Is it really that bad?

[lschnarch]

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?

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.

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.

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.

 

[Tatran]

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.

 

[DaveGold]

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.

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.

 

[kelmen]

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.

 

[Stiefel]

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?

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.

 

[nokmirt]

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 !!

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

 

[Biz_]

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

 

[Stiefel]

it's the best designed game

I lol'd hard.

 

[Soronery]

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.

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.

 

[migkillertwo]

Is it really that bad?

There are a lot of legitimate criticisms, but I don't think it is as bad as some of the more vocal voices here and at amazon have painted it. The game has its moments, and those moments are pretty epic, at least to me.

An example for me is when you're fighting against a well-armed adversary in a war, its pretty satisfying when you destroy a large portion of their army with a giant left-hook maneuver. But these moments are kind of rare, and the buildup to them is long and boring.

Is it worth the cash

as of now, no, it is not worth the money.

or should I just reinstall Civ4 and be better off?

This I cannot answer. I haven't played Civ 4 in a long, LONG time.

 

[JohnnyW]

To answer the thread title:

Yes. Check back in a few months.

 

[blind biker]

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.

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

 

[aatami]

@ 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...

 

[Ayt]

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.

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

 

[JohnnyW]

@aatami:

The OP:

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

Your post:

@ 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...

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.

 

[m4gill4]

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

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

 

[blind biker]

@ 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...

Welp, iggy list it is.

 

[MkLh]

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.

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.

 

[builer680]

...a better option then blindly listening to you.

How do you blindly listen?

 

[2000AD]

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.