Civ V for $11

[pugh]

http://www.gamersgate.co.uk/DD-CIV5/sid-meiers-civilization-v


Yes it's a UK site, and yes the code works for US Steam. I am d/ling as I type this. I have been waiting for this game to drop in price, get it while you can.

My list of games are growing from purchasing from gamersgate. I use them a lot and steam too along with GoG. They can be trusted when you make a purchase.

 

[zinfamous]

Uhh.. YES it IS worth $11. Care to explain why it isn't?

The game is great. It got 9.0 on Gamespot, and great reviews on many other websites. It now has a huge number of DLCs and many free patches that made it a much better game. hotseat multiplayer was also added.


The ONLY thing wrong with it, is that it is a game that will eat a huge number of your hours. but then again, no one's forcing you to rush anywhere. It is a game you can play for many, many years.


I bought it, because it will not cost $11 any time soon, and because hotseat is great for when a friend comes over.

$11 prices ~6 months after release reject this false reality that you have subscribed to.

The Civilization games are indeed games that will eat your hours, mercilessly.

this is not one of those. I played for ~1 hour. haven't loaded it since then. And I've been playing them rather religiously since Civ2.

 

[Bateluer]

Wrong. As usual.

Odd . . . I've got a 99.99% historical accuracy rating with pretty much everything I write/post/say. I'm almost always proven right with time. And because Civ5 is practically being given away less than a year after its release pretty much proves that. The game was a cock up and not worthy of the Civilization name.

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/sid-meiers-civilization-v

How much more "fabulous" does it need to be? Universal acclaim isn't considered "fabulous" any more?

You must have missed the scandals with various publishers bribing reviewers and inflating metacritic scores a while back. The only people who like Civ5 are the ones who've never played previous Civ games.

I've played Civ 1 through 4 extensively, probably thousands of hours. I don't think I completed a game in Civ 5. The game is nothing more than a DLC-laden shit fest, one of a few games I've purchased that I wish I could get a refund for.

 

[minmaster]

lol are people still so gullible to believe gaming site reviews?

 

[nageov3t]

Odd . . . I've got a 99.99% historical accuracy rating with pretty much everything I write/post/say...

The only people who like Civ5 are the ones who've never played previous Civ games.

at-launch, I've played Civs 2-5 (I played Civ 1 too, but not until years later).

I liked Civ 5. it's not without its annoyances and faults, but it felt polished and I never felt I was beta testing a game. the only thing stopping me from saying that I don't regret buying it on release day was the fact that it went on sale for 20% off a week later

 

[ArizonaSteve]

Agree with Bateluer. Any review site that gives a negative review of any game is guaranteed to never receive another game for review from that developer/publisher. Not to mention the conflict of interest that exists between games being reviewed and developers/publishers paying for advertising space on the site.

 

[thedosbox]

I agree no demo no $60 for a game.

As I said before, no demo=no sale. For me to pay more than $25 for a game it needs to have fabulous reviews

The ironic thing is - it's $11. The last time I looked, $11 is less than $25 and $60.

I can understand someone paid $11 an hour getting upset about only getting an hours worth of gameplay before giving up in disgust. Not so much otherwise.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Good point I'm not trying to imply $11 is a bad price if you're interested. I found the demo too boring to want to spend time with it.

 

[paperfist]

Wrong. As usual.

Well you're right, but not cause of the Metascore. It can't live up to Civ IV in my eyes, but you'll get $11 of entertainment value out of it no problem. Besides $11 is indie game territory and no Indy game can rival what Civ V offers even in its broken state.

maybe I'm just screwed no matter what I do. lol.

I thought I was picking Rift for a song at $9.99, and then it went down to $5 a week later.

Ha same thing happened to me with RUSE. That game was $50 something for what seemed like a year. Then it finally went on sale for $25 I think and I bought in. A few weeks later it was on sale for much less than that

 

[Craig234]

Civ V: First, I've played Civ since Civ II, but always casually, just a few games of each. Never got into the details - and some seemed pretty obscure and annoying.

Every one has had a compulsive clickfest; one annoying thing has been dozens of 'spacebars' each turn later in the game.

So that's an idea how I play it, so my comments are for that rather than the person who gets more into the game.

I think the general comments made are pretty good, that it's very 'polished' but does feel 'simplified'.

I played one game so far, and in a way while I was playing, I felt 'this is more fun than other versions', but finishing the game, I can see the concerns with less pull to play more.

I guess I'd give it a pretty good rating for the casual player and warnings for the players who get more into it.

I'll probably reach for it first next time I want Civ.

On game reviews: I think there's mostly paranoia about them, and they're usually honest.

The issue isn't reviews, its previews. Those are in effect paid marketing for upcoming games, and where most box quotes seem to come from.

I recently ran across a game with a really positive quote on the box, and looked it up. It came from a site's preview, saying it 'was what a game of that genre should be like'.

The site had a review, too, which gave the game a very low score and said it was a terrible example of the genre.

I wrote them a letter, but like they care - they know.

Check metacritic - it's surprising how consistent reviewers are, including some big games with bad reviews.