Somebody convince me to get Civilization 5.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Okay, I was poking around on Steam a few minutes ago, I somehow stumbled over Civilization 5, and...I don't know, I can't decide. I've never played any of those games before. I've also never played a Sim City game, which is kinda what it looks like, and the one RTS I played (Halo Wars on 360) was fucking atrocious.

Maybe my sudden interest is TotalBiscuit's fault; I think he once mentioned how awesome this game is. But I am into history. I'm pretty sure my PC can handle it, too.

So, yeah. Should I get it? Will I be completely out of my depth if I do?

(No, captcha. I do not want to buy a Toyota. Fuck off.)

Halo Wars is not really a good representative of RTS or Civilization games. (Civilization isn't quite an RTS like say Starcraft is)

Try it, I think you'll like it. It's not really about complete historical accuracy but more as a fun playground to watch how conflicts might have played out differently.

It has 2.5 stars on Amazon, and I personally thought it was a really bad game, as it doesn't really feel like you influence anything, the level of advice is that high.

The Civilization games are brilliant however. I've played III, IV, and V, and my personal favourite is III, which is also about 3 on Steam right now. The first two are supposed to be the best, but I don't think they're ported to modern PCs, at least not officially.

Esotera:
It has 2.5 stars on Amazon, and I personally thought it was a really bad game, as it doesn't really feel like you influence anything, the level of advice is that high.

The Civilization games are brilliant however. I've played III, IV, and V, and my personal favourite is III, which is also about 3 on Steam right now. The first two are supposed to be the best, but I don't think they're ported to modern PCs, at least not officially.

For some reason I hadn't thought of checking the Amazon user rating. I think I was distracted by the bit on Steam that said "Metacritic score: 90." Yeah, I guess that if I've learned anything from the ME3 ending debacle, it's that the word of gaming journalists should not necessarily be treated as gospel. I guess I could take a look at the older games.

(Also, I thought about getting Anno 2070, but then I saw an article about Ubisoft's insane DRM and changed my mind. I don't know if the DRM is on the Steam version or not, but I know that either way, I don't want to reward publishers that push that crap. Besides, that game's got 2.5 stars too.)

Get Civ 4 instead. It's highly addictive. You will say this many times "just one more turn and I'm done. I swear". It's always just one more turn. And before you know it it's 9pm, and you've been playing for 72h straight.

I strongly suggest getting Civ 4 instead. Civ 5 has potential to be great and is the next step for the franchise, but it still needs a lot more expansions and patches (the first civ 5 expansion is announced but not released yet, so Civ 4 is a lot more polished at the current time).

As for overwhelmed by complexity, this is something the civ series handles very well. There are many difficulty levels ranging from "so easy you almost can't lose" to "so hard that even the best players will need to do everything right and have a bit of luck to win." When you play the game on the easiest difficulty, you can discover things at your own pace. There are helpful pop-up tips as well for new players.

Get Civilization 4 Complete. It's the best of them. It gives you Civ 4 as well as the Colonization remake. Plus, you get awesome mods like FfH2(high fantasy) and Planetfall(sci-fi). If I had to pick a favorite, I would say it is Civ 4. However, Civ 4 Complete is also the title that holds the best value. As you get 2 games in 1. As well, Civ 4 is an open source game and doesn't require even a disc check.

Sim City and Halo Wars is not a good comparison to Civ. There is much more to Civ than any real-time game can offer. No RTS gives you the diplomatic choices offered by Civ. (Really leveraging in general) Unfortunately, there isn't many good games out there to compare it to. This is bad for people stepping in and for fans, because if you like it you will seek similar games from Civ fans and they can point you at Galactic Civilizations 2 and after that, the suggestions really starts losing similarities.

Civ is a game where you play as a king and you decide what kind of nation you are. This will be influenced on your terrain that you find yourself starting in, which neighboring countries are around you, and what your main goal is as there are many different ways to win. Being a warmonger can stifle your economy. Being a pacifist can lead to your doom. It's all about figuring out what the best course of action is. Should you trade with your neighbor and forge positive relations? Make him capitulate as your vassal? Or just wipe them off the map entirely? The enemy will do this as well and your goals may not line up with theirs so each game offers more than just a random map.
Montezuma is a heavy warmonger and I have used him as an attack dog on a leash as my vassal and I have been forced to wipe him out early on. It all depends on the situation you are placed in.

Civ 1-3 demand higher micromanagement on small details and have a much less forgiving learning curve thus are hardr for newcomers to get into. (Although Civ 3 is the best of those)

Civ 4 redesigned the original formula pretty well and is forgiving for overlooking smaller details down to simply discouraging the need to pay them much attention at all. It also adds in many new awesome gameplay elements and strategies.

Civ 5 is similar to 4 in what I just described but it isn't as good of a value right now. I rank it "as good as 4". 4 and 5 are both the best two yet as they offer plenty for both players who like as well as dislike micromanagement.

Get it now or you'll take an arrow to your knee!

Seriously, I think it is the best one. It has a more intuitive interface, no stacking and is basically more entertaining. Some people find it dumbed down, by I played it and couldn't go back to Civ IV.

And an expansion should be out soon which will make it even better.

Adam Jensen:
Get Civ 4 instead.

isometry:
I strongly suggest getting Civ 4 instead.

Savagezion:
Get Civilization 4 Complete.

...so, Civ 4, basically. Okay, getting it now. We'll see how this goes. Thanks.

dreadedcandiru99:

Adam Jensen:
Get Civ 4 instead.

isometry:
I strongly suggest getting Civ 4 instead.

Savagezion:
Get Civilization 4 Complete.

...so, Civ 4, basically. Okay, getting it now. We'll see how this goes. Thanks.

By the way, just so you know, Civilization is not a real time strategy game. It's completely turn based, and plays absolutely nothing like Halo Wars -- or Sim City, for that matter. Imagine a game of chess with a board the size of your dining room table but sqares the size of an average chess board, and with terrain tiles that only appear as you move out from your starting position, where certain blocks of squares can be used to build new pieces, or to build buildings that help with various aspects of the game. Now imagine that the pieces and buildings you can build get progressively better as you research new technologies. That's about as close as I can get to describing it to someone who has as little experience with strategy games as you claim to have.

P.S.: If you've ever read the webcomic Erfworld, that's a comic that essentially takes place within a strategy game in the same subgenre as Civilization. It has more in common with the Heroes of Might and Magic series than it does Civ, but if you've read it, that will give you a pretty good idea of what you're getting into. The subgenre is called 4X if you want to do some more research.

Civ 4 is probably a better bet, maybe even Civ: Revolution

I'd also suggest Galactic Civilizations 2: Endless Universe - it's STILL (one of) the best 4X game I've ever played.

dreadedcandiru99:
Okay, I was poking around on Steam a few minutes ago, I somehow stumbled over Civilization 5, and...I don't know, I can't decide. I've never played any of those games before. I've also never played a Sim City game, which is kinda what it looks like, and the one RTS I played (Halo Wars on 360) was fucking atrocious.

Maybe my sudden interest is TotalBiscuit's fault; I think he once mentioned how awesome this game is. But I am into history. I'm pretty sure my PC can handle it, too.

So, yeah. Should I get it? Will I be completely out of my depth if I do?

(No, captcha. I do not want to buy a Toyota. Fuck off.)

I though TB had bad things to say about 5, but liked 4?

In any case I have zero interest in those games but adore Galactic Civilizations II. It's a space based civ game where you can create your own species, design, as in 3d model via an editor, ships and all that player created content good stuff. It's awesome.

If player created content is your thing then I highly recommend the Galactic Civ games over the Civilization games. If not, the Civ games have Galactic Civs beat.

EDIT:

Tanis:
Civ 4 is probably a better bet, maybe even Civ: Revolution

I'd also suggest Galactic Civilizations 2: Endless Universe - it's STILL (one of) the best 4X game I've ever played.

Ninja'd by this awesome human being. Galactic Civ = awesome.

I've been playing Civ since 2 (still my favourite) but i'd say 5 does bring alot to the table. Because you can only have one unit per square, and the squares are now in a hex grid it make much more sense and gives some much needed tactics to the combat.

It's also perfectly streamlined for new players to get into it, the menus and whatnot are pretty great, you're not over bombarded with information, yet it's all there if you want to read it anyway.

However, even though i think civ 5 actually might be a better game, it hasn't grasped my attention in such a way that Civ 2 and Civ 4 did. Although you really can't go wrong with a civ purchase, assuming you like this genre you'll get your moneys worth from it i can promise you that.

Also if you're into history and want a more historical game, i suggest you look into Paradox's grand strategy games. Europa Universalis 3, Hearts of Iron 3, Victoria 2.. all amazing games that are endlessly replayable.

I liked Civ 5, but then again, I've never played any of the other ones.

I hate that it's connected to Steam though, fuck steam.

Here's a little anecdote of the kind of gameplay you're going to be up against if you play Civ V. It's taken from a post I made on the Civ V forums some time back. It might give you an idea if the game is your kind of thing or not.

In a game I was just playing I was suffering from minor unhappyness with only one cure up for grabs. Rome had some luxuries up for sale but my spare gold resource had already been traded to Japan. Japan were acting hostile towards me so I figured I'd get a war going to end our dealings and reclaim my gold, even though I probably wasn't in any real state to mount an invasion.

In order to survive the coming war I needed allies. Babylon was located right next-door to Japan and I already had a DoF with them. Being so close to the Japs they were spoiling for a war with them but the only problem was that they were little more than a city-state and any war would inevitably end up with Japan growing in strength as they overran Babylon.

Anyway I have a chat with Neb and he agrees to go to war for a tidy sum. I then march my army (war weary after toppling Germany) east to back up Babylon and make sure that they don't get themselves occupied. The route takes me through the Arab territories, so I pay for open borders and march on. Halfway through their lands it all goes tits up. It would seem nice peaceful Arabia had been consiring with the Japs all along. My forces, stung out, blocked off from retreat and sporting a nice arrangement of yellow health bars are suddenly jumped by the Arabian army as they and Japan both DoW me. Because the ten turns me and Nebby agreed on aren't up, he doesn't join in the war leaving me to fend for myself.

After losing half my army to the ambush I manage to reform my lines and start fighting back. Nebby decided to join in once the tide started to turn. Evidently he was waiting to see which side of the fence he should sit before commiting. During the Arabian war, my forces weakened and away from home, Siam, my western neighbour decided to take advantage of the situation and invade. If it wasn't for a well placed citystate bribe they might have succeeded as well.

Sleepless nights and buckets of tea for the first few months.

Its a solid strategy game, good mechanics and can be quite addictive at times. Dont expect it to light the world on fire, but its well worth a look. Try the demo first, you only get a set number of turns but thats what sold me on the game.

I played both IV and V, and in my opinion, V is vastly superior.
A lot of people will disagree with me, though, but I much prefer the more streamlined and better explained interface and gameplay. It took me a few hours to get a proper grasp of Civ IV, and while it's a good game, I have had much more fun with V. Sure, some things are lacking, such as the diplomacy (Why can't I request things from my allies?), but what really won me over was the combat. In Civ IV, you have massive stacks of units, and it's nigh impossible to figure out how the battle will turn out. It's mostly just sponging up enemy troops until you run out of men or you win. In Civ V, you have to take things like terrain, unit placement, unit strengths and weaknessess much more into consideration. It was still there in Civ IV, but it was hard to really feel. And in Civ IV, the endgame was such a hassle, at least if you had just a little bit of military. Infrastructure and empire economy was difficult to really get a grip on, since it had so many factors that influenced it. In Civ V, there's still some problems, but at least for me, I find it much easier to understand and work with my economy so that it doesn't collapse like a creme brulee.

One more thing: The social policies is a massive improvement in Civ V, and a cultural victory actually feels both achievable, satisfying and possible. I attempted one in Civ IV, but the ability to influence your cities to create culture was such a tedious mess, and went so slowly, that I eventually gave up. In Civ V, you can really streamline your empire into exactly what you want - small or large, focusing on gold, research, culture or military.

Some say that Civ V has been dumbed down. Perhaps. I still enjoy it far more than Civ IV. The interface, the gameplay, the hex grid. Anything missing from Civ IV is, in my opinion, superflous or superficial, and I don't miss any of it.

Just my two cents.

As far as should you get it? Well, if you like micromanagement and turn based strategy, definitely. If not, the gameplay can become very slow and dull. I cannot for the life of me play it in the evening, since I am tired and lose my focus. But when I am fully awake, it's a really great game. Optimally, wait until the Steam Summer sale and get it for cheap. I got the whole thing, plus all expansions, for something like 7 euros. How's that for a sweet deal.

Well, I got Civilization 5, and in following week, I won the lottery, three people I disliked died, and also several naked oiled up Swedish supermodels wanted to have sex with me.

It's great, you should get it.

No. The only thing I gained from playing that game was a better appreciation of Civilization 4. I'd get that instead.

dreadedcandiru99:

Esotera:
It has 2.5 stars on Amazon, and I personally thought it was a really bad game, as it doesn't really feel like you influence anything, the level of advice is that high.

The Civilization games are brilliant however. I've played III, IV, and V, and my personal favourite is III, which is also about 3 on Steam right now. The first two are supposed to be the best, but I don't think they're ported to modern PCs, at least not officially.

For some reason I hadn't thought of checking the Amazon user rating. I think I was distracted by the bit on Steam that said "Metacritic score: 90." Yeah, I guess that if I've learned anything from the ME3 ending debacle, it's that the word of gaming journalists should not necessarily be treated as gospel. I guess I could take a look at the older games.

(Also, I thought about getting Anno 2070, but then I saw an article about Ubisoft's insane DRM and changed my mind. I don't know if the DRM is on the Steam version or not, but I know that either way, I don't want to reward publishers that push that crap. Besides, that game's got 2.5 stars too.)

Anno 2070 has a strange ubisoft hybrid of DRM. I BELIEVE it still works if you don't have an internet connection, but if the game detects an internet connection it won't NOT let you use it. Don't take my word on that, though.

I actually broke my ubisoft ban to buy the game. I'm a huge fan of the ANNO series so I just couldn't resist... and hell, the game is as great as I expected.

Esotera:
It has 2.5 stars on Amazon, and I personally thought it was a really bad game, as it doesn't really feel like you influence anything, the level of advice is that high.

Turn the advice off.

OT: It'll suck up hours once you get into it, but if you're not sure then wait for a sale (I'm sure there'll be one for Easter or Spring soon on Steam).

dreadedcandiru99:
...so, Civ 4, basically. Okay, getting it now. We'll see how this goes. Thanks.

I wouldn't. Civ 4 is the more polished, complete, and thus beloved experience, but Civ 5 has WAY more potential. It's prettier, isn't shackled to that godawful super-stack combat system, and has an expansion pack just around the corner that should improve its depth and scope. There's also a healthy mod community that can help you sidestep some of its more egregious issues.

So while Civ 4 might be the all around better title TODAY, I don't think that'll last much longer.

Civ 5 is a deep and LONG game.

On default settings its easy for 1 game to take upwards of 2 FULL days to complete, stopping only to sleep.
Its nothing like Sim City.

Its hard to explain, but its is rather fun (at least I think so).

Taking your civilization from the stone age to nuking your last opponent's Capitol City into the ground takes a LONG time to get old, which is good, cause if you want to win the game with every possible leader (including DLC), its going to take likely a couple months.

I highly recommend it.

Think of it as RISK combined with StarCraft. Turn based RTS is the best IMO.

Spartan1362:
I liked Civ 5, but then again, I've never played any of the other ones.

I hate that it's connected to Steam though, fuck steam.

You can still play it without connecting to steam. I've played it with no wifi on a train before.

Convince huh.

Ok,

Its a game.......and it takes up a lot of time?

Convinced?

I'd say wait for a sale, but if you don't want to, then yeah, go for it. I mean yeah, it's not the best. If you want the best, but it's pretty good. I enjoyed it, and I love the Civ series, for whatever that's worth.

It certainly has that "one more turn" trap the other Civ games have. Where you're taking "one more turn" for about five hours.

And it's NOTHING like Halo Wars or Sim city. At all.

Also, if you want the best, buy Alpha Centauri.

I say buy Civ 4 or Alpha Centauri. But a compelling reason for Civ 5? Uhh...I guess if not enough people buy it they might not make a Civ 6?

dreadedcandiru99:
Okay, I was poking around on Steam a few minutes ago, I somehow stumbled over Civilization 5, and...I don't know, I can't decide. I've never played any of those games before. I've also never played a Sim City game, which is kinda what it looks like, and the one RTS I played (Halo Wars on 360) was fucking atrocious.

all console RTS's are bad (I'm looking at you Starcraft 64) but Civ is a turned based strategy game, feel free to minimize and look up things on the internet on your turn. I have never been a very big RTS guy myself (Starcraft was the only game I was into and I was terrible at it)

I'm not sure which one I bought, IV or V (I think I got IV) and I used to play Civ II all the time, as a gamer who usually avoids strategy games I can honestly say that the Civ series is worth buying regardless. It's that entertaining.

And yes I've stayed up till the wee hours of the morning saying 'Just one more turn' or 'next turn I get new technology!'

Most of the online negativity surrounding Civ 5 is because the game was released in a fairly buggy state without some of its advertised features. However, it's been steadily updated since then, so I wouldn't trust older reviews to account for that.

I find Civ 5 to be great fun, and put tons of hours into it until I discovered Europa Universalis III. I would definitely recommend getting Civ 5, but at this point, I would add a catch to that: I recommend waiting until the upcoming expansion, Gods & Kings, comes out, and buying it then. The expansion is going to add and change core features, so you may not want to learn how to play the vanilla version of the game only to then have to turn around and re-learn all the new stuff.

Regardless of whether you wait for the expansion or not, I strongly urge you to wait for a sale. I wouldn't be surprised if the base game went on sale around the time of G&K's release, but Civ 5 is a game that goes on sale surprisingly often, so definitely wait until it's cheaper.

As for DLC: Get the Civs, avoid the map packs, and use your own discretion on Wonders of the Ancient World. I love the new Wonders, but some people don't like the idea of paying for that.

Somebody tell me how to think so I don't have to decide for myself. I can't be bothered to read reviews online, or see how the mechanics play out on youtube. See how a bunch of gamers feel about it, even though my mind is already made up. A gamers opinion on something is not your own and it might be better to watch actual footage on the subject. Might seem like I am trying to be an asshole, but nobody needs to try to convice you to try something.

dreadedcandiru99:
Okay, I was poking around on Steam a few minutes ago, I somehow stumbled over Civilization 5, and...I don't know, I can't decide. I've never played any of those games before. I've also never played a Sim City game, which is kinda what it looks like, and the one RTS I played (Halo Wars on 360) was fucking atrocious.

Maybe my sudden interest is TotalBiscuit's fault; I think he once mentioned how awesome this game is. But I am into history. I'm pretty sure my PC can handle it, too.

So, yeah. Should I get it? Will I be completely out of my depth if I do?

(No, captcha. I do not want to buy a Toyota. Fuck off.)

I actually liked halo wars(it was no master piece, but it was good as a sort of baby's first RTS and dealt with the problems of a console release fairly well) but it was not your typical RTS, and Civ isn't even an RTS.

Wait for a sale, and get it when it is cheap. The game is good and fairly friendly to new players, but it is also very different from most games out there.

Civ 4 is generally considered a better game, but it is much more difficult to get into. Get Civ 5 first, and go back to Civ 4 if you just love it.

Well, consider this:

The longest session I've ever had playing a game was with Civ 5 (fourteen hours straight). I'm not sure if that's a recommendation for or against buying it. There's a reason why "just one more turn" has become the unofficial slogan for Civilization.

Bear in mind that the only games I've played in the series are Civ 5 and Revolution. I know lots of diehard Civ players consider 4 to be the best of the bunch, but I've heard that 5 is better at introducing newcomers to the franchise.

In short, I recommend Civ 5, particularly if you like history (or alternate history). Just make sure you don't lose track of time while you play.

Shawn MacDonald:
Somebody tell me how to think so I don't have to decide for myself. I can't be bothered to read reviews online, or see how the mechanics play out on youtube. See how a bunch of gamers feel about it, even though my mind is already made up. A gamers opinion on something is not your own and it might be better to watch actual footage on the subject. Might seem like I am trying to be an asshole, but nobody needs to try to convice you to try something.

He is asking for a very specific kind of advice (how to get into a highly impenetrable genre of gaming) that is difficult to come across from a group of people he considers generally informed on the subject. Looking up reviews about a niche genre will rarely tell you anything useful beyond if the game is generally good, game play videos of a game like this don't really give you any feel for what the game actually plays like, and the type of people who write on the internet about games like Civ 5 tend to be the fanatic fans. Here he can get a fairly unbiased opinion from a variety of experts on gaming, as well as advice more specific to his situation.

In other words, its a good thread. Calm down.

I dunno, can you build a civilization that will stand the test of time?

In all actuality, yes I do think you should get Civ V. It does a few things that really bug me compared to civ IV, but it does improve on some things from Civ IV.

any of the civ's are excellent, mainly for the "whoh its 4 in the morning it was only 6pm a moment ago where did the time go?"

My favorite is colonisation, as it is on a smaller scale, but epic fun beating the snot out of the european countries (my favorite to be is the dutch), while carving out a colony and having baltimore cigar parties rather than paying exorbitant taxes.

think you can get both IV and V on demo, so you can give them a go. I managed to get I-IV for around a tenner, best find in game ever.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked