How good is Civ V

[ahmedhadzi]

Decent game with few problems which will be fixed, hello firaxis!

Diplomacy looks very passive, you don't know when to ask for something. One turn AI will deny something, next turn they will acept. I don't need numbers to tell me who likes me and who not, but I do need logic to understand it.

Combat AI is baaaaad, bud this 1upt rule in war makes good game in MP (which also sucks).

Lastly few cosmetic tweaks wouldn't kill the game. Like, grassland and plains in 2 colors!!! It is really hard to tell them apart now (I play medium settings).

This is not BEST civ game ever, but it could be with some modifications. People who are extreme in both ways should really be bit more realistic.

 

[hewhocaves]

Civ for the twitter generation. What twits.

 

[krasny]

Good.

Not too bad for an early alpha!

The two things that irk are:

1. It looks drab and half baked. Possibly playing in a higher resolution will improve things.

2. The UI needs some serious love. Especially lacking is the track enemy units option that was in Civs 1-4. Instead we get some plug ugly icon that we have to click on. PAH!

I would have been happier if they had developed IV. Yes IV did have serious flaws, chiefly SoDs and the whole espionage system.

 

[QuoVadisNation]

Well.....

To be frank, it seems like a game that was made as cheaply as possible. And it shows. While in their defense they did lived up to the promise to deliver a game that accommodates to the modding community as much as possible, there are a lot of drawbacks that make you think this game was a) made on the fly and b ) with not enough cash or resources.

Civilization V still has a lot of the dumbed down Civ Revolution elements in the game. The graphics are really lazy. You have full cities with 10 story buildings in 4000 BC. The music is god awful. The UI seems like it was made for the WII instead of a PC. And finally even though every retail launch CIV has this problem, the AI is not that impressive.

Listen.. If you're looking a civilization game that's the opposite of Civ Rev, then Civ V is not for you unless the mod community saves it.

I'm personally kinda disappointed. I'll just stick with Civ IV.

 

[the_lor]

I think it’s fun out of the box and a great platform to expand on.

Just cleaning up some minor buggy stuff would make it a lot more enjoyable.

 

[Rellin]

I am loving Civ5, and that is without the many patches which will come soon!

 

[Elite]

Civ V's SP is amazing, now, if I bought it for just Mplayer, I would hate it.

 

[moscaverde]

Although I didn't liked it I still voted "pretty good". I know the game is good, just don't appeal to my taste.

 

[Doppleganger]

I voted 'pretty good'. It has some aspects that need work but it still has that 'one more turn' factor and is a lot of fun to play.

 

[BoydofZINJ]

Regardless of how you feel of CIV V versus its earlier counterparts: It is still better than other 4X games that have recently came out.

 

[fantsu]

If there is any true civ fans out here, they know what is happening right now.

The same this happened with civ4 also.

When civ4 came out all the civ3 fans were screaming that civ4 sucks, that there is no micro-management and all. That civ4 is just for kids. That was partially true. I didn't buy civ4 when it came out. I played civ3 for LONG time and still enjoyed it.

Then Warlords came out. Still I played civ3 and STILL enjoyed it.
When "Gold" was released, I bought the game. Gave it a try. It was pretty different, didn't care it that much in the first few weeks. I was still playing civ3 and other games, just occasionally trying to learn all the things from civ4. Then came BtS. Man that was awesome. I stopped playing civ3 almost entirelely.

Now civ5 is out. It is simple, bugged game.
I'll buy it after few years, after new "Complete" or "Gold" edition.
It is going to be awesome. I'm not in hurry, I have plenty of time to wait and see what happens with civ5. No-one can deny that it still has lots of potential. Hexes are amazing, the game looks good, I'm also ecxited about non-stackable units.

Now civ5 has more techs to learn that civ4 had when it came out. Now civ5 has about the same amount of different units than civ4, when it came out. After few years civ5 probably is more complex than civ4 is right now.

They won't add many things civ4 has (religion, civics), but there will be something else. I'm sure. Not just extra leaders, buildings and units.

 

[Luckystrike77]

Good damn this game is good. Gameplay is awesome! If only multiplayer was fixed I would be completely in heaven, because the AI is no challenge.....

 

[the343danny]

Diplomacy seems to be not whether you can appease somebody or not but whether you border them or not. I built 2 scouts as my military the entire game as India with only 3 cities, yet I never went to war with anybody because I only bordered city states, in South America. Despite it being peaceful the entire game the other continent was a warground pretty much, with Germany owning 3/4 of the Old World.

Yet, in my game as Japan people who I once worked with to kill others they would cancel Secrecy pacts and Coop pacts as soon as they border me, which is pretty much as soon as our joint war ends, then proceed to declare war on me.

So my biggest problem is the AI for diplomacy, city settling, and combat (which I hope is just bugged as the other thread claimed), no scenarios, UI, weak wonders and imbalances within the game (hint GSs and Longbows), and that late game pretty much means nothing because the tech victory is so easy with instant victory upon launch and how easy it is to get parts to the capital (IMO should move at a constant 1 tile per turn regardless of roads)

 

[Centurio]

i think Civ V is a pretty cool guy. eh requires some work and doesn't afraid of anything.

On a more grammatically proper note, it is a good game. There are some problems I have with the game, and I would appreciate if they would add regional unit diversity (and give the Indians their own city-style since they just look awkward right now). Other than that, the production values are generally good, and the atmosphere is welcoming and makes the game enjoyable. Now, if, as the Romans, I could actually spawn near some iron for once, that would be great.

 

[BobDole]

Somewhere between amazing and pretty good. I like everything...but the AI is pretty bad when it comes to combat. They're completely oblivious to armies parked outside their borders, and aren't too great at organizing armies either. I've practically taken over my entire continent with little opposition in my first game. Think over time as some of the issues are worked out it will be amazing.

 

[RX2000]

I picked "pretty good" right now. After some patches & an expansion or 2 it will probably move up to the "excellent" category.

 

[mattavich]

The numbers speak for themselves. <Let's hope devs don't change everything in Civ5 because of this minority of idiots who make it look like the game is a complete fail.

 

[Ricci]

The numbers speak for themselves. <Let's hope devs don't change everything in Civ5 because of this minority of idiots who make it look like the game is a complete fail.

If something life has thought us is idiocy leans towards the majorities.

 

[RX2000]

Ouch. 79.5% like it vs 20.5% who dont. Where are all the haters now?

 

[Ignorant Teacher]

Good ideas, but changed their target audience radically. Now it's aimed at the people who couldn't beat Noble in BTS.

I am not on the "Let's wait and it will all be patched away" boat, their patches didn't fix anything back in Civ 4 and even introduced new bugs.