Is Civilization V the worst game of the series?

[seasnake]

Interesting to see there are some people who licked CIV5 although sorry but I can't agree with you I think CIV5 is light-years away from CIV4 and the expansions won't work. Also honestly how can you say that an extremely bugged Vanilla CIV5 is the best in the series. Sorry but I can't see it.

Did you play Civ IV when it came out? It was a great step forward from Civ III and introduced several new concepts (Great People, Specialists, Civics, etc.), but had countless bugs and balance issues (everybody and his brother played the Inca, the Quechua rush and the Ind/Fin made them unstoppable) and extremely dumb AI. I remember playing it, and then spending another year playing Civ III gold, it was just a more fun experience. It took them a long time to get Civ IV to where it is today with the patches and BTS.

Civ V is better graphically than the rest, I like the hex grid and the maps, Social Policies are more interesting to me than civics, 1UPT is better combat than stacks of doom besieging cities. In Civ IV settling a city near rough terrain favored your attacker because he would use the terrain bonuses to march his stack right up to your door and then hammer your city. If you tried to meet him in the field he'd just step right around you and continue on to the city.

Finally, I think the Wonders are more balanced, the all do a useful thing but none are overpowered (i.e. the Pyramids in Civ IV, what a game breaker!).

With this new patch addressing build times, research times, resources and city placement there are lots of reasons to be excited.

 

[vandyr]

There are enough of these threads, you're not offering some fresh perspective or anything...post in an already existing thread. Every disappointed person or malcontent feels the need to tell everyone how he feels in a new thread. Plenty of people like the game, but they don't go making a new thread every time the thought pops into their head.

It's obnoxious and a crappy trend in about every game forum these days...

 

[Caeserportugal]

Did you play Civ IV when it came out? It was a great step forward from Civ III and introduced several new concepts (Great People, Specialists, Civics, etc.), but had countless bugs and balance issues (everybody and his brother played the Inca, the Quechua rush and the Ind/Fin made them unstoppable) and extremely dumb AI. I remember playing it, and then spending another year playing Civ III gold, it was just a more fun experience. It took them a long time to get Civ IV to where it is today with the patches and BTS.

Civ V is better graphically than the rest, I like the hex grid and the maps, Social Policies are more interesting to me than civics, 1UPT is better combat than stacks of doom besieging cities. In Civ IV settling a city near rough terrain favored your attacker because he would use the terrain bonuses to march his stack right up to your door and then hammer your city. If you tried to meet him in the field he'd just step right around you and continue on to the city.

Finally, I think the Wonders are more balanced, the all do a useful thing but none are overpowered (i.e. the Pyramids).

With this new patch addressing build times, research times, resources and city placement there are lots of reasons to be excited.

I do understand you like civ5 but clearly compared to civ4 it is not even close. It is simple too much easier compared to civ4 and that takes the fun of the game. Heck only at Deity may civ 5 be chellanging but compared to civ4's Deity it is not as better. About 1UPT sorry but it does make CIV5 a lot like Chess and can be confusing at times. I do admit the Mids were a little overpowered but for the cost I think it didn't cause much problems. In fact in the upper levels I usually only build them if I am industrious or have stone nearby because it ain't worth compared to having more cities up and running will pay me off better in the long run.

 

[trueblue]

Civ 5 is great.

Im loving it and im playing it every night.


OP, im reading lots of your posts about the fact you dont like the game, great, your opinion has been noted and taken on board. now toodle off, Civ 4 awaits you.

and i thought the mods here were super strict...

Moderator Action: Please refrain from telling people to toodle off.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[squadbroken]

Civ 5 is far from the worst of the series. 4 pre-BTS was worse, all of 3 was worse, 1 and 2 were good for their time but are worse in a strict comparison. Only BTS and SMAC are better.

 

[seasnake]

I do understand you like civ5 but clearly compared to civ4 it is not even close. It is simple too much easier compared to civ4 and that takes the fun of the game. Heck only at Deity may civ 5 be chellanging but compared to civ4's Deity it is not as better. About 1UPT sorry but it does make CIV5 a lot like Chess and can be confusing at times. I do admit the Mids were a little overpowered but for the cost I think it didn't cause much problems. In fact in the upper levels I usually only build them if I am industrious or have stone nearby because it ain't worth compared to having more cities up and running will pay me off better in the long run.

So your chief complaint is that Civ V is easier to beat than Civ IV. And you are saying 1UPT is bad because it makes the combat more like Chess, the gold standard for meaningful combat that geniuses spend 50 years to master? I agree Civ V's combat is more complicated than Civ IV, but I don't understand why that's bad. In fact, I think that makes combat much better and places an emphasis on tactics and planning for your military campaign.

Again, I think the AI in this game needs improvement, but it is not worse than the AI of Civ IV when it was released. I'd say as far as smarts they're about equal.

 

[Leif Roar]

I think an argument can be made that "Civilization IV: Colonization" is the worst game of the series, depending a little on how you define "game of the series."

 

[Leif Roar]

Civ V is better graphically than the rest,

I don't really agree with that. The graphics of Civ V are prettier than Civ IV's, but they're also less dynamic and alive; V's graphics are also less distinctive and units and cities tend to blend more into the terrain than in IV. All in all, I'd say the graphics of IV and V are about equally good, but in different ways.

Technically speaking, both IV and V have graphics engines that are atrocious when it comes to performance compared to the state of the art at their respective releases.

 

[tonic1080]

Agreed....the "politics" around the release of this game make it by far the worse.

- Released through Steam launcher (sorry you can only play if your internet is working)
^yes, yes, I have found ways around this now, just REALLY irritating I had to

- The "dumbing down" of the game. Taking one of the most successful complex gaming systems and reducing it to sell more copies. If it's not broke, don't fix it. The success of older editions was largely due to how well its complex systems worked and it's why this version is such a failure.

Reviews said the biggest competition to BTS expansion was the Fall From Heaven custom game mod. That a player-built modified game is the biggest competition is the sign of a HIGHLY successful game. Honestly I don't see Civ V ever reaching this level.

 

[Oohforf]

Seriously I was just expressing my opinion if you don't agree with it that's fine however you don't need to be mad at it just because you like the game doesn't mean you can tell the others to not give there opinons

*looks at your sig*

*Cough* Ahem, sorry.

Anyways, I heard that when Civ IV first came out, people disliked it at first even more than Civ V. Now, look at our cherished BTS.

Yes, there are things here and there that need to tweaked and changed, but I love the game. I LOVE it, much more than IV tbh. Atm, Civ IV is starting to gather dust since I haven't touched it since I have installed Civ V.

 

[DaveGold]

CIV5 is the worst. None of the other CIV games have persuaded me to stop playing until the game is patched to a suitable standard. Even though CIV4: Colonization will be a worse game after CIV5 is patched up I still found it much more enjoyable to mess about with that and discard it once I'd seen the problems.

As for the CIV5 graphics, they are still not fit for purpose. The roads are logically wrong at junctions. I can't tell a worked and complete farm from a worked and incomplete mine, for example. This makes me constantly order workers badly which infuriates me when I later realise just how many turns I've been missing my gold. Many of the information screens look really cheap, using a really poor template of dayglo colours on a dark background which looks like a quickly coded spreadsheet. The lack of finish in the game in general, including the graphics, is very sad.

 

[trueblue]

. I can't tell a worked and complete farm from a worked and incomplete mine, for example. This makes me constantly order workers badly which infuriates me when I later realise just how many turns I've been missing my gold. .

hoover the mouse over the tile and the game tells you what the tile is. please dont blame the game for your poor play.

 

[Bad Brett]

I actually still play Civ I and Civ II from time to time. And honestly believe that they are a lot more fun than Civ V.

 

[Martin Alvito]

Civ III was easily the worst. I tried to play it a few times, but quickly returned to SMAC.

Civ V has some substantial design flaws, but it's playable. It's no Civ IV, but there's some entertainment to be had.

 

[lschnarch]

There are enough of these threads, you're not offering some fresh perspective or anything...post in an already existing thread. Every disappointed person or malcontent feels the need to tell everyone how he feels in a new thread. Plenty of people like the game, but they don't go making a new thread every time the thought pops into their head.

It's obnoxious and a crappy trend in about every game forum these days...

Oh, I must have missed your complaints about The best things about CiV

 

[lschnarch]

Did you play Civ IV when it came out? It was a great step forward from Civ III and introduced several new concepts (Great People, Specialists, Civics, etc.), but had countless bugs and balance issues (everybody and his brother played the Inca, the Quechua rush and the Ind/Fin made them unstoppable) and extremely dumb AI. I remember playing it, and then spending another year playing Civ III gold, it was just a more fun experience. It took them a long time to get Civ IV to where it is today with the patches and BTS.

Yet, for Civ4 no key component had to be completely changed within three months after release (diplomacy, anybody?).

Civ V is better graphically than the rest,

Rivers?
River mouths?
Forests?
Identifying roads in tiles?
Seperating finished and unfinished improvements like farms from each other?
Even units need an icon of their own to be identifiable.
Texture filling?
The same gfx card which runs a modified over-huge map of Civ4 with large mods like RoM/AND by 70°C goes up to 80°C on an empty map of Civ5.

How anybody can call the graphics better is completely beyond me.

I like the hex grid and the maps, Social Policies are more interesting to me than civics, 1UPT is better combat than stacks of doom besieging cities. In Civ IV settling a city near rough terrain favored your attacker because he would use the terrain bonuses to march his stack right up to your door and then hammer your city. If you tried to meet him in the field he'd just step right around you and continue on to the city.

Where he would be in the open and therefore an easy prey.
Actually, the tactical options of Civ4's combat system were at least as much as the ones of Civ5.

Anyways, I heard that when Civ IV first came out, people disliked it at first even more than Civ V. Now, look at our cherished BTS.

Strong argument. STRONG ARGUMENT!

And completely wrong.
I don't think there has ever been a Civilization game for which 33% - 50% expressed dislike within less than six months after release.

 

[trueblue]

Strong argument. STRONG ARGUMENT!

And completely wrong.
I don't think there has ever been a Civilization game for which 33% - 50% expressed dislike within less than six months after release.

33-50? are they hard facts polled from ever Civ5 player everywhere? or did you dream them up. i dont remember being asked


Strong argument. STRONG ARGUMENT! indeed.

 

[lschnarch]

33-50? are they hard facts polled from ever Civ5 player everywhere? or did you dream them up. i dont remember being asked


Strong argument. STRONG ARGUMENT! indeed.

Is this game worth playing again yet?
51% saying no.

Do you think that the expansion will really improve this game?
60% saying no, at least not the fundamental flaws.

Refined Poll: your standing with the game
49% disliking the game.

And that are just the recent polls. All of them were publicly available, so you have been asked.

 

[callahan9119]

Oh, I must have missed your complaints about The best things about CiV

False analogy, merely based on the title; but anyways, in your attempt to be clever and smarmy you never bothered to read what you were linking, that's a thread bashing Civ 5.

 

[Rusty Edge]

Today I found myself longing for Civ III.

While music and graphics are the best ever in V, the other versions of Civ still had a one..more.. turn factor for me until the next version of Civ came out. So, as Civ games go it's the worst ever because I've lost that OMT feeling already.

To put that in a different perspective - in terms of hours played V is still in my top ten games of all time.