Do people finally like Civ5 now?

[Vathris]

This was my first Civ game, I'm a long time RTS player (starting with AoE 2).

Bought it the day it came out, played it, didn't like it, it came off as a historical jumble (Washington shows up randomly in wig and suit in 4000 BC and settles Boston, then Aztecs show up with F-22 Raptors and strafe Rome's legions, Catherine the Great finishes the Pyramids in St. Petersburg and Gandhi ends the game by nuking everyone) so the game sat on my shelf for a year and I went back to my beloved Total War games.

I picked it up again and started playing, and got hooked. Once you see it as a board game instead of having any sort of historical semblance it makes perfect sense. It's certainly a very calm game, not like the epinephrine autoinjector that is Starcraft II, and it's very deep and engaging.

Multiplayer needs fixing, the AI needs improving, some things need to be balanced a bit. Same as most other games. I fell in love with Civ 5, I suggest you give it a try if you like planning, grand strategy, and tech trees.

 

[Markstar]

As many many have stated before, it is still vastly inferior compared to the previous titles.

But most haters have moved on (this is my first post here in a long time). Actually, I think it is a good indication of just how much that game sucks that there are still so many people around that do not like the game. Otoh it's hard to give up on something that you once loved so much...

 

[woooooooor]

It IS an opinion on whether or not Civ V is playable or not. This isn't something that there are any absloutes on. You say that Civ5 is going to need a lot of work before it becomes playable. I say that Civ5 is not only playable right now, it beats the hell out of playing any other version of Civilization.

Who's right, you or me? Guess what, I don't think we'll agree on on who's right, so that makes it an OPINION.

Take a moment to reread my post so you can realize that you have just typed a completely meaningless post.

 

[Thoughtful Thug]

the game is still very bugged and the AI is still very average (the other civs are bad at invading other pieces of land among other things..)

the diplomacy has improved a lot, however.

i like the game a lot (i'm now only playing multi-player games with people I know) but i think it's overrated. it should have been released this year. blizzard, for instance, only releases games when they are ready. i hope firaxis learned from their mistake.

It isn't Firaxis' fault. I blame it on 2K Games' management appeasing to investors from Take-Two Interactive (NASDAQ: TTWO).

 

[thadian]

i still hate it, especially the DLC scam, im sick of pro-suits saying "DLC gives you a choice while expansions don't".

when i bought civ v, did i have a "choice" to have korea and babylon instead of america and songhai? there is no choice, only the option of have or not have, sold individually.

It wouldn't be so bad if when i bought the game it gave a list of say 25 Civ's, my purchase "unlocks" 20 of my choice, then i can choose to buy or not buy the remaining 5 based on weather or not i want them in my game - now, that would be customizable.

Maybe if civ 5 were released to the current patch edition with ALL CIV's included up front as a choice. the first time steam connects to synch, it would let you choose what civ's you do and don't want.

Despite the DLC scam, i have a lot of steam problems, i dont have the internet, and every time i uninstall/install anything or something wants to update, i can't play civ 4 or 5 (both from steam) because steam wont let me connect to offline mode and i can only fix it by going online.

This is one of the worst games yet even still - it is better than it was about a year ago. a year ago, it was probably $15.00 good, now its about $25.00 good even though its quality as a product does not near match the price, especially if you want your chess board to include the bishops and rooks.


edit: every time i "re-roll" a start, i have to re-navigate all the menu's and re-agree to all the terms, there is no "shortcut" to get right to the game-screen of the mods i want. remember in civ 4, you could get a shortcut to a specific mod? all those shortcuts with the steam version don't work, even most of the launchers don't work. the multi-player is a completely bad joke, and there is no real support for the game. taking something that is -20 bad and making -16 bad does not mean it is getting support.

maybe they should apologize for this bad game, release a free expansion - a REAL expansion and never use the DLC model again - maybe for some games it works ok, but in games like civ, the DLC is so minimized on terms of what you get as a product that it should not be priced at above `$1.00 per item - if they did that i wouldn't be crying scam. selling a one dollar shirt for 500 collars.

 

[Sync]

I can't take to 1UPT, and as a core feature of the game it won't ever be removed. As such, I don't think I'll ever be able to 'like' Civ5. I would be interested in any mod that offers an alternative to this, however.

 

[Disgustipated]

1 upt is nearly a deal breaker for me. It's so annoying moving naval units especially. Like on an Earth map trying to move units through the Med. sea. *sigh*

In the we review games thread I raised my score of Civ5 from 25% to 50%. The game is nearly playable now (for me at least), and is close to having replay value. If the game can somehow get me to play it over and over again, I'll raise my score above 60%.

I want to like the game. I don't want to be a hater. Maybe some day this game will have replay value.

Close, but no cigar. That's my analysis of the game so far.

 

[MkLh]

1 upt is nearly a deal breaker for me. It's so annoying moving naval units especially. Like on an Earth map trying to move units through the Med. sea. *sigh*

1UPT is basically the only potential major improvement there is. Without it, this would be only an inferior albeit pretty looking version of Civ4. But I agree that logistical problems are often terrifying. Especially at the late game when you try to move your big army to the another side of the continent. There really should be an option to choose multiple troops and send them all at once.

Removing airports was a huge mistake. Now that airlifting is gone inter-continental warfare is more painful than ever.

 

[Depravo]

I have finally reached the point of finishing a game (as Rome). It has been enjoyable at times, but the bland and inscrutable diplomacy and ******** military AI have made the late game a complete chore. To be fair, I could have gone for a domination victory long ago but I wanted to have a play with the modern era units.

No question it has improved a lot, but I question whether it's worth the cash even now.

The music, on the other hand, is beautiful :aww:

 

[fantsu]

Still the same game mostly, broken on most parts.
If you didn't enjoy it before, you wont enjoy it now either.

There is new generation of players who like it and who don't have much experience with IV, also few rare long time CIV fans.

The game isn't unplayable, but the AI is terrible and the game is still quite simple.

I test out the game every now and then, but my hope for better V is long gone.

 

[Disgustipated]

The music, on the other hand, is beautiful :aww:

I'm not a big fan of the music. The music seems bland. I prefer established classics. I listen to classical radio sometimes, and I love it when I hear a song on the radio, and I think: That's a Civ 4 tune! (not that civ4 was the first to use it, but I associate it with that game).

 

[Vathris]

The music is fantastic in my opinion. I especially like the European and "Siam/India" style music. Piano Concerto In Am Op. 16 is one of my favorites.

I've gotta say that just playing this game is certainly a calming experience, unlike any other game I've played, somehow very relaxing. Sometimes I load up the tutorials and just explore and read history from the Civlopedia, 'cause I'm weird.

Many of you picked up Civ IV with no expectations and had a wonderful experience. Now that V is out so is your measuring stick. But as for me, picking Civ 5 up with no expectations, I'm having a wonderful experience. Oddly enough, fans of a series are usually the last to enjoy any new additions. The generation before me grew up with Empire Strikes Back. The prequels came out and they refused to enjoy them. But I grew up with Phantom Menace and the prequels are one of my fondest childhood memories. Now apply this scenario to almost everything. Starcraft, Halo, WoW, EVE, music, books, everything I love but the "veterans" find in bad taste.

I'm not trying to preach anything, but maybe expectations really mess with new experiences or something, I don't know.

 

[eris]

I'm not trying to preach anything, but maybe expectations really mess with new experiences or something, I don't know.

I agree with your points but I do suggest trying Civ 4. You might find that if you like Civ 5, you can like Civ 4 even more. Nothing prevents you from enjoying both.

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

1UPT is basically the only potential major improvement there is. Without it, this would be only an inferior albeit pretty looking version of Civ4. But I agree that logistical problems are often terrifying. Especially at the late game when you try to move your big army to the another side of the continent. There really should be an option to choose multiple troops and send them all at once.

Removing airports was a huge mistake. Now that airlifting is gone inter-continental warfare is more painful than ever.

Totally agree with these points. However, although it would be much easier to be able to mass-select units and direct them all at once, it would have been a nightmare to program (and probably would've caused development to delay for at least a year or two more). During my first game, I became extremely annoyed with having to manually move my entire army across the ocean but swiftly realized what a crazy-difficult task it would have been to develop this. It can be seen with the AI's inability to properly engage in intercontinental warfare (well... almost all warfare, really). It would basically be the same result if development included mass selection/movement of troops.

There really should be an airport or airlift ability. However, it should be treated the same as re-basing air units. You shouldn't be able to airlift a unit across the entire world in 1 turn. You should have to chain-airlift requiring multiple airports. This would make the ability present, but not overpowered.

 

[Disgustipated]

The music is fantastic in my opinion. I especially like the European and "Siam/India" style music. Piano Concerto In Am Op. 16 is one of my favorites.

I've gotta say that just playing this game is certainly a calming experience, unlike any other game I've played, somehow very relaxing. Sometimes I load up the tutorials and just explore and read history from the Civlopedia, 'cause I'm weird.

Many of you picked up Civ IV with no expectations and had a wonderful experience. Now that V is out so is your measuring stick. But as for me, picking Civ 5 up with no expectations, I'm having a wonderful experience. Oddly enough, fans of a series are usually the last to enjoy any new additions. The generation before me grew up with Empire Strikes Back. The prequels came out and they refused to enjoy them. But I grew up with Phantom Menace and the prequels are one of my fondest childhood memories. Now apply this scenario to almost everything. Starcraft, Halo, WoW, EVE, music, books, everything I love but the "veterans" find in bad taste.

I'm not trying to preach anything, but maybe expectations really mess with new experiences or something, I don't know.

You make some good points. But if that were entirely true, then no one would like Civ4 over Civ3. After Civ4 came out, I could not go back to Civ3. But I cannot say the same for Civ5.

 

[Roxlimn]

I still like Civ 3 over Civ 4. Just sayin'.

 

[Psyringe]

I'm not trying to preach anything, but maybe expectations really mess with new experiences or something, I don't know.

I think the real world is much more complex. Disgustipated already gave you a good example. To add another perspective, here's my own story:

My expectations of Civ5 were actually rather low to begin with. I knew that Civ4 was uncannily close to my personal vision of a "perfect" Civ game, and I fully expected Firaxis to go into a different direction with Civ5, one that I might not like as much.

What I did not, however, expect was a game that bored me to tears.

In other words: I expected Civ5 to be less to my liking than Civ4. But I also expected Civ5 to be an enjoyable game on its own. And for me, it simply isn't, and probably never will be (the amount of stuff that would need to be changed is just too much).

Maybe Civ5 is, for many people, just a very un-enjoyable game, no matter what their expectations might have been.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Totally agree with these points. However, although it would be much easier to be able to mass-select units and direct them all at once, it would have been a nightmare to program (and probably would've caused development to delay for at least a year or two more). During my first game, I became extremely annoyed with having to manually move my entire army across the ocean but swiftly realized what a crazy-difficult task it would have been to develop this. It can be seen with the AI's inability to properly engage in intercontinental warfare (well... almost all warfare, really). It would basically be the same result if development included mass selection/movement of troops.

There really should be an airport or airlift ability. However, it should be treated the same as re-basing air units. You shouldn't be able to airlift a unit across the entire world in 1 turn. You should have to chain-airlift requiring multiple airports. This would make the ability present, but not overpowered.

Sensible controls a "nightmare to program"?

For Firaxis, maybe, but not for developers who actually prioritize core game features reasonably when designing them.

Normally I'd say it shouldn't be that bad, except Firaxis left the controls broken across every patch ever released in civ IV, so it's not exactly shocking news that the controls in V also suck. Really though? A click and drag or grouping feature would be a "nightmare"? Really? I find that notion bordering ridiculous. It might be now that the game engine is designed and (in)"complete", but that was a deliberate choice, like most of the control problems in both games.

Sorry, but Firaxis really lost me when they bugged overflow (in an attempt to "fix" an overflow aspect that was unintended but largely benefits protective. THEY INTRODUCED A BUG WHILE NERFING THE WEAKEST TRAIT!) w/o fixing known problems with the game controls in civ IV, and I have seen nothing, absolutely nothing about their behavior when it comes to basic gameplay mechanics in either IV or V to convince me it's any different now. We have bright and shiny inca/korea/etc, but it's WAY TOO MUCH to be able to press shift and add a unit to a city queue, or order units on the same screen to move consecutively within 2 seconds of each other. Derp.

 

[thadian]

Or when building roads you have to do them one at a time or your worker might build a road to damascus.

that is, if i need to order a worker to build a 4 link road i have to worry about weather the idiot will walk a bad path, to the chosen tile and build one road link.

also, when workers are ordered to build and they want their build paths to go all over the place, i can't control order queue so i can't say build a road from point a to point b - because even if point b is 4 spaces away in a straight line, it might build a 6 link, zigzag road.

Also, the story of 2 barbarian settlers. I lost a settler - askia liberates it, and keeps a settler. then i capture a greek settler from barbs but it becomes a worker.

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

Agreed with most of your points, but when there's anything but open ocean, the AI would have a horrible time trying to properly organize the group and move it around while keeping the formations. It doesn't seem like it's all that simple (point and click) since the AI has to maneuver you around islands/archipelagos etc.