How satisfied are you with Civ5?

[777]

I didn't had any expectations so I think I'm pretty satisfied. New good gameplay and good graphics. Good game.

 

[IXJac]

Pretty satisfied. I like most of the changes, and I think the game we have now is a good, solid base to work from. If Firaxis tunes it up and releases the right expansions (I'd really like a diplomacy one - I want to lay trade embargoes and arms control treaties on people!) then I will graduate to delighted.

 

[_Mk_py]

Com Dissapointed. It is not better than Beyond the sword. Looks like a free web game to me.

 

[mikiencolor]

I've been a Civ fan since I played a demo of Civilization II way back in the mid-90s in a big PC outlet in New York. It was love at first play. I still think that the wonder videos in Civ II are the best in the series, none of the crappy wonder sequences done since have even come close. I still remember the themes for Civ II Women's Suffrage and the Manhattan Project! I wish they would just bring back those videos, I liked them a lot better than all this computer generated crap.

I'm quite happy with Civ 5. It definitely has a lot of problems at this point, but, remember Civ IV when it came out? The AI didn't even know how to stack units. Whenever an AI from another continent declared war on me I'd just shrug and say, "oh, that's not a real war, they're on another continent". They'd just send one or two units on an undefended transport every 10 turns or so. Nothing to do with Civ IV now, where if another continent declares war you know they mean business! My last Civ IV game I had a huge navy prepared for incursions but the AI sent a stack of frigates with four galleons filled with deadly units to my border, THEN declared war and to my dismay punched through my formidable and well prepared defences. With version 1.00 of pre-expansion Civ IV this was unthinkable, the AI simply did not know how to use stacks, embark units, invade either by land or sea. Version 1.00 Civ V AI is still way better than verson 1.00 Civ IV AI was.

I like the social policies more than civics, the hexagon-1upt system adds fantastic strategic depth though the AI still doesn't know how to use it (they just love to conveniently put themselves in range of my ranged units). The city states are a good idea, bad implementation, I find them a bit annoying, lifeless and repetitive. I suppose it's true to life for a superpower to manipulate a bunch of quarreling minor nations, but not enough is done with them... some scripts would spice them up a lot I bet.

The game has been released with an obscene number of bugs. I actually got one of the nastier ones: the Spanish XP no launch bug, and couldn't even play until last Friday when they patched it! It's also a resource hog and has absolutely no optimisation whatsoever. But again, same as Civ IV when it came out.

I'm happy with Civ V overall and suspect that with the forthcoming patches, DLC and inevitable expansions, if it's improved as much as Civ IV was from its release, it will take its rightful place in the Civ pantheon.

 

[D10_TheGreat]

The good:

Hexes
Border expansion
no more SoD

The bad:
No more civics (they should exist in addition to social policies imo)
Great persons cant join city
Wonders are lame

 

[Mentalor]

I could buy that argument if this were made by a company who didn't make Civ 4, but these guys did. There's no excuse for this game being less playable than BTS. They should be building on BTS, not Civ 4.

Personally I wanted a new game, not Civ IV.V (again). I can't imagine that they sat down with the Civ IV (or indeed BTS) code and just tried hacking it into Civ V...and as anyone who's written any software longer than the obligatory 2-line 'Hello World' knows, with major re-writes (no matter how much testing you do) teething problems are inevitable. And that is all they are...teething problems with a new game. Maybe they could have alleviated some of it by doing an open beta or some such thing, but they didn't...get over it, patches (or mods) will arrive.

 

[Bill Bisco]

Having the word "satisfied" in the title of the question and having the word "satisfied" in some of the answers renders bias towards those answers.

 

[kuukkeli]

Having the word "satisfied" in the title of the question and having the word "satisfied" in some of the answers renders bias towards those answers.

You, sir, are certainly reading other topics as well.

 

[fed1943]

IMO the ideas that made the game are very good.

But, as it is now, the game is weak, not finished...but sold.

 

[wilson1225]

Having the word "satisfied" in the title of the question and having the word "satisfied" in some of the answers renders bias towards those answers.

Having more negative answers than positive renders bias towards the negative. I think most of us can agree being "mediocre" is not a positive thing for a game to be. It would have been a better poll if the 3rd response was "neither satisfied nor dissatisfied" or something similar.

 

[Jerrymander]

Having more negative answers than positive renders bias towards the negative. I think most of us can agree being "mediocre" is not a positive thing for a game to be. It would have been a better poll if the 3rd response was "neither satisfied nor dissatisfied" or something similar.

Well, I'm not trying to be scientific.

 

[Bigwilly 16]

Last week, I would have said something middle of the road, but now my vote is completely dissatisfied. I won't get into all the issues. I've absolutely dominated the AI a couple of times on Emperor. Over the weekend, after several days not playing CIV, I tried Deity only to find that the AI is literally awash in units early game and throughout. With the 1UPT, by early mid-game, you can't move because the majority of hexes are occupied by AI units. I'm totally disappointed.

 

[sesaMe]

my first few games where tedious but after getting use to the new style of combat and bumping the difficult up to immortal i find that it plays fairly well.

i think improvments include: stratgic overlay, no tech trading, the new road system, culture & civics, making naval and horse units playable, embarkment, great generals and a general tendancy towards less units

most of the rest of the game feels just lazy, bizzarly bad or a distinctly worse than civ4: unhelpful civliopedia
opaque 'unplayable' diplomacy
cluttered graphics that make my eyes bleed
generic resource tiles and underwhelming great people making for less focus on city specilization
wonders getting nerfed so badly
ai 'flavors' being drastically imbalanced, napoleaon for example always conqring the world and ghandi rarley building his 2nd city
removing the 'agressive ai' option
generic performance issues- framelag, small buggs occasional crashes, the intro video
AI not bothering to play untill immortal

overall im underwhelmed, i honestly wasnt going to buy the game untill an x-pac was out but lemmy's enthuiasm in the opening day review kind of got the better of me. im also a little dissipointed that they carryed forward some of the flaws of civ4: AI spiraling out of control if left alone with a land advantage, renasiance era units becoming obslete before you can move them across the map on faster game speeds, ai not being able to perform sea invasions (atleast in civ4 they gave it a fair go).

the multiplayer was suprisingly fun althou you cant have high level computers and humans in the same game becaurse it just becomes a race to exploit the daft trade options

 

[SuperJay]

Somewhat satisfied. It's a good foundation but the brain-dead AI gets very tedious after awhile. I should feel at least somewhat threatened on every difficulty level except Settler. Unfortunately, the challenge so far doesn't come from the enemy civs themselves, but from the game mechanics that either aid the AI or hobble the player.

EDIT: And I'm not a "BUT THEY TOOK MY SLIDERS!!!" kind of player, either. I'm happy with a lot of the design changes in Civ 5. I don't miss religion or Stacks of Doom, let alone the sliders. I am perfectly happy to evaluate Civ 5 as its own game, rather than in relation to Civ 4. Currently, the AI in this particular game leaves a lot to be desired, and that would be true whether there were any prior Civ games or not.

 

[charon2112]

I still think that the wonder videos in Civ II are the best in the series, none of the crappy wonder sequences done since have even come close. I still remember the themes for Civ II Women's Suffrage and the Manhattan Project! I wish they would just bring back those videos, I liked them a lot better than all this computer generated crap.

I absolutely agree with you here. I also miss the live action advisors, that changed clothes as they went through different eras. They were cheesy, but I miss them...

 

[kiwitt]

For me Civ 5 is sitting on the shelf. I will probably play it again later. I have just finished my own Civ 4 Mod (see sig) and I must admit it is the best WW2 simulation I have ever played.

Civ 5 has some great things - The World builder, 1 UPT, etc, which I can use to make Version 2 of my Mod. But given the depth in my own mod, I feel comparing a "Vanilla" Civ 5 to a "fully patched, expanded" and in my case "modded" Civ 4 is unfair.

 

[thelibra]

#6. I tried using the monkeys as an excuse to skip work, but my boss told me to quit playing Civ5 and get my arse into the office.

In any event, I had read all the articles ahead of time and knew it was intended to be a reinvention of the franchise, not just "Civ4 with prettier graphics." As with any new product line, it cannot be fairly compared to a line that has something like 2 decades worth of tweaks and improvements. Civ5 is what it is: a new game, but one that holds to the spirit of previous titles without the limitations of them.

I agree, the lack of polish is perhaps the worst part of the game, but can be fixed in time with patches/mods. It's not nearly as perfected as Civ4 was by the time BTS rolled out it's final patch, but neither did I expect it to be. Give it time to mature as its own title. Were it "Civ4 with prettier graphics," I would be underwhelmed. Since it is a new product line, I am currently "satisfied" with the understanding it will get better.

Frankly, I'd rather be able to play the game in its "diamond in the rough" status right now, and let it continue to be polished while I play with the jagged edges, rather than have to wait 12 damned years for utter perfection like I did for Starcraft 2.

 

[Grimberht]

The best I can say about it.... the game have good potential, it can turn out to be, in a year or two, a great game. For now, its nowhere near a game deserving of its name.

I hope you guys at Firaxis are still working really hard, cause it might kill the franchise for good... yup its that bad!

Moderator Action: Swearing is not allowed, thanks.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Kerosene31]

Somewhat satisfied along with patience to know that eventually it will get even better.

 

[trlp1712]

The best I can say about it.... the game have good potential, it can turn out to be, in a year or two, a great game. For now, its nowhere near a game deserving of its name.

I hope you guys at Firaxis are still working really hard, cause it might kill the franchise for good... yup its that bad!

overreacting much?