How satisfied are you with Civ5?

[TPQ]

Mostly Satisfied. If the game would allow AA on DX9, didn't mess up trade agreements by never ending them and giving you over 1.2 million horses and the tile textures stayed loaded, or loaded so fast you didn't notice, I'd be pretty much totally satisfied.

I'm more of a builder than a war-monger, so AI stupidity doesn't bother me much. Would be nice however, if the AI was grateful when you liberate their capital, instead of being cross and they didn't keep hurling pathetic insults at you every few turns.

Still, give it a few months and hopefully most of the issues will be patched. I really hope the devs get the tiles texture loading working properly and enable AA for DX9 though.

 

[Generals3]

Underwhelmed:

Pro's :

- Hexes

- 1 UPT (though i hate how it can totally ruin the path finding , and why cant we stack citizen units? its not like i'm going to send in a Worker's Stack Of Doom)

- City states (though i feel they're too shallow)

- Graphics (though i feel like in certain aspects the Civ IV graphics were better, remember when you could actually see things that looked like trees ? and for god sakes , did the dev team say: "ok we stop here" in the middle of the river graphics)

Con's:

- Most ******** diplomacy ever:
Close borders = war
Destroying a civ which attacked you = everyone hates you ?!
Conquering a CS = civ who itself conquered CS's hates you ?!
Defensive Pact => Never got one working with an AI
No map trading
Why can't i see how much he really likes/dislikes me. The only things i can know is :
he hates me , he dislikes me or he likes me . I like numbers to use as a benchmark

- Combat AI is as ******** as the diplomacy .

- Global Unhappiness and the removal of War Weariness (no the unhappiness you get when annexing is not a replacement for war weariness , its a lame joke)

- We lost a lot of small goodies like Corporations/religions/health. Which all had their issues but could have been great if fixed/polished . But instead Civ V pulled a "less is more" (which is all but true , its actually the lamest excuse devs have been using to scrap content instead of fixing it)

- Quite some wonders feel underwhelming . Wonders should be awesome , they're "Wonders" after all . This said , certain wonders are awesome like Stonehenge. but than they Give "Notre Dame" . +5 happiness ? A wonder? Are you kidding me?

- Too slow production/growth versus tech research speed

- Being penalized way too much to have empires who actually give you the feeling you're ruling over an "empire". Now i feel like i'm ruling over Luxembourg (no offense meant to anyone from Luxembourg)

- Puppet States need some sort of vague management tools . Sorry but why build military buildings if you're never going to build units. This is just as ******** as the Diplomacy and Combat AI .

- No foreign Trade routes . This could , if implemented correctly , be an awesome addition which could affect diplomacy and city states .

- Lame resources. Why are all the luxuries the same ? what happened to the improvements buffing the effect of certain luxuries? Why can't more luxuries be like Marble and have an extra certain special effect. Now they all feel like they're the same . Which is lame.
And the bonus most resources give (apart from gold/silver/gems/fish/whales ) are lame . +1 food ? +1 prod? +1/2 commerce? oh joy, i'm so excited....

- Lack of civilizations/leaders. I feel like i'm constantly fighting the same guys now , which is lame and i would also appreciate a wider choice.

- Social Policies are too static. Once you got em you're stuck with em , i can understand changing all the time with almost no penalties is also bad. But , why go from one extreme (civics in Civ IV) to another? there is a big grey area in between you know... I love that grey area!

- No MP with mods? So the only tool given to me to make this game good cannot be played online? This is what i call a sick joke.

- Bad performances. The low production/growth forces me to often end turn without doing anything or barely anything and i thus end up spending more time waiting for the turn to pass than actually playing, hah...

And that is all i can remember (might have forgotten some things)

Now i believe Civ V can go up a notch with some patches (to mediocre) but to go even higher it will need either some cool mods or an expansion.

 

[Chaotic42]

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.

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.

 

[Slaists]

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

- No foreign Trade routes . This could , if implemented correctly , be an awesome addition which could affect diplomacy and city states .

heh, my smiley was not enough... ok, here we go.

 

[OTAKUjbski]

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.

QFT.

Just as people don't compare their brand new 2010 car to the 2005 model they just replaced, people shouldn't be comparing 2010 Civ5 to 2005 Civ4.

Also, hi Otaku. :3

Hi. Long time no see.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I'm very disappointed with Civ5, for many of the reasons that people have commented on: The game and the UI seem too dumbed down - diplomacy in particular seems too simplistic, formulaic, and the game doesn't provide enough information.

Unlike others here, I don't believe expansion packs will help unless they change the game far more fundamentally than the Civ4 packs did. The game seems to be fundamentally worse than Civ4 - I'm finding I routinely get bored with it after an hour or so - and I don't recall that ever happening with Civ4 when I was at the same early stages of learning how to play. Also, I do still play vanilla Civ4 (admittedly with HOF mod and the service packs) as often as I play Warlords or BtS - and it's very clear to me that Civ5 doesn't have anything like the depth that Civ4 had even in vanilla version.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

QFT.

Just as people don't compare their brand new 2010 car to the 2005 model they just replaced, people shouldn't be comparing 2010 Civ5 to 2005 Civ4.

Why not? If I bought a car today I'd definitely be mentally comparing it with my old one. And, knowing that 5 years is long enough for reasonable technology improvements, I would certainly expect it to be better if I was paying a similar amount for it. (Actually, given the pace of improvements in computer technology is much faster than for car technology, a fairer analogy between Civ5 and cars would probably be if you compared with replacing a 10+ year old car. And if I replaced a 10+ year old car and found the new car gave me less information about how to drive it, was less efficient, and generally less comfortable to drive, I'd be pretty upset about it and not think at all highly of the manufacturers).

 

[Generals3]

Why not? If I bought a car today I'd definitely be mentally comparing it with my old one. And, knowing that 5 years is long enough for reasonable technology improvements, I would certainly expect it to be better if I was paying a similar amount for it. (Actually, given the pace of improvements in computer technology is much faster than for car technology, a fairer analogy between Civ5 and cars would probably be if you compared with replacing a 10+ year old car. And if I replaced a 10+ year old car and found the new car gave me less information about how to drive it, was less efficient, and generally less comfortable to drive, I'd be pretty upset about it and not think at all highly of the manufacturers).

Well yes , but for most BTS was their last "car" not the Vanilla Civ IV .

 

[QuadraQ]

Overall I like the changes very much, but miss the "richness" (and stability) of Civ IV:BTS.

Good:

- Hexes
- More organic (and strategic) city border growth via one hex at a time and the ability to purchase tiles
- Combat is actually strategic
- Interface (beautiful and easy to use)
- Graphics
- Embarking units (someone mod this into Civ IV!)
- Still has that "just one more turn" gameplay (for me anyway)
- Extensive modability and a built in system for loading them
- Steam achievements

Bad:

- AI is wonky (e.g. asking for ten resources in trade for one, then giving them all to me to make peace after a short war)
- Graphical glitches/bugs irritating, even ruining some games
- Very few civilizations and leaders to choose from (compared to BTS - the gold standard)
- Many "Wonders" underwhelming
- Diplomacy is opaque and confusing
- Miss Religion/Corporations/Espionage/Random event systems

Meh:

- Social policies are great in that they allow a higher level of customization, but they are bad in that you can't really use much of them unless you have lots of culture, and they don't feel like a replacement to civics. Wish civics and social policies could co-exist somehow and that culture wasn't the ONLY way to earn social policies.

- No scenarios yet. I was never a big fan of these, but it's surprising to see them gone altogether. Will probably be added as DLC.

Overall I hope that Civilization V will prove to be a great platform for players just like Civ 4 did. If they can address the issues via patches (remember there were a BUNCH of patches for Civ IV and it's expansions) and add back the missing content in future expansions we'll be in good shape. On the other hand we may be seeing as a rule odd numbered Civ games aren't very good and even numbered ones are great (like the Star Trek movies).

 

[Ogaburan]

I'm pretty disappointed. The UI is horrible, the game design choices are mostly bad, and the game is buggy as hell. I will never buy another Civ game or game released by Firaxis/2K until well after release.

I've also lost whatever trust I had in several game reviewers.

Took the words out of my mouth!

 

[Moss]

Voted mediocre. Civ V isn't as good as I thought it would be, I still like it better than Civ IV though.

I think the problem for me; however, is the basic principals of the game don't change, just the gameplay mechanics, and if those aren't improved enough or changed enough, it doesn't make the new game all that much more interesting than previous versions.

 

[PawelS]

It needs work, but I like the general concepts (1upt, ranged attacks, hexes, no sliders, territory growing one tile at a time, happiness limiting expansion, quantitative strategic resources, UI).

 

[tom2050]

Reviewers have the responsibility to give accurate reviews... and almost every reviewer failed here (as they fail with many of their reviews). They base it off the initial Wow factor, and not much else. The only accurate reviews are those posted by players on sites such as this. I believe there was only 1 accurate review done by a reviewer of this game, who actually told about the positives and negatives of the game.

 

[Davor]

For me I voted mediocer. It is a good game, but it's not a great and or awsome game. I expected more from Firaxis.

When I play, I love the begining phase of the game. The building, the planning. There is not really that much planning to do. Yes the exploration is more fun in CiV than any other Civ game, but there is not much options to build anything. And if you can build something the only option is, Do I build the Barracks and pay 1 coin for the rest of my life, (since you can't sell and or destroy the buildings to get rid of them) or do I just use the Barbarians to get eXperiance Points. I do not find that fun in options to have.

As said before buildings are underwhemling. It is so disapointing in making a Wonder of the World. For one, no movie, so there is no GRAND feeling of building something Grand and Wonderours. Two, they are just that not impressive.

I was playing on a huge map. I am going to start a new game and start on a smaller map and see if there is a difference. For now, I say Call to Power 2 is way better than CiV. CiV just has prettier graphics that's all.

Yes I am having fun, but I feel like I am a casual gamer that I will not be playing this game for more than a month. So I it looks like DLC or expansion will not interest me at all. I hope I am wrong, and will suddenly "get it" but not there yet. Maybe playing on a smaller map will help.

 

[Jerrymander]

I'm mildly surprised at the vote spread. Even taking mediocre as a negative response, there are still more positive responses than negative. Interesting...

 

[tom2050]

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.

 

[Brawndo]

Underwhelmed, considering the series' pedigree. Like a sizable minority of people on this forum, I feel like a beta tester for an incomplete product

 

[TheHarshax]

I am completely satisfied, not because I think the game is perfect, but I think Civ5's baseline mechanics are strong, have lots of opportunity for expansion, and provide gameplay that is decidedly different from Civ4. I am looking forward to what Civ5 might be like after two expansion packs, as was the case with Civ4.

 

[charon2112]

Reviewers have the responsibility to give accurate reviews... and almost every reviewer failed here (as they fail with many of their reviews). They base it off the initial Wow factor, and not much else. The only accurate reviews are those posted by players on sites such as this. I believe there was only 1 accurate review done by a reviewer of this game, who actually told about the positives and negatives of the game.

So every reviewer is wrong, and you're right? oookay. MANY more people like Civ V than dislike it (based on polls right here on civfanatics)...and I disagree about reviewers basing their reviews off of some 'wow factor', if anything the initial response to playing V is somewhat meh, it's only after spending time learning this COMPLETELY NEW CIV GAME that people really come to appreciate it. Every positive review I have read was 100% accurate, and the few negative ones had valid points as well, V isn't perfect...but it's really good.

 

[CornPlanter]

I expected to get mediocre game and I got one, so in some sense I could be "completely satisfied". And yet the fact is that it's mediocre. I am not disappointed because I expected to get something like that, and because Civ4 wasnt that great at release either. So I am looking forward to patches and expansions. Like TheHarshax said:

I am completely satisfied, not because I think the game is perfect, but I think Civ5's baseline mechanics are strong, have lots of opportunity for expansion, and provide gameplay that is decidedly different from Civ4. I am looking forward to what Civ5 might be like after two expansion packs, as was the case with Civ4.

For now I will play it till I beat Immortal and/or get bored. After that I will move back to Civ4 and the other games I play lately.