The neurological basis of why Civ V is boring (and Civ IV was not)

Status
Not open for further replies.
This thread is really fun...

I have a PhD in chemistry, but if only our biochemistry lectures would have been as interesting as this dopamin discussion here, sigh.

And now we end up discussing scientific reasoning in general, wow.

But back to Civ 5: I tried to like for 2 days and nearly fell asleep while playing it.

I hate 1upt, because the only thing a had to in each round was moving around my few units in cleverly organized pathways to avoid them from getting stuck somewhere (is that the "Strategy" in the game?). Even after 100 rounds I hadn't met any other civilizations unit.

And I strongly agree with the OPs impression: There was no feeling of reward for building a city next to special resource (because the difference in productivity to normal tiles is marginal), There was no sense of urgency to build more cities, because no other civilization tried to occupy the land on my continent. There was no feeling of reward for cultural growth, because you can simply buy a tile if you need one, etc....

So now I am back to Civ IV, playing it happily. I find it interesting that the Civ IV UI still looks modern to me, even after having played Civ V.

I will try the new game again after the next large patch and with the Mac version. I hope they implement patches for both Windows and Mac at the same time??

Greetings from freezing cold Berlin
 
I find it interesting that the Civ IV UI still looks modern to me, specially after having played Civ V.

I would bet a thousand dollars that the sentence above is what you really meant... because I feel like that.
 
This thread is really fun...


And I strongly agree with the OPs impression: There was no feeling of reward for building a city next to special resource (because the difference in productivity to normal tiles is marginal), There was no sense of urgency to build more cities, because no other civilization tried to occupy the land on my continent. There was no feeling of reward for cultural growth, because you can simply buy a tile if you need one, etc....

This is just stupid.

Play the game some more...choose smaller maps or more AI.
 
A few things I noted when reading through this:

"...any (science) older than 5 years is outdated"

No. The only science that is obsolete is science that has been disproved. An example of that is the theory of Spontaneous Generation. Science actually has the potential to gain credibility as time passes via replication.

A good example is Hooker's 1956 research that found that it's impossible to differentiate between heterosexual and homosexual men in a significant way in terms of mental adjustment. This research, the first to avoid an illusory correlation between homosexuality and mental illness due to her avoidance of a polluted sample, has never been refuted by credible studies. The credible studies that have been conducted since hers provide added credibility due to replication.

So, if someone were to quote from her 1956 paper in a forum post, the quotation would be just as valid today as it was then. In fact, it would carry even more weight.

I had a university Communications professor who made the same mistaken point. The key is not how old the science is, but how supported it is today. Hooker's work has been supported by subsequent studies to the point where further studies are not necessary. So, it's possible to not be able to find anything within an arbitrary "recent" period. People aren't crafting new studies to find out if water is wet.


"...so your sales won't be hurt much if at all by bad press."

Some may argue that the gaming press reviews for Civ V have generally been more positive than the game warrants.


"...that's opinion, not fact!"

All facts are opinions, because nothing can be absolutely proven. Opinions vary from worthless to worthwhile, depending upon how provable/proven they are. While absolute proof is impossible to obtain, there is a very large difference between the opinion that the Moon is made of green cheese and that the Moon is primarily composed of rock.


"Civ V fans vs. Civ V fans"

We don't need to compare Civ V to any game to know it has huge problems. It doesn't work well, regardless of how good another product is. This is my opinion.

Someone posted about confirmation bias, but that people "tend" to seek information that supports their position doesn't mean there are "two sides to every fact". Facts are singular. No matter how many want Hooker's conclusion to have been wrong, for instance, there just isn't any credible way to invent a new reality in which homosexuality is a mental illness. There isn't a "liberal" and "conservative" melting point for gold, one that is supported by Fox News and one that's supported by MSNBC.

Facts are the most precise understandings about aspects of reality we have in the present tense. While sometimes they change, many times they don't. Anyone who disagrees with established expert consensus must produce their own work, work that is crafted in light of legitimate scientific practice. If Joe Schmoe came out with a study tomorrow that finds homosexuality is a mental illness, Mr. Schmoe's study has less credibility because it contradicts decades of other studies that began with Hooker's. Further, its actual credibility depends upon how well Mr. Schmoe's study was designed and whether or not it is replicated. A few pseudo-scientific organizations exist that produce such studies on this topic, but to date not a single credible study has been produced. So, we can say it is a fact that homosexuality isn't a disorder.

Expert consensus is hard to come by for this topic because Game Theory, the field of Mathematics, is rarely united with Psychology in the practice of developing video games. So, we're reduced to much unprovable squabbling. Consensus doesn't make facts (truth isn't determined by popularity). Instead, consensus has credibility only when those in consensus are experts with strong evidence to support their consensus.
 
Consensus doesn't make facts (truth isn't determined by popularity). Instead, consensus has credibility only when those in consensus are experts with strong evidence to support their consensus.

The best re-wording of my signature I've ever seen... :D
 
After persevering with Civ V and coming to terms with the fact that so much has been dumbed down, I'm sat waiting for the Patches to come - just like with Civ IV?

Ppl who diss Civ V have selective memories - Civ IV was pants until BtS came out as far as I'm concerned, aand after that I lost most leisure time to an engrossing game that was excellent. I spose what I'm saying is around summer 2012 Civ V will reach that happy plateau.

My only gripe is the late game crashes on load. That Ubersucks.
 
^ Right.

the kind of reception civ 5 is receiving is quite unprecedented. the kind and number of complaints against the game are the first i have seen in this forum since i started lurking circa 2002. civ 4 had technical issues and that was it. this thread, if anything, talks about issues in gameplay mechanics and game design of civ 5 and how it's a sleep-inducing snoozefest.
 
^ Right.

the kind of reception civ 5 is receiving is quite unprecedented. the kind and number of complaints against the game are the first i have seen in this forum since i started lurking circa 2002. civ 4 had technical issues and that was it. this thread, if anything, talks about issues in gameplay mechanics and game design of civ 5 and how it's a sleep-inducing snoozefest.

I agree, although I didn't lurk until 2004.
 
well actually you've got it backwards.

its intermittent rewards that really draw people in, not constant rewards - people will play things for a longer time if they are not sure of the reward they'll receive (or if they'll receive a reward at all). this is the basis for gambling: do you think people would play slots if they knew that the 500th time they hit the lever they'd win 490 dollars (or whatever the probability is) or that they'd win 90 cents for every dollar they put in? or is it that they're hoping the first time they hit that lever, they'll win 490 dollars (ignoring the fact that they'll lose the next 499 times they put in a dollar with a nice fat long term loss)? its that excitement and chance, perhaps, that really keeps people coming back for more (and is the basis for addiction).


so when you say civ4's rewards are constant and predictable, that doesn't speak to its durability - it has to be something else (on that note, i miss the random events of civ4 and the little quests). pop psychology has its appeal but its not really applicable in this instance (or accurate). civ5 has fundamental problems but hopefully they're fixable. and i don't think its dopamine that causes us to put it down after a few hours - except by the fact that the game isn't pleasureable for some, thus dopamine levels might be low.

anyways, im an (un)licensed mental health professional so take what i say with a grain of salt. but i don't think your argument really works though intriguing. but game designers should pay more attention to psychology since it definitely informs game design and may have helped in civ5!

actually slots are designs to make small payout often to keep players playing, big rewards are to get them to sit down in the first place
 
actually slots are designs to make small payout often to keep players playing, big rewards are to get them to sit down in the first place
And not all people will play slots. Some people have no interest in games that are biased toward the house. It's a losing proposition, statistically. Slots have the worst odds of all casino games, as I recall. However, any game that is biased toward the house is a losing proposition.
 
And not all people will play slots. Some people have no interest in games that are biased toward the house. It's a losing proposition, statistically. Slots have the worst odds of all casino games, as I recall. However, any game that is biased toward the house is a losing proposition.

so true.

play first time
lose 1
play second time
lose 1
play third time
win 2
play fourth time
lose 1
repeat cycle, although with randomness as too which play wins.

all in less than a minute, your winning all the time but losing over all.
 
^ That's a big part of how games like WoW are designed. It's basically just one huge Skinner Box. :)

See, here's a picture of your average slots gambler / WoW player:

 
While we are waiting for the next patch, allow me to speculate on why Civ V does not grip most of us like Civ IV does. It in involves brain chemicals and bananas. Oh, and your girlfriend.

Dopamine is part of the brain's reward system. Current theory states that what you hold in your attention ("mental RAM", working memory, however you want to call it) is regulated by a "gate" that is open and shut by this chemical. When there is a constant stream of dopamine, the gate stays shut -- your attention doesn't stray. When dopamine levels drop, the gate pops open. When there is spike of dopamine, however, the gate opens, too. If the dopamine level is already very high because of great rewards, even this spike has trouble opening the gate.

The best example I have heard involves a monkey eating bananas in a tree. As long as there are enough bananas, there is a constant stream of rewards, and the gate stays shut -- no need to go looking for something else, your attention stays on the bananas. When the bananas run out, dopamine drops, and you look around for something else. Also, even if you are eating bananas, and a sexy monkey walks by, you forget the bananas and follow her (or him): Dopamine has spiked, the gate has opened, and your attention shifts.

So what does this have to do with Civ?

Civ IV produced a constant stream of rewards. Small stuff, yes, but you were constantly making some decision or seeing the result of an earlier decision. There was always something somewhere that functioned as a reward. This constant stream of rewards, so the theory, produced a high and constant level of dopamine, and kept your attention on the game. In fact, your dopamine level might have been so high that even if your girlfriend came in the room in those "special clothes" (wink-wink nudge-nudge), your attention stayed on the game.

Civ V is "streamlined" (aka "dumbed down", etc), with a lot of these "minor" decisions taken out. You spend a lot more time just waiting or clicking next turn. This means that the constant stream of rewards is gone, which means that dopamine levels have a chance to fall, which means that your attention tends to wander. In other words, by trying to make the game "less cluttered", they have removed the mechanism that made it so fascinating. On the other hand, your girlfriend is probably a happier person.

If all of this is true -- and, please note, IAMANP (I am not a neurology professor), I just read in the field -- it bodes ill for any chances we have of getting this game up to where Civ IV is in terms of being an attention-grabber. You'd have to patch in something rewarding for the player to do all the time, some problem to solve, even if it is totally minor. This would probably mean going back to a game that has more units, quicker building times, more factors (pollution, religion, espionage) that require doing something all the time.

Note this doesn't mean that the Civ V developers were wrong to say that, for example, pollution can be folded in general unhappiness. It just means that doing so is bad if you are trying to get somebody neurologically hooked on your game.

1. You neurological explination is more dumbed down then Civ 5.
Or as my nuerologist would say, it's a comic book explination at best, and not exactly accurate.

2. Dopamine probably has very little to do with the monkey staying in the banana tree, if a monkey would only stay in just a banana tree. Because monkeys don't just eat bananas, nor do they do it for reward. Horrible example.

3. Feramones had everything to do with why the monkey ran after the female monkey, and dopamine has a very small part to do with why you would ignore your girlfriend while playing a video game.

4. Doctors know about as much about how the brain works (nuerology) as scientists know about the sun. Suprisingly little. Or to put it another way, go find some pamphlets on drugs that are supposed to interact with things like the nervous system, or (nuerological) medications, stuff like gabapetin (nuerotin, a wonderful drug if you suffer from nerve pain; not so cool though if you're lactose intollerant), or scelaxin. They all say the same thing. They "are beleived to work by", this is the pharmasutical way of saying, "this drug does something, this is our best guess, but we don't really know." They don't really know, because we don't really know exactly how the brain works, what all of these chemicals, and receptors do. It's all trial, error, and best guessing. Or another example, they've been able to figure out what causes parkinsons, but what causes ALS (Lou Gerhigs) is completely uknown even though they both do the exact same thing; hell, you don't even really "diagnosis" it. You rule out all other candidates and check a couple of things and then say it's ALS; which is great since fibromyalgia causes the exact same symptoms

Mind you I'm not a nuerologist either, just a guy suffering some pretty bad neurological problems, that has a good likely hood of turning out to be ALS.

5. People posting on the internet don't represent the magority, not by a long shot. Especially when you're talking about a single player game.

You'll have to excuse me. Your post just sort of tickled the wrong nerve. Pun intended.
 
As I was reading the OP, I kept thinking about part of that "stream of rewards" that made IV so fun that they took away in V. I'm a little surprised nobody has mentioned it yet in this thread. In fact, missing this feature was one of the big things that drove me back to SMAC. In some ways, it felt like the "bananas" were replaced with seed pods.

Wonder Videos.

I don't like the developers' decision to replace them with static paintings. Sure, you still get the same societal benefits, but it's not the same as watching the Great Wall plow through the countryside, or the Seine flow past Notre Dame Cathedral. And I may be in the minority on this, but I don't like the new Art Deco look they went with. It seems more harsh and distorted to me, so those visuals do not make up for taking away WV's.

+1 to posts containing calm, reasonable responses to the OP.
-1 to scoffing and name-calling.
 
I disagree with the premise of this thread. There are plenty of 'rewards' for players. Every social policy is a reward. Goodie huts are rewards. Constructing buildings provide rewards.

I don't think it's a lack of rewards that's the problem of this game; but it's the lack of significant choices. Whereas with Civ 4, there were a lot of hard choices players had to make, each requiring the user to decide on certain trade-offs.

Like, what civics do I choose to make my society operate better? Do I choose republic and shoot for using specialists more, or democracy and go with cottage development? Do I choose free market and develop corporations, or maybe go with planned economy that helps me manage my sprawling empire better? Do I choose slavery and use it's ability to hurry production, but then have to deal with the unhappiness. Also, how do I deal with the civil disorder that comes from unhappiness, as well as the unhealthiness issues that stymie production in my cities.

Also, technology choices were tougher too. Do I choose techs that boost my military, or go first for some tech that gets me a religion so you can exploit the benefits of that. However, in doing so, I might have to sacrifice some military advantages.

And then there were the espionage and diplomacy systems which forced one to make tough choices regarding who one aligned with, or against. Civ 5 diplomacy doesn't seem to matter a lot because it always seems that everyone gets angry at me after I conquer a couple of cities, and I basically have to expect war with anyone, anytime. Plus, I also don't understand those pacts of secrecy and cooperation. They just don't seem to matter much.

So I think that the choices were a lot tougher in the past civs, so maybe in a sense the rewards you got seemed a lot more valuable because of that, and kept enticing one to play. I don't think Civ 5 is a terrible game, and I like the war strategy improvements. However, having been a Civ fan since version 1, I can see why many people have some disappointments with this version, especially with the less military oriented aspects of the game.
 
I disagree with the premise of this thread. There are plenty of 'rewards' for players. Every social policy is a reward. Goodie huts are rewards. Constructing buildings provide rewards.

I don't think it's a lack of rewards that's the problem of this game; but it's the lack of significant choices. Whereas with Civ 4, there were a lot of hard choices players had to make, each requiring the user to decide on certain trade-offs.

Like, what civics do I choose to make my society operate better? Do I choose republic and shoot for using specialists more, or democracy and go with cottage development? Do I choose free market and develop corporations, or maybe go with planned economy that helps me manage my sprawling empire better? Do I choose slavery and use it's ability to hurry production, but then have to deal with the unhappiness. Also, how do I deal with the civil disorder that comes from unhappiness, as well as the unhealthiness issues that stymie production in my cities.

Also, technology choices were tougher too. Do I choose techs that boost my military, or go first for some tech that gets me a religion so you can exploit the benefits of that. However, in doing so, I might have to sacrifice some military advantages.

And then there were the espionage and diplomacy systems which forced one to make tough choices regarding who one aligned with, or against. Civ 5 diplomacy doesn't seem to matter a lot because it always seems that everyone gets angry at me after I conquer a couple of cities, and I basically have to expect war with anyone, anytime. Plus, I also don't understand those pacts of secrecy and cooperation. They just don't seem to matter much.

So I think that the choices were a lot tougher in the past civs, so maybe in a sense the rewards you got seemed a lot more valuable because of that, and kept enticing one to play. I don't think Civ 5 is a terrible game, and I like the war strategy improvements. However, having been a Civ fan since version 1, I can see why many people have some disappointments with this version, especially with the less military oriented aspects of the game.

A significant choice is the reward we crave. It is what makes us relevant to the game
 
-No unit to move on an average at peace turn: On average in Civ 4, you'll have some units to move around. Several workers, some missionary. In Civ 5, you have no worker to move (they can't stack to accelerate work, they take a lot of time to build stuff which provides little benefit, and are expensive to keep-up so you have few of them). No missionaries.

Thus Civ V is much better, not having to do all that stuff.

-No changing building production. In Civ 4, it's common to have a building produced at one of your cities. In Civ 5, this is a rare event.

Fine. I don't want to change building production.

-Less unit promotions to choose during war time because less units.

Were we really doing a lot of promotions in Civ !V? I find that I'm doing enough promotions when at war.

-No need to look at your civics and re-assess the situation to check whether or not you want to get into slavery now, depending on the anarchy you'd get, the upkeep it would cost, and your neighbours. No need to re-assess religion either, based on the spread of religion, your neighbours and the knowledge of your neighbours.

Too true. But what we do now, is survey the land, see how our soon to be dead neighbors are doing. Check Economic View, Check Demographics to see how we stack up. Move a worker that's just finished building something, new production for a city that's finished production. I find that Civ V has plenty to offer. I am mostly at war though, so I'm always moving my Units and preparing for the next war.

BTW: I do feel that Civ V has a little less 'One more turn' attitude to it, but does have a lot of 'One more game' attitude to it. I want to win the game in diverse and interesting ways for Achievements, and want to play more games to get more Achievements. For Civ IV, I just played Huge/Marathon/Continents with different leaders, but with Civ V, I want to try everything. My first two games have been Standard/Standard/Continents with Washington, and Large/Epic/Pangea with El-Rashid.

Cheers.
 
BTW: I do feel that Civ V has a little less 'One more turn' attitude to it, but does have a lot of 'One more game' attitude to it. I want to win the game in diverse and interesting ways for Achievements, and want to play more games to get more Achievements.

That's interesting, because the 'one more game' feeling is exactly what I felt was lacking after I played and completed the first few games. Sure, I could change civs and see their UUs and UAs in action, but it generally felt like I was playing the same thing repeatedly, just with different colored units. :p

So it's primarily the Steam achievements that motivate you to do more playthroughs?
 
We need choices that matter in this game and have long lasting impact. Choices that are difficult to reverse.

For example, (this is just one example, there are lots of examples like this) if I wasn't allowed to buy land tiles or if the price was significantly more expensive, then that might put more pressure on me to push culture.

By committing to more culture that should in some way present me with an either/or choice with other aspects of the game. For example, perhaps a focus on lots of culture should make it more difficult for me to have a huge military. I'll avoid a discussion on the mechanics of that...

How many times have you played Civ 4 and went for a cultural victory only to have have all your neighbors start trying to beat up on you? In Civ 4 going for a cultural victory on a challenging skill level usually resulted in a smaller military since you are spending all your time building culture buildings. It is then difficult to refocus on military and defend yourself if you get attacked from multiple AI's. That is a good way to lose a game. I've lost some games doing that or at the very least had to change what victory condition I was going for.

In Civ 5 - you can have everything!!! Big Military, Lots of Culture, Lots of cities, Lots of Social Policies, etc... All I need is money, if I can build a strong economy, then I can have everything.

Where is the challenge in that? The formula for how to win this game is incredibly simple.

It is the lack of challenge that makes this game boring.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom