Dislike the direction CIV5 is taking? Tell us how you'd do it!

bryanw1995 said:

IMHO I've enjoyed civ5 so much because I was a semi-casual civ4 gamer who rarely ventured into emperor territory, much less immortal+.

Click to expand...

I think it probably goes deeper than that. I am a semi-casual Civ IV player who keeps at Noble usually, and I really dislike Civ V.

So most people want a simple game? <ughhh> Yes, civilization is at it's end. It's glory days are over.

Looks like Facebook Civ will be a smashing hit and the game of the future to the near-majority of people that voted in this thread.

tom2050 said:

So most people want a simple game? <ughhh> Yes, civilization is at it's end. It's glory days are over.

Looks like Facebook Civ will be a smashing hit and the game of the future to the near-majority of people that voted in this thread.

Click to expand...

I don't think that people do want simple games. I got a friend hooked on (association) football management games, despite them being extremely dense spreadsheet based games, despite him only ever really playing FPS's and FIFA before that.

Personally I think this "people want a simple game" hoopla is just an excuse trotted out by the Developers/Publishers when their latest releases are, to quote the Bard, "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing". The same principle goes with films and CGI/3D.

Brian Shanahan said:

I don't think that people do want simple games. I got a friend hooked on (association) football management games, despite them being extremely dense spreadsheet based games, despite him only ever really playing FPS's and FIFA before that.

Click to expand...

Agreed, and there is nothing simple about that.

Brian Shanahan said:

Personally I think this "people want a simple game" hoopla is just an excuse trotted out by the Developers/Publishers when their latest releases are, to quote the Bard, "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing". The same principle goes with films and CGI/3D.

Click to expand...

I'm not referring to what dev's are saying, I'm referring to what the majority of voters here are voting for (this option):

** Create a simpler game that is going to attract new players; make it more complex through expansions. **

-----------
They want a simple game. So if an expansion adds a bit of overwhelming complexity, they don't have to buy it. CivBook will be a simple game, so they have what they wish. Why ruin the civ franchise? I've heard alot of things over the years, others have said they want Civ to be RTS, no workers or settlers, no options because it is micro, even heard FPS once. 2K will do these things to Civ franchise if they feel it will make them 1 dollar more.

Some people actually want Civilization to go this route (this was an awesome game though):

Brian Shanahan said:

I don't think that people do want simple games. I got a friend hooked on (association) football management games, despite them being extremely dense spreadsheet based games, despite him only ever really playing FPS's and FIFA before that.

Personally I think this "people want a simple game" hoopla is just an excuse trotted out by the Developers/Publishers when their latest releases are, to quote the Bard, "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing". The same principle goes with films and CGI/3D.

Click to expand...

If you analyse Sid Meier's games you'll notice that complexity entered the company in form of Brian Reynolds and other developers. I'll start from Beginning:
Pirates! - average complexity game; developer - Sid Meier
Railroad tycoon - average complexity game; lead dev. - Sid Meier
Railroad tycoon 2 - more complex than RRT; lead dev. - PopTop
Civilization - average complexity game; lead dev. - Sid Meier
Civilizaition 2 - more complex than CIV1; lead devs. - Brian Reynolds, Jeff Briggs
Colonization - more complex than CIV1; dev. - Brian Reynolds
Alpha Centauri - most complex Firaxis game (at least in theory); dev. - Brian Reynolds
Civilization III - a bit less complex than SMAC; developers Jeff Briggs, Soren Johnson
Civilization IV - as complex as SMAC; lead dev. - Soren Johnson
C4: Colonization - basically a copy of original
Pirates! - basically a copy of original
Civilization: Revolution - average complexity game; lead dev. Sid Meier
Civilization V - average complexity game; lead dev. Shafer

Sid Meier, personally, always put entertainment over complexity. Even repeatativeness over complexity.

Sid didn't like where Reynolds was going with his designs so Reynolds quit. I don't know what happened with Briggs and Johnson but I guess the issue was the same. Why fire or bid farewell to someone who does exactly what you want?

We have a saying in Croatia, uhh translation goes something like "Why switch out a horse that's already winning the race?" Sid Meier obviously thinks gameyness and goofiness did more for his career than complexity and longevity.

I have my opinion on that and its not pretty. But surprisingly I like CIV5 very much. So sue me

sketch162000 said:

I think it probably goes deeper than that. I am a semi-casual Civ IV player who keeps at Noble usually, and I really dislike Civ V.

Click to expand...

well there goes the casual player = like civ5, expert player = like civ4 and hate civ5 theory

so do we have any expert civ4 deity players who love civ5?

Bibor said:

Pirates! - basically a copy of original

Click to expand...

not entirely true the 2nd iteration of pirates was errr... quite "streamlined" compared to the original.

In the original you had a really detailed fairly (I assume) geographically accurate world map showing millions of little shoals and reefs, historically accurate boats only available in correct eras and historical scenarios were you could command a famous expedition.

pirates v2 - all ships available in all eras, simplified land combat system (but made actually fun compared to clunkiness of original) world map is stylized and simplified, all the reefs are gone and replaced with a handful of places where you could run into a little rock with wrecked ship on it.

from a game play point of view the streamlined v2 is way better, from historical accuracy/complex detail point of view original wins hands down

so another case of game play trumps realism and complex detail - the trouble is when views differ on what makes for good game play

tom2050 said:

So most people want a simple game? <ughhh> Yes, civilization is at it's end. It's glory days are over.

Looks like Facebook Civ will be a smashing hit and the game of the future to the near-majority of people that voted in this thread.

Click to expand...

another way to look at it is that the people who voted for the simplicity option think that it is worthwhile goal to try and balance the need to attract new players to a franchise (who may be intimidated by a really complex game) against the need to be true to long time fans who might be wanting more and more depth added

the poll and situation outlined has nothing to do with civ or firaxis...

misleading thread

civ (all of them) introduces strategy through interleaved game mechanics, not through complexity

if you want a complex game go look at some paradox stuff

Biz_ said:

interleaved game mechanics

Click to expand...

Doesnt this mean complex (sort of) ?

SpearMan153 said:

not entirely true the 2nd iteration of pirates was errr... quite "streamlined" compared to the original.

In the original you had a really detailed fairly (I assume) geographically accurate world map showing millions of little shoals and reefs, historically accurate boats only available in correct eras and historical scenarios were you could command a famous expedition.

pirates v2 - all ships available in all eras, simplified land combat system (but made actually fun compared to clunkiness of original) world map is stylized and simplified, all the reefs are gone and replaced with a handful of places where you could run into a little rock with wrecked ship on it.

from a game play point of view the streamlined v2 is way better, from historical accuracy/complex detail point of view original wins hands down

so another case of game play trumps realism and complex detail - the trouble is when views differ on what makes for good game play

Click to expand...

Depends version you played. Amiga map was beautiful, the PC map was ugly as hell. Neither was very accurate. At least the last time I checked 20 years ago

And point of detail is also kinda "hm". A lot of stuff was generated "on spot", resulting in unpassable terrain and other horrible nightmares.

I consider Pirates remake vastly superior to the original, although I do miss some things.

I'll take choice 5, build a more complex game where complexity choices can be turned on and off.

Barbarians: None / Normal / Raging.
Religion: None / Simple / Complex.
Units per hex: None / 1 / 5 / Unlimited. (Option 1 = a very odd game.)
Diplomacy: None / Simple (forgets after 5 turns) / Normal (forgets after 50 turns) / Bitter (never forgets a slight)
Happiness: Off / Per city / Global.
Pollution: Off / Per city / Global.

Get the idea?

Obviously it would require more choices than the above, but the idea would be that the player could customize what was in and out. Want religious wars? Crank religion to the wall. Want fewer units? Limit to 1UpT. Want more complex ecology? Turn on pollution. Want ICS penalties? Turn on distance-based maintenance costs.

Start the game off simple with most of the above turned off. Give various "standard" bumps where a selection sets / clears a bunch of choices. Allow into the advanced section where everything can be turned on / off.

Modders will still be able to do their thing, adding maps, scenarios, new units, so on and so forth. This would be the stuff before modders' work is taken into account.

Option 5, definitely.

SpearMan153 said:

well there goes the casual player = like civ5, expert player = like civ4 and hate civ5 theory

Click to expand...

If you're keeping count, you can add me to the "casual loves Civ4, dislikes Civ5" column.

I don't hate Civ5, after all, it's given me my only two wins at Deity level.

tom2050 said:

Agreed, and there is nothing simple about that.



I'm not referring to what dev's are saying, I'm referring to what the majority of voters here are voting for (this option):

** Create a simpler game that is going to attract new players; make it more complex through expansions. **

-----------
They want a simple game. So if an expansion adds a bit of overwhelming complexity, they don't have to buy it. CivBook will be a simple game, so they have what they wish. Why ruin the civ franchise? I've heard alot of things over the years, others have said they want Civ to be RTS, no workers or settlers, no options because it is micro, even heard FPS once. 2K will do these things to Civ franchise if they feel it will make them 1 dollar more.

Some people actually want Civilization to go this route (this was an awesome game though):

Click to expand...

Biased poll questions and answers yield useless data. So I wouldn't read anything at all in the answers. It's even worse than the typically poor track record of online self-selected poll samples - because at least some of those actually try to create fair options for positions that they disagree with.

I didn't read the entire post but where's the option for lightweight civ (ala Revolutions/Facebook) to appeal to the newbies and Heavyweight Civilization to appeal to the hardcore?

Lightweight helps establish a brand name to new/casual gamers, and if they like/want more they move to the core Civilization product.

Current options look like Jim Carrie's Dumb and Dumber.

If we're only allowed to talk about the core civ rather than the entire franchise then I'd go for complex + more complex in expansions.

tom2050 said:

I'm not referring to what dev's are saying, I'm referring to what the majority of voters here are voting for (this option)

Click to expand...

I would disregard this highly subjective poll.

Hormagaunt said:

I'll take choice 5, build a more complex game where complexity choices can be turned on and off.

Barbarians: None / Normal / Raging.
Religion: None / Simple / Complex.
Units per hex: None / 1 / 5 / Unlimited. (Option 1 = a very odd game.)
Diplomacy: None / Simple (forgets after 5 turns) / Normal (forgets after 50 turns) / Bitter (never forgets a slight)
Happiness: Off / Per city / Global.
Pollution: Off / Per city / Global.

Get the idea?

Obviously it would require more choices than the above, but the idea would be that the player could customize what was in and out. Want religious wars? Crank religion to the wall. Want fewer units? Limit to 1UpT. Want more complex ecology? Turn on pollution. Want ICS penalties? Turn on distance-based maintenance costs.

Start the game off simple with most of the above turned off. Give various "standard" bumps where a selection sets / clears a bunch of choices. Allow into the advanced section where everything can be turned on / off.

Modders will still be able to do their thing, adding maps, scenarios, new units, so on and so forth. This would be the stuff before modders' work is taken into account.

Option 5, definitely.

Click to expand...

I vote for this option. Give players the ability to customize the game experience more. PC gamers are a different breed than console players. Civ 5 is currently a console game. It should have been a PC game.

Is it me? or is this record broken record broken record broken record broken

Bibor said:

Scenario:

You're a small game developer company best known for 4x games. .....

How do you proceed?

Click to expand...

Option 5: Develop a reasonably deep, fun, entertaining game that builds appropriately on the established franchise, and release it in an orderly manner, when it has been properly play-tested and polished and after development is complete. As an added innovation, present delighted buyers with:

1. a "manual", a cunning printed device which explains to both novice and experienced players how to play in detail, with useful look-up tables for those who like that sort of thing and an index for those who just want to dip in and out and
2. a meaningful, intelligent on-line Civilopedia with real, solid data in it so that information can be checked in-game and sensible decisions taken and
3. a set of short but well-designed in-game tutorials introducing new players to the concepts of the game and enabling them to have fun without necessarily needing to get to grips immediately with every single one of the Wonderful, Interesting, Innovative and Addictive Game Features included (of course) in this latest and greatest release.

But wait. Do we think actually explaining how to play the game would put off these lucrative new players we want to attract?

I suppose there are two main points we would need to consider for our business model. First of all, how much more profitable the product will be if there is zero cost attributable to printing manuals, writing on-line documentation and developing tutorials. And, secondly, surely the absence of a manual will reassure hordes of new players looking for simple entertainment that this is not yet another horribly complex and difficult Civ game.


Trickier than it looks, this fantasy software development questionnaire lark

Jatta Pake said:

I vote for this option. Give players the ability to customize the game experience more.

Click to expand...

Not sure about "experience", but what I was aiming for was users being able to change the level of complexity. Sort of a second direction from Settler / Chieftain / Warlord / etc.

Someone could go Settler / Simple up to Settler / mind-bogglingly complex, or they could go Settler / Simple over to Deity / Simple (keeping in mind that "simple" means "not complex" rather than "boringly easy"). Someone thoroughly masochistic could always go Deity / mind-bogglingly complex.

The big problem with the above, of course, is designing an AI that can take into account "what abilities do I have available to me?", rather than simply throwing a lot of bonuses one way or the other.