Is Civ V a Good Game?

[Aristos]

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.

yeah... but then we have the problem of agreeing about the exchange rate...

how many hours of civ5 equal one hour of civ4? 10? 25? 100? 1000?

 

[trueblue]

yeah... but then we have the problem of agreeing about the exchange rate...

how many hours of civ5 equal one hour of civ4? 10? 25? 100? 1000?

and how many of your Civ4 hours equal one of my Civ3 hours? 10? 25? 100? 1000?

 

[krc]

and how many of your Civ4 hours equal one of my Civ3 hours? 10? 25? 100? 1000?

It doesn't matter. As a measure of "hard-core vet", no amount of those hours equals my first hour playing Civ1 the week it came out....

 

[Aristos]

It doesn't matter. As a measure of "hard-core vet", no amount of those hours equals my first hour playing Civ1 the week it came out....

exactly.

 

[trueblue]

well here we are then. three wannabe supposed 'hard core vets' and we cant even decide what makes us this way?

 

[The_J]

Moderator Action: Back to topic.

 

[Derpy Hooves]

Even with a pretty hard to pinpoint qualifier it still has 40% people that don't think it's even a good game.
For a forum where most people that dislike it will eventually leave anyway, this is a pretty clear sign most people are either displeased with the game or just heavily dissapointed based on their previous encounters with the series.

In contrast to what Cami said, if anything this is a clear sign people are displeased with the game, even if it's on a forum made for actual fans of the game.

 

[trueblue]

For a forum where most people that dislike it will eventually leave anyway

well you see, thats the thing....



the game has been out for over a year now.



when will the people who dislike it leave?

 

[Derpy Hooves]

Ranters have almost always left eventually, compare the beginning of the rants to the rave thread.
The fact that they keep leaving only tells you that if this was a mandatory poll for everyone who ever registered it would likely be even more negative.

Hell, even I only registered a couple of months back and my frequency is already declining, but this game creates so much frustration and dissapointment that someone new will take my place eventually.

 

[bonafide11]

I came around when Civ V was first released, then stopped coming around until a couple weeks ago when I just started playing Civ again. The negative threads were much more frequent when it first came out. Sure, part of that is that the game's haters have mostly left, but another is that the patches have really fixed the game up a lot. It's a much better game than it was when it came out 18 months ago. It was so unbalanced, it really wasn't fun at all. It's a much better game than it was then. If you don't like it, well, then maybe it's not for you, and go back to whatever version of Civ you liked.

 

[guenzak]

Yes...

But could still use work on the Diplomacy and could use an expansion to add some features. But still....YES

 

[Camikaze]

In contrast to what Cami said, if anything this is a clear sign people are displeased with the game, even if it's on a forum made for actual fans of the game.

Certainly, I agree, but displeasure can come from a lot of sources. A lot of people will be displeased with the game because they think it is merely 'good' instead of 'great. The clear majority of people who voted for the top option in this poll has lessened since my earlier post was made, but it remains a clear majority. I doubt people would argue, however, that there is not a lot of people displeased with the game. That would seem to be rather self-evident. But given that whether you think the game is 'good', 'bad' or 'great' is a matter of personal opinion, whether others are displeased with it or not isn't entirely relevant to your own estimation of the game.

 

[PreLynMax]

In the contrast of being completely blunt, "is Civ V a good game" depends on what you wanted in the game. Is the game better than Civ IV? The short blunt answer?
No.
Is this game worthwhile? Absolutely. There are some things they did actually improve in this iteration than they did in VI. Warring has be slightly little tedious (abet, still very tedious) in this game than it Civ IV. The interface is a lot less crowded, and the tech tree has been better done (seriously, when were Riflemen ever considered a industrial era unit? That's a renaissance era unit historically!), and how the buildings have been revamped were beautifully done. There are things I really wish should have never been removed or changed from Civ VI to Civ V, like religion and the Civic system. Nevertheless, I find myself playing V and enjoying it as well.

 

[TM Moot]

when will the people who dislike it leave?

fair enough question i guess....i do sometimes wonder why i keep coming back to CFC when i haven't played civ5 in months

i guess its partly just habit and partly to see if anything (XP, civ6, DLC, patches) has been announced

i did notice though, that even the majority of positive responses normally qualify their answer with a "its better then it was a year ago..", "once the AI gets fixed..", "diplomacy is pants but.."

 

[GoodSarmatian]

In the contrast of being completely blunt, "is Civ V a good game" depends on what you wanted in the game. Is the game better than Civ IV? The short blunt answer?
No.
Is this game worthwhile? Absolutely. There are some things they did actually improve in this iteration than they did in VI. Warring has be slightly little tedious (abet, still very tedious) in this game than it Civ IV. The interface is a lot less crowded, and the tech tree has been better done (seriously, when were Riflemen ever considered a industrial era unit? That's a renaissance era unit historically!), and how the buildings have been revamped were beautifully done. There are things I really wish should have never been removed or changed from Civ VI to Civ V, like religion and the Civic system. Nevertheless, I find myself playing V and enjoying it as well.

Good game, but not as good as Civ4 BtS sums it up.
There's a lot of things that were better in Civ 4, but war is not one of them. Ranged combat and no stacking make it more tactical and limit the number of units. It really wasn't fun to have the Azetcs declare war on you and then watch for two full minutes how dozens of chariots throw themselves at your fortified machine guns.
I disagree about the tech tree though as it's too linear. Civ 4 had many techs with optional prerequisites and allowed for different paths.

fair enough question i guess....i do sometimes wonder why i keep coming back to CFC when i haven't played civ5 in months

i guess its partly just habit and partly to see if anything (XP, civ6, DLC, patches) has been announced

Haven't been to the OT section yet ?
There's people on these forums who haven't bought or played a civ game in years.

i did notice though, that even the majority of positive responses normally qualify their answer with a "its better then it was a year ago..", "once the AI gets fixed..", "diplomacy is pants but.."

That's the worst thing about Civ 5.
If a game is bad -even if it's a long awaited sequel that turns out to be horrible like Master of Orion 3- you can bemoan the money you spent on it and say to yourself 'I won't waste any more of my time and attention on this garbage' and move on, but if it's a good game with major flaws, it keeps you coming back from time to time until it reminds you why you got sick of it before.
There's nothing more infuriating in a game than wasted potential.

 

[TM Moot]

There's nothing more infuriating in a game than wasted potential.

Spot on.

When i heard about City States, ranged combat, UA's etc.. I was soooo excited, and hence, soooo disappointed.

With a little more thought, planning and testing, civ5 could of be amazing...

 

[Zhahz]

I think Civ V is the best in the series, and I've loved every iteration.

The AI could and should be a lot stronger. When it comes to games like this I can never figure out why a company with lots of resources and money is incapable of assembling a team of AI guys to make the AI 20x better than what it was at release, when AI is one of the most important parts of the game.

The AI was really bad at release and has got better but it still should be a lot stronger.

 

[Mahi]

I just bought this game. I tried it when it came out and wasn't impressed. I must say the patches have done a difference now and I'm glad I've bought it now. It takes a while to get used to V if you've played alot of cIV. I can only say if you haven't tried Civ V since it came, give it another go... Diplomacy has been signifantly improved.

 

[Derpy Hooves]

Diplomacy significantly improved? Perhaps if you enjoy psychotic backstabbers, if anything the AI is more inclined towards early DoW's and diplomatic penalties have been added, and ofcourse everyone's favorite, the backstab routine that get's old reeeeaaaaally fast.
At least it crashes less though.

 

[Ratovan]

In my opinion, Civ V should be an excellent game but it's still badly let down by a shoddy diplomacy system, poor AI and lack of variation.

It seems to me that plenty of work went into the core game engine, like the graphics, maps and units, but there wasn't any real effort at creating the detail or depth of experience that you'd normally expect from a Civilization game.

Considering that we now have multi-core CPUs, lots of RAM and massive hard drives, the Civ 5 diplomacy system and AI wouldn't look out of place in pre-millennium software. I don't know why more time wasn't (or hasn't been) spent on vastly improving these key areas.

However, I believe that the game has a good foundation and deserves a big patch or expansion to fix the most common gripes and enhance the game-play. Like many others, I shall wait and see what the future brings, if anything.

My vote (at the moment) : In Between Yes and No