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

[gunter]

The best thing I can say about Civ V, is that it makes me appreciate Civ IV all the more. I've been playing this since the mid 90's. This franchise has caused me to break up with 2 girlfriends. Damn, the sacrifices I have made!!!

And then, after all these years of support, after I've ran all the way down to "Gamestop" to pick up my reserved copy of Civ V (not easy for a 47 year old man to do, especially one who likes his booze as much as me). Ran home with it, as excited as a grown man can be (with his clothes on anyway), and slammed it into the old PC. What a disappointment.

I spent 2 whole days doing nothing but immersing myself in this game. After that, went back to the store to shell out another $20 for the strategy guide. I had to see if I was missing something. Alas, I was not.

I think I may have said this before, but, this game does not deserve to have the "Civilization" tag anywhere near it. Every game in this series has been an improvement on it's predecessor. I remember when I got Civ III and Civ IV, both on the day they came out. While they were not perfect, they were fantastic to play from the start. The patches and add ons only improved them more. But this game??? You can patch all you want. You can bring out all the mods you want. But this game has no soul. It's boring, flat, stale. If it was a woman, I wouldn't remember her name tomorrow. They have taken out all the elements that, for me anyway, made this series great. I haven't even experienced any of the crashes that some seem to have had.

Anyway, sorry if I've rambled on. Just wanted to give my 2 cents worth. My apologies to anyone who really enjoys Civ V. But if it's your first time playing a game in the Civ series, then I would strongly advise you to go back to your retailer and trade this game in for the complete Civ IV package. Then you will really see what I'm harping on about.

I like the way you write, I hear you mate.

Civ V is not a pure mess, even if Shafer imagined it like it was his personal console toy.

Told that, we now have to riot to pretend the patch to fix what is fixable, at least.

 

[pazmacats]

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.

Ｉdisagree. Completely. Civ5 is not a good introduction into the civ world. Civ5 is a nail in the coffin of the series. Civ games have been about immersion, about replaying the history of mankind. Civ5 leaves this theme by introducing smilies and the GDR. (to name just 2 examples)

Why are smilies bad? Because the reduce the productivity of your "empire" gradually. First you stop growing, then you get a penalty producing. This makes sense in game terms but no sense in the real world. A much better way would be to overthrow the government, to emigrate, to build rebellious units, to go on strike or to welcome/help conquering rival nations.

Compare this to older Civs. Cities went on strike there. Cities flipped to the enemy. In Civ 1 (?) whole empires could be thrown into civil war if the capital was conquered.

Civ5 is not an introduction, because it's a stone-age hex combat game with a background that LOOKS like civ, but this background is nothing more than a desktop theme or graphic skin.

 

[Dun Malg]

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.

As someone who bought Elemental AND Civ V, I'd say they're about even, fun-wise. Granted Elemental on release was rife with appalling bugs, but hey, Stardock is a small publisher so I expected that. I was annoyed by the lack of balance, brain dead AI, and boring mashing of the "next turn" button in Elemental, so I was pleased to find Civ V coming out so soon after.

Then Civ V turned out to lack balance, have a brain dead AI, and devolved to mashing of the "next turn" button. I swear, it felt like the same game, in a way.

 

[Thormodr]

As someone who bought Elemental AND Civ V, I'd say they're about even, fun-wise. Granted Elemental on release was rife with appalling bugs, but hey, Stardock is a small publisher so I expected that. I was annoyed by the lack of balance, brain dead AI, and boring mashing of the "next turn" button in Elemental, so I was pleased to find Civ V coming out so soon after.

Then Civ V turned out to lack balance, have a brain dead AI, and devolved to mashing of the "next turn" button. I swear, it felt like the same game, in a way.

I quite like Elemental, flaws and all. The immersion factor seems much greater and after such a disappointing start, it has a huge upside. Doubly so with Kael being signed by Stardock.

After playing with a very solid AI in Gal Civ II, I am certain that Elemental will end up with an excellent AI. Especially now that Kael is taking over more of the design and Brad has more time to work on the AI which is something he has said he loves to do.

I can't say the same thing for ciV. The AI is extremely piss poor and although it will very likely be improved, it still won't be great at all. ciV needs a fantastic AI to work properly as JS has tried to make the game more of a strategy wargame/boardgame. cIV has enough other things to do and was very immersive. You could overlook the poor AI to some extent. You can't do that with ciV.

Right now, I am enjoying playing Elemental. You couldn't pay me to play ciV.

 

[Dun Malg]

Comparing it to a console game just does not make any sense either. Consoles are just a few generations removed from computers and catching up fast.

That's not completely accurate. Consoles have perpetually been a couple steps removed from computers, and never the twain shall meet. Consoles could even surpass computers, but they will never be the same thing, nor have the same gameplay. The goals of the two platforms are incompatible.

The potential of consoles today is way better than the computers and games we played Civ I on.

yet that potential will never be utilized along the same lines that even the potential of the old 486DX2-66 machine I first played Civ I on was. Consoles are designed for non-symbolic direct input through a hand-held controller, and they always will be. There are very basic differences between the interface design philosophies of computers and consoles. This is what people are talking about when they say "it plays like a console game". Civ titles have been ported to consoles, but they are still very much computer games in design.

 

[Caseus]

Where it starts to bother me is when I realize that the type of game I like (Civ 1-4) is no longer being made. That is obviously not Earth shattering, but it is a pretty sad blow for someone who likes micromanagement and a very tough "chess-like" strategy game. This game doesn't accomplish that, and the Civ series will likely never achieve that again... that is sad for some of us.

When Civ 5 came out I read the glowing reviews then came here before ordering my copy. Since then I've been reading these forums with shock and dismay. I've played every Civ since Civ 1 on my Amiga 500. I'm a builder at heart, and I LIKE micromanagement. The idea of a new Civ sequel had me planning my excuses to my wife. But from everything I've read, this isn't a sequel at all. And you're darn right that makes me sad.

 

[Doctor Phibes]

That's not completely accurate. Consoles have perpetually been a couple steps removed from computers, and never the twain shall meet. Consoles could even surpass computers, but they will never be the same thing, nor have the same gameplay. The goals of the two platforms are incompatible.

yet that potential will never be utilized along the same lines that even the potential of the old 486DX2-66 machine I first played Civ I on was. Consoles are designed for non-symbolic direct input through a hand-held controller, and they always will be. There are very basic differences between the interface design philosophies of computers and consoles. This is what people are talking about when they say "it plays like a console game". Civ titles have been ported to consoles, but they are still very much computer games in design.

Ah, thank you Dun Malg. Trundling through this thread, this was something I was going to pick up on, but you've done it for me. I'd add, though, that consoles *are* computers, but highly dedicated ones, while PCs are general-purpose machines. You've alluded to the greater richness of the PC interface (and I agree), I'd also add that another virtue is that PCs (yes, I'm including Macs too, sigh) are also authoring systems. How many people would have been modding Civ4 (or will mod Civ5) from consoles?

With respect to performance, there is one simple reason that you cannot have a console catching up with a PC and that is that there is no single performance standard for PCs. Without getting into the realm of overclocking, consoles are simply made as solid rather generic gaming platforms (and fine, all the better for that in their place) optimised for running a relatively small number of titles within one sub-genre of software. PC architecture can be optimised and customised according to requirements.

 

[GKling]

Well as far as the reviewers and their standards go, I remember Master Of Orion III getting some rave reviews (IGN gave it 9 out of 10 if I recall), and that was the only game I ever purchased where I actually destroyed the game CD with a hammer because I was so disgusted with the crap I had wasted my money on. Not to say CiV is anywhere near that bad. I am still holding out hope that the designers will have a conscious and continue to put out patches to this Beta software.