UNOFFICIAL: Was better CIV IV or is better Civ 5!! VOTE!

[wbonx]

A lot has been said, vote if you think that Civ IV was better or not.

Vote considering civ 4 + expansions and Civ V as released.

No fun boys and dumb civ revolution players pls.

Say just in two words what you think, need to post to have the thread up.

An admin can make it sticky instead of changing the name from official to unofficial?

[Prolympic]

Civ 4 IS better.

[wbonx]

Vote, I added a poll, look up.

[MoistPancake]

I see potential. Civ V WILL be better than Civ IV with time.


That is my stance.

[wbonx]

The thread is about today.

Who cares what kind of patches or mod will come out in 3/6 months.

Vote comparing only the game sold today, so civ 4 + expansions and civ 5.

[Saczva]

remind people that they're comparing civ4 at release with civ5 at release

and you have 3 negative poll options against civ5, 2 negatives for civ4 and 1 considering them equal

biased poll.

[MoistPancake]

remind people that they're comparing civ4 at release with civ5 at release

and you have 3 negative poll options against civ5, 2 negatives for civ4 and 1 considering them equal

biased poll.

I agree. If we compare release days, Civ V is better. If we compare it with Civ IV with mods and expansions then it is unfair.

[wbonx]

They are not comparing release and release, they are comparing the last civ 4.5 so civ 4 + expansions, to the new one released.

The poll is ok, the first 3 are pro civ 5 (also saying that they are the same is good), and the last 3 pro civ IV.

[Saczva]

since you said it's okay to compare 2 games at completely different development stages then i'll do the same

CIV4 pre alpha sucked but CIV5 in 2011 ownz0rz derp

[wbonx]

To help the thread staying up it's better if you add also your opinion when posting, but try being short, like maximum 2 rows.

[friki666]

Civ IV was so much better it's just not even a comparison.

[civ_king]

The Civ IV combat system was so flawed initially I lost a Modern Armor against a scout!!!

Civ V at release was better than Civ IV

[Atticus Lowa]

sorry but the poll will always be biased and will never have justicifaction...
the game was relased 5 days ago common!
if you don't like the game then stop complaining and leave

*rage over*

look if the poll was comparative in that it was civ4 vanilla with civ5 vanilla then it would be fair...

you can't really expect that civ5 has ALL the features of civ4+expansions, the game would be $100 easily (barring any special editions...)

[Hoso001]

Civ V is good, I thought I was gonna hate it after playing my first game and was regretting it, its just adjustment shock to the new systems. They changed the game alot and you just have to learn the new concepts. I think there is actually a lot more strategy involved in this game, and I like the challange of the new diplo system. The AI likes to sneak attack me, its interested adds new dimensions to the game play.

[wayninja]

I don't understand the point of this poll. You really want to compare a game with 2 expansions and years of mods and polish to a week old game?

Why bother with poll? The one with thousands more man-hours is the clear winner.

[mastermemorex]

So, the recomendation is to keep playing Civ 4 with the expansion and wait one year until they properly make a good game?

[Shiav]

dear god, i played on prince difficulty and slaughtered the world (domination victory) before the industrial age. the computers unit tactics are awful, all my one neighbour did was mass horsemen whlie the other massed spearmen and the third built no military units

[Shiav]

it is improved from civ 4, but the aiès tactics are awful

[MoistPancake]

So, the recomendation is to keep playing Civ 4 with the expansion and wait one year until they properly make a good game?

Most people don't have a problem with the game. It's the few hundred people on the forum that are freaking out about post-game bugs.

[DukeDude]

I think Civ V is much better than Civ IV, but on par with Beyond the Sword.

[mastermemorex]

My suggestion to Firaxis is to take Civ IV with the best mods, all expansions, change to hexagons, introduce the city states concept and they would have a polish adictive game.

Civ V have ruined my experience and I feel cheated.

[MoistPancake]

My suggestion to Firaxis is to take Civ IV with the best mods, all expansions, change to hexagons, introduce the city states concept and they would have a polish adictive game.

Civ V have ruined my experience and I feel cheated.

There were plenty of videos, reviews, and screens to help you make your choice of buying the game. You were hardly cheated.


And Civ IV at launch sucked horribly, it wasn't until after tons of patching, mods, and expansions that it was good.

[Shiav]

There were plenty of videos, reviews, and screens to help you make your choice of buying the game. You were hardly cheated.


And Civ IV at launch sucked horribly, it wasn't until after tons of patching, mods, and expansions that it was good.

i second^¨¨

[stakex]

I voted for Civ4 is a bit better.

Civ5 has some interesting concepts, and could be a really great game. However, it also suffers from poor implementation and lacking gameplay. Its clearly been watered down a bit, and the gameplay suffers because of it. Not to mention that who ever designed the interface should be fired. I didn't mind it at first, but after a few games now its horrible and annoying.

The thing is, when I played past Civ games... I felt more like I was actually running a Civilization. I guess you could say the past Civ's had a more sandbox style to them. Civ5 however, doesn't have enough depth and leaves the player little choice but to run out and try to win the game... instead of running a successful civilization. Rushing to win games was never a great joy to me, rather I liked playing with and managing my civilization... and Civ5 makes that a lot more boring, and even less practical IMO.

Again Civ5 isn't a bad game, and I generally try not to compare it to Civ4... but if I could only every play one of them again, it would almost certainly be Civ4.

[mastermemorex]

There were plenty of videos, reviews, and screens to help you make your choice of buying the game. You were hardly cheated.


And Civ IV at launch sucked horribly, it wasn't until after tons of patching, mods, and expansions that it was good.

If you see the "official" reviews they all say that it is almost the perfect game. I don't want to say that they have been brided, but it looks like that way. The only review that is close to what I have seen is from Tom Chick

http://www.1up.com/do/reviewPage?cId=3181540&p=1

But I have learned several lesson with this experience:
Never pre-order a game.
Wait a least 6 months before decide buying.
Never trust "offcial" reviews.
Expensive does not means worthly.

[mastermemorex]

I am not saying that Civ V is a bad game. Although they should change name for something similar to "Civ-craft" Because they have taken the concept of violent expansion, warfare and wipe out all enemies. Diplomacy is reduced to I attack you because I can, nothing personal.

Civ IV had a bad start, but despite all crashes, bugs, it was better than Civ III, which it wasn't too difficult.

Civ V has interesting concepts, but is basically a downgrade of Civ IV.

[MoistPancake]

If you see the "official" reviews they all say that it is almost the perfect game. I don't want to say that they have been brided, but it looks like that way. The only review that is close to what I have seen is from Tom Chick

http://www.1up.com/do/reviewPage?cId=3181540&p=1

But I have learned several lesson with this experience:
Never pre-order a game.
Wait a least 6 months before decide buying.
Never trust "offcial" reviews.
Expensive does not means worthly.

Before the game came out I knew:

1 unit per tile
no civics/added social policies
no religion
changed barbarians
no corps
saw the interface
happiness cross nation
the types of civs
civ specials
graphics
maps
no mp animation
no building destruction
combat tactics
strategic minerals
no hotseat
missing mp features
bugs
city-states
etc


Almost everything was made public.

[CarroM]

Civ V compared to IV:

Graphics ++
Micromanagement --
Unitstacking -
Buildtimes -
Reserachtimes -
Improvements build time -

In all, i found Civ V to be improved graphicswise but less fun to play.
The biggest reasons for it is that setting game to diffrent speeds do not allow you to reach certain technologies earlier and enjoy later game with more tech, it simply adjust research/build/improvement times to be more turns to span over same ammount of years. Very negative sollution to gameplay.

Also the lack of management, Religions etc is a huge -
I want to allocate my money into research/happieness/productivity as a see fit. Civ V system is like it was made for the average Console player and i cannot in any way see this change to be an improvement.

I also find Diplomacy compleatly downseized. Basicly it's Diplomacy ABC for the Stupid. It's not needed at all at its present state. All it does is have other leaders bickering every end of turn for pact of secrecy or alliance against another Civ, wich gives option to Give me 10 turns to prepare wich on marathon gamespeed is ridicilous as a GOOD production town takes 25+ turns to build something.

My initial belief is that this long anticipated release was premature and untested. Cannot have been based on what made other Civ games great because it's just graphics with less content.

Civ V is a console game.

[sumptuousmale]

sorry but the poll will always be biased and will never have justicifaction...
the game was relased 5 days ago common!
if you don't like the game then stop complaining and leave

*rage over*

look if the poll was comparative in that it was civ4 vanilla with civ5 vanilla then it would be fair...

you can't really expect that civ5 has ALL the features of civ4+expansions, the game would be $100 easily (barring any special editions...)

Not true, who do you think developed all of those expansions? Civ 5 should be an improvement/sequel to Civ 4 + expansions. Not to mention at release Civ 4 had bugs, but it was still Civ. Not Civ Rev 2 like this game.

[MarmotKing]

Civ V as a game is much much better than Civ IV

It just needs a few things patched in, like Multiplayer Lobby, and a more in depth Server Browser with more options, and just more Multiplayer Options in general, like the ability to set the length of the Turn Timer, and stuff like that.

But as a game and as far as gameplay goes, Civ V is by far superior.

[mastermemorex]

9/10 from IGN
93/100 from PC Gamer
5/5 from G4TV
5/5 from joystiq.com
9.2/10 from ausgamers.com
9.75/10 from Gameinformer
5/5 from The Escapist
"A" from Gaming Nexus
"Superb" from Destructoid
9 from Gamespot

Very few mentions about the bugs, crashes, the horrible interface and the dump AI.
I am cheated.

[CarroM]

Civ V as a game is much much better than Civ IV

It just needs a few things patched in, like Multiplayer Lobby, and a more in depth Server Browser with more options, and just more Multiplayer Options in general, like the ability to set the length of the Turn Timer, and stuff like that.

But as a game and as far as gameplay goes, Civ V is by far superior.

Civ 5 is superior how? It's closer to a shooter for a brainless than Civ 4.

[Saczva]

Civ V compared to IV:

Graphics ++
Micromanagement --
Unitstacking -
Buildtimes -
Reserachtimes -
Improvements build time -

In all, i found Civ V to be improved graphicswise but less fun to play.
The biggest reasons for it is that setting game to diffrent speeds do not allow you to reach certain technologies earlier and enjoy later game with more tech, it simply adjust research/build/improvement times to be more turns to span over same ammount of years. Very negative sollution to gameplay.

Also the lack of management, Religions etc is a huge -
I want to allocate my money into research/happieness/productivity as a see fit. Civ V system is like it was made for the average Console player and i cannot in any way see this change to be an improvement.

I also find Diplomacy compleatly downseized. Basicly it's Diplomacy ABC for the Stupid. It's not needed at all at its present state. All it does is have other leaders bickering every end of turn for pact of secrecy or alliance against another Civ, wich gives option to Give me 10 turns to prepare wich on marathon gamespeed is ridicilous as a GOOD production town takes 25+ turns to build something.

My initial belief is that this long anticipated release was premature and untested. Cannot have been based on what made other Civ games great because it's just graphics with less content.

Civ V is a console game.


what was strategic about a slider for research/gold ? people only kept it at the maximum research output, let's face it you're pulling at straws with your console argument because in CIV5 buildings actually require strategic choice and long term planning, you cant simply build everything like in CIV4 without repercussions
and social policies have significantly more choice and strategy than civics... you're already at the start of the game faced with the fundamental choice of going big or staying small to get policies cheaper

[Saczva]

9/10 from IGN
93/100 from PC Gamer
5/5 from G4TV
5/5 from joystiq.com
9.2/10 from ausgamers.com
9.75/10 from Gameinformer
5/5 from The Escapist
"A" from Gaming Nexus
"Superb" from Destructoid
9 from Gamespot

Very few mentions about the bugs, crashes, the horrible interface and the dump AI.
I am cheated.


how is the interface bad? and did you mean "dumb" ...?

[vince0018]

The following was posted circa October 2006 in regards to Civ IV:


I didn't enjoy civ much....mostly becuase the repedativness of the game unless you play online then it is worth a bit more time. The Cv games are mostly based on expansion and combat seems to be the quickest way but it takes forever to develop and army...I have to get to the last era before I can even start thnking about that ....for some reason the stradgy in Civ seems to be too simple not to mention it takes forever to get through a good game....I would suggest AoE 3 which is more hands on and has much more to it in NO Rush online games (I was addicted to it for the last year)

The other thing that bothers me is the limited tech tree...it doesnt go far enough into the future....or seem to explain what each thing is for...thank God I didn't waste my money on it....don't ask how I played it

Also it requires higher lvl systems to be flawless...it gets laggy....so your laptop might not be good enough for it but AoE has a simlar problem with water battles



I wish someone had talked me out of buying civ4.

It's probably the only computer game I've ever regretted buying. I love RTS, city building games and strategy but for some reason CIV4 didn't deliver.

I kind of felt like I was watching the game happen in front of me with the occasional mouse click...I didn't feel as if I was actually playing it.

It presents as being hugely complex and full of depth but it isn't really....it's just time consuming.

EDIT : I also vote for Total War (ROME)
Some would probably say you should not compare them ...but it's a safer bet IMO.


edit:



Civ4 looks amazing, it sounded like they finally got the AI right, but be careful to check out their forums first if you're using a laptop...there were some really nasty compatibility issues with Civ4 several months ago when my pal was trying to get it running.


http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?15164-Civilization-IV

re-edit:
Not sure when the following was posted, sometime after a release of a civ iv special edition it would seem.



Loved Civ 1 and 2, played Civ 3 quite possibly more than any game, so take it from me this is not a low score from someone who rarely plays such games....but Civ 4 is just well, meh....so disappointing. Graphically I actually prefer 3 in many ways, the units look bad, the cartoony leaders just shout out that they're dumbing the game down for more casual gamers....the religion aspect is a welcome addition, but it wasn't long before I was playing mods to keep the interest going. I have since played Civ 3 a few times, but Civ 4 is gathering dust on my shelf. Galactic Civs 2 is my current game of choice for this genre.




Civ IV is extremely disappointing!! The huge size of the military units, as well as the pointless upgrades make them unwieldy and extremely difficult to use. They don't have defense/attack values which totally destroys the fun and strategy involved in military campaigns. There is too much going on in this game, nothing is simple, everything is a chore and its simply a waste of time.




It's very frustrating seeing your entire army get wiped out by 2 archers.. the 2nd time it happened (after rebuilding it AND having a Military "Great Person" assigned to some units) i was ready to throw my fist through the screen... anybody want to buy and barely used version of Civ4 Gold?




Civ four falls hard coming to the worst of the series. The graphics are about a 6.5 and only on par with other games in its class just barely better then those of Civ 3. In what they have made up for in streamlining the game they have lost in strategy. There is no middle ground in this game it is either ridiculously hard or boringly easy. The AI show little to no improvement from that of civ 2 While the negotiation is much more complex even on the easiest of level the player will find 80% of negotiations wasted and unusable. The civ knowledges are so dumb down that most of them are nonsensically as wells as their improvements they lead to throughout the game. Its hard to build cites through the map because of borders and war constraints based on the layout of most of the maps and area that each city consumes. The movies also take huge steps back compared to those of 3 and 2. The palace and animated counsel are completely missing as well as the large array of units and improvements. Civ 4 is almost an identical copy of Age of empires 2 and Total War crossed over and mashed together. How Sid Meiers could slap his name on this crap is beyond me. Over all advice is to save your money.




First time I have tried an 'epic strategy game' in some years, and what can I say? its just not a sufficiently interesting strategic challenge for the time invested. My old complaints from (probably) Civ2 remain: the AI is not at all interesting, surprising, or even rational, and must cheat to be 'challenging'. The game soon bogs down in micromanagement, unless maybe you want to use the in-game helpers, which are as bad as the opposing AI... and then the graphics... they are worthless and distracting in such a strategy game. I had to turn on this extra layer of silly balloons to 'clarify' what is supposed to be displayed in the graphics, and still, something as significant as a huge hostile army at the border is not at all clear... so you are left to make your strategic decisions with incomplete information. and although it proports to be not solely a wargame, wars seem unavoidable, and are the worst and most tedious micromanagement of all. there are a lot of interesting aspects to this... but it certainly cannot be seen as any kind of meaningful 'historical simulation', so all this 'stuff' is mainly clutter, and not really that interesting strategically. maybe the makers should just play 'go' for a few years, and get back to the basics.




Boy is this game overrated!! I don't understand why it got such a high rating, it's really not that good!! don't get me wrong, I liked the older versions and had fun playing them but the reason I bought the special edition is because I thought it would be, well.... "special" there is nothing really special about this game!! other than the fact that it is the same old rehash of the older versions. I was really expecting a big change but was sadly disappointed to see that, apart from the graphics, there was really none. It's the same old dull routine over and over again!! Oh wel,l guess as long as it makes money why bother to change it right? wrong!! these people seriously need to change the formula a little... because this game is really getting stale and tiresome..... I think it's time to do something different!


http://apps.metacritic.com/games/usercomments.jsp?id_string=6033:$4G$Iz623Mfg6x-CZVUOiQ**

[CIV_FAN_NO_MORE]

Civ V is a disgrace. Nuff said.

[Saczva]

Civ V is a disgrace. Nuff said.

your name proves you're a troll /b/roski

[mhart073]

I've yet to chat with someone who hasn't had problems with CIV5 crashing. I've tried all of the fixes mentioned on this site, but have reached the point of no return....I've spent way, way too much time trying to get a game to run. Emphasis here is on game...games are supposed to be fun, not hours of drudgery trying to figure out why it wont run.
Returning CIV5 today for a refund:(

[Saczva]

i've never had mine crash, try the support forums/contact services?

[CIV_FAN_NO_MORE]

your name proves you're a troll /b/roski

You seem to be trollin more than anyone here. So if you are entitled to your opinion I am certainly entitled to mine. If you don't like, don't READ IT.

Simple really.

[Wicked Pissah]

The more I play Civ V. The less I like it. Some of the best strategy games in existance have the most basic interface. The beautiful interface is just that, beautiful, but that alone doesn't actually add any "gaming" value to a strategy game.

Civ IV Vanilla felt like Civ. It was Civ without the expansions!

Civ V feels like Civ Revolutions (simpler and less challenging). This doesn't feel like Civ! Too many people are saying this will be fixed with expansions. Expansions shouldn't fix a broken game, patches fix a broken game.

[Saczva]

civ4 at release was buggy and *some* people hated it

it didnt release with several patches and 2 expansions

[Mythdracon]

With about half saying yea and about half saying nay I think we can all agree lots of people think Civ V needs improvements. That isn't a bad thing per se--it might mean we hear from the developers more than we currently are, for example. :S

[wbonx]

Not true, who do you think developed all of those expansions? Civ 5 should be an improvement/sequel to Civ 4 + expansions. Not to mention at release Civ 4 had bugs, but it was still Civ. Not Civ Rev 2 like this game.

I agree, and when Civ 4 was out it was amazing, the only complain were about small bugs or dumb rts player used to play age of empires that were looking for something simplier.

But when it was out all the comunity thought it was a miracle, iut was so good and much better then his predecessor.

In this case Civ V is a game for casual players or age of empire / civ revolution fun boy.

[TehJumpingJawa]

Played a game of Civ V - got bored long before the end.
Then played a game of Civ IV BTS; it had me up until 5:30am finishing the game!

Civ V is brand-new and have played no more than 3 games.
Civ IV i've played 100s of games over many years.

I should not be tiring of a brand-new game so quickly; unfortunately Civ V does not have that 'just one more turn' attraction for me.

Civ IV has it's flaws & Civ V fixes many of them, however in the process of doing this they've taken so much content that the game experience feels unsurprising & flat.

Like Civ4Col, I expect Civ V will sit on my shelf gathering dust.
I voted that Civ IV is a much better game.

[MarmotKing]

Ive been playing Civ IV for years and all two of its expansions.

It sure is a good game, but nowhere near as good as Civ V.

Reason being, Civ IV relied too much on obscure behind the scenes things and cheap tactics.

Some people would study the tech tree to the point where they could use Religion to win the game outright, gaining a huge influence over every other player.

Also stacking units was kind of moronic. You have 50 units in one stack moving across the map sneaky style, how is that strategy, thats pathetic strategy if you ask me. Civilization V makes you have to think about what units go first and how you want to surround the enemy and use each unit.

I know it requires more brainpower than X vs Y unit, but im sure some Civ IV complainers will get used to it eventually.

Civ V also has better Graphics, Gameplay and Music than Civ IV or Warlords or BTS.


What I would like to see improved in Civ V is Multiplayer Server Browser, Combat Animations added in, Ability to set limit of Turn Timer in MP, Lobby Chat, and multiple bugs need fixing.

But all in all, regardless of the work that needs done, Civ V is the BEST Civilization ever released, hands down.

[wurrble182]

for me, right now civ 5 is an 8/10. a few fixes here and there, mainly to the interface, the ai and feedback from the ai, and it'll fast approach a 9.5. no civ game yet deserves a 10.

[BillyPlod]

My opinion. It's different -

some things are an improvement :-
HEXes and single unit per tile, gameplay has moved away from build and expand. Introduction of Social Policy, nice. Combat is much better balanced.

Downsides :-

Removal of adjustments on tax, research etc. Graphics require more processing but seem to have moved backwards in terms of detail. Religion has gone - one of the major forces in molding society.

BUT where it is the same, is that it is "buggy" - whatever hapened to beta testing, and then fixing issues.

[moparfantic]

So far the big things I like is the Hexes... the limited stacking... and the ability of the city defending itself.. I guess City states are a good addition also.

I miss the Diplomacy/bribery... religions...diversified/expanded tech tree...

It’s a fun game to play... but it doesn't feel like Civilization... more like a competitors knock-off.

[Saczva]

religions were too shallow and unrealistic

[MrFusion]

In Civ V they removed the essential ingredient that made Civ play like Civ... micromanagement.

I think the "We need to streamline this game" proposal must have been put forward at the same meeting as the "You know what Civ needs? Giant Death Robots" one.

Maybe it was 'bring your child to work' day?

Ball dropped, then tripped over, Firaxis.

[Carolvm]

2 days trying make Civ 5 works and still waiting for a response from 2k after almost 19 years playing Civilization, i'm so disappointed, at least Civ IV have worked after install :(

[Seelenleid]

CIV 4.

They sold 9 million copy's of the whole CIV game series.

CIV 5 is a try to build a CIV game for blockheads, to squeeze more money out of the series at the expense of real CIV gameplay. Sad but true.

[rrhal]

How come I can't vote for Civ II? :mad:

[Saczva]

if you think civ5 is too easy and shallow then win a deity game because you obviously dont know how to play

[Bradly197]

So far nothing has impressed me yet. Played thru about a dozen now.

Back to Civ 4. I'll check it out again after the mod tools are out.

They took a great game/series and turned it in to a simple console game. Note: Simple, not easy they are different.

big cup of fail

[Cosme IV]

A bit dumb to ask people if a game that was released 3 days ago is better than a game that has 2 expansions and is finished, think before making these threads.
Now, Civ 5 right now isn't great, but hey, when it has whatever expansions they want to make and is finished, THEN you make this thread.
if troll 5/10.


In Civ V they removed the essential ingredient that made Civ play like Civ... micromanagement.

I think the "We need to streamline this game" proposal must have been put forward at the same meeting as the "You know what Civ needs? Giant Death Robots" one.

Maybe it was 'bring your child to work' day?

Ball dropped, then tripped over, Firaxis.

You boys should spend more time in Civfanatics.

[Panda_Power]

So it's true...Civ 5 is much better than Civ 4...good news!

[pmaura]

this is a skewed poll as you add 3 negative options towards civ iv.

[mobbel]

I think V is better than IV,or will be after a few patches.
It`s supposed to be a strategy game ( stategy is the keyword here )
The underlying game concept of Civ V suits people more who want to out-think their opponent(s),not to out-work them by tedious micromanagement ( like in Civ IV ).

[CoffeeMonster]

Your poll would be a lot more informative if you had only three options:

What game is better?:

- Civ 4
- Civ 5
- About the same

[ciskaos]

One week after release:

Civ v: 80
Undecided/Same: 10
Civ IV: 81

Well, still a long way to go to make this a true success (except financially but then, who cares... Money should be secondary when judging art, just my opinion, or is Justin Bieber really delivering great music lol?)

And please do not tell me, only whiners come on forums.. As said, it has been a week already.

[RX2000]

This isnt really a fair poll. Its not really possible to compare a brand new game to one thats several years old & has had a lot of patches & a couple expansions added to it. Would have probably been more fair to ask if Civ V is better than Civ 4 vanilla. But many people probably dont even remember Civ 4 vanilla.

[Lloydthegreat]

voted Civ V is much better than Civ IV

Reason: I think given when the first expansion comes around Civ V will have proven to be the better out of the two.

[Sarcasm]

Haters going to hate

[wbonx]

Seems that 50% of the people like Civ 5 and 50% of the people think that Civ 5 is instead so bad that it's a shame to call it civilization.

I think at this point the disappointed party is much more that 5% as someone (not really smart) told us before, on other thread.

At this point someone should stop, relax, change the name of this terrible game (Civilization is a religion, this should be colled Civ for dummies, or revolution 2), and then start working on the real Civilization 5, starting from the 4.5 (Civ 4 + expansions), improving a bit the graphic, same interface and adding the hexagons and something at the combat, the rest HAS TO BE THE SAME!

[General Paul]

Seems that 50% of the people like Civ 5 and 50% of the people think that Civ 5 is instead so bad that it's a shame to call it civilization.

I think at this point the disappointed party is much more that 5% as someone (not really smart) told us before, on other thread.

At this point someone should stop, relax, change the name of this terrible game (Civilization is a religion, this should be colled Civ for dummies, or revolution 2), and then start working on the real Civilization 5, starting from the 4.5 (Civ 4 + expansions), improving a bit the graphic, same interface and adding the hexagons and something at the combat, the rest HAS TO BE THE SAME!

EXACTLY! .

[nats]

I love it. I didnt like Civ 3 or 4.

[Panda_Power]

Lol...looks like the poll didn't quite turn out how the OP wanted it to!:D

[pillinjer]

Seems that 50% of the people like Civ 5 and 50% of the people think that Civ 5 is instead so bad that it's a shame to call it civilization.

I think at this point the disappointed party is much more that 5% as someone (not really smart) told us before, on other thread.

At this point someone should stop, relax, change the name of this terrible game (Civilization is a religion, this should be colled Civ for dummies, or revolution 2), and then start working on the real Civilization 5, starting from the 4.5 (Civ 4 + expansions), improving a bit the graphic, same interface and adding the hexagons and something at the combat, the rest HAS TO BE THE SAME!

There are a fair few things wrong with this:

1) The poll is biased. If it wasn't it either have 3,5 or 7 options. However it has an option that Civ 5 is not really civilization but Civ 4 is, but not vice versa.

2) The fact that almost 50% prefer Civ 5 and 50% prefer civ 4 means that we have a difference of opinion here. Doesnt mean that most people hate civ 5. The 33% that hate Civ 5 is a civilization game are shown, but they are a minority. A big minority but a minority nevertheless.

3) The first part of your reply is ok, a little biased towards Civ 4, but everyone is entitled their opinion. However the last paragraph seems to be not fanboyish, more idiotic. This is Civ 5, yes it is different to Civ 4, and if they decide this was a step in the wrong direction that might be the case down the line. Civilization 6 might follow the civilization 4 + expansion route, it might follow the Civilization 5 route, it might go in a completely different direction entirely. I can promise you that even with patches and expansions, some of the things that you love about Civ 4 will not come back into Civ 5, some might but others wont.

Anyway Civilization isn't a religion, it is a simulation game.

[Saczva]

biased poll

and the vast majority of people who like the game are playing it
the vast majority of the haters are here complaining

and you have more options for liking civ4 than 5

[ckhenson]

They have dumbed down the game. It does need fixing. But I already see a much more responsive and aggressive AI. I like the single unit per hex combat system. I like battles where the artillery is not the first unit into the breach! I miss the espionage. How else can you steal techs from your opponents? Taking out the city health diminishes some of the challenge of empire management. But good riddance to global warming!!!!

[wbonx]

The poll is perfect, 3 pro civ 5 3 pro civ 4.

Only a bunch of dumb are actually playing civ 5, the problem is that in this society of ignorant there are much more dumb that normal people, this is why they did civ 5 dumb, they WANT TO SELL!

[Nekator]

remind people that they're comparing civ4 at release with civ5 at release

and you have 3 negative poll options against civ5, 2 negatives for civ4 and 1 considering them equal

biased poll.

lol... do you guys getting paid for this? Honestly... spamming biased at everything critic is just lame... but it shows, who the real trolls here are.

[wbonx]

lol... do you guys getting paid for this? Honestly... spamming biased at everything critic is just lame... but it shows, who the real trolls here are.

..... I agree....

[dragoaskani]

You know if this was to be an accurate poll there would just be 2 choices. 1 for civ 5 and 1 for civ 4. As this is not the case and as their is a unequal number of choices for each its a biased ☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺ poll. Who's only purpose is to try and get people to agree with you via having skewed options to vote for.

[Nekator]

Nearly the half of the players say that Civ IV is better.. that´s a desastrous result imo.

[Old School Role-Player]

Things will get better. I have faith.

Right now, the best thing we can do is offer constructive criticism how to improve the game and report bugs. Of course, I will occasionally vent a little when frustration mounts with the retarded AI.

I know it's not cool to use your paying customers to beta test, but I would rather see an ambitious project that's a little rough around the edges than to see a bland recreation of a previous game. Within a month, this game will be a LOT better.

Now, 2K, please read my thread about how to improve specialists and great people. It will do wonders towards balancing out small empires!

[Nekator]

Things will get better. I have faith.

Right now, the best thing we can do is offer constructive criticism how to improve the game and report bugs. Of course, I will occasionally vent a little when frustration mounts with the retarded AI.

I know it's not cool to use your paying customers to beta test, but I would rather see an ambitious project that's a little rough around the edges than to see a bland recreation of a previous game. Within a month, this game will be a LOT better.

Now, 2K, please read my thread about how to improve specialists and great people. It will do wonders towards balancing out small empires!

That´s the point.. if they are willing to improve, AND prove the doubt that they simply want to casualise the series wrong, i´m more than willing to help. But i still fear, it was the declared goal, what the interviews of Shafer and Co. seem to confirm.

[Old School Role-Player]

That´s the point.. if they are willing to improve, AND prove the doubt that they simply want to casualise the series wrong, i´m more than willing to help. But i still fear, it was the declared goal, what the interviews of Shafer and Co. seem to confirm.

I'm not too worried about it. Like I said before, 2K has proven that they really take our opinions seriously and they use us to make the product better. I have full faith that they're going to do that again now.

Civilization was always designed for the casual player. It's always been designed for the hardcore player as well. That's what I've always loved about the series in the first place--if you know nothing about the game, the computer handles everything for you and if you want to get under the hood and make your own decisions, that option's there for you as well. The game will get more and more complex as patches and expansions come out....

[MrCai]

as the games stand right this moment, Civ IV brings a win - however, i really like the new interface alot, and I really like the changes in CivV, soon as multiplayer animations come back I think i'll be a happy gamer once more

[wbonx]

So 125 vs 115, most of the people thinks that civ 5 is worst the civ 4.

At this point why we don't start planning what to do?
Why we don't organize a way to have back our old school civilization 4?

Maybe we can collect signatures or write down a collective mail?

[mamama]

Civ5 is great but compared to Civ4 with the mod "Rise Of Mankind" I find the latter mentioned better.

Hope somebody will make a ROM mod for Civ5 in the future. That would be fricking awesome. :D

[wbonx]

So 125 vs 115, most of the people thinks that civ 5 is worst the civ 4.

At this point why we don't start planning what to do?
Why we don't organize a way to have back our old school civilization 4?

Maybe we can collect signatures or write down a collective mail?

Let's concentrate our attention now on how to complain/give our feedback to change the game.

Stop giving pro/cons opinions and let's think of a way to contact the developers and stop the shame they did changing an awesome game like civ 4 in this game for dumb.

Let's write a collective mail!!!!!

[Fearlessgoat]

Regestered on this forum just to vote.

I have played every civ since civ 1 on the amiga back in 1991/92 and I am shocked at how this version is so dumbed down to the point I feel I am playing a version for designed for the retarded.
I can understand the need to streamline it but what coke fueled designer though all the removal of features was cool? Civ 4 ended up a great game, Beyond the sword was the pinical of a modern day civ game.
Furthermore I have played at least 50 odd hours now and thats my fill. Unlike other civ games where I am thinking well one more turn, on this game I am sort of bored as I can forecast what is going to happen most of the time.

[tmfm2000]

Civilization 5 is better. I never wanted a "Civ4+" so I'm pleased with this new take on the series... Resources, culture system, commerce, etc. - all those things have been improved imo

[RDwarrior]

Civilization 5 is better. I never wanted a "Civ4+" so I'm pleased with this new take on the series... Resources, culture system, commerce, etc. - all those things have been improved imo

I'm confused...have you actually ever played the civilization series? I feel like they really left their oldschool fans out in the cold bad on this one. Bigtime diasapointment, bigtime letdown. Civ V doesn't even come close to its predecessors

[wbonx]

Regestered on this forum just to vote.

I have played every civ since civ 1 on the amiga back in 1991/92 and I am shocked at how this version is so dumbed down to the point I feel I am playing a version for designed for the retarded.
I can understand the need to streamline it but what coke fueled designer though all the removal of features was cool? Civ 4 ended up a great game, Beyond the sword was the pinical of a modern day civ game.
Furthermore I have played at least 50 odd hours now and thats my fill. Unlike other civ games where I am thinking well one more turn, on this game I am sort of bored as I can forecast what is going to happen most of the time.

Hey I also started in 1992 on an amiga 1000 (or was a 1200).
The best computer ever made!!!!

Tell other people to vote!!!
Make this the bigger thread ever made!!

Let's start the Civ Revolution !!!!

[Ruiner66]

Am I the only one find it hilarous the people group console games and dumb together, although Civ 1 was on multiple consoles...

[wbonx]

Am I the only one find it hilarous the people group console games and dumb together, although Civ 1 was on multiple consoles...

Witch console ?
Civ was never produced for console, and yes, console are for dumb.

[TheMystic]

Witch console ?
Civ was never produced for console, and yes, console are for dumb.

This thread has run its course. The name calling needs to stop, and you really need to start respecting users on this forum, some of which are console gamers.

Stop calling people dumb, retards, etc. If you want to re-open a poll, make it simple and to the point without any bias and/or too many options. No matter what you do though, you need to relax and respect others.

As I said in another thread, even if there was indeed a split in the community of 50/50 who enjoy or dislike Civ V compared to Civ IV there's still 50% that do enjoy the game. Why should your way be right when there are just as many people that are happy?

Regarding the first Civilization, yes it was ported to consoles. It was on the Sega Saturn, Atari ST, Super NES, and PlayStation. Civilization 2 was on the Playstation as well.