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

Tick a box when someone uses a "checkers & chess" analogy.
Tick a box when someone decries the end of the genre.
Tick a box when someone makes ridiculous hyperbole that doesn't really help anyone. ("Civ 4 is like a Rembrandt, Civ 5 is like my kid's fingerpainting.")

Click to expand...

Tick a box when someone mentions RoM.

Licinia Eudoxia said:

Tick a box when someone uses a "checkers & chess" analogy.
Tick a box when someone decries the end of the genre.
Tick a box when someone makes ridiculous hyperbole that doesn't really help anyone. ("Civ 4 is like a Rembrandt, Civ 5 is like my kid's fingerpainting.")

Click to expand...

Tick a box when Jon Schafer is blamed/insulted
Tick a box when consoles/the console generation are at fault
Tick a box when the poster is so angry they make up a dumb name for the game (e.g. Civilization 0.5)

I thought it was quite a good OP. Games designers really do need to think about what makes different people keep playing, and what floats different people's boats. Even if the suits are primarily interested in what opens peoples' wallets.

That was a good OP. To sum it up: because Civ5 is "streamlined" there is much less things to do than in Civ4. Still in Civ5 games take even longer to finish than games in Civ4. This inevitably leads to less interesting time.

EmpireOfCats said:

"Internet science" ?

You can google the rest yourself, or, you know, go to a university library. Lady, if you are going to be offensive, at least do your homework first.

Click to expand...

I'm well aware of what dopamine does. There's a long, long stretch from "what dopamine does" to "Civ 4 had a constant stream of small rewards that stimulated the release of dopamine."

You don't connect the two at all, you just rely on people who agree with you already to smile and nod when you hand wave your way across the big leap in logic.

Your post basically says, "Purple is a color, therefore oranges are a tasty citrus snack!" The first part is a fact, the second part is pretty much an opinion dressed up as a fact, and you never really connect the two.

You accuse me of being offensive, but this sort of posting is pretty offensive to me. Maybe I'll make a thread that explains why Søren Kierkegaard's writings prove that Civilization 5 is the fundamentally correct choice in gaming for each single individual.

i like the way the OP denies that it's internet science by pointing to a link found on google of research almost 10 years old (anything over 5 is outdated) and by inviting the naysayer to google it themselves. Doesn't the OP see the irony in that? I appreciate the OP pointing out they aren't a professor of neurology.

expuddle said:

i like the way the OP denies that it's internet science by pointing to a link found on google of research almost 10 years old (anything over 5 is outdated) and by inviting the naysayer to google it themselves. Doesn't the OP see the irony in that? I appreciate the OP pointing out they aren't a professor of neurology.

Click to expand...

Using the term internet science correctly would be as impressive as correctly using "streamlined" in respect to games.

If the OPs' basic explanation of how dopamine works is internet science then kindly provide an explanation that is both basic and correct.

Arsenic Steel said:

Using the term internet science correctly would be as impressive as correctly using "streamlined" in respect to games.

If the OPs' basic explanation of how dopamine works is internet science then kindly provide an explanation that is both basic and correct.

Click to expand...

The 'internet science' part wasn't the "how dopamine works" part. It was the part where the OP goes from "this is how dopamine works" to "Civ 4 is better at stimulating the release of dopamine."

Senethro said:

Tick a box when Jon Schafer is blamed/insulted
Tick a box when consoles/the console generation are at fault
Tick a box when the poster is so angry they make up a dumb name for the game (e.g. Civilization 0.5)

Click to expand...

Add in an "All of the Above" tick?

and? The OP just used some comic relief and a little science to reword the issues of higher production costs, no multiple choice random events, etc in civ V.
If you want to claim a thread that starts off talking about bananas and girlfriends is horrible with questionable sincerity, that is entirely up to you but it really calls into question your reading comprehension.

Aside that Civ5 is not boring to everyone, I dont see where OP's logic fails?
It is quite obvious (and proven fact, as he stated this himself; AND I guess that he knows best when he is bored and when he is not?), that playing Civ5 for OP doesn't initiate enough dopamine production to keep him satisfied.
The thesis that constant stream of "small rewards" stimulates production of dopamine also seems all right and I don't see any serious reason to reject it.

However, there is an open area for discussion whether Civ 5 really doesnt supply player with such "small rewards" or if Civ 4 frustrations didnt spoil the fun "small rewards" gave.

IMHO, Civ 4 was almost perfect in terms of gameplay speed and number of said "small reward". The only con I see is the frustration coming from combat (SOD's, randomness).
Civ 5 for me as a builder give too few attractions to keep me satisfied. OTOH other ppl, who have other tastes might be satisfied with combat, which can deliver them a lot of such "small rewards" . Moreover, some ppl who prefer more casual gameplay style might be pleased with less tension during a game -- combat results are more predictable, thus you dont go blind with anger when your best unit died after 99.99% success attack, which happend in Civ 4 quite often, and dont have to reload when your neighbour launches sudden strike that in first turn kills all of your defensive forces just because of game mechanics.

That said, I still preffer Civ 4 as Civ 5 has disappointed me in too many aspects to overlook them.

I like the OPs explanation, I find I have to play ciV on quick, whereas I played cIV on normal. However his explanation doesn't explain why people enjoy marathon and epic speeds over the faster rewards of lower speeds.

If it's a good scientific theory, there needs to be a testable falsifiable hypothesis.

Otherwise, isn't it already basic game design to provide adequate reward to the player for their actions in the game? I don't think explanations about dopamine are even necessary.

Since we're on the topic of internet-based research, let me point out this link.

Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is a tendency for people to favor information that confirms their preconceptions or hypotheses regardless of whether the information is true.[Note 1][1] As a result, people gather evidence and recall information from memory selectively, and interpret it in a biased way. The biases appear in particular for emotionally significant issues and for established beliefs. For example, in reading about gun control, people usually prefer sources that affirm their existing attitudes. They also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position. Biased search, interpretation and/or recall have been invoked to explain attitude polarization (when a disagreement becomes more extreme even though the different parties are exposed to the same evidence), (...)

Click to expand...

Experiments have repeatedly found that people tend to test hypotheses in a one-sided way, by searching for evidence consistent with the hypothesis they hold at a given time.[5][6] Rather than searching through all the relevant evidence, they ask questions that are phrased so that an affirmative answer supports their hypothesis.[7] They look for the consequences that they would expect if their hypothesis were true, rather than what would happen if it were false

Click to expand...

By the way, you may be aware that the way I've selectively quoted here is another example of confirmation bias. That said, I'm not trying to do science.

Licinia Eudoxia said:

A horrible, horrible thread, with horrible, horrible internet science. I'd like to think the Original Post wasn't sincere.

Someone really needs to draw up a Bingo chart for these threads.

Tick a box when someone uses a "checkers & chess" analogy.
Tick a box when someone decries the end of the genre.
Tick a box when someone makes ridiculous hyperbole that doesn't really help anyone. ("Civ 4 is like a Rembrandt, Civ 5 is like my kid's fingerpainting.")

Take a shot when someone, somehow, manages to start talking about World of Warcraft.

Take a shot every time someone sarcastically mentions 'streamlining.' Take two shots if they've somehow managed to use it inappropriately.

Click to expand...

You mean something like this?

Also, BfW rocks

snipperrabbit!! said:

----------->2 reps above
Nein ! Firaxis should get rid of their dependency on take-two/2k first ! the current situation is genocidal to the franchise.
.

Click to expand...

sadly take-two bought fireaxis games in 2005 and runs them as an independent subsidiary.

Licinia Eudoxia said:

I'm well aware of what dopamine does. There's a long, long stretch from "what dopamine does" to "Civ 4 had a constant stream of small rewards that stimulated the release of dopamine."

You don't connect the two at all, you just rely on people who agree with you already to smile and nod when you hand wave your way across the big leap in logic.

Your post basically says, "Purple is a color, therefore oranges are a tasty citrus snack!" The first part is a fact, the second part is pretty much an opinion dressed up as a fact, and you never really connect the two.

You accuse me of being offensive, but this sort of posting is pretty offensive to me. Maybe I'll make a thread that explains why Søren Kierkegaard's writings prove that Civilization 5 is the fundamentally correct choice in gaming for each single individual.

Click to expand...

How is it a long stretch? have you actually played CIV 4?

The OP has a sound claim-evidence-inference-justification argument structure. I don't see how your purple and orange statement is even a correct analogy/comparison.

katipunero said:

How is it a long stretch? have you actually played CIV 4?

The OP has a sound claim-evidence-inference-justification argument structure. I don't see how your purple and orange statement is even a correct analogy/comparison.

Click to expand...

Could you point out the evidence part?

Licinia Eudoxia said:

Civ 4 is like a Rembrandt, Civ 5 is like my kid's fingerpainting.

Click to expand...

I don't think any long time lover of the series would say that. Looks is about the only aspect of the game where Civ 5 > Civ4

Joking aside, I think OP has a point. (The underlying science is obviously dumbed down some, and there will always be some people who think new and shiny is better than old and tested. So OP generalises, don't hang him for it).

Having said that, I don't really see any attempts at arguing why Civ 5 is better than Civ 4 aside from the obvious flip side of the coin: the people who like the dumbing down of the game because it's easier to get into. This is a valid point, and I think Firaxis knew where they were going with Civ 5 and wanted to attract new fans to the series. However, they've built an army of just-one-more-turners who rely on the complexity of the series for their gaming fix. I believe messing with that well proven formula was ill adviced.

Just like to add that, on higher difficulties, I too can feel like Civ 4 is all work and no play. And I don't like the build up, conquer, recover, rinse-and-repeat formula that most games on high levels (apart from kultcher) falls to.

In BTS with BUFFY, Prince - Monarch seems just about right for me to have a challenge while still enjoying the many aspects of the game. If you feel like Civ 4 is work, go down a few notches on the difficulty, friendly advice Oh, and this little dude, cause I like him

Senethro said:

Could you point out the evidence part?

Click to expand...

I said that the OP has a good argument structure. I never said each of the parts absolutely inspired credence. Which is probably why one of the better rebuttals would be to point out that the references used by the OP are questionable. Someone said "internet science" a few posts above. That is a good reply and great counter-argument.

What is not a good reply is to come out with a totally impertinent statement and go meta- against the post with hasty generalizations chock full of sweeping dicta.