What Do You Rate Civilization 5 And Why?

[Ahovking]

What Do You Rate Civilization 5? and why?

I dont like Civilization 5 i loved civ3 and civ4 and all together i would give Civ5 a 4.5 out of 10.0, i miss the ability to create a government in Civ4 and the customization options and civ advisers in civ 3 that's why i would give Civ5 a 4.5

wbu ?

 

[DemonMaster]

I like Civ 5. Reasons:

* 1UPT and not SoD. Since I hate the moronic SoD in some earliler civ versions this is a huge +.
* SP. This is so much better than earlier versions. Civ 4 was on the right track.
* Hexagons.
* Tactical. What you say. In Civ 4 it was very easy to for example fool the AI to move his SoD to where you want it so you can attack it better. The reasons the AI sometimes could stand up against a human player is that it doesn't take so much brain to move 240 lb. of muzzles. I have never lost a war (what I can remember and I use the top difficulty levels) in Civ 4. Civ 5 is among the first Civ games that I have lost a war in. Sure the AI is not good, but it is far better than in earlier versions but in those versions it didn't have to be good.
* Diplomatic. What you say. Well I am still a little bit allergic to the diplomatic AI in Civ 5 but it is on the right track now and it is not so easy just to calculate actions and results and thats good. In Civ 5 you must check what an AI do with other AI. In Civ 4 you could calculate (at least I did) action and what the result will be.

I don't remember Civ 3 much, but I do remember it was extremely buggy when it came out and it took a long time before the game was enjoyable (no interception or AA what so ever was a huge downer). Also I do remember that you needed to colonize jungle before modern time just to be sure you have rubber because even a basic unit needed rubber (if a remember correctly).

Edit: I gave it an 8.

 

[jmik99]

I gave it an 8. It's a good game but far from what it could have been, unfortunately.

I do like the way they went with the game, though, to try something new, and I'm a BIG fan of the Art Deco style! Love it!

What I really don't like is all the "nerfing" and "buffing" done to the game. They should have focused on bug fixing and cut back on all these "nerfings" IMO. I think many of these nerfings were bad for the game, like no scientists specialist in libraries, underpowered horseman, overpowered wonders etc etc.

But I've played the game for more than 400 hours so....

 

[Aspon]

I gave it a nine I think its the best civ game in the series so far. I know it has its flaws but its like everyone has forgotten the flaws of the previous versions.

the combat function is better then ever before but this creates problems because like everyone else has said it makes it harder to program the ai. there should be a threat of over sea invasion I mean given the right circumstances the english should be an amazing civ but there useless because navys seem irrelevant. it pretty much seems that all you need to do is take out your local rivals then never worry about war again unless you want to declare on them and even then you only face losing what you send so its effectively risk free.

i still think there should be ways to become economicly threatened or dependent on other civs to add other dimensions to the game that also makes it more realistic. also espionage has played such huge roles in world war 2 the american independence war and many others that i think it could play a big role to.

having computer ais telling you how happy they are that your friends with this person or how they dislike them to or how there sorry they invaded a state friendly to you or how hahahaha there doing it, just gets slightly annoying.

 

[Brichals]

9.0 hoping that rises with expansions/patches/DLCs. I think the game is a work of art, worth it just to listen to the music and see the graphics alone. The graphical style is wonderful. People would pay 50 bucks for a picture book/graphical novel and a couple of albums from a store. Well Civ5 is that before you even get to the great gameplay.

 

[spider1]

I gave it an 8. It's a wonderful game with a few big flaws that irratate me, but it's my Civ game of choice right now. I can kind of "get around" some of the things I don't like about it with the mods, but even a straight up game with no mods is preferable to the other Civ versions.

 

[Thormodr]

3.5

Diplomacy is still awful and the AI still is quite bad.

There have been some improvements in a few areas but this is not enough to bring this turkey even up to mediocre. (5.0)

I'll revise the score upwards when the SDK is released.

 

[Sonereal]

8.0.

9.0 with certain mods.

 

[qyll]

5.0

The problems I have are:
-Weak diplomacy and psychopathic AIs
-1UPT traffic jams especially in the later eras
-AI sucks at combat
-Waiting times/needs optimization
-Multiplayer problems

Fix those things and I would give it a 10

 

[Adjuvant]

I gave it an "8" for the "way it is today", and I hope it's getting better. For some months after release I would have given it a dismal score; "4" maybe.

 

[aatami]

I find the results interesting. On release 3 to 4 was the majority, but now the majority has moved to 8 to 9.

 

[Adjuvant]

I find the results interesting. On release 3 to 4 was the majority, but now the majority has moved to 8 to 9.

As I remember, similar threads around release had some 2/3 saying the game was 5 or better, altho the people who "didn't like it" were particularly vocal and started numerous threads of the same topics.

Care to cite (link) examples?

 

[JWAT44]

8.5 not the best game i have ever played but still in my top 10 at least

 

[Lance of Llanwy]

I gave it an 8. It's come a long way, and is now a genuinely good, enjoyable game, though it still has a ways to go vis-a-vis Civ IV: BtS. But, really, I don't think any vanilla civ game could have hoped to clear that hurdle.

 

[Brichals]

I think the guy who voted 0.5 should give reasons.

 

[Thormodr]

I think the guy who voted 0.5 should give reasons.

If it's a multiplayer aficionado then the score is richly deserved. Multiplayer is still brutal.

Likewise, people who rate this game a ten should give their reasons why they overlooked the pathetic combat AI and psychopathic Diplomatic AI for starters.

 

[aatami]

As I remember, similar threads around release had some 2/3 saying the game was 5 or better, altho the people who "didn't like it" were particularly vocal and started numerous threads of the same topics.

Care to cite (link) examples?

You seemed to not understand what I meant with majority. I did not mean larger scales (as in, for example 70% voted for x+) but when looking at certain numbers (as in the majorities would be taken on which numbers have the most votes (example: x got 190 votes, y 176, z 163 and a 98), not by wider scales).

I think the guy who voted 0.5 should give reasons.

I'd suppose it was 0000000konichiwa0000000, as his signature suggests.

 

[Oohforf]

7.5, but with mods, 9.0.

 

[apocalypse105]

6

In my country if you get a 6 on you're exame you could say you past the test but didnt do well...
You could do a much better....

Same goes for civ 5


This game has so good idea's the combat system the hexes/graphics .... But it could be so much better and i speek of:

THe many bugs on multiplayers and some on single player..

Non existent diplomacy in a game where it is a key....

Bad Tactical AI It is unable to handle combat units or perform a coastal assault...

Many crashes...

Still unbalanced issues from social policies, happiness to easy to manage, Strategic resources are bad placed( all uranium on one spot look at maddejin rome's playthrough)
units for example:
The Crosbowman that lose all its promotion if upgraded
The musketman becomes to early obsolute


I feel like I am playing a beta game... Wich I found anoying . If i buy a game I suspect it to be finished...

 

[JWAT44]

Many crashes...

crashes arent totally the fault of the game, your machine may not be able to handle it.