Civilization 5

[9mak9]

Not sure if anyone posted but D2D has Civ5 for $16.98 which is amazingly cheap. I really want the game but I wanted the steam version. Anyone else pick this up?

 

[BlueWeasel]

Civ5 is a Steamworks game, which means it activates thru Steam regardless of where you buy it.

Buy it from D2D, activate on Steam, WIN!

 

[minmaster]

Not sure if anyone posted but D2D has Civ5 for $16.98 which is amazingly cheap.

the game might be amazingly cheap but its amazingly crap too.

 

[Bateluer]

the game might be amazingly cheap but its amazingly crap too.

This. 16 dollars is still too expensive for that DLC vehicle.

 

[xboxist]

^

Ignore, IMO. It's a steal at that price. It's no Civ4, but I've logged about 100 hours on Civ5, and you don't do that unless you think the game is at least sorta interesting/fun.

 

[zinfamous]

This. 16 dollars is still too expensive for that DLC vehicle.

I kind of agree. I also bought it on D2D ~1 month after release ($20 sale already! lol).

I've put, maybe, 2 total hours into this on 2 separate attempts (also about the same time with the demo before it was released), and just can't get into it.

I know I never have gotten far into development to truly feel the game out--but those early eras were always my favorite time in Civ games before getting burned out and just nuking all of my allies just for shits.

If I can't get past chariot archer development in a Civ game...then there is a problem for me.

$16 isn't terrible, though. I would have been happier with $10. $20 has left me sorely disappointed.

I should have paid $20 for Terraria (I paid $5), which is 10x more enjoyable than Civ 5 (and I loooooove Civ games).

I wish steam had a feature where you could redirect the money that you spent on certain games to other developers. Civ 5 really is highway robbery compared to some of the amazing small publisher games that are released and sell for fractions of that cost. So what if you have an enormous development team--stop making shit. :\

 

[Bateluer]

^

Ignore, IMO. It's a steal at that price. It's no Civ4, but I've logged about 100 hours on Civ5, and you don't do that unless you think the game is at least sorta interesting/fun.

I've played every Civilization game, and 5 is the worst. I really hope they take the game back to its roots with 6, cut the DLC and social network BS.

 

[Borealis7]

I've played every Civilization game, and 5 is the worst. I really hope they take the game back to its roots with 6, cut the DLC and social network BS.

No way its worse than 3. i'd rank them: 4,2,1,5,3

 

[acheron]

No way its worse than 3.

this.

Without thinking about it too hard, I'd say my rank is 4,1,5,2,3. (nothing wrong with 2, other than that it is just "1 with more stuff", without much in the way of real gameplay changes.)

 

[acheron]

oh, as for the OP: go ahead and buy it. I paid full price and don't regret it.

 

[BladeVenom]

^
Ignore, IMO. It's a steal at that price. It's no Civ4...

So why not just play Civ 4?

 

[paperfist]

No way its worse than 3. i'd rank them: 4,2,1,5,3

Yes it is.

 

[Bateluer]

No way its worse than 3. i'd rank them: 4,2,1,5,3

3 will run on low end hardware these days. Civ5 makes high end quad core CPUs and SLI/X-Fire video card systems chug.

 

[Possessed Freak]

3 will run on low end hardware these days. Civ5 makes high end quad core CPUs and SLI/X-Fire video card systems chug.

Turn based games need good graphics why?

 

[NoWhereM]

I haven't purchased Civ 5 yet, and I won't until they offer Civ 5 Complete and it's reached a reasonable price. I've learned my lesson after Civ 3 and Civ 4 where they sold partial, incomplete games for full price and than sold the patchs with small rule chages and more civs for $30 a pop.

I've been playing since the original Civilization and have them all up to Civ 4. I don't have my original Civilization but I purchased Civilization Chronicles when Amazon had it on sale for about $28 shipped. I would rate them best to worst as 2, 1, 3, 4. Civilization 3 was a much, much better game than Civilization 4 simply because of the included game editor. I haven't played in a while but I have a custom set of rules I use which even includes some new units. It might take a while to get Civ 3 to play the way you want it to, but it's not complicated and anyone can do it.

 

[Bateluer]

Turn based games need good graphics why?

Thats my point. Civ5's visuals don't justify its extreme system requirements.

 

[paperfist]

Thats my point. Civ5's visuals don't justify its extreme system requirements.

You have to give them a little credit though as its one of the few games out that makes use of DX11. Hell it's even included in anandtech benchmarks.

 

[GoodRevrnd]

I haven't purchased Civ 5 yet, and I won't until they offer Civ 5 Complete and it's reached a reasonable price. I've learned my lesson after Civ 3 and Civ 4 where they sold partial, incomplete games for full price and than sold the patchs with small rule chages and more civs for $30 a pop.

I've been playing since the original Civilization and have them all up to Civ 4. I don't have my original Civilization but I purchased Civilization Chronicles when Amazon had it on sale for about $28 shipped. I would rate them best to worst as 2, 1, 3, 4. Civilization 3 was a much, much better game than Civilization 4 simply because of the included game editor. I haven't played in a while but I have a custom set of rules I use which even includes some new units. It might take a while to get Civ 3 to play the way you want it to, but it's not complicated and anyone can do it.

erm... Civ 4 was pretty complete and the BTS expansion was a pretty serious game overhaul. Warlords fits more in the traditional overpriced not that much changed expansion role.

 

[NoWhereM]

erm... Civ 4 was pretty complete and the BTS expansion was a pretty serious game overhaul. Warlords fits more in the traditional overpriced not that much changed expansion role.

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.

 

[StinkyPinky]

No way its worse than 3. i'd rank them: 4,2,1,5,3

Exactly how I rank them

Civ 3 was really bad.

 

[Kadarin]

IMO they should have just kept Civ4 gameplay and made the sole change of moving to the hexagonal map structure.

 

[Bateluer]

You have to give them a little credit though as its one of the few games out that makes use of DX11. Hell it's even included in anandtech benchmarks.

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.

 

[Sulaco]

As a Civ player from way back, who still regularly hums "Aristotle's Pupil" and "Augustus Rises" (if you don't know what those are, for shame!), the thought of a Civilization game being used as a graphical benchmark, and being made to appeal to the RTS/Tank-rush-whore crowd turns my stomach.

We should have all seen it coming though. Oh well, there's still Paradox games...

 

[Possessed Freak]

It might take a while to get Civ 3 to play the way you want it to, but it's not complicated and anyone can do it.

The XML files are all there in plain text to modify in Civ4.

 

[minmaster]

No way its worse than 3. i'd rank them: 4,2,1,5,3

3 was way better than 5 imo.

4, 2, 1, 3, 5 for me.

civ 5 is to civ franchise what indy 4 was to indy franchise.