Civ V is a great game.

[Boris Godunov]

Since every nabob with a kneejerk "IT'S NOT CIV IV SO I HATE IT!!!1!" viewpoint is entitled to post a thread saying so, even if their thoughts are utterly superficial and devoid of intelligent criticism (i.e., Oerdin), I thought I'd just chime in and say that I think Civ V is a lot of fun.

So here's my self-indulgent, narcissistic thread in which I imagine that for some inexplicable reason you care about how I like a computer game, why I like it and where I display an obvious insecurity by expecting everyone else to share my opinion, or else they are shill.

Civ V has got some things that need to be fixed, yes. But overall, it's as enjoyable a Civ experience as I've had, with the obvious exception of first sitting down to Civ I so many years ago and losing track of time until I looked up and saw it was 5 AM. You can't recreate that initial special feeling, no... but I did stay up until 3 AM playing it.

[Snotty]

Couldnt agree more. I played 19 hours of demo and 9 hours of the game today. I only have a basic grasp of the strategies to win each victory condition. Now how do I optimise those strategies?

[OneFootInTheGrave]

it sucks, at least initially, after a day, I sure hope it will get better... I liked Civ III a lot better than this, initially. At least we gave the money on false hopes, and we can moan here for fee

[pdxsean]

Here here, Boris. Thanks for posting this. It is an awesome game.

If I wanted to play Civ IV, I could load that up right now. I want to play something fun and different, and Civ V is absolutely that.

Imagine what an awesome game it will be when they get the patches going... and expansions... insert Homer Simpson gargling noise

[OzzyKP]

Well the biggest factor that I consider when judging the worth of a civ game is, does it have that "just one more turn" feeling? I've really just scratched the surface of this game, but so far the answer is assuredly yes from me.

Civ V

[OneFootInTheGrave]

well, after trying to get on with it, I am putting Civ IV back on for this evening, and will try Civ V again when in better mood interface just plain sucks.

[Dinner]

Since every nabob with a kneejerk "IT'S NOT CIV IV SO I HATE IT!!!1!" viewpoint is entitled to post a thread saying so, even if their thoughts are utterly superficial and devoid of intelligent criticism (i.e., Oerdin),

Bull**** and **** you. I usually list specific things I don't like, such as not being able to trade maps, and then point out why that upsets me, like because in all previous editions of Civ you could trade maps. Now if you want to complain about someone being "utterly superficial and devoid of intelligent criticism" then look at Eyes of Night or yourself, you git.

[Felch]

Trading maps was kind of silly. Why would any country give away that much valuable intelligence?

[Dinner]

They all did in real life.

[Boris Godunov]

Yeah, I'm really sure you can substantiate that, Oerdin. Just like your Songhai weapons claims that Al, of all people, called you out on for being pure horse manure.

See, I didn't have to cite examples of unintelligent criticism from you, you supplied it without hesitation.

[Boris Godunov]

Someone over at Civfanatics posted a brilliant thread with example thread titles of the rampant *****ing about Civ IV when it was released. It was hilarious to see so many similar complaints being made about Civ IV at the time. The "it's dumbed down from Civ 3!" shouts are the most amusing, considering the people who make the exact same nebulous, vapid claim about Civ V.

I did a quick perusal of the forums here and found the same thing, except that the technical bugs for Civ IV were far, far worse than what has been experienced so far for Civ V.

[Al B. Sure!]

Don't take Oerdin too seriously... I know his game... he's trying to badmouth Civ 5 so that I won't be insistent on him buying me my copy when he gets paid his retro stop-loss pay

[Dinner]

Yeah, I'm really sure you can substantiate that, Oerdin. Just like your Songhai weapons claims that Al, of all people, called you out on for being pure horse manure.

See, I didn't have to cite examples of unintelligent criticism from you, you supplied it without hesitation.

I posted a link which provided wrong information so sue me. In any event, just because you think it's unimportant or unintelligent to point out deficiencies in the game (like not being able to trade maps) doesn't make it so. Let's be honest and admit the reason we can't trade maps is because the AI isn't up to snuff and can't really handle that feature without either 1) getting taken advantage of by human players or 2) making the game feel like all the AIs are working together against the human. So I understand why they did it I just disagree that such an established part of the Civ series should chucked because 2K doesn't/won't spend a bit more on building a better AI when we know it could be done and will be done by modders eventually.

[Dinner]

Don't take Oerdin too seriously... I know his game... he's trying to badmouth Civ 5 so that I won't be insistent on him buying me my copy when he gets paid his retro stop-loss pay

[Aro]

Civ V is a great game.

Agreed.
I'm having fun.