Is Civilization V the worst game of the series?

[elthrasher]

We were promised CIV 5 but instead we recieved CIV REV2.

Whatever Civ5 may be, it's not CivRev2. Civ5 has a great deal more in common with Civ4. The principle departures for CivRev is that there are no workers or tile improvements and you can go all the way to Space Flight in about two hours (average player). It's a far more condensed game.

Also the multiplayer is great. Single? Well, I probably would have shelved the game two years ago if not for multi.

 

[Caeserportugal]

Also the multiplayer is great. Single? Well, I probably would have shelved the game two years ago if not for multi.

Yes but having a great multiplayer alone isn't enough to save a great game because Cvilization as a whole was a game created with Single Player in mind not multiplayer. I think if I am not mistaken the first game in the serie with multiplayer was one of the expansions for CIV III.

 

[Sneaks]

Having played civ games for years, civ v was a letdown as far as complexity, mainly because I liked micromanagement. Where it made me happy was the graphics. I always felt civ iv was an ugly game and tended to overlook this because it was so fun. Civ v is eye candy to me in comparison. 1upt is another aspect I really like in v. I never felt like I was engaging in something that could ever be mistaken for strategy in iv. Stacks looked awful and made most battles about who can put more units in their pile of war. This in no way makes me think v works well right now, but even it's broken system is more appealing to me personally. One of the most telling pieces of v though is how many of my console jockey friends not only play it but enjoy it. V seems to polarize civ fans deeply but it also appeals to people who could never get into the genre with iv. Does this mean it is dumbed down? Sort of. In their efforts to streamline, too much was cast aside. Overall I would say v is a move sideways from iv.

 

[Caeserportugal]

Having played civ games for years, civ v was a letdown as far as complexity, mainly because I liked micromanagement.

That is one of the points I defenatly agree with you. Micromanagemente is and allways has been a crucial part of the civ series but with my few experience with CIV V I found very little or no micromanagement at all.

Where it made me happy was the graphics. I always felt civ iv was an ugly game and tended to overlook this because it was so fun. Civ v is eye candy to me in comparison.

Defenatly the graphics were for me the only part where they didn't mess up. But sometimes I think it is more important how the gameplay is not teh graphics. An exemple would be civ II

1upt is another aspect I really like in v. I never felt like I was engaging in something that could ever be mistaken for strategy in iv. Stacks looked awful and made most battles about who can put more units in their pile of war.

Iupt had such a great potential but I think the messed it up very badly. I think a higher limit a counterbalance between staks and 1upt should have been done like only a maximum of 3 or 4 upt should have been enough.

This in no way makes me think v works well right now, but even it's broken system is more appealing to me personally. One of the most telling pieces of v though is how many of my console jockey friends not only play it but enjoy it. V seems to polarize civ fans deeply but it also appeals to people who could never get into the genre with iv. Does this mean it is dumbed down? Sort of. In their efforts to streamline, too much was cast aside. Overall I would say v is a move sideways from iv.

Like I said before CIV V is easier than IV and it is a lot and I mean a lot dumbed down. If they wanted to make a gme for new players they should have goine instead with CIV REV2

 

[Tapewormlondon]

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.

This!!

 

[Saarud]

Iupt had such a great potential but I think the messed it up very badly. I think a higher limit a counterbalance between staks and 1upt should have been done like only a maximum of 3 or 4 upt should have been enough.

On this I agree with you somewhat. While I like the concept with limited stacks perhaps just a small changes such as 2 upt would have been better? You know so that archers didn't shoot across straits and such. Whatever the best method is I am old enough to know that no developers will ever develop the perfect game for me, so I am settled with the 1upt rule since it is more fun than the unlimited stack method in Civ 4.

 

[Zyxpsilon]

The elephant in the room is that this is not an isolated thing. For months now, it seems like every time somebody makes a negative thread, a Civ V fan feels the need to jump in and tell him to shut his face about it already.

If that's what it takes to prove a perfectly valid point, i'm certainly willing and able to defend whatever intelligent reasoning i can come up with TOO.
As much as i like my freedom of expression, there's a definite intricate limit to cohesive thoughts when they overshoot their targets by miles rather than inches.

90% of CFC threads descended in hell because of such sick freaky negativity examples all over the place.
I won't stand idle anymore.
It's ENOUGH.

You hate the game, fine... go straight to the Rants thread (IT should be flagged, stickied... benefit from a size 4+ fonts and flashed with contrasting colors by Moderators, btw) and leave me alone.
I'll simply stop modding (goodbye new UIs, LeoPaRd, Eras and everything else i haven't thought of yet) & visit here if i must.

IT HAS TO STOP, now, today, immediately.

 

[SuperJay]

IT HAS TO STOP, now, today, immediately.

Er, no it doesn't. Our opinions are as valid as yours, and everyone else has as much right to post here as you do. If the fact that there are people out there who don't share your love for Civ 5 is enough to stop you from playing / modding / enjoying that game, that's a real shame... but that's your decision, nobody else's responsibility. (And aren't you giving everyone else a LOT of power over you by conceding so much control over yourself? Seems strange.)

Anyway, I hope you're able to find a more reasonable solution to your problem. Good luck!

 

[lschnarch]

90% of CFC threads descended in hell because of such sick freaky negativity examples all over the place.
I won't stand idle anymore.
It's ENOUGH.

You hate the game, fine... go straight to the Rants thread (IT should be flagged, stickied... benefit from a size 4+ fonts and flashed with contrasting colors by Moderators, btw) and leave me alone.
I'll simply stop modding (goodbye new UIs, LeoPaRd, Eras and everything else i haven't thought of yet) & visit here if i must.

IT HAS TO STOP, now, today, immediately.

That's funny.
Seems that it is just one group of posters feeling entitled to tell the others what they have to do. Now. Today. Immediately.

 

[vandyr]

Er, no it doesn't. Our opinions are as valid as yours, and everyone else has as much right to post here as you do.

While that is certainly true, I think he's indicating to the fact that certain people post the same derogatory stuff over and over and in every possible thread they can get their avatar into, and they do it so often that it has become ridiculously redundant and beyond needless. People that enjoy the game or want to read about it are driven away from this site because of these people, and some of them have been doing it, as I said before, since September. I have taken several vacations from here simply because of the negativity from the same people that's endlessly spammed throughout the forum. Everytime I come back, they're still here, posting the same rants. This has been going on for almost 6 months.

 

[Zyxpsilon]

Sheesh, now I'm whining about the people whining about the whiners. I'm like post-whine at this poiint.

Ya, well, not soooo fast.

You have to right to remain silent, everything you say will be held against you in a court of Law... familiar?

As i said and will insist if i must. CFC is a moderated Forum where thousands of people play a game or (lately, regularly, etc) come here to destroy online participative communications.
Bash, rant, troll, defensive retaliations included.

It's your call. Not mine.
But have a fair and square look at Steam Achievement #64;

Can't We All Just Get Along!

 

[SuperJay]

While that is certainly true, I think he's indicating to the fact that certain people post the same derogatory stuff over and over and in every possible thread they can get their avatar into, and they do it so often that it has become ridiculously redundant and beyond needless. People that enjoy the game or want to read about it are driven away from this site because of these people, and some of them have been doing it, as I said before, since September. I have taken several vacations from here simply because of the negativity from the same people that's endlessly spammed throughout the forum. Everytime I come back, they're still here, posting the same rants. This has been going on for almost 6 months.

I understand. I've taken several vacations myself, due to the negativity from people who are such rabid fans of the game that they attack anyone who is disappoint, or scream at them to GTFO if they don't like Civ5, and demand that everyone else's posts conform to their own opinions.

I just don't take it so seriously that I let your opinions upset me. It's a video game. This is a forum about that video game. Have some fun with it. Relax. Loosen up. Life's too short to let yourself get so wound up about some posts on the internets.

Maybe a solution for those of you who want a haven strictly limited to Civ 5 fans is to create a new forum site of your own, where your membership is restricted only to those who enjoy Civ5. That way, you could set your own rules, and infract / ban anyone who was disappointed in Civ 5 or expressed opinions that you dislike. Might be worth a shot - good luck!

 

[Zyxpsilon]

While that is certainly true, I think he's indicating to the fact that certain people post the same derogatory stuff over and over and in every possible thread they can get their avatar into, and they do it so often that it has become ridiculously redundant and beyond needless. People that enjoy the game or want to read about it are driven away from this site because of these people, and some of them have been doing it, as I said before, since September. I have taken several vacations from here simply because of the negativity from the same people that's endlessly spammed throughout the forum. Everytime I come back, they're still here, posting the same rants. This has been going on for almost 6 months.

QFT.
I couldn't have said it better myself.
That's exactly my reasoning, as well.

 

[Saarud]

I understand. I've taken several vacations myself, due to the negativity from people who are such rabid fans of the game that they attack anyone who is disappoint, or scream at them to GTFO if they don't like Civ5, and demand that everyone else's posts conform to their own opinions.

I just don't take it so seriously that I let your opinions upset me. It's a video game. This is a forum about that video game. Have some fun with it. Relax. Loosen up. Life's too short to let yourself get so wound up about some posts on the internets.

Maybe a solution for those of you who want a haven strictly limited to Civ 5 fans is to create a new forum site of your own, where your membership is restricted only to those who enjoy Civ5. That way, you could set your own rules, and infract / ban anyone who was disappointed in Civ 5 or expressed opinions that you dislike. Might be worth a shot - good luck!

And the purpose of this forum would then be to bash Civ 5? Nah we need people of both camps as long as everyone can get along. It is perfectly fine to have different feelings about life, love and even games. Just as long as we respect eachother I am sure we can be on the same forum.

 

[migkillertwo]

Hello ya all been away for quite a while but with Civ 5 being the biggest disappointement ever I took some time off of the forums but I am now back and want to share some thoughts and know why you all think Civ 5 was a great failure.

For me the main reason was the overhype CIV 5 got that made everyone not like it. We were promised CIV 5 but instead we recieved CIV REV2. This was a slap in the face of the old fans the fact they simplified the game so much it´s not enjoyable.

So I wanna hear youre thoughts?

For me, it was a huge disappointment in many ways. The game is still, after several patches, extremely unpolished. There were too many decisions that the devs made which looked great in concept, but were just too poorly executed. 1upt, in theory, is a great idea. But you almost feel that the devs had no idea that the AI simply couldn't handle it.

The other problem is that there is too many penalties and not enough rewards. It's totally counter-intuitive that you can be penalized for building up your city to do anything you need it to. Buildings like barracks or factories should be seen as investments. one reviewer, cleverly, put it this way; Civ 5 makes NOT building things as important as building things.

although the unit maintenance makes a lot of sense to me. Whether and how large to make your own standing army is always a big decision for any state to make.

But if you are going to make it so that there are fairly large trade-offs to preparing to defend yourself, then why make it so that it is nearly impossible to defend yourself without a standing army?

 

[Zyxpsilon]

I understand. I've taken several vacations myself, due to the negativity from people who are such rabid fans of the game that they attack anyone who is disappoint, or scream at them to GTFO if they don't like Civ5, and demand that everyone else's posts conform to their own opinions.

This is actually Light-Years (up to infinity) away from my own strictly personal Agenda.

 

[Sneaks]

I think a lot of the angst over negativity has to do with simple human nature. We are much more likely to go to the forums and post when we are unhappy with something rather than content with it. I would probably not go on BestBuy.com to post about how the TV I ordered came exactly as it should. Correct service is expected, especially when it involved purchase of a product. However, if that TV was in shambles, I would probably post reviews and complaints quite a bit. Anyone that has worked customer service management knows this. Now, this fact does not entirely translate correctly to these forums, as these forums are not the official forums of the game (though they are practically). What you do find here is a fanbase which was not catered to with the newest iteration of a series they have invested into. Whether or not Civ V is any good is irrelevant to the fact that it marks a clear divergence from the direction Civ IV took the series. On a forum that most likely (assumption) a large majority of users that were Civ IV players, this is going to cause certain trends. You find that many people who just walked into the Civ series with V really enjoying the game. You find that many people who come from IV find it a serious disappointment. We can extrapolate from this that this version of the game was indeed intended to cast a broader net rather than create a better smaller net.

 

[lschnarch]

although the unit maintenance makes a lot of sense to me. Whether and how large to make your own standing army is always a big decision for any state to make.

But if you are going to make it so that there are fairly large trade-offs to preparing to defend yourself, then why make it so that it is nearly impossible to defend yourself without a standing army?

And why does a carrier cost the same in maintenance as the warrior still sitting around?
And why do both become more expansive at the same time at the same rate?

 

[Saarud]

And why does a carrier cost the same in maintenance as the warrior still sitting around?
And why do both become more expansive at the same time at the same rate?

Try Playwithme mod. In that mod maintenance as it's look today are removed and replaced with a seperate maintenance that are based on the unit type.

 

[Zyxpsilon]

I would probably not go on BestBuy.com to post about how the TV I ordered came exactly as it should. Correct service is expected, especially when it involved purchase of a product. However, if that TV was in shambles, I would probably post reviews and complaints quite a bit.

Now, step back a little and take this valid line of reasoning under a microscope and relate it all under some CFC forums maintaining perspective - please.
Should they shut down this site, cuz it has become a different place that it once was?
Food for thoughts.
Right?

PS; It might help to stare at some or any Members "Join Date" slots to fully grasp the entire issues.