Who else agrees that Civ 5 has been dumbed down?

Who else agrees that Civ 5 has been dumbed down?

  • Yes

    Votes: 853 50.7%
  • No

    Votes: 677 40.2%
  • Undecided

    Votes: 152 9.0%

  • Total voters
    1,682
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.


I don't care about the sliders, but wath i mean as dumbed down is that: i win with Romans a war agaist Shongai, and the idiot make a peace treaty giving me 3 (!) cities...
I made them puppets, but my felicity gone -25. In two turns, thanks the overflowing money, i bought 3 colosseum and it went down to -8, than in three turn i come back to +1... And that was on King difficulty... I stopped a moment and seeing my points stand up on the others by far 400, i thought that this game is little idiotic...

The game lack the true difficulty in the management of the empire, i almost don't care of my cities, but only of my army.... And go on on winning.. I step my foot on the heado of Arabians likethey were children... Of foolish i was, when i bought Civ V thinking it was a strategy and management game... It is a turn based wargame with production based on resources (like in RTS) and upgrade tree... But i have better games for that like Operational Art of War III....
 
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

Are you going to write an attacko article about it? Those things were hilarious by the third year of them.
 
UPDATE ON POLL (9/28): The numbers continues to rise for those who believe that Civ 5 has been dumb down to a now 37 percent. Undecided still sits at 11 percent, while 52 percent are opposed.
 
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.

I played a few games in the demo, and it looks good on the surface. Then you get about 20-30 hours in to the real product and start to really see the flaws and imbalances in the system.
 
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.

This is like a tenth of a percent in prevalence to terrible arguments on the other side. By far nearly the biggest source of praise for a long time (if the combat system didn't surpass it, but the two arguments could be related/intermixed) and still persisting is people saying how the AI was so good at the game and it was so hard - again, that's what people were and still are praising the game for.

edit: I also would greatly approve if the Attacko persona hated civ5. Would be a fun change.

but, I find that managing a huge empire and a huge army in civ 4 is easy, whereas in Civ 5 its not. Maybe I need to spend more time playing Civ 5, which I will :) but my point is that to me it requires more forethought and planning in this game in order to accomplish those things.

This isn't a great response because it confounds two different things.

For absolute "hugeness," Civ5 is broken for playing games on larger map sizes - it simply doesn't support doing so easily (well, just like civ3 got to even crazier lengths like 500 city maps that civ4 didn't work with.)

But, *relative to your competition on a given game* it's just as feasible if not easier to have huge empires/armies in civ5.
 
(first post!)

nah, i don't think the game has not been "dumbed" down. the gameplay has been simplified in order to make the flow of the game far more dynamic... which it now is. Civ IV, like all ol skool civ games, was choppy... stop n go like a board game. moving stacks of guys is like playing risk... not saying that's bad (obviously not, we're all civ fanatics and love it!) but this is just feels completely different. it's not nearly as loose and free flowing as civ rev (that was almost not turn based) but it's just a change of pace and let's face it, that can be jarring if you're used to playing a lot of civ. i know i was.

the game just forces you to slow down and cut down. it's obvious the developers want you to enjoy reliving the history of the world instead of just mass producing a single unit, forming a doom stack and then just rampaging through the countryside.

but just because i like it doesn't mean the game is where it needs to be. not by a long shot. it is incredibly unbalanced (a civ game fails when there is a distinct and specific way to win), way too easy (as others have mentioned, i hadn't even punked some of the AI that hard before they gave up far too much ass, multiple cities, luxury resources and a bucket of cash), has an obvious lack of variation in CIV personality (even in spite of the "flavors," the only leader that really caught my attention other than wu's censored bosom was monteczuma and we know why), there are no wild roaming animals, the barbs are really a bunch of really cool guysall of a sudden... and expansion is a little funky. i absolutely despise the idea that unhappiness is a kingdom wide phenomenon (why would my capital's citizens be upset about the natives of some city i'm occupying on the other side of the continent?) and the lack of maintenance cost is total nonsense. i don't want it to be like civ4 where it was altogether too easy to expand and i often found myself with an entire continent, an island and a handful of colonies in the "new world"... EVERYTIME i played. but maintenance cost at least made it somewhat challenging still...

but not all things are bad.

take for example the social policies. whereas in civ4 you could research and, potentially even employ at some point or another, all the civics... there's no realistic way i can see someone doing all of the social policies (nor would there be a point to it, anyway) in the same game. which means that, once the game is fixed and patched up and all that good stuff, each time you play the game should be theoretically different.

or even buildings. in civ4, i routinely had several of my mainland cities build every building available. by the time i'm mass producing ICBMs and nuking the hemoglobin out of gandhi, i have nothing else to build. maybe i just suck at civ5 but i don't see that happening. at least not in more than one or two cities.

the folks saying that civ5 vanilla is worse than civ4 vanilla were probably also the folks that said that civ4 vanilla was worse than civ3 vanilla. the clever thing about ciV is that it is, truly, different. maybe not as complicated to play but a new, certain to be improved, experience with a different pace and a different feel to it. the depth is there :)

Moderator Action: Swearing is not allowed on these forums. Thanks. :)
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
 
I am a massive Civ fan. I'm not an amazing civ player... I maxed out my time in Civ 4 playing somewhere between monarch and emperor. Between Civ 2 and Civ 4 I've probably sunk somewhere close to 5000 hours into playing the Civilization games!

That being said: I am extremely disappointed with this game. It feels about half-finished with every possibly corner cut.

First, I had trouble (a lot of trouble, about 6 hours worth of trouble) with steam due to my very very very irregular internet connection and an (at the time) overheating graphics card. I got those problems fixed, but have had more recent problems that I'll address in a moment..

second, Once the game got loaded the opening cinematic got me pretty excited. It looked GOOD. DirectX 11 looks REAL GOOD.

It just doesn't play real good. It lags to hell right around 250 AD when the player starts managing upwards of 6-7 cities... I can't play huge maps, and I have a custom built desktop, 4 gigs of ram, 3.3ghz dual core processor, nvidia 9800gt... you get the picture

So i have to play in DirectX 9... not as pretty, actually reminds me of civ 4 (which I enjoyed)

Then we get to actual gameplay... So very very barren! City states were really interesting for the first 30 minutes, then they became boring and ANNOYING.

I kept waiting for random events... which didn't happen.

I kept looking for espionage and SOME religion factor to the game. Apparently neither the inhabitants of Civ 5 OR the developers believe in praying to a god (any god, take your pick) because this game received virtually no blessing.

ON the other side of things: The combat is really cool. It's an awesome concept. The way happiness dictates growth and effectiveness of an empire is REALLY cool.

A tile with gold yeilding the same $$ as a tile of silver... or silk... or wine... or spices... or cotton... or ivory... you get the picture. NOT COOL.

The resources and city management in civ 4 were fun! you could do as much as you want, or let it go autopilot... IN civ 5 it really doesn't matter what you do. EVERYTHING is either a strategic resource for building, food, or gives 5 happiness and +2 gold!

SO BORING... I completed one game, on prince, winning a Pangaea domination victory by about 750 AD and by the last turn, it was like crawling through molasses to finish moving my troops, and it was like the computers didn't even WANT to fight back.

It was as though they would rather be leading nations in Civ 4 where they were coded to try to actually win the damn game...

I have been anticipating civ 5 for years, but when I recieved a bare-bones game with less then adequate meat to satiate a starving vulture, I was beyond disappointed. I hope the developers read this forum because I'm truly willing to give Civ 5's first expansion a shot if they add enough content to the game... but if they dropped Steam for civ 6, I'd be a very very very very very happy gamer... if you put out any more <snip> products you won't have to worry about people stealing them anyways tbh.

OH, I almost forgot, my other problem with steam was WHILE in a LAN game, logged onto steam with my buddy who was also logged onto steam (note: in a LOCAL AREA NETWORK game) our internet disconnects... and he gets kicked out of the game on my screen, I get kicked out of the game on his screen and our game is screwed... in a LAN game. Thanks Steam. You are terrible.

Thats my 2cp. Did I mention the combat system is cool?

Moderator Action: Swearing is not allowed on these forums, thanks.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
 
should restrict the poll to people who are actually competent at both games and understand the strategies

right now it's just a bunch of people saying "well, the AI gave me a challenge when I played civ4 on X difficulty, but when I play civ5 on X difficulty it's so easy"

you won't realize how much strategy a game has if all you do is play against dumb computers
 
NOT COOL.

hahah :) i like your approach but i disagree a little still

mostly because while all those points are true... i am still convinced that most of that can be repaired through patchwork. that shouldn't outright doom the game as a failure. it'd be a lot more rewarding and entertaining if the game wasn't so unbalanced. it isn't the most comforting thought but the silver lining is that it can be repaired...

should restrict the poll to people who are actually competent at both games and understand the strategies

right now it's just a bunch of people saying "well, the AI gave me a challenge when I played civ4 on X difficulty, but when I play civ5 on X difficulty it's so easy"

you won't realize how much strategy a game has if all you do is play against dumb computers

i certainly hope you're not referring directly to my post because you'd be assuming a lot, otherwise :)
 
i bet you if you start a new poll the "yes" votes will be greater now that people have spent more time with it.

...And now that people who like the game are staying clear of We-Hate-Civ5 threads like this one.
 
should restrict the poll to people who are actually competent at both games and understand the strategies

right now it's just a bunch of people saying "well, the AI gave me a challenge when I played civ4 on X difficulty, but when I play civ5 on X difficulty it's so easy"

you won't realize how much strategy a game has if all you do is play against dumb computers

Civ has always been primarily a single player game. Play MP isn't the answer -- I would be shocked if more than 1/4 of civ players do much MP playing and equally surprised if more than half have even tried MP.
 
should restrict the poll to people who are actually competent at both games and understand the strategies

right now it's just a bunch of people saying "well, the AI gave me a challenge when I played civ4 on X difficulty, but when I play civ5 on X difficulty it's so easy"

you won't realize how much strategy a game has if all you do is play against dumb computers
If that happened, the tone would be seriously more negative than it is now. For good or worse, people that are competent in any game rely heavily in taking the most jusice out of what the game gives them, not shunning any advantage they can get . This means they aren't exactly picky about using exploits and bugs for their advantage ... and civ V is clearly more bugged in terms of balance than civ IV ( even if you compare 1.00 versions ).

In other words, that kind of people are already with a pretty good idea of how bad civ V looks in terms of balance. But anyway, that kind of people probably spends more time game, code dwelling or in other forums than responding polls in general discussions :p
 
UPDATE ON POLL (9/30): With the numbers still rising, now 40 percent of users think that Civ 5 has been dumb down with roughly ten percent undecided! That means only 1 in 2 users actually think there is no dumbing down of the Civ 5 game! Have us skeptics been wrong? Or, is it only a matter of time before one realizes that the game is dumb down?
 
Civ5 is much less immersive than Civ4, that's for sure. There are fewer things to monitor and tweak, the main focus is building stuff and moving units around. In so many ways it just feels like a dragged out game of Revolution with a bigger tech tree. It's just too simple and is failing to suck me in. Just my humble opinion.
 
UPDATE ON POLL (9/30): With the numbers still rising, now 40 percent of users think that Civ 5 has been dumb down with roughly ten percent undecided! That means only 1 in 2 users actually think there is no dumbing down of the Civ 5 game! Have us skeptics been wrong? Or, is it only a matter of time before one realizes that the game is dumb down?

In my opinion 40% is a lot for a website like this.

Please, don't get me wrong, but in my opinion, the logical thing is that a fansite is usually biased towards people who like the game (as I said, it's just my opinion) and for this reason I consider 40% a huge percentage.

I can't undernstand why so many options have just been scraped without any replacement. Ok, I will buy this thing about religion not fiting the game design. But this is just one of many features that was removed without any kind of replacement. Just an incomplete list:

- Religion: As had been said, Civ4 could be better. But that's what Civ5 should have done. Improving Religion, not scratching it.
- Civics: Why are they gone? National ideas don't replace them in any way
- 1upt: The idea of limiting maximum units per tile is good. But they oversimplified it. Each unit should have a weight and then, depending on many factors (tech, acces to roads and resources, terrain) each tile would have a maximum support. Then if there were too many units in the tile attrition would take place.
- Culture: Why is culture per tile gone? That was very realistic.
- Units becoming boats: The first time I saw it was like "are you joking?". Is it really so complicated to have transport boats? I don't think so
- Global happiness: So I can have a city isolated and they are hapy as if they had all the luxuries? realy?
- Tech tree: I wouls swear it is smaller...
- And many more...
 
UPDATE ON POLL (9/30): With the numbers still rising, now 40 percent of users think that Civ 5 has been dumb down with roughly ten percent undecided! That means only 1 in 2 users actually think there is no dumbing down of the Civ 5 game! Have us skeptics been wrong? Or, is it only a matter of time before one realizes that the game is dumb down?
Will you stop acting like your conducting anything close to an effective study?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom