Is Civ V any good?

[CivRulesAll]

Having loved Civ 3 and 4, one would think that I would believe 5 is a good game. But I don't. I understand asking questions criticizing a game in a forum about it may have fairly biased results, but I've seen mixed reviews of V, some being good and some bad. I've grown tired of 3 and 4, so I feel it may be time to move on to yet another sequel. So please, leave me your opinions on this fourth sequel. Is it worth it to buy or should I just stick to Civ 3 and 4, which mind you, are still amazing games in my eyes.

 

[Andulias]

I don't understand the point of this topic. You don't like V, but you want us to tell you we like it? Oh, wait, you don't like V and you haven't actually played it? At least that's the impression I'm getting from your post.

So what's the point exactly? If you dislike it, don't play it, simple as that. I personally can't bring myself to like Civ III and consider it the worst in the series, so I just don't play it, simple as that. There have been dozens of such threads and, quite frankly, they rarely end well, so did you really have to start another one?

And even the poll isn't that good IMO. The options should have been It's great; Good; OK; Meh; I hate it. "Good" is an extremely broad term.

There is a demo of Gods and Kings on Steam, it's capped at turn 150 and you can't advance beyond the Medieval era. Download it, try it, make up your mind on your own. It's not a decision we have to make for you.

 

[CivRulesAll]

I'm not saying I don't like 5, I just want people's opinions.

 

[Birminesium]

With the lack of the diplomatic depth as seen in CivIV, CivV can be a bit disappointing. On the other hand it is an enjoyable game and I think you should play it. You can always go back to CivIV if you want. I still play CivIV from time to time and I think it's the best one in the series (followed by CivIII), nevertheless CivV is an interesting edition, especially with the recent expansion.

 

[Andulias]

I never found that diplomatic depth in IV, Birminesium, an honest question - what exactly is missing in V? Diplomacy in IV was almost entirely about religion, it was conducted using the trade screen and the trade screen only. I really don't consider this deep, in fact no Civ game has ever had a deep diplomatic system IMO. In V we lost map trading and civic/religion conversion, but we gained Denouncements (I like them), DOFs and the concept of promises akin to Civ 2's reputation system. The erratic behavior of the AI has also been (almost) completely fixed. They contact you to tell you their opinion of what you are doing, they monitor carefully who you choose to be friends with, generally I feel like the leaders in V are actual leaders, not a lifeless trade screen. So really, what is missing?

EDIT @ CivRulesAl: That quote isn't from some random guy on the internet. I am pretty sure general Patton had no access to the internet when he said that Neither is he a random guy

 

[omnishakira]

lol @ ppl saying CivIV has a diplomatic depth

CiV diplo is the best by far even though its not perfect

 

[Birminesium]

In CivIV you could clearly see why someone liked or hated you (in the screen when you're talking to the other leader). In this perspective I also miss the civics. If I was, for example, talking to a leader of a theocratic civilization and I had free religion, this really influenced our attitudes towards each-other. We have the social policies now, but that is pretty much a one way thing. You choose ones policy, then the following steps of that policy, but there's no way back (and no reason to want to go back). Other leaders don't seem to bother what policies you choose (or at least that's not clearly shown). In CivIV you could have good reasons for switching from free religion to theocracy, with other leaders hating or loving you for that. The social policies don't seem to have this kind of effect.
Furthermore, other civilizations, which have been friendly towards you all the time, can sometimes declare war on you for no good reason. And after the war they can be instantly friendly towards you again, while I would suggest that a war would have an effect on diplomatic relations for at least one or two decades. In CivV you don't seem to be able to have 'game-long' friends. Anyone can declare war on you at any given moment for no apparent reason.

But anyway, like I said CivV is still a really enjoyable game. And I'm just going to have to deal with the differences forom CivIV or play another game of the latter.

 

[Disgustipated]

Civ4 didn't have that much depth in diplomacy, but I still felt it was more satisfying than Civ5 for some reason. But they have made great strides with G&K's. I like the ability to inform them of spy intrigue.

Is the game good? I'd say it's above average. It's slower (turn times) than Civ4 and Civ3, and lacks as much replayability as Civ4, but I think it's on par with Civ3 on replayability.

Hexes is the best feature of this game, and it's difficult to go back to squares. 1 upt, is interesting, but ultimately a failure for me. Despite it being a failure, the game is above average like I said. The game could be great if it wasn't dragged down by 1upt. And no I'm not saying stacks of doom was great. I'm sure there's some middle ground that could have been achieved.

 

[Carl5872]

I have played over 1,300 hours of civ 5. Judging by that alone I say its good.

Rounding up to about $100 including DLC and Im too lazy to find the total cost for ciV and all its DLC, that averages to under a dime an hour of entertainment.

I think that the variety of civilizations really allows you to play a whole new way each time. In 4 (which I also loved) each civ had strengths and weaknesses, but in 5, some civs alter the rules of the game with their abilities instead of just getting more of something.

I really can't describe why it's so addicting, but I love it!

 

[Bandersnatching]

I'd say that Civ5 is a fun game, and worth playing. I can't really compare it to Civ4 because I haven't played much of that game (only just got it), but I do like the streamlined gameplay and tech tree, hexes, units having 2 moves, and some other features over what I've seen of 4 (though roads costing upkeep sucks).
I think that diplomacy is hard to create in a game, partly because it requires so much complexity and partly because there is little reason for it to be very realistic. In real life, a leader has to care about what is best for the people of his/her country (assuming he/she isn't a dictator) and what results their actions will cause, but in-game all you have to care about is winning; there is a definite end point where nothing else matters. Civs nuked from the game and citizens of your empire alike don't care about the use of nuclear weapons, for example (but that would be a nice, realistic mechanic to add; say, -1 happiness for each nuke used on an enemy civ).
Anyway. Civ5 is a good game, for some of the same reasons that Civ4 was a good game, and for some other ones as well. I suggest playing it, but try to get it at a discount (as ever).

 

[Andulias]

In CivIV you could clearly see why someone liked or hated you (in the screen when you're talking to the other leader). In this perspective I also miss the civics. If I was, for example, talking to a leader of a theocratic civilization and I had free religion, this really influenced our attitudes towards each-other. We have the social policies now, but that is pretty much a one way thing. You choose ones policy, then the following steps of that policy, but there's no way back (and no reason to want to go back). Other leaders don't seem to bother what policies you choose (or at least that's not clearly shown). In CivIV you could have good reasons for switching from free religion to theocracy, with other leaders hating or loving you for that. The social policies don't seem to have this kind of effect.
Furthermore, other civilizations, which have been friendly towards you all the time, can sometimes declare war on you for no good reason. And after the war they can be instantly friendly towards you again, while I would suggest that a war would have an effect on diplomatic relations for at least one or two decades. In CivV you don't seem to be able to have 'game-long' friends. Anyone can declare war on you at any given moment for no apparent reason.

But anyway, like I said CivV is still a really enjoyable game. And I'm just going to have to deal with the differences forom CivIV or play another game of the latter.

Clear numbers don't add depth, they add transparency, there is a difference here. Transparency is exactly what CiV needed really, but I think they achieved that with G+K and the greyed out modifiers.

Civics in IV had absolutely no influence on diplomacy whatsoever. A tiny +/-1 is barely worth mentioning. The example you gave concerns (yet again) religion. In CIV diplomacy is defined by religion, most civs love or hate you entirely based on your religion. It was its biggest failing IMO, it's neither realistic nor historically accurate or fun. In one of my latest CIV games Caesar threw 4000 years of peace out of the window and DOW-ed me just because he converted to Taoism 11 turns ago. Taoism, the most aggressive religion in the world, right? I was 15 turns away from getting Free Religion, but I guess he couldn't wait. 4000 years of cooperation, trade, mutual friendship and peace down the drain because he converted I am sorry, but this is stupid. I understand why some people like it and indeed religion is a great tool for creating the diplomatic blocks that you want and messing around with the AI civs, but I never was impressed by diplomacy in IV. Still can't see the depth, it's all about religion.

As for your second point - I guess I must be lucky, because aside from obvious backstabbing, I haven't had friends DOW me since G+K. In my last game I was friends with Spain the whole bloody game, from the moment we met. Havng friends is very much possible. Maybe I haven't played enough, I play Huge Epic games.

And it seems you guys still haven't understood this - in CiV when a leader is "Friendly" that means he or she wants to appear friendly, that doesn't mean he/she actually is friendly. A good example would be Liz, she always goes friendly right before she attacks you. The game does a good enough job to make it clear when an AI is trying to deceive you, and when you see a "friendly" Alexander, with whom you have only negative modifiers, marching an army towards you, well, I think it's safe to say he's lying. Was this design decision the right one? It comes down to taste, but I personally like it. Finally backstabbers sometimes actually surprise me, in IV old Capac always went Cautious for no reason when he was getting ready to DOW you.

So I am sorry, but I still don't see IV having any diplomatic depth whatsoever. If anything, it lacked depth because of the ridiculous influence religion had on it.

As for V, now after G+K I really, really like it. The diplo has almost entirely been fixed, religion is exactly what I was expecting from IV, being a builder is actually fun now, the tech tree is good enough for me, and I really like SPs and CSs. It doesn't have as many features as CIV, but especially in the late game CIV sometimes became a chore. you had to micromanage your cities, keep a track of their health and happiness, spread you corporation, watch out for that espionage bs, it was just convoluted. CiV on the other hand took it a bit to the extreme with the streamlining, but after the expansion... Well, it's still missing some features I am desperately craving for (foreign trade routes, war weariness and local health), but I just find it more... fun. I like roads having a trade-off, I like the concept of building maintenance (Master of Magic says hi) because it really encourages you to specialize your cities. I also like how the game doesn't go out of its way to stop you from ICS-sing, but rather makes tall empires just as viable as wide ones thanks to SPs and Nation Wonders. In IV by contrast bigger was always better, the trick was how to get bigger. I don't see why people say that it has less replay value, thanks to each civ actually being unique and the surprisingly deep religion system I find myself adopting a different playstyle every time I fire up a new game.

In conclusion, I really like V, I think it's a worthy addition to the franchise (I like it a lot more than III for instance). It's not perfect, there are still some silly exploits and wonky mechanics, but after G+K I find myself playing it a lot more than any other Civ game. Every now and then I would get a sweet tooth for something a bit more feature-heavy, load up IV, enjoy a game or two, and then get back to V. Maybe I am a casual gamer and deserve to die in an agonizing way because I encourage the dumbing down of one of the last big franchises found on PC, I don't know. But I really enjoy V. And it's also the first Civ game where I don't absolutely despise any kind of warfare.

 

[PhilBowles]

lol @ ppl saying CivIV has a diplomatic depth

CiV diplo is the best by far even though its not perfect

Civ V has the one element of diplomacy that people complain is lacking from all other areas of gameplay: immersion. You can feel the AIs are people rather than AIs with personality algorithms. And Civ V adds two genuinely new diplomatic tools to the system (well, one with two flavours) - denunciation and denouncement. 4 had a few more menu options in the trade screen, but in terms of diplomatic relations they don't do anything that the smaller numbers of options in Civ V don't.

es, foreign trade and the attendant embargos are a game-relevant factor that's missing, but that amounts to "another way for diplomacy to affect strategy" rather than "another way for strategy to affect diplomacy" - playing the diplo game in Civ V is, indeed, a game unto itself.

To some people this makes diplomacy feel irrelevant, since in Civ V the major effect of diplomatic actions is to affect future diplomatic actions, rather than to directly provide you with game advantages such as free technology or resource access. To me it makes diplomacy feel much more relevant, by contrast - it feels alive, not just a tool to make favourable trades.

Other leaders don't seem to bother what policies you choose

They do in the late game, but you're right that this is an awkward fit with a policy system that is essentially a fixed option - you can't readily change policy branch to appease one rival at the expense of another (sure, you can do it - Order and Autocracy are both incompatible with Freedom, so if you unlock one you can lock it again by choosing to unlock one of the other branches, but this can only be done when you have an opportunity to select a policy, and is a high cost for a diplo modifier with generally only moderate impact).

Every now and then I would get a sweet tooth for something a bit more feature-heavy, load up IV, enjoy a game or two, and then get back to V

I've tended to point out that when I want a more feature-heavy strategy game, I go for a non-Civ game like Total War. Then it struck me - during my most recent Medieval II game, in which I'm making territorial gains while simultaneously at war with four powers (two of whom decided that besieging me with an army too small to beat the defenders already inside when they sallied out was a price worth getting excommunicated for), I get besieged by tiny armies none of which has survived long enough to actually attack my cities, I haven't lost any battles and hardly ever lose units even if they're down to a couple of men, since they get left alone to retrain, and enemy armies keep randomly wandering in and out of sight around my cities without doing anything.

That's when it struck me that I'm playing the game the Civ V haters must have loaded by mistake when they complain about Civ V's AI (some of whom simultaneously praise Total War to the heavens)...

 

[Andulias]

Huh, I've always loved TW, but never viewed it as deeper in any way. An alternative is of course the PI games, but I feel like they are a whole other beast. I rather meant "when I want a bit more feature-heavy Civ".

 

[Can Not]

I play IV and I wish I had V's combat, I play V and I wish I had IV's diplomacy.

 

[PhilBowles]

Huh, I've always loved TW, but never viewed it as deeper in any way.

No, if anything it's a lot simpler than it looks strategically (a lot like Civ IV), with very little to it beyond "build economy buildings, raise taxes, raise army, win", but it's certainly more "feature-heavy". So it's an odd choice for Civ V haters to gravitate to or hail as an example of what Civ should do. In fairness I think they refer to it mainly in terms of its public order/happiness system, since the diplomacy AI certainly does nothing to recommend itself over either Civ IV or Civ V.

"when I want a bit more feature-heavy Civ".

Which is something I confess I never feel any need for. Civ has always been too feature-light to be satisfying as a simulation, and Civ IV's (overstated) extra detail adds little to strategic play - "feature-heavy Civ" is too much of a halfway house to have any obvious appeal. But then I did start with Civ I, by whose standards Civ V is ridiculously overdetailed, so I've grown up with the image of Civ as a mechanically simple abstraction - indeed the "detail for the sake of detail" approach of Civ IV was more of a turn-off than an attraction. If people want Sim City, Sim City exists.

 

[eris]

I can't understand how anyone can peruse these forums and not already have more than enough opinions to make a second hand judgement.

I like it. What can I say to make you like it that hasn't been said a hundred times before, and several times in this thread? Could there be some new detail that will make you decide one way or another? It's a poll. Will you just go with the poll and try Civ 5 for yourself if the poll is more positive than negative?

If not a rehash of all the same old discussions, what can we offer you?

 

[hudders]

Having loved Civ 3 and 4, one would think that I would believe 5 is a good game. But I don't.

I'm not saying I don't like 5

I like V. I miss a lot of the elements that were in CTP, (because that's what I played as a kid), but overall I think V is my favourite of those I've played.

 

[GAGA Extrem]

Vanilla CIV5 was of somewhat questionable quality for me. With G&K I can recommend it without hesitation.

 

[The_Quasar]

CivIV was good, but CivV (with G&K) is way, way better...

It still has the odd fault, which I hope will be improved in the 2nd expansion, but it's a massive improvement over III & IV as it stands now.

 

[CivRulesAll]

I like V. I miss a lot of the elements that were in CTP, (because that's what I played as a kid), but overall I think V is my favourite of those I've played.

By that I mean I'm not sure if it's good, but it might be. Having never played it I can't really judge for myself but I think I'll try the G&K demo.