Is it really that bad?

To stay with your example:
Civ5 was said to be based on chess, but hasn't "en passant", the castling and you can't convert your pawn when reaching the 8th line.
On top of that the AI does not understand how to move the knight.

So, no, it is not the design of chess which is flawed, but this game's design.
It was created by an incompetent copyist, and you see this each and everywhere in the game.

Well, that's one way to express it.

The other way would be that so many possible decisions have been removed that the remaining ones indeed look "larger".
People have even mentioned city placement as one of the "big strategic" options of Civ5.

 

With a minimum city distance of 4 it is very important to pick the right spot and fast.
The only time I prioritized the Liberty policy.
It's not optimal gameplay and only suited for large/huge maps.

With the current minimum city distance of 2, city placement decision making is almost irrelevant.

 

Civ 5 is generally playable and does CIV style things so it's probably worth a 2. Unfortunately it does not look like a fully completed game when you get into it. The diplomacy is poor and frequently unmanageable. Combat AI is poor which means you have to stick up the difficulty level until the AI can overrun you, which isn't fun to play. Many game mechanics are unrewarding, even to the point of final victory which just shows one bland screen with no replays or movie. The game scales badly in many areas. The user interface needs improvement. One unit per tile creates congestion in bad ways. Worst of all, many of the problems look as if they'll in the game for a long time.

I would agree with other posters who have suggested that the demo will give a false impression. Things generally go wrong in the game after the first 100 turns, such as bad scaling, bad AI, 1 upt problems, and bad diplomacy.

Wait until a new sales package comes out for the first expansion plus the original game plus extra nations, all perhaps at a discount price. It might be a decent game by then.

 

the worst thing is many ppl having constant/frequent game crashing at late game.
I'm one of them.

nothing kill the game experience the most, crash basically stop and kill everything.

it doesn't matter your pc is top end or not, you need luck to run it smoothly in huge map.
or you can go play in sissy-mode aka strategic view mode if you don't mind, like playing a backend game generation.

 

CiV is a crappy game. I played it for only a couple hours, and immediately noticed the flaws (bad AI, poor game mechanics, the whole bit). I'm glad that I got the game through shareware instead of throwing my money away. I removed it from my computer months ago, and I suggest you save yourself the effort. Unless you're more likely to play Call of Duty than you are to play an actual game of Civilization, I suggest you pass up on this waste of memory.

 

I tried to go back and play 4. I hate squares now.

 

it's the best designed game, but it plays like crap because the AI sucks and the multiplayer sucks and the map generation sucks for the type of game it is

 

I lol'd hard.

 

This. And the fact that the game runs like crap. It's a decent game but I'd suggest you play it in 6-12 months.

 

To answer the thread title:

Yes. Check back in a few months.

 

I meant that Civ V is all about tactics and very little about strategy.

 

@ OP: Also, some people rage and hate the game here because it doesn't work on their computer, if you haven't noticed.

@ Blind Biker: What should one base his/her opinion on then? Your oppinion? The fact the game doesn't work on your computer? I find the OP judging himself a better option then blindly listening to you. In my oppinion there isn't anything view-changing that would make him hate the game outside the demo, except maybe it not working on his computer...

 

Yep. We just can't handle change. That is exactly what it is. The game being poorly designed has nothing to do with it.

 

@aatami:

The OP:

Your post:

Obviously the OP is looking for our opinions to decide whether or not to spend money. The fact that the first 100 turns are not wholly representative of the the entire game (especially performance issues) is a valid point that deserves some recognition whether or not you like civ5.

I also assume the OP can reason by listening to both sides instead blindly following anyone's sole opinon.

 

It is because we are CIV FANATICS.

As such, we simply cannot help it, they are kind enough here to let us voice our disappointment. It's simply the best place around to do so. Some agree some disagree, and the mods keep things civil, what a utopia

 

Welp, iggy list it is.

 

I haven't noticed anything too severe technical issues myself. The game has crashed once and has all kind of minor bugs, but it's not a big deal. No doubt there are severe technical issues too as so many people are complaining about them, maybe they just don't show up in all systems. The true reason I and many others dislike the game is it's awful design and gameplay.

 

How do you blindly listen?

 

I think Civ5 is a very good game, the only problem being that it's a sequel to Civ4. Civ4 is one of the greatest games of all time, following it was allways going to be tricky and as it is right now I think Civ5 isn't as good as 4.
Just to re-iterate "Not as good as Civ4" in no way means "Civ5 is a bad game" in my mind. They've experimented and changed a lot and produced a good game but I'm hoping that either an expansion or the next iteration will improve upon what they've got now.
Also, as a big fan of Fall From Heaven, I'm hoping we'll be seeing some good mods in the future too.