| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Massively, and more

Reader Comments (60)

Posted: Sep 17th 2010 2:08PM BananaBoat said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Non stacking units is probably the one feature I'm looking forward to most. No more ramming my stack into the enemies stack, and hoping that I have enough units in my stack to take out their stack.

I can feel another "I started this game at 10pm and now it's 10am, what the hell happened?" session happening to me in the near future.

Thanks for the review.

Posted: Sep 17th 2010 2:09PM Zertoss said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
You mentioned you tried the game on 3 different machines. Were they all similarly spec'ed or were there any major differences, like an AMD processor rather than Intel or a Radeon rather than a Geforce?

Just curious.

Posted: Sep 17th 2010 2:10PM TaintedKane said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
GETTING!!!

Posted: Sep 17th 2010 2:12PM thinkthis said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
As a long time addict since the original Civilization was installed with a few floppy disks, I'm looking forward to this one.

Posted: Sep 17th 2010 4:18PM Korova Pamplona said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@thinkthis

Same here. I still got those floppies somewhere.

I am actually trembling a little with anticipation of this Game.

Great review, Alexander. Thanks for serving the greatest Civ generation ahead of the gen X-boxers. Its nice to get some respect finally.

Reply

Posted: Sep 17th 2010 2:14PM liquidsoap89 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Awesome review. The setup for different types of players worked wonderfully for this game.

Can't wait for the release now!

Posted: Sep 17th 2010 2:15PM waterhand said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I have never played a Civ game...past the tutorial. I did buy Civ 3 and demoed Civ 4, but the I always got stuck. I also found the manual for Civ 3 to be completely useless for someone who's new to the Civ series.

I would still like to try it as I know they are great games; however, I don't think they are great games for me.

Posted: Sep 17th 2010 3:46PM Daverator said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@waterhand

It takes several plays to get a good handle on what you are doing, which can be time consuming in a 10 hour game. Also if you are playing something like civ4 beyond the sword, you have so many aspects to manage, policatal structure, religion, corps, armies, quests. It can be a bit overwhelming.

Sounds like Civ 5 is dumbing it down, I mean streamlining it so it should be easier to get into. Hopefully the depth is still there.

While learning I highly recommend the faster game settings.
Reply

Posted: Sep 17th 2010 4:30PM Korova Pamplona said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
@waterhand

I first saw someone play and they sort of guided me through what is going on and what's important. That was enough to get me hooked.

The great thing is that you can pick easiest difficulty and have fun while learning all the game mechanics. Once you are dominating easily, you can go to next step of difficulty.

Civfanatics forums has a section where people describe and discuss in detail their strategy and choices and play the same game together.
Reply

Posted: Sep 17th 2010 2:15PM BigD145 said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
/waits for mods

/plays 3, 4, and Alpha Centauri in the meantime

Posted: Sep 17th 2010 2:16PM butaneko said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Wah this is one game that actually makes me want a good computer.

Posted: Sep 17th 2010 2:16PM theBIGmack said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
I'm sold! Awesome review format btw.

Posted: Sep 17th 2010 2:16PM MachDelta said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Well.... I guess I better hold that funeral for my GPA now; i'll probably be too busy to do it later. :\

Posted: Sep 17th 2010 2:17PM TheyDidItFirst said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
I've never played any Civ games (gasp, I know), so I was wondering how the gameplay compares to the main "overview" map gameplay in the Total War series. Rome and Empire are two of my favorite strategy games of all time, but one of my favorite things about the games are the mix of empire building strategy with a battle system. Is the Civ battle system as interesting/exciting, or is the main map gameplay strategic and involving enough to make a separate gameplay battle system unnecessary?

Posted: Sep 17th 2010 2:20PM Uncle Jesse said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
That was one of the best reviews I think I have ever read on this site. Great job! This is an absolute must. I'm scared. I have lots of other games to play through and this will do it's best to make sure I never see those games again.

Posted: Sep 17th 2010 4:32PM Korova Pamplona said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@Uncle Jesse

Dont be scared, Uncle Jesse. Civ will take care of you. Those other games can wait.
Reply

Posted: Sep 17th 2010 2:20PM dustindeckard said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Loved this review, and am glad to see Xander is so in love with the game! This is all I needed to convince me to pick Civ5 up.

Joystiq take note: for the occasional odd-ball like Civ, this style of review is perfect. I'd hate to see reviews become any more fractured (a la Kotaku) and messy, but this is the perfect balance. And although I loved the Halo: Reach review, something like this might even have been a good fit there, as well.

Posted: Sep 17th 2010 2:22PM Discotheque said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@Brockobama123 I agree. But in Civ V's case, I'm sure the score was well deserved. These guys literally pack so much into these games. The only downside being all this crap DLC they are doing now, but it's just a product of the market so it's understandable.

Posted: Sep 17th 2010 2:22PM tsbliss said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@Brockobama123 If you go back and read they're first introduction to their star rating system, you'll see that it's not so much of a "5/5 PERFECT!" but a, "5/5 you really should play this game". Just because the review has a score, doesn't mean it's weighted identically to all other reviewer's scores.

Posted: Sep 17th 2010 2:22PM Bumper said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
"Civilization has been around for almost two decades..."

I knew I was old but come on...how can I be older than Civilization?

Posted: Sep 17th 2010 2:30PM Uncle Jesse said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@Bumper

*Groans followed by slow clap into full out cheering and standing ovation*
Reply

Posted: Sep 17th 2010 6:54PM LaughingTarget said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Bumper

Vandal Savage, is that you?
Reply

Posted: Sep 17th 2010 2:24PM Themoreyouknow said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@Brockobama123
It's a review. I don't care about ratings. I usually read reviews to see everyone's perspective on the goods and bads. Then I try a demo for myself to see if I like it. I don't go buy every game that critics say are 5's.

Maybe you should stop caring about the score and just read the review to get information on whether or not you should even bother wasting your time playing the games.

Posted: Sep 17th 2010 2:26PM dustindeckard said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Brockobama123 LOL. Payoffs? Sorry to break it to you, but... no. That's not how it works.

Joystiq is choosy about which games they review. If you listen to the podcast you can probably pick up on the fact. It's not that they keep giving out undeserving 5-star reviews, it's just that they tend to review only good games, or at least big-budget or otherwise interesting games.

It suits me as a gamer and a reader perfectly. I don't care about a review for the next Cabella's game -- I know I'm not going to buy it. And if I was, I'd use Metacritic or some such. But I DO know that I'm going to buy Civ5, and I bought Halo: Reach, and I respect Joystiq's opinions quite a bit... so I'm interested in reading the reviews. Even if they are usually 5 star. I tend to only buy the best games, you know? That's thanks in part to sites like Joystiq. They do their part to inform readers which games to buy, and thus support creativity and quality in the games industry.

Posted: Sep 17th 2010 2:26PM Uncle Jesse said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@Brockobama123

I don't think it's payoff's or anything like that. I think it's that they can write up a great review detailing what they liked and didn't like about the game really well, but aren't sure how to actually assign a score to it. Personally, I don't even bother with the stars. They're just sort of... there. I've read lots of reviews and then look at the score they gave it and it was not at all what I was expecting. That's the reason why I think the majority of Joystiq members preferred not even having a score - lots of people won't read the review and just look to the score and judge it from there knowing nothing else about the game or why it garnered that number/stars.

Posted: Sep 17th 2010 2:27PM Faenix said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@Brockobama123

Joystiq put off adding scores to its reviews for so long that when we finally decided to include them, we wanted to make sure it would provide a real value to you, our dear reader, rather than just an arbitrary number.

When you read a review on Joystiq, know that we're less concerned with the game itself than the experience of playing the game. The phrase we use internally is "telling the story of the experience," and our review scores endeavor to do the same thing. While most review scores advise you on how to spend your money, we believe that the much more valuable commodity is your time, and our scoring system reflects that.

We use a 5-star rating system. When you look at our review scores, pretend that you've just asked the author if playing the game is an experience you should have. Not "should I buy it" but "should I play it." The number translates to some variation of the following answers.

5 Stars - Yes.
4 Stars - If you like this type of game at all, you'll want to play it.
3 Stars - Maybe, but only if you like this type of game and are able to forgive some problems.
2 stars - No, unless this is your favorite type of game and you're starved for more.
1 stars - No.

As you can see, this scale asks that you bring something of yourself to it. If you see a 2-star review on a game in your favorite genre from your favorite developer, we're not necessarily saying you shouldn't buy it, just that you should proceed with caution. If you see a half-star, assume it's between both positions and read the review for further context.

Now, if you buy a one-star game, well ... don't say we didn't warn you.

http://www.joystiq.com/2010/06/11/welcome-to-the-latest-joystiq-we-call-it-futurestiq/#4

Its not a "score" in the traditional sense

Posted: Sep 17th 2010 2:29PM sigma8 said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
I like the thumbnail for this story as it appears at the top of the page:

D Meier's
Vilizatio V

Posted: Sep 17th 2010 2:29PM baron164 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I've tried playing HEX games and I've never been able to enjoy it. I think I'm gonna give this a try and see if maybe I can enjoy it this time around.

Posted: Sep 17th 2010 2:43PM klobbermang said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Awesome and creative review. Make Chris give you a raise.

Posted: Sep 17th 2010 2:58PM Pratfall said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
@Brockobama123 Don't feed the troll folks!

Posted: Sep 17th 2010 3:01PM MrWolf said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
The culture in my pants started to expand a little when I read this review.

Posted: Sep 17th 2010 3:07PM Kougeru said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
every game should be reviewed this way

Posted: Sep 17th 2010 3:22PM JoshMilewski said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
@Kougeru It was really an awesome review for this particular game.



So uh... you can save in the middle of a match/game and come back later, right? >.>
Reply

Posted: Sep 17th 2010 3:32PM Ovy said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
The Civ vets section did nothing to allay my fears. I didn't understand the claim about 'prerequisites' being tossed, when you follow by saying you need astronomy to enter ocean tiles. Also, what do you mean take heed the recommended requirements? is this new civ resource-intensive? Will it run slow on lesser computers?

There's so little explanation in this 'review.' It read more like a preview than anything! Thanks for the list of features, but can we get some critical appraisal, please?

Posted: Sep 17th 2010 5:14PM BFBeast666 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Ovy Yeah, I'm worried about the system specs as well. I hope it will run well on my AMD 64 x2, 3GB Ram and Radeon HD5750.

On the other hand, I've managed to run Elemental decently, so Civ shouldn't be a problem, hopefully.
Reply

Posted: Sep 17th 2010 9:43PM Crayola Q Pants ESQ said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@BFBeast666

Elemental isn't exactly a 'looker' though, is it?
Reply

Posted: Sep 17th 2010 3:33PM xenothaulus said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
"But it actually serves the franchise -- which was getting into convoluted "empire simulation" territory -- and yanks it back to being a strategy game."

And that's where they lost me.

Posted: Sep 17th 2010 3:40PM Xoonaka said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Review was fairly combat heavy... hope that's not a reflection on the game.

Posted: Sep 17th 2010 3:52PM samjenkins said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
Yeah Civ 5 is going to be a really bad game. I agree with your post. 1 out of 5 at most.

Posted: Sep 17th 2010 4:14PM RcktMan77 said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Seems like the review missed touching on several aspects of what may have changed in this iteration of the series asides from re-defining the user interface, hex tiles, and combat. Certainly, a game of this breadth in nature deserves more commentary. No mention of the multiplayer experience or match-making?

Posted: Sep 17th 2010 4:41PM Korova Pamplona said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@RcktMan77

It will take the whole Civ community about a year to answer the questions you are posing.

For each Civ iteration, it takes many games to appreciate how various innovations influence the delicate balance of challenge and addiction that is Civ. In this sense, its akin to reviewing an MMO.

I think Alexander did admirably in conveying the innovations and whether they are likely to spoil or enhance the experience. Its pretty much all you can ask about after 40 hours.
Reply

Posted: Sep 18th 2010 7:38AM Hellion4242 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Korova Pamplona

My main questions hopefully won't take that long to figure out. Is the AI omnipotent? Does it act smarter at higher difficulties, or does it just get more toys faster? If the answers are "yes, not really, yes" I'm going to be a sad panda.
Reply

Posted: Sep 17th 2010 4:17PM LaughingTarget said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I need to finish Halo Reach ASAP because come Tuesday, I won't be doing much anything else but Civ V.

Posted: Sep 17th 2010 4:42PM Enosoma said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
@dustindeckard
You beat me to the punch. A while ago.

Posted: Sep 17th 2010 5:36PM Frito said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
ONE. MORE. TURN.

Posted: Sep 17th 2010 7:31PM Hink baby said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The non stacking will make the game much better. It is worth the money just for that feature alone, and city states sound like side quests...I love it!

Posted: Sep 17th 2010 8:21PM Flapjackal said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
intrigued

Posted: Sep 17th 2010 9:40PM Crayola Q Pants ESQ said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Faenix

Just an idea, as I still see the review score issue pop up from time to time, but maybe the stars could have a hover-over them which displayed what each rating should actually be interpreted as?

Or provide a link underneath the rating to an explanation of the system?

Posted: Sep 17th 2010 9:46PM Crayola Q Pants ESQ said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
It should also be noted that while Diplomacy works the same, there are some more interesting options, such as entering pacts of secrecy and pacts of um, helping-each-other-out'ercy.

Nice news for fans who found diplomacy to be lacking in the previous games. Not sure if it matches up there with Galactic Civilization II's, but it seems like an improvement.

Posted: Sep 21st 2010 8:31PM aforty said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Where is the demo?!

Featured Stories

Engadget

Engadget

TUAW

TUAW

Massively

Massively

WoW

WoW