Civilization V Impressions - First Look

2K Games and Firaxis finally show Civilization V at GDC 2010. Get the details here.

For years, the Civilization series has challenged players to assume the role of one of history's greatest leaders, such as Napoleon Bonaparte or Genghis Khan, and try to conquer the world through force of arms, scientific research, or overwhelming cultural superiority. And for years, the series has been synonymous with things like turn-based strategy, insidiously addictive gameplay, and the compulsion to explore every last square on the map. Except that with Civ V, you won't be exploring squares. You'll be exploring hexes. Yes, as you've probably heard, the new version of Civilization will make some noticeable changes to the series, including changing how maps will be divided not into four-sided squares, but into six-sided hexes, and how archers and other ranged units will actually be able to fire on their enemies from more than one hex away (previously, all units did battle by getting adjacent to their targets). These are big changes, but from what we've seen, they not only seem plausible enough to work, but also seem like they'll open up lots of new strategic possibilities. (Which means, you know, more of those sleepless nights.)

Civilization V is here. No, really. Watch the trailer.

We saw Civ V in a hands-off demonstration at the 2010 Game Developers Conference in San Francisco, in the early settlement game, as well as in a later, more-established session against more-developed nations. Civ V's interface is being designed by Firaxis staffer Russell Vaccaro, who also contributed to Firaxis' previous console Civ game, Civilization Revolution. Like that game, Civ V will have a highly streamlined interface that keeps a lot of the information off the main map view in favor of showing the game's detailed 3D world. From a technical perspective, Civ V's overland maps look better than they ever have and feature realistic-looking forests, mountain ranges, and flowing water in the form of inland rivers and sparkling oceans.

Ah, Chancellor Bismarck. How good of you to join us.

Ah, Chancellor Bismarck. How good of you to join us.

While you're gazing from sea to shining sea, you won't have to stare at piles and piles of numbers and icons--instead, while you'll still be able to access menus like your city's build menu, the scientific technology tree, and your diplomacy standings with other nations, they'll all be nested in menus that can be quickly and easily closed up. To make sure you don't forget what you were going to do next, the game will instead offer an enhanced notification system that will alert you to pretty much all happenings in the game, from completed scientific research to finished construction in your cities to discovering ruins (which appear to be the new game's version of goodie huts), and clicking on the notification will always open up the relevant menu and let you do whatever you need. In addition, Civilization III's advisors return in Civ V and will, as usual, offer you helpful tips on the next move you might want to make.

The demonstration we watched showed an early starting game for Greece with a troop of settlers (which act as the single settlers unit from previous games) and a troop of warriors (which act as a single warrior unit from previous games). The settlers immediately started a new city, while the warriors headed out into the wilderness to find a neighboring city-state, one of Civ V's new features. City-states are basically neutral cities of varying specializations (such as a militaristic city-state) that can be conquered if you prefer, though you can leave them neutral and form treaties with them, or take missions from them. Forming a strong relationship with a neutral city-state can be very beneficial--becoming buddies with the militaristic city-state in our demonstration meant that the neutral burg would send us free warriors every few turns--but it can also upset nearby civilizations who would prefer to have that city-state's services for themselves.

Ranged units will attack from a distance. Maps will be hex-based. This will be a different Civ.

Ranged units will attack from a distance. Maps will be hex-based. This will be a different Civ.

Expansion will still be crucial to your success in Civ V, and the amount of "culture" your nation produces will still be the determining factor in how often your cities expand, but this time around, cities will not automatically expand outward in giant concentric circles. Instead, your holdings will expand one hex at a time and will tend to automatically grow toward specific nearby areas that your current civilization needs--for instance, if you've been developing your agricultural base, your nation will automatically tend to expand toward that nearby wheat-growing plain. While you can still use the old trick of annexing nearby resources by just sending out a settler to build an adjoining city nearby, there will apparently be game-specific disadvantages to having two cities too close to each other. Instead, Civ V will offer you a new alternative to send settlers to a desired area and plunk down a huge sum of gold to simply annex that zone and its resources.

prev

163 Comments

  • timstaes

    Posted Jul 30, 2010 4:51 pm GMT

    every civ just keeps getting better and better... can't wait to get my hands on this one!

  • _xymon_

    Posted Jul 5, 2010 12:43 am GMT

    I can't wait for civ 5 !

    I have played and enjoyed every civ game so far (except revolutions :[ )

    hex tiles! mochirondes!

  • tOrchie

    Posted Jun 17, 2010 7:08 am GMT

    I thought Civ4 was the best of the series, as it combined the best of Civ2 and Civ3, but I really really like the idea of changing to hexes instead of squares (which just makes sense) and non-stackable armies, which will create a lot more interesting strategic options with battle fronts etc.

  • xguild

    Posted May 11, 2010 1:22 am GMT

    I never really understood why someone who dicovers a game to be "perfect", is then disapointed a sequal? I mean nothing was lost, your perfect game is still there to be enjoyed and with the mod community there is always plenty of new content coming out for games.

    A game developers job is to do exactly what Firaxis is doing... revolutionize the series, take it in new directions, expand on the concepts, create new concepts. Give us something fresh, not "the same thing with better graphics".

    I'm personally excited about the new Civ, so far, none of the various civs have been disapointments to me. Each one brought something interesting to the strategy of the game and while each was different from the next, they where all definitivly civilization games. I even enjoyed some of the knock offs.

    This new version is doing exactly what I expected it to do... give me something new.

  • ParaBellum71

    Posted May 8, 2010 2:51 pm GMT

    Who cares if it has gone from the simplicity and so called perfection of Civ 2, go play that. You want a graphically updated of Civ 2? That is laughable. Go play Infinity Ward games if you want a company that only improves on graphics, and never expands further then new titles and awards.

  • Simeon_Crane

    Posted Apr 6, 2010 10:18 am GMT

    this will be awesome. I love exploring and discovering the nuances of each version.

  • pizzaboyuk

    Posted Mar 22, 2010 8:27 am GMT

    I'll probably get a lot of thumbs down for this but...

    If you guys really like CivII that much, then why not just go and play that, and let the rest of us enjoy what the series brings.

  • cecpunkrock

    Posted Mar 19, 2010 6:35 am GMT

    stop talking about civ 2, it was good, but get over your nostalgia and let the company make their game.

  • GNWPCD posted Mar 15, 2010 5:57 pm GMT (does not meet display criteria. sign in to show)

    GNWPCD

    Posted Mar 15, 2010 5:57 pm GMT (hide)

    To me Civ II is still the best in the series. All that game did was take the original which was great itself and improve on it. Not revolutionize it, but improve it. tweak it. Add some things to it and make it a game that anyone can play. The wonder movie avis and adviser avi movies were just so cool and fun to experience. When you needed help you would have the military adviser telling you to give him more soldiers. It was simple fun. The series seems to now be moving far away from that simplicity into something that isn't even Civ seeming anymore.Anyone could feel like they could take over the world and it wasn't overly difficult to do yet fun at the same time. Civ Revolutions made things too simple and took away the micro managing aspects that also were fun. Stopping the civil disorders and working the fields around the city to either produce more resources or happier people. I'm a big Civilization fan always have been, but I think the series is just getting too far away from the original fun and concept that CIv II so perfectlly captured. I guess as a series gets farther and farther it's hard to just maintain the same thing without adding so much more content but I for one wish it were just back to the old simple game yet updated graphically and tweaked a bit rather than getting the mess that it seems to have become ever since Civ III. Well either way I will be getting it but here is someone who loves what the series used to be not what it has become.

  • Rabastu

    Posted Mar 14, 2010 8:59 pm GMT

    They should add more atmosphere. I liked how in Civ3 the leaders would go from ancient rags to business suits, but they should expand on that. Like if your talking to a Civ thats a monarchy, give the leader a crown. Or if your talking to a Civ thats a police state, give the leader a soldier uniform. That stuff would be cool. Or if you employ slavery, show slaves working the farms, rather than an emancipated state with happy citizens working the same farms. And have some peolple, carts, animals etc walking on the roads. Let me know there's actually people in a country!

  • Open_Sights posted Mar 14, 2010 7:47 pm GMT (does not meet display criteria. sign in to show)

    Open_Sights

    Posted Mar 14, 2010 7:47 pm GMT (hide)

    I met this preview with discretion.Like @ Cybertori over there, I think the real Civilization was the second one.I will try to make this short: when civII arrived it was like "bang", the most revolutionary strategic game of all times, and as a plus, it was reasonably historically accurate.The impact points made the combat much better, what is really a issue in Civ 3 (as it was at some extent in the first), which is also somewhat awkward in diplomacy, even if it was much more complex, in a good way.When civ 4 came, it was just heavy.You really needed a good computer to play in the last turns.The greatest innovation was a religion system wasn't really necessary (that's because they will be gone Civ V), and while the firaxis was worried with those pesky cartoonish graphics (something unimportant in a strategic game) there was no really deep innovation (just a bunch of American related cultural stuff, the name of the game is not American Civilization), by that time Civ should be much more realistic, not just a contest of who produces more.Combat control or at least more logistical requirements on units (there's nothing like manpower, attrition,supply lines,war production) were a must.But there was nothing like that, and looks like that even now, it will be the same, that's why I don't think there will be a civ game better than the civ II anytime soon, or maybe ever.

  • happyfatman021

    Posted Mar 14, 2010 5:04 pm GMT

    Awesome

  • Vengentz

    Posted Mar 14, 2010 5:03 am GMT

    Nerdgazam!!! I want !!!

  • OfficerTompkins

    Posted Mar 14, 2010 12:45 am GMT

    anyway i really want to get this, really need to upgrade my computer though

  • OfficerTompkins

    Posted Mar 14, 2010 12:44 am GMT

    new graphics make it look like ur seeing an actual satelite view of Earth. very realistic, maybe too real lol.

  • sinreallybad

    Posted Mar 13, 2010 10:42 am GMT

    I hope they change the boundary system for civ 5. I think it would be better if one civ's boundaries could not be pushed back by another's through culture, that instead they are fixed once they meet but that cultural influence can still extend well beyond these fixed boundaries. Then when cultural influence changes the demographics of another civ's territory you can make demands for that civ to hand it over. Also it would be better if when you conquer enemy territory that you don't control culturally that the population will revolt and make it difficult to control.
    I think these changes would more accurately replicate how states operated historically and also make the game more interesting.

  • azurik15

    Posted Mar 13, 2010 8:31 am GMT

    İ want Ottoman Empire.

  • iron_zealot7531

    Posted Mar 12, 2010 8:36 pm GMT

    @ Cybertori

    The only explanation i can conceive of for such a preference is that you either never really got into either game, or you're drawn by nostalgia to the older title. I understand everything is subjective and all, but by ever objective measure imaginable, number IV is the superior Civ.

    CivII is fantastic, and it's least as good as III, if not better. But if you really dig deep into the game's design you wont find anything near the precisely balanced complexity of CivIV. CivII has some options and features that CivIV lacked, but the problem is that they weren't balanced all that well and some of them were either irrelevant to the game, or even broke the game.

    Perhaps you only played unpatched vanilla CivIV, w/o any of the expansions? CivIV had some difficulties out of the gate, but by the time Beyond the Sword came around, it was the best Civ to date by a mile. There are people who have played CivIV nonstop since it's release and still are finding new and interesting strategies that fundamentally change competitive gameplay.

    I'd really suggest you give IV another go if you honestly prefer CivII