Oh yes, there are Civ players here, struggling for world domination in a game helps me with my Adolf-complex
50 dollars seems much too expensive, but it all depends what the buck is worth to you. For 50 you can have some hours of fun in a bar, or 10,20 hours testing Civ5.
The graphics are improved (who would have guessed so?), the land combat is better (panzer generalistic), the AI are morons and with a balance like this you certainly don't want to run on a rope over Niagara Falls.
Sure, when you are into roleplaying you can develop a healthy hatred against the brutal, evil Gandhi as you could in previous titles. But having played two campaigns, I came to the point: something's missing: the one-more-round factor. It lacks depth and immersion, I've never really felt to be in control of my own civilization, to have real choices or make decisions that can alter the course ofthe game.
As most people who are on here, I have a faible for deep games, if I wanted to play casual ****, I would be on a Xbox forum, like 1.4.2010
- that might be the reason why civ 5 is not so much a matter of discussion here.
If I could build my own Frankenstein Civ, it would be Civ 4 with the gfx and combat system of 5, the videos of 3 the palace of 2 and the novelty feeling of 1.