Civ V on its own merits

[padlock]

I've played a couple hours of civ 5 each night the week it came out. I played civ 4 EVERY WAKING MOMENT the week it came out.


The weird thing is, for those of us not content and finding obvious flaws, it is so amazingly mysterious why people would value 5 over 4. Its like someone driving up in a tricycle and claiming it's better than their car. Y'know, it just needs a few patches, and a fourth wheel from an expansion.

I'm the opposite. I've been far more enthralled with Civ 5 then I was with 4 (which I still loved by the way).

Yes, the AI needs to be improved, and balancing tweaks need to be done, but the underlying design in Civ 5 is fantastic and I strongly feel that it's a beter game then 4, even now with all it's warts.

 

[franlato]

I just went and trawled through a few of the post-release pages of the Civ IV forums and my gosh, it was just like deja vu all over again. People whining about every last little thing, LOTS of complaints about graphics bugs and crashes, why this is the worst iteration ever, why civ is ruined forever, some trying to start a class action lawsuit (no, really).

Personally, I think it's a lot of fun and a solid platform for a really great game once the AI and balance get cleaned up a bit.

lol that's exactly what I was thinking, each civ that is made is the worst at the begining if you listen to some. I've seen this with each iteration, it's like politics, people tend to forget

the truth I think is that this game is a million line of code and nobody can deliver a perfect product in the time marketing give. It takes time to polish a game. Every Civ game have been like this.