So did ANY of the people who reviewed this game actually PLAY it???

[swordspider]

I'm beginning to wonder if any of the people who reviewed this game ever actually played it. I'm certain they didn't play multiplayer with the unconquerable errors there, but I have been a CIV fan since day one, I played the original as a kid and every one since. CivIV was down and out the best in the series and a great replayable game. CIV V though... I am just utterly disappointed. I would have bought it anyway, but I was so happy to see all the reviews give 4.5 out of 5 and the like. But when I played the game, at first it was great. Great graphics, new system, etc etc. But then, reality set it. They utterly annihilated all of the depth. They removed any trace of balance the game had and replaced it with flashy graphics. I'm just so disappointed. I know I sound like a nag, but good lord I just don't see how even a bunch of patches and 2 expansions can fix the problems here. Sure there is modding and the like, but that just gets messy. Am I asking too much to pay $50 for a game that *should* be in line with the 4 that came before it?

 

[danisans]

I think it will get better with a patch or two and then much better with an expansion pack.

It was the same thing with Civ III and IV. Civ III had a major balance issue with corruption, distant conquered cities with 1 pop. constantly flipping and destroying all units stationed there, overly aggressive settlers plopping a city two tiles away from your capital. It had a huge issue with lack of automation with cleaning pollution and of course the stack-of-doom exploit... lots of problems. Most of them got fixed with balance adjustment patches and with Warlords. Same thing with Civ IV: huge performance issues in end of game, balance issues with techs and tech trading that could get you Modern Armor by the mid 1800's, Modern Armor was too powerful, etc.. mostly all fixed with patches and BtS.

It is true that the beginning of a Civ V game is very enjoyable, but as your civ expands, you start seeing all the balance and AI glitches. Reviewers probably played one game until the Middle Ages before writing their articles and scoring Civ V.

Hopefully, an expansion pack will fix the Next Turn button mashing that you experience throughout a typical Civ V game. That is the thing that bothers me the most about Civ V right now. Plus, the lack of important food bonuses on city hexes (can't really build those GP producing cities anymore) and all those huge penalties for expanding. Knights systematically destroying Gunships is another problem. Can't believe they re-introduced the Spearman versus Tank issue again. When will they learn!

 

[Thormodr]

I'm beginning to wonder if any of the people who reviewed this game ever actually played it. I'm certain they didn't play multiplayer with the unconquerable errors there, but I have been a CIV fan since day one, I played the original as a kid and every one since. CivIV was down and out the best in the series and a great replayable game. CIV V though... I am just utterly disappointed. I would have bought it anyway, but I was so happy to see all the reviews give 4.5 out of 5 and the like. But when I played the game, at first it was great. Great graphics, new system, etc etc. But then, reality set it. They utterly annihilated all of the depth. They removed any trace of balance the game had and replaced it with flashy graphics. I'm just so disappointed. I know I sound like a nag, but good lord I just don't see how even a bunch of patches and 2 expansions can fix the problems here. Sure there is modding and the like, but that just gets messy. Am I asking too much to pay $50 for a game that *should* be in line with the 4 that came before it?

I feel exactly the same way. Utter disappointment.

Likely the reviewers played the game for a short time and like you, it was great at first. So, they wrote their review based on that. ciV has a great honeymoon period until reality sets in. Very few reviewers went beyond that initial honeymoon period. Tom Chick being one of those people that took the time and effort to do so.
It seems pretty obvious that they didn't test multiplayer at all though. They probably were assured by Firaxis that it would be fixed in time.

I agree with you that the game should have been in line with the 4 that came before but I guess the designer wanted to go off in a different direction. C'est la vie.

I'm over being pissed off now. I've come to accept that I'll have to wait for Civ VI or a truly exceptional mod. I have the patience to wait 5 years. In the meantime, there are many wonderful games out there to fill that one more turn itch.

 

[Dark_Jedi06]

!

Accept the game for what it is and wait for the patches or go back to playing Civ IV.

Moderator Action: Just as a reminder, people have a right to their opinions and we'd prefer if you'd come up with counter points instead of telling them to just go play Civ IV. Thanks.

 

[AriochIV]

In addition to not playing the game for very long, I'm guessing that most of the reviewers based their review on the pre-release version of the game, and so they may have dismissed any technical problems or unpolished elements as simply issues with that build. Which is why you're not supposed to "review" an unreleased game.

Accept the game for what it is and wait for the patches or go back to playing Civ IV.

No.

 

[vendur]

Unless a game is generally billed primarily as a multiplayer game, the reviews generally do not play much of the multiplayer element of the game, just simgle.

 

[DiabolicX]

!

Accept the game for what it is and wait for the patches or go back to playing Civ IV.

We know we know. But really, can you compare this release to that of civ 4? Civ 4 was <snip> because of all the problems for the game to run initially, not problems of the game sucking (from what I recall.)

I have done a few different approaches to game victory and it all comes back to the same experience I had the first few days out... Borrring and no more looking at the clock and seeing that its 2 am.

Really though, eliminate all of my micromangement positions? I still have them but now before I even consider a micro position I must build a damn circus and colosseum on the get go to make things run smooth. My production cities are carrying weight of my finance cities, my finance cities are working hard just to keep things running, and all my cities are busy producing damn smiley faces. I would love to cold clock any smiley face I see in the next 5 months due to this game.

P.S. If some uptight prick decides to nag on me for my spelling or grammatical errors civfanatics is a joke.

Moderator Action: Profanity is not allowed on these forums, thanks.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Chibiabos]

I accept that the game will likely get fixed ... but I agree very strongly with the OP that reviewers (like gamespot which gave it a 9.0 / 10) were overly nice despite its subpar status on release.

Elemental was released with some bad bugs, too, and bombed -- Gamespot gave Elemental a 4.0 even while acknowledging the game would probably get fixed. Why give Civ a high rating when it lacks a lot of features present in previous games, has several outright bugs and lags badly even on decent multi-core systems with lots of RAM and decent graphics cards in excess of recommended specs, balance issues and more then?

At best, on Gamespot, Civ V should have gotten a 6.0, maybe a 7.0. It did not have the crippling level of bugs as Elemental did on release, but the enjoyability factor is definitely lower than Civ IV.

I truly do not understand why big companies like Firaxis are far more readily forgiven by reviewers for bugs than the "small" guys like Stardock.

 

[Thormodr]

I accept that the game will likely get fixed ... but I agree very strongly with the OP that reviewers (like gamespot which gave it a 9.0 / 10) were overly nice despite its subpar status on release.

Elemental was released with some bad bugs, too, and bombed -- Gamespot gave Elemental a 4.0 even while acknowledging the game would probably get fixed. Why give Civ a high rating when it lacks a lot of features present in previous games, has several outright bugs and lags badly even on decent multi-core systems with lots of RAM and decent graphics cards in excess of recommended specs, balance issues and more then?

At best, on Gamespot, Civ V should have gotten a 6.0, maybe a 7.0. It did not have the crippling level of bugs as Elemental did on release, but the enjoyability factor is definitely lower than Civ IV.

I truly do not understand why big companies like Firaxis are far more readily forgiven by reviewers for bugs than the "small" guys like Stardock.

It's quite easy to answer that. ----> $$$

Big game companies can afford a lot more advertising. Game reviewers know that. They don't bite the hand that feeds them.

 

[DarkSchneider]

After playing Civ V for some time I think 9.0 was much too generous. I think an 8.0 would have been more appropriate, with a possibility of an 8.5 once all the major patches are released.

 

[Lord Monkey]

!

Accept the game for what it is and wait for the patches or go back to playing Civ IV.

Your smiley sums up my feelings perfectly. Thanks for showing me that one, cuz now I have something to use on the bajillion (not an exaggeration) near-identical posts complaining about this game.

A lot of the complaining seems to be done by a few of the people. I've seen Thormodr make at least half of those aforementioned bajillion posts (slight exaggeration). Addressing flaws is one thing, in every topic you come across is another.

Moderator Action: Singling out specific posters in such a manner will earn an infraction every time. Please stay on the topic of the thread and make a valid point or counter point, or don't post at all. Thanks.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Andoo]

In my opinion Civ5 really IS a good game for the general audience and deserves the score it got from the reviewers. Civ5 could be a big let down for some people who enjoyed Civ4BTS + mods for so long but that doesn't mean the game itself is bad. The reviewers simply didn't assume players to have that much high level of expectation that many Civ veterans hold. There are many people like me who actually enjoys the game more than Civ4BTS and countless more who simply enjoys the game as it is.

 

[teks]

I quoted out gamespots review somewhere else. They praised the games amazing civlopedia twice in the review, which is all the proof I need that the review was biased.

I lost faith in game reviews when gamespot gave halo a better review then Half-life 2. Halo is fun, and all, but single player was all about blazing through the exact same room over and over. They didn't even bother changing the direction arrows on the map. Half-life 2 was by far the better game.

 

[Collic]

Not every review was glowing, many pointed out the games flaws and gave, fair balanced reviews. If you were buying on the basis of Gamespot, IGN, or a site like that, then hopefully it's a lesson learned. They exist purely for shilling and care about their advertising revenue above all else. Those sites and major magazines never give big titles less than 8 or 9 out of ten.

I don't agree the game is awful like many here, but I would also say to the OP, disagreeing with your opinion does not mean they didn't play the game. As you go through life you will notice many people have differing opinions, none of which are any less valid, because they are opinions, not facts.

Anyway, cheer up.

 

[Rince]

I like Civ5 but have to agree that a score of 80/100 would be more appropriate than the 90/100 it currently has on Metacritic. Then again, it has been like that with many major releases in the past. I trust user reviews more than "expert" reviews.

 

[pi-r8]

Bear in mind that game reviewers are working on a tight deadline. They probably have to write at least 1 review per day, so they only get like 5 hours to play the game. The game is complex enough that you can't really understand it just from 5 hours, especially if you've never played Civ much before.

 

[kaltorak]

I have many gamer freinds. Some of them liked civ series and some had never played them.

Lots of them bought civ5. All the ones who had never played civ, are likeing it. All the ones who knew civ don't like it.
Reviewers probably are like the firsts.

Civ5 is a good introduction into the civ world.

 

[wurstburst]

I for one enjoyed Civ V from the start and am still enjoying it after about 10 long games. I actually like it a little bit more now that I understand the game better and have found the sweet spot of difficulty setting that makes the game hard enough for a challenge, but not so hard that it's impossible to win (for me that's emperor level, on larger maps, with multiple land masses to give some civs a chance to dominate their local area before I arrive).

It's not a perfect game by any means. I look forward to some patch tweaks (longer tech time in later periods, faster production, a little less unhappiness issues, less building upkeep, better city defense). But there's nothing wrong here that spoils my enjoyment of the game.

There's plenty to like in the game, and as a game engine is sure to provide a great base for playing over the next few years via patch, expansions and mods.

 

[swordspider]

Ok, well after reading all of your posts, I guess I was able to figure out my biggest gripe of all and why I am upset in the first place, and that is this:

The Civilization series from day one in 1991 has been ABOUT the micromanagement of each of your individual cities, units, your paths to technological advances, etc. to "build an empire to stand the test of time". All of today's give-me-instant-gratification-for-doing-nothing-but-shooting-people games are NOT what CiV is about. So when you take a series that has built its legacy on micromanagement and how gratifying and annoying that can be, then REMOVE all of that to make the game appeal to a larger audience (aka the kids of today with absolutely no attention span who aren't going to like this game anyway) then you are essentially ripping the heart of the game out. Thus, to the people who truly enjoyed the CIVILIZATION series, not just some fun game, CiV in its current form (again barring mods, patches, etc) is a huge letdown. Unlike your worker units that you just click into auto-build when you are tired of messing with them, I feel like CiV as a game starts with everything already clicked into that 'full auto' mode and I can't turn it off and just ENJOY the unique aspects of the game.

This could have all been avoided had they taken some time to honor their dedicated players with MORE micro-managing but appealed to a larger audience by allowing you to just automate everything. Good old Sid had nothing to do with this game, you can see it point-blank in his interview. He talks about all these grand concepts of the civilization series and NONE of them are even in the game. I'm so tired of everyone selling out.

 

[Jediron]

Civ5 is a good introduction into the civ world.

And that's just another way of looking at it. CIV5 is good for a whole new kind of players.
New players, who still gonna dislike older CIV's. They made a game, that isn't deserving the title "Civililization".