Civilization 5, is it worth playing?

[jbevermore]

I'm kinda torn there. I like Civ 5 in that yes, social policies work because a Civ represents thousands of years of history to get where they are. But sometimes revolutions do happen, sudden and urgent.

I kinda wish we could have both, the social policies that grow over time and a government time that can be changed for a few turns of anarchy.

The AI is the AI. Terrible at first, tolerable now, and hopefully will be improved over time. For the people that hate it with a white hot passion, I have this to say. Go play ET for the Atari and tell me that Civ 5 is really that bad.

 

[faysalitani]

The AI is the AI. Terrible at first, tolerable now, and hopefully will be improved over time. For the people that hate it with a white hot passion, I have this to say. Go play ET for the Atari and tell me that Civ 5 is really that bad.

Haha. Yes, when you put it that way...

I wouldn't say I hate it to that degree, it's just disappointing. But come to think of it that's probably because so much else about the game is great ... and to some extent because we Civ fans have been spoiled and expect near-perfection in all the games. It is after all difficult for a computer to mimic human deception, manipulation, strategy, friendship, etc.!

 

[oscogmo]

I love CIV V
this game is brilliant, the best Civ game so far by a mile and i've played them all thousands of hours.
Hotseat is the most enjoyable way to play Civ V but overall this game kicks ass, there is no other game on this planet that comes even close.

 

[southpw11]

Although I can see the complaints about 'something being lost' in Civ5 vs Civ4, I still enjoy the game. I think single-unit-per-tile is great, hex maps were a great idea, ranged combat done very well. Management of a large empire is a LOT easier than it used to be. I used to quit games shortly after the industrial era even if I was going to win, simply because managing a large empire in Civ4 was such a chore. They did a decent job of fixing that.

I would agree that I dont' think diplomacy was done very well, but that has never been a big part of my gameplay anyway so I don't see a major difference in my games. I'm not sure if I like city states, but I tend not to like them because they are a huge advantage and seem to be 'required' part of the game to succeed at higher levels (I play on king difficulty). For example, I don't think it's possible to win cultural victories without them.

Anyway, overall I like the game and come back to it to play a game here and there. Die hards may not like the game but I think the casual gamer still would.

 

[SlithyTove]

Favorite Civ game to date for me. It's very different from previous Civ games which is why a lot of the die-hard Civ fans don't like it much.

There are still many handles and tweaks for strategy in empire building but it has removed a lot of the ultra tedious micro found in previous civ games.

I also LOVE the 1UPT though I wish the AI was a little smarter about it. The Stack of Doom and total lack of strategic play in previous Civ games always annoyed me.

Happiness took me a while to get used to, but now that I understand the balance of it I rather like it.

The xenophobic backstabbing diplomacy takes a lot of knocks and annoyed me at first as well. And there are still some annoying abberations, like being immediately denounced by an AI that I just liberated from the dead.

But there is one simple fact about the AI which, once understood, makes everything a lot more interesting: You have NO friends. Ever. 2000 years of best buddies means nothing. The AI is playing to win which means sooner or later it will cross you. You just have other civilizations which find it strategically practical to be friendly for the time being. On the higher difficulties, if you share a border expect blood no matter what.

 

[faysalitani]

Definitely agree about 1UPT, empire management, combat, and a host of other improvements that do enhance the gameplay. In fact its possible that these things are so great Civ IV wont be enjoyable anymore. I switched back to IV after frustrations with V's diplomacy and realized its not playable anymore after V I guess that means Firaxis has done something right.

I think I'm not so much bothered about the lack of 'friends' (there are no friends in world politics as others have said) as I am about there not being any way to 'read' opponents, gauge how you fare with them, etc. Backstabbing certainly happens all the time in real life ao I guess that's actually realistic, but diplomacy should be able to offer some idea of where one stands no? Perhaps some more positive modifiers, or add some component to the foreign advisor's advice that can warn you about certain things...? I dunno...

Anyway having gone on about that for so long I do admit it's still a great game, just disappointing in that respect. Perhaps you're right that diplomacy has never been a central part of the game. Still wish it were though...

And V runs so slow on my MacBook Pro that I've switched to playing on strategic view during peacetime But I'm still playing it. So I'll shut up now.

 

[Tatran]

Backstabbing certainly happens all the time in real life ao I guess that's actually realistic...

No wonder human kind is declining very fast.
And no, it's certainly not realistic.

 

[faysalitani]

No wonder human kind is declining very fast.
And no, it's certainly not realistic.

Backstabbing is not realistic in international relations? I'd argue that it's so realistic we don't even think about it as backstabbing. It's just politics.

I confess I'm from the Middle East so I may be more cynical than most, but I always thought that was a universal rule of international politics throughout the history of mankind, everywhere.

 

[sparkyal]

I have played all of the Civ games...from Civ I to Civ V. and to be honest, when i first played Civ V i was a bit disappointed. but then i got used to it, accepted the changes (although I completely agree with the UN thing, that is just plain awful....i am thinking about playing without that victory condition). Once i just went witht he changes, it was fine. I like the game for the most part. It is challenging and you have to think a bit to move things along.

So, I would say, yes, please the game again, it is fun

 

[headcase]

Backstabbing is not realistic in international relations? I'd argue that it's so realistic we don't even think about it as backstabbing. It's just politics.

I confess I'm from the Middle East so I may be more cynical than most, but I always thought that was a universal rule of international politics throughout the history of mankind, everywhere.

I would say it is. Recently, new technologies have allowed richer countries to trade with each other and mutually benefit so much that it outweighs the desire for war. Also, the richest countries have so much to mutually lose due to nuclear weapons and such. Even the leaders' well-being would be put in jeopardy; even evil, power-hungry leaders don't want that.

So backstabs are alterations to trade agreements instead of declarations of war, not because we're any better, but because we have more to lose and less to gain.

I don't mean to be cynical with that, like it's human nature to backstab. It's more that, as you say, it's simply expected in politics and no one wants to be the first to stop it.

But they still backstab too much in Civ 5