Civilization V

[nagano]

Anyone here play Civilization V? And yes, I'm aware of the complaints, if you don't like it please do not post to gripe about the game.

[daniel_the_smith]

I like it. But my current non-go game is minecraft... :/

[phillip1882]

i have the game but generally play the classic civ 4 instead.

[Toge]

I used to play IV a lot. It's pretty astounding how much the makers have put historical insight into the game, yet managed to keep the gameplay fluid and interesting.

[nagano]

I got the game recently, and haven't played any of the earlier versions. I like it a lot though. It's one of the few computer games I've played that feels like it has real depth. Sorry if the original post seemed a bit hostile. It's just that the anger over the differences from IV seems to parallel that of the Star Wars originalists, and it starts to get annoying after a while.

[Toge]

If you like Civ V, you'll love Civ IV. It's the most complete and balanced version of the series. I don't think all the arguments of which one is best have to do with nostalgia. Each version has brought some new ideas. Some of them worked, some didn't. For example the city-state idea might have looked good on paper, but ended up feeling like unnecessary gimmick in competitive gameplay. Whether you like to have individual units on square, or massive "stack of doom" is a question of preference. I haven't really played V all that much. It felt so different from IV and frankly, quite unfinished.

That's just my opinion. If you like the game I see no reason to make you feel bad about it.

[Mivo]

I bought it (also the DLC) when it came out and I'm playing it off and on. The most recent patch improved the single player experience of the game significantly. It's actually pretty decent now. It is, however, unplayable for me (and everyone I tried it with) in multiplayer mode. Overall, I agree with Toge that Civ4 is the much better game. 1UPT just doesn't work for the Civ series. Sullla explained it here.

[nagano]

If you like Civ V, you'll love Civ IV. It's the most complete and balanced version of the series. I don't think all the arguments of which one is best have to do with nostalgia. Each version has brought some new ideas. Some of them worked, some didn't. For example the city-state idea might have looked good on paper, but ended up feeling like unnecessary gimmick in competitive gameplay. Whether you like to have individual units on square, or massive "stack of doom" is a question of preference. I haven't really played V all that much. It felt so different from IV and frankly, quite unfinished.

That's just my opinion. If you like the game I see no reason to make you feel bad about it.

I actually like the city states. It seems like a gimmick at first, but I think they actually make the advantages of influence more tangible.

I bought it (also the DLC) when it came out and I'm playing it off and on. The most recent patch improved the single player experience of the game significantly. It's actually pretty decent now. It is, however, unplayable for me (and everyone I tried it with) in multiplayer mode. Overall, I agree with Toge that Civ4 is the much better game. 1UPT just doesn't work for the Civ series. Sullla explained it here.

I won't defend the AI, but many of the apparent "flaws" make sense to me. However, I have very strange tastes when it comes to games, most of which (aside from Go) are considered unplayable by most people. Things like this. I think the difference is that I do not generally consider the question of whether a game is suitable for humans or not to be relevant.

[Chew Terr]

Man, I should play more of the Civ games. The ones I've played are Civ 2, Colonization (the original), Alpha Centauri, and Civ Revolutions. It's probably time for me to get into the latest... three... generations. Hmm, or I could just dig out Alpha Centauri again. =D

[topazg]

I've been mostly convinced off getting Civ V, and not because people say "Man it sucks, the previous one was so much better", but because I'd read a bunch of in depth articles about gameplay changes and the actual impacts on tactics and strategy. I have Civ IV and both expansions, so it would need to be a really well improved game for me to want to buy V. It looks like there is a strong belief that V brought in a lot of interesting and novel ideas, but implemented badly in many areas. As a result, I'll stick with the polished one I've got

[judicata]

I'd love to play Civ V, but I don't have a computer with adequate hardware. So I'm sticking with Civ IV for purely practical reasons . I'm sure Civ V will continue to get better through patches and tweaks with the expansions. Maybe by then I'll have the horsepower to run it.

[hyperpape]

I think the difference is that I do not generally consider the question of whether a game is suitable for humans or not to be relevant.

There are several humans on these boards, many of whom may find this inconsiderate. I'm not one, but I'm just warning you.

[Monadology]

Hmm, or I could just dig out Alpha Centauri again. =D

Alpha Centauri is always the best option.

[Toge]

Alpha Centauri is always the best option.

- Alpha Centauri is just epic. I played it when I was old enough to understand most of the text, but too young to be able to choose philosophy courses at school. Those tech quotes from famous philosophers gave me great interest in matters of philosophy, science, politics and religion. My grades improved a lot in high school.

[penfold]

When IV came out, there were a lot of complaints & many folks preferred III. I love the entire series. My only problem is that I'm pretty sure I would need to get a new laptop to play V. I'd rather save my $$$ for a nice goban instead.