How do you rate Civ V after the first 4 weeks?

[Disgustipated]

the poll results are actually much better than I expected considering all the griping on these forums. I may actually buy this game after all.

 

[d4everman]

It's actually not --

For one thing - Civilization games are not single-sitting games, nor were they ever expected to be. This isn't (or isn't supposed to be) some mindless FPS where you shoot for a few hours, try some new maps, or new weapons, then set it aside. If you haven't played a Civilization for at least 50 hours, it's awfully hard to truly "judge" it.

Second, the title has a pedigree. For many of us, this is truly our 5th iteration (or 15th, depending on how you want to categorize expansions) of the series. Civ gets 2nd and 3rd chances whereas a "new" title will not - we're used to constantly finding out new aspects to the game (lacking here, but present in previous versions).

Finally, a lot of people who hate V have stuck with it because contrary to the flimsy flinging of 'HATERS!' -- we very much DO want to like this game. I've logged 100+ hours easily - but most of the last half have been more experimentation and modding... Trying to see if I can put together house rules that would make the game enjoyable... investigating whether there are mods that can be done to enhance the game to an acceptable level. I've probably spent a good 20 hours with SDK already, to no avail.


You might want to take note of the title of this forum -- it's not PC Game Fanatics (who occasionally play Civilization) or 4X games fanatics (who think Civilization is/was one of the best). The posters here aren't going to so quickly relegate a title to the dusty shelf if it's got "Civilization" in the name.

QFT. I wanted to form my own opinion of the game and I wondered why so many people hated it. It's Civ, right? I've been addicted to the franchise since CivII. But after a few games spanning the time since release I'll be truthful....I gave it an F. I would have said below par, because it is, but while its probably not a total failure IMO, its closer to that than simply below par. YMMV, and I hope its patched into something I might enjoy...but I'm not counting on that. After all, I counted on this game being somewhat fun.

 

[CarpeDiem]

regret buying it

 

[Legate Damar]

I gave it a D, tho that's because I reserve F's for games that are non-functional (freezes, drops, impossible quests, etc.) It has the lowest grade I'll give a game that does what it's "supposed to". The list below is hardly comprehensive, but taken as a whole, sums up my feeling pretty accurately.

What I really liked:
unit per tile limitation - maybe 1upt is too hard on the overmatched AI and the best solution would have been, say, 5upt. But even with the AI completely unable to handle 1upt, it's still better than SoD.

What I kinda liked:
gold has a function - in previous civs, the lack of gold caused problems, but (unless you were tech trading on deity) having surplus gold didn't net you much. Not waiting until the game is almost over to be able to rush-buy is very nice.

hexes - it's different and it doesn't suck; eliminates "double moves"

city states - sure, they're absolutely terrible now, but it could be a good idea once playtested and balanced. New and innovative, at the least

removal of numbers from the diplomacy screen - the civ 4 metric of telling you exactly how much something irritated/pleased other leaders was... unnatural. And kinda gamey

What I don't like:
removal of all the other information from the diplomacy screen - is my research pact helping me with our relationship? Our cooperation pact? Our common enemy? Not only is diplomacy very hard (everyone hates you eventually), but it's very opaque (you don't even know why they chose now to hate you). Was it because I attacked your former ally (current friend?) or because I raze the heck out of everything? I don't need the AI to quantify how much it irritates them, but a heads-up on their general reasoning would be nice

tech to build time ratio - it's a good thing that I can rush-buy from the beginning, because it's the only way to get things done

tech names - archaeology? acoustics? penicillin? globalization? These are (bad) expansion techs. How did they make it into the base game? Was "Model T" not specific enough to make the final cut?

it's clearly beta - so many things haven't been balanced, it's shameful. I understand that you need the broader playerbase to "break" some things so you can modify them, but you should at least try to put out something worth breaking

What I really really don't like
ICS - A non-situational strategy that can only be countered by doing the same thing more effectively? Always a must-include for a franchise built on depth of gameplay

 

[Morningcalm]

I don't regret buying it, but it was a disappointment in some major ways. I think many here feel the same way. It has nice concepts--poor execution. And it also executed some of the old gameplay we liked so much (it wouldn't have hurt to just re-implement religion in a different way--where diplomacy wasn't as affected).

 

[SpurnSpore]

Where is E? So I took the F option,
Anyway I vote E.F -Epic Fail
Let's see I played it for almost a week.
I Played Spore (the worst game ever created) for 3 weeks-with that I could create something unique.
With CiV I don't feel I am creating a civilization,so what is the point of this game?
Why even call it a Civilization game?

 

[katipunero]

Heh... are we awarding "cleanest uniform" trophies already?

Here ya go, Civ V -- you get a trophy, too... because you're special, too!

we gotta give Civ V credit for something...anything!

 

[Psyringe]

In its current state, it's a D for me - technically it works, but the gameplay isn't enjoyable for me, and the AI problems really break its neck. I am certain that further patches or expansions will raise it to at least C material. I'm sitting on the fence regarding whether B can be attained, but it's possible - it will depend heavily on the direction and execution of the expansions. I'm fairly certain that Civ5 won't get an A from me even after expansions, because there are too many core design decisions which run opposite to what I enjoy in Civ games; I don't think these can be fixed in patches or expansions, and a redesign of the whole game with a new philosophy behind it is completely unrealistic.

 

[AfterShafter]

Still basically unplayable on my comp(s) both of which are well within the specs range, and no patch forthcoming... Not sure what I should rate it, so I'll abstain "Fail" comes to mind, but the fact is, I haven't really played it.

 

[deut]

What I don't like:
removal of all the other information from the diplomacy screen - is my research pact helping me with our relationship? Our cooperation pact? Our common enemy? Not only is diplomacy very hard (everyone hates you eventually), but it's very opaque (you don't even know why they chose now to hate you). Was it because I attacked your former ally (current friend?) or because I raze the heck out of everything? I don't need the AI to quantify how much it irritates them, but a heads-up on their general reasoning would be nice

Why do they ask for help in a war, and when I do help two turns later they make peace(I can't). Then after 10 turns I make peace and talk to them again, but now I'm the "bloodthirsty one" because I helped him???

This has happend to me a number of times. Last game it was Ghandi who needed help with Hiawatha.

I still play the game, though more like "I'll take a couple of more turns tomorrow, if I have the time".

 

[Cashie]

regret buying it

You aren't supposed to regret things

 

[Cashie]

I voted B, I like the game - but as everyone says, it just doesn't feel finished.
It's as if the development team spent so much time getting the hex grid right, and neglected everything else - or they were worried about frying people's systems if anything complicated below the surface went on. Hexes are the easily the best thing about the game, but the AI has regressed back to Civ1 level.

I'm not angry, just (a little) disappointed. We can all see the potential - it would be nice for it have been delivered

 

[blind biker]

You aren't supposed to regret things

You have not lived long enough, if you have nothing to regret. More to the point, regrets are a part of life, and make us better. They remind us that we made a mistake - if we have a conscience.

I hope Sid has at least a little bit of regret after releasing Civ Revolutions 2. From this comment it is easy to guess my vote.

 

[CliftonBazaar]

I give it an F, there are too many things in it that totally destroy playability.

Using steam is a total pain when you don't have a permanent Internet connection and not allowing more than one unit on a tile leads to some very frustrating army maneuvers.

 

[migkillertwo]

I give Civ V an "A" after almost 4 weeks since Sep 21, 2010. How do you rate it from "A" (best) to "F" (failure)?

For a couple weeks I didn't care for it. It just seemed boring and easy after a few games. Then I upped the difficulty level to prince and figured out how to manage an economy.

I'd rate it as excellent. The 1UPT and the more obvious and intuitive nature of warfare is something I thought had been missing in Civ since Civ 3

YMMV

 

[ShadowoftheDark]

I love it. Can't wait for its next expansion pack

 

[jprc]

F
Hex grid is not an excuse. It exists since war games exists (I mean, made with paper and cartons..). Avalon's board games exist since the 70's (I played on them...). Panzer General on PC existed 15 years ago minimum.
Diplomacy exists in Civ for the last 8 years if I am not wrong.
It is not a company who bought rights for making Civ who did Civ 5, it is Firaxis, with the experience and expertise accumulated for so many years... Where is it now ?
Civ 5 turned fast-food is not an excuse for "civ fanatics". Fanatics, by essence, do not want conciliation.

However, it should be noted that it is a 50% good - 50% bad poll...
it means we are not at the end of threads around the "is it good? Is it bad" debat, and it can last longer that the game itself...

 

[fed1943]

This Civ game is founded on a good idea (1UpT) and has good adds (CS, SP, rang fire).
But it is very "unfinished" after being sold.
And is a poor Civ game, as one way to play it gives best results (ICS).
I do not weight mods here because I post about a Civ game, not a programm to build games on.
Neither future patches because I haven't a crystal ball.
So, to me is a D.

 

[Gwyddelig]

After owing the game for all of 5 days, I'm going to step outside scolring convention and say it's a C+ IMO.

To give the game its due; were this the first Civ game I think we'd be immeasurably more enthusiatic about it. It's not a bad game though ti certainly suffers by comparison with Civ IV. Again, to be fair - that was a game that was at least a year or two in the perfecting and one that all of us devoted hours upon hours learning and understanding.

The things it does right? - it's pretty, the introduction of hexes is a nice development and I can't say that I'm disappointed to see the back of the SoD and infinite unit spam. I like the return also of ranged units. Having to think about city specialisation and where the resources are is valuable too - even if it does occasionally break a game.

What I don't like? - Social policies are fine but I can't say as I prefer them to Civ IV's civics. The war AI is not up to scratch at all. I had the AI pump a stream of units into my very own little Hurtgen Forest without even the sense that they were trying to whittle me down. I'm a very poor general and on Prince, I reckon I'm going to go for a dom victory. Something is wrong there.

PS - the music is much better than Civ IV (bar the "medieval" choral stuff in Civ IV which I loved) both in terms of the content and how it works in the context of the game.

 

[whirl]

Voted D, but hope has not fully abandoned me.


It IS dumbed down. It IS broken in ways. But mods, patches and expansions might make me come back. For now, my enthusiasm about Civ is dead.