Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Civ V Review

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Civ V Review

    http://www.pcgamer.com/2010/09/20/ci...tion-v-review/

    Defying the urge to phone-in an unambitious sequel and coast on past successes, Sid Meier’s Civilization V is anything but a lazy rehash. It feels almost as if someone described the concept of the renowned 19-year-old turn-based strategy series to a talented designer who’d never played it, and let him come up with his own version. It’s similar enough to be familiar to veterans, different enough to be fresh, and its polish and accessibility make it a great place for new players to pick up one hell of a Civ addiction.

  • #2
    Re: Civ V Review

    My initial impressions after 3 hours of gameplay is that the game is very polished and user-friendly, but that it may also be too simplified..

    I haven't played the Civ series since 1 2, and 3, but I remember having to be concerned with more empire and city management issues back then than I do now.

    I'll have more impressions later. What are yours?

    3) Support game play in a near-simulation environment. Where the focus of play would not be solely on doing what it takes to win, but doing so utilizing real-world combat strategy and tactics rather than leveraging exploits provided to players by the design of the game engine.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Civ V Review

      Humorous excerpt...

      In some ways, though, the AI impressed me. Leaders are perceptive enough to pop up and inform me that they’re not going to stand for my massing armies on their borders. That said, diplomacy could stand to be a little more transparent—sudden declarations of war caught me totally off guard, like when, after a long period of peace and mutually beneficial trade relations with Gandhi’s India, the little bald jerk allied with Japan to invade my Roman Empire without provocation. Think about that for a second: I was attacked by Gandhi. It’s hard not to take that personally.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Civ V Review

        I played on a pretty easy game so far but i look forward to hard and more drawn out games. So far this game is a great foundation for many great expansions and user mods. I imagine the higher difficulty will you have racking your brain like crazy. So far though a big change in gameplay is the way strategic resources work. You can only build a certain number of units off a strategic resource which makes this game highly tactical in play. I'm very impressed so far not only with the polish but the very dynamic combat.


        - -

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Civ V Review

          My only complaint so far is you seem to tech up way to fast for my likeing.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Civ V Review

            Originally posted by johnflenaly View Post
            My only complaint so far is you seem to tech up way to fast for my likeing.
            set your gamespeed to a longer setting.


            - -

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Civ V Review

              I like this iteration better than say Civ4.

              List of Changes I like:
              -No more dead end technologies (i'm looking at you archery and your worthlessness)
              -No more unit stacking (each unit is so important and reduces my need to stack attack)
              -No more religion (seriously the most confusing element of Civ 4)
              -Hexes (because seriously how freaking awesome is that?!)
              -City States (expanding the game with diplomacy without adding to the number of empires)
              -City Bombardment (no more early game blitzes, actual preperation when attacking cities)

              Combined with a functional UI that tells you everything you need to know very efficiently and I'm in Civ Heaven. Multiplayer is Civ Hell though.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Civ V Review

                Originally posted by Sirusblk View Post
                Multiplayer is Civ Hell though.
                Could you expound on that a bit, please?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Civ V Review

                  -City States (expanding the game with diplomacy without adding to the number of empires)
                  I actually find them not very useful. Granted I am not using them that much (and one got really annoying for about 3 turns until I was able to get everything organized, and kill him.) But for the brief period I used them, I found the cost to get them on your side for more than a couple turns was for nothing. This might change in larger, and later games, but so far found them useless.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Civ V Review

                    Originally posted by draeh View Post
                    Could you expound on that a bit, please?
                    Sure, it's just my opinion but compared to the smooth experience of Singleplayer, I feel like multiplayer is a chore. Honestly I've played with friends and we've had a much better blast both playing singleplayer at the same time. It could just be the times I've played but the game frequently freezes and lags out (could be the host though). With animations like the diplomacy being disabled as well as just buggy movement multiplayer feels like a chore.

                    Not a bad game, still happy with my purchase, but they need to seriously patch multiplayer. I'd also like the Civilopedia on the main screen.

                    Originally posted by Hellswaters View Post
                    I actually find them not very useful. Granted I am not using them that much (and one got really annoying for about 3 turns until I was able to get everything organized, and kill him.) But for the brief period I used them, I found the cost to get them on your side for more than a couple turns was for nothing. This might change in larger, and later games, but so far found them useless.
                    See my experience was quite the opposite. I played the tutorial and started out with Ramkhamhaeng, and his special ability helped with city states. I also maxed out Patronage I believe, that's where you get all sorts of bonuses with city states. When I finally attacked China I had half my army gifted to me and 3 city states supporting me when I finally attacked. Honestly I leave them to their own devices unless they're friendly and their missions are really easy. Then I'll get one rank into Patronage to keep a baseline happiness with them.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Civ V Review

                      Originally posted by Vulcan View Post
                      set your gamespeed to a longer setting.
                      Yes this does work but slows down everything else, want to just slow down research :(

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Civ V Review

                        Originally posted by johnflenaly View Post
                        Yes this does work but slows down everything else, want to just slow down research :(
                        what your after is a slower game then it's all connected. If you slowed research but nothing else, you'd have a very lopsided mechanic with units. the longer gamespeed pulls everything inline to keep the game consistent.


                        - -

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Civ V Review

                          So far I like the game a lot, even though I'm finding that I suck at it quite a bit. Too many concepts from Civ4 are stuck in my head, and I haven't yet realized that it's almost a completely different game. For example, each hex of road that's built costs 1g maintenance; took me a while to figure out I was going broke because I was trying to road up everything. Some things that I like:

                          - Overall game pace feels much better and more even/realistic. Ancient world wonders actually have a solid chance of being built in the BC era (no more Pyramids around 200 AD). I also feel like I have more time to think/strategize, whereas in Civ4 I felt like I had time to do nothing but make units and spread cities as fast as I could
                          - Each city feels like it's actually worth something, rather than just being another dot on the map like it was in Civ4
                          - Individual units also feel more important. I had been gifted iron in a trade and ramped up Legion production and pushed my units over the supply limit. Once the trade agreement ran out, America declared war on me and I found myself moving wounded units back to protected areas because I know I couldn't rebuild.
                          - Strategic/luxury/growth resources no longer need to be connected with roads to be used by cities
                          - New fog of war (clouds) is pretty cool :)
                          - Unit battles look nice and are much more fluid
                          - Range attack/bombardment
                          - Social policies!

                          Things I don't like:
                          - Building construction seems to take way too long
                          - Do garrisoned units do anything? I had a city with a Legion garrisoned, and the city was attacked. The city got conquered and my Legion never engaged, it simply disappeared when the city was lost. Yet when I attack other cities that have garrisons, I have to clear the garrison. Confusing.
                          - Some things are not well documented; pacts of cooperation and secrecy to start with
                          - I'm not really a fan of the "racials", aka the Civ special abilities. Far too many of them seem like they're useless once you're out of the ancient era. There's what, like 3-4 at least that deal with barbarians in some way?
                          - Diplomacy seems kinda weird. I'll ask for a pact one turn and get declined, but then 1-2 turns later the civ that declined me asks for the same pact.

                          I'm neutral on City States. I can see their advantage, but I agree with Hellswaters that they seem to be way too expensive to maintain for their use. Overall I like the game a lot though, just wish I had more time to play. I've only had one good day to play so far since I bought it on Tuesday.
                          [squadl]
                          "I am the prettiest african-american, vietnamese..cong..person." -SugarNCamo

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Civ V Review

                            Garrisoned units only add to the total strength of the city (that little number on top). It will not fight on its own though.

                            I played a marathon session yesterday until 2029 or so, and by the time I quit, I was the most advanced civ militarily, but yet I'd only reached the level of owning tanks. There were no planes, or bombers, or nuclear munitions or anything. It seemed as if the entire world's tech was slow. It was on Prince level, with small map.

                            3) Support game play in a near-simulation environment. Where the focus of play would not be solely on doing what it takes to win, but doing so utilizing real-world combat strategy and tactics rather than leveraging exploits provided to players by the design of the game engine.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Civ V Review

                              Responses in bold :)
                              Originally posted by SmokingTarpan View Post
                              Things I don't like:
                              - Building construction seems to take way too long Agreed
                              - Do garrisoned units do anything? I had a city with a Legion garrisoned, and the city was attacked. The city got conquered and my Legion never engaged, it simply disappeared when the city was lost. Yet when I attack other cities that have garrisons, I have to clear the garrison. Confusing. I could be wrong but I believe their strength adds to the city's bombardment attack, and their health also adds to the city's defense rating (larger pool of health). This also allows you to stack units in your city.
                              - Some things are not well documented; pacts of cooperation and secrecy to start with I agree but I do like the more info on the roll over areas. I downloaded the PDF to my phone so I can have quick access to it
                              - I'm not really a fan of the "racials", aka the Civ special abilities. Far too many of them seem like they're useless once you're out of the ancient era. There's what, like 3-4 at least that deal with barbarians in some way?Barbarians are around for the rest of the game for the most part. I found barbarians late into the 19th century and possibly beyond. If anything I find the racials to be very powerful and a welcomed change
                              - Diplomacy seems kinda weird. I'll ask for a pact one turn and get declined, but then 1-2 turns later the civ that declined me asks for the same pact.I agree, I will never forgive Siam for colluding with me trying to undermind communist china and then suddenly befriending the other

                              Comment

                              Connect

                              Collapse

                              TeamSpeak 3 Server

                              Collapse

                              Advertisement

                              Collapse

                              Twitter Feed

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X