Is it really that bad?

[Solo4114]

Uh....no.

Paying $50 for a product you are concerned won't be worth your money....so that you can determine whether it was worth it for you to pay $50?


That is an unwise consumer decision. Do the research first. THEN spend the $50 IF you decide that it still sounds appealing, or whether your $50 would be better saved or spent on other things.

 

[UWHabs]

I still don't get why all the people who hate the game still post here, but whatever.

As for the game itself, I like it. I've played civ1/2/(SMAC)/3/4 and now civ 5, and have enjoyed each one when they came out. I played some (civ3) less than others (civ4 BtS), partly due to time, partly due to gameplay.

I will say it's different than the past. Some people don't like the new mechanics - fine. I wasn't a big fan of religion when I first heard about civ4. There are some pretty bad flaws in game balance even still after a few patches. That's why you hear a lot of people talking about "potential".

Some of the new rules, most notably the 1upt and diplomacy, really makes the AI flaws stand out. In the past, diplomacy issues never really stood out. AFAIK, nobody really payed attention to diplomacy until civ4. Then in civ4, it was a focal point of the game - you HAD to play the diplo game to beat the game at immortal/deity. But the key is they had the diplo game, and it was obvious. Any flaw in AI diplomatic actions could easily be chalked up to "that's just how it is". But now, they're much more erratic. It's not obvious their true feelings, and so the weird moves that they do just don't quite make sense. It's a decent idea, but definitely still needs tweaking.

And with combat, again, in previous games, AI flaws could often be overlooked due to stacks. They could just churn enough units out so you might not really care that they didn't optimize it. I mean, look at the advantages the civ4 BtS AI gets on deity! If they were a smart tactical AI, they'd wipe the floor with players, just because they can build probably 3X the units. I never made it to that point - I think I tried one or 2 cooked deity games, and I was just creamed. But now, with the unit limits, maintenance, and so on, the game's edge isn't nearly as strong. So since combat depends a lot on tactics, you really notice the mistakes. With smart tactics, you can easily beat an opponent twice your size in civ5. And since the AI's not that bright, you can't avoid seeing those flaws and wincing.

But overall, the gameplay is still there. It's like every other civ in some ways - settlers head out to build cities, a tech tree, some opponents. As people mentioned, the graphics are a notch up from previous games. There's a few really neat additions. But in some sense, it's still a version 1.0 release. There's still some bad bugs in it, and some bad exploits and AI issues.

If you can overlook some of the issues, it's a fun game. As mentioned above, it's backgammon to civ5's chess. Fun to play, a few neat things, and it takes a lot less time to master than civ4. IMHO, it's not a bad game, but if it doesn't get some patch or expansion help, it definitely won't quite have the shelf life that civ4 BtS had. But there's a very strong base - with a few good improvements, it should be a more than enjoyable game for the foreseeable future.

 

[aatami]

Download the demo. If you like it, you will like the real game tons more.

The oppinions on the game are very, very camped, and it really is a matter of oppinion. With this game, you can't know so well without trying it yourself. I've gathered some posts in my signature which really are worth reading if you want ~good answers to your questions.

 

[Rusty Edge]

I have played the Civ series since the original game, which I played at school on a 386. Civ4 was my favourite as it was the one I felt best combined complexity and features with playability, and the graphics were great, which always helps.

I am sort of arriving late to the launch hype surrounding Civ5 as I have been playing an MMO pretty much exclusively the past couple of years. Went to Amazon intent on buying Civ5, and took a peek at the reviews. To my surprise on a rating 1-5, 1 is the most common! And these aren't just short 'hate reviews' but many are well explained and from people who played all the other Civ games and loved them.

Is it really that bad? Is it worth the cash or should I just reinstall Civ4 and be better off?

I happen to think Civ IV Complete is the greatest game ever.
I believe V was released in an incomplete form, and still has a ways to go. It could be a great multiplayer game when they get that debugged.

I had some fun with V, and I've played it over 250 hours, so I've got my money's worth.
It's also true that I've had a lot of frustration and disapointment with it, but they are gadually making it better.

My advice would be to re-install IV and check out the scenarios. I've enjoyed playing Road to War between patches. Then try the mod Legends of Revolution, it was designed to be an unofficial expansion to the IV series, it's free and it installs easily. While it's not multi-player compatible, it does add complexity and the Legend units are loads of fun to play.

I'd suggest you wait at least until multiplayer is fixed before you try V

 

[lynxxyarly]

The bolded part is the important one. You liked Civ4.
Chances are good that you will not like "Civ" V very much, then.
In terms of complexity, variation, options No.5 is not match to Civ4.

I loved civ4 and I love civ5.

I hardly consider the 'complexity' of the religions (read:annoyances) an option that civ5 can't compete with. No more stacks of doom and no more religion were the 2 major things i wanted changed - for the better, in civ5.

I enjoy civ5 very much. There is an extreme amount of hate on this forum over this game, and while it is their opinion to hate, I would urge you to take their hate with a grain of salt.

There are a few issues that I feel will be worked out over patches that were clearly signs of the game being rushed, but other than that, I think it's a solid game and a good groundbreaking change from the previous games in the series.

Simply put: People don't like change and thats why they rage at civ5. They can't handle changes and they would rather have had a civ4 expansion. Since their expectations weren't met, 'civ5 is a terrible game' seems to be the battlecry of the civfanatics forum.

 

[leckig]

this is well said, UWHabs, and I approve your message!

 

[MkLh]

Simply put: People don't like change and thats why they rage at civ5. They can't handle changes and they would rather have had a civ4 expansion. Since their expectations weren't met, 'civ5 is a terrible game' seems to be the battlecry of the civfanatics forum.

This is nonsense. Many people who like Civ4 play completely different kind of games too. For example I like to play Dragon Age: Origins which has nothing common with Civ4.

People here don't like Civ5 because they think it's a bad game. It's that simple.

 

[aatami]

...play completely different kind of games too. For example I like to play Dragon Age: Origins which has nothing common with Civ4...

Where did that come from?

 

[Solo4114]

Simply put: People don't like change and thats why they rage at civ5. They can't handle changes and they would rather have had a civ4 expansion. Since their expectations weren't met, 'civ5 is a terrible game' seems to be the battlecry of the civfanatics forum.

Look, I'm glad that you love Civ 5 and all. That's great. But you know what? Spare me the "They just can't handle change" bit. It's dismissive, it's simplistic, and it's flat-out wrong.

I don't dismiss the people who enjoy the game with the refrain of "Well, if you're a friggin' simpleton, of course you'll like this game." Nor do I make claims that "Only people who never played a Civ game or who hated the complex beauty of Civ 4 love Civ 5." Why don't I say those things? Because doing so would be dismissive, simplistic, and probably wrong. I have no earthly idea why you like the game, but I'm willing to bet it's probably NOT because you found Civ 4 overwhelming, nor is it because you're a blithering idiot. Like the saying goes, there's no accounting for taste.

That said, Civ 5 has real flaws. Those flaws may not deter your personal enjoyment of the game, but they doesn't make them magically disappear either. For other folks, maybe those flaws really DO deter them from the game. I'm also willing to bet that, while you enjoy the game, you do so in spite of its flaws. There may be things that you recognize as problems, but they don't bug you. Fine and dandy. But as I said, that doesn't mean the flaws don't exist.

The original poster asked for information on how bad the game really is. To me, that suggests concern about wasting one's money on an unenjoyable game. The best way to figure out whether you will personally enjoy a game IN SPITE OF its flaws is to go do some digging on what those flaws are and then make a personal best-guess based on that information as to whether the flaws will inhibit your enjoyment, or whether you can ignore them and enjoy the game nonetheless.

 

[Eskel]

I loved civ4 and I love civ5.

I hardly consider the 'complexity' of the religions (read:annoyances) an option that civ5 can't compete with. No more stacks of doom and no more religion were the 2 major things i wanted changed - for the better, in civ5.

I enjoy civ5 very much. There is an extreme amount of hate on this forum over this game, and while it is their opinion to hate, I would urge you to take their hate with a grain of salt.

There are a few issues that I feel will be worked out over patches that were clearly signs of the game being rushed, but other than that, I think it's a solid game and a good groundbreaking change from the previous games in the series.

Simply put: People don't like change and thats why they rage at civ5. They can't handle changes and they would rather have had a civ4 expansion. Since their expectations weren't met, 'civ5 is a terrible game' seems to be the battlecry of the civfanatics forum.

Please talk for your own account and do not make any assumptions what I was waiting for or what I like, because you clearly have no insight into my head.

Of course my own (negative) opinion should be taken "with grain of salt". Exactly the same as yours opinion or everyone else. It is entirely subjective thing.
However, negative opinions of Civ 5 are not limited only to this forum - there are similar on apolyton, amazon, metacritics (average score is 70%, but almost the same number of positive and negative reactions), even 2K official and many others as well.
I suggest to use math to ensure some objectivity for this discussion then. Average user score for Civ 5 usually fit in range from 5 to 7 in 10 points scale.
It means, that new consumer can expect with 50-70% probability ratio that he will be pleased with this product (in great simplification). It is 1 to 2, or 2 to 3, depending on which source one can identify with or regard as reliable.
The separate thing is amount of satisfaction that can be achieved that way. Knowing how the bell curve looks like, you know also what to expect.

 

[Poke]

deleted

 

[GIO888]

The checkers analogy is perfect. Civ IV BTS was supreme - Civ V had a lot to live up too but lets face it, its dumbed down and Panzer General thanks to the risk Meier took with his lead designer.

It ain't awful - it just ain't BTS IV !!

 

[forty2j]

Asking a 1.0 of a Civ release to compete with the complexity level of the fully-expanded version of its previous release is just not realistic. No previous Civ had done that, and the Civ 4 expansions were well above & beyond the expected.

There are differences in complexity between Civ 4 vanilla and Civ 5, but they are not as stark -- and, to me at least, some of them are welcome changes.

 

[blind biker]

By the way, if you download the demo and like it, that DOES NOT mean you will like the full game. For one thing, the game might start crashing once you get to the latter parts of the game. But more importantly, a lot of the game dynamics become clear at turn numbers well over 100 (the demo is limited to 100 turns).

Do NOT believe those that tell you the demo of Civ V is representative of Civ V. It is not!

You've been warned. From now on, it's your money.

 

[gamemaster3000]

It's very disappointing how good the game could have been had more testing and balancing been put into it.

1 unit per tile and the way strategic resources work and the hex system are all steps in the right direction.

The fact that so many tiles have the same yields, certain wonders and buildings and strategies and leaders are clearly much better than the alternatives, and worst of all technical issues make it frustrating.

Whether or not you'll enjoy it is just a roll of the dice in how often it crashes it on you.

 

[Polycrates]

There's some serious melodrama on this forum, so I'd take some of the more fiery complaints with a grain of salt. That said, it has some very definite flaws that I think everyone would agree upon - the diplomacy is terrible, there are some significant balance issues remaining, it's not very well optimised and the AI could use a bit of a tune-up.
And yes, there are a lot of changes to core systems and they're certainly not to everyone's taste. In a way, it's a return to the game's boardgame roots, with some of the more fiddly stuff streamlined out and more of a focus on fewer, but more significant decisions. More big-picture. Whether you prefer that or not is a matter of taste.
You'll hear a lot of cries of "dumbed down" but I think that's rather unfair - there's certainly not the vast array of options that BtS or Alpha Centauri had, and there's an awful lot less busy work, but it doesn't suffer in terms of stuff you have to manage in comparison to any of the other Civ games.

Personally, I enjoy it a hell of a lot, though I confess I do use balance mods. I think the new innovations are uniformly really fantastic, and I'd find it hard to go back to Civ IV. But it could really use some more spit-n-polish. If you're really on the fence, I'd perhaps wait until the next Steam mega-sale and snap it up then - when it will hopefully have been patched up a bit more too (either officially or by mods). Seems to be the way with grand strategy games these days that you have to wait at least 6-12 months after release until they really sparkle.
Incidentally, Europa Universalis 3 with everything up to the Heir to the Throne expansion is currently $6 on Steam, so if you don't have that already, that would be my #1 suggestion as an alternative in the meantime.

 

[blind biker]

In a way, it's a return to the game's boardgame roots, with some of the more fiddly stuff streamlined out and more of a focus on fewer, but more significant decisions. More big-picture.

In fact, Civ V is exactly the opposite: Civ V is a small-picture kind of game.

 

[Frozensky]

In fact, Civ V is exactly the opposite: Civ V is a small-picture kind of game.

I dunno what he means when he says Civ5 is big picture, and I dunno what you mean when you say Civ5 is small picture.

Regardless, I don't think this game's major flaws are with its gameplay design. If you disagree with it, that's fair, but that's not why Civ 5 is broken.

It's broken because of severe technical issues. The game is extremely unstable when attempting to handle the large world sizes it needs, and neither the singleplayer and multiplayer aspects of the game are capable of creating any kind of challenging gameplay.

You may want to respond that the design is at fault if a meaningful gameplay experience can't be created from it, to which I counter: Play chess using Civ5's AI. It won't be able to move its knights out because it can't figure out that they can travel through pawns. Play chess using Civ5's multiplayer rules. People would just use double moves to take capital pieces. Does this mean then, that the design of chess is flawed?

 

[Polycrates]

I dunno what he means when he says Civ5 is big picture, and I dunno what you mean when you say Civ5 is small picture.

All I meant is that the focus is more on making larger, more sweeping decisions (albeit fewer of them) - more of a macromanagement focus rather than micromanagement a la Civ IV.

 

[Misotu]

Broadly ... and this is very broad indeed ... I think that people who like conquest/domination games in Civ IV tend to like Civ V better than peaceful builder types who would go for religious/diplomatic/space/time victories in Civ IV. I think that, if you generally go bronze working/IW/animal husbandry in Civ IV, followed by an axe/praetorian/chariot rush then you may well quite enjoy Civ V, since the new combat style is quite interesting for a change and the ranged combat is, I think, a definite improvement.

When I first had Civ V I played it a lot - there were aspects that I found very interesting and I really wanted to like the game. But after only a few weeks I am very bored by the game, and it's not just because I am immensely frustrated by the endless crashing and the ridiculously slow performance when loading and at turn end.

It's a shame.

I went back to IV and found that I really can still enjoy playing it. This is a significant difference. Bored by V within weeks ... still finding something interesting in IV after years.