Civilization V has been nominated for Best PC Game by the Spike VGA Awards!

[Dirk1302]

This surprises me. Maybe after considerable work is done CiV will be a good game. I doubt it will be as good as Civ4. Diplo can (and probably will be) fixed in the next patch, some issues as overpowered Horsemen and the most idiotic AI flaws will probably also be addressed in time. But there seems to be a certain shallowness in the design which isn't put into words so easily. Apart from looking out for maritime states, and building some defence against the Ais there's just not so much happening in the game. Build your buildings which look alike anyway watch for happiness and press end turn. Doing not much more than that i was 18 techs ahead at some time on immortal. I guess the game is way too easy but that's not the only thing, apart from going to war which i didn't even do in above mentioned game there doesn't seem to be much to do. I might have chosen different policies giving me less of what i had and more of something else but i don't think it makes much of a difference in the end.

Anyway i'm interested in the diplo improvs, i think one of the reasons i'm bored by it all is that there isn't any sensible dialog going on with the ais apart from some technical resource trading, feels like you're alone in this game as in Sim City, a game i could never get into as well.

 

[Maniacal]

ME2 is a bit too short (the 100 hours mark given by PrinceStamp is definitely FAR too generous and apply more to New Vegas, ME2 is more about 30 hours),

If you only play one character/playthrough and rush throguh the game then yeah it will only take you 25-30 hours, however my three playthrough (two characters) were about ~38 hours each.

Well lets think about this for a moment. If just about all PC games are released 1/2 finished these days (which they are) then you must compare these unfinished games with each other so in that case I can see CIV 5 as being one of the nominee's.
Remember your comparing 1/2 finished games with each other.

Games have been released buggy since like forever. Yes Civ5 has a lot of bugs so it mgiht not be as 'finished' as many games are on release, but its still not nearly as bad as some people seem to think, but I think they've made up their minds about it a long time ago.

Actually yes.. I prefer Civ4 with improved graphics or what some people call CIV IV.5.

See, I wouldn't, sure Civ4BTS was a decent game, but I got sick of it after 30 hours, my main gripes were the craptastic stacks of doom, the irritating religions (and lots of jehovah's witnesses like neighbours >_<), and I felt like it went through the ages too long and needed a slower time scale/progression and more techs. I often skipped a new unit type or had it rendered obsolete turns later

Doesn't make it a bad game but I just have no interest in playing it again, maybe if the total realism mod is any good.

Then u shoul follow these links....

AI is always a litle stupid but CIV 5 beats all the stupids AI i ever met!

Right, you haven't played very many games then have you? I've heard that the AI is pretty lousy in Civ5 but yeah, try the Total War series unpatched. Or Dynasty Warriors.

I am so tired of zealots who despite of all the BUGS / PROBLEMS the game have keep saying :

"wow, good job, please just launch an expantion... I will buy it...
the game will be fixed in the next patches ... "

good for you, I BUY ALL OF MY GAMES I AM STEAM USER, STARDOCK USER for a few years now, and gess what : never been so much upset after spending 60 € on game...

THIS GAME HAS MORE BUGS AND MORE PROBLEMS THAN ALL THE OTHER GAMES ALL TOGETHER!!!

And guess, yeay i am a programmer and a good one too, so i know the process of building software, i have been a programmer for the last 15 years, and yes i do enjoy programming.

I DONT WANT TO BUY AN APPLICATION AND THEN NEED TO MOD-IT TO HAVE A GAME.

OR MAYBE SHOULD I SEND MY PRICES TO THE GAME PUBLISHER???

Yep kind of hard to take you seriously. And obviously you didn't buy Elemental then. And I'm the Queen of England.

 

[Akka]

If you only play one character/playthrough and rush throguh the game then yeah it will only take you 25-30 hours, however my three playthrough (two characters) were about ~38 hours each.

I NEVER rush through game
And well, I of course count only the first playthrough. Playgame after that is about replayability, not "time to finish it". As you say, you're about 30-40 hours for each of your character, which fits the length I talked about.

and I felt like it went through the ages too long and needed a slower time scale/progression and more techs. I often skipped a new unit type or had it rendered obsolete turns later

Had the same problem when playing on "standard" speed, but "epic" is okay and "marathon" fix it completely.

 

[Maniacal]

I NEVER rush through game
And well, I of course count only the first playthrough. Playgame after that is about replayability, not "time to finish it". As you say, you're about 30-40 hours for each of your character, which fits the length I talked about.

Had the same problem when playing on "standard" speed, but "epic" is okay and "marathon" fix it completely.

ME2 gives you lots of nice bonuses (keep your weapons, level and lots of resources and credits) when you do a second playthrough with a character. Which si great because then you can do whatever you want for the first playthrough without worrying about the consequences in ME3 and then play it through again to get the choices you want to explore (I dislike not exploring parts of the story).

I tried Epic and didn't really feel a difference that I recall, got sick fo it before trying Marathon (plus the years passed by at the same stupid rate).

 

[Jester Fool]

For example, right now, in the current public patch, it is possible for the governor to show a food surplus and then swap tiles to starve you between turns

I typically expect the game engine to NOT try to defeat me when I play. That's the job of the AI. From a programming standpoint, I can understand AI deficiencies, but come on, UI glitches are unacceptable. MSDN gives *complete* instructions on how to program a Windows message loop.

 

[Maniacal]

I think that is an AI problem actually, since he swaps the tiles after you check.

 

[Arsenic Steel]

A new game+ and different character builds(all the same character) add to replayabilty not the base of how long it takes to beat the game, ie game length.

 

[jpinard]

Fallout New Vegas should win hands down. It's an amazing gaming experience and the amount of content in it is staggering.

 

[Akka]

Fallout New Vegas should win hands down. It's an amazing gaming experience and the amount of content in it is staggering.

Can't disagree with that, even though I'd find nothing to complain if ME2 wins either.

I'm 72h and counting in my last save (and this count only the time spent in this game, without all the reloading, alternative paths taken just to explore and the like), and though I'm closing on the end, I've yet a good deal of the game to explore.

I've not seen such a meaningfully huge game since a long time. It's Bethesda sized, but with the skill of Obsidian. A good slap in the face of the idiots trying to sell ultra-short game by claiming that they're shorter because of cost/quality/whatever pathetic excuse.

 

[Scout4536]

Civ V should win, the best game I bought all year. I see great potential for this game once the bugs get ironed out. Once those are taken care of this game will be enjoyed for years to come, just like Civ IV.

 

[AlpsStranger]

Civ V should win, the best game I bought all year. I see great potential for this game once the bugs get ironed out. Once those are taken care of this game will be enjoyed for years to come, just like Civ IV.

A game shouldn't get a GOTY award for something as slippery as potential.

 

[Adam7Eight]

The VGA's are lame.

Has anyone actually watched one on TV? I tried once and it was like an hour long rap concert.

 

[charon2112]

Allright, the fact is, Civ V has almost universal, great reviews among professionals. Now, I know, the haters love to say that these reviews are all "paid off", but c'mon...do you really think 2k/Firaxis paid off all these publications? riiight.

So what this tells me is that Civ V is a great game, that some people just don't like. The "fanboys" as some put it, aren't the exception, they are the norm. They agree with the general opinion of the game. If the game was universally poorly reviewed, and we still loved it, then you would be able to call us "fanboys", and "apologists". But that isn't the case. Civ V IS a fantastic game, that isn't in question. If it was any less, than the reviews would be more mixed.

But of course, these reviews are all paid off, there's a big conspiracy going on. Also, the US government was responsible for 9/11...give me a break.

Moderator Action: Stop the trolling.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[blind biker]

Allright, the fact is, Civ V has almost universal, great reviews among professionals. Now, I know, the haters love to say that these reviews are all "paid off", but c'mon...do you really think 2k/Firaxis paid off all these publications? riiight.

So what this tells me is that Civ V is a great game, that some people just don't like. The "fanboys" as some put it, aren't the exception, they are the norm. They agree with the general opinion of the game. If the game was universally poorly reviewed, and we still loved it, then you would be able to call us "fanboys", and "apologists". But that isn't the case. Civ V IS a fantastic game, that isn't in question. If it was any less, than the reviews would be more mixed.

But of course, these reviews are all paid off, there's a big conspiracy going on. Also, the US government was responsible for 9/11...give me a break.

Well, the game is, indeed generally poorly thought of and accordingly reviewed:

 

[AlpsStranger]

Allright, the fact is, Civ V has almost universal, great reviews among professionals. Now, I know, the haters love to say that these reviews are all "paid off", but c'mon...do you really think 2k/Firaxis paid off all these publications? riiight.

So what this tells me is that Civ V is a great game, that some people just don't like. The "fanboys" as some put it, aren't the exception, they are the norm. They agree with the general opinion of the game. If the game was universally poorly reviewed, and we still loved it, then you would be able to call us "fanboys", and "apologists". But that isn't the case. Civ V IS a fantastic game, that isn't in question. If it was any less, than the reviews would be more mixed.

But of course, these reviews are all paid off, there's a big conspiracy going on. Also, the US government was responsible for 9/11...give me a break.

I don't know. I agree that outside of our little bubble where people are far less critical the game is well received. I can even understand why, and unlike a lot of people here I don't even consider the casual Joe liking the game to be pathetic or ignorant. They are not as deeply immersed in it, so to them a casual afternoon playing Civ5 seems really fun. They don't Sulla's stuff and never stumble across ways of playing that totally invalidate most of the game mechanics. Civ5 is fun if you approach it this way, this is beyond dispute.

On the other hand, the idea of it getting a GOTY is kind of insulting. A game should have chops at a much deeper level to get something like that. StarCraft2 is applauded by RTS experts as well as the man on the street. I think that is the key difference.

So I'm not saying Civ5 should be booed off the planet, dropped in the $5 bin, and defecated on. On the other hand, it should *not* get GOTY from anyone in the same year that SC2 was released.

 

[charon2112]

Well, the game is, indeed generally poorly thought of and accordingly reviewed:

I said professional reviewers, the fools on amazon are worse than the CFC haters.

Moderator Action: Stop the trolling
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Rokklagið]

I said professional reviewers, the fools on amazon are worse than the CFC haters.

Professional reviewers do not mean that their reviews are the best. In this case, it's just the contrary.

The are prefessionals, they have to review a bunch of games every month. Preview them, make videos, walktroughts, etc. They have to release a Civ V review a few days after it's released. They are professionals, but they do not have the time to study the game.

Civilization is a long series, that in so many years it has achieved an important fan base. They have an important publisher. It is a symbol for TBS strategy gamers. It is the typical game that you do not want to review with a poor score. Imagine if someone scored Civ 4 with a 6/10. He would be accused of not understanding such a complex and deep strategy game icon.

People in this forum, who have over thousand messages, who have studied the games for hours, are much more trustful than those professional reviewers. I bet if you ask some of those reviewers about Maritime City States, they have no idea what you are talking about already.

 

[charon2112]

So every single one of the professional reviewers is either wrong, or paid off by the game developers? You can't seriously believe that. I certainly don't buy it.

Professional reviewers do not mean that their reviews are the best. In this case, it's just the contrary.

The are prefessionals, they have to review a bunch of games every month. Preview them, make videos, walktroughts, etc. They have to release a Civ V review a few days after it's released. They are professionals, but they do not have the time to study the game.

Civilization is a long series, that in so many years it has achieved an important fan base. They have an important publisher. It is a symbol for TBS strategy gamers. It is the typical game that you do not want to review with a poor score. Imagine if someone scored Civ 4 with a 6/10. He would be accused of not understanding such a complex and deep strategy game icon.

People in this forum, who have over thousand messages, who have studied the games for hours, are much more trustful than those professional reviewers. I bet if you ask some of those reviewers about Maritime City States, they have no idea what you are talking about already.

 

[da_Vinci]

I hope it wins.

Not so much because I think it deserves it, but because it will result in the whine thread to end all whine threads.

"We will wail no whine before its time" Paul Masson ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Masson

It won't be Starcraft of course. The idea that the most anticipated game of the decade would lose to CiV or any game is hillarious.

Then again, if they had released the game last year they probably would've stood a chance.

I was going to say the same might apply if they had relased the game next year ... but then stormerne said this:

I don't know what all the fuss is about. Civ5 really is the best PC game of the year. It's just the year is 2012.

Because unlike you, not everyone believes it's an "unfinished product". The truth hurts, doesn't it?

Given the high churn rate of the patch machine (how many days since release has there NOT been a patch on the horizon?), I'd say Firaxis and 2K believe it is unfinished.

In case you hadn't noticed, many around here wanted exactly that - Civ V to be nothing but a reskin. Its unfortunate, really.

The problem isn't the absence of reskin, the problem is the presence of evisceration.

The quote in charon2112's sig, defining perfection as nothing left to take away, might just describe the philosophy of the developers that has created the fan uproar!

dV

 

[lschnarch]

Allright, the fact is, Civ V has almost universal, great reviews among professionals. Now, I know, the haters love to say that these reviews are all "paid off", but c'mon...do you really think 2k/Firaxis paid off all these publications? riiight.

Indeed, that is exactly what I think.
Sure, there won't be any obscure transactions at any individual bank account.
But there are visits from the marketing crew to renogiate advertising. There are promises that good ol' friend Joe Reviewer will get "first hand information" in future.
There are special invitations to pre-release information shows and whatnotever.

Any review giving Civ5 at release state a rating above 7 is just ridiculous. And even for that 7 you have to have a reviewer who really doesn't understand the genre and hasn't any knowledge about the previous releases.

So what this tells me is that Civ V is a great game, that some people just don't like. The "fanboys" as some put it, aren't the exception, they are the norm.

It is a sad truth that the masses are mostly stupid, but there is no way to deny this fact.

And I understand very well that many players are happy about a game which can be won without putting any thought into it. They are playing Civ5 after having failed at real Civ games, while their relatives are visiting wrestling shows.

Mr Shafer can report: "Mission accomplished." He was ordered to appeal the mass market and that, as you correctly stated, he has achieved.
I already know the title of the first expansion: "Civ5 - Beyond Farmville".