Was G&K worth buying?

[Lambiorix_be]

I can understand that, but it just seemed weird that 9+ civs got enough faith before I got my first faith

True, it seems that several civs are ahead in creating the pantheon but not important since you have enough religions to choose from and still more then half of the other civs are behind you. (My first game I was worried and too but now I know it is not that big a deal.)

[Elok]

Of course, I actually liked Civ5. Like I liked Godzilla 98 and the movie for Voyage of the Dawn Treader while everyone else in the respective fandoms detest both.

I liked Godzilla 98 only because of Jean Reno and Hank Azaria--the rest was crap. The Dawn Treader movie was irredeemably terrible, even with the awesome kid who played Eustace and Georgie Henley both trying their respective bests.

Both my impression and reviews from oldtime Civ players I respect say that Civ5 is terrible; for that reason, I'm content to say it is in fact terrible, without playing it. You may say this is unfair, but that's what Drake said when I bashed 300: "don't ***** about a movie you haven't even seen, stupid!" So I checked it out from the library a few years later and watched it and it was even worse than it looked and now the damned thing is stuck in my memory neurons, taking up precious space with its dancing oily thong warriors and attack rhinos and garish nightclub color scheme. Someday I might want to learn something new and not be able to because the space in my head it would've occupied is already taken up by a nine-foot-tall punk-rock emperor and his fat-guy-with-sword-hands executioner. I've learned my lesson: Civ5 is bad. No, I will not play it to find out. Not until the game is free and technology exists to expunge its oily stain from my soul in the likely event that I am right about it.

[mkorin]

I can understand that, but it just seemed weird that 9+ civs got enough faith before I got my first faith

This has happened to me also(twice) but both times I was the first or second person to found a religion and that is the key.

Speaking of religion is there any reason to spread it to your enemies?

Mike

[Proteus_MST]

Depends on the circumstances.
Most of the founders beliefs are directly affected by either the number of cities following your religion, or the numbers of followers.
Therefore yes, it may be beneficial for your own empire to convert your enemies cities.
This is especially the case if the enemy is the founder of the religions which his own cities currently adhere to,
as every city converted to your religion is one city less that gives your enemy benefits becauzse of his founders beliefs.

[Sava]

Civ 5 has about $70 worth of DLC so far... making this a $130 game (assuming you bought everything upon release).

Most of the DLC is content a single person with a moderate amount of modding experience can make in a day... extra civs, useless scenarios, etc.

G&K seems like something that should have been in the game in the first place. Civ 5 had a considerably less amount of features than fully expanded Civ 4. It seems completely unjustified to me for a company to release a product inferior to the previous title. It also seems to be very unethical from a business standpoint to purposely designate content as "DLC" and keep it out of the initial retail release.

But if they can get away with it, why not?

The only thing we can do is complain about it and hope that this negative feedback dissuades potential buyers from purchasing the game and/or additional content.

[Zoetstofzoetje]

bought it, it´s better, but still fundamentally lacking in a number of ways.

[SSBLoveU]

Need to play while in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean where there is no Internet . . . Really. I am still wondering if I should get it????

[Wiglaf]

More on the useless AI:

http://www.quartertothree.com/fp/2011/05/02/where-i-most-recently-stopped-playing-civilization-v/

[Proteus_MST]

Need to play while in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean where there is no Internet . . . Really. I am still wondering if I should get it????

IMHO this is connected to the question whether you should play Civ V or not ...
if you still play Civ V, go end get the expansion, as it definitely enhances gameplay ...
if not ... well, while enhancing gameplay G&K definitely doesn´t turn Civ V into Civ IV

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Civ 5 has about $70 worth of DLC so far... making this a $130 game (assuming you bought everything upon release).

Most of the DLC is content a single person with a moderate amount of modding experience can make in a day... extra civs, useless scenarios, etc.

G&K seems like something that should have been in the game in the first place. Civ 5 had a considerably less amount of features than fully expanded Civ 4. It seems completely unjustified to me for a company to release a product inferior to the previous title. It also seems to be very unethical from a business standpoint to purposely designate content as "DLC" and keep it out of the initial retail release.

But if they can get away with it, why not?

The only thing we can do is complain about it and hope that this negative feedback dissuades potential buyers from purchasing the game and/or additional content.

that, and the game is utter garbage... people would and will pay for DLC's if the game is fun... like I waste money on scorched TF2 crates... if you spend time you will not mind the money, but unfortunetely civ V is so rubbish that well, there is no hope + given their Civ Rev + 5 focus, there is little hope there will ever be something better than Civ IV BTS with current mods...

[Proteus_MST]

that, and the game is utter garbage... people would and will pay for DLC's if the game is fun... like I waste money on scorched TF2 crates... if you spend time you will not mind the money, but unfortunetely civ V is so rubbish that well, there is no hope + given their Civ Rev + 5 focus, there is little hope there will ever be something better than Civ IV BTS with current mods...

Considering the law of odd and even Civ version numbers, there is a lot of hope that Civ VI will be a game that far surpasses Civ IV in terms of depth, number of features and entertainment value

[LzPrst]

An important question: Is the game faster? The first few turns take 3-5 seconds on my machine. That is too long and the game overall makes you wait far too much. Any change in the right direction?

[Proteus_MST]

Rather a change into the opposite direction ...
the game has become a little bit slower with G&K (at least on my machine ... not a problem for me, as my rig still processes turns fast enough for my taste, but I can imagine that it ia s problem for slower rigs)

[LzPrst]

my rig is actually quite good, but I need a new ssd where I can fit both OS and games if I want more speed I suppose. Though the difference from civ4 to civ5 is huge. civ4, 1 second per turn in the early game. Civ5 3-5 seconds per turn in the same epoch. and that increases as the game progresses, making the whole thing a passive affair. Is there more to do per turn now? Because the wait would be tolerable if the game has evolved from just hitting end turn button...

[Proteus_MST]

I would definitely say yes ...
with sending missionaries around and using spies there is a little bit more to do aside from the usual shuffling of military units.
It also has become a little bit more of a challenge to keep a positive gold balance in early game, as they shifted the ability to build trading huts to a later medieval game tech (1 or 2 technologies further down the road).
An additional positive change with G&K is, that the AI Diplomacy has become less insane now. The AI players aren´t always out for war (not even if they are your direct neighbors) and will offer peace earlier if they see you are superior (sometimes after only a few battles and without you needing to conquer a single of their cities )