Civilization V

[Vidilian]

The demo is such a tease. 100 turns is just when things get interesting. Either way I know I'm definitely buying this asap.

[EC2151]

stupid fucking amazon. what's the point of having pre-ordered the game 3 months in advance if you're going to ship it the day it comes out? i could have walked to best buy and bought it... i could have steam'd it.

but no. i chose to suck. thank you, amazon

My thoughts when I saw the ship date when I pre-ordered Metroid Other M.

[Sansato]

I don't play PC games myself, but a classmate of mine got his copy and he says that the darned thing was so buggy since it was just released. When he went to get the first patch for the game from the company's website, he apparently got a virus as well. I'm telling the story how I remember being told, so hopefully some of you know what I'm talking about.

[anosou]

Caved in and bought the special edition after hearing the soundtrack included. I don't even have a PC, I'll play on my girlfriend's.

In any case when I've played myself for a bit I'm up for multiplayer with nice people.

[Nabeel Ansari]

The recommended system req for Civ 5 (taken off of steam):

OS: Windows® Vista SP2/ Windows® 7

• Processor: 1.8 GHz Quad Core CPU
  
• Memory: 4 GB RAM
  
• Graphics: 512 MB ATI 4800 series or better, 512 MB nVidia 9800 series or better
  
• DirectX®: DirectX® version 11
  
• Hard Drive: 8 GB Free
  
• Sound: DirectX 9.0c-compatible sound card
  

• 
  
  

First time I'm ever seeing quad core and directx 11 in game specs.

I was thinking about getting, and then I looked at these system req, and then I smiled, and then I went:

":D... my computer can't run this." and then I headdesked.

[Kanthos]

Lol, this is Civ, not Crysis. Also, stating whether you posted the minimum or recommended specs makes a difference: recommended generally means "To get the best experience, use at least this much". Most games are very playable with the minimum reqs, with the only real sacrifice being graphical quality.

The minimum reqs:

OS: Windows® XP SP3/ Windows® Vista SP2/ Windows® 7
Processor: Intel Core 2 Duo 1.8 GHz or AMD Athlon X2 64 2.0 GHz
Memory: 2GB RAM
Graphics:256 MB ATI HD2600 XT or better, 256 MB nVidia 7900 GS or better, or Core i3 or better integrated graphics
DirectX®: DirectX® version 9.0c
Hard Drive: 8 GB Free
Sound: DirectX 9.0c-compatible sound card

[Kizyr]

It's running fine on my 3-year-old laptop. Your system will probably be ok. If the demo is still available, then you can try that out first just to make sure. KF

[lazygecko]

It's the highest theoretical requirements I've ever seen for a game, even moreso absurd for a game like Civilization.

[Bahamut]

What I've noticed with Civ 4 at least is that they design the game for lasting a long time, similar to what was intended with Crysis. Civ 4 ran pretty slow at times for me back when it originally came out, but several years later it ran smooth for me with little problems.

I can see that happening with Civ 5.

[zykO]

It's the highest theoretical requirements I've ever seen for a game, even moreso absurd for a game like Civilization.

not only this but the game is a huge let down graphically for having been hyped up so much for its direcx ll capabilities.

1) why are the rivers just a blue shit stain painted on the map using mspaint?

2) really? the leaders aren't fully animated with voice acting?

i'm, unfortunately, very critical of civ games. i've been playing them since i was a pup and the original game came out and this is just bleh. i haven't even gotten my own copy so i haven't been able to put the typical man hours i will invest in a sid meier product before making a final assessment but having fucked with it at a buddy's house, i have to say, while some elements are certainly refreshing.... this game is clearly the result of giving production control to a console game team (those who made revolutions) and had them take a stab at making a PC game. there is utterly no other explanation for the heinous removal of keyboard shortcuts and the inane oversimplification of this game.

it's as if sid meier is unabashedly selling out to the masses with this rockstar version of the ol' standard.

forgive me rant but i am slightly heartbroken right now. i will hopefully have a different opinion when i have my own copy in my hands

[Nabeel Ansari]

Most games are very playable with the minimum reqs, with the only real sacrifice being graphical quality.

TF2 can't run more than 10 FPS at lowest settings and I have more than recommended system requirements.

Edited September 24, 2010 by Neblix

[Kanthos]

10 FPS may or may not be playable for TF2, but it'd certainly be playable for a turn-based strategy game.

[Nabeel Ansari]

10 FPS may or may not be playable for TF2, but it'd certainly be playable for a turn-based strategy game.

Touche, i hadn't thought of that.

[Vidilian]

2) really? the leaders aren't fully animated with voice acting?

They are though. They even speak in their native tongues and you see their entire body. Unless you're talking about the advisors

[zykO]

They are though. They even speak in their native tongues and you see their entire body. Unless you're talking about the advisors

his installation must be bugged out then. none of them had audio. i will notify him of this at once.

FUCK YOU AMNAZON!!!!!! where's my fucking game??!?

[Bigfoot]

Anyone remember Lords of Magic? When that game came out, my computer was so crappy. When my turn was over and all of the computer players took their turns, I could go make a sandwich, eat it, come back and maybe it was my turn.

[The Vagrance]

not only this but the game is a huge let down graphically for having been hyped up so much for its direcx ll capabilities.

1) why are the rivers just a blue shit stain painted on the map using mspaint?

2) really? the leaders aren't fully animated with voice acting?

i'm, unfortunately, very critical of civ games. i've been playing them since i was a pup and the original game came out and this is just bleh. i haven't even gotten my own copy so i haven't been able to put the typical man hours i will invest in a sid meier product before making a final assessment but having fucked with it at a buddy's house, i have to say, while some elements are certainly refreshing.... this game is clearly the result of giving production control to a console game team (those who made revolutions) and had them take a stab at making a PC game. there is utterly no other explanation for the heinous removal of keyboard shortcuts and the inane oversimplification of this game.

it's as if sid meier is unabashedly selling out to the masses with this rockstar version of the ol' standard.

forgive me rant but i am slightly heartbroken right now. i will hopefully have a different opinion when i have my own copy in my hands

The rivers don't really look that bad and as someone else said the leaders are fully animated and voiced, especially Montezuma. Lastly, the keyboard shortcuts do still work assuming you're talking about space for wait, f for fortify, etc..

[zykO]

The rivers don't really look that bad and as someone else said the leaders are fully animated and voiced, especially Montezuma. Lastly, the keyboard shortcuts do still work assuming you're talking about space for wait, f for fortify, etc..

hahah especially montezuma? what? (i didn't get to see him in the little i played)

yeah, it appears i must have been simply playing on a weak system... although my initial impression that the game had been dumbed down still feels right

that said, i shouldn't say anymore until my copy arrives in a couple days

[The Vagrance]

hahah especially montezuma? what? (i didn't get to see him in the little i played)

Dude is borderline terrifying in this game.

[zykO]

Dude is borderline terrifying in this game.

hahahahaha

wow

and is it just me or does elizabeth really come across as a total bitch?

[Cecilff2]

Caved in and bought the special edition after hearing the soundtrack included. I don't even have a PC, I'll play on my girlfriend's.

In any case when I've played myself for a bit I'm up for multiplayer with nice people.

I tried MP as germans right away with one other person as Egypt. Me and him were on the same team. First thing he does is trespass on every single city state he comes across until they all get so pissed that each city state declares permanent war on our team. This of course gets the other actual civs to declare war on us too because they all give the destroy Egypt quest. He starts laughing and comments on how if this was Civ IV I'd have a deathstack of units heading for my city right now. He's sitting on a defensible peninsula, and I'm pretty much in the middle of the continent.

The AI focuses on him though, and I muster up a couple units and attack England. Unfortunately I start running really low on money.(Not used to the economy yet) I propose a trade with Egypt and he gives me a city instead saying better to have a gold mine than gold...and my debt gets worse and I lose a unit to debt. He starts laughing again, and I go to diplomacy, make peace with one of the teams, and trade the city to Japan for money...who promptly razes the city much to his dismay. Before I could continue attacking England though, the game stuck at waiting for other players.(And neither of us had a turn) Was a hilarious first game. Though pretty confusing at first.

The recommended system req for Civ 5 (taken off of steam):

First time I'm ever seeing quad core and directx 11 in game specs.

I was thinking about getting, and then I looked at these system req, and then I smiled, and then I went:

":D... my computer can't run this." and then I headdesked.

I have a single core 2.4 GHz processor and 2.5 GB of RAM and it's not bad. Turns take a bit long sometimes(About 20 seconds at most)

[anosou]

Played quite an epic game as the Siamese. 8 civs, 16 states, standard, normal difficulty. Cultural victory! Love being the savior of city-states with the Siamese, SO MUCH CULTURE AND FOOD! Gonna have to try some war next game... not fond of it but apparently that's what people do.

[zykO]

Gonna have to try some war next game... not fond of it but apparently that's what people do.

says the guy with a mechwarrior thing in his sig

=============

ok, i repent on most of my previous statements about the game. i love it. there is still a distinct "dumbing down" but i've come to the conclusion that this is a matter of simplifying the gameplay process in order to complicate the gameplay experience? not sure if i am able to explain it right... but it seems to me that the game does an excellent job of managing "flow" this time around... it feels far less of a boardgame like most civ games have felt like and now feels more like a real time history game masked within the structure of a turn based one.

an example of what i'm blabbing about is the embark promotion. whereas you had to build all sorts of transports in order to move your troops around in the water, you can now send them across inland seas and shallow seas without. this is certainly simplifying the gameplay and requiring the player to play a little less complicated and reduces stress of "damnit, i need to build another transport!" by a smidge. i don't think that's a bad thing.

the advisors are kinda neat too. i've been playing civ since "the dawn of time immemorial" and also didn't think i needed a bunch of advisors to tell me what to do. except the chicks are kinda hot, my scientist is a total dork and a brotha and frankly, it reminds me of shit that i'm not really keeping track of sometimes. not bad...

the combat system is taking time to get used to although i already love it. i'm having a slight learning curve for some reason getting used to how to siege and take a fortified, well defended city still. but all in good time. i would have preferred that they LIMITED stacking versus removing it entirely. in other words, i'd have been ok with being able to stack up to two land units if they were different... e.g. archers stacked with ballistas. i hated stacks of doom because they were senselessly boardgamish and nothing was more nonsensical than building a shit ton of siege weapons in your city to throw at a stack for collateral damage haha. and i LOVE ranged attack. yeeeee

the graphics are ridiculous. so is the whole aesthetic. i'm not sure about any of the rest of the civs yet because i only played as egypt (of course) and russia but gtfo the egyptian music is off the fucking chain. when i say they have legitimately authentic egyptian music, i'm not kidding. this isn't like a soundtrack of wannabe middle eastern sounding scales or some shit. this is very much specifically egyptian and the oud playing is LEGIT. i'm half expecting the game to bust out with om kalthoum or sayed macawy at any moment. i was blown away with the authenticity of the experience. i'm kinda let down the units don't speak in their native tongue (or at all)... but it's a minor quip. visually... shit like the sun shining down on the beautiful two tone ocean gives me boners. i was completely wrong. my buddy had a horrible setup... on my machine, the game appears and sounds flawless (though what's the deal with the non moving trees???)

no animals. hmm. the barbs are kinda pussies in this game. i smash mouthed every barb i saw with very little effort. the levels are also really easy. it took me a while to adapt to prince on civ 4 but i'm lapping all my competitors on it already on my first time playing a full on game of civ 5. maybe there's a huge leap at monarch but already the game feels a LOT easier. higher civ levels are notorious for their difficulty (evil AI bonuses)

the civlopedia is WHACK. all they had to do was copy the civlopedia from civ 4. what the shit is this???

what the hell is the point of pacts of cooperation or secrecy? it seems like pact of secrecy only means you're agreeing with someone else to undermine another civ by not trading with them and encouraging others not to. makes sense but what is the point of saying yes or no? by saying no, you can still do it... but there really isn't no hit to your relations with the leader who asked. maybe my real issue is that they've replaced the +/- system of determining relations between civs... and as a result, there's no real quick way to see how you're doin with someone. the diplomacy in the game is fun, it's fresh and i like it... but it can be tweaked.

phew. sorry about that lol

back to war!

[Bahamut]

So for those who have been achievement hunting in Civ 5, there is a bugged achievement - in particular, the Magellan one. A fix is mentioned here: http://forums.2kgames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=89822

[Kizyr]

Between my 12-hour workdays and weekends entirely spent on classwork, I've been able to get in enough of Civ V to make some comments. Generally, I probably wouldn't have gotten it when it came out if I'd play-tested it a bit. I'm not saying I dislike it, just that I don't like it enough to warrant getting it on the release date. Overall, I like Civ4 and Civ4:BTS more, but CivV is definitely better than Civ3 or Civ2. Maybe on-par with Alpha Centauri in terms of fun?

Stuff I like:

- Totally re-worked strategy. It forces you to use a mixed-unit strategy to wage wars, instead of being able to get away with spamming out all of 1-2 unit types (like I used to do in Civ4).

- The units themselves have different advantages/disadvantages making each of them more worthwhile. Nothing is totally worthless anymore (until it's obsolete and can get upgraded).

- You can still win or have a worthwhile game with fewer cities. Civ4, I felt that I always needed 20+ cities by the end; here, many of the victory conditions are possible still with 3-4 (plus puppet states).

- Diplomacy and trading is way more worthwhile. Every luxury resource counts, and every strategic resource counts.

- Giant death robots

Stuff I don't like:

- I hate having to play something online. I don't like MMOs, and when I don't want to play online I don't like having to either deal with error screens on start-up or manually disconnect my internet before starting the game (which I have to do now). I understand wanting to make it open to online content, but why can't that be a simple option instead of needing some workaround?

- Inability to stack units. I'm with zyko on this one. I get eliminating the 'stack of doom', but eliminating unit stacks altogether makes it impossible to direct a unit to go-to a particular tile--it always gets stopped halfway because some other unit is in the way, and I can't remember where I directed each and every individual unit to go. Problem is really annoying for workers.

- Railroads barely help you move units. Still takes me 3-5 turns to cross the continent even if it's entirely on railroads.

- Potato in the tailpipe problem is worse this time around because of the bias towards the attacker. I was at war with Siam, I had infantry and artillery, they still had longswordsmen, catapults, and elephants. They took two of my cities defended with infantry by using catapults and swordsmen in one turn each... The riflemen I still had consistently lost to their elephants... The way I finally won (I was irritated enough by now to wipe them off the face of the earth) was by eliminating their access to iron/ivory, spamming out as many infantry as I could, and taking down their cities one-by-one. Basically, the bias towards the attacker, and the elephants, is so overpowered that you need a three-century tech-advantage in some cases...

There are various other things that are some annoyances. But overall I think the good outweighs the bad. I still think Civ4 is more enjoyable, but that could just be the unfamiliarity of Civ5 talking, so I'm willing to give it some time. KF