (vast improvements in this). Modability / freely available world builder and mod tools.
Neutral:
Despite what people say, the AI / diplomacy was always bad in civ games, but in civ 5 it's more noticable imo. There have been many improvements to the AI, especially in the latest patch, but of course it's not perfect and probably never will be. Part of this is that using stacks doesn't require a particularly smart AI, but using a 1UPT system requires the AI to have spacial intelligence.
Whether or not you like social policies / civics is more a personal preference thing.
Bad:
Still a lil' buggy on occasion, probably won't affect you.
It's very demanding on your computer.
If you think that civ really NEEDS espionage, religion or corporations then you will be dissappointed.
Multiplayer in particular is a little unpolished, though single player is pretty polished.
Don't believe all the naysayers, Civ V is a very good game and has improved greatly since launch, but whether it's your personal cup of tea is another matter.
I love III and IV too, but V is great also.
I love the Empire unique abilities, units and buildings. Graphics are beautiful, makes me feel sorry to see a frigate blasting away a bunch of musketmen..
Diplomacy splits opinions, I like it, there's nice world wars and warmongerers get disrespect, and a peaceful game can keep out of harm (unless a neighbour to Genghis Khan!).
What I miss most is Espionage, hope it returns via expansion or patch.
Don't want to list all the good stuff, but I definately recommend it.
Get the DLC civs too, DLC map packs ain't that great in my opinion..
I love the Empire unique abilities, units and buildings. Graphics are beautiful, makes me feel sorry to see a frigate blasting away a bunch of musketmen..
Diplomacy splits opinions, I like it, there's nice world wars and warmongerers get disrespect, and a peaceful game can keep out of harm (unless a neighbour to Genghis Khan!).
What I miss most is Espionage, hope it returns via expansion or patch.
Don't want to list all the good stuff, but I definately recommend it.
Get the DLC civs too, DLC map packs ain't that great in my opinion..
anandus
Errorist
Tip: If you want to get it, wait until it's july 10th east coast time, because there's a big chance it will be up for sale on Steam.
Grievous
Chieftain
Civ 3 complete is the best edition of the series.
Civ 5 was still a good buy i reckon.
Civ 5 was still a good buy i reckon.
Slynky333
Warlord
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2010
- Messages
- 150
I would advise purchase. Though some problems and complaints exist, I compute "worth it" by comparing it with going to a movie:
If I spend $10 for a movie theatre and the movie is 2 hours long and I enjoyed it, then I got my money's worth.
If I spend, say, $60 for a new game and it provides me with the same hour-for-hour entertainment as a movie at a theatre TIMES 2, then I consider I got my money's worth.
So, as an example, $60 equals 6 movies at the above price and times 2 hours per ticket, that equals 12 hours of entertainment. TIMES 2 it equals 24 hours. So if I enjoyed the game for 24 hours (and then, for example, got tired of it), I got my money's worth. Anything else is "icing on top".
I've played (not counting letting the game sit while I watch a TV show or something) around 200-300 hours.
Of course, that's just my method of figuring entertainment value. Others may, obviously, differ.
If I spend $10 for a movie theatre and the movie is 2 hours long and I enjoyed it, then I got my money's worth.
If I spend, say, $60 for a new game and it provides me with the same hour-for-hour entertainment as a movie at a theatre TIMES 2, then I consider I got my money's worth.
So, as an example, $60 equals 6 movies at the above price and times 2 hours per ticket, that equals 12 hours of entertainment. TIMES 2 it equals 24 hours. So if I enjoyed the game for 24 hours (and then, for example, got tired of it), I got my money's worth. Anything else is "icing on top".
I've played (not counting letting the game sit while I watch a TV show or something) around 200-300 hours.
Of course, that's just my method of figuring entertainment value. Others may, obviously, differ.
Before the latest patch I would have said yes, but the latest patch messed things up again. If you will accept that all the AI civilizations are just psychotic over-aggressive brainless war mongers and that the happiness system severely limits growing or expanding your empire on every level above Warlord, then maybe.
What didn't you like about civ4?
Habsburg83
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2011
- Messages
- 12
Why don't you just play a Demo of civ v and see whether you enjoy the gameplay?
starrywisdom
Warlord
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2010
- Messages
- 205
My general thought process is;
If you played Civ4 from the 'get go' - you'll probably enjoy this more(seeing as Civ4 was a mess sans expansion).
If you played Civ 4 only after the expansions you'll probably like it less, since it's got a lot less 'polish' in both bugs and gameplay mechanics.
If you've never played a Civ game, Civ5 is probably the 'easiest' to get into as it's developed with the idea of brining in new people.
If you've got a barely-minimum or even barely recommended PC you'll probably not really enjoy the game; at least not mid->late game.
I couldn't imagine spending 60USD on a game...lol. I don't think I've paid 'full retail' for almost 10 years now. You should really look into pre-purchase and sale deals
That being said, I think 1UPT is what makes the game a lot better. Stacks o' Doom in Civ4 were some of the most boring and irritating gameplay 'mechanics' I've seen in a strategy game - ever.
If you played Civ4 from the 'get go' - you'll probably enjoy this more(seeing as Civ4 was a mess sans expansion).
If you played Civ 4 only after the expansions you'll probably like it less, since it's got a lot less 'polish' in both bugs and gameplay mechanics.
If you've never played a Civ game, Civ5 is probably the 'easiest' to get into as it's developed with the idea of brining in new people.
If you've got a barely-minimum or even barely recommended PC you'll probably not really enjoy the game; at least not mid->late game.
I couldn't imagine spending 60USD on a game...lol. I don't think I've paid 'full retail' for almost 10 years now. You should really look into pre-purchase and sale deals
That being said, I think 1UPT is what makes the game a lot better. Stacks o' Doom in Civ4 were some of the most boring and irritating gameplay 'mechanics' I've seen in a strategy game - ever.
Slynky333
Warlord
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2010
- Messages
- 150
My general thought process is;
If you played Civ4 from the 'get go' - you'll probably enjoy this more(seeing as Civ4 was a mess sans expansion).
If you played Civ 4 only after the expansions you'll probably like it less, since it's got a lot less 'polish' in both bugs and gameplay mechanics.
If you've never played a Civ game, Civ5 is probably the 'easiest' to get into as it's developed with the idea of brining in new people.
If you've got a barely-minimum or even barely recommended PC you'll probably not really enjoy the game; at least not mid->late game.
I couldn't imagine spending 60USD on a game...lol. I don't think I've paid 'full retail' for almost 10 years now. You should really look into pre-purchase and sale deals
That being said, I think 1UPT is what makes the game a lot better. Stacks o' Doom in Civ4 were some of the most boring and irritating gameplay 'mechanics' I've seen in a strategy game - ever.
I don't worry much about it. Unlike my son, I buy (if you averaged it out) about 1 game per every year.
I played Space Empires IV for about 4-5 years. I played Ridge Racer 7 for about a year and a half. Forza 3 for about 2 years. I have pre-ordered Forza 4 and I suspect it will be the only console game I'll buy for 2 more years. And I'll play Civ when I just feel like sitting at the PC (or am up before my wife gets up). So, I don't really spend much on games.
Thanks for the suggestion, though. I guess I'm used to pre-ordering costing about the same as release day prices. Usually, the price is the same--pre-ordering just gives some sort of in-game bonus (that I don't really care about much).
