Is Civ V a Good Game?

[Spoonwood]

This is not meant to consist of a discussion thread. The "raves"/"rants" thread, I think, can suit this purpose. I merely mean this a question to poll the community to see what they think.

Is Civ V a Good Game?

 

[FeiLing]

Yes, the game is awesome.

However it comes with a lot of technical flaws and no intentions from the developers at all to support the game how it should be the case - even more so considering how well it actually sold.

 

[TM Moot]

i based my answer on the fact that i haven't played it in months..

i like to think it could be a good game, in time, but it is still too flawed at present

 

[headcase]

The engine is good, except it's really inefficient (hogs CPU).
The gameplay is good, except the AI is sloppy.
The concepts are good (most of which are from prior Civ games), but the execution is boring in vanilla.

Overall I said yes. The good outweighs the bad for me, at least with mods it does. In a year or two it could be a Great Game (I'm not counting on Firaxis to be the ones that make that happen).

 

[ense7en]

Indeed it is.

Just because some consider the older Civs better doesn't make it a bad game (though from the wailing and gnashing of teeth one could wonder).

 

[Derpy Hooves]

It'd be decent if it was just some random TBS title you picked up for a tenner, for a Civ game it's an insult to the franchise and a beautiful example of devolution of a game to appease masses gone bad.
Altough I suppose this summizes into the inbetween option I went for no out of sentiment.

 

[Snoopaloop]

I agree with Moot. It could be a good game. Needs an expansion pack with some new gameplay features. I don't know exactly what, but something to give it that addictive quality that I feel it is lacking.

 

[bcaiko]

It is a good game. It's fun to play, for sure. But at higher depths, the game can be very frustrating. I continue to hope that Firaxis patches these continuing issues in order to make CivV a truly great game.

 

[Kerosene31]

Yes it is a good game. Rough around the edges still? Yes.

 

[black213]

In theory, it's awesome. In practice, it's good.

 

[blasto]

Yes, with disappointments.

It lost a lot of depth from previous versions, and a game this sophisticated not taking advantage of modern multicore CPU's is a major oversight.

 

[AntiCommie]

I think its a good game, but not a great game. Its fun, and I like the 1 unit per tile better then the stacks of doom we used to have. unfortunately the game is missing a lot of little things that could make it so much better.

 

[Camikaze]

As the poll shows, I wouldn't really think there would be all that many people who don't think it's good. A lot of discontent is because that doesn't necessarily mean that it's great. So yeah, it's undoubtedly (to me, and, as the poll shows, the majority) a good game. Where you go with your adjectives after that is a matter of personal preference.

 

[apocalypse105]

If you don't care about the diplomacy then yes

 

[Gucumatz]

Its a good game, not a great game. Its fun playing with humans, with AI its just so broken. For me multiplayer makes this a fun game to play, but I can't play singleplayer too much here because I get tired of mindlessly slaughtering wave after wave of ill-placed troops.

An expansion is needed though or to put it in Movie terms this is like an X-Men 3. All flash, some substance, but not enough good to get huge #s people buying a Civ 6.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

I said in between

I enjoy the strategy, the one unit per turn, it makes winning WAY easier than before because AI doesn't hog their cities with endless armies and I can purchase stuff right away which permits for quick war and not wasting 90% of turns on building up your army that will probably end up oudatted.

But there's some stuff I dislike, i.e ways of winning (Diplo, Cultural), the seemingly bad optimization (random glitches, I could just have bad PC too) I also miss Religion, Apostolic Palace/U.N Voting, a more expanded Tech Tree.. More variety in Policies etc.

But Overall, I enjoy the experience.

 

[NotSure]

As the poll shows, I wouldn't really think there would be all that many people who don't think it's good. A lot of discontent is because that doesn't necessarily mean that it's great. So yeah, it's undoubtedly (to me, and, as the poll shows, the majority) a good game. Where you go with your adjectives after that is a matter of personal preference.

I agree. The question of whether it's good is easy (at least for me) to answer. My guess is that some frustration comes from the notion that it could be great, or that too many minor failings take away from a "good" game. Anyway, I voted yes. I also believe the game will be great... someday.

 

[Optional]

Hi Spoonwood! What Civ 5 is definitely not is a game that stands firmly on the shoulders of its predecessors. People who have played an earlier version of Civilization intensively will no doubt be disappointed by some features of Civ 5, or the lack thereof, especially in the diplomacy department.

 

[Deggial]

Optional, please don't project your own disappointment on others!

I *played* Civ 4 intensively and I *like* CiV. And I've read many comments of other users, saying the same.
While you migth be right in a certain extend and I liked - for example - health in Civ 4 and would love to see something similar re-introduced in CiV. But I'm not *dissapointed* of the lack of this mechanism in CiV. And even more, I'm definitely *not* dissapointed about diplomacy in CiV!

The game is different at this points. That's all.

 

[Optional]

That's good, Deggial. Nevertheless, if Spoonwood wants me to eleborate, I'll gladly do that.
Did you try the game, Spoonwood?