Anyone try Civ 5?

[Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout]

Has anyone tried it?(It has the modding feature in it) I would like to hear your thoughts on whether to buy it or not?

Civ 5.

Should I buy it or not?

[Kekvit Irae]

If you're looking for a more complex version of Civ IV, then pass on buying it. Civ V has been dumbed down in many areas. However, this streamlining does provide a good deal more enjoyment to micromanaging your cities (IE: happiness is now an empire-wide statistic rather than on a per-city basis). Military units cannot occupy the same square as another military unit, and the same goes for civilian units as well. Personally, this makes the game more about placement and tactics than "lol 100 Panzer steamroll" you will find in Civ IV.

But honestly, the question you should ask yourself is "do I like Civilization?" If the answer is yes, then the choice of whether to buy Civ V or not is an obvious one. It's still Civilization, through and through.

[Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout]

Ah,I never tired it before.Thanks anyway

[econ21]

If you have never tried Civ, Marshall, then I highly recommend you do. It's got a lot in common with total war. Except the battles. I know that's a lot. But by compensation it does have very competitive AI, nice diplomacy and generally excellent gameplay. You can't play it looking for historical realism, but if you love history, you may get a lot of joy from the scope and richness of the historical flavour.

I have not read much good about Civ5. If you want to try Civ, I'd say start with Civ4, ideally with all the expansions.

[seireikhaan]

If you have never tried Civ, Marshall, then I highly recommend you do. It's got a lot in common with total war. Except the battles. I know that's a lot. But by compensation it does have very competitive AI, nice diplomacy and generally excellent gameplay. You can't play it looking for historical realism, but if you love history, you may get a lot of joy from the scope and richness of the historical flavour.

I have not read much good about Civ5. If you want to try Civ, I'd say start with Civ4, ideally with all the expansions.

Ditto this. Civ 4, with its expansions, is just a better, more fun game. Civ 5 does some things better, particularly with hex movement vs square, and disabling the ability to stack multiple units on one tile. But there's just a soul missing from it that 4 has. It's kind of hard to put into words, but 4 is just more fun.

[Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout]

I see.

[LeftEyeNine]

Considering I'm a Civilization gamer from the very first game;

Gamer fit for Civ 4: "I want to experience building a civilization from the scratch, be it ended in its 500th year following a barbarian onslaught or on the borders of Alpha Centauri"

Gamer fit for Civ 5: "Civ 4 is too complex for me. Also, look at those graphics man. I can't stand this game being installed on the very same hard drive that will harbor Battlefield 3 soon."

I've played Civ 5 for an hour, quit and never looked back. I was so furious that El Sid actually permitted his franchise to be used that way. It was blasphemy.

[aimlesswanderer]

Having played Civ 1, 2, 3 (not so good) and 4 for a vast number of hours, 5 was, sadly, rubbish. It's just not fun I'm afraid. At first I thought that I was missing something in the game, but sadly it seems like the game itself is just not fun. I feel like I got ripped off.

My brother, who also played 1-4 heaps, played 5 for a few hours - never again. He doesn't even remember that it was Civ, and not something else.

[Beskar]

Short Summary:
Civ5 is a massive improvement combat wise especially, I prefer the system a lot more than Civ4. Far more strategy and far less face-roll. Lot more enjoyable.
Civ5 for all its plus sides failed in making some features too basic from Civ4 and taking a way a lot of the feeling present in it. This can make the game less interesting than it's counterpart.

I really missed a lot of the UN Features and Religious ones from Civ4 especially.

[Scienter]

I agree w/ Beskar. I like Civ IV more than Civ V. I liked the hex layout from Civ 5, but overall I enjoyed IV much more. I feel like Civ V was too simple.

[Lemur]

I was going to say that I rally liked Civ 5, but then I realized I never play it. So ... I guess my brain says it's good, while my mouse hand says "meh."

[Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout]

I see.So the public opinion is that its crap.Even though it has that mod menu?

[LeftEyeNine]

How is the placement a mod menu supposed to make a game good ?

[Beskar]

I see.So the public opinion is that its crap.Even though it has that mod menu?

Not really, simply get it whilst it is going at a good price.

The problem with gamers is they think of anything rated underneath 8/10 is "Crap", that isn't the case, a 4/10 game can still be fun, but it just isn't a great game. Simply get the new Game of the Year edition at something you won't worry about losing money over. If you are struggling the pay the gas bill, paying full whack on the game isn't a good idea anyway.

[Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout]

Not really, simply get it whilst it is going at a good price.

The problem with gamers is they think of anything rated underneath 8/10 is "Crap", that isn't the case, a 4/10 game can still be fun, but it just isn't a great game. Simply get the new Game of the Year edition at something you won't worry about losing money over. If you are struggling the pay the gas bill, paying full whack on the game isn't a good idea anyway.

Ah,I bought the game of the year edition with Empire and Napoleon with all downloadable content.Have you tried that mod menu?It says you can download as much as you want.What about the grapchis? Do they look total war or are they somewhat differnet?

[Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout]

How is the placement a mod menu supposed to make a game good ?

You download with many mods.Meaning that the game can run with it.I mean ,In NTW ,you cant play with someone ,just because he's downloaded a mod.I think CA should add this if they want the modding community to serve them well.(I'm crap at modding my games)

[LeftEyeNine]

Not really, simply get it whilst it is going at a good price.

The problem with gamers is they think of anything rated underneath 8/10 is "Crap", that isn't the case, a 4/10 game can still be fun, but it just isn't a great game. Simply get the new Game of the Year edition at something you won't worry about losing money over. If you are struggling the pay the gas bill, paying full whack on the game isn't a good idea anyway.

Sir, you're making up your own generalizations and serving it as the reality.

Rename Civ 5, "Humanity and Stuff", it makes a good game.

But as a follow-up to Civ series, the game is widely despised for setting back a lot more than what bits it innovated into its kin. And that makes it Crapolé for Civ fans.

[tibilicus]

Until real modding can happen I have no interest in Civ5. I want me some Fall From Heaven Civ 5 Edition! I do own it however, it's pretty meh, no Civ 4 by any means.

[naut]

The big flaws in Civ 5 lie in the AI and the execution of the features, for example:

Hexes are great, except the AI cannot handle them.
Moving units over sea without transports is great, except the AI doesn't understand the difference and treats it as land. Running units into your navies to be destroyed at will.
Diplomacy is gimped, if you have a border with any Civ they WILL declare war on you.

Etc.

[Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout]

I've been having a look at CIV 5 and its screenshots,reviews and others,and from what I hear,they're contanstly updating the game with patches. CIV 4 doesn't appeal to me as CIV 5 does.

[easytarget]

There are a lot of game choices out there. That's my challenge primarily with Civ 5. When I've got spare time to spend playing a game, I just didn't find Civ 5 that engaging, it felt much like the previous versions. All quibbles about how rubbish it is compared to earlier versions aside, since that sort of complaint comes up with any series. Besides, the game has been done frankly, and needs to really just be put to bed. The moment in time was Civ 1 and possibly Civ 2, and again, everyone can argue about that all day. But at the point of release, Civ was unlike most things out there because the field wasn't as crowded at the time, it was a crazily addictive game and everyone I knew at the time wasted away days playing it. Good times, but that moment has passed.

The one thing I'll say, and this is frankly feint praise, because the fact remains, I'll play yet another S2 campaign before I'll ever pick up Civ 5 again (in fact I recently uninstalled it), is this, the game updated its graphics, they did indeed look good, and for me at least, the battle implementation that did away with stacks was a nice change, I was simply bored out of my mind by SOD's in every previous iteration. So it was refreshing there was even a modicum of planning required to position units to maximize there effect, or that ranged weapons actually had ranged effects.

Does better graphics and an interesting change in combat mean the game is worth playing given the array of other options? Nope. Time is limited, and this one has been done for most ppl, certainly has for me. RIP Civ, good run.


P.S. Want to see a turn based game that BEGS to be remade identical to the original with just the graphics updated that I'd happily pay 60 bucks for? X-com: UFO Defense would be my choice hands down.

[Subotan]

I've been having a look at CIV 5 and its screenshots,reviews and others,and from what I hear,they're contanstly updating the game with patches. CIV 4 doesn't appeal to me as CIV 5 does.

Civ 4 is a finished game.

[CountArach]

I've been having a look at CIV 5 and its screenshots,reviews and others,and from what I hear,they're contanstly updating the game with patches. CIV 4 doesn't appeal to me as CIV 5 does.

Then go with Civ 5. Everyone should try the Civilization series at some point, becuse it is a truly tremendous series. Given that most of what 5 is criticised for is what earlier games did better, if you haven't played the earlier games it isn't going to be a problem for you - you will enjoy it on its own. If you really enjoy it then maybe later you can have a shot at Civ 4, which, as said, is generally considered a better game, but if you don't like 5 then the series may not be for you.

[LeftEyeNine]

It seems Civ V is such a disappointment that nobody gave much care about Gods & Kings expansion that brought back what was meant to be there from the very start.

I got it and played it a bit yesterday. Since I did not ever play Civ V for long enough to spot out the differences, I can't really say "this and that". What's as obvious as sun as is the addition of Faith component and Pantheons thereby.

So no Gods & Kings owners here ?

[Voigtkampf]

Its on my "to review" list.

[TinCow]

I plan to get to it eventually. I was massively disappointed by Civ V, but I remain optimistic that it's 'final' state after multiple expansions and patches will be good. I played Civ IV throughout its entire development history, and it really only became the superb game we all love after its expansion packs. The initial Civ IV release was decent, but not superb. I'm hoping that Civ V will go that way as well, so I'm just waiting.

[Centurion1]

the hexagons and 1 tile fights make the game 1000 times better, anyone who says differently is just one of those people who bitch and moan about old stuffs superiorty. And now god and kings added back religion, its starting to be alot of fun.

And obviously its gorgeous.

[LeftEyeNine]

the hexagons and 1 tile fights make the game 1000 times better, anyone who says differently is just one of those people who bitch and moan about old stuffs superiorty. And now god and kings added back religion, its starting to be alot of fun.

And obviously its gorgeous.

The game was missing a lot with religion (civilization simulation without that, srsly ?) and it also seemed a lot washed-down somewhat.

And also city-states is a redundant concept. It just seems out of place.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

The big flaws in Civ 5 lie in the AI and the execution of the features, for example:

Hexes are great, except the AI cannot handle them.
Moving units over sea without transports is great, except the AI doesn't understand the difference and treats it as land. Running units into your navies to be destroyed at will.
Diplomacy is gimped, if you have a border with any Civ they WILL declare war on you.

Etc.

That matches my opinion. I haven't tried it in a long time, but on top of those issues the performance on my fairly respectable rig ground to a halt over time. A streamlined Civ would be wonderful, if it played tight.

[frogbeastegg]

I got G&K. For reference: I like 5 despite recognising some fairly major flaws with it, mainly the poor AI. It's ... catchy in a way prior entries in the series never quite were. I do love the hex map, and the one unit per tile. I like Civ 4 as well - but not the Beyond the Sword expansion. I play vanilla or Warlords when I play 4. I loathe 4's version of espionage, and those tedious corporations. I was never quite fond of the way it handled religion either.

I had some tech problems with G&K until they released the first patch. I couldn't play on any of the map sizes above 'duel' without random crashes, so my experience with the new systems is limited. It's hard to spy on people or use religion effectively when there's only 1 AI on the map! I do appreciate the new civs; some of their unique abilities are quite novel and it's always good to have more faces to play against. The plentiful minor tweaks here and there smooth out the play experience; UI tweaks, AI tweaks, tech tree tweaks, a couple of nice new wonders, new tile resources, having the Ai approach you to renew trade deals - all of those tiny details add up to make play slightly more engaging than previously. Now that the game will play larger maps without crashing, I'm starting to play more seriously. So far, I think that religion seems fine, if light, and espionage will be turned off in the vast majority of my games as it adds little but irritation. I am still undecided about the new city state system. On the one hand, it's a bit more in-depth than spamming gold to win favour, on the other it relies a bit too heavily on random missions and AI spy spam.

AI is not super-improved but it is a bit better, although strangely hit and miss. In some games it will play quite well, in others it makes idiotic mistakes in exactly the same areas where it performed decently before. For example, sometimes it guards its embarked units with proper naval ships and makes it difficult to intercept the invasion force. Other time sit sails blissfully along without a single guard. Diplomacy is likewise improved yet variable. Sometimes things work out sensibly and perpetual peace is possible, others everyone seems to be very aggressive and/or unpredictable.

I did have significant issues with the new performance boost option they introduced in the 1.6 patch which came out shortly before G&K; that was easily fixed by turning an option off in the game's .ini. Essentially, the developers force the game to use a single core now. With my i7 CPU, turn cycle times increased fivefold. With this option disabled the game still cycles turns a bit slower but it's bearable.

I suppose the telling thing is that previously I used to play 3-5 games in a weekend then not touch it for months. I've played a game or three each weekend since G&K's release, and am planning to play again this weekend if I can find time. I'd say that G&K is more worthwhile for the new civs and small details than it is for the two major new features. I got G&K for a little over half price thanks to amazon.uk, and for that kind of price I'm happy now that it works properly. I wouldn't recommend it to others at full price. If you can find it similarly discounted, and if you like 5 to begin with, then it's possibly something you want to pick up. If you do not like 5 already you will not find anything in G&K to change your mind.