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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Heh, I agree, and when you consider the people that like civ 5 but don't like civ 4, it still makes sense: Those people didn't like civ 4 because it was probably too complex for them so they didn't do much, while in civ 5 it is simple so they can do a lot more via conquering.

But I must ask, why go back to civ 4? Most mods that do exist lower building/unit costs and make conquering difficult, so there's always something to do.
 
Can someone explain to me what the small rewards are that everyone seems to agree are present in civ 4 and not 5 but refuse to give even a small example of? Just like list 5 or so, so that i know what you are all talking about.
 
Since I have been playing Civ 4, 3 and Alpha Centauri the last times, I won't be able to answer specifically, but here's a few:

Diplomacy: Helping an AI-Civ would actually give you a considerable + on their foreign relation. Have you ever helped another nation in Civ 5? It seems to me it's just worthless, especially with the cunning Chinese.

Ecology: Planting forests would actually make your people happy, playing ecologically careful would also for instance improve your relations with the Gaia faction in AC

Gaining a food ressource would actually improve your population's health

Spreading your religion would actually help towards winning culturally

Building roads would actually allow foreign trade (which has just disappeared??)

Plus, rewards just seemed more useful than in Civ 5. Take unit upgrades for instance, they are general, not specific, some of them might just turn out plain useless. Or what are luxury ressources good for except balancing out your civ growth penalty? Nothing really and that#s a shame. The only real reward you get in Civ 5 is by dealing with City States and even that isnt very challenging or well balanced at times.

sorry for my english
 
In terms of interest Civ 4 is like the Times crossword, and Civ 5 is like word-finder in Kerrrang! magazine.

The funny thing is, dumb games sometimes hook you in by being hypnotically boring. I'm sure I'm not the only one here who's stood up glassy eyed after about 50 games of minesweeper and wondered what the hell happened to 2 hours. Maybe the OP can explain the brain chemicals involved there....
 
didn't like civ 4 because it was probably too complex for them

*sigh*

This thread was so much fun and I actually think there is some truth in the OP. Then you go and turn it into every other thread on the forum in one blanket insult.

It's November, we're a few weeks out from the 'insult people that don't hate Civ5 enough' festival and have moved on to other discussions.
 
WELL, NUMI, when i play civ 4, on the average, I have 5 units/buildings/wonders/techs/borders changing/popping per turn.

when i play civ5, on the average, I have 1 units/buildings/wonders/techs/borders changing/popping per 5 turns.

This is not a dramatization. It is dead reality. If you are truly incapable of seeing how mind-numbingly boring civ5 is for all of us, you are incapable of grasping simple reality. I dont want to be a dick about it, but your post is asinine. Are you really that unaware of how few events take place in civ5 ( not the bogus meaningless "bump=bump"'s of new research agreements or expired teaties and such )? I realize that nearly turn in civ5 has about 4 events pop up, but n average, only 1 in 20 actually have any meaning. The most exciting thing that happens in civ5, on average, is a break from the "next turn" monotony where i get to once again engage in the "whatever the bottom button in the diplomacy screen is" monotony.
 
Where is my palace at?

I haven't seen people ever complain about the palace in Civ 1, It took like all of 5 seconds to upgrade and it was an awesome reward for growing your civ.

Regarding Civ 5: It's a half complete game, and most of the complaints about it are "It's missing, X,Y,Z" not "it has an inherent design flaw that couldn't be corrected by adding the missing content. Some of the Civ 5 mods are great, and after an expansion or two the game will be fine.
 
Er, nothing. In fact, that is just what I have done.

...
+2

Actually, since I am also not a big fan of Civ4 (yes, yes, shocking), I tried CTP2 and saw some interesting concepts there (as well as some serious flaws, some of which, interestingly enough, are 1:1 in Civ5 as well).
 
The OP rings up some good points. For me, the games turns dull after about the first war. The challenge of recovering from a rush is gone.
 
Evidence suggests there's a lot in this well expressed theory. I too got bored quickly. That's why I started doing the Steam achievements, usually multiple ones per game (in line with the neuro-theory). But they ran out and I was left only with the bugged ones and the 'eventually' ones. So I started to think about creating our own. Thus the Achievement Challenge Events (ACEs) were born and we've already got 33 suggestions for the first iteration.

It's arguable that we shouldn't have to rely on a set of artificial achievements for our supply of dopamine. Little challenges and little tensions made these games in the past. It would be nice to think Civ5 could be re-engineered to provide those. But it won't. I hope Firaxis will learn for Civ6, if ever there is one. It would be tragic if they used the wartime "if we withdraw now, our troops will have died in vain" argument and kept on throwing good money after bad.
 
Fixed this for you. You're welcome.

While we are waiting for the next patch, allow me to speculate on why Civ V does not grip some 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.
 
Evidence suggests there's a lot in this well expressed theory. I too got bored quickly. That's why I started doing the Steam achievements, usually multiple ones per game (in line with the neuro-theory). But they ran out and I was left only with the bugged ones and the 'eventually' ones. So I started to think about creating our own. Thus the Achievement Challenge Events (ACEs) were born and we've already got 33 suggestions for the first iteration.

It's arguable that we shouldn't have to rely on a set of artificial achievements for our supply of dopamine. Little challenges and little tensions made these games in the past. It would be nice to think Civ5 could be re-engineered to provide those. But it won't. I hope Firaxis will learn for Civ6, if ever there is one. It would be tragic if they used the wartime "if we withdraw now, our troops will have died in vain" argument and kept on throwing good money after bad.

I don't really agree with this. I think enough could be added to Civilization 5 to answer the OP's(admittedly quite well founded) criticism quite roundly.

*Will* enough be added? I'm only optimistic, not psychic.
 
I love this post, there's just so much wrong with it. :) The entire thing hinges on "facts" about Civ V that are not actually facts, but the OP's opinions. There's no science here. Civ V being 'dumbed down' is an opinion. That you don't see any 'rewards' in Civ V is an opinion.

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.
 
WELL, NUMI, when i play civ 4, on the average, I have 5 units/buildings/wonders/techs/borders changing/popping per turn.

when i play civ5, on the average, I have 1 units/buildings/wonders/techs/borders changing/popping per 5 turns.

This is a good point, I think and ties to the OP nicely. Now if a game goes on long enough and your cities grow and get factories and stuff, you can get to the point where you're getting five new things every turn, but early on it's really slow.

I know some mods have rescaled things in some ways but have any sought to address this exact issue? Any thoughts on them?

I get some enjoyment out of this game, maybe more than Civ IV because I came to IV late and always felt like I was following in others' footsteps instead of blazing new strategies. But I also play it mostly as a war game because really that's where the action is. When a war comes to a close, I feel a little let down, might save the game and find something else to do for a while.
 
*sigh*

This thread was so much fun and I actually think there is some truth in the OP. Then you go and turn it into every other thread on the forum in one blanket insult.

It's November, we're a few weeks out from the 'insult people that don't hate Civ5 enough' festival and have moved on to other discussions.

It wasn't an insult. The fact is some people just don't have time to learn a 400 page rulebook or whatever, so civ 5 is more appealing, since you can do a lot more without having to learn a lot.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom