I bought CIv 5 because im loyal to the brand

[jojobe]

This game version however is not as good as civilization 4. Civ 4 was the ultimate achievement for the series. I was hoping that Civ 5 would be totally different than Civ 4.

What i like about the game:
1. The graphics look fresh and clean.
2. Though confusing the hex format was a change.
3. instantly go online for content.
that was about it.

What i did not like about the game:
1. I did not like the fact that you could not stack units and had to spread them out, it made my game seem cluttered.
2. It felt the same game. LOL it put me to sleep at points. The city state were annoying and unrealistic in behavior.
3. When you think about another version or an upgrade you think more but the game actually had less content.
4. instantly go online to download content that they have not checked for viruses and worms. They should at least check the files.

Closing:

I know they are adding things to the game at but its too slow to save the interest in this game.

I was hoping that civ 5 would be:

1. even though people like to play the game in multiplayer its my opinion that more people play this game against the computer because this is a very long game. Therefore they should enhance the single player experience only.
2. Mix civilization with Sim cities. Not only do you manage each cities policy s and buildings you handle internal issues and globally problems. When you click on view city you should see the bank you made you should also be able to move, demolish, repair, and improve builds. basically you should be able to see what you built.
3. Units like spys, workers, priest, corp exec. would have meaning. for example send your spy to enemy city to blow up there port or cause a riot.
4. Solve issues from citizens or they will riot. If anyone ever played sim city the marriage of these to genre would be perfect.

one thing i really liked about civ 2. was the animated heads, they would move showing if they were angry or happy. There clothing and city style would also change during period changes. When you clicked the city you could clearly see what you built on a picture but that was about it.

 

[gozpel]

You have the game?

Then play it!!

 

[danieladler]

Well there isnt much competion in this genre, so there really arent any good alternatives to the Civilization concept. So as long as we dont have that healthy competition, that often can be found in other genres, we are stuck with CiV, with all its pros and cons. Anyway, who knows? The expansion might be good for the game.

 

[King_Course]

I think CiV is the the best launch of a Civ game, and holds the most promise.

What I don't like:
1) The A.I.

2) Diplomacy, you end up just clicking those popups away. You end up joining a war against someone you have a research agreement with, making friends with another friends enemy. All this stuff where you stop caring because the flow of info is just too much and yet still not presented so you have the full overview, when you must make a decision. The popup blocks all info, and it doesn't tell me what I have going on with the guy the A.I. wants me to denounce or go to war with.

3)Trying to sell luxuries, if a civ dies or a luxurysale can't be renewed. Okay, who will buy this surplus silk I got. click click click I need to go through the whole civlist...again...
3b)Alot of information is buried deeply in the U.I. and different pieces of the same info hidden away in different screens. Like; who has got a surplus luxury. Okay how does he feel towards me. Okay, does he need the luxury I can offer him. It's not on the same info screen, its many clicks apart.

4) I am not allowed to see what is happening to my grand invasion, because the camera wants to see how that citystate is holding up against that lone archer thats being a minor menace. When said archer is outside cityrange plinking away at a soldier that is healing then this can go on forever.

5) I play fast and often click a unit only to have the game and camera forcefully flying away in a kneejerk reaction. Man this is annoying, I know whats of interest stop telling me what to do. You obviously aren't right, Mr Game, that worker is not the second most important thing right now. And when 4 workers lose their orders at the end of a turn because an enemy is in the vicinity. Every single turn they must be retold, hello, I am on top of it keep working.

6) A followup of 5, the game has changed units and I click to move my soldier, and instead a cannon or a general is ordered to move into the enemyfront. Sometimes it moves a unit so far away I have no idea which unit I just told to go stand at a particular spot.

4,5 and 6 have me fighting an angry battle with the camera. Couple that with the game freezing between turns and you have a recipe for a bad experience.

CiV is still a great game imo, these are the things that are just not good enough. /rant.

 

[Brichals]

Good summary King Course, especially points 2-3. This UI could be fixed quite simply. I'm not into taking notes to see how X is standing with Y, who Z wants me to declare on.

Queuing workers also would be nice, mass selecting units for movements to a region, rally/muster points etc. These things could be improved, but for a vanilla I think CiV is very good, the patches helped a lot.

BTW aren't the Paradox games an alternative to the Civ series?

 

[Atlas627]

BTW aren't the Paradox games an alternative to the Civ series?

In a way, sure. If the OP is looking to play Civ/SimCity, then obviously Civ is not the game for him. If you want CIV, go for it. CiV is a different game. And if you are talking about non-realism (which annoys me so much, as it is not meant to be a simulation), then certainly CIV is better for you. CiV is more of a game, and less of a tribute to history.

If you want a tribute to history, then the first few installments of games published by Paradox would probably interest you. Each game covers a different time period and plays differently to help give the game the right feel. Europa Universalis I and II cover the Age of Discovery, Victoria covers the Age of Imperialism, Hearts of Iron I and II cover WWII, and Crusader Kings covers the Medieval Age.

If you want a game with historical themes, then I would get the later installments of these games (and I have done so). Europa Universalis III (and its upcoming spin-off Magna Mundi, which is more historically themed than EU3), Victoria II, Hearts of Iron III, and Crusader Kings II are great games. These are games first, simulations second, much like CiV.

I forgot to mention Supreme Ruler, which covers either the Cold War or modern day, depending on which installment it is. Not sure how to define this game though.

Paradox games will NOT give you any feel of SimCity. The games are almost all about controlling the spirit of the country through centuries of play. (HOI and Supreme Ruler are decades, and CK you play as a dynasty, not a country)



As for the OP's post, I think all of your dislikes are not thoroughly thought out (except for the stacks, that is clearly a player preference).

1) If you don't like stacks, then CiV will probably be the best installment of Civilization hands-down. If you like stacks (though I can't see why you possibly would, but to each his own) then you will probably hate CiV.

2) If you think they are the same game, then I think you are not delving deeply enough into either game. But if you feel that way, then play whichever one you would rather (or neither).

3) You are most likely comparing CiV without DLC or expansions to CIV with 2 huge expansions. Content is not everything, especially in a game that uses randomly generated aspects and is not hard-coded to play the same way every time. Just because they took out some content does not make the game worse at all. In fact, I think it improved the game a lot. I am not excited for espionage to be back in unless they do it elegantly.

4) What? They are providing you with an easy way to download stuff from 3rd parties. It is not possible to check the files, nor is it their job. All they have done is inserted a nice UI.


As for your desires for what Civ should be, I think you are losing sight of the point of the game. Firstly, the multiplayer experience is just the singleplayer experience happening at the same time from different perspectives. And that is exactly why it is so astounding that the multiplayer is still not working properly. Secondly, by asking for Civ+SimCity, you are implying that you would rather that game over Civ as it currently is. So it follows that you would prefer CIV over CiV because CIV is less gamey. I am glad you are consistent. But if you want Civ+SimCity then you should probably wait for someone to make it, because Civ will remain Civ. Civ+SimCity would only happen under another title.

 

[Heerlo]

@OP:

I think they're adding spies in the expansion.