Who else agrees that Civ 5 has been dumbed down?

jprc said:

It is a HUGE part of the Human History and evolution and simulating a civilization without the good*/bad? impact of religions is like eating a cake in which the cook forgot to put any sugar.

Click to expand...

Given the superficial and unrealistic nature of religion in Civ4, I'd say it's more like they forgot the chocolate sprinkles. Perhaps you're missing out, but it isn't going to ruin the experience for you unless you let it.

Nekator said:

Sure you can offend more then 150 people and call them fanatics and what else, or you can just agree, that they changed the complexity of the game too much to the casual side, so that they have angered many people.

Click to expand...

Anyone who actually feels "angry" about this is instantly disqualified from having an opinion for being an enormously over-invested saddo.

craig123 said:

That sounds like a balance issue rather than a "dumbed down" issue. They simply need to make extreme unhappiness have a greater combat penalty (e.g. 75% penalty in neutral and hostile territory).

Click to expand...

It is a dumb down when you remove a necessarily harsh feature and replace it with a softer aproach ( most likely to "feel good" , but i digress ). And don't fool yourself, there is no way of stopping the slipery slope syndrom on 3X games besides putting harsh measures to stop it and civ V fails in that. This alone makes the game dumbed down , by not stoping the already inherent "land is power" caracter of civ games in any meaningful way. In fact even civ IV maintenance , that was way harsher than civ V happiness in this regard , was not enough ... and even if you made units to stop fighting at all or go rogue when extremely unhappy, civ V happiness would still be less harsh than civ IV maintenance

craig123 said:

Many people on this forum are unhappy with the game, clearly. However, it should be noted that:
1. Most people who like the game are playing it rather than posting here;
2. People who don't like the game are more likely to voice their displeasure;
3. Given the level of hatred exhibited in most threads in this forum, many people will have either stopped visiting the forums altogether or be in a more friendly sub-forum (such as Stories & Tales).
4. The thread title is deliberately worded to attract people who are discontented with the game. Many people who are happy with the game will stay clear of yet another we-hate-Civ5 thread.

Given that, despite these factors skewing the result, the majority of people still believe the game is not dumbed down, indicates the unhappiness might not be as widespread as some posters seem to believe. Another poll in six months' time would be much more telling.

Click to expand...

It also should be noted that a fair number of people didn't voted because they don't consider the game suficiently popped up or down. No one ever remembers those ( I'm one of them )

r_rolo1 said:

It is a dumb down when you remove a necessarily harsh feature and replace it with a softer aproach ( most likely to "feel good" , but i digress ). And don't fool yourself, there is no way of stopping the slipery slope syndrom on 3X games besides putting harsh measures to stop it and civ V fails in that. This alone makes the game dumbed down , by not stoping the already inherent "land is power" caracter of civ games in any meaningful way. In fact even civ IV maintenance , that was way harsher than civ V happiness in this regard , was not enough ... and even if you made units to stop fighting at all or go rogue when extremely unhappy, civ V happiness would still be less harsh than civ IV maintenance

Click to expand...

But surely if units became unable to fight (and you weren't allowed to build settlers) you could no longer expand. Alternatively, unhappiness could give penalties to gold/science/culture (just throwing some ideas out).

r_rolo1 said:

It also should be noted that a fair number of people didn't voted because they don't consider the game suficiently popped up or down. No one ever remembers those ( I'm one of them )

Click to expand...

There is an Undecided option

civ IV+2years modding > civ V

civ IV without modding < civ V because i love hexagons ^^

civ V:
+graphic
+animations
+1on1 fights are funny (without KIplayer) because of the changes in the fights
----the rest xD

I think for the future i will play some civ IV mods further or some XCOM games .
But I hope that their will be a MOD which make civ V loveable.

But why increase "universal suffrage" (social politic...) the combat strength of cities in Civ V?
this is just sh*t!
instead of this effect their should be elections in every city,(happines would decide...) and if a city vote for another leader they just could switch the player (or get rebellion or get a free city...). their could be so cool effects in this thing. but combat strength ? (i say just: Rhye's and Fall mods know it better...)

Stoox said:

But why increase "universal suffrage" (social politic...) the combat strength of cities in Civ V?
this is just !

Click to expand...

I suppose it represents the increased moral and public spirit of an enfranchised populace, particularly in regards to the citizen-soldier ideal. Look at Republican Spain- their army was largely comprised of civilian volunteers, and held out against the rebelling military for far longer than you would think possible.
Not the most obvious effect for the policy, and I suspect that it was a bonus they just wanted to lever in where they could, but it's quite easy to rationalise.

Well civ5 has some minor improvements/additions that I like a lot: such as the natural wonders, atomic bomb (delivered by an aircraft) and new unique units like A6M Zero fighter and B-17 bomber.

But as it was already mentioned it lacks a lot of stuff (religion, espionage, health etc). Let's assume they kept the corporations out for the expansions. I also dislike the civics system. Civ 4 had much better civics system where they were divided into different sections.

It also annoys me that there are no scenarios and that there is no world map where nations would start at their default locations.

So overall, at this moment, I am a bit disappointed with the game.

I've found that people saying it's too easy tend to be the warmongers. Indeed, for that playstyle, on smaller maps it is. The problem is that unhappiness causes problems long-term as your growth suffers enormously, but the early rushers either quit early after having beaten half the AIs assuming that means they've won rather than crippled themselves with unhappiness in the long run, or on small maps they only need to steamroll a few anyhow.
If they want more of a challenge for their rushing they could try different map types and sizes until the warfare AI is improved.

craig123 said:

But surely if units became unable to fight (and you weren't allowed to build settlers) you could no longer expand. Alternatively, unhappiness could give penalties to gold/science/culture (just throwing some ideas out).

Click to expand...

Yup, stuff like that is being discussed in strats and tips forum (just look for " new strategy: ignore happiness" ). But that does not obsfucate that you can't have a "feel good" design and harsh enough anti-uberexpansion measures at the same time. Civ V got in the "feel good" too much to be effective in this regard. That is definitely a design issue, not a balance one, since it was obvious that we actually needed harsher measures than in civ IV ( and overexpansion in civ IV is equal to almost assured death ... ), but instead they gone the other way.

craig123 said:

There is an Undecided option

Click to expand...

That would apply if I was undecided As I have a opinion that is neither thumbs up or down, I can't honesly use that option

r_rolo1 said:

Yup, stuff like that is being discussed in strats and tips forum (just look for " new strategy: ignore happiness" ). But that does not obsfucate that you can't have a "feel good" design and harsh enough anti-uberexpansion measures at the same time. Civ V got in the "feel good" too much to be effective in this regard. That is definitely a design issue, not a balance one, since it was obvious that we actually needed harsher measures than in civ IV ( and overexpansion in civ IV is equal to almost assured death ... ), but instead they gone the other way.

Click to expand...

I see where you're coming from. I have read the Ignore Happiness strategy and it sounds broken. Hopefully it will be sorted in a patch.

r_rolo1 said:

That would apply if I was undecided As I have a opinion that is neither thumbs up or down, I can't honesly use that option

Click to expand...

Fair enough . Yet another reason why the poll is flawed .

@ DaveGold (post 157)

I am happy that you wrote all this. First, English is your language, you write it much better than me, and 2nd, I was about to write the same points and you save me time...
I 100% agree with you

(note on the strategie): as said by DaveGold, be a good defender, run an attrition war, and you surely win...

I remember when Civ 4 came out, I went and bought, came home and was blown away by the improvements in graphics and gameplay. Did the same with Civ 5 but wasn't blown away. People saying to wait for the addons to see an improvement..that sounds to me as if all we got in Civ 5 is half a game.

2K saying they wanted new people, means they don't really care about the current player base. I have played it again and again, and its boring in the first 4000 years, also very simplistic.

I also do not let my Civ 5 connect to the net, as Steam causes my system to become unstable (running Win 7 64 bit) besides the fact that I consider Steam to be just one step above a virus.

It all boils down to: We got an incomplete game, 2 months before it was supposed to be released, add in 2 patches within a week of being released and we have an EPIC FAIL of the game.

Out of interest, how many of the moaners played the demo before you bought it? If you're offended that your brand loyalty has been exploited, perhaps you should examine your own purchasing decisions before crying betrayal.

no doubt

dumbed down, and uglied up

but at least they did not add any cool looking units and got rid of like loading boats so now people turn into boats

its a magic game like myst or something. You go to find a natural wonder and turn into a boat

Being a fan means you buy it no matter what. I think that's what Civ fanatic means and that's what this forum is called. We have the right to express our discontent if it is not up to par comparing to past civ games. It IS betrayal even if we never bought it.

Maybe this example is a bit less inflammatory than "dumbed down" vs. "nuh-uh"....

Sunday around lunchtime - I started a Huge map, marathon speed Civ V game. By Sunday night - a "mere" 10 hours later - I was late in the industrial age and it was only a matter of deciding how I wanted to win.

I still have Vanilla IV (of course), as well as most of my old saves (I'm a serially game saver... all big decisions get saved so if they don't work out, I go back and try different paths).

Nothing, NOTHING, in Civ IV came anywhere close to that -- 10 hours to basically finish a game.... on Marathon!?!?!

That's just wrong - and whatever it is - it ain't civilization.

Even before the mods, even before BTS -- my vanilla game save points span days, if not weeks.

THAT'S what I expect out of Civilization - I recognize that multi-week games aren't everyone's cup of tea... but I think it's fair to say, based on the popularity of certain mods and based on the nature of many complaints -- this is a fundamental flaw.

I'll accept that it might be wrong and overly inflammatory to say "it's dumbed down" -- but it's been over-streamlined.

On the biggest possible map and the slowest possible speed, I shouldn't be able to complete a game in 10 hours. If I can - then too much has been taken out or something's just not right.

first game that has been "consolized" that doesn't have a console version...
what's the PC gaming world coming to?

atog said:

Being a fan means you buy it no matter what. I think that's what Civ fanatic means and that's what this forum is called. We have the right to express our discontent if it is not up to par comparing to past civ games. It IS betrayal even if we never bought it.

Click to expand...

You don't have any rights beyond those of any other customer. A healthy creator-fan relationship is beneficial to all involved, but there's no additional moral obligation there, and to claim one is to claim an entirely unjustified, narcissistic ownership of both the franchise, and the labour of the creators.

If there is one series in this world that has given me more than I ever paid for, it is Civilization. To suggest that I should be able to extract some additional toll for this very reason is little short of an insult.

KingYosef said:

UPDATE ON POLL (9/27): Now the numbers continue to rise as 1 in every 3 players agree that Civ 5 has been dumb down, while 11 percent are uncertain.

Click to expand...

Did you ever stop to think that maybe 1 in 3 players are dumb?
The biggest complaints early on from A LOT of people were that the economy has been dumbed down because the gold sliders are gone.

I think everyone now agrees that the economy is much more complex than before.
People simply don't like change.

Is this game perfect? Hell no, but neither was Civ IV and neither will be any video game.
Yea the AI has some issue, but I think the Civ IV had a lot more issues and was a lot dumber without BetterAI installed.

Traitorfish said:

You don't have any rights beyond those of any other customer. A healthy creator-fan relationship is beneficial to all involved, but there's no additional moral obligation there, and to claim one is to claim an entirely unjustified, narcissistic ownership of both the franchise, and the labour of the creators.

Click to expand...

I don't know... this is a long series. Unlike most games, with an audience mainly of teens and 20somethings, I would be willing to bet Civilization has a lot more 30somethings and 40somethings who go waaayyy back than most.

By the time it's all said and done, I bet a lot of us have sent more than a grand Civ's way (recognizing Microprose isn't Firaxis isn't yada yada), when you add up all the expansions, special editions, etc. I know I have - I did the math just last night. Hell, I even bought Civ3 Play the World even though I've never played MP and had and have zero desire to do so.

That doesn't entitle me to Sid's first born.... but yeah, I do feel a bit more 'upset' about a Civ game that disappoints me than some random title that I felt was a waste of money.

For nearly 20 years -- a lot of us have plunked down our cash for every single iteration and combination under the sun. A lot of us have been the best advertising Civilization ever had -- it was we who introduced frat brothers and dorm friends to this really awesome and addictive game back when that was virtually the only way a game COULD go mainstream. It was we who, whenever a pretender came out - laughed it out of existence.

Over the course of 5 iterations and dozens of expansions (6, if you count Alpha Centauri) - it's probably safe to say we've all had our complaints. We've all had our releases that didn't immediately sit well.

However, this one really does -- to a lot of us -- feel like we've been left behind.

I'm not going to toss about inflammatory rhetoric - maybe it's not "dumbed down"... but games are definitely shorter. Maybe it's not console-ized - but it feels like there's a most definite influence... and who doesn't play this and see it how it could be popped into an xbox or PS3 in short order? Maybe it's not "lacking features - but There's definitely less to "do" on each turn. It's been streamlined -- overly streamlined moreso than other title in the series, I think.

For a lot of us, it really does feel like we just got dumped... Like after 20 years of loyal fandom and snapping up everything they could put on the shelf, the gameplay has fundamentally shifted to something quicker, sleeker, and more 'streamlined'.

I've got most of my old iterations of Civ -- excepting only I (II doesn't work very well in Vista, but you can hammer it into place). I took a walk down memory lane last night... started up games in each to try to get a real sense of the progression.

Things most certainly changed between iterations. LOTS of things changed (I almost forgot about the awesomeness of building an ironclad, then simply running up and down the coast killing every AI spearman!). Lots of concepts evolved or morphed - sometimes to the point of being entirely new concepts.

But - IV to V is the first time it feels like the game was gutted... I get it - some people thought IV was too bloated with things that were useless... but a lot of us didn't and a lot of us are suddenly wondering what just happened -- we've had 4 iterations and 20 years of constant feature ad, never/rarely feature removal. It's a shock when after all that time, we're suddenly dropped into a new world where things we used to take as givens -- keeping an individual city happy, however it was accomplished and whatever it meant to fail at that -- are just gone.

Civ 5 is a good, solid game. I've been playing Civ since Civ 1. Civ 5 holds true to what makes Civ so good. It's fun, addictive, and challenging. Plus the combat and the 1upt is way better.

Yeah I wish Civ 5 was more like Civ 4 + ROM, but it's not. Actually it reminds me of Civ 4 when it came out. Plain vanilla.

Civ 5 is a great foundation for the patches, expansions, and mods to follow. They will make Civ 5 the game it has the potential to be.