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

civ v is simply not fun for me at all. I keep trying, even on quick mode I've never been able to last long enough to reach the modern era...

elCij said:

civ v is simply not fun for me at all. I keep trying, even on quick mode I've never been able to last long enough to reach the modern era...

Click to expand...

You're too white. Peace it up with the civilizations.

What's up with this necro? While I would agree this was the case on vanilla, the devs have heard the complains and the game has come a long way since then.

wow what a necro. I just want to point out that in the world of warcraft forums, the exact opposite logic is used as to why the game is (allegedly) worse now than it was before. The stream of rewards makes it boring, whereas in the past it happened intermittently.

People who still bash Civ5 now, either simply prefer the different playstyle of civ4, or have bashed civ5 so much it would now be a loss of face to admit that it has made tremendous developments since vanilla. Just let it go. Prefer 4? Go play that then. 5 is a great game by itself.

How relevant is this thread now, since Civ V now is a very different beast post BNW compared to how it was way back in 2010? I understand a hell of a lot has changed, with all the DLC, expansions and patches to the game. Was Civ V really that lacking in content or strategy?

Just fyi, the OP's claims about the science are incorrect due to more recent research into dopamine and how it seems to work (and researchers still do not know all the details, which is why research is iterative and helical, not final).

You can read an excellent post at Gamasutra by a researcher who wrote his post from an academic viewpoint, including citing academic sources. The author covers the history and how it relates to game design, as well as the newer research that refutes prior conclusions.
http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/BenLewisEvans/20130827/198975/Dopamine_and_games__Liking_learning_or_wanting_to_play.php

In short, current understanding from research is that dopamine seems to trigger a desire to receive rewards. In the case of Civ IV and V, if someone doesn't like Civ V, it isn't because the design does not offer a regular stream of rewards, but rather that the person in question simply doesn't feel a desire to strive for rewards. The same is true for Civ IV: any individual may not be inspired to strive for rewards in Civ IV for various reasons related to the game's design (including the regular stream of small rewards or the micromanaging needed for the game, as either of these elements may suppress the triggering of dopamine in various people and thus undermine their interest in the game).

Such research is extremely relevant for all activities, including game design, especially when current game design viewpoints are based on outdated conclusions that more recent research has modified.

Also the op is not a psychologist, just some butt hurt bts fanboy

I have said it once and I'll say it again.

Civ IV was for people who loved II.

Civ V is for people who loved III.

I love Civ V - With BNW.

I could not get into Civ IV...