Opinions on CivV

[Kosmopolit]

The intention of this thread is not to DISCUSS the opinions, but only to POST them!
So i politely ask to respect the threads intention (otherwise i will call for admin!)
I predict the overweight of negative feedback...


This episode really lacks on innovation.

I like the idea of reducing the Micro-Management in exchange for more comfort, but even the most worse factor, the AI, hasnt been fixed properly...

A bad example of unfullfilled potential, this release now is a step back into the early 90s:
Rush tech, rush production, rush the enemy.

Its not only too simple to win, its just too simple in general, Firaxxis didnt respect the expectations of their customers by innovation of the gamedesign regarding i.e. the mods for Civ4.

Where are the missions?
The nation-specific scripts?
The techlimitations through politics and resources?
Combat?
...

This game isnt just enough to be called Civ V, it isnt even enough to be bought without disappointment.

 

[Becephalus]

There are already 50 threads for this...but.

I think it was a good step forward. The game was getting too bloated with useless features and had inherited some very poor/old/obsolete design decisions from its forbears.

Civ 5 has a good design, but was clearly not given the resources to be completely finished. It badly needs a better combat AI, some rebalancing of buildings/units/CS mechanics/et cetera, and a strategic AI that is more interested in winning and stopping the player from winning.

I think most of the big changes are huge improvements, but the overall level of polish is not what it was on BTS. I think this is reasonable as BTS was a two plus year process, but many do not I guess.

I had a lot of fun with it for about 170 hours and am looking forward to the patch.

 

[Adam7Eight]

I'm sure Reginleif wouldn't mind if we posted our opinions on how the Nintendo Wii is vastly superior to modern PC gaming.

 

[Tarsa]

Caveat: I only ever played Civ 4 full edition (Warlods + BtS) before playing this, all comparaisons are implicitly being made to Civ 4, and not previous versions.

The Good: I love the new 1 unit per hex rule, and the hexes in general feel more fun and organic than the squares. Combat in general is more fun, because individual units matter more than they did in Civ 4, and I don't feel a need to spend as much time producing units just to be prepared for unexpected wars. Range units are also a great addition, as is the fact that cities can defend themselves. All in all, combat in Civ 5 is way better than in Civ 4, in my opinion.

I also like some of the aspects of the city management. I like that it's easy to stay out of the red (in Civ 4 I had to be careful if I wanted to spend less than 50% of my slider potential on money), and that buying units and buildings is more of a normal feature and less something to do once you're crazy rich. Buying tiles is also nice, though I don't do it a lot.

I like the fact that some of the graphics look better (though not all of it). I also like City States, at least the concept of them, though some of the mechanical details could be adjusted. And I like Social Policies - customizing your civ is fun.

The Bad: I don't like how dealing with AIs is far less transparent than in Civ 4. I'll admit that +4 for this, -2 for that is pushing it and a little cheap, but it'd be nice to have a list of things with a smiley or a frowny next to it for each AI leader, so that I know what I've done (surely if ever Obama were to forget why Iran hates the US, some advisor could give him a bullet-point list). Also, I get the impression that the AI doesn't differentiate between wars fought against them, and wars fought against a common foe, as an ally with them - I don't like that, either. They also hate close borders, but that's rather like in Civ 4.

I'm disappointed they didn't take the chance to make a better Religion system in Civ 5, instead discarding distinct and spreading religions entirely (even though the Civ 4 system wasn't the greatest, it was a lot of fun); it's one less thing to do during peacetime. I also miss espionage, for much the same reason. I more or less like global happiness; on the one hand, it keeps you from having to check up on all your cities constantly, but on the other hand, it's kind of annoying to have some event ruin happiness everywhere. I feel many Wonders aren't as Wonderful as they were in Civ 4 (granted, not all Civ 4 wonders were awesome either, but they were mostly pretty unique and special - there are plenty of Civ 5 wonders with nothing but simple stats to offer).

I also miss Civics, which were really nice, and could have been improved and expanded upon - yet another non-warfare interactive mechanic that got scrapped. In general, I feel that the game has been reduced to "set up your war machine production facilities". I mean, sure, there are other ways to win, but they are not as mechanically rewarding, satisfying or interactive as warfare, especially now that warfare in Civ 5 is even better than in Civ 4. I mean, building spaceship parts? Buying city-state votes with gold? Culture grinding? Combat is an extra layer on top of the whole empire management thing, but the other victory conditions are just different ways of managing your empire, with little or nothing added, so they feel less... deep.

The Ugly: Rivers! Come on, seriously.

 

[Biz_]

Maybe you should stop playing the AI and then see how often you win with your simple strategies

 

[Stoney the I]

posted in order of popping in my head.

Good:

- graphics
- intro movie
- hexes.
- diplomacy animations

Bad:

- not enough info screens
- no shortcuts
- multiple messages saying same thing per turn.
- workers and settlers dont stack (whyyyy not!)
- no diplomacy (its random)
- bad AI. won my first deity game ever within the first week of buying this game. i am a emperor lvl player civ4.
- stripped from great previous civ options like city view screen (gone since civ3), espionage, endgame replay, forest growth, random events, civics, etc etc. Im sure we can buy them back one feature at a time. yay....
- golden ages can last forever. lots of balance issues. (warrior rushing 3-6 Ai's on prince before 1500 BC on large maps etc, dont think that should be possible)
- long turns in later ages. with a decent (but not great) PC thats way over min requirements i should be able to play normal maps very well. I cannot.
- HUGE BUGS! gamebreaking stuff. cannot declare war untill nukes sometimes, savegames corrupted, etc etc.
- multiplayer is buggy as hell too. No out of sync notification. sometimes yr playing alone and you dont know as the chat function is fine. well its not fine as i had to click the chatbox every time i hit enter after a sentence. half my workers were fortified or automated before i found that one out.
- rivers look ugly.
- forcing steam on ppl. I cannot sell my game unless i sell my steam account with it. Ppl can see when i am playing. i dont want that. When i am offline starting up the game takes forever as it tries to connect to the internet first for a while. i do not want that! I want to play a single player game with just me!

undecided:
- Combat system, 1upt. I dont mind the combat system in itself but i find it strange and very "gamey" that a guy with a bow can shoot the lenght of 3 mountains. or shoot over lakes. the 1upt is nice but not stacking some units like workers and/or settlers is silly and very tedious.

 

[ezwip]

The bad:

The game is so far below my expectations, in every way imaginable, that I won't even get into it.

The good:

I like ranged units.