How satisfied are you with Civ5?

[The Exile]

Somewhere in between mediocre and somewhat satisfied. Which is why I chose that monkey option, since I couldn't choose between the other two. >.>

 

[Darkness]

Well, Civ 5 aimed more at the general audience IMO... so those not familiar with the series probably don't know all the stuff that is missing/wrong with it, like veteran players do.

Or perhaps quite a few veteran players just don't agree with you?

I've played Civ since the first installment in the early nineties, and I quite like number 5. It needs polishing, better AI and a patch or 2 for bugs, but overal the single player mode seems quite promising. Multiplayer's completely unbalanced though. That's why I voted "somewhat satified".

 

[Asylumer]

Mediocre. There are some good developments in the series but poor AI and certain design choices make the game less-than-fun for me, and I've stopped playing it for now. The only thing keeping me interested in Civ 5 is the modding potential.

 

[jonnyp]

I don't like the over-simplification.

I like the graphics, I like the hexagon tiles, I like that there's only 1 combat unit per tile. I don't like the hiding of useful information and unit actions in the interface.

I don't like that diplomacy have been toned down. I don't like that you can't trade maps or technology anymore.

I don't like that cities are too easy to conquer (even though I like the fact that they can defend themselves now)

I don't like the horrendous system requirements. I don't like the myriad of bugs which should have been detected and fixed before release. I can't finish one of my games which I've spent 20+ hours on...

I don't like the moronic AI.

I want more techs, more buildings.


Basically I want Civ IV with V's graphics, hexagon tiles and 1UPT, but most of all I want a game that actually runs well with minimal bugs. They couldn't even provide that.

 

[Mentalor]

...<snip>...

DX9 is 8 years old now...just read that again...8.years.old. Is your Windows a cracked copy or something? Don't you ever do Windows Updates? Should software companies also be checking for the presence of DX1-7 or Window3.1/95/98? Come on...I think after 8 years its not unforgivable to not check for DX9 and to expect that everyone should be running it, in fact I think its quite a reasonable assumption. It is quite clearly stated as a requirement in the minimum specs after all.

In game notifications with bad grammar? Is that like the fact that Civ IV (BTS no less) tells you you've just completed a infantry rather than an infantry. Well stand me back up and colour me shocked...the great unassailable BTS has gramatical errors in it too...and thats after how long?

And as to it being a new game...yes, there are core concepts that run through the whole Civ series (something to do with them being part of a series I think), but concepts != code. I'll bet there's very little code that gets carried over from one version to another. And even if there was, there will also be a huge amount of new code which, as someone who's written software you'll know, would be very difficult to test with the entire range of the vast array of hardware and software combinations that Civ is now being used on.

So yeah, all in all, I stand by my previous statements. New game. Teething problems. Patches / mods. Get over it.

 

[logintime]

I keep trying to give it another chance, to take it for another spin to see if this'll be the time where it clicks for me... but that doesn't happen. I just end up finding more problems with it, and even less reason to want to play. Suffice it to say, I'm fairly disappointed.

 

[Jerrymander]

DX9 is 8 years old now...just read that again...8.years.old.

Maybe the first version of DX9 is 8 years old.

 

[Chaotic42]

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.

Design flaws aren't teething problems, and development being difficult isn't an excuse for poor performance.

 

[Maxor127]

I may have said somewhat satisfied until I tried multiplayer. That's when I became truly disappointed. There are a lot of problems. And the frustrating thing is that most of the problems could've been avoided. The difference between Civ4 and Civ5 is that Civ4 had a soul and personality while Civ5 did not. I felt like I was progressing and really ruling an empire when I played Civ4. In Civ5, I just kind of meander through it. The game does its best to stifle progress. It lacks unique music and mood for each era. The tech tree is poorly designed and too simplified. And these are the minor problems. Don't even get me started about diplomacy, AI, or multiplayer.

The only positive things I can say about this game are that I like hexes and 1UPT and combat for the most part. It needs some work, but it's a step in the right direction. And I think the leaderheads are well done.

 

[Doctor Phibes]

If I were to have a second vote, I think I'd move it from underwhelmed, my first choice, to completely disappointed. Into a fifth game (I tend towards huge maps), and I'm finding I can hardly be bothered. I don't remember this lack of motivation from any Civ release before.

 

[ozon]

If I were to have a second vote, I think I'd move it from underwhelmed, my first choice, to completely disappointed. Into a fifth game (I tend towards huge maps), and I'm finding I can hardly be bothered. I don't remember this lack of motivation from any Civ release before.

+1

I can't be helped, but the game gets worse and worse after some playthroughs.

 

[r_rolo1]

Underwhelmed. I really don't understand what the developer was trying to acheive with civ V: it is clearly not geared to the civ diehards but it has too much stuff hidden and not well explained stuff to atract new peoples, the interface is too cumbersome and incomplete to atract the number crunchers but it does not also fit the console kiddies ( too much clicks for doing anything in general ), the AI is far less cooperative than previous civ games, but it also will not play to win in any meaningful sense besides the borgish one ( btw , has anyone seen the AI winning in any way that is not military related ? ) and this by conscious choice of the designer ... and better not talk of the features they didn't ported from previous civ versions or the bugs/exploits they resurrected just because they didn't cared with previous versions ( ROP rape ( atleast for some days ), no overflow in techs, foreign military blocking workers, gpt deals + DoW, unrazable buildings that cost maintenance .... )

In resume, to who they designed this game? For Shafer ?

 

[ackblom12]

I'm in the somewhat satisfied grouping myself. I quite like what I got despite the bugs, optimization issues and various other coding issues. It's a work in progress much like Civ IV was when it was released. Best thing that could have happened? Of course not, but this has kind of been the case with a vast majority of the PC market for the last 10 - 12 years and I've become quite used to it.

It may also help (hurts so good) that I was a fan of Troika and Black Isle who made the most broken games I ever fell in love with.

I do however take offense to so many folks assuming that they are speaking for the community (aka myself since I am a part of it) when they say that long time fans or "true" fans dislike Civ V and miss many of the features. I'm certainly not the eldest player of Civ, I started playing Civ young, but I've been playing for a good 15 - 17 years and would greatly appreciate folks only speaking for the individual and not assuming some spot on a pedestal and trying to speak for me.

On the other hand, for the folks giving actual criticism and wanting to improve what was actually released and not just asking the developers to release a completely different game, thank you for trying to keep some sanity on the forums.

 

[Redman]

I just discovered CIV5 is already released. As with CIV4 I'm not so anxious to buy it. I'll read around the fora to see what the reactions are.

To me gameplay is important in CIV, the eyecandy as in CIV4 and CIV5 is less important for me. Maybe the reason I'm still playing C3C.

 

[charon2112]

I think it's interesting that according to this poll people are overwhelmingly satisfied, but the actual written comments are almost all negative...proof positive that people who are here to complain are much more vocal than fans of the game.

 

[Julian Delphiki]

are overwhelmingly satisfied,

I guess you're seeing different results than I am.

 

[charon2112]

I guess you're seeing different results than I am.

look at the blue line.

 

[Julian Delphiki]

So, did polls come valid again?

 

[zonk]

I think it's interesting that according to this poll people are overwhelmingly satisfied, but the actual written comments are almost all negative...proof positive that people who are here to complain are much more vocal than fans of the game.

A plurality of people selecting 'somewhat satisfied' and a bare majority on a board of people who are supposedly fanatics of the game giving it a passing grade is "overwhelmingly satisfied"?

 

[charon2112]

So, did polls come valid again?

no, but even with polls being swayed completely to the negative, this one still shows positive...which I find interesting.