I don't like Civ 5

[trueblue]

The worst part of CIV5 is dealing with the many problems with Steam. I was having so many issues with Steam crashes that I finally uninstalled the game and sent a letter to 2K letting them know I wasn't happy with having to deal with Steam in order to play the game. This game should have been complete in the box and not rely on a 3rd party that doesn't have it's act together. Steam stinks.

ach.



Ive not had as much as even one little problem with Steam. Not one. are you sure its not user error thats giving you grief?

 

[joethejet]

You're luckier than I am. I have re installed this game 3 times and still have problems.

 

[fantsu]

Is this game played by those who are familiar with previous games (mostly 3 and 4)?
I uninstalled it year ago, and never went back?

 

[Gamewizard]

The worst part of CIV5 is dealing with the many problems with Steam. I was having so many issues with Steam crashes that I finally uninstalled the game and sent a letter to 2K letting them know I wasn't happy with having to deal with Steam in order to play the game. This game should have been complete in the box and not rely on a 3rd party that doesn't have it's act together. Steam stinks.

I'm sorry to derail the topic here, but Steam is not a problem. In fact it has saved PC gaming IMO. I mean, Portal 2 for 7 bucks? SEVEN DOLLARS!?! ALL HAIL STEAM!

 

[PhilBowles]

It's not independent. It's easier for a big civ to spare cash needed to buy CSs. In Civ4, it was perfectly possible to win diplo with one city civ, so there isn't any kind of improvement in that regard.

In any Civ game, everything ultimately comes down to population. The importance of the 1 vote per civ condition is that you can't win by pseudo-domination, at least not as easily - certainly you can if you wipe out practically every other Civ, but the easy route to diplo victory in every other Civ game is to spam the map and take out/capture just enough opposing cities to claim a majority.

I don't think they will ever remove this. It would be against their leading design principle that the AI should play for win.

If only it was a leading design principle that the AI should play to win. Instead it seems to be a leading design principle that the AI should play to beat the human, regardless of how that affects its standing or chances of victory vs. other AIs, or any calculation as to how it would remain competitive if its attack fails. AIs would make more intelligent decisions and there would be more competition over e.g. city-states if they actually played to win. And it's perfectly possible for a civ to play to win without voting for itself (in fact, if the leading civ has 6 votes through city-states, it's in a 'minor' civ's best interests to vote for whichever other civ has the most votes to force a stalemate and delay a diplomatic victory - which is how the AI played in older Civ games). Which two civs get the chance of being elected can still be determined by population or map presence, they just would only get one vote each and the minor civs, and city-states, would have to choose which of them to vote for.

The worst part of CIV5 is dealing with the many problems with Steam. I was having so many issues with Steam crashes that I finally uninstalled the game and sent a letter to 2K letting them know I wasn't happy with having to deal with Steam in order to play the game. This game should have been complete in the box and not rely on a 3rd party that doesn't have it's act together. Steam stinks.

I'm sorry to derail the topic here, but Steam is not a problem. In fact it has saved PC gaming IMO. I mean, Portal 2 for 7 bucks? SEVEN DOLLARS!?! ALL HAIL STEAM!

Except for the fact that it comes with irritating pop-ups and seems to be responsible for delayed loading in games (most Steam games I have load slowly - esp Civ V and Shogun 2), I have no problem with Steam (although it has prompted me to spend lots of money on games on offer that I hardly, and in some cases, haven't played - admottedly some, like Sins of a Solar Empire, are games I was interested in anyway that just turned out not to be very good, but I've got all sorts of random clutter as well). Unlike many, I actually like the DLC model in principle even if the prices and content often leave a lot to be desired, and Civ V actually has some of the better DLC content I've seen - look at what other games offer. I mean come on, cosmetic graphics packs? Would anyone pay for those, and if so why? Aside from the Rise of the Samurai campaign, the best the Total War series offers - aside from yet more random cosmetic upgrades like 'blood packs' - are extra unnecessary units, half of which seem to have been designed just for the sake of adding variety rather than with any regard to the historical setting. Bulletproof Monks that actually resist firearms? Warrior nuns?

I do however disagree with game designers imposing Steam on people rather than having it as an option, especially for games that are predominantly single-player like the Civ series.

 

[TPQ]

My advice is that if you don't like Civ5, you shouldn't play it. No point in doing something you don't like when that thing is totally optional.

Skyrim is a nice game, but I've had the opposite experience. As much as I like Skyrim, I find myself drifting back to Civ5 after a few hours play. When it was Civ4 and Oblivion I lost several weeks of my life to Oblivion and had to partially re-learn Civ4 when I'd finally started to remember that games other than Oblivion existed.

I don't really get the same "1 more turn" feeling with Civ5 that I got with Civ4, but I do get a "1 more game" feeling when I've gone a couple of days without playing, after completing my last game of Civ5.

I don't know, Civ4 just felt more engaging, more deep, more all-consuming compared to Civ5 in the same way Oblivion was compared to Skyrim, for me. Both Civ5 and Skyrim are great games, but both seem to be lacking a certain something compared to their predecessors imo.

Anyway, as I said, if you don't like playing a game, don't play it. Only play games you like .

 

[trueblue]

Killing dragons in Skyrim gets repetitive, sadly.

 

[jmik99]

I'm sorry to derail the topic here, but Steam is not a problem. In fact it has saved PC gaming IMO. I mean, Portal 2 for 7 bucks? SEVEN DOLLARS!?! ALL HAIL STEAM!

This 100%. I will never ever buy games outside Steam, Gamersgate etc. again. Retail is DEAD.

To those who are about to save a zillion bucks on steam, I salute you!

 

[Aristos]

be prepared for a game in Civ IV's that more micromanagement focused and with more variety (and, yes, stacks of doom), but overall much the same in terms of strategy.

This is simply a falacy. The man is going around trying to level down civ4 to civ5 standards, using a lot of fancy words.

StarhemBerg, I will make it simple for you. Don't listen to the man, he is trying to convince some that 4 and 5 are at the same level of strategic depth. I could try to convince you of the opposite, but it does not make sense as I am not campaigning.

What I will try to convince you to, though, is to make your own decision. civ4 goes cheap these days, so get it, play it and make your own mind. I am sure you will not be dissappointed, but unlike others, I will not try to convince you of that.

GO ahead, block your ears, and make your own mind. Most of all, enjoy! (civ4, that is).

 

[jtb1127]

My advice is that if you don't like Civ5, you shouldn't play it. No point in doing something you don't like when that thing is totally optional.

Skyrim is a nice game, but I've had the opposite experience. As much as I like Skyrim, I find myself drifting back to Civ5 after a few hours play. When it was Civ4 and Oblivion I lost several weeks of my life to Oblivion and had to partially re-learn Civ4 when I'd finally started to remember that games other than Oblivion existed.

I don't really get the same "1 more turn" feeling with Civ5 that I got with Civ4, but I do get a "1 more game" feeling when I've gone a couple of days without playing, after completing my last game of Civ5.

I don't know, Civ4 just felt more engaging, more deep, more all-consuming compared to Civ5 in the same way Oblivion was compared to Skyrim, for me. Both Civ5 and Skyrim are great games, but both seem to be lacking a certain something compared to their predecessors imo.

Anyway, as I said, if you don't like playing a game, don't play it. Only play games you like .

I play pretty much every game mentioned in this post. A lot of people make it sound as if there are two options: play civ 4 or play civ 5. In actuality you can do both. I probably play civ 4 around 5x more than civ v, but I still play one or two files in civ v a month.

 

[vonbach]

Civ V isn't a bad game its ok but its a game that screams out for a proper
expansion pack to be made. Not the steam add ons. Things like religion
and espionage should at least be options in the game. Stuff they should
put in an expansion pack but bluntly put should have been in the game
in the first place.

 

[PhilBowles]

Civ V isn't a bad game its ok but its a game that screams out for a proper
expansion pack to be made. Not the steam add ons. Things like religion
and espionage should at least be options in the game. Stuff they should
put in an expansion pack but bluntly put should have been in the game
in the first place.

Espionage should have been in Civ IV in the first place but had to wait for an expansion... The second one, if I remember correctly.

 

[Camikaze]

Moderator Action: This doesn't seem really all much more than a rants thread.

The OP is welcome to create threads asking more specific questions about the game and various aspects of it, and to have a read around the forums, but very generalised thread questions don't offer for too much productive discussion.