lordqarlyn
Warlord
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2005
- Messages
- 220
How satisfied are you with Civ5?
- Thread starter Jerrymander
- Start date
Barely and they are trending downwards.
Mediocre is a pretty bad score and that or worse is above 45%
Plus it's pretty obvious the last option is a joke and isn't negative. *shakes head*
Panjandrum
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2006
- Messages
- 35
Completely underwhelmed. It feels unfinished, and is simply boring to play. I returned my copy for store credit, maybe I'll pick it up again in a couple of years when modders have made it worth playing.
Kevin Nash
Chieftain
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2003
- Messages
- 21
I am enjoying the game but it really does feel unfinished to me. Some balance issues that are annoying. No cut-scenes when you win the game?
I think this could have used another few months of work before release, but that's how the industry works unless you're Blizzard I guess.
I think this could have used another few months of work before release, but that's how the industry works unless you're Blizzard I guess.
It's mediocre. At best. Not my cup of tea, too many balancing issue's, 1 upt dislike.
Add to that that most people voting here are pro-biased for this kind of gametype anyway. It that sence, FireAxis can hardly be pleased, seeing those numbers.
Besides, it is almost 50/50%. How amusing is that? Those are bad numbers, really.
I think the majority feels the game is not that great, that's sad. Only 15% is completly satisfied.
Add to that that most people voting here are pro-biased for this kind of gametype anyway. It that sence, FireAxis can hardly be pleased, seeing those numbers.
Besides, it is almost 50/50%. How amusing is that? Those are bad numbers, really.
thunderlips
Chieftain
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2010
- Messages
- 6
I haven't brought the game because it was on Steam, I was going to wait a year or two and hope to see it on D2D.
Reading the reviews carefully, including the awesome detailed report by "Sulla"
( http://www.garath.net/Sullla/Civ5/civ5SP.html ) it looks like Civ IV and expansions were like Ultima VII and expansions, awesome games that made the old diehards happy, but attracted new players to the series. Unfortunately the latest version of Civ is the Ultima IX of the bunch. The spirit of the game was lost somehow.
What really spooked me is how many people are playing at the highest levels and winning the game, after just playing a few games themselves. Even though these are veteran Civ players, it still should be a good while before you have a hoot in Hades of winning on Deity, not at the end of the first week of ownership.
It also was interesting, the comparison between "God Games" and "Board Games". My joy in Civ is not winning, although I play very difficult games to be severely challenged, but I am not a Min-Maxer and enjoy just building a unique empire each time... it never got old.
The lemons HOI3 and Ultima IX also had many dedicated defenders when it came out. Comments defending them were basically familiar:
"You don't get it."
"You didn't see all the flaws of the previous version that this fixes."
"The new combat system is awesome."
"Ultima was too open, I got lost. This is better."
"I'm glad all the do-goody stuff is gone*"
"Give it time"
"Nothing a few patches won't fix, but it's good right now."
"I'm not experiencing any CTDs, so I'm going to imply that you are lying about having a high end gaming machine."
"So what if Stalingrad doesn't have a river in the province? The map is fine. This is nitpicking."
"Diplomacy isn't broken. 1943 Mexico should be landing troops in Latvia, and I like that fact that Switzerland declares war on Siam for no reason. That the entire world joins either the Axis or Allies in 1939 is fine. The old system was too numbers-based."
** Nevermind the "Avatar" is supposed to be like a Bodhisvatta with a Sword, the whole premise of the series.
HOI3 was a bust, and is still 'meh' even with multiple extensive patching and an expansion. BTW, plenty of polls, at least for HOI3, were slightly positive as well, backed by strong comments defending the game as genius. But in the end, HOI3 and Ultima IX went on sale quickly with a rapid price slash. Even a major overhaul from the expansion couldn't save HOI3.
Fortunately, Paradox learned with HOI3 and just put out Victoria2, which had some big bugs/flaws but most were fixed by the second patch just over a month after release.
I don't think that even if Firaxis puts out an amazing patch, they can save this game.
Civ IV on release had some flaws, IMHO, but I still took Vacation days and called in sick to play it, like I did with Civ II and III. I played many hundreds of hours of Civ IV before the first expansion, and probably quite a bit even without serious patching. It had "the spirit", which Civ V seems to be lacking from reports.
YMMV.
Reading the reviews carefully, including the awesome detailed report by "Sulla"
( http://www.garath.net/Sullla/Civ5/civ5SP.html ) it looks like Civ IV and expansions were like Ultima VII and expansions, awesome games that made the old diehards happy, but attracted new players to the series. Unfortunately the latest version of Civ is the Ultima IX of the bunch. The spirit of the game was lost somehow.
What really spooked me is how many people are playing at the highest levels and winning the game, after just playing a few games themselves. Even though these are veteran Civ players, it still should be a good while before you have a hoot in Hades of winning on Deity, not at the end of the first week of ownership.
It also was interesting, the comparison between "God Games" and "Board Games". My joy in Civ is not winning, although I play very difficult games to be severely challenged, but I am not a Min-Maxer and enjoy just building a unique empire each time... it never got old.
The lemons HOI3 and Ultima IX also had many dedicated defenders when it came out. Comments defending them were basically familiar:
"You don't get it."
"You didn't see all the flaws of the previous version that this fixes."
"The new combat system is awesome."
"Ultima was too open, I got lost. This is better."
"I'm glad all the do-goody stuff is gone*"
"Give it time"
"Nothing a few patches won't fix, but it's good right now."
"I'm not experiencing any CTDs, so I'm going to imply that you are lying about having a high end gaming machine."
"So what if Stalingrad doesn't have a river in the province? The map is fine. This is nitpicking."
"Diplomacy isn't broken. 1943 Mexico should be landing troops in Latvia, and I like that fact that Switzerland declares war on Siam for no reason. That the entire world joins either the Axis or Allies in 1939 is fine. The old system was too numbers-based."
** Nevermind the "Avatar" is supposed to be like a Bodhisvatta with a Sword, the whole premise of the series.
HOI3 was a bust, and is still 'meh' even with multiple extensive patching and an expansion. BTW, plenty of polls, at least for HOI3, were slightly positive as well, backed by strong comments defending the game as genius. But in the end, HOI3 and Ultima IX went on sale quickly with a rapid price slash. Even a major overhaul from the expansion couldn't save HOI3.
Fortunately, Paradox learned with HOI3 and just put out Victoria2, which had some big bugs/flaws but most were fixed by the second patch just over a month after release.
I don't think that even if Firaxis puts out an amazing patch, they can save this game.
Civ IV on release had some flaws, IMHO, but I still took Vacation days and called in sick to play it, like I did with Civ II and III. I played many hundreds of hours of Civ IV before the first expansion, and probably quite a bit even without serious patching. It had "the spirit", which Civ V seems to be lacking from reports.
YMMV.
And if I could downgrade my answer after another week of gameplay, I would. Originally marked Somewhat Satisfied, and now I'd answer Underwhelmed if I could.
Sadly, this seems like a common trend... the longer people play it, the more the luster and excitement wears off, and the emptiness and boredom begin to predominate.
Pangur Bán
Deconstructed
This is a really worrying poll for the developers. I've not played the game yet (don't have a computer with the specs), but I've never seen such a overwhelmingly negative reaction to a civ game. Baring in mind that you can normally expect about half the people to say the game is great no matter what it's like, the poll suggests that most of the civ fan-base does not like this game.
thunderlips
Chieftain
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2010
- Messages
- 6
I should add, just to be clear, that I came to this board looking for an alternative way to get it w/o Steam, and then saw some of the comments from long time Civ players. Normally, I would have just gone to the store or D2D and got it just based on the fact that it was Civ5.
I'm glad I stopped by and saw the comments, and glad I saved my money.
Hoping that Civ5 gets a revamp, but to do so would require a major overhaul, and if it was as rushed as it seems, it's doubtful the money/time pressured management will invest the resources.
I'm glad I stopped by and saw the comments, and glad I saved my money.
Hoping that Civ5 gets a revamp, but to do so would require a major overhaul, and if it was as rushed as it seems, it's doubtful the money/time pressured management will invest the resources.
I voted mediocre but I'd downgrade my vote now. I guess I was too nice.
I suspect quite a few somewhat satisfied votes would be downgraded as well if they ahd a new vote.
I suspect quite a few somewhat satisfied votes would be downgraded as well if they ahd a new vote.
afa2000
Time to die
I would downgrade mine from "underwhelmed" to "completely disappointed". I just can't play it anymore and I really want to.
funjbtsplayer
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2009
- Messages
- 22
The game is most off disappointing. I have played civ III and Civ IV. This game is definatly mroe like playing with your hands behind your back. Lack of the advanced options from CIV IV. Limited ability to build units. Just no fun!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
funjbtsplayer
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2009
- Messages
- 22
I do find it interesting that it is about a 50/50 split between enjoy and don't like the game.
Stoney the I
Prince
mediocre (player since civ1)
yes it has potential, graphics are nice, etc, the good stuff doesnt go unnoticed. diamond in the rough someone said and i think thats true.
But since its from the same company that created civ4 and the expansions, its an unfinished buggy beta thats stripped down from what was a great organic growth that is the civ series.
so many good things came through the patches and expansions of civ4 i was expecting a complex game that has all the info screens and stats you want at the press of a button.
simple great stuff like:
-clicking a city on the city screen gets you to that city
-clicking a unit on the militairy screen gets you to that unit
- automated workers leave old improvements
etc
gone. why? its so easy to put in, doesnt hurt the game in any way and is so much better. they know this from previous versions. why not implement it. WHYYYY
im sure it will be patched it somewhere but ..... why not right away
if it is included in a expansion you have to pay for i will not buy it.
yes it has potential, graphics are nice, etc, the good stuff doesnt go unnoticed. diamond in the rough someone said and i think thats true.
But since its from the same company that created civ4 and the expansions, its an unfinished buggy beta thats stripped down from what was a great organic growth that is the civ series.
so many good things came through the patches and expansions of civ4 i was expecting a complex game that has all the info screens and stats you want at the press of a button.
simple great stuff like:
-clicking a city on the city screen gets you to that city
-clicking a unit on the militairy screen gets you to that unit
- automated workers leave old improvements
etc
gone. why? its so easy to put in, doesnt hurt the game in any way and is so much better. they know this from previous versions. why not implement it. WHYYYY
im sure it will be patched it somewhere but ..... why not right away
if it is included in a expansion you have to pay for i will not buy it.
maxbjr
Warlord
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2006
- Messages
- 130
I'd like to downgrade my vote to "Completely Dissapointed " at best.
The combat system comes straight out of a 20 year old game called War in Europe, (or Panzer General, take your pick). Worse than that, the AI doesn't even what to do with such a simple combat system. The city state feature, which could have been great, is annoying and useless at best. (Oh yes, the AI doesn't know how to work that either.) Splitting the tech tree into 2 parts, science and culture, again a nice idea gone horriably wrong. (Can you even win a game with cultrue?, I think not, with policy cost growing with every city added, there's no way to grow enough culture to keep up.) That's just so many things wrong with Civ 5, I don't have time or space to list them all.
In short, Civ 5 is one of those games that seemed like a good idea on paper, but in practice it's a failure. One can only hope modders can make it playable. We could wait for an expansion to fix Civ 5, (patches won't do it.) But I'm not sure they should even waste our time with an expansion. Maybe they should start working on Civ 6, spend 2 or 3 years and get it right.
The combat system comes straight out of a 20 year old game called War in Europe, (or Panzer General, take your pick). Worse than that, the AI doesn't even what to do with such a simple combat system. The city state feature, which could have been great, is annoying and useless at best. (Oh yes, the AI doesn't know how to work that either.) Splitting the tech tree into 2 parts, science and culture, again a nice idea gone horriably wrong. (Can you even win a game with cultrue?, I think not, with policy cost growing with every city added, there's no way to grow enough culture to keep up.) That's just so many things wrong with Civ 5, I don't have time or space to list them all.
In short, Civ 5 is one of those games that seemed like a good idea on paper, but in practice it's a failure. One can only hope modders can make it playable. We could wait for an expansion to fix Civ 5, (patches won't do it.) But I'm not sure they should even waste our time with an expansion. Maybe they should start working on Civ 6, spend 2 or 3 years and get it right.
Chaotic42
Chieftain
One small example of what I consider a flaw is in co-op multiplayer. This is the only way I have ever played Civilization. In Civ 4, I could see what my team mate was researching. Now I can't. Why? I know it's just one small thing, but why remove that? It's absolutely not difficult to implement. What was the point?
What's the point in not being able to modify the game settings once the lobby is set up? Why?
Similar threads
- Poll
