Civilization 5, is it worth playing?

mchavarh

Chieftain
Joined
Oct 3, 2010
Messages
2
Hello everyone.
I have been a big civ fan and for this reason i bough civ 5 last year.
Having been greatly dissapointed in the game itself, due to bugs and other features, i wanted to ask has the game changed significantly since then for this last year?

would you reccoment restarting it?


Sorry if the thread appears too self centered.
 

anandus

Errorist
Joined
Oct 27, 2005
Messages
3,859
Location
Amsterdam, Netherlands
Well the only honest answer, I suppose, is: Try it out :)
A lot of bugs have been fixed and there has been some gameplay finetuning, balancing fixes, etc.

But basically the core game is still the same. If you didn't like the basic game design then you still won't like it.
If it was mostly bugs and balance issues that was the problem, then you'll be glad to know a lot have been fixed.

but like I said before, the only real way to find out is to try it out :)
 

mchavarh

Chieftain
Joined
Oct 3, 2010
Messages
2
Well the only honest answer, I suppose, is: Try it out :)
A lot of bugs have been fixed and there has been some gameplay finetuning, balancing fixes, etc.

But basically the core game is still the same. If you didn't like the basic game design then you still won't like it.
If it was mostly bugs and balance issues that was the problem, then you'll be glad to know a lot have been fixed.

but like I said before, the only real way to find out is to try it out :)


Thanks for quick reply.
One of the things that i didnt like is 1 unit per hex, ( i imagine they didnt change it )
What about AI decision making. Is it still bad?
 

Antonin Dvorak

Chieftain
Joined
May 18, 2011
Messages
8
I personally think that the difficulty levels do not match up from Civ V to Civ IV. I found that on Prince difficulty (same as noble in Civ IV) the AIs are quite bad with their strategies. It is only when they start to get bonuses (King and above) that they actually stay with you in tech or at least close and their military power is somewhat impressive.

As for the 1 unit per hex I like the strategy requirement behind the concept. If only the AI were better with they system I would love the 1 unit per hex concept. :cool:
 

GoodSarmatian

Jokerfied Western Male
Joined
Apr 25, 2006
Messages
9,408
It's OK for a couple of weeks until you get fed up with all the backstabbing.
 

Lord Chambers

Emperor
Joined
Nov 23, 2001
Messages
1,004
Not worth buying. Worth playing is another matter, if you're like me and preordered.

I'm not a single issue gamer, so you won't see me thoughtlessly ditching about one feature or another. It seems like some disgruntled posters make it their priority to demonstrate they don't understand certain gameplay elements (like tile acquisition or diplomacy) and haven't attempted to understand any aspect of game design (should units do at least one damage?).

The whole picture of Civ5 is pretty dim. It's an amusing diversion when I want to divert myself, but it's not a game I look forward to playing when I'm not playing it. Nary a one-more-turn moment past the first 10 hours. While Civ4's game mechanics interacted in a way to allow a knowledgeable player to shift back and forth between different strategies, Civ5 feels less like driving and more like paddling an intertube. You're floating down the path the river takes you, and it's predictable. It might be pleasant like laying in the sun, but you're not using all your senses to race past opponents and avoid obstacles. Personally I would rather my strategy games play like driving a race car, but I appreciate floating rivers sometimes too.

If you agree with my assessment, you are invited to try the Deity Survival Challenge I created in order to force the challenges that require a player to have more than a superficial or role-playing understanding of game systems. It still suffers from the tedium brought by 1upt, but it's more fun than a typical random roll if you've done that a handful of times.
 

qemist

Prince
Joined
Jul 16, 2011
Messages
562
Great game. Well worth buying.
 

whirl

Chieftain
Joined
Nov 8, 2010
Messages
9
Decent game. Not worth buying, but if you have it already I'd give it another go. It's entertaining as long as you don't expect it to be cIV.
 

Rince

King
Joined
Sep 11, 2002
Messages
673
Location
In your city, poisoning your water!
Good game. Definitely worth playing and also buying, especially at the current price. Not yet on the level of Civ4 + BTS in terms of complexity but it's a solid foundation.

But taste is very personal, so just start it up again and play.
 

cman2010

King
Joined
Oct 7, 2010
Messages
740
It's OK for a couple of weeks until you get fed up with all the backstabbing.

this as well as the fact that it has been striped down quite a bit.
 

Bamboocha

Warlord
Joined
Aug 21, 2011
Messages
245
Location
Netherlands
Civ V is the first Civ I've ever played, but here are a few things that piss me off about it:
1. The online play isn't all that impressive, the game is just too long to properly play online, unless you can really clear out an entire day for it.
2. You're buying an incomplete game. You get a generous ammount of civs, but only one campaign: one campaign. If you want to buy the others then oops, I guess you have to buy the DLCs. I can live with the Monghols, because they were a free DLC and I understand that the game has to be updated once in a while to work out the kinks, but having to pay for a game you already own? What the hell man?! Speaking of DLCs...
3. The Civs that you have to buy in DLCs are, from what I've heard, way stronger than the standard ones. Korea, Babylon and Polynesia are just so powerful if what I've heard is correct.
4. The diplomacy is horrid. Either I'm doing something very wrong, or the AI sucks so bad that even my allies want to kick my ass no matter what. The game forces you into an agressive playstyle from the very start. I can't be the only one who thinks like this, how many times did you want to stay back and get yourself a nice scientific or cultural victory, only to be forced to halt your progress so you can churn out a huge army to teach that backstabbing Catherine a lesson she won't soon forget?
5. Admittedly this is a pet peeve, but the UN shouldn't trigger an automatic "win the game" voting. A lot of people complain that nukes are overpowered, so why not make the UN a wonder that actually allows you to propose and/or vote on certain international laws, like the banning of nuclear weapons. Like, my suggestion would be something like this: if your resolution gets passed, no other player is allowed to deploy or produce any new nukes (though existing nukes do not need to be dismantled per se). You are free to ignore the resolution, but expect a huge diplomacy hit when you do this (it'd be like China nuking Taiwan into submission, I don't think the international community would ignore such a thing after all the no-nuke treaties). Of course there could be a few other resolutions like... I don't know, but it shouldn't be a trigger for victory! France, the UK, America, Russia and China are currently the permanent members of the U.N. security council, but that doesn't mean all the conflicts in the world are resolved, nor that those five nations rule the world. I'd actually say it's quite the opposite in real life, France and the UK are but shadows of their former glory, and the US is going down that same lane pretty fast.
6. Somehow it feels .... lacking. I don't know what it is.

So in the end it's a fun game, but it could have been better. I expected so much from this franchise, because I've heard it's one of the greatest strategy series ever, but I found myself disappointed. If somebody here wants to correct me, I'd be more than glad to hear what they have to say.
 

ShahJahanII

Homesick Alien
Joined
Jul 19, 2011
Messages
1,895
Location
Austin, Texas
Civ V is the first Civ I've ever played, but here are a few things that piss me off about it:
1. The online play isn't all that impressive, the game is just too long to properly play online, unless you can really clear out an entire day for it.
2. You're buying an incomplete game. You get a generous ammount of civs, but only one campaign: one campaign. If you want to buy the others then oops, I guess you have to buy the DLCs. I can live with the Monghols, because they were a free DLC and I understand that the game has to be updated once in a while to work out the kinks, but having to pay for a game you already own? What the hell man?! Speaking of DLCs...
3. The Civs that you have to buy in DLCs are, from what I've heard, way stronger than the standard ones. Korea, Babylon and Polynesia are just so powerful if what I've heard is correct.
4. The diplomacy is horrid. Either I'm doing something very wrong, or the AI sucks so bad that even my allies want to kick my ass no matter what. The game forces you into an agressive playstyle from the very start. I can't be the only one who thinks like this, how many times did you want to stay back and get yourself a nice scientific or cultural victory, only to be forced to halt your progress so you can churn out a huge army to teach that backstabbing Catherine a lesson she won't soon forget?
5. Admittedly this is a pet peeve, but the UN shouldn't trigger an automatic "win the game" voting. A lot of people complain that nukes are overpowered, so why not make the UN a wonder that actually allows you to propose and/or vote on certain international laws, like the banning of nuclear weapons. Like, my suggestion would be something like this: if your resolution gets passed, no other player is allowed to deploy or produce any new nukes (though existing nukes do not need to be dismantled per se). You are free to ignore the resolution, but expect a huge diplomacy hit when you do this (it'd be like China nuking Taiwan into submission, I don't think the international community would ignore such a thing after all the no-nuke treaties). Of course there could be a few other resolutions like... I don't know, but it shouldn't be a trigger for victory! France, the UK, America, Russia and China are currently the permanent members of the U.N. security council, but that doesn't mean all the conflicts in the world are resolved, nor that those five nations rule the world. I'd actually say it's quite the opposite in real life, France and the UK are but shadows of their former glory, and the US is going down that same lane pretty fast.
6. Somehow it feels .... lacking. I don't know what it is.

So in the end it's a fun game, but it could have been better. I expected so much from this franchise, because I've heard it's one of the greatest strategy series ever, but I found myself disappointed. If somebody here wants to correct me, I'd be more than glad to hear what they have to say.

A good player with a decent amount of $$$ would always buy the DLC.
And while they seem somewhat stronger, Spain is one of the worst, and it is all just part of the experience.
Buy the DLC and you will get 6 campaigns.
Other than that I agree with the quoted post.
 

Aristos

Lightseeker
Joined
Dec 11, 2001
Messages
3,912
Location
Deep inside...
Civ V is the first Civ I've ever played, but here are a few things that piss me off about it:
1. The online play isn't all that impressive, the game is just too long to properly play online, unless you can really clear out an entire day for it.
2. You're buying an incomplete game. You get a generous ammount of civs, but only one campaign: one campaign. If you want to buy the others then oops, I guess you have to buy the DLCs. I can live with the Monghols, because they were a free DLC and I understand that the game has to be updated once in a while to work out the kinks, but having to pay for a game you already own? What the hell man?! Speaking of DLCs...
3. The Civs that you have to buy in DLCs are, from what I've heard, way stronger than the standard ones. Korea, Babylon and Polynesia are just so powerful if what I've heard is correct.
4. The diplomacy is horrid. Either I'm doing something very wrong, or the AI sucks so bad that even my allies want to kick my ass no matter what. The game forces you into an agressive playstyle from the very start. I can't be the only one who thinks like this, how many times did you want to stay back and get yourself a nice scientific or cultural victory, only to be forced to halt your progress so you can churn out a huge army to teach that backstabbing Catherine a lesson she won't soon forget?
5. Admittedly this is a pet peeve, but the UN shouldn't trigger an automatic "win the game" voting. A lot of people complain that nukes are overpowered, so why not make the UN a wonder that actually allows you to propose and/or vote on certain international laws, like the banning of nuclear weapons. Like, my suggestion would be something like this: if your resolution gets passed, no other player is allowed to deploy or produce any new nukes (though existing nukes do not need to be dismantled per se). You are free to ignore the resolution, but expect a huge diplomacy hit when you do this (it'd be like China nuking Taiwan into submission, I don't think the international community would ignore such a thing after all the no-nuke treaties). Of course there could be a few other resolutions like... I don't know, but it shouldn't be a trigger for victory! France, the UK, America, Russia and China are currently the permanent members of the U.N. security council, but that doesn't mean all the conflicts in the world are resolved, nor that those five nations rule the world. I'd actually say it's quite the opposite in real life, France and the UK are but shadows of their former glory, and the US is going down that same lane pretty fast.
6. Somehow it feels .... lacking. I don't know what it is.

So in the end it's a fun game, but it could have been better. I expected so much from this franchise, because I've heard it's one of the greatest strategy series ever, but I found myself disappointed. If somebody here wants to correct me, I'd be more than glad to hear what they have to say.

My answer to you is easy and powerful: you need to go "back" to the last true version of Civilization. Everything you mention is answered by "Number Four". You won't be dissapointed.
 

meatball20

rockhound
Joined
Aug 15, 2011
Messages
94
Location
canada
Don`t forget about civ 3 the complete edition and bts then you`ll forget you ever started up civ 5.
 

jtb1127

Deity
Joined
Jan 9, 2011
Messages
2,498
Location
Arlington, Virginia
I think it is worth playing, but you will probably get bored after a while and go back to civ iv. Then you may come back for a while longer.
 

oscogmo

Chieftain
Joined
May 24, 2005
Messages
28
i have played all versions of Civ and Civ V is by far the best...
the Hotseat play is the absolute best way to play the game, have played many hours and i think its brilliant
 
Joined
May 17, 2011
Messages
2,705
Civ V is the first Civ I've ever played, but here are a few things that piss me off about it:
1. The online play isn't all that impressive, the game is just too long to properly play online, unless you can really clear out an entire day for it.
2. You're buying an incomplete game. You get a generous ammount of civs, but only one campaign: one campaign. If you want to buy the others then oops, I guess you have to buy the DLCs. I can live with the Monghols, because they were a free DLC and I understand that the game has to be updated once in a while to work out the kinks, but having to pay for a game you already own? What the hell man?! Speaking of DLCs...
3. The Civs that you have to buy in DLCs are, from what I've heard, way stronger than the standard ones. Korea, Babylon and Polynesia are just so powerful if what I've heard is correct.
4. The diplomacy is horrid. Either I'm doing something very wrong, or the AI sucks so bad that even my allies want to kick my ass no matter what. The game forces you into an agressive playstyle from the very start. I can't be the only one who thinks like this, how many times did you want to stay back and get yourself a nice scientific or cultural victory, only to be forced to halt your progress so you can churn out a huge army to teach that backstabbing Catherine a lesson she won't soon forget?
5. Admittedly this is a pet peeve, but the UN shouldn't trigger an automatic "win the game" voting. A lot of people complain that nukes are overpowered, so why not make the UN a wonder that actually allows you to propose and/or vote on certain international laws, like the banning of nuclear weapons. Like, my suggestion would be something like this: if your resolution gets passed, no other player is allowed to deploy or produce any new nukes (though existing nukes do not need to be dismantled per se). You are free to ignore the resolution, but expect a huge diplomacy hit when you do this (it'd be like China nuking Taiwan into submission, I don't think the international community would ignore such a thing after all the no-nuke treaties). Of course there could be a few other resolutions like... I don't know, but it shouldn't be a trigger for victory! France, the UK, America, Russia and China are currently the permanent members of the U.N. security council, but that doesn't mean all the conflicts in the world are resolved, nor that those five nations rule the world. I'd actually say it's quite the opposite in real life, France and the UK are but shadows of their former glory, and the US is going down that same lane pretty fast.
6. Somehow it feels .... lacking. I don't know what it is.

So in the end it's a fun game, but it could have been better. I expected so much from this franchise, because I've heard it's one of the greatest strategy series ever, but I found myself disappointed. If somebody here wants to correct me, I'd be more than glad to hear what they have to say.


I couldn't say it better then you....

I played civ 4 as my first civilization game and I found it great when I played civ 5 I feel something was missing it was not complete I basicly bought a game that

1 Wasn't finished And get fixed by patches
2 It let you pay to add new stuf DLC's Instead of fixing they major problems...
 
Top Bottom