Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Classic Games (Games) Games

First Reviews of Civilization V 380

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the get-your-lust-on dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

First Reviews of Civilization V

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @02:28PM (#33653558)

    Just... another... one...

    • My Review... (Score:4, Informative)

      by ShakaUVM (157947) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @02:30PM (#33653572) Homepage Journal

      Been playing it all morning.

      Be back later.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by click2005 (921437) *

        I try not to read reviews as these days they're little more than advertising funded press releases.

        A few questions...

        Is it actually any good? The video I saw of some gameplay made it look like a console game designed
        for the lowest common denominator. I understand them wanting to improve graphics and change it to appeal
        to non-civ fans but I'd be happy with a Civ4 that didnt run constantly out of memory.

        Can you still zoom out to see more than 4 blocks away?

        most important...

        Does Spock still beep...beep...beep

        • Re:My Review... (Score:5, Informative)

          by ShakaUVM (157947) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @04:11PM (#33655008) Homepage Journal

          >>Is it actually any good?

          I'm enjoying it. Playing it on normal difficulty (prince), and I've made it to 1500AD without going to war with anyone. No real pressure to, either. Peace has a lot of benefits - earn gold, bribe city states, and they supply you with lots of resources. If you start blowing up city states, though, they get annoyed at you, and the present parade ends. They also give you lots of quests to earn reputation with them as well.

          Culture is now like science - earn a certain amount, and you get a culture tech. (Remember fascism and the like? That's how you get them now. I love how it's implemented.) Instead of culture pushing boundaries out in all directions all at once, it's broken down to just one hex at a time of expansion, but a lot more often. Another good change.

          Money can be used to buy units right off the bat, which means that gold is a lot more useful in Civ V than in previous versions (when you'd have thousands sitting around without much to do for them.)

          Naval adventures are a lot better, with an early-ish tech allowing land units to build their own transports. They can't defend themselves, but it eliminates a lot of the annoyance of building transports and microing units on and off of them.

          Diplomacy seems kind of limited. I miss the old diplomacy screen that shows all the plusses and minuses enemies have toward you. I think there's something missing here.

          Overall, a very good game. It's nice to see that they didn't make another shit game like their latest Colonization attempt.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by KingAlanI (1270538)

            Reminds me of my play style in Civ II - I stay peaceful for most of the game, often only exploding into conflict in the modern era. Railroads help troop movements; this and some other things seem to make waiting be in the human player's favor.

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by jd (1658)

            Better diplomacy would be nice - one of the real strengths of all the Civilization games is the depth and complexity of the interaction with NPCs. I like what you're saying about an improved navy. To improve realism, it would be good if they added a raft-with-sail (likely how early humans reached Australia, now believed to have been 70,000 years ago - well beyond the timeframe of Civilization of any edition). There's a few other such touches I'd like added, but whatever they added there'd always be somethin

    • by mark72005 (1233572) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @02:39PM (#33653696)
      Ok, it's midnight. One more turn.

      One more.

      Five more.

      Oh crap, sunrise! I gotta go to work!

      One more.
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by XxtraLarGe (551297)

        Ok, it's midnight. One more turn. One more. Five more. Oh crap, sunrise! I gotta go to work! One more.

        Me and my roommates used to have a joke that we were calling in "civ" to work or taking a "civ" day if we stayed up too late the night before playing.

    • by Sonny Yatsen (603655) * on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @02:44PM (#33653786) Journal

      I don't think I'm going to get Civilization V. The last time I played Civilization, I sat down at 9 AM and got up again at about 6 AM of the next day, having completely forgotten to eat or sleep.

      Oh, who am I kidding? I'll be the first one at the counter.

  • What does the 'V' stand for? "Victory"? "Vendetta"? "Venereal Disease"?

    I was lost for Civilization II - Why the two 'I's? Confused me with World War II - "eye eye".....

  • Wine? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by SwedishPenguin (1035756) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @02:31PM (#33653578)

    What is the wine status? I want to know whether to get it right away or wait for wine to gain proper support for it..

    • Re:Wine? (Score:5, Funny)

      by a whoabot (706122) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @02:39PM (#33653700)

      You'll probably have to research Monarchy, and also have a source of grapes.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Robotron23 (832528)

        Raises an interesting point; in Civilization IV do you need to have researched a technology required to gather a luxury resource like wine to be able to receive it in a trade?

        It's plain to see you can't get strategical goods like iron in trade without Iron Working and so on, but as a casual Civ player I'm uncertain about less vital things like luxury resources...

        If you do need the tech, then it's certain you'll need Monarchy for wine; probability won't enter the equation.

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        If he is waiting for it on Linux he'll have sour grapes. IT'S A JOKE ALRIGHT!! :)
  • I spent lord knows how many hours with the Civilization series. Countless memories of LAN parties and late night solo games. I'm hoping Civilization V will provide more of the same kind of memories.

    Everything I've read about the way things have been streamlined seems to be like a good direction to go. Not sure I'm keen on them dropping religion from the game, but nearly everything else I've heard about seems like a shift in the right direction.

    • by Monkeedude1212 (1560403) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @02:55PM (#33653916) Journal

      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.

      • by Pojut (1027544)

        Hmm...interesting. I guess I have a different view of it, since every multiplayer game of Civ IV I played was either at a LAN or when a couple of friends stayed over for the weekend...never did any online multiplayer.

        Speaking of friends coming over for the weekend, here's a fun Civ IV drinking game: Every time Nimoy says something, you do a shot of beer. Every time you take over a city (not build one, just take over), you do a shot of whiskey. Every time a player (computer or actual person) gets knocked

        • Well - yes - when playing with people I know, it becomes a very person very exciting experience, as no one is really in that "I NEED to win" attitude, its more of a "Let's have some fun and see what happens" kind of mood.

          We never really did a drinking game - but we did drink while playing it. And yes - those games become quite hilarious. (Why do your archers spell out LOL in the landscape?)

          • by Pojut (1027544)

            Well - yes - when playing with people I know, it becomes a very person very exciting experience, as no one is really in that "I NEED to win" attitude, its more of a "Let's have some fun and see what happens" kind of mood.

            This was my favorite part of playing it at a LAN. Very laid back. One of my fave Civ IV memories:

            Super long weekend...me, my then-fiance (now wife), her uncle, and three friends all took a Thursday and Friday off. We all congregated at my wife's uncle's house on Thursday morning, and got everything set up. Early Thursday afternoon, we started playing a 6-player game. My wife's uncle and one of our friends were competing with each other, while the rest of us were focusing on culture, technology, or reli

      • by westlake (615356) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @03:56PM (#33654762)

        The only way you got to Mega cities 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

        Historically, that strategy worked pretty out well for the Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Chinese, and many others.

        • Not really (Score:4, Informative)

          by Moraelin (679338) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @07:12PM (#33656766) Journal

          Not really. Or rather, not really like in Civ 4. In Civ 4 you can basically have a monopoly on religion, so to speak. Historically that didn't work anywhere near that good.

          E.g., sure, you can superficially say that the Egyptians did the same, but really they didn't. Each city has its own deity before Narmer even came along, and really mostly stuck with it. Even afterwards, there were several competing systems even inside the country, with the Ennead being severely at odds with the Ogdoad and both being at odds with Akhenaten's monotheism or with the Hyskos cult of Set.

          And then Egyptians having polytheism didn't stop the Greeks from having their own different version, nor the Akkadian zone from having its own, nor the Mayans or Azteks across the ocean from having their own, and so on.

          Even stuff like "Hinduism" or "Monotheism" that's in the game, really weren't anywhere near a monopoly.

          E.g., Hinduism... which Hinduism? It's a blanket label applied to a multitude of religions in India ranging from polytheistic to monotheistic to technically atheistic. It's about as accurate as saying that everything from England to Persia is Abrahamic.

          Monotheism? Which Monotheism? Judaism didn't prevent Zoroastrianism from existing in parallel (and while some versions were strictly dualist, some were really monotheistic), nor the monolatry of Marduk in Mesopotamia taken to near-monotheistic extremes, nor most of the Phoenician city-states from really having each their own monotheistic cult of Ba'al. Was it the same religion? Nope. Check out the whole Jezebel episode in the Old Testament for an example one monotheistic religion kicking out another.

          Heck, even Judaism had splintered relatively early. Ever hear of the Good Samaritan? There's a reason a Samaritan is chosen there. Because Samaria had its own version of One True Judaism and were bitter religious enemies with Jerusalem over that. That parable chooses for "even he counts as your neighbour" an example as extreme as that. So there you have it. Two countries with their own version of it.

          Even when technically there was one religion, having a grip on it world-wide proved to be a nigh impossible task. Christianity was splintered majorly for a few centuries, with competing schools including Arianism, Pelagianism, etc. Even just the major interpretations of Christianity were a battle royale between monophysitism (Jesus had only one nature, which in turn split into those who made him 100% human and those who made him 100% god), dyophysitism (natch, he had both natures), and miaphysitism (dude, he had two, but _inseparable_.) And if you think the last two are just splitting hairs, they had schisms and purges over that. In fact so severe was the purge done by the Byzantines in Armenia over such a hair-splitting issue that it basically removed any Armenian support or know-how in dealing with the Turks and, in a too long story for this message, it paved the road for Manzikert and the start of the fall of Byzantium.

          And then political or nationalistic interests caused further splits. E.g., the Husites ravaged Germany in the name of their own interpretation of the bible, but that in turn was more fuelled by anti-German sentiment than by actually what was in the bible. E.g., earlier, the fight for religious hegemony between Rome and Byzantium ended up with something as ridiculous as the Pope and Byzantine Emperor excommunicating each other over whether the communion hosts (the Jesus-flavoured chips;) should be leavened or unleavened bread.

          Really, nobody could have a monopoly on a religion like in Civ 4, much less a monopoly on a _type_ of religion. Inventing Monotheism didn't prevent someone else from inventing their own, much less keep it from splintering.

      • by XxtraLarGe (551297) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @04:03PM (#33654876) Journal
        My favorite path: Play as Romans. Research Bronze working, switch to slavery, then Mysticism. Chop/whip for Stonehenge. Bee-line to priesthood, chop/whip for Oracle (preferably in the same city as Stonehenge). When you get the Oracle, you should be able to get Monarchy. Switch to Hereditary Rule, then pick up all the technologies you need for Theology, but don't research Theology. Once you have all those techs, get Iron Working. By the time you've finished researching Iron Working, you should have enough great person points in the city with Stonehenge & the Oracle to get a Great Prophet. Use him to discover Theology. Convert to Christianity & adopt theology. Now you'll be able to produce Praetorians with City Raider 2 promos off the bat if you've built baracks. That gives them an unequalled 12 attack power. This will give you an advantage for a very long time versus anything you'll come up against, even archers in walled cities on hilltops.
    • Maybe someone will mod religion back in. Sure, it just amounted to a diplomacy bonus, but it added a lot of character to the game. There's something glorious about the moment when your missionaries have converted almost everyone (including Saladin) to Christianity, and your safety as you push on to a culture victory is all but guaranteed.
    • Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)

      by nigelo (30096)

      Not sure I'm keen on them dropping religion from the game, but nearly everything else I've heard about seems like a shift in the right direction.

      Now if we could just get civilization to drop it from RL...

  • I paid for both Loki releases and I would have loved to be able to waste time again and again and again with Civ old and new :) A linux version of a new Civ would be most welcome and I will be glad to pay for it.
    However, that does not seem to be on the menu so until then it looks like the "commuter train game" will still be Nethack again and again.

  • DRM? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Hatta (162192) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @02:35PM (#33653644) Journal

    I didn't see anything in the review related to DRM. That's an essential subject for any game review these days.

    • by Mashiki (184564)

      The DRM is steam based. So it's either amazingly good, or it will consume your first, second, and third born in order to let you play.

    • Re:DRM? (Score:5, Informative)

      by A Friendly Troll (1017492) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @02:39PM (#33653710)

      I didn't see anything in the review related to DRM. That's an essential subject for any game review these days.

      It uses Steam, the opinions on which are divided. You might like it, or you might not.

      Multiplayer is done over Steam.

      The demo also requires Steam.

      Even if you purchase an actual retail box with the game, you still have to create a Steam account. The only thing the box gives you is less time spent downloading the initial game. But you'll get your patches through Steam, not separate downloads.

      That's pretty much it.

      • I kind of hate Steam (disclaimer, it works great for lots of my friends who love it, etc.) because out of the half dozen or so games I've bought through it so far, 0% have worked without extra Steam-related problems. I assume it's something about my machine but I'm in the "this shit should just work" camp and avoid Steam whenever I can now.

        I hate Steam, but I don't hate it enough to skip Civ 5. Woe is me.

      • by Sycraft-fu (314770) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @02:54PM (#33653914)

        An explanation of how their DRM works:

        The executables for the game are built to need to launch Steam (it can be cracked, of course). When you run the game, Steam must be running on the system. If it is not currently, it will be spawned. Steam will then need to log in with a user and password that has purchased that game. By default, it will log in online which gives access to things like achievements, online chat, multi-player and so on. Also any game the person has purchase is available. If it is not installed on the system, it can be downloaded. There is no restriction on the number of downloads, you can download to new systems or reinstall as often as you like.

        However if an Internet connection is not available, or if requested by the user, it will log in offline mode. You will have access to any games that account has purchased that are currently installed on the system. Obviously you can't download any new ones if you aren't online.

        As you might guess you do require an Internet connection the first time a game is installed. You either need to be online to download it, or if purchased retail, online to activate it and add it to your account.

        However no matter what, Steam has to be running and has to be logged in with a legit account, be it online or offline.

        Also because of the activation, the game may not be resold. It becomes tied to your Steam account. I suppose you could make an account just for that one game and then sell the account with the game, but as a practical matter Steamworks games cannot be transferred or resold.

        So it is not the least invasive DRM, but it isn't horrible. It does come with some bonuses too, like the download capability. Buy a game retail, it is associated with your account. Losing the DVD is no problem, just redownload it. The Steam interface provides nice perks too. However it does mean no resale and you have to run Steam to play.

        I consider it an acceptable DRM, but some do not.

        • Also because of the activation, the game may not be resold.

          I thought that you could "gift" games away after you bought them. Am I wrong about that?

        • by Shivetya (243324) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @03:50PM (#33654670) Homepage Journal

          One person on CIV Fanatics reported they got the game early but were unable to install it till the appointed time. Steam blocked them.

          To me this is unacceptable. They had the boxed game. We have a DRM system which states that that is not enough to play a game. They reserve the right with thirty days notification to change/void the agreement.

          In other words, they can prevent you from using the product you purchased. No longer is the $50 for having a game you can play when and where you want to, it only applies when and where they permit you.

          Steam is invasive and essentially arbitrary.

          I did find it humorous how many derided the retailer at being at fault for selling the game. With users like this what hope is there for the old model.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            One person on CIV Fanatics reported they got the game early but were unable to install it till the appointed time.

            Yeah, because of one person, who got prereleased game ahead of schedule, you're not going to buy any Steam games because of some nefarious potential problem that may, or may not ever exist.

            First off, I have no problems with Steam or Apple or some other DRM that is minimally invasive. It is a fact of life. The key for me is that I don't need to be logged into Steam Servers to play the game, excep

            • by vadim_t (324782) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @04:42PM (#33655438) Homepage

              Yeah, because of one person, who got prereleased game ahead of schedule, you're not going to buy any Steam games because of some nefarious potential problem that may, or may not ever exist.

              That's entirely correct. It proves there's a way for steam to decide when you can and can't run the game. Just the fact it's possible at all is so loathsome I will never pay a cent for such a thing.

              First off, I have no problems with Steam or Apple or some other DRM that is minimally invasive. It is a fact of life. The key for me is that I don't need to be logged into Steam Servers to play the game, except for the one time activation. Seems reasonable to me.

              No, it's not a "fact of life". It's an arbitrary limit imposed by the company which could not be there.

              Activation is unreasonable. What if the activation server goes away in 5 years from now? I still play 10 year old games sometimes.

              I find it humorous how many people complain about non-existent "potential" problems.

              Because those potential problems were demonstrated multiple times to be actual problems. Like the several music services with DRM that went out of business and left people unable to play the music they paid for.

              Car Analogy: You should not drive a car because you may be in an accident, which is part of the great big evil conspiracy by the Insurance Companies, Oil Companies, Car Companies to get you to buy new cars, pay money on regular basis etc. After all there is potential for something bad happening.

              A car that never crashes is not possible due to the "fact of life" as you put it, that wear exists, humans and roads aren't perfect and so on.

              However, DRM is an entirely artificial addition and there's no physical law that says it has to be there.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by geekoid (135745)

            Which has nothing to do with steam. The publisher had steam set a run date.

            Other then someone trying to install the game before the publisher want's you to, steam does not restrict you from playing.

            It sounds like the seller violate their agreement with the distributor/publisher.If that is the case, then it is the sellers fault for selling an item they know wouldn't work.

            Steam is not invasive...yes, it is fairly arbitrary. In that the publisher wants some sort of DRM so they select steam.

            There is the practi

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward

          That's what I do. I have a primary Steam account with credit card info that purchases the games; I set up a throwaway gmail account for every game, create a Steam account for it (primarily 'cause Steam doesn't accept "+" in e-mail addresses), and gift the game to it. The steam accounts are named $myprimaryaccount_$gamename, so I have xxx_hl2, xxx_heroesV, and soon, I'll have xxx_civ5.

          I'm not doing it in order to be able to fine-grainedly resell games from my account, but instead in order to get around the "

        • by elrous0 (869638) * on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @04:09PM (#33654970)
          Ten years from now, when Steam no longer works or supports your game, you'll find out that you were just renting it.
      • by kurokame (1764228)

        LAN play works in Steam offline mode according to the FAQ [2kgames.com]. You still have to install the Steam client and get spammed with their ads even if you buy a boxed edition, but you can still play on a LAN (unlike certain other LAN gaming franchises we could name - which have been cracked anyway).

        I'm curious whether they did this more for "zomg the pirates" or because they want to force people who play it at home with their family to buy multiple copies. Personally, I'd be more inclined to worry about hampering mig

    • by Pojut (1027544)

      It uses steamworks [gamepolitics.com]. YMMV, as far as that being a good or a bad thing is concerned. (Good thing, in my opinion.)

    • Re:DRM? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by emkyooess (1551693) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @02:54PM (#33653910)

      My review: It forces Steam on your machine. Therefore, it's a "don't purchase" title.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Tassach (137772)

        I agree. I refuse to purchase anything contaminated by Steam.

        Sorry, Sid. I've bought every Civ game that's ever come out, but you've lost me as a customer.

        • by splatter (39844)

          yup seconded. I stopped FPS with Half Life and now that Civ has gone with steam I will have plenty of time to go do other things, like go out.

        • by Pojut (1027544)

          So why not buy a copy of the retail game, then download a cracked torrent? The devs get their money, you get another Civ game minus the DRM, and everyone's happy.

          DRM is generally a publisher's decision anyway. Don't take it out on the developer.

          • Re:DRM? (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Hatta (162192) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @03:47PM (#33654616) Journal

            Because that's providing all the wrong incentives. If you financially reward those who put DRM on their games, you'll just keep getting DRMd games. Simply refusing to buy punishes those who put DRM on their games at essentially no cost to yourself, since there are always other ways to entertain yourself.

            I don't particularly care that the publisher demands DRM. That publisher, and any developers they sign, do not get my money. If you're a developer and you want my money, don't sign with a publisher that requires DRM. It's that simple.

  • What reason is there to release the game 3 days later in Europe?
    • by mooingyak (720677)

      So we Americans can go "Neener neener!"

    • Retailers probably (Score:3, Informative)

      by Sycraft-fu (314770)

      Like it or no, most games sales still happen in the retail market. Don't believe the online surveys, they suffer heavily from selection bias and are not properly conducted. Go ask a developer/publisher (Stardock has talked about this, as they do both). Retail still outsells online by a large margin. That means you have to keep retailers happy and part of that means not selling online before they can sell it retail.

      As to why it is taking longer to get to retail there, that's the real question. Did they fuck

    • To keep the Germans from taking over France. Duh. :)

    • by click2005 (921437) *

      Play.com appears to be shipping it but it'll probably still take 3 days to arrive.

  • by Rhys (96510) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @02:53PM (#33653890) Homepage

    But I did do the steam unlock on my laptop and copied over the music directory to play while I'm at work today. The 15 hours and 58 minutes of oggs (and, I think, one wav) I copied over have -- at least so far -- been top notch. Not that I've listened to anything near the 15 hours of them, only about 2-3, but still.

    Nice background music too; mostly instrumental, not too quiet nor too loud.

    • by Pojut (1027544)

      REALLY happy to hear that. I've been looking forward to trying to pair different albums with the game [livingwithanerd.com], but I'm still really glad to hear that the included soundtrack is good.

      How "worldly" is it? As in, does the music cover different genres from different parts of the world, or is it all similar?

      • by Rhys (96510)

        The musical styles are substantially different and at least from what I can tell, culturally(/period?) appropriate. In particular there is one really neat Japanese-style (at least I assume from the track name) drum piece that is pretty long and very nicely done. Similarly, a couple of the Chinese pieces are accurate of what I've heard from student/foreign parent "culture shows/celebrations" from the university's laboratory high school.

        But I'm not exactly an expert in world music. I don't think it will disap

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by antdude (79039)

      Are there any good tunes like Christopher Tin's Baba Yetu: http://www.civfanatics.net/downloads/civ4/music/BabaYetu.mp3 [civfanatics.net] ? I am not even a Civ. fan (don't like turn based strategy games).

  • by UberOogie (464002) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @03:09PM (#33654098)
    "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."

    I don't want three blind men describing an elephant incorrectly. I want Civ.

    • by Minwee (522556)

      I don't want three blind men describing an elephant incorrectly. I want Civ.

      So... why not play it? It's not like giant Civilization V robots have stomped all over the world and destroyed every copy of the original game with their overpowered death-lasers. If you still want to play the old Civilization, just load it up and play.

    • by thetzar (30126) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @03:43PM (#33654560) Homepage

      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).

  • by KermodeBear (738243) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @03:10PM (#33654118) Homepage

    Can someone comment on the support for red/green color blindness? I often had problems being able to read certain map features and recognizing some units in Civ III and Civ IV because of it.

  • So from TFA, it sounds as though they've simplified the city side of things while making the warfare more complex with a need to micro-manage the positioning of units and strategize about precise unit positioning needed to take a city over.

    Maybe it's just me, but I HATE micromanaging battles, or micro-managing anything for that matter. I'm the Emperor / President / King so I like deciding the blend of units to produce, general city enhancements to pursue, when and where to build new cities, diplomacy,
  • by poity (465672) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @03:27PM (#33654342)
    We still don't have Alpha Centauri 2
    That's all I ever want.
    Nothing else.
    Just that.
    :(
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by bonch (38532)

      Whew, for a while, I thought nobody would mention Alpha Centauri in a Civilization article. Since somebody does every single freaking goddamn time, I was getting worried.

  • by doug141 (863552) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @03:29PM (#33654360)

    For single player, wait for an expansion to fix the AI. The review in PCGamer said the AI does really stupid things with its combat units, like send them headlong into battle without regard to unit type, so its ranged units go right up to your melee units, and its melee units get trapped behind its own ranged units. The game balance is preserved simply by giving computer players more units. Given that this is the most tactical Civ yet (due to elimination of unit stacking), it's clear from the review it suffers even more from AI limitations than Civ IV did (before the Civ IV expansions).

  • Eventually (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Chelloveck (14643) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @04:04PM (#33654904) Homepage

    I was itching to buy it, but then found out that the Mac version will be ready "eventually", not a simultaneous release. Bugger. Back to Civ IV for me.

Someone is unenthusiastic about your work.

Working...