Why I believe Civ V is a bad game.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mutineer

Deity
Joined
Feb 20, 2006
Messages
3,715
Many people saying that they believe some features are good or bad and that what define the fact do they like or dislike game.

For me particular features does not matter, Vanilla Civ 4 had a lot badly implemented features that was fixed in patches/expansion packs.

That is does matter and what did keep me coming to civ 4 for many years was reply ability. In every game I had an idea how to play particular trait for my particular situation.
Which wanders would be most useful, how to get most of every thin. And when game finished I had a lot of ideas which I would like to try in future games.

After playing Civ 5 for 5 days I run out of thinks to try. It is simply too linear, you can try only that many thinks, mostly limited by happiness and policy implementations.
I will not going to talk about imbalances, it is fixable, theoretically.

Winning starting position defined by number of 3 food ties with additional plus of amount of rives side ties and hill ties.
From memory, it is grassland cows, fish and oasis.
You can not move from starting position, my initial settler was killed by barbarian on second turn, as it finished 2 ties from barbarian camp.

But that is theoretically fixable. What is unfixable is linear character of the game, not possible with out changing a lot of different base conceptions.

and the worst thin is: that I can not even see how I can make this game richer...
 
You still spell wonder as "wander"?

Sorry, I had to say it, I've read too many SG's with you involved...:)

I don't have the game yet, but so many things seem wrong, by reports. So as a first edition of the game it's clearly not finished, so much I understand.

But as with Civ3/4 and a proper toolkit, we might have a great game.

I hope.
 
This I don't agree on... Despite the many shortcomings of this new game, you can set up house rules and play all your own...

Try to play a game where you must trade for resource and can't mine your own, it makes you totally play in another style... If the civ you're good with is being war'd on, you would have good reason to save them because if you can't mine your own, the new civ might not trade you that resource...

Little things like that can still make a good game out of Civ 5... The only difference is, the game isn't forcing you, like paying for city state loyalty... Imagine if they let you give them resource also... But it was broken, and you set a house rule where you can only pay them money or gift units... Same difference...

Still, if they had 1UPT and ZOC (zone of control) in Civ 4 (sans forts which were useless) I would play THAT game...
 
WE all explore variants in Civ 4, but usually we limit ourself in order to develop new strategy, check out how it would work in general. Some people like to limit them-self for the sake of limiting them-self, I am not one of them.
 
lock
lock
lock
...please.
 
I think there are a lot of choices in Civ V. I don't find policies linear at all. Perhaps you have a favorite path you will do all the time, but I don't. I explore various combinations. I don't find that you have only one option on how to spend your gold like in previous Civs either. Gold can now do more than upgrade units and rush units. Now you can buy off city-state allies, perform research agreements, expand your borders, and still buy units/buildings if you want to...all the time, not just once you reach a certain tech.

That said, there are not many choices that used to exist in Civ IV that carried over to Civ V other than the very basic "where to build" and "what to build" choices.
 
Are you a mod?

nope. but repeat threads should be locked. This opinion should be expressed in one of the existing anti-Civ V threads.
 
I have to agree. We've had enough "bad game" threads.
 
How is there supposed to be any discussion on several paragraphs of broken and soon/already-misinterpreted English?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom