Rate Civ V

[Thormodr]

Rated a 4.

There are some nice interesting things that they did with the game. The graphics are nice (except for rivers and roads). I like that strategic resources only provide X amount of units and/or buildings. I like the hexes. The way that city borders grow one title at a time and form more interesting and historically reflective borders (though buying up land is a bit iffy). The reintroduction of ranged siege weapons (I completely loathed suicide catapults).

For an average gamer like me, the one unit per tile was quite nice and could result in some interesting and fun wars. For the much more dedicated and hardcore gamers, I understand the frustration and ease in which the AI can be defeated with 1UPT.

What really killed me is that the "story" is not there any more. I still remember those great holy wars me and my allies went on against our enemies. The Jewish Japanese and Zulus taking on the Buddhist Germans and Americans. Helping my allied nation defend themselves from aggressors. Securing a UN victory after taking the lead of a bloc of allied civilization for hundreds and hundreds of years. CiV doesn't have that. Sooner or later everyone is going to be attacking you.

It's impossible to be builder in this game. The construction cost of units and buildings are outrageous. Clicking through waiting and waiting is no fun. The time between turns now, even earlier on is annoying when you are trying to get that desired unit/building/wonder built.

Desired victories needed to be chosen early on, especially cultural. I've always liked to play a Civ game as a story, and as I get near the end, try to shoot for the win that is best suited for my game. Not so much here in CiV.

I think that they wanted to make a new and revolutionary and outstanding Civ game. It seems that they were so bent on making the game in their vision that they failed to see the realities of the consequences of the design.

Maybe down the road I will check back and see the status of CiV, but for now, it does not hold my interest anymore.

Great point. cIV had some awesome AARs. Civilization 5, not so much.
It's hard to write a believable story when diplomacy is so screwed up and trying to justify the global happiness mechanic in a story format.

 

[aatami]

Right...

So all people that don't like Civilization 5 are like that.

Seriously, what is your point?

I didn't say all.. But at least some percentage are.

 

[Thormodr]

I didn't say all.. But at least some percentage are.

Certainly.

There is also a significant percentage that will vigorously defend the game to the detriment of logic and reason.

Bad apples in every bunch.

A vast majority of people that dislike Civilization 5 are sound, rational people who sincerely wanted a fun, entertaining and enriching game experience. They didn't get it so they are voting accordingly.

 

[UWHabs]

I can see why people wouldn't like it, but so far, it's been a lot of fun.

I like the tactical nature of combat, instead of SOD. I like the policies and city-states. I like the ranged warfare, and that not every battle results in a death.

The graphics are obviously great. The only things it's missing is a bit smarter AI, and some game balance issues. Other than that, it's a lot of fun.

I don't see it as stressful as a civ4 game. But if you like playing most civ games as going out and beating down on your opponents, then this is definitely the best in the series for that. I don't have to spend nearly as much time micromanaging my relations as previous games - I know stuff will break down into war. But it's still fun. Since every civ is so different, I'll definitely have to play at least one game with each leader. And at the rate that I play, that should last me until the first expansion.

 

[Thormodr]

I can see why people wouldn't like it, but so far, it's been a lot of fun.

I like the tactical nature of combat, instead of SOD. I like the policies and city-states. I like the ranged warfare, and that not every battle results in a death.

The graphics are obviously great. The only things it's missing is a bit smarter AI, and some game balance issues. Other than that, it's a lot of fun.

I don't see it as stressful as a civ4 game. But if you like playing most civ games as going out and beating down on your opponents, then this is definitely the best in the series for that. I don't have to spend nearly as much time micromanaging my relations as previous games - I know stuff will break down into war. But it's still fun. Since every civ is so different, I'll definitely have to play at least one game with each leader. And at the rate that I play, that should last me until the first expansion.

Nice post and pretty objective.

I especially like the bolded point. That's one of the reasons I don't like the game. I want to tell a story and have fun. I'm not playing to win as much as to be entertained and engage my imagination. I find that really hard to do with Civilization 5. Civ War is not for me.

 

[AfterShafter]

edit: Dont listen to the 1UPT lovers up there... I dont understand how it can be "more" challenging when you cant play MP and the AI cant handle it... Its like beating up a 3 yrs old playing chess... might be fun the first time, but gets boring pretty fast.

I play multiplayer several times a week?...

Anyways, I gave it a 7. Good premise and I do like several of the directions they've taken. But, I only gave it a 7 because the AI needs work, the diplomacy is sketchy, and I'd like to see some expansions/big DLC that adds a few more things to keep builder types happy. The game is fun right now, but lacking - with a few more big patches and more content added, it could jump up to an 8 or even a 9, but for now, I'd give it a 7.

 

[cman2010]

despite my obvious dislike for the game I would rate it a 5, its a middle of the road game that takes a while before you realize how crappy it is, all in all its a 1 for it being a civ game but compaired to other games its a 5 it will still give you a decent bang for your buck as much as any other game you can get for 50.00 bucks.

 

[blind biker]

Hey guys, compare the results of this poll vs. this poll. Totally different outcomes, though the poll was set up exactly the same.

Interesting, innit?

 

[Öjevind Lång]

Hey guys, compare the results of this poll vs. this poll. Totally different outcomes, though the poll was set up exactly the same.

Interesting, innit?

I went there and found this rather good observation:

"Well, as this is a poll sampling opinion, not something trying to actually evaluate an empirical, it's less of an issue. Instead, we'd be concerned with the sample matching the expected distribution of factors likely to alter a person's enjoyment of the game, which given the game's current state would include whether they play single player, multi-player, or both, as well as system performance, the degree of crashes or other bugs experienced, and so on. We can immediately anticipate bias on several issues, similar to those likely to arise on the other poll, in that people on forums are often more critical, but also longer and deeper attachment to the series; people also tend to end up on forums more often when they have had issues with a game, and this is more true on official forums than third-party ones."

 

[blind biker]

Ya bu', why the huge diff between the two otherwise identical polls?

 

[Öjevind Lång]

Ya bu', why the huge diff between the two otherwise identical polls?

Because the people who participate in polls at 2K Games are not identical with people participating in CFC polls?

 

[blind biker]

It's clear they're different, but why?

 

[Öjevind Lång]

It's clear they're different, but why?

For the same reason that the clientele at one café is never identical with the clientele at another café. Or the members of one football team is never just the same as the members of another football team, or of a chess club. Or why members of two clubs for political discussions may be quite radically different. There may be a prevalent armosphere, and there may be quite important differences in religion and religious outlook, occupation, hobbies, received and native tastes, ethnic origins, temperament, accepted language when talking (or posting), sex, marital status, income, group solidarity, Internet access, interest in posting at the Internet, residence type, neighbourhood. This and that. In this case, the type of people who prefer posting in a forum maintained by the manufacturers of a game may differ quite a bit from those who post in an independent forum which primarily caters to dyed-in-the-wool veterans of playing a game in ways they are accustomed to.

 

[HorribleHarald]

I rated 4 but I haven't played it about 2 months. Game was not so bad at first but it's boring to micromanage only position of units because other things are dumped down.

 

[AfterShafter]

Hey guys, compare the results of this poll vs. this poll. Totally different outcomes, though the poll was set up exactly the same.

Interesting, innit?

Am I missing something, or do the poll results of both of these polls actually look quite similar? Trade a glut at 7/8/9 for a glut at 7/8 only, and put slightly more emphasis on 3 and a bit more in the middle... Other than that, the distribution is fairly even, both polls favouring the higher portion but having significant votes in all middling and low scores.

So yeah... Am I the only one who doesn't get Blind Biker's point? Seeing that it's him who raised the point, I suspect there's a negative implication in it somewhere, but these polls don't look wildly different to me. I'd describe them as "not completely identical" more than "totally different outcomes" seeing as general distribution patterns are reasonably even, and both have gluts of people voting in the same general area around 7/8.

 

[Me,myself,and,I]

Hey guys, compare the results of this poll vs. this poll. Totally different outcomes, though the poll was set up exactly the same.

Interesting, innit?

Biker? Buddy? You feelin' alright? Thats an awful lot o' colors and fonts plus "bu'" and "diff"? That just seems... unusual for you.

Anyhoo the two polls in question are very similar. They just aren't that different. I gave five a 6. It's, like 3, a good game but not super awesome.

 

[blind biker]

Mean for this poll: 5.4210

Mean for the 2K poll: 6.3852

That's almost a whole point of difference!

 

[AfterShafter]

Mean for this poll: 5.4210

Mean for the 2K poll: 6.3852

That's almost a whole point of difference!

Wow... Almost 10%? That's... Staggering.

 

[Windsor]

It's clear they're different, but why?

My guess, CFC is an old forum with a lot of bitter Civ4 and Civ3 players (like me) who doesn't like Civ5. I read the "ideas and suggestion" and some of the Civ5-general topics, but I'm mainly here for Civ4.

The newer 2k forums doesn't even have a Civ4 section so there's less reason for those who don't like Civ5 to check that forums.

 

[Thormodr]

Wow... Almost 10%? That's... Staggering.

Nearly half the people on these forums rated the game 5 or below. 48.5%

Only 32.5% or so rated it 5 or below on the 2K Games Forums.

Yeah, there's a pretty big difference.

We of course all why since 2K Games stamps out all dissent about their crappy product.