Rate Civ V

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by The Navy Seal, Jan 13, 2011.


Rate Civ V 1 being lowest score 10 being highest

  1. 1

    51 vote(s)
  2. 2

    32 vote(s)
  3. 3

    84 vote(s)
  4. 4

    62 vote(s)
  5. 5

    77 vote(s)
  6. 6

    57 vote(s)
  7. 7

    92 vote(s)
  8. 8

    93 vote(s)
  9. 9

    40 vote(s)
  10. 10

    18 vote(s)
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. aatami

    aatami Kuruth Urfarah, kuruth!

    Dec 21, 2010
    Polycrates couldn't have put it in a better way.

    This. Exactly this. Especially this.
    V is just real civ instead of min-max+micromanagement.

    Oh, and now come the hordes of users calling us fanboys... Again.
  2. tifereth

    tifereth Chieftain

    Oct 25, 2010
    London, UK
    I've been playing the series since Civ2.

    Civ 5 can be improved, but many new aspects are very good, such as the one unit per tile rule, several changes to resource management, etc. (you'll find the complete list with a quick search).

    I loved Civ4 and Civ5 is missing some nice traits that Civ4 did have, but overall Civ5 is a good game with its own personality.

    Rationally I'd give it a 7, but because it really hooked me beyond my expectations, I feel it deserves an 8
  3. WimpyTheWarrior

    WimpyTheWarrior Warlord

    Dec 31, 2003
    Sydney, Australia
    I agree with aatami this is a GREAT POST! Interesting that my personal taste towards Civ-5 is the opposite of Polycrates and aatami, I rated Civ-5 at 4, because I just don't enjoy it and there are lots of games I would play over it. For my tastes I prefer Civ-4 with BTS and the C2C mod. The micromanagement and min-max described by Polycrates is kind of what I'm looking for; easy decisions to make casually while I watch a narrative unfold. For me Civ has always been more about a narrative and as a gamer I am probably, well, wimpy! But this post really captured why I like Civ-4, and ALSO suggests a way to approach Civ-5 outside my method for previous Civ games (played since Civ-1 on 5.25" disks).

    I've got a honkin' big 'puter coming in a few days and I will load 4 and 5 on it. I'm pretty sure that 4 will be the gaming experience that I want, but I will read this post again the next time I have a go at 5. And I will try to approach 5 with this new approach.

    Thank you Polycrates. I am sure you spent a lot of time crafting this post, and your effort is appreciated.

    - WtW
  4. MadRat

    MadRat Cheese Raider

    Sep 26, 2008
    Under the sink
    Voted 5 - While it has replay value it isnt that great. It just seems to me that every game ends up pretty much the same: a massive nustercluck of wars, no trading, resource issues, ICS and a craptastic AI. The game just feels so linear compared to other CiVs. There just doesnt seem to be much deicision making beyond who to conquer next. It is 300% more of a war game than any previous version of civ.

  5. Öjevind Lång

    Öjevind Lång Deity

    Aug 22, 2005
    I agree with all this. BTW, I seldom come here these days; I'm too busy playing Civ V or doing other worthwhile things. Many of the threads here read like a bunch of divorcees who can't stop talking about what was wrong with their ex. Some of the complaints against Civ V are plain ridiculous. "I want to punch that old man in the introductory movie in the face." "I don't like the guy who talks when I start a new game." "The 1 units/tile idea is a fiasco because I don't like it, so there!" "I've played Civ for many years, and I'm a long time poster in CFC, so my opinion of what a game should be like is worth that of 20,000 moronic newbies." "I keep the game running for thousands of hours while doing other things just to show that the statistics about how popular it is are a lie." And so on.

    Even so, I *am* looking forward to the next patch. There are many issues that remain to be addressed, and they should add some new content. More value to the resource tiles, for starters. Activate the replay function. Make the AI respect Friendship agreements a bit more instead of sabotaging them towards mid- or endgame. Some random events might be fun. A steeper learning curve, with easier playability on low levels and a much higher one further up. Oh, and they must reintroduce the function where hammer overspoill goe sinto the next improvement built in a city.
  6. Mac2411

    Mac2411 Chieftain

    Sep 22, 2010
    I gave it a 4. I've tried to get into the game, but just find it boring as hel* and completely lacking in "immersion." "Cultural victories" become turn clicking, mind-numbing slogfests. Diplomatic victories are so simple they are a joke. The space victory works pretty well as advertised. However, I find that most of my games end with me having built a few cities and burned the rest of the entire world to the ground except capitals. That pretty much takes away the empire building aspect for me and it became boring very quickly. I'm probably better off anyway. There are plenty of things I have to do in the real world.
  7. Solo4114

    Solo4114 Prince

    Mar 16, 2002
    Dual Rating:

    1.) As a generic 4X turn-based strategy game, I give it a 4.5, maybe a 5. It's got decent graphics, a few nice UI elements, a bunch of annoying and poorly implemented UI elements, and a few neat tricks. One-unit-per-tile doesn't really work, though, the AI sucks, and it's pretty dull and tedious.

    2.) As a Civ game, I give it about a 2. I won't go as far to say it's a 1, because it does actually boot up and function, but it's basically a lame, generic 4X game with the Civ name slapped on the box. It is not worthy of the Civ title.
  8. Naokaukodem

    Naokaukodem Millenary King

    Aug 8, 2003
    For my part i give it a 8-9/10 pre-patch, but 1/10 post patch.
  9. aatami

    aatami Kuruth Urfarah, kuruth!

    Dec 21, 2010
    Why? (Just to make sure you understand pre-x meand before x and post x means after x)
    I would like to hear your oppinion.
  10. SuperJay

    SuperJay Bending Space and Time

    Sep 24, 2010
    You mean like you call everyone else "haters" in your signature? Nothing like a little hypocrisy. :lol:

    I rated it a 6. It's probably a decent game for folks who've never played empire-building TBS, and obviously plenty of long-time fans love it too, but for me it's a sad disappointment. The reasons are well-documented here and elsewhere; I won't bore anyone by repeating the details.

    Enjoy the game, everyone. Maybe I'll see you around here again sometime.
  11. Zyxpsilon

    Zyxpsilon Running Spider

    Oct 29, 2009
    On Earth
    8... no particular reasons why i shouldn't.
  12. Clement

    Clement Layman

    Oct 7, 2010
    I think a lot depends on what you want from the game, for someone like myself who used to play the Civilization games for the different emerging stories that would appear with each game, there are many reasons why Civ 5 just does'nt offer those stories anymore.

    It is very much a "game" now and nowhere as near to a simulation as the series once was, as a result there is a far stronger emphasis on "winning the game" rather than experiencing it, the lack of end game graphs attest to that, i cannot enjoy a well played loss as i used to, the stories i took from Civ 5 over 20 or more games were all virtually identical to each other and they spoke mostly of war, replayability has taken a huge hit as a result.

    Although i can only speak for myself of course, it's my belief that Civ 5 has left us "roleplayers" very much out in the cold, it gets a 5 from me.
  13. zonk

    zonk Prince

    Oct 30, 2005
    I voted 3 - but I grade Civ on a hard curve because it used to be THE 4x game, that against which all others were judged... If I graded it not as an edition of "Civilization", but just as a generic empire builder in the same pool with everything from Galciv to RTW -- I guess I'd say it's a 5 or 6... not a debacle, but for my personal gameplay preferences, there are a good half dozen games I'd fire up before it.

    Was among the horrifiically disappointed in the release... set it aside for a few months and went back to Paradox/EU3, let Steam have its way with me again the week after New Years and patched to current - now even more disappointed.

    While I like the concept of removing SoD, I'm now more convinced than ever than you simply cannot scale an old SSI/PG hex map onto a world map.

    The AI seems to have basically been taught to now do the same boring ICS players almost immediately learned how to do.

    It remains bone-numbingly boring if you're a dovish player - I wish they'd have just gone RTS because those long stretches of next turns are just game killers.

    For me, at least, I suppose I could make a passable case that there's a bit of fun to be had if warmonger --- but then, there are a many, many better wargames out there if I feel like getting my conquest on.

    Hey - some people like it, bully for them - so YMMV

    For me, it's probably the end of my "Auto buy anything with the Civilization label" line stretching back 20 years.
  14. Solo4114

    Solo4114 Prince

    Mar 16, 2002
    While I disagree with you on what Civ V offers on the whole (especially the combat element), I agree that the micromanagement/play-to-the-rules-rather-than-the-concept approach to the Civ series is and always has been a turn-off for me. It is, as you point out later, what drew me to EU3. EU3 has micromanagement, but it's....I dunno...I think of it as "conceptual" micromanagement, rather than "mathematical" micromanagement. It's less about manipulating equations to spit out the "optimal" result, and more about understanding the concepts that the mechanic is trying to approximate. Some stuff is still "mathematical," and folks who dig that kind of thing will likely still do quite well, but there's less worry about maximizing hammers, beakers, coins, etc.

    I can see where, to a degree, Civ V sort of moved away from that, but I just don't think that the execution lived up to whatever the design goal was -- to the extent there was a coherent goal, that is. I find that, for example, buildings don't give much bang for your buck, so you end up not needing to min/max, but more because you're not really...doing anything that would require it.

    I wish that Civ V was as you described it, but to me, it's as if they stripped out the micromanagement elements more by accident (by making more stuff less useful to build, so you always have plenty of resources to spend), and not filling that gap with much else. It's a lot of (in my experience) clicking "next turn" and just waiting for something to happen. So, for me, they (inadvertently? On purpose?) got rid of much of the micromanagement, but it hasn't been replaced by grand "The empire shall do XYZ. This I decree!" decisions. It's just less stuff to do. Also, while I didn't like the micromanagement element of the earlier Civ games, there were still more consequential decisions to be made. Do I build this, or do I build that? To some extent, the game mechanics that gave rise to micromanagement were an effort to make those choices meaningful. So, sure, you can build [building A], but if oyu do that, you'll probably waste production that could've gone into [building B] instead. But [building A] takes less time to make and grants a lower bonus, while [building B] takes far longer, but has a huge bonus. The micromanagement developed as a way to make those choices LESS impactful and to game the system (which was already gaming you by having a finger on the scale, so to speak). Another reason why I find EU3 more entertaining -- the AI doesn't "cheat."

    Exactly, but no. :) Exactly in the sense that Civ isn't about historical realism, and other franchises are (which is why they're broken into smaller eras). No, because basically I disagree with how Civ V ends up approaching this. If that was the design goal, I think it's laudable. However, I find the execution lacking. That's just my personal take on how the game plays. I definitely appreciate your post, though, and agree with a lot of what you had to say.
  15. ash88

    ash88 Hail to the King Baby -DN

    Jun 26, 2009
    Castle Merlot
    I rated it a 3.

    To simplify - I rate games based on how long I play them for. For reference, Civ4BTS is a 10, and Civ4Vanilla is a 9.

    Given the recent instability in the "lead designer" position in the game, and the list of issues stickied at the top of this thread, I would at least wait to see if it turns around before purchasing... unless you have money burning a hole in your pocket ;)
  16. zonk

    zonk Prince

    Oct 30, 2005
    I think 'smoothing' would be a good word for it (EU3 vs CiV) --

    As anyone that's played any of the Paradox titles knows, you could easily go blind optimizing - values for everything to the very decimal are calculated, so at a very granular level, you can easily get lost in very, very minor micromanagement... There are folks that are more than happy to provide you precise formulas for managing badboy or in other titles like HOI -- grand debates on frontage vs. stacking penalties vs terrain mallus vs leader skills, etc.

    BUT - I think what EU and to a lesser extent, HOI do very well is provide multi-dimensional balancing.... The new Divine Wind expansion to EU3 goes even further (the one thing you COULD spam in EU -- buildings -- are now magistrate limited).

    A good strategy game is really all about giving the player tough choices concerning opportunity costs.... Do I build X military unit vs spending those resources expanding my nation? Do I raise taxes and tick off the population? Do I go to war and risk the wrath of neighbors? How do I balance ALL of those things? How do they CHANGE over time?

    EU doesn't get it always right -- but it does a really nice job having all of those things play off of each other and change over time.

    Those choices in CiV just seem more binary --- science victory? Well - you know from turn 1 what pink tech tree to hit. Conquest? You already know city buildings are to be limited and probably -- already know which and how many of which buildings to buy.
  17. sanjay_111

    sanjay_111 Warlord

    Mar 20, 2007
    One observation - noone thinks it is a great game. 9 or 10 rating has been given by less than 7% of the voters. Most think it is either mediocre or a good game.

    Lot has been said about the game on the site and I have seen quite a bit of it. But I got a chance to play it only recently and I rated it 7.

    Lot of bad press Civ 5 gets is because we all had high expectations from it after BTS. It is no match for BTS and I think all of us agree on it.

    But the Gandhi culture victory games that I played were immensely enjoyable. I loved to see huge cities by the end of the game and unlike BTS, I reached much further in tech (in BTS, research virtually stops around the time of gunpowder and all resources are devoted to culture generation) and saw modern armies in cultural game first time.

    The combat is a huge improvement though I wish they made conquering cities a little easier. As the combat is now, it is too easy to defend cities and too tough to conquer them.

    Where the real screw ups are:

    1. Diplomacy
    2. Pooling of happiness, removal of health. Sort of dumbs down the game.
    3. Dumbing down by removing religions and rewards of being the first to tech something.
    4. Much easier to win wonder race.
    5. Finally many glitches recorded by Civ old timers.

    It is not a bad game by itself and deserves IMO a decent rating. But the developers did a very shoddy job by starting with a great title and reducing its gameplay quality. In other words, it is decent because of it's civ legacy in spite of those who designed it.

    Hope they launch a sequel that will be as enjoyable as BTS + advanced graphics and UI.
  18. Supr49er

    Supr49er 2011 Thunderfall Cup

    Jan 25, 2006
    Bear Flag Republic
    Overall a 7.
  19. timtofly

    timtofly One Day

    Sep 28, 2009
    There is hammer overflow, and if you "lose a wonder build" you get your efforts back in gold.
  20. BobDole

    BobDole American Leader in Civ VI

    Mar 1, 2010
    Gave it an 8. It's definitely still not perfect, but the last patch helped address some AI/Diplo issues. I'd like to see an expansion that helps add more to the game and brings back some features/adds new ones (I still miss my vassals). Meanwhile, I for whatever reason haven't had any performance issues/crashes/etc. at all since launch so that's not an issue for me either. It's different than Civ IV but still good.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page