Is Civ V a Good Game?

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by Spoonwood, Feb 2, 2012.

?

Is Civ V a Good Game?

  1. Yes

    56.4%
  2. In Between Yes and No

    18.7%
  3. No

    24.9%
  1. Kerosene31

    Kerosene31 Prince

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2001
    Messages:
    402
    That's a very false statement. That's fine that you believe this, but do not say that everyone does.

    Civ 4 is a fantastic game, but I feel that diplomacy was poorly done in it. It was far too predictable and easy to manipulate.

    My problem with Civ 5 is not diplomacy, but how the AI reacts in many circumstances. The problem is that the AI does things that don't make sense even for their own benefit.
     
  2. aziantuntija

    aziantuntija Prince

    Joined:
    May 21, 2010
    Messages:
    533
    Location:
    Finland
    Yes, civ5 is a good game.

    Could it be better? Hell yeah! With expansion or two it would be freaking awesome! The feature I miss the most is some kind of colony system, also the AI (I know expansion wouldnt necessarily fix the AI) could be alot better. But yes it is a good game.
     
  3. Becephalus

    Becephalus King

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2005
    Messages:
    725
    Yes it is good, but I wish 2k had put a lot more resources into it. It could have been really epic with another year of staff time on balancing/AI.

    Civ also really needs a lead designer who has a tighter vision of game design. Too much feature creep over the years. It led to the bloated unwieldy unbalanced messes that were CivII & CIV (don't get me wrong I still loved CIV), and the not entirely well thought through CiV (which is a decent game, but a lot less than it could be).

    “Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.”
     
  4. Spoonwood

    Spoonwood Grand Philosopher

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2008
    Messages:
    4,890
    Location:
    Ohio
    Hey Optional! :wavey: No, I haven't played Civ V, or even Civ IV for that matter, and to speak honestly I have plenty going on at the moment!

    I would like you to elaborate. Diplomacy makes for one of the features I very much like about civ III, so I would find it interesting as to how you feel the civ V diplomacy system disappointing.
     
  5. Optional

    Optional Deity

    Joined:
    May 22, 2007
    Messages:
    2,935
    Location:
    It Dockumer Lokaeltsje
    Yes, as you know, I used to play Civ III intensively, and I 'd love to link back my experiences with Civ 5 to Civ III. When making a judgement about a game, it's almost inevitable that there's some sort of comparison with other games going on.
    For me that other game would be Civ III. For most others here on the forums that other game would be Civ IV. That makes it difficult for me to post any view on Civ 5 here. When for example I say something positive about Civ 5 (I've many times defended Civ 5 here on the forums) someone here will respond 'Yes, but Civ IV had that as well,' and because I haven't played Civ IV it's then difficult for me to respond.
    Speaking to a Civ III player like yourself would be easier for me, I think.

    If I would have to make a short comparison between Civ III and Civ 5 I'd say that Civ 5 has gained a lot in combat, but lost in diplomacy and trade.
    Combat has received a lot of attention from the developers. Compared to Civ III there's a lot more diversity between units and there's more depth in the promotion system. The one unit per tile restriction and also the way zone of control works makes combat a lot more tactical. More difficult for the AI to handle as well, but as a human player I feel I have to think much more when I'm attacking or defending than in Civ III. I find it a lot more satisfying than in Civ III, which was more about might by numbers and a disbalance between the AI and the human player when it came to armies and artillery.
    There are some issues with one unit per tile, but you can see that the developers have spent a lot of time on combat and for me that has paid off.

    What I find a strong point of Civ 5 as well is a more individual civ design. Each civ has a unique trait and either 2 unique units or 1 unique unit and a unique building or tile improvement.
    I think again the difference is that the designers have made more of an effort, more than they did in Civ III in this area.

    But in areas of diplomacy and trade I believe you can see that this effort has not been made. Especially trade is very simple. Regardless of personal preference, Civ 5 is simply lacking a lot of features that Civ III had; things have been taken out and not been replaced with something else.
    Reputation for example. In Civ 5 you can sell all your resources to a civ and then attack them, there's no penalty. You don't do it, of course, it's cheating, but why does Civ 5 not have a system to protect the integrity of agreements? To me that's a basic element of game design, regardless what type of game it is.
    The declaration of war itself does give a diplo penalty, which is good, but that penalty lasts for the rest of the game and counts for all civs, regardless of their relationship with the attacked party. If I declare on civ B because civ A asked me to do this, I even get a penalty with civ A.
    There are lots of examples to give that to me point to a lack of attention from the developers. If I put a city close to civ A, civ A may dial me up and complain that I'm settling too close to them. Fine, but if civ A puts a city close to me, civ A may also dial me up and complain that I'm settling too close to them...
    Civ 5 diplomacy has many cases where the idea was okay, but not enough tailoring has been done to make it fit.
    It does affect the game experience when Japan calls me up one day to say they hate me, then call again right the day after to offer me their friendship. With not much else happening on the map the behaviour of such a civ then seems the result of some random dice rolls rather than a weighted calculation of actual interests. Too many looney messages and stances of civs spoil the idea that you're dealing with actual civs.
    Most of the diplomacy howlers are quite patchable though, by just writing a bit more code. I think it's only suffering from a lack of attention. The problems are not a result of design choices, but a weak execution.

    For the trade system it's different. Civ 5 has a very basic trade system, but it's clearly meant like that. There are no trade routes required, things have a fixed value, there are very few other dependencies as well. There's no tech trading.
    The system isn't full of errors, like diplomacy, but just very basic. I'm not sure you would like this system, Spoonwood.
    If you liked all the intricities that Civ III's trading system offered, with trade routes, reputation, population affecting the price of luxes, the value of techs depending on how many civs knew them, etc. etc. etc., then you're bound to miss some of that in Civ 5.
    This is what I meant with that earlier post of mine. The people that criticized me were right, though, it's not for me to say what other will like or not like. There's a fair bunch of people that play Civ III as an always war game, which proves me wrong. For me playing civ III as an always war game means taking out its best parts - diplomacy and trade - and concentrating on its worst part - combat. But so many people play it like that, they must be getting their kicks from something I'm missing, let that be so.

    But there are some generic features where civ 5 is lacking a bit and that are probably less dependent of taste. No adjustable AI aggression setting, no ability to turn movement animation off, no remembering of game setup preferences, no seednumbers... These things are no big deal for me, but it does illustrate there's not always a forward development. Sometimes steps back are being made.

    Civ 5 is by no means a bad game, but as others have said, it could have been better.
     
  6. John-SJ

    John-SJ Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2001
    Messages:
    63
    Location:
    Silicon Valley, USA
    Put it this way. I have just returned from an extended break from computer gaming and CiV is the fist game I came back to. To be honest, it's the only game I've come back to, and I own Civ II, III, IV as well, along with all the expansions.

    So, I'd say yes!
     
  7. Agent327

    Agent327 Observer

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2006
    Messages:
    16,102
    Location:
    In orbit
    Not really, since traits and UUs and UBs are already in Civ IV.

    So is CiV a good game? Well, it´s a game.
     
  8. TheMarshmallowBear

    TheMarshmallowBear Benelovent Chieftain of the BearKingdom

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2006
    Messages:
    7,659
    Location:
    Inside an Ikanda.
    There's defenaitely A LOT of room for improvement, and I think it's more or less a general agreement on that. Yes, Civ 5 is a fun game, it's a good game, but there's flaws.
     
  9. Spoonwood

    Spoonwood Grand Philosopher

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2008
    Messages:
    4,890
    Location:
    Ohio
    Thanks Optional, that's definitely interesting to me.
     
  10. Camikaze

    Camikaze Administrator Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2008
    Messages:
    27,312
    Location:
    Sydney
    To note the difference, though, the UAs are entirely unique for each leader in Civ5, compared to a list of traits that multiple leaders share in Civ4, and can focus on very different areas of the game. Whether that makes the game better or worse is of course a matter of personal preference, but that there is more individually tailored design I don't think can be denied.
     
  11. Aristos

    Aristos Lightseeker

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    3,850
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Deep inside...
    I think THIS is the very definition of WHY it is not a very good game, at least for the hardcore vets... sorry to say it, but it has to be said.
     
  12. trueblue

    trueblue Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2010
    Messages:
    353
    Location:
    Scotland


    who exactly decides what makes a 'hard core vet'....











    id consider myself one and i consider it a good game.











    maybe we should measure the lengths of our...... game playing time.
     
  13. KmDubya

    KmDubya King

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2008
    Messages:
    632
    Location:
    Nong Bua Lam Pha, Thailand
    To make CiV a great game you just need to use a great mod like Thass's VEM. It gets CiV to live up to it's potential.

    I do not miss the stacks of doom and suicide cats being the answer to all problems at all.
     
  14. Agent327

    Agent327 Observer

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2006
    Messages:
    16,102
    Location:
    In orbit
    I never did stacks-o-doom.

    After 3 weeks of giving CiV a fair chance, the only thing I noticed is that it´s slower and more boring to play than Civ IV. Add to this the numerous bugs and design flaws that had to be sifted out by the community, plus the fact that you have to pay for every itty bitty DLC, I have a hard time considering CiV superior to any of its predecessors.
     
  15. gozpel

    gozpel Couch-potato (fortified)

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Messages:
    4,396
    Location:
    Australia
    I picked in between.

    As a concept game, it is absolutely brilliant and that is why I've been playing since the start of the series. There is nothing like it out there really and that the game offers a totally new experience when you start a game, is just outstanding. Every time you start a new game, it's a mystery unknown and I love that.

    But, civ5 is pretty messed up in many ways, esp AI being too stupid in many ways.

    I do love the start of the game and up to medieval, it is sort of challenging, but after 200 turns I usually start another game.

    My record?: 1300 hrs played, finished maybe 40 games.

    So evidently by me, something is missing. The feel from the other games is gone and it started with civ4. In civ3 we could play games with other ppl on these forums, taking turns in Succession Games, which was great fun. Civ4 took that away and civ is now a true single-player game.

    With the exception of MP, which I would never bother about.

    But will they fix it? Nah.
     
  16. Nevyn

    Nevyn Warlord

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2012
    Messages:
    108
    Location:
    Sweden
    Optional: Very good post!
     
  17. GoodSarmatian

    GoodSarmatian Jokerfied Western Male

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2006
    Messages:
    9,408
    Gender:
    Male
    It's OK, but it could have been much better.
    The crappy AI and idiotic diplomacy aside (your friends found a reason to denounce you, who the hell thought this is a good idea) and the fact that the AI can city spam in crappy locations with impunity aside, they tried to fix things that didn't need fixing and changed things from Civ 4 for the sake of change.

    Things that didn't need to be changed.
    Tech Trading:
    Was one of the main reasons to bother with diplomacy in older civ games. Yes, it could be abused and we all hated Mansa Musa for his tech whoring, but it worked vey well with the 'no tech brokering' rule in BtS.
    Sliders
    No more flexibility, no more short term tech stagnation to save money for unit upgrades, no technology races. One of the most important strategic tools from former civ games gone.
    Global happiness
    Is actually OK in theory, but it's poorly implemented and most egregiously it's a set of rules that doesn't seem to apply to the AI at all. It seems it's a valid strategy for the AI to build cities close to your roads to break your trade routes, and one of their most effective 'weapons' is the temporary happines hit you take while razing.

    Why no foreign trade routes ? There's really no point in making open borders agreements now. Trade routes were an important reason to not just attack anyone in your vicinity.

    Governments
    Policies are nice and all, but again you lose flexibility. They should have kept civics like in Civ4 and SMAC and added policies as an addition to reflect cultural development and modification to the basic political systems. Monarchy and Republic could have been government types, and Constitution and Hereditary Rule policies to differentiate absolute and constitutional monarchies or classical and modern republics to just name one example.
    Culture fliping:
    Again no flexibility. If you want a tile there's nothing you can do but go to war and raze a city. Yes, there's the culture bomb, but the opportunity cost is too high and it will immediately ruin your relationship with the civ, you might just attack.

    There's also a lot of different smaller things, like the way specialist slots are listed (who thought this is a better UI than the one we had in cIV), weak and poorly balanced national wonders that don't allow the level of city specialization we had in Civ4 and a tech tree that's too linear and doesn't branch out enough to just name a few.

    It would have been a much better game if it was Civ4 BtS with hexes, 1UPT, policies, city states, earlier buying, unique abilities, and improved diplomacy and AI. Maybe make the Civ4 AI a bit less predictable, but please not as erratic as in Civ5, where weaker allies will backstab you with nothing to gain, and you can get slapped with 'warmonger' and 'the bloodthirsty one' withou starting a single war.
    I can however live without religion and corporations.
     
  18. Camikaze

    Camikaze Administrator Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2008
    Messages:
    27,312
    Location:
    Sydney
    That's nice to know. Now, what did it have to do with my post you quoted? :)
     
  19. antoca

    antoca Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    Messages:
    98
    Location:
    Russia
    Civ5 is fun to play time to time, but as somebody said before, "in depths" it is not good and I think even mods will not help.
     
  20. Agent327

    Agent327 Observer

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2006
    Messages:
    16,102
    Location:
    In orbit
    Guess you missed the ´entirely unique UAs´ didn´t give me that ´ entirely new´ gameplay feel bit in there... So... here you are. ;)
     

Share This Page