How satisfied are you with Civ5?

[Gaizokubanou]

Mediocre. It's got some interesting concepts but lot of balancing problem removes a lot of potential for deep gameplay. Would have been "somewhat satisfied" if it weren't for 2 minute turn waiting time which occational crashes the game.

Yes, I play huge/marathon but hey, I got i7-930@3.6ghz with 6gb ram and 460GTX SLI, and the fact that slowdowns often turns into a complete lockdown/crash tells me that this isn't something that new and faster hardware will fix (I stress tested my cpu for 24 hours straight before so no it isn't me OCing that's cause the crash).

 

[Mathalamus]

Civ5 is garbage. i cant believe i wasted my money on that. the UI is horrible, the AI is stupid (too much war), and it feels like an alpha. it doesn't deserve to be a beta.

i have uninstalled the game. its likely to be permanent.

 

[Tijgersag]

You can't envy the designers.

Civilization IV is awesome, especially with all the expansion packs. It's hard to come up with something completely new and still be able to put the title Civilization on it. I think the game is really great for drawing in new players to the title. It has some of the simplism of the early Civ games.

I hope they can fix the AI soon, although I think this game was made to be more playable online by making the game quicker to play.

 

[Mathalamus]

they should never, ever make it completely new. they have to build on the previous game.

 

[Neomega]

BTW, when marketing companies use this survey to gauge customer response...
..the only response that counts to them is "completely satisfied"

Right now, Civ V's only competition is Civ IV. But the real question for profits is, "will the expansions sell, or will people get bored, and buy a different game altogether?"

 

[Ripped]

Completely dissappointed here.

Inability for x64 platforms to load modded saves is just unforgivable. UNFORGIVABLE.

The bugs are just too outrageous to accept.

My previously very high opinion of Firaxis is forever ruined.
I will never, ever by a game from T2 again. Ever.
Many game reviewers I will never bother to read again.

I do however very much like some of the design changes that were made, specifically 1upt, hexes, and ranged combat.

 

[Lemon Merchant]

I would like to downgrade my satisfaction level to "Stupefyingly Bored" if that's possible.

Honestly, I've seen schizophrenics that make more sense than the AI in this game. I said somewhere else that if you need to drink a bottle of tequila to keep from getting bored and enjoy the game, it's pretty darn sad.

I can't keep playing. My liver won't take it.

 

[Julian Delphiki]

I can't keep playing. My liver won't take it.

And while being totally intoxicated CFC is still much more fun than CV

 

[Warmaker]

I'm alright with it, but it definitely could be better. Unstable. The number of roads to achieve different victories seem far more limiting in Civ5 than past Civ games. The scale of cities / population to the size of a civ's military is out of whack (i.e. small militaries). The game's scaling at Marathon is out of whack also. You just sit there hitting "Next Turn" all the time.

 

[Lemon Merchant]

And while being totally intoxicated CFC is still much more fun than CV

Well said, sir. Well said.

 

[nocho]

Underwhelmed for now. Haven't even played 10 hours with it yet so I already fear the 100 hour mark. I was hoping that it would get better while getting to know the game and its mechanics better, but reading the comments I don't have high hopes. And worst of all, even with less than 10 hours it already kind of bores me, which is maybe the worst criticism one can have about a brand new game. It somehow doesn't wake up the initial excitement I had when civ3 and civ4 had just come out and started playing those.

 

[Cosian]

Somewhat satisfied ....

I don't think there is any question that the game will develop into a classic just like the other Civ titles. The poll seems to confirm this as well since the vast majority of us fall into the somewhat satifisfied category. Recognize that the average gamer is not a micromanaging machine playing on Emperor level......

I spent some time reviewing the mod guide, tools, etc... and its clear in terms of modability the infrastructure is as good if not better than anything out there today.....So I think we can look forward to longevity and some pretty cool stuff coming out.

Is the AI horrible..yes. Is a victory following a military conquest path pretty much assured...yes. Are there some holes and UI cleanup to address ... yes. Am I having fun with it...yes!

Certainly different strokes for different folks .... but that said, overall I like the changes. I don't miss rushing religions. I don't miss much of the micromanagement of CIV4 required to win on higher levels. I don't miss the thrill of creating transports and loading my units on it. I like the city states and don't miss colonies and Sids Sushi. Since expansion is slower, along with city states and natural wonders, exploration remains more meaningful for longer than the first 30 turns....I like that too. And though its going to take a few balancing patches and some holes filled to make it a reality, I also like the idea of smaller more efficient empires tailored to your vic conditions than a city spam to win approach.

I really don't think its a question of whether or not people will buy it, but more a question of when. And that seems to be the way of PC game development today. So I bought Elemental War of Magic and waiting for that to be fixed. I bought Vicky II and waiting for patches on that. I bought Star Rulers and waiting for patches on that. But I am still having fun with all three....but of course that doesn't mean everyone will or feel their money was well spent.

On the other hand, I bought Distant Worlds .... out for 6 months with a few major patches and spending a lot of time with it. I also recently bought Dominions 3 ... a 3 year old game, archaic by todays standards, but affording a completeness and depth of strategy seldom seem in a strategy game. I guess the moral of the story is if you can't afford $50 to blow on a game, you probably should wait a year instead of pre-ordering it and then complaining about it. It's pretty darn clear how the game software industry rolls today and has for some time. And, as long as folks keep spending money on their initial offering....it won't change.

 

[Officerjackboot]

It's a good game. It has some problems but they can be fixed with good patches. I honestly think many of the detractors are having trouble running the game and it is causing them to lash out. I had to buy a new video card to run it properly now it runs great and it is a ton of fun.

I'm telling you if you are getting any problems with screen tearing or lock ups or anything like that it is your rig because I have none of those problems. I will say though at the later points in the game wait time between turns makes me want to poke my eyes out.

 

[LegioCorvus]

It's a good game. It has some problems but they can be fixed with good patches. I honestly think many of the detractors are having trouble running the game and it is causing them to lash out. I had to buy a new video card to run it properly now it runs great and it is a ton of fun.

I'm telling you if you are getting any problems with screen tearing or lock ups or anything like that it is your rig because I have none of those problems. I will say though at the later points in the game wait time between turns makes me want to poke my eyes out.

What we wish, we readily believe, and what we ourselves think, we imagine others think also.

~Julius Caesar


Just because you can't imagine someone playing this game and not enjoying it, does not mean we do not exist. I actually imagine my rig outshines yours by a wide margin. I'm playing at high settings, and I'm currently not enjoying it. See the Let's Plays by TheMeInTeam or Sullla, both respected top players and strategists, for just some of the many examples of why those of us who can run the game - and run it well - are not enjoying it. Or the lists of bugs and broken gameplay mechanics stickied in the forum.

We're not spawning from the ether with unsubstantiated claims. There's a legitimate reason for the complaints - complaints tacitly admitted to by the lead designer of Civ5 (that he assures us will be fixed in future patches) - outside of hardware failure.

 

[SidMeierGroupy]

Tom Chick touched on this, and I think it's a good observation:

http://www.1up.com/do/reviewPage?pager.offset=0&cId=3181540&p=

He called it "Chick's Parabola," where the game is amazing for the first 100 or so hours that you play it. It's the newness factor. Once you get several games under your belt, the newness factor goes away, and you start to notice all the little details. It's definitely what happened to me. Anyway, the likely reason that so many review sites reviewed the game so high are probably a combination of only 1-2 weeks of play while the game is still new & exciting, and also a little bit of the reviewers not really being hardcore Civ fans like most of us. (Honestly, I think casual Civ players are enjoying Civ5 just fine).

I mean, Gamespot's not perfect, but you can bet that 4.0 they just gave Final Fantasy XIV is going to cost them some love from Squeenix in the future.

Ha! Good points.

 

[Lemon Merchant]

I'm telling you if you are getting any problems with screen tearing or lock ups or anything like that it is your rig because I have none of those problems. I will say though at the later points in the game wait time between turns makes me want to poke my eyes out.

My specs kill practically anything I can throw at my computer, but the game is even slow as molasses on my machine. At first, I couldn't even run the game using DX11 (with my Radeon 5970?? Come on...) until they did something in that first couple of patches.

I still have artifacts, and squares of terrain not popping up when I move around the world. The sad fact is that ATI is bragging about "helping" Firaxis with the graphics engine compatibility. Considering their success with drivers lately, I'm dubious at best.

 

[charon2112]

My specs kill practically anything I can throw at my computer, but the game is even slow as molasses on my machine. At first, I couldn't even run the game using DX11 (with my Radeon 5970?? Come on...) until they did something in that first couple of patches.

I still have artifacts, and squares of terrain not popping up when I move around the world. The sad fact is that ATI is bragging about "helping" Firaxis with the graphics engine compatibility. Considering their success with drivers lately, I'm dubious at best.

That's really weird. I only have an HD 5770 and Civ V runs perfectly. Even late game.

 

[Lemon Merchant]

That's really weird. I only have an HD 5770 and Civ V runs perfectly. Even late game.

I know. It runs ok now, but at first it just crashed after 30 seconds of play. Consistently. I still have a problem of severe slowdown in the late game, and with my quad core at 4.1 GHz and 8 GB of RAM, it should fly with my graphics card. Unfortunately, it flies like a fat, lazy duck.

 

[charon2112]

I know. It runs ok now, but at first it just crashed after 30 seconds of play. Consistently. I still have a problem of severe slowdown in the late game, and with my quad core at 4.1 GHz and 8 GB of RAM, it should fly with my graphics card. Unfortunately, it flies like a fat, lazy duck.

That's rough. And your rig puts mine to shame in every way.

 

[DarkSchneider]

At this point I wish I could lower my rating from mediocre to underwhelmed, but perhaps it will rise back to mediocre with the next patch.