How satisfied are you with Civ5?

[highfive]

I haven't played Civ in a while and I've been pleasantly surprised. I've spent the last couple of days digging online resources to learn what everything does. I may get the strategy guide or something so that I have all the info in front of me.

I love the hex system and combat is a lot of fun. Moving units around really takes some though with all the bonuses you get now. The -33% on flat ground is frustrating until you adjust your strategies. It really makes you think about where everything is. It also places a huge premium on horses since upgraded mounted units can be comparable to gunpowder units until you get into the industrial age.

As for some of the diplomacy complaints, most of the reactions are pretty obvious and leaders let you know when they're not pleased about something. I find that a moderate sized standing army will cover most diplomacy issues. I also think diplomacy plays more of a critical role in games where people are using the city states to their advantage because attacking certain city states will sometimes trigger a war.

My only complaint is that the included poster has a ton ... and I mean a ton of typos on it like some intern edited it.

 

[OTAKUjbski]

I voted underwhelmed, but I think I'm probably somewhere between underwhelmed and mediocre.

Having only played a handful of games, I'm willing to admit I probably haven't experienced enough to make a solid vote.

However, having only played a handful of games and still finding myself asking all the same questions (complaints, really) everybody else is asking can't be a good sign.

My one HUGE complaint about the game -- a promotion of ignorance. This game is hell-bent on keeping the user completely in the dark about anything and everything that could possibly lead them to making good decisions.

 

[Wolfwood]

I'm somewhat satisfied. I know there are problems and the uninformative diplomacy choices etc. annoy me as well, but I also know that Firaxis has always been committed to developing and making Civ better, so I trust future patches will fix most of the problematic areas.

As far as distrusting game reviewers is concerned, I would not go that way. Most of them are under time pressure to get the review ready as soon as possible and, with strategy titles, that means they only see a part of the game, perhaps 2 quick games or one standard game. That's no way to get to know a game like this well enough to rate it, but they cannot help it as individuals (since every magazine wants to be the first one with a review).

Also, as you can see with this poll, most of us are still very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with the game. It is only the vocal minority that is making so much noise... But that noise is needed so that Firaxis can know what to fix.

 

[CannonballJack]

Somewhat satisfied. I've definitely passed the money's-worth threshold, but I've also passed the honeymoon threshold. This game launched with bugs, balance issues, incomplete documentation, and shockingly stupid AI. The thrill is diminishing. (I mean, I'm here talking about it instead of playing it, aren't I?) I expect Civ5 to provide years of entertainment, but maybe I'll...wait a few weeks before picking up any expansions or DLC.

 

[dannythefool]

I'm somewhat satisfied. It's fun, it's just tiring that you consciously have to avoid all the issues that make victory easier than it should be. And there are some annoying bugs, of course.

 

[Vastator]

Between Somewhat Satisfied/mediocre but i voted for first. The game seems currently in beta state, there are a lot less features than previous civ, but i'm enjoing it.
PS: i hope all will turn ok for the people that said about their meeting with the radioactive monkeys.

 

[edmund22]

It feels like an unfinished game. At it's current state I'd give it 7/10.
But not because of game itself. I kind of like, needs a bit tweaking, but I like the gameplay.

Graphics are just downright pathetic. Cities, roads, special buildings are downright ugly, not to mention the rivers. The wonder images, the victory images... Disappointing. Where are the animations/movies?
Loading game menu - would it be so hard to add a timestamp column to the list?
Why is it so resource intensive? Next turns takes way to long. I don't understand why such a game runs so much slower than a game like Mafia II, COD, NFS, NBA2K...

 

[Stagh]

Mediocre.

I find it too simplistic: not enough choices with pros and cons while the UI seems to be designed for chidren. I play the game and I find than I am bored, something that never happened to me in previous CIVs (from 1 to 4, including Call to Power).

This is just a detail, but I wonder how road and rail graphics passed quality control. They are ugly and it is very difficult to differentiate them. I often end up mouse hovering to read what the tile contains (road or rail).

I'll give the game other tries as I bought it but I am definitively disappointed. I hope it improves after a few patches.

 

[Gunship_Down]

I'm rarely completely satisfied with a game at realease, so I picked ''somewhat''.

But really, I'm MOSTLY satisfied. Civ 5 is a very good game and a true successor to the last installment.

 

[D10_TheGreat]

im underwhelmed, never managed to get to the modern era because im constantly restarting games, since im bored as hell after a few hundred turns, I think im gonna download Civ IV =/

 

[Honelith]

The problem with Civ 5 is that transitioning from Civ 4 to Civ 5 makes Civ 5 feel like there's alot missing which made Civ 4 have so much longevity to its games. On the other hand, if you compare vanilla Civ 4 to Civ 5, you do appreciate Civ 5 more, but on the other hand, Warlords and BTS added s many great features to Civ 4 that you can only hope Civ 5 has the same fate. And I always felt the large patches for Civ 4 really improved the game, so again, I hope Civ 5 recieves the same treatment. As it stands, I find Civ 5 somewhat satisfying, I like some of its new features, but Civ 4 is much better currently.

 

[Mentalor]

...Eventually this will match BTS...

Of course it will eventually match BTS...BTS was Civ IV after a second expansion pack. Shirley, the real question is whether it matches a 1 or 2 week old Civ IV, not the fully matured and lived-in version.

I'm between somewhat and completely satisfied BTW.

 

[boombaard]

Buggy, and horribly balanced (wrt gold farming, production/food issues). Also, why do they always remove the feature to skip/not draw all AI unit movements? This is most of the reason why turns after 1500AD or so take up oodles of time, and it's pointless, esp. for units moving under the shroud.

 

[Jerrymander]

Ask me again in a week or two. I have my opinion (and you've read it a couple of times), but I'm giving some time to put some suggestions to the test.

Yes, but first impressions do mean a lot.

My one HUGE complaint about the game -- a promotion of ignorance. This game is hell-bent on keeping the user completely in the dark about anything and everything that could possibly lead them to making good decisions.

This annoyed me, too...

Also, hi Otaku. :3

 

[Slaists]

Let me say, underwhelmed...

1. All powerful archers: these early machine gunners are able to burn cities until well into mid-ages and renaissance. I have not gone much further in my game. Probably, they work well later on too.

2. What happened to all the automation choices? For example, where is "worker does not touch old improvements" option?

3. Love the traffic jams in valleys

4. Shouldn't roads pay for themselves through improved trade?

5. Wars can take centuries...

6. Why cannot my great merchantman join my city!? The best he can do, it seems, is to build a custom-house that adds 3 gold to a tile...

 

[fantsu]

Mediocre.
That kinda sums it up.

 

[DivljaJagoda]

I love the game. Playing it at first was a bit weird simply because of the new aspects and the annoying barbs but after playing a few games I am really liking it better than any of the previous versions.

 

[DivljaJagoda]

Let me say, underwhelmed...

1. All powerful archers: these early machine gunners are able to burn cities until well into mid-ages and renaissance. I have not gone much further in my game. Probably, they work well later on too.

2. What happened to all the automation choices? For example, where is "worker does not touch old improvements" option?

3. Love the traffic jams in valleys

4. Shouldn't roads pay for themselves through improved trade?

5. Wars can take centuries...

6. Why cannot my great merchantman join my city!? The best he can do, it seems, is to build a custom-house that adds 3 gold to a tile...

Don't roads pay for themselves when you build trade routes?

 

[MadRat]

4. Shouldn't roads pay for themselves through improved trade?

I agree - they went so overboard on having maintenance for everything it gets silly.

What is really annoying is that late game you get so many structures that all they do is give +x to some kind of great person. I love how later structures and wonders actually changed the game in a lot of ways. I miss the hoover dam. Right now its just more bleah bleah bland (and expensive).

Rat

 

[AlpsStranger]

I put somewhat satisfied. I can easily be bumped up to completely satisfied if they just fix the ridiculous bugs.

I can even forgive and wait for a mod/expansion for the brain-dead AI, I just want the bug fixes...