Civilization 5

[GoodRevrnd]

4, 2=1, 5, 3

I don't know how anyone can not rank 3 the lowest. That one was just ATROCIOUS. I think people might have thought it was cool because of all the new stuff, but it was just a pile of underdeveloped and poorly implemented mechanics.

 

[Bateluer]

4, 2=1, 5, 3

I don't know how anyone can not rank 3 the lowest. That one was just ATROCIOUS. I think people might have thought it was cool because of all the new stuff, but it was just a pile of underdeveloped and poorly implemented mechanics.

Add poorly optimized code, overpriced DLC, dumb as a brick AI, mind bogglingly slow gameplay, and social networking, and bang! Civilization V.

 

[Nintendesert]

Due to the intro music and opening for Civ 4, no other Civ can ever come close. It was epic and the entire Civ 4 was epic.

 

[paperfist]

No I don't. Its not a game that really needed DX11. And even on a C2D E8500, 8GB of RAM, and a Radeon 6950 2GB, it chugs along and has to redraw the map every time I move to a different set of tiles. For the visuals the game has, I don't think they needed to use more than DX8, honestly.

Now would you be saying the same thing if Civ IV just had come out and supported DX11?

You're entitled to your opinion, and I'm entitled to mine. Civ 4 cost over $100 for the complete version if you purchased the game and patchs on release. You're fine with that, I'm not. If you're willing to pay for Civ 5 and all the patchs go ahead. I'll wait until the game is finished and they release the complete version and it's a quarter or less of the initial price of Civ 5 at release.

Not that I'll change you mind, but Civ IV was an excellent game well worth $50. You can't find a better value for your entertainment dollar. Now if you don't like that game then fine. Now Warlords wasn't much of an expansion especially when you weigh it against the masterpiece that was Beyond the Sword. Seriously it was another complete game for expansion prices.

So even if you sunk 100 hours into those games you're looking at $1/hour. How can you beat that?

 

[NoWhereM]

Not that I'll change you mind, but Civ IV was an excellent game well worth $50. You can't find a better value for your entertainment dollar. Now if you don't like that game then fine. Now Warlords wasn't much of an expansion especially when you weigh it against the masterpiece that was Beyond the Sword. Seriously it was another complete game for expansion prices.

So even if you sunk 100 hours into those games you're looking at $1/hour. How can you beat that?

By waiting and buying it when the complete version can be purchased cheaply. Even though I already owned the boxed version of Civ 4 and the expansions I actually purchased the Civ 4 Complete package again on Steam just to get the updated version of Colonization. It only cost me $10. That's exactly what I intend to do this time with Civilization 5. I don't see why that is so hard to understand.

 

[mirandu04]

Due to the intro music and opening for Civ 4, no other Civ can ever come close. It was epic and the entire Civ 4 was epic.

the intro music in civ 4 was impressive, but the fact that you could stack armies on armies again and again was not so good. all the civs have pro and cons..

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

It might be 16$ but how much is it with all the DLC?

 

[Tylanner]

Civ V was a huge letdown at launch and I hated it.

The current rev of Civ V is polished and I must say, quite amazing.

Civ IV, though revolutionary, was not perfect...and I would encourage fans of the series to take a second look.

 

[zinfamous]

You're entitled to your opinion, and I'm entitled to mine. Civ 4 cost over $100 for the complete version if you purchased the game and patchs on release. You're fine with that, I'm not. If you're willing to pay for Civ 5 and all the patchs go ahead. I'll wait until the game is finished and they release the complete version and it's a quarter or less of the initial price of Civ 5 at release.

I purchased Civ IV the week it was released and it was $45.

do you mean years later, buying all of the expansions together?

 

[zinfamous]

It might be 16$ but how much is it with all the DLC?

the DLC is just a few civs that you might likely never play, and a few scenarios with the same "neverplayitis"

to me, it is junk.

 

[paperfist]

By waiting and buying it when the complete version can be purchased cheaply. Even though I already owned the boxed version of Civ 4 and the expansions I actually purchased the Civ 4 Complete package again on Steam just to get the updated version of Colonization. It only cost me $10. That's exactly what I intend to do this time with Civilization 5. I don't see why that is so hard to understand.

Because this is a thread about bashing Civ 5 not saving money!

 

[paperfist]

the intro music in civ 4 was impressive, but the fact that you could stack armies on armies again and again was not so good. all the civs have pro and cons..

You say that as if it were a bad thing. Granted it has some limitations and interesting outcomes, but I personally prefer it to the way they implemented 1UPT. Moving using that fashion amounts to me banging my head against the wall. And trying to play on a small map is an exercise in futility. It makes the game unrealistic when you assume that a hex = a fair amount of land and the devs want me to believe my 1 animated army is so vast that it cannot be circumvented by another one.

 

[Maximilian]

I bought civ V for £6.85 or something like that.... bleh i think im done with turn based strategy for now, they never get anything right.

Until alpha centauri 2 or a spiritual successor to alpha centauri are made im done with civ.

 

[NoWhereM]

I purchased Civ IV the week it was released and it was $45.

do you mean years later, buying all of the expansions together?

Years later is overstating it, but yes that's exactly what I mean. I paid $50 plus tax for Civ 4 on release, than $20 or $30 for Warlords and $30 for Beyond the Sword. I also bought a used copy of Civ 4 as a gift for my nephew later when the price had gone down. I would have gotten him Civilization 3 but you know kids and graphics.

I've got between 100 and 200 games I've never played between physical boxed games and games on my Steam account and every time Steam offers a game I want that is at least 75% off and under $10 I buy it. New PC games rarely hold their price the way they used to. It's getting to the point where you buy a game like Boarderlands with all the DLC for $20 and before you get a chance to play it they offer the same package or one with even more DLC for $7.50.

The game companies want to blame piracy for lost revenue when all they really have to do to get more people to buy their games at full retail price again is provide a finished, complete game for that full retail price.

 

[NoWhereM]

Because this is a thread about bashing Civ 5 not saving money!

Check the op again, this thread was about buying Civ 5 at a discount.

 

[paperfist]

Check the op again, this thread was about buying Civ 5 at a discount.

Yeah I know, my text was a joke as if you noticed the part about what the OP said quickly turned into a Civ V bashing contest

 

[Bateluer]

the intro music in civ 4 was impressive, but the fact that you could stack armies on armies again and again was not so good. all the civs have pro and cons..

That is one of the biggest issues that needs to change in Civ5, and never appear in future Civ titles again. In Civ1-4, moving an invasion force into enemy territory was easy. You moved as a stack, the enemy could attempt to stop you, but took effort. In Civ5, moving as 1UPT, you get picked off one at a time since your scattered. And since the pace is slow as a snail, by the time you even got half way to the enemy territory, your forces were obsolete . . . and with replacement units taking 80 turns to build, conquest became aggravating. No fun.

I don't even bother to install the Steam version of Civ5 any more. Last I looked, the patches were few and far between, though new DLC was coming every other week for a while. Worthless junk. Wish I could get a refund on the 50 bucks I spent for it. Only other product that pissed me off this much was the DA:O DLC Witch Hunt.

Because this is a thread about bashing Civ 5 not saving money!

Oh, people will be bashing Civilization 5 for the clusterfvck is it for decades.

 

[Born2bwire]

So why not just play Civ 4?

That's my thinking. I haven't played Civ V, but this past year I did finally get Civ 4 and what a fucking time sink that has become. Honestly, I don't know about Civ 5 but I will say that without a doubt spending the $20 or so on Civ IV will certainly be worth it.

EDIT:

the intro music in civ 4 was impressive, but the fact that you could stack armies on armies again and again was not so good. all the civs have pro and cons..

I think that being more proactive with collateral damage weapons and flanking really helped combat that. Take for example a single large stack that lays siege to a fortified city. If the city has its own seige weapons then they can weaken the entire stack. Plus, flanking troops can further weaken or destroy the attacker's siege weapons. In the end, if you weaken the entire stack then they simply cannot break down the defenders due to their fortification bonuses. This is especially troublesome due to the healing nerfs that arise by being in enemy territory.

This doesn't solve the problem of preventing a large stack from being able to pillage the countryside largely unmolested (but then again, that is a common event in history), but I have been able to stall some mighty invasions by keeping a few cannon or trebuchets back in my cities.

 

[Kadarin]

Check the op again, this thread was about buying Civ 5 at a discount.

Every thread about Civ 5 turns into a thread bashing it.

 

[QuantumPion]

Every thread about Civ 5 turns into a thread bashing it.

There are two types of Civ5 players:
1) people that have never played any of the previous games
2) people that have never played any of the previous games.

By point 2 I mean people that never got past warlord difficulty in Civ4. Never got into it enough to discover all of its intricacies and depth.

 

[GoodRevrnd]

There are two types of Civ5 players:
1) people that have never played any of the previous games
2) people that have never played any of the previous games.

By point 2 I mean people that never got past warlord difficulty in Civ4. Never got into it enough to discover all of its intricacies and depth.

And what is the actual point you're trying to make? That Civ 5 has no depth or that these people can't find it?

 

[Sulaco]

Every thread about Civ 5 turns into a thread bashing it.

That generally happens with anything that is almost universally disliked.

It should really come as no surprise.

 

[Possessed Freak]

That generally happens with anything that is almost universally disliked.

It should really come as no surprise.

Ooo Ooo can we start a thread on Master of Orion III?

 

[acheron]

There are two types of Civ5 players:
1) people that have never played any of the previous games
2) people that have never played any of the previous games.

By point 2 I mean people that never got past warlord difficulty in Civ4. Never got into it enough to discover all of its intricacies and depth.

sorry, I disagree, obviously, since I've played every game since Civ1 in 1991 (at plenty of high difficulties), and I'm pretty happy with Civ5. I would say it's more likely that Civ5 bashers never played the games prior to Civ4, since almost everybody's complaint is "it's not Civ4", as if they don't realize the Civ games change every time.

 

[QuantumPion]

sorry, I disagree, obviously, since I've played every game since Civ1 in 1991 (at plenty of high difficulties), and I'm pretty happy with Civ5. I would say it's more likely that Civ5 bashers never played the games prior to Civ4, since almost everybody's complaint is "it's not Civ4", as if they don't realize the Civ games change every time.

No one's complaint about Civ5 is that "it's not Civ4". I dare you to find someone actually making that complaint. Civ5 isn't bad because it's different from Civ4. Civ5 is bad because it is bad.

The AI is broken. The Multiplayer is broken. The 1UPT is completely unbalanced. The economy is completely unbalanced. The graphics aren't that impressive considering the system requirements. The turns take forever. I can go on and on. And I'm calling shens on your assertion that you played all of the previous games 'at plenty of high difficulties'.