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.
It seems like work because the game is so linear it is just making sure you put the right peg into the right hole. You don't have choices. You can't put science on hold while you work to build your economy to get ready for an invasion. There is no adjusting or balancing Happiness/Science/Economy except on a grand scale. Before we could make a decesion every turn to optimize what we needed to win. Now you get to make one and hope you never have to change it because you can't sell buildings and you can't adjust science/happiness/economy any more.
.

See, it's this argument that I don't understand. How does moving the slider every turn to meet your current wants take more skill than deciding beforehand?

It's different, for sure. And I don't know yet if I like it better or not. But "dumbed down?" I just can't make that jump. If anything, the slider mechanic is dumbed down because it lets you easily fix mistakes. If the slider was added into CivV instead of removed, people would point to it as an example of the developers making the game easier.
 
I disagree --

You don't have to manipulate several mechanics - in fact, you just manipulate a single mechanic and it's less a "decision" (even civic and slider moves were still decisions) than fait accompli...

In a way, it seems like the aim of Civ5 from a development perspective was to construct a "grand unification theory" of Civilization - ditch the micro decisions and instead, go with far fewer macro decisions.

That, in my opinion, is this game's great fault.

I don't think I'm the only one who would say that the Civilization series was always about micro decisions. When you make it about macro decisions, I don't know what you've built -- but it ain't Civilization. Call it Civolution or Revolization and maybe I'd have bought it and not been unhappy with it. Call it Civilization V - and I think it's a blasphemy against the nameplate. This game was never supposed to be an RPG, where, when played properly - all aspects are on-ramps to a macro style... Civilization was always a stew of many small decisions and successful gameplay depended on just the right mix of tiny decisions.


Except that only 2 of now 5 Civs have been Micro focused.

Civ 1 and 2 were not very Micro focused and much more Macro. Civ 3 was Micro insanity, 4 was a little less.

So with Civ 5, that makes 60% of all Civ games more Macro than Micro.

That makes the Civ franchise a Macro based franchise.

You could easily argue that this makes Civ 3 and 4 less Civ than Civ 5.
 
In IV there were vassals, in V there were city states. Vassals were much more complex than the latter.

In Civ5 City states are basically little more than a bonus resource tile or trade agreement except it doesn't require a worker improvement, or construction or conquering of a city, or negotiation. All it takes is a predictable regular infusion of cash or a one time completion of a quest. Yawn.

Vassals on the otherhand were still real civilizations, playing to win who you could interact with and exchange resources with or seize or defend from other civilizations. If you went to war they would supply you with aid. If you needed diplomatic support they would vote for you.


It would have been so much better IMO just to fix vassals by granting them the food/culture bonuses thereby making them worth having escpecially now that the costs to anexing cities is so punnitive. Give them a chance to rebel if you don't keep them happy. Let them give you "quests" to accomplish for added bonuses.

My entire point was that since the OP doesn't like the game, it must be "dumbed down" - as otherwise he'd like it. I didn't come into the thread to argue about complexity, I've done that so much I've got a headache.

I dislike arguments based on what was taken out, because when arguing for it, it sounds awesome and fits right in and everything is wonderful.
 
The slider is very realistic and in-depth. If you don't regulate your economy, then you can't very well afford all the resources required for research. If you don't have a regulated economy, then how do you expect to become industrialized?

Yeah, because regulating your economy should require one click and a drag rather than long-term planning. roflmao

Also, since when have long-term alliances taken away depth from the game? It's just another feature that made Civ 4 a great game. Vassal States aren't guarunteed by the way.

Yeah, you have a guaranteed partner and punching bag. You can pump them up with tech, units, and gold. That certainly makes a game more interesting.

Then again, you probably play Civ 4 on Chieftain mode or some similar level, and are too stupid to comprehend the game's features. Next time, think before you post.

Moderator Action: Infracted for flaming.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

Nuff said.
 
No culture, research and commerce sliders.

No civics. Now civics is merely a ladder of perks that you upgrade. Has absolutely no flexibility.

No vasal states.

No religions.

No hamlets that can upgrade, instead we get this absurd "trading post".

No health/sickness.

No espionage.

Culture, commerce and productions are now separate entities.

No random events.

Leaders have no personality traits. Only one leader per nation.

No scenarios.

No wonder animations. No end-game cinematics.



Calling it dumbed down is an understatement.

Don't be fooled, people, Vanilla CIV5 this is not. This is plainer than Vanilla, this is CIV5 Incomplete.

Random events, vassal states, and espionage were added to CIV 4 in expansions....
 
When I talk about it I refer to "it" as Revolutions 2. That should give you a hint on what I voted..
 
I've only had the game a few days so maybe I am arong, but there just seems to be so much less to do, unless you want to attack/attack/attack all the time. I love the new interface, but that seems to be the only upgrade (and I probably am not even getting the full value on that because my machine is not powerful enough to run it in all its glory). You can't tweak your civilization anywhere near as much as you used to be able to. The new happiness & culture models penalize you too much for growing too fast-- at least "growing" was something to do and gives you more cities so you have more units/improvements/problems to decide about and play with-- now I find myself waiting around endlessly for my few cities to build stuff interesting or to gather enough resources to make a gift to some city state or civ. so that at least I can get an interesting conversation going. At least in the old game, during these lulls, you could play with your spys, try to trade techs. with other civs., work on your religion, etc. In earlier Civ versions, stuff happened -- now it seems a whole lot of nothing-- so I get bored and I attack nearby civs. The best part about civilizations was always the myriad of options you had-- now they have crammed all that into fewer actual things to do-- buy a new social policy with culture and build great people.. thats it.. other than WAR
 
Everybody that believes it has been dumbed down should read Lemmy's diagnosis in his huge play through thread. Its a very good read, and to be honest, how anyone can claim this move away from a slider-governed empire is 'dumbed down' is beyond me.

To me, the game feels much more in depth and complex. I definitely have to put more thoughts into my actions now, which to me says quite the opposite of "dumbed down".
 
-Culture mongering, one of the funniest things on previous civilizations entries gets removed in order to make room for a more militaristic, less realistic civ.

- No effective method for curving huge empires. Sorry, but the happiness mechanic might be simpler, but it just doesn't gets its job done, there is no possibility of creating a small yet powerful empire on this civ, the snowball effect is just too big

- Wholly historically unaccurate situations and civilization traits like the Iroquois being an industrial superpower while Germany being a barbarian focused civ, just to name a few.

- Decisions which they are really not decisions at all. Eg. Do I settle this great scientist or do I lightbulb this tech? That is no choice at all since it is pretty clear which one is always going to be the best one in every situation, period.
 
lol:goodjob:


I picked yes. The new combat model is interesting. The rest is putting me to sleep. I was never this bored with vanilla Civ4.
I agree. And I am for sure certain that reading a lot of comments with different views on what they like and what they do dislike, all can agree the combat model is the best addition to the game. However, when you got too many artists and less programmers in the developer's spending money, then expect crappy ai, and less thoughts on civics and diplomacy to name a few. I guess they are (Firaxis) really answering the call from the publisher to make a game for a new demographic, and say, "screw the loyal fans."

wow! Civilization 5 is eye-candy!:rolleyes:
 
Having played this game quite a few times, I can say it is Dumbed down. Its very simplistic and caters to the casual player and not to the true players. I liked the micro aspects of the game, being able to choose my tax and science rates from the beginning, I am afraid this game was a waste of money. And lets not talk about the problems with steam (I have read quite a few complaints about the 16 hours it took to update) And yes, a game that needs an immediate update just after release? they tend to fail badly. Sid Mier needs to have his head examined for releasing this game early (as it was posted that it would not be released til November)

So basically, this game is found wanting, and fails on so many levels.

And the game falls into the catergory of timewaster's, things to do when you have a few hours to kill, not to be taken as a serious game at all

TG
 
I do not agree it's been dumbed down. Combat favors positioning now, requires more thinking. In previous versions of civ you just had your one SOD and attacked. In IV I even had my options set up so the entire stack would attack at once.

That said, the game does feel unfinished and rushed out. There's tons of balance issues glaringly obvious even after just playing a week.

Bigger issue is combat AI is horrible. Going to war is like an "I win" button. Even against superior numbers and tech I roll over the AI without a single unit lost.
 
That's why Russia immediately went from communism to major economy. They just adjusted a slider and changed a few civics! Explains it all really.

The Soviets rapidly industrialized because they worked the people to death and pretty much enslaved them for the 'good of the State'.

They made a National decision that was a bit like moving a slider.
 
UPDATE ON POLL (9/27): Now the numbers continue to rise as 1 in every 3 players agree that Civ 5 has been dumb down, while 11 percent are uncertain.
 
The Soviets rapidly industrialized because they worked the people to death and pretty much enslaved them for the 'good of the State'.

They made a National decision that was a bit like moving a slider.



Oh, really, so thats what those 5 year plans were, right?

Not even to mention that it was probably the fastest shift towards industrialization in global history, the fact is that an economy takes long term planning to be successful, and that absolute shifts in economic focus have very rarely led to prosperity.

Civ V has its flaws, but the core mechanics have consistently been argued to be, if not equal, but vastly superior to Civ IVs in terms of depth.

V combat > IV combat
Social policies > Civics
True diplomacy > manipulating numbers
Real economic management > Instant sliders
Happiness balance > Cottage factory
City States > Religon/Espionage/Corporations combined
Accessible Navy > Impossible Navy
nonlinear Macro > formulaic Micro

These all have been argued to the death, I've yet to see IV win on any of these.
 
UPDATE ON POLL (9/27): Now the numbers continue to rise as 1 in every 3 players agree that Civ 5 has been dumb down, while 11 percent are uncertain.
One in every three respondents agrees that it is dumbed down, and, forgive me for being cynical, but I suspect a thread with a title such as this will attract a disproportionate number of people who are after a whinge.

The Soviets rapidly industrialized because they worked the people to death and pretty much enslaved them for the 'good of the State'.

They made a National decision that was a bit like moving a slider.
Ah, yes, the good old "collectivise the means of production" slider from Civ4. How could we forget it? :rolleyes:


I can't help but wonder what all these people think of chess. I mean, no sliders, no diplomacy, no tech-tree? Clearly, only the most pea-brained of simpletons would pursue such a shallow game. :mischief:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom