Slashdot Mirror
First Reviews of Civilization V
An anonymous reader submitted linkage to a story explaining why Hemos has been twitching for a week in anticipation: "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."
Religion was horribly overpowered or over-abused in Civ4 - Most of my multiplayer game lobbies were a scramble to see who could get the civilizations with the Mystical starting research, so they could jump right into Buddhism and Hinduism. I mean, once the races were picked, then people would all research polytheism and meditation, then it was a cointoss on who got it first.
Eventually, as the games would progress on, whoever got the religions first would end up winning. It put you so far ahead of everyone else, there was no real way to catch up. The only way you got to Mega cities of 17 Population or more was mostly to do with keeping people happy, not so much about keeping them fed, and since Religion gave you an early burst in happiness, you had a more productive city than everyone else, so you generated more research, and were able to get a great person sooner (usually a priest! no doubt). Then they get to Monarchy sooner so they can just do that "military keeps people happy" civic and then they've got an a mega city that works because its so well defended. So then whoever gets the first priest ends up using the priest to get another religion. And Bam, before you know it, One person has founded 4 or 5 of the religions, and has an amazing economy because of it, has good culture to spread better than you can, and has the happiness available to use slavery to catch up on the infrastructure. If you attacked him early on you cripple yourself for everyone else to take you out, if you leave him be he wins automagically. You dare not attack him later because he's further in the tech tree than you (at least defensively) - so you ride it out. By late game, He still has 100% dedicated to research and is raking in over 100 gold per turn, and then when he feels like finishing it, he switches to universal suffrage, nationalism, and Theocracy, and pumps out an instant army and steams rolls each civilization 1 by 1.
I am glad they dropped religion, it ruined Civ4 multiplayer for me.
Just finished a couple hours of Civ 5. Honestly, it's disappointing. The new no-stacking concept has solved the stacks-of-death problem, but just created serious roadblocks in the game itself. And I do mean roadblocks - movement is a major hassle. Cities and the effects of what you do with them are more opaque than ever. In an attempt to simplify, they ended up just glossing over the gameplay. Same with diplomacy. They didn't actually make things simpler, they just stopped giving you the numbers involved.
I can get behind a number of the new mechanics - embarking land units is a great idea, the hexes are swell, the game is very pretty. But if feels more like a cheap rip-off of Civ than an advancement.
The pull-back strategic view is great in concept, but poor in execution.
I hope it will grow on me, but for now, Civ5 is one step forward, two steps back from Civ 4 (which itself had serious issues).