What Is Your Opinion of Civilization 5 As of Today

[Akasen]

So I have played Civilization 5 on and off since I bought it over Steam some two or three years ago. It was an okay experience, believe I had an easier time playing through Civilization 5 than Civilization 4, but I haven't touched it too much since possibly last year.

In short, I have no major opinion of the game be it good or bad. But I have kept tabs on these forums over the years, lurking as it may be, and know good well that the reception to the game was originally negative from the fanbase.

I have to wonder what the opinion of you all is as of May 15, 2013 in regards to this game considering the amount of patches put on the game and at least one expansion pack having been released.

 

[Glassmage]

civ5 is better than civ4. I really can't play civ4 anymore tbh.

 

[Arachnofiend]

I have a lot of fun with Civ V. Never played Civ IV and I've yet to see a good argument as to why I should; stacks and sliders are gross and descriptions of the Civ IV AI make it sound like they actively help you win at their own expense which is about the one thing they could do to make the AI worse than it is in V.

 

[Evie94]

the best Civ game ever. GNK and the patches really made it amazing. when it first came out i was very disappointed but the updates have really made it an immense game.

1UPT is the best idea they had coming into this game, if that isnt in Civ 6 i won't buy it. it makes the game so much more strategic.

AI could be better of course....

 

[GAGA Extrem]

The game has improved a lot over time. The vanilla version was bad. REALLY bad.
Now with G&K a lot of stuff has finally been tweaked and added, and the game has the required strategic depth to it and is at least on-par with CIV 4.

It is quite hard to go back to CIV 4 now - the hexes from CIV 5 are a great change that makes the map and map movement a lot more organic. I don't really like 1UPT (clunky to use, makes moving units around a chore), but I never wage wars anyway, so I don't care too much. Would be nice if we could get an airforce limit per city, though.

Another thing that they did really well - for me the biggest strength of CIV 5 - is the fact that they balanced the different victory types and made tall vs. wide a choise. CIV 4 was about getting as many cities as possible - but in CIV 5 I can win a culture victory by playing OCC. Something like that would never have worked before.

So, yeah, as said above: CIV5+GK is now an adequate successor to CIV4. A good game with flaws and (finally) adequate depth for a CIV game. Still lots of room for improvement, though.

 

[apocalypse105]

I like civ 4 better then civ 5 however i thinx civ 5 has potential to be the best in the franchise

civ 5 has a better economic

In civ 4 you just cottage spam or spam great person to form you're economy . Olso the maintainance mechanic from cities wasn't really well explained it took me a lot of months to figure it out. Olso the interface was terrible .

In civ 5 the interface gives clear and good information , the happiness system and science system is one of the best in the series. This series was easy to get in to which is usally the biggest flaw of the civilisation series.

better combat system.

The civ 4 combat system was really bad It basicly was a number generator system. You could have a high percentage to win 90% but still lose. There wasn't really any strategy in this only are my numbers bigger then you and a risk factor should I atack or not? It could work in a risk game but not in a civilization game

In civ 5 combat is interesting and brings out a lot of tactival movement. Its finally a strategy game


So why do I still play civ 4 ? And I stopped playing civ 5 olmost 3 weeks know?

it is because of the crazy random diplomacy. This makes the game not fun anymore. It gets to the part that I like the game mechanics however diplomacy makes me stop playing. As long as the philosophy behind the diplomacy isn't changed in brave new world i am not going to buy it and i will finally give up at this game that had good potential.

 

[blackcatatonic]

Overall I think it's a very good game, but there are couple of aspects which I still find frustrating, notably:

- Diplomacy - this has been improved through G&K and the fall patch, but I do think there is still room for improvement. I'd like the AI to be more difficult to exploit - it has no problem with shelling out 240 gold for a luxury and then declaring war two turns later - and I'd also like diplomatic relations to better reflect what's really going on in the world: for instance, if I declare war on someone who has attacked a CS I'm protecting, why should I be hit with a warmonger penalty?

- AI aggressiveness - the AI has become much more aggressive since the fall patch and for me at least this was a major step backwards in the development of the game. On King and above it's not really possible to get through the game without being swarmed early on, because the AI invariably decides that it's going to attack you instead of trying to compete with you in other ways. While this fits the profile of many Civs - the Huns, the Mongols, Germany, the Aztecs - it would make the game more interesting and enjoyable if not every AI behaved this way. Ideally I'd like the AI to be more intelligent at higher levels rather than just more powerful because of the free stuff it gets, but I can appreciate that this seems to be beyond the skill of AI programmers at the moment. I also regularly see the AI field armies that it manifestly cannot support, either.

- AI expansion - see above, but I'm less bothered about the AI sometimes getting four cities up by turn 75 than I am by the AI deciding late-game to plonk cities down in the middle of your empire, in lands that are surrounded by your cities but which your borders haven't expanded to fill as yet. Also, the late-game "I MUST BUILD CITIES EVERYWHERE!!!" spam, Sejong's tactic par excellence. Aside from being irritating for the player, it feels unrealistic. I think build cities that cannot be connected to the capital easily or that are a long way away from the capital should come with a sizeable penalty in either running costs or happiness to try and create a disincentive for this. Founding cities a long way from home should be something that you actually have to weigh up as an opportunity cost - is this city ever going to pay for itself, or is it not worth it?

 

[Fluffball]

There are many things lacking from civ 5 still that should have been there from the start and i feel they have relied on the modding community to fill a lot of the caps such as with info addict but all the flaws are far outweighed by the introduction of 1upT.

The game would have to be almost unplayable for it to be worse than any of the previous games in the series and yes i have played them all.

The biggest thing that lets the game down is still the diplomacy but unlike many people state it is far from random, the problem is it is too linear but really that is no different to the previous version.
In previous games it was just as easy to predict what the AI would do as it is in this version the biggest issue many people seem to have is you have little scope to 'control' the AI.
In previous games you could make real friends with AI's for example and then you would be safe from them for the rest of the game and you knew it.
Now if you make friends with an AI they will eventually back stab you and you know it.
The only difference is the predictability is a bit less obvious.

What diplomacy needs and has always needed is the unknown of are they real friends or will they eventually turn on you, the slider has only gone from one extreme to the other.

A simple choice at the start of a game for each AI dictation if they will be real friends or only friends in their own interest is all it takes, you then don't know in each game whether to trust an AI or not because they could really be friends or just friends at their own convenience.

 

[IkM]

Never played civ 4 or any other civ games but Civ 5 is great game and G&K made it far better.

 

[apocalypse105]

Overall I think it's a very good game, but there are couple of aspects which I still find frustrating, notably:

- Diplomacy - this has been improved through G&K and the fall patch, but I do think there is still room for improvement. I'd like the AI to be more difficult to exploit - it has no problem with shelling out 240 gold for a luxury and then declaring war two turns later - and I'd also like diplomatic relations to better reflect what's really going on in the world: for instance, if I declare war on someone who has attacked a CS I'm protecting, why should I be hit with a warmonger penalty?

- AI aggressiveness - the AI has become much more aggressive since the fall patch and for me at least this was a major step backwards in the development of the game. On King and above it's not really possible to get through the game without being swarmed early on, because the AI invariably decides that it's going to attack you instead of trying to compete with you in other ways. While this fits the profile of many Civs - the Huns, the Mongols, Germany, the Aztecs - it would make the game more interesting and enjoyable if not every AI behaved this way. Ideally I'd like the AI to be more intelligent at higher levels rather than just more powerful because of the free stuff it gets, but I can appreciate that this seems to be beyond the skill of AI programmers at the moment. I also regularly see the AI field armies that it manifestly cannot support, either.

- AI expansion - see above, but I'm less bothered about the AI sometimes getting four cities up by turn 75 than I am by the AI deciding late-game to plonk cities down in the middle of your empire, in lands that are surrounded by your cities but which your borders haven't expanded to fill as yet. Also, the late-game "I MUST BUILD CITIES EVERYWHERE!!!" spam, Sejong's tactic par excellence. Aside from being irritating for the player, it feels unrealistic. I think build cities that cannot be connected to the capital easily or that are a long way away from the capital should come with a sizeable penalty in either running costs or happiness to try and create a disincentive for this. Founding cities a long way from home should be something that you actually have to weigh up as an opportunity cost - is this city ever going to pay for itself, or is it not worth it?

You've read my mind you said everything I forgot to say good job on saying everything that is wrong with civ

As a side not on the agressive side they only value you're military size when atacking not you're position on the map ..

I've once had attilla who is on the other side of the pangea north And i am on the other side south declare war on me
at turn 140 he declared war it took him 50 turns to move all his units to me. I saw the move through everyone's borders or next to them to me( there was no ocean so he couldn't move them thorugh water) . He decided to declare war on me instead on japan or babylon his next neighbours who hate him. Good job atilla .

I killed all his units and thought why did he do that?

 

[Optional]

I'd like the AI to be more difficult to exploit - it has no problem with shelling out 240 gold for a luxury and then declaring war two turns later...

On the other hand, if the human player can secure peace by doing certain deals with an AI, that's not good either. The AI needs to remain somewhat deceptive and unpredictable.

- AI aggressiveness - the AI has become much more aggressive since the fall patch, and for me at least this was a major step backwards in the development of the game. On King and above it's not really possible to get through the game without being swarmed early on, because the AI invariably decides that it's going to attack you instead of trying to compete with you in other ways.

Are you sure? With Gods & Kings the AI's war willingness has been toned down a notch, the XML files show this. I'm noticing that since vanilla what has been turned up is the 'competing in other ways'; the AI expands more aggressively now and is more eager to build wonders. The AI likes to go the northern tech path; the Great Library is invariably gone very soon now. Before Gods & Kings it was sometimes beyond turn 80 on Immortal. That really doesn't happen anymore.
Some civs you can count on getting into wars, but it's mostly with civs they're settled close to. Most civs I find quite peaceful, and with the aggressive ones you have the option of bribing them into wars with others. I find it often doable to maintain the peace, although it does come with some do's and don'ts.

With most of what you're saying I can agree, but I had to nitpick on a few things...

EDIT: What you might be seeing since the fall patch, if you're seeing a more aggressive AI, is an AI who develops border issues easier because of more aggressive expanding?

 

[Irkalla]

My opinion, as vague as it is, is that Civ V is making progress, but still isn't where it needs to be.

 

[NoPartials]

Civ 5 was a brave step for the game with the 1UPT and the hexagon patterns, but I feel like it could be improved upon. I like all the depth added, but I just feel like so much more could be done, like improving the spy system or the religions to have a late game effect. I like it better than civ 4, but there is more that could be done

 

[seancolorado]

For me there reaches a point in any video game where it just becomes too repetitive (FIFA and sports games are my only exception)

For a good 6 months or even more it's been that way with Civ 5 for me and I've played it little to none at all - a stark contrast to when I first got the game and played it an unhealthy amount

With 5 victory types, there are only so many paths you can take to get to each victory. There is a certain dryness towards the end of the game where you pretty much know what you have to do to achieve your victory. There is no sense of exploration or mystery to keep the desire running and so often times I just stop playing altogether.

With BNW and the new late-game mechanics and much needed Cultural revamp, I really hope this changes that.

 

[Peasley]

It's not better than civ 4. It's gotten pretty damn good, but it still has a ways to go. Here's why:

-There is basically no semblance of a real economy. People complain about cottage spam in civ 4, but that's something that could be played with. Gold in civ 5 really doesn't make much sense.

-1upt is clunky. People talk about how strategic it is, but civ is not a straight war game. Archers shouldn't be able to fire arrows hundreds of miles. It also makes moving units a tremendous chore.

-Barbs could be better. I want my barb cities back.

-The spy game in city-states after about the industrial era is ridiculous. Constant rigged elections and coups.

 

[kaltorak]

I love civ 5. I play it instead of civ4. But diplomacy and leader AI of civ5 sucks badly. In civ4 we had leaders with personalities and tastes, not chessplayers.
My only other gripe is late game unit management. 1upt is definately better, but there should be a system to move your many units late game. Like gathering for travel or something.

Rest is better than civ4

 

[Fluffball]

-There is basically no semblance of a real economy. People complain about cottage spam in civ 4, but that's something that could be played with. Gold in civ 5 really doesn't make much sense.

It's got about as much sense of economy and gold as the past games.

-1upt is clunky. People talk about how strategic it is, but civ is not a straight war game. Archers shouldn't be able to fire arrows hundreds of miles. It also makes moving units a tremendous chore.

The old firing arrows hundreds of miles point...It's a game not a reality sim.
You say it's broken because it's not realistic then want to stack units (saying civ 4 is better)which is unrealistic?

Moving units effectively provides an extra depth, just because people have trouble doing it doesn't mean it is broken it just means they don't know how. The only issue really is civilian units, specifically that they can't move through other civ units.

-The spy game in city-states after about the industrial era is ridiculous. Constant rigged elections and coups.

Like past games actually made a decent use of espionage?
Lets look at civ 4 where spies were little more than scouts...
By the industrial era my scouts were generally forgotten as they were useless at least now you can still use them for taking protecting CS. It's not a great mechanic but its better than just forgetting them and putting them on sleep.

Spies in civ V could be improved but there are really no worse or better implemented than in previous games.

-Barbs could be better. I want my barb cities back.

Sounds like you just want civ 4.

 

[Peasley]

It's got about as much sense of economy and gold as the past games.


The old firing arrows hundreds of miles point...It's a game not a reality sim.
You say it's broken because it's not realistic then want to stack units (saying civ 4 is better)which is unrealistic?

Moving units effectively provides an extra depth, just because people have trouble doing it doesn't mean it is broken it just means they don't know how. The only issue really is civilian units, specifically that they can't move through other civ units.


Like past games actually made a decent use of espionage?
Lets look at civ 4 where spies were little more than scouts...
By the industrial era my scouts were generally forgotten as they were useless at least now you can still use them for taking protecting CS. It's not a great mechanic but its better than just forgetting them and putting them on sleep.

Spies in civ V could be improved but there are really no worse or better implemented than in previous games.



Sounds like you just want civ 4.

-Stacks are messy, but it would be wrong to assume that they are any less tactical. 1upt is clunky and the AI can't use it at all-it can be cool, but it tends to bog down.

-Commerce is also more strategic than civ 5 gold. Building maitanence makes less sense than city maintenance did, and could be played with and manipulated. Civ 5 gold is just a pile of gold.

-I don't think you've played civ 4 BTS, because if you had, you would know that espionage was more nuanced than that. Spies could lower city defenses, sabotage production, steal tech, and survey production.

 

[Catan_Settler]

It's kind of a mixed bag compared to Civ IV in my opinion, they each have things that I preferred.

Combat: Civ5 is better in every way. Ranged adds a tactical dimension to the game, that stacks of doom eliminated. It's also less micromanagey and time consuming, although I still think they need to work on reducing mico for air combat.

Diplomacy: Civ4 had more options and was more enjoyable. There was more benefit to diplomacy. Now the only real advantage of playing nice with the other civs, is so you can continue robbing the AI of their gold. I find Civ5 is very one dimensional as far as diplomacy is concerned. CS don't really help the situation much either, I mean they're cool and all... but it's just another one dimensional aspect of diplomacy.... Got gold? Got allies! Meh.

Technology: I like the tech tree in Civ5 better as it is more setup to allow various beelines and so on to work. Civ4 tree was more intermingled and more cross referencing of tech requirements so... there were fewer interesting choices to make when teching. This leads to more variety in strategies, for which I think Civ5 has the edge.

Economy: On the other hand, I thought Civ4 had a better economic system with more variables and more viable strategies and that would actually work. I loved that you could focus on a specialist or cottage economy or some hybrid, and you could win various ways. Then there was a superior national wonder system and city specialization. IMO these things added a whole new dimension to the game that appears to be completely lacking from Civ5. More choices = more replayability.

Misc: Over all I do prefer Civ5 as a game to Civ4. I miss corporations and city specialization, but I didn't like the old tech tree and I am very happy Stacks of Doom are gone for good! Hexes make for more interesting combat, so does ranged, and the tech tree is a lot more flexible to incorporate various strategies whether you're aiming for science, warfare or culture. That being said, the social policies I think still need to be balanced. On the surface, the policy system is awesome and interesting, but in practice... there really only seem to be one or two viable ways to consistently use them to win so.. that I find to be annoying. From the sounds of it, the next expansion is rejigging a lot in the policy system and changing some things to be ideologies, so I am awaiting that with baited breath.

 

[Sonic Boom]

I've been playing Civ ever since I was a good 11 years old when my friend loaned me an old copy of a Civ III CD he had laying around. I loved it all and Ive been hooked now that I'm even 17. From the 3 games that Ive played, Civ V is my favorite one and its the one I've gotten best at. Nowadays, I really can't be bothered to go back to Civ III and IV even though I have them on Steam. I just simply can't, they feel like totally different games to me. Things like the UI just got so well improved in my opinion (minus the option for numbers. I want to see numbers all the time I should be able to see my opponent's army strength) and the hexagonal tiles made it not only more realistic, but convenient as well.

However, this game isn't perfect. I played the vanilla version on and off when I first got the game, and the lack of founding religions, AI logic, the removal of the old civics system of Civ IV, the 1UPT, etc all just kept me off. Now that G&K came out, the game got a much needed boost and I can't play without it anymore. G&K should've been what the vanilla version is. Things like 1UPT still piss me off though. Ill never like it and I don't know of they'll ever remove it. It makes military clunky and the shifting of units makes my head hurt.

Civ V isn't perfect by any means, but its still my favorite out of Civ III, IV, and V