Civ V: One to Skip?

[Supr49er]

It is fun to play now, and I think it will improve with patches, expansion packs, and of course awesome mods.

[Ming]

You have serious reading comprehension problem, Ming. It's good that you're retired. I can't imagine what kind of damage you might do other humans if you're working on anything.

Ahhh... you have such a strong argument that your only response is insults... Great Job!

You talked as if you never ever had to reinforce some cities from other cities.

Had to do it many times. Never much of a problem if you plan for it.

How far do you plan ahead ?

Obviously far more than you do.

100 moves ?

Far less than that if you know what you are doing.

Didn't I say I got stuck on a mountain pass for a dozen turns ?

Sounds more like bad planning on your part vs bad game design.

The rest of your post is similar garbage.

And all your posts are simply unsupported opinions. But again, I guess it's easier for you to just throw out insults than come up with real reasons to support your simple opinions.

People are welcome to their opinions. But the only obvious thing here is that you hate it, not that it's useless.

The new system adds a lot more thought and strategy... a big improvement over my stack is bigger and better than yours.

[rah]

The only reason the uproar wasn't as loud when IV first came out was because III blew so much that the expectations weren't as high. And people still *****ed that II was better.
But IV needed a lot of help to become the best in the series. Once it became the best the expectations for V were raised. Let's give it some time.

[DaShi]

You voted Banana! If you don't care why ask? Or you meaby don't want to make your thoughs public? And then there is a possibility that you just like banana's I think this game can be inproved and it will be. By mods and by DLC or expansions of firaxis. I remember civ4.. it was a good game after release, but it realy gets fantastic after seccond expansion! I think firaxis want to let people learn the basics of this game for everybody. I remember a poll in the forum wich the question "what was your first civ game?" almost 90 procent voted vor CIV1 and CIV2! We need people to start from Civ5, so they make this game easier to understand and play. I think they make it more complex after the expansions.

I voted banana so that I could see the responses easily. I don't own the game. It would have been inappropriate for me to vote for any other option.

[DaShi]

To answer the original question, the game is enjoyable as is, but has some flaws. If you are concerned, however, I'd suggest waiting. After a couple of patches, you might be able to figure out if the game is for you. I also feel that, after a few months, the real popularity of the game can be decided. To decide if the game is worth pursuing, don't look at the number of negative posts, but the number of overall posts. If, after a few patches, no one is playing Civ5, don't get it. If people still are, consider it. But negative comments give a skewed impression overall (since those with something negative to say are more likely to post than people who enjoy the game).

I generally look at the content of negative posts for deal-breakers.

[Hauldren Collider]

"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?

Can you even wrap your brain around the complex concept of a sense of humor?

[Ming]

Yeah... I like to look at the content of negative posts as well. However, I like to focus on well thought out and supported opinions.
They can provide real insight into the game. On the other hand, the opinioniated rants from people who simply hate change and that have nothing to support their lame aruments with are entertaining as well. It's fun to watch them self distruct

[Louis XXIV]

I generally look at the content of negative posts for deal-breakers.

That's fine as long as you make sure people back up their thoughts and aren't just ranting without substance.

[SandMonkey]

As a matter of fact, yes I do. I'm funny that way. If a company wants me to spend money on their product, it had better bloody well be a quality product not some rushed out the door piece of **** like Civ5.

In my opinion Civ IV vanilla was pretty iffy, and only got better with significant patching. To say that Civ 5 is **** because it doesn't stack up against a heavily patched and modded game is pretty short sighted. That said, also in my opinion, Civ III never got better. It started bad and stayed bad, so there's nothing to say that Civ 5 will significantly improve.

I really just want to see them improve the AI and reduce the amount of time in between turns, and I *hope* that both of these things are possible through patching. Of course if you're like Calvin Vu and dislike the 1UPT, you should just skip this game entirely. I personally think it adds a ton of strategy and actually makes ranged units tactically relevant, but to each his own.

[GhengisFarb™]

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?

Civ 5 is already better than Civ 4 which was the most embarrassing of the Civ series. Civ 3 was the last great edition of Civ, with Civ 4 barely being able to encompass an area of a small county in Texas. Civilization should be able to represent a colossal scale not a 100 square mile world which is all Civ 4 was able to do. Like I said before, after 72 hours Civ 4 was so boring I had to unistall it from my computer as it was a waste of harddrive space and I needed to use the space for something more fulfilling like a Hello Kitty gif. Civ 5 is still fun after several weeks, and there's so much potential for it if we can ever get to mod it!

Admittingly, I'm probably happy with Civ 5 because my expectations have been considerably lowered due to the ungodly fiasco that was Civ IV. And I almost didn't buy Colonization due to the fact that it was based on the Civ IV engine but was pleasantly suprised. Was able to play it 3-4 times before it became boring.

[CHannum]

I'm enjoying it more than any other civ out of the box (never played 1 and only dabbled at 2 on a friend's computer, it was SMAC that I cut my teeth with). Civ IV, by the end of the expansion and patch cycle was no doubt the pinnacle of taking the core old school civ mechanics and polishing them to a high sheen. The thing was, it just wasn't all that much fun for me. For some, sure, I get that tweaking the racial balance of your populations might be the height of ecstasy, but, for me, it's just busy work having so many mundane details to deal with ad nauseam. Civ V isn't perfect, and I expect, as usual, by the time they've taken our money to fund finishing the game, twice even, the final product is going to be very different and improved over what shipped, but what shipped is a lot of fun for me.

The AI, as usual, is all over the place. Sometimes it behaves brilliantly, forming monstrous and terrifying empires. Other times it does like Bismark did in the last game and builds so many military units that its economy and research collapse and they're stuck in the middle ages when I'm rolling out the mech infantry - meanwhile my military advisor keeps warning me they could wipe me off the map But, they do their job, they're one more obstacle in my way of taking over the world. Sometimes they may be easy slaughter, sometimes they say crazy crap about me for no sane reason and turn hostile even though I've been at peace for 1000 years and have a "defense" military capable of taking over the word, and other times they may destroy half my empire before I can out maneuver them. I wouldn't mind seeing improvements, but the unpredictability is, and has always been, part of the game.

Ah, but the game mechanics themselves I love. The hex maps. Fewer units and more tactical combat. The very real "guns or butter" choices at every step of the game. Wonders that only seem so understated until you appreciate how powerful these minor bonuses with no upkeep and only available to you can be in the course of the game. The need for commitment to your endgame strategy from the earliest days if you don't plan on seeing things turn into another senseless blood bath to achieve victory. For me, Civ V's stripping out of so much is a positive - the ever increasing complexity of past civ games didn't necessarily make them better games, but it definitely made them busier games. At first, sure, it was something new to learn, but after that it was just busy work (tweak slider down, now remember to tweak it back up next turn, whee, I've finished my research in the most efficient manner while netting the maximum gold at the same time, aren't I smart!).

So, go ahead and hate it if you want. Myself, I doubt I'll ever touch 4 again.