Civ V: One to Skip?

[DaShi]

Skipping Civ V would certainly fit with my trend of not playing all the odd numbered ones.

Civ I: Too young
Civ II: First Civ game
Civ III: Too busy, plus a lot of bad reviews
CiV IV: Have really enjoyed it

Civ V: Seems to be like Civ III from what I've been reading here. That is, it implements a lot of new ideas but lacks a quality game.

So is this one worth getting?

[Proteus_MST]

It has the potential to be better than Civ IV after 1-2 expansions,
so I definitely think it is worth getting.
Better than Civ IV IMHO it isn´t yet, however

[Jiks]

It's a great game as it is BUT obviously needs work. There are many minor issues which need sorting out but it is in far better state then certain other recent major releases. Frankly, these days if a game is even playable on release it's a minor miracle.

IMO at this point its not as good as IV BTS but it has the potential to be better...

[pdxsean]

It's a fun game but it has some flaws. Depending on what you're looking for, the flaws can range from mildly annoying to outrageous. This kind of fits in with what has made all of the Civ games so fun, in that everyone can find their own way to play them, and their own things to like or dislike about them.

I've said all along if you go into this game wanting to like it, you'll find plenty to like. If you go in wanting to dislike it, you'll find plenty to dislike. I've really enjoyed the game, but it has had the least lasting appeal of any Civ game so far... with broken scorekeeping and lack of variety in the AI approach to victory it's not nearly as replay-addictive as previous versions.

I didn't see an option in your poll that I can vote for, as I enjoy the game despite the numerous flaws. It's crash-free, innovative, runs smoothly, looks great, and offers a lot of possibilities for SP victory. It also has lousy AI, inexplicably overlooked minor bugs, and a few balance issues. Hopefully some of these will be fixed with patches, but I imagine the AI won't really get an overhaul until an expansion or two (kind of like Civ IV).

[clarkcd]

While it does need some work I can only give my personal anecdotal evidence of being up until 4am last night when I was sure I would be in bed by 1am. One more turn took hold.

[Ming]

Sure, the game has flaws. Heck, Civ IV sucked out of the box.
And as always, it seems a lot of people don't like change, even if it's good.

I've had fun playing the game so far. Some things annoy me... but I'm sure they are going to fix many of them. I love finally have hexes, and the new combat system, while the AI sucks at it, is far better than simply putting 100 units on a square and thinking that's real strategy. I've had some great battles, where position and terrian made a big difference. Far more interesting than seeing how my big stack matched up against the AI's big stack.

When I compare Vanilla Civ IV to BTS, I expect big things from Civ V.

[OzzyKP]

+1

[MxM]

"No, because I refuse to acknowledge any criticism of it "
"No, because if I have to suffer with it, so should you"
Can you offer even more loaded choices?
And of course you could not give the more reasonable response "the game is already good and will become only better with patches and expansions" because you were afraid that too many people will chose it?

[Calvin Vu]

It's dead

The game is dead to me. I'm back to playing Civ IV mods. The doldrum tedious design is unfixable without a major redesign.
I never liked Civ III, never had any problems with Civ IV even right out of the box. Civ V is going back to Civ III's design, instead of designing a game to provide fun, the game pays too much attention to removing the so-called "exploitations" and avoid any unbalancing factors.

How do those abstract design differences result in real world reactions to the game ? When Civ IV came out people would be busy discussing which wonders were the coolest, which special units rocked, which leader traits were strongest in what kind of game plays.

Now, it's like "Wonders, what wonders ? Who care about those wonders ? Units ? They're balanced so well there's not much difference playing one vs another. The game just drags on and on without anything really meaningful happening.

One example, ironworks in Civ IV doubled the production. If you have the time to build it then after it is done, you have a cool city to crank out troops or spaceship parts and feel some special attachment to it. Ironworks in Civ V give 15% extra production and it can only be built after every one of your cities has a workshop. The way I play Civ, I will never get to the point where there's a workshop in every city. Similarly with Oxford University.

I'm playing the Fall From Heaven II mod, based on BTS. I'm playing the dwarfs and since I've been accumulating gold to make the dwarven vault full, every one of my cities have 2 happy faces and an extra 25% hammer production. The production bonus alone is most twice the equivalent of having two Civ V Ironworks wonders in every city.
You would think that that would be too overpowered ? Nope, the Khazad race is just above average, there are stronger races with completely different unique abilities.
When a game comes out and everybody gets excited thinking that they've found an absolute cool trick/special unit/ability that makes the strategy unbeatable and then you ask 10 people with unbeatable strategies, they respond with 8 different strategies, then it's good game design-wise. Whatever balancing problem remains in the game can easily be fixed.
When a game comes out and all its supporters has to say about the game against the detractors is that those people criticize the game because they can no longer take advantage of the exploitations in the previous release(s), then the game is dead. It's not fixable. The designers just put their eyes in the exploitation peep hole and fail to see the big picture.

[Adagio]

I'm enjoying Civ V

Sure, it still has a lot of flaws, but all Civ games had a lot of flaws out of the box

The AI is the worst, but hopefully a mod will fix the AI, like in Civ IV. Currently I'm playing on prince on earth map. Rome (who is strangely located in Norway) had until 1AD only two cities. 1000 years later it had a total of 5 cities. There were a lot of room for expansion, but it didn't even try. Also the AI is extremely far behind in tech. Even on prince I'm running around with riflemen, while their best units are pikemen and archers. If any of the AIs declare war on city states they will be beaten up badly from the city states, who also has riflemen

Oh, and the earth map should by default have CORRECT starting locations. Rome should not start in Norway, Greece should not start in China and China should not start in America

[John-SJ]

I'm sorry if this ruffles some feathers, but I am enjoying Civ 5 better than any Civ game since Civ II.

Some have said the immersion factor is not there for Civ 5, but I don't find that to be the case at all. And, I have rediscovered the "One More Turn" factor in 5 to a far greater extent than in Civ III or IV.

As much as I am enjoying the game now, I can't wait for a balance patch or two, as I believe this game has the potential to be the best of the series.

[Axel Rhodd]

The game is starting to grow on me. I dont think it is great at its current version so I hope for patches and expansions to do the trick.
Voted 3rd option

[MxM]

I'm playing the Fall From Heaven II mod, based on BTS.

You do realize that you are comparing a game which is just released to the mod of the game that has been released for years? Do you usually expect the game to be released with perfect balance and with mods (second generation, by the way) that provide variety of gameplay and good balance as well?

[DaShi]

It's sad that people don't expect that anymore.

[MxM]

It's sad that people don't expect that anymore.

Are you being sarcastic? How many mods Civ IV had upon release?