1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Is this game worth playing again yet?

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by MaximusDarcy, Feb 17, 2011.


Is this game any good yet?

  1. Yes

    64 vote(s)
  2. Just wait for the next patch... (the maybe answer)

    54 vote(s)
  3. No

    108 vote(s)
  1. Guardian_PL

    Guardian_PL Emperor

    Nov 4, 2006
    Sneaks, you are my new hero! Your whole performance on the last page was outstanding - I can't remember ever reading such an accurate, clear and insightful description of issues I have with Civ5, or how do I feel about this release.

    I can only hope that one day I'll be as eloquent as you are :king:

    And to Mr One-liner over there let me reply to you in the same manner (cause all this "you just want Civ4.5" is getting old and worn):
    Nnnhh if you don't like this forum you can go somewhere else!

    There, did it help? Was it constructive?
  2. JohnnyW

    JohnnyW Gave up on this game

    Oct 8, 2010
    your incorrect again this is a game forum for civ games, also most of the complaints I see here are not Im upset this is not civ4.5
  3. Brian Shanahan

    Brian Shanahan Permanoob

    Jul 27, 2009
    The house that I shaped in my heart
    And it is a forum for those who love the series as a whole (hence CivFanatics). That is why those of us who think the game has gone wrong and/or made serious mistakes come back and give our complaints. It is because we love the series, and want to see it continue to grow and change while keeping it's essentials (unlike with now, where we feel the current installation is only killing the series).

    From my experience of the forum, it is those of us who are against the game which are most likely to have an adult debate, with proper counter arguements (with reasoning given). Those, on the other hand, who like the game, are more likely to try and stifle debate and drown out contrary arguement by invective and simple hectoring.
  4. dragomaster

    dragomaster Warlord

    Nov 10, 2005
    Nice post.

    True and fair, as outhers say, we speak up when we like to! and thank god we are alowed to, if not alowed to i whold not come back.

    I've spend alot of time on this forum after i bought civ IV, I did play Civ III before and got to say that I never got so addicted to III compared to Civ IV. Part IV is, if not the best, one of the best games ever. I never came back to play civ III after and don't miss it at all but after V i came back to IV.
    One of the reasons why civ IV took me by heart was that they fixed alot of problems that i thought Civ III had and changed them to something better and more fun. Gone where the days where corruption stoped you from having a great city on the outher side of the continent and gone where the days with up keep on buildings. I personaly thought Civ V whold be so awsome with hexes and and the one unit per turn sounded quite nice. with my experiance that they improve games insted to degrading it made me have alot of faith in Firaxis that they whold put a great game on the table, but sorry man, they failed big time with this sequel. They even took back the maintance and aded alot of outher maintence like road maintence, i could live with that road maintance (but why the hack shold i follow a quest to build a road to a city state and not get anything for it when the roads are permanent expences).

    The bottom line is that they did not improve the game, it's not easy to improve it cous civ IV is just so darn good. but why make it easyer, even so easy that many players could win on diety after one week? I think it's just stupid to go that way, if you wanted a nice game without thinking much in civ IV (and all outher Civ games) you could just start a game on king or whatever and steamrole the poor ai. now alot of pople can steamrole every game on diety, no further challenge, no higher level, whats the point in making it so darn simple. The citys are not even monsters or weaklings anymore, they are just plain mediocre, even with alot off resorces they are. It's like, hey her is a city and her is anouther, this one is mediocre and this one is also a boring mediocre city, oh all things take alot of time to build, oh well just press the button and wait, press button wait, press, press, press, well press the bloody button, HEY WHATS SO FUN WITH THAT!!! I meen, wheres the challenge? Diety my ass!!!

    And hey the game is stil not fun and definilty not chalenging its just a plain boring game. if you have monney buy something els. even Empire Total war is more challenging.
  5. m4gill4

    m4gill4 King

    Aug 8, 2007
    *raises hand*

    I don't know about genius, let's go with "knowledgeable". It is perfectly possible to do MP in such a way that mods are possible and cheating is not. CRC is actually not even necessary as a cheating-prevention mechanism in the case of a game like civilization V, due to the fact that MP games can only be played on a single centralized server which would know right away if one players files don't match another's.

    There may be other ways of cheating in online mod play other than altering the mod files(although I can't really think of any that are practical), but that particular one would be very very easy to prevent. The fact that everything, all MP games ever, happen in one centralized place, combined with the fact that CIV 5 is a strategy game not an FPS, things happen rather slowly, these things mean it's really easy to keep track of what everyone is doing at the same time.

    It boils down to the fact that the server is, in a sense, playing the same game as the players. You can't make an illegal move without the server seeing it, no amount of code-jujitsu, packet-spoofing, voodoo hexes or eye of newt can change that.

    So I'm sure the bigwigs have their reasons for not allowing MODs in MP, but I find it hard to believe that the reason is fear of cheating, that would be just a little TOO amateur to believe.
  6. Thormodr

    Thormodr Servant of Civ Supporter

    Feb 15, 2005
    Vancouver, Canada
    Indeed. Very well put. We have a right and I daresay a responsibility to tell Firaxis and 2k Games that their game frankly is not even close to good enough.

    This is the perfect forum for that.
  7. Save_Ferris

    Save_Ferris Admiring Myself

    Feb 26, 2011
    Straight Outa Ponyville
    It depends on what you want in a game. I personally needed a simpler version, and so far it has exceeded IV in nearly every way. But a lot of people use micromanaging as a good term, and they can do that.
  8. EmpireOfCats

    EmpireOfCats Death to Giant Robots

    Feb 20, 2010
    (Reposted from closed thread on suggestion of moderator)

    The technical:

    The bugs are not that much of a problem anymore (for me at least, YMMV). The hardware requirements don't tell the full story: The game is (still) basically unplayable at higher map sizes, especially huge, because the time between turns is off the chart. If you have a Mac, be aware that the OS X version has always been one patch behind, as Firaxis is not developing it in-house like Valve or Blizzard does. Multiplayer does not work and Friaxis says it is not even working on a patch for that yet. The combat AI started off as very stupid, and now is merely deficient.

    The game:

    Visually stunning and sometimes downright beautiful; children especially like to watch the little figures running around in the forests. Some changes are inspired and overdue, such as hexes, one unit per tile, slower spread of influence, and ranged combat. Some of these changes make it hard to go back to Civ IV afterwards. The documentation is sloppy: The Civilopedia is full of mistakes.


    Focused on combat to the point where you are better off thinking of this as "Civ War" and not Civ V. Resource management is primitive compared with Civ IV, and far, far less satisfying. The one exception are "strategic resources" like iron and horses which are a very worthwhile addition. Diplomacy is at best bizarre, at worst it seems like it is governed by a random event generator. The leaders are missing the differences in personality they had in Civ IV. City-states sound nice on paper but can be a pain in practice. Strategic view is a brilliant addition that lets you concentrate on the substance and run the game on your MacBook Pro without the fan coming on (don't know about Windows laptops).


    Not comparable to Civ IV in any form. With the focus on combat, everything else has been removed (for example religion -- most painful, and pollution) or streamlined (aka "dumbed down"). Placement of cities, for example, is now pretty much irrelevant. Civ V is on the verge of belonging to the "casual gaming" genre.


    Dramatically too expensive for what it was worth when released, you should be able to get a special sale by now. Do not pay full list price. Note that you get the Windows version for free with the OS X version (and vice versa); this, of course, is industry standard by now.


    If you can get it off-price, it is a nice to have game for casual, occasional play, or to introduce your children to the genre. It is nowhere as additive as Civ IV, which you will want to keep playing for the "real" Civ feeling. If you think of Civ V as "Civ War", a side branch of the Civ mainline, you will be fine and enjoy it. If you approach it as the sequel to Civ IV, you will be disappointed.
  9. TyranusBonehead

    TyranusBonehead Bound & Determined

    Feb 7, 2005
    Somewhere with a good book
    I played the demo, and found it lacking compared to Civ4 BTS. Being a Civ fan, I probably will eventually buy it, but only after the price has dropped significantly. Civ 4 seems so much better than Civ 5. :hammer2:
  10. joyous_gard

    joyous_gard Prince

    Oct 10, 2010
    I guess I am the non-existent option "it depends."

    Quoting myself (how vain) from a closed thread:

  11. Leif Roar

    Leif Roar Warlord

    Aug 15, 2006
    I'll second joyous_gard's "It depends."

    Whether you liked the earlier games or not isn't a very good indicator of whether you will like Civ V. While every iteration has had its outliers who didn't enjoy the new game with Civ V that's a much more common reaction. For fans of the series it seems to be pretty much a tossup whether they'll like Civ V or not.

    In my opinion, it's not that Civ V is a bad game, it's just not a good game either, and it doesn't really have the Civilization feeling to it.

    It's a mediocre turned-based tactical war game with a base building and economy component and it's got very high production values. "Mediocre" is less of an indictment than it sounds like, mind. There's not exactly been a bonanza of turn-based tactical war games in the recent years, so if you have an itch for that kind of game you're not likely to find many that'll scratch the itch better than Civ V. The game is still not the cat's pajamas.
  12. Brian Shanahan

    Brian Shanahan Permanoob

    Jul 27, 2009
    The house that I shaped in my heart
    Problem with mediocre is what my old Irish teacher used to say: "Ní hé maith go leor, maith go leor riamh" (Eng Tr: Good enough is never good enough).

Share This Page