Civ5 isn't really such a bad game now in its current, patched state. No, I don't think it's the best of the series, but there are things I like about it -- and the expansion looks very promising. If you treat it like a different game and don't expect it to be an improved Civ4 (which it really isn't), then I think you're likely to enjoy it for what it is.
I was initially put off by it, but the patches helped and, admittedly, there was quite a bit of "but it isn't Civ4!" emotional baggage involved for me. Then again, it had been the same for me when Civ4 came out. It took me a bit to get used to it because it wasn't Civ3 (although Civ4 really only picked up with BTS, so we may seem a repetition of this event with Civ5's expansion). There were also factual and more objective concerns in both cases, granted, but one's mindsets plays a significant role when it comes to what aspects you focus on.
If you're strapped for cash and still really enjoy Civ4, there's probably no need for Civ5. But if you're curious and want a different approach to the same theme, then Civ5 isn't a terrible choice.
I was initially put off by it, but the patches helped and, admittedly, there was quite a bit of "but it isn't Civ4!" emotional baggage involved for me. Then again, it had been the same for me when Civ4 came out. It took me a bit to get used to it because it wasn't Civ3 (although Civ4 really only picked up with BTS, so we may seem a repetition of this event with Civ5's expansion). There were also factual and more objective concerns in both cases, granted, but one's mindsets plays a significant role when it comes to what aspects you focus on.
If you're strapped for cash and still really enjoy Civ4, there's probably no need for Civ5. But if you're curious and want a different approach to the same theme, then Civ5 isn't a terrible choice.
