• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Civilization V |OT| of Losing My Religion, And I Feel Fine...

MjFrancis

Member
Akia said:
Man all the 1 star reviews on amazon are great.

"Civ 5 got steamrolled man, I'M RETURNING MY COPY."

haha, yeah right
The Amazon reviews are great, I've been laughing my ass off for the past few minutes going over them. Most of these people don't understand why they hate Steam, barring the ones that are complaining about not being able to buy or sell a product they purchased.

I truly believe a good portion, if not majority, of Civ players aren't ardent gamers. They play Civ religiously and maybe a few other titles - and that's it. There's no other way to explain the shellshock these souls are expressing.
 

Flib

Member
I think you can change it on the city screen. I vaguely remember changing the name of Berlin to Sausage City last night, though that may have been a false memory from the fog of whiskey I was in.
 

Quixzlizx

Member
1. I'm getting a bug in windowed mode where the game thinks my cursor is higher than it is. I have to click slightly beneath buttons to actually click them. Has anyone else encountered this?

2. Is there way to turn gridlines on?
 

dream

Member
MjFrancis said:
I truly believe a good portion, if not majority, of Civ players aren't ardent gamers. They play Civ religiously and maybe a few other titles - and that's it. There's no other way to explain the shellshock these souls are expressing.

I think the most fervent Civ players are kind of like the Rainmen of gaming. I've seen incredibly competent players on CivFanatics ask the most unreal questions. Like "what's Steam?" and "why is this making me install something called DirectX?"
 

AstroLad

Hail to the KING baby
Chriswok said:
Need :( Bloody European date. Suppose you American guys need a good head start :lol
Why? Americans are way better Civ players, not to mention created, designed, and developed the game. Don't Euros play like Anno or whatever?
 

birdchili

Member
played this pretty-much all day yesterday. dozens of crashes/freezes. combat dynamic is so very good. lots of the other stuff i feel i still don't have a full grasp of, but overall seems like the endgame will be much less annoying, where you normally have far too many units in play (i only made it into the middle ages or so).

do you always get pop-up ads when you start the steam client? - that's awful.
 

StarEye

The Amiga Brotherhood
Civilization was a huge hit on the Amiga (and PC of course). The Amiga is a european computer and was extremely popular in european countries. I've been following Civ ever since the first. America is not the world.
 

Mutagenic

Permanent Junior Member
I played four hours last night. I was engulfed in 'one more turn' gameplay for the entire final hour. The game ran great for me.
 

XiaNaphryz

LATIN, MATRIPEDICABUS, DO YOU SPEAK IT
graywolf323 said:
1UP/Tom Chick just gave it a C - http://www.1up.com/do/reviewPage?cId=3181540

7
7
Not surprising, given some of his negative impressions in previews. Isn't he one of the more hardcore Civ player types?
 

AstroLad

Hail to the KING baby
XiaNaphryz said:
Not surprising, given some of his negative impressions in previews. Isn't he one of the more hardcore Civ player types?
I actually agree with most of his complaints even though I don't ascribe nearly as much importance to them. I fully expected the CivFanatics-types to give the mechanics a huge MEH (or worse) until at least a few patches in so that's no surprise. More important to me are some of the interface and diplomacy issues he discusses.
 

Home

Member
Loving the game, I was a prince/noble Civ 4 player, so not the highest skill level, but still somewhat good.

Was having to slowdown problems after about 30 minutes or so but I updated my Nvidia drivers and it cleared right up.
 

birdchili

Member
was definitely having too much fun with units and combat to delve too deeply into some of the other systems... so there may be issues there. the game is definitely *way* too buggy for release and should have been tested more.

i didn't realize that the social policy stuff was all permanent buffs... that's too bad. i figured you'd be able to mix-and-match them a bit as time went on ("once upon a time, our culture cared about liberty - those days are long past").

happiness seemed poorly explained too, though i was chocking that up to too much combat fun and not a lack of clarity in the system itself. it's unfortunate if there's not enough info to properly micromanage these systems.

horrid bugs notwithstanding, the game gave a pretty good first impression.
 
D

Deleted member 17706

Unconfirmed Member
Mutagenic said:
I agree with his review for the most part, even if a portion of it is nitpicking.

I'm forced to agree with him, too. I've only played for about 4 hours, but civilizations definitely feel a lot less unique to me than they did in Civ IV. Maybe my opinion will change as I go on, but that is my current impression.
 

Ysiadmihi

Banned
Mutagenic said:
I agree with his review for the most part, even if a portion of it is nitpicking.

Same. I really like this game, but a lot of the changes just make me wish they had taken Civ 4 and replaced it's combat with 5's instead. I hate to use the term but outside of the combat, 5 feels pretty dumbed down to me.
 

Shambles

Member
ChoklitReign said:
Are there any reviews from casual players? I need to know if it's easier to improve from Civ IV.

Most reviews are from casual players. It seems like a lot of reviewers are trying to pretend they know what they are talking about but for the most part they're all just parroting the same talking points. Civ 5 is setup for new/casual players, it's the more fanatic players that some of the changes are really grating against. Not because things are changed but there is definitely some problems with how they designed the game. Then again the difference between the original Civ4 and the patched BTS expansion for Civ4 is quite substantial as well. I've put a lot of hours into Civ 1,2 and 4 and I'm waiting a few months for things to be ironed out before I consider purchasing it, Civ4 is a better experience for what I'm looking for. For new/casual players jump into Civ5 instead for sure.
 

Hari Seldon

Member
I agree with Tom Chick about the social policies. Although I haven't played that much of the game yet just having 3 hours of gametime so far. I definitely prefer civics + religion to social policies. The idea that you can never change your civilizations government is really silly and not historically accurate or gameplay fun.

I am not sure I agree with him about the combat AI (although I have only played 3 hours). I assume that if they made AI as good as a real war game it would not be as fun since in a real war game the units are balanced in some way. If the AI was awesome and they were 1 tech higher than you in Civ, you would get demolished, which while historically accurate would not be much fun.
 

coopolon

Member
So I played the demo. I've gone from not at all wanting this game because of it being on Steamworks, to accepting Steam as my new daddy and really really wanting this game, to playing the demo and realizing I'm not so crazy about it.

Admittedly, I'm playing it on a slightly outdated system, e8400 and 4850. It just feels sluggish. It's not that the framerate drops or anything, I can't really put my finger on it, it just feels a little bit slow.

So now I'll probably wait for a sale. Not expecting much this Xmas sale though since it'll be so new, maybe next Xmas.

I did reinstall Civ 4 today though, will be playing that now instead.
 

Ysiadmihi

Banned
Something else I'm not liking about the game is that the randomness is still in the combat. Why am I losing battles that the game tells me will be decisive victories?
 

iam220

Member
Ysiadmihi said:
Same. I really like this game, but a lot of the changes just make me wish they had taken Civ 4 and replaced it's combat with 5's instead. I hate to use the term but outside of the combat, 5 feels pretty dumbed down to me.

Dumbed down is the wrong phrase. Dumbed down would mean that this game was changed to appeal to people whom would have found CIV 4 to be too complicated. The word you're looking for is ""streamlined" . Which is exactly what they did to CIV 4 when you compare it to 3.
 

graywolf323

Member
iam220 said:
Dumbed down is the wrong phrase. Dumbed down would mean that this game was changed to appeal to people whom would have found CIV 4 to be too complicated. The word you're looking for is ""streamlined" . Which is exactly what they did to CIV 4 when you compare it to 3.

wasn't 3 also a lot more streamlined than 2?

I know a guy that refuses to play any of the Civ games after 2 because he thinks they became too "n00b friendly" :lol
 

WillyFive

Member
Ysiadmihi said:
Something else I'm not liking about the game is that the randomness is still in the combat. Why am I losing battles that the game tells me will be decisive victories?

Because it's not supposed to play the game for you?
 

Macattk15

Member
I'm have dual monitors. Monitor on the left shows my desktop, monitor on the right is playing Civilization V.

Problem is, I cannot scroll to the left in the game by dragging my mouse over to that side of the screen because the mouse pointer just moves onto my desktop as if I was playing in a windowed mode.

I have fullscreen checked, I don't know why it is doing this. Anyone know?
 

Ysiadmihi

Banned
Willy105 said:
Because it's not supposed to play the game for you?

So I'm just supposed to guess the outcome of a battle involving my 50% HP spearmen vs a 10% HP barbarian should go poorly even though the game says otherwise?

If the big change in Civ 5 is supposed to be the combat, then get rid of the randomness.
 

iam220

Member
graywolf323 said:
wasn't 3 also a lot more streamlined than 2?

Hrm, From what I remember (and this was a while ago) 3 was the pinnacle of civilization series' complexity and micro management. It was also very similar to 2. Excluding 5, Civ 4 was the biggest departure from the series.
 

Hari Seldon

Member
iam220 said:
Hrm, From what I remember (and this was a while ago) 3 was the pinnacle of civilization series' complexity and micro management. It was also very similar to 2. Excluding 5, Civ 4 was the biggest departure from the series.

From what I remember Civ 3 had an insane amount of micro management that it just did not remain fun after a while. I need more time in Civ 5 before I can judge it against the rest of the series.
 

graywolf323

Member
iam220 said:
Hrm, From what I remember (and this was a while ago) 3 was the pinnacle of civilization series' complexity and micro management. It was also very similar to 2. Excluding 5, Civ 4 was the biggest departure from the series.

I got into the series with Civ 3 so I don't know either
 

Mafro

Member
Sblargh said:
I have a horrible fear that Gabe Newell is watching me and that he will take my account away if I do that.
Minimal chance of anything like that happening. It's just annoying that I have to run Steam in offline mode till Friday.
 

Instro

Member
Ysiadmihi said:
Something else I'm not liking about the game is that the randomness is still in the combat. Why am I losing battles that the game tells me will be decisive victories?

It would be silly if the game left no room for random chance, just like you can win battles that are indicated as losses. Realistically it makes more sense anyway, how many times in history has a large enemy force lost to a smaller one due to certain conditions on the day or other random thing.
 

Ysiadmihi

Banned
Instro said:
It would be silly if the game left no room for random chance, just like you can win battles that are indicated as losses. Realistically it makes more sense anyway, how many times in history has a large enemy force lost to a smaller one due to certain conditions on the day or other random thing.

How would it be silly?

And there's nothing realistic about 1 dude with a club fighting off 5 guys with spears in open terrain :lol
 

XiaNaphryz

LATIN, MATRIPEDICABUS, DO YOU SPEAK IT
Ysiadmihi said:
How would it be silly?

And there's nothing realistic about 1 dude with a club fighting off 5 guys with a spear in open terrain :lol
You got a bad roll in that one combat, that's all. Sometimes you'll also win a combat you're supposed to lose. I don't think even the most hardcore wargames out there completely remove randomness.
 

steadfast

Member
Macattk15 said:
I'm have dual monitors. Monitor on the left shows my desktop, monitor on the right is playing Civilization V.

Problem is, I cannot scroll to the left in the game by dragging my mouse over to that side of the screen because the mouse pointer just moves onto my desktop as if I was playing in a windowed mode.

I have fullscreen checked, I don't know why it is doing this. Anyone know?

I have this same problem. Workaround is to use the arrow keys, but I'd rather be able to mouse to the edge of the screen.
 

Ysiadmihi

Banned
XiaNaphryz said:
You got a bad roll in that one combat, that's all. Sometimes you'll also win a combat you're supposed to lose. I don't think even the most hardcore wargames out there completely remove randomness.

I know a lot of people can look at it that way and be fine with it, but it really bothers me. I don't want to win or lose based on luck in a strategy game. At least it's not Company of Heroes levels of random :lol
 
Top Bottom