Who else agrees that Civ 5 has been dumbed down?

[PieceOfMind]

Originally Posted by DiabolicX

I know you are a hard core civ fan and all with a million posts n , but come the on this game is a joke. I think everyone would agree that it is not an improvement from civ 4 bts and dont even consider making a comparison with vanilla anything. When you buy something that is part 2/3/4/5 20 etc you expect it to be a step forward and not a completley new concept. Why not call this game civ simple or some like that instead of ing up the civilization series which we have all grown up to love. You sound weird defending this game, its a joke.

Moderator Action: Language - warned
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/faq.php?faq=updated_rules_2011

I'm not defending the game really. I even agree with a lot of the complaints about it. But most of the complaints I have with the game I prefer not to simply lump under the ambiguous phrase "dumbed down". According to at least one of those definitions I mentioned, repeatedly calling the game dumbed down is insulting the people who enjoy it so is at best a rather insensitive way to complain about the game.

Calling the game 'dumbed down' is most often used as a cop out, from people either unable or too lazy to elaborate on the reasons for their disappointment. I'd even give the advice to people who do genuinely think the game is 'dumbed down' to avoid using that anyway because 1) it's a fairly ambiguous phrase to begin with and 2) there are more descriptive ways to describe the criticisms, and 3) do you really want to be lumped with everyone else who 'dumbs down' their criticisms into the generic 'dumbed down'?

Too many of the people disappointed with the game are succumbing to groupthink, jumping on the bandwagon calling it dumbed down.

And yes, I have made a fair few posts now giving the advice to civ4 "hard core" fans to try and treat civ5 like a new game and not get too hung up on comparisons to civ4. I've bought civ5 just like many of you have, and I want it to be a better game than the unfinished one it is now. For that reason I'm more than happy to be offering up constructive criticisms about the game, to try and help the developers or modders improve on the current foundation. I think a lot of people are deluded in their belief that it is complexity that makes a better game. I suggest these people familiarise themselves with the concept of feature creep. Until the basic gameplay is right, it's unwise to pile more and more on top of it. At least with civ4, the formula was to release the base game which worked quite well on its own, and once it had been tested to death by its fanatical player base, later on release extra content via expansion packs that built on top of the solid game.

I've spent quite a bit of time thinking about gameplay changes that went into PIG (Probably Improved Gameplay) Mod and I've had many discussions with people more than willing to talk about gameplay balance and what needed improving in civ4, so it's not as if I'm coming to these views just arbitrarily. In that mod, there were a lot of gameplay suggestions that I simply had to say no to. It was my view that too many mods add too much content without actually improving how the player enjoys the game.

When I bought civ5, I absolutely did not expect nor hope for the game to be an "upgraded" version of civ4. I was happy to accept the reality that it was likely I was going to be disappointed with civ5 when comparing it with civ4. That's just an unfortunate consequence of the 'regression to mean' problem I've been discussing earlier.

Originally Posted by DiabolicX

Are you dense?

Moderator Action: Flaming - warned
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/faq.php?faq=updated_rules_2011

Does this answer your question?

[falconne]

Originally Posted by PieceOfMind

Calling the game 'dumbed down' is most often used as a cop out, from people either unable or too lazy to elaborate on the reasons for their disappointment. I'd even give the advice to people who do genuinely think the game is 'dumbed down' to avoid using that anyway because 1) it's a fairly ambiguous phrase to begin with and 2) there are more descriptive ways to describe the criticisms, and 3) do you really want to be lumped with everyone else who 'dumbs down' their criticisms into the generic 'dumbed down'?

I'm sorry, but just because you found a few people who just had one or two sentences to say about the game and you told them to explain more, doesn't mean everyone who's criticising the game are the same or need your help. Most of us have written walls of text about exactly why we think it's "dumbed down" (which is really just a more critical way to say "simplified", which is just a less deceptive way to say "streamlined"). There are plenty of explanations why the mechanics that were removed mattered for a history simulator and how the mechanics that have been simplified have removed strategic depth and realism.

But none of these walls get read by those who think Civ V is fine as it is. While those of us who don't like it write at length about why we don't, they simply respond with "Go play Civ 4 instead" or "Actually I find Civ 5 deeper than Civ 4". The latter ones are even more annoying, because none of them ever explain what makes it deeper, they just think it is. My condescending opinion is that they just got too lost in Civ 4 to figure out the strategy and thought there wasn't any, but Civ 5 is simpler to figure out so they finally see what depth is.

As for not using Civ 4 when suggesting how Civ 5 can be improved, I don't think that's fair. It's called Civ 5... the 5 means it should be better than 4. Games shouldn't change in philosophy between versions. If they wanted to make a new, more accessible game they should have done a spin off. Otherwise they're just milking the brand name and it will hurt future sales.

Civ isn't a fantasy game, it's based on human civilization. We have reality as a guide to help us know what should be in it and what shouldn't. The game doesn't need to, in a a manner of speaking, reinvent the wheel with every new version. If Civ 6 comes out with hex maps gone will people go on about how hex was a Civ 5 mechanic, get over it?

Originally Posted by PieceOfMind

Too many of the people disappointed with the game are succumbing to groupthink, jumping on the bandwagon calling it dumbed down.

There's no basis for that. So many of us have explained at length why we don't like it and you can understand the complaints are valid. Most of us are much more vocal than “Me too!”. I wasn't much of a poster on these forums before, but having played this game I felt the need to vent my frustration.

Originally Posted by PieceOfMind

And yes, I have made a fair few posts now giving the advice to civ4 "hard core" fans to try and treat civ5 like a new game and not get too hung up on comparisons to civ4. I've bought civ5 just like many of you have, and I want it to be a better game than the unfinished one it is now. For that reason I'm more than happy to be offering up constructive criticisms about the game, to try and help the developers or modders improve on the current foundation. I think a lot of people are deluded in their belief that it is complexity that makes a better game. I suggest these people familiarise themselves with the concept of feature creep. Until the basic gameplay is right, it's unwise to pile more and more on top of it. At least with civ4, the formula was to release the base game which worked quite well on its own, and once it had been tested to death by its fanatical player base, later on release extra content via expansion packs that built on top of the solid game.

Again, this is not a new game, it's version 5 of an established franchise. You wouldn't expect that, when Microsoft release the next version of Office, they would leave out PowerPoint, because they want to get the functionality of the rest of the package done right before adding more stuff, perhaps an alternative presentation app that may be better, 6 months later. Many mechanics have already been tried and tested progressively in the last 4 iterations of this game. The aim should have been to improve them and add more that gave the game an increased epic feel and made it more realistic, just like each previous version had done. I thought that was what gave Civ such a lasting appeal: the epic feel of actually feeling like you're going through history, not an abstract strategy game that's simple enough for non 4X gamers. What was the sense in throwing away so many mechanics, that took years to work out and starting from scratch?

[Markstar]

Originally Posted by falconne

As not using Civ 4 when suggesting how Civ 5 can be improved, I don't think that's fair. It's called Civ 5... the 5 means it should be better than 4. Games shouldn't change in philosophy between versions. If they wanted to make a new, more accessible game they should have done a spin off. Otherwise they're just milking the brand name and it will hurt future sales.

I really do think that this is the key point when it comes to comparing Civ4 and Civ5 and I agree completely:

Nobody cares (well, none of the reasonable people I know) that Civ: Revolution is "streamlined" or whatever you want to call it. It is for the console and it was not called Civ5, so anybody with half a brain knows that this is not a direct "descendent" of the Civ franchise and things might be a little different there.

But Civ5 means that it is a sequel to a long-standing and successful franchise and the designers themselves spoke about not changing too much so that you don't upset your core fanbase too much. Of course, big changes is couples with sub-quality programming here so the result is a little more extreme, but the argument still stands imo (and thankfully I'm not alone here).

[Shmike]

Originally Posted by falconne

I'm sorry, but just because you found a few people who just had one or two sentences to say about the game and you told them to explain more, doesn't mean everyone who's criticising the game are the same or need your help. Most of us have written walls of text about exactly why we think it's "dumbed down" (which is really just a more critical way to say "simplified", which is just a less deceptive way to say "streamlined"). There are plenty of explanations why the mechanics that were removed mattered for a history simulator and how the mechanics that have been simplified have removed strategic depth and realism.

But none of these walls get read by those who think Civ V is fine as it is. While those of us who don't like it write at length about why we don't, they simply respond with "Go play Civ 4 instead" or "Actually I find Civ 5 deeper than Civ 4". The latter ones are even more annoying, because none of them ever explain what makes it deeper, they just think it is. My condescending opinion is that they just got too lost in Civ 4 to figure out the strategy and thought there wasn't any, but Civ 5 is simpler to figure out so they finally see what depth is.

As for not using Civ 4 when suggesting how Civ 5 can be improved, I don't think that's fair. It's called Civ 5... the 5 means it should be better than 4. Games shouldn't change in philosophy between versions. If they wanted to make a new, more accessible game they should have done a spin off. Otherwise they're just milking the brand name and it will hurt future sales.

Civ isn't a fantasy game, it's based on human civilization. We have reality as a guide to help us know what should be in it and what shouldn't. The game doesn't need to, in a a manner of speaking, reinvent the wheel with every new version. If Civ 6 comes out with hex maps gone will people go on about how hex was a Civ 5 mechanic, get over it?



There's no basis for that. So many of us have explained at length why we don't like it and you can understand the complaints are valid. Most of us are much more vocal than “Me too!”. I wasn't much of a poster on these forums before, but having played this game I felt the need to vent my frustration.



Again, this is not a new game, it's version 5 of an established franchise. You wouldn't expect that, when Microsoft release the next version of Office, they would leave out PowerPoint, because they want to get the functionality of the rest of the package done right before adding more stuff, perhaps an alternative presentation app that may be better, 6 months later. Many mechanics have already been tried and tested progressively in the last 4 iterations of this game. The aim should have been to improve them and add more that gave the game an increased epic feel and made it more realistic, just like each previous version had done. I thought that was what gave Civ such a lasting appeal: the epic feel of actually feeling like you're going through history, not an abstract strategy game that's simple enough for non 4X gamers. What was the sense in throwing away so many mechanics, that took years to work out and starting from scratch?

<snip> This... I've never read a post on any other forum more true than this...

Moderator Action: Swearing is not allowed on these forums, thanks.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/faq.php?faq=updated_rules_2011

[PieceOfMind]

Originally Posted by falconne

I'm sorry, but just because you found a few people who just had one or two sentences to say about the game and you told them to explain more, doesn't mean everyone who's criticising the game are the same or need your help. Most of us have written walls of text about exactly why we think it's "dumbed down" (which is really just a more critical way to say "simplified", which is just a less deceptive way to say "streamlined"). There are plenty of explanations why the mechanics that were removed mattered for a history simulator and how the mechanics that have been simplified have removed strategic depth and realism.

This game is no history simulator and it never was. Srategic depth is important - I agree. Civrev's lack of strategic depth was the main reason I hated that game. Realism is a tough one, but generally I treat it as a secondary concern.

There may be 'plenty' of explanations why civ5 has less strategic depth, but keep in mind this game is still relatively new to most people and it's relatively unpatched and still potentially less balanced than it will eventually be. Both of those things could mean it's too early to decide once and for all it has less strategic depth.

But none of these walls get read by those who think Civ V is fine as it is.

I can sympathise. But is it really the people who are happy with civ5 who you are trying to convince? If they're happy with the game, why change that?

While those of us who don't like it write at length about why we don't, they simply respond with "Go play Civ 4 instead" or "Actually I find Civ 5 deeper than Civ 4".

The "go play civ4 instead" comments are bordering on trolling at times, but otherwise the people commenting that civ5 is deeper than civ4 is fair enough. I and you might not agree with them but it's a matter of opinion and you can't change that. It's possible that those people who think civ5 has the greater strategic depth have played games where that was exactly what they observed and felt. Maybe you haven't had the pleasure of getting the right settings or so on to enjoy that same experience?

The latter ones are even more annoying, because none of them ever explain what makes it deeper, they just think it is. My condescending opinion is that they just got too lost in Civ 4 to figure out the strategy and thought there wasn't any, but Civ 5 is simpler to figure out so they finally see what depth is.

I understand and agree that people tend to get away a bit easier with not offering any reasons when they express their love of the game. But sometimes it's more difficult to explain one's like for something than one's dislike. That's pretty normal.

As not using Civ 4 when suggesting how Civ 5 can be improved, I don't think that's fair. It's called Civ 5... the 5 means it should be better than 4.

Whoa nelly. That is a big call. It can't be better than civ4 to all people. That is important for you and others to remember. There are definitely people who think civ5 is better than civ4.
And 'better' is a matter of judgement/opinion. Like I've explained before, people who immensely enjoyed civ4 are statistically the most likely group of people to find civ5 less enjoyable. You can't escape that fact. It would still be fact if 70% of the people who own and play civ5 consider it to be better than civ4.

Games shouldn't change in philosophy between versions. If they wanted to make a new, more accessible game they should have done a spin off. Otherwise they're just milking the brand name and it will hurt future sales.

Well, that's a somewhat controversial opinion. As sad as it may be to admit, in general making a game more accessible to a wider audience is more likely to improve future sales. Again, you and I may not like it that way, but I think it's a bit of a stretch to argue that making a game more accessible hurts sales in the long run. Yes, you will lose the enthusiasm of some of the fans, but not the broader majority and the people with too much money for their own good.

Anyway, what you just wrote, and what I just wrote are opinions that are hard to back up with much evidence. Pretty much have to agree to disagree I suppose.

Civ isn't a fantasy game, it's based on human civilization.

And obviously it still is.

We have reality as a guide to help us know what should be in it and what shouldn't. The game doesn't need to, in a a manner of speaking, reinvent the wheel with every new version. If Civ 6 comes out with hex maps gone will people go on about how hex was a Civ 5 mechanic, get over it?

For sure some people would say that.

When it comes to whether a sequel to a very successful game should 'reinvent the wheel' or 'start from scratch' is again a matter of much debate. I'm happy to sit somewhere in the middle on this one. There is no doubt that if civ5 didn't remove much of what was problematic or uninteresting in civ4 and only tried to cram more things in, there would be lots of the "hard core" fans expressing their disappointment that civ5 didn't do enough to innovate and cut the chaff or take risks with a new design. You simply cannot please everyone.

There's no basis for that. So many of us have explained at length why we don't like it and you can understand the complaints are valid. Most of us are much more vocal than “Me too!”. I wasn't much of a poster on these forums before, but having played this game I felt the need to vent my frustration.

And that's good, I welcome people with valid complaints to vent their frustrations and explain their thoughts. On the moderator side I have been advocating for people who want to express their disappointments, especially a few months ago when the steam news was the big topic that was drawing a lot of 'hate' threads.

To those people though, I only want to encourage them to avoid turning discussions into what are essentially political debates, polarised over whether the game is dumbed down or whether it is not. The outcomes of such arguments are never really productive so I think it's a good idea for people to try and avoid over using such simplistic phrases. Especially those people who are willing to put in the extra time to elaborate and explain their thoughts, I think it would be wise. Every time such a person refers to the game as being dumbed down, someone who's enjoying the game gets offended and then feels the need to defend themselves, often attacking the person who wrote such complaints. As I said in one of my above posts, the 'dumb down' complaints have one implication as that those who enjoy the game are less educated. It's like saying 'this is a game that only kids can enjoy' or 'this is a game that only those who have no knowledge of history can enjoy'. The 'dumb down' complaints insinuate things unfairly about those people playing the game, and it's exactly because the phrase itself is ambiguous and frequently taken in a more offensive way than what was intended.

Again, this is not a new game, it's version 5 of an established franchise. You wouldn't expect that, when Microsoft release the next version of Office, they would leave out PowerPoint, because they want to get the functionality of the rest of the package done right before adding more stuff, perhaps an alternative presentation app that may be better, 6 months later.

I know that Windows Media player 12 felt like a definite downgrade from media player 11, and that annoyed me. In this case I felt they streamlined it too much and took away some of the useful functions I frequently used in 11. It's easy to cherry pick examples that suit your argument, and I don't think it's entirely fair to compare productivity software with video game (entertainment) software.

In the case of productivity software, if a newer version is worse at its task than the previous version, people will simply not buy it. In the case of entertainment software, it's more necessary to provide a different experience. There is no written nor unwritten rule that sequels to anything always have to be better. They can always try, and I'm sure they always do, but it's never a given. People who think that sequels always have to outdo their prequels are simply setting themselves up for disappointment, because it's an impossible expectation to always deliver on. The problem is even more apparent when the prequel is extremely popular, because a larger proportion of people will find the sequel disappointing. Basically you're in the unlucky group who find the game disappointing.

Many mechanics have already been tried and tested progressively in the last 4 iterations of this game. The aim should have been to improve them and add more that gave the game an increased epic feel and made it more realistic, just like each previous version had done. I thought that was what gave Civ such a lasting appeal: the epic feel of actually feeling like you're going through history, not an abstract strategy game that's simple enough for non 4X gamers. What was the sense in throwing away so many mechanics, that took years to work out and starting from scratch?

Honestly I don't think there was anything that made civ4 inherently more realistic than civ3 nor any of the previous versions, but I agree that civ4 was more enjoyable to play. At least to me, I played civ4 exactly like it was an abstract strategy game. It's practically to the point where the phrase 'whipping' to me is synonymous with 'a good early game production method'. It doesn't make any sense at all, but I'm still perfectly happy with it as a gameplay mechanic. Just like the whole combat game in civ is extremely abstracted to the point where as soon as someone even begins discussing why combat isn't realistic (e.g. archers having range greater than rifles), getting into the argument becomes completely pointless. If realism is what people want, they should play simulators. I happen to enjoy flight sims and racing sims for example, and I can see why those sorts of games usually don't have mass appeal. Like you said, in a TBS or 4X game, realism can only serve as a general guide but it is never the only guide.

At least to me, civ5 is still barely managing to keep the feel of like I'm playing a civilization going through history. I must admit they've done more in this game to make it feel more like I'm playing a boardgame against other 'competitors' but I don't necessarily have a big problem with that, because it's how I play the game anyway. For example, one of the notifications says 'an unmet player has reached the Medieval era'. For the Better AI mod for bts, I always liked it when they made the AI try harder to win the game, as it meant there was more challenge for me when playing the game. Trying to figure out a way to win the game was how I enjoyed playing it, and it's for similar reasons that I really enjoy the mp side of civ4. I never really (or at least didn't for long) played civ4 for the purpose of simulating history.

[falconne]

Originally Posted by PieceOfMind

This game is no history simulator and it never was. Srategic depth is important - I agree. Civrev's lack of strategic depth was the main reason I hated that game. Realism is a tough one, but generally I treat it as a secondary concern.

Well I guess we are looking for different things out of Civ, which may explain why you have the patience to deal with Civ 5 and I don't. I know Civ was never very realistic, but I did always expect it to try and make it at least feel like you were going through an alternate history. I mean, yeah, ignore the fact that one leader lives 1000s of years and combat and movement are completely off scale, but at least there was a semblance that each version was trying to get the immersion done a little bit better. It felt epic, because things sometimes happened in a way that can, however loosely, be related to the story of mankind. Civ 5 however, is completely abstract and feels like playing a boardgame.

Originally Posted by PieceOfMind

There may be 'plenty' of explanations why civ5 has less strategic depth, but keep in mind this game is still relatively new to most people and it's relatively unpatched and still potentially less balanced than it will eventually be. Both of those things could mean it's too early to decide once and for all it has less strategic depth.

This may be, but I don't like the precedent. If Firaxis' intention is to now release diluted versions of the series, then charge for expansions and DLCs till it reaches the same level of fun as previous versions, then I (and I bet many long term fans) will no longer pre-order Civ, or even continue buying it at all. The next expansion will have to do a tremendous job before I change my mind that Firaxis have cheapened their brand name.

Originally Posted by PieceOfMind

I can sympathise. But is it really the people who are happy with civ5 who you are trying to convince? If they're happy with the game, why change that?The "go play civ4 instead" comments are bordering on trolling at times, but otherwise the people commenting that civ5 is deeper than civ4 is fair enough. I and you might not agree with them but it's a matter of opinion and you can't change that. It's possible that those people who think civ5 has the greater strategic depth have played games where that was exactly what they observed and felt. Maybe you haven't had the pleasure of getting the right settings or so on to enjoy that same experience?

It was more a response to your comments about those of us who a criticising the game need to be more constructive with our posts. I'm just pointing out that we write plenty about what we don't like about it, but the folks who take offence at our criticism don't address our points – the responses are usually short and sharp. I haven't seen anyone go to much length to explain why things are better than they used to be. The only meaningful responses have been the “Just wait, it'll get better” ones. Which is fair enough, but it makes me feel like I've paid to be a beta tester.

Originally Posted by PieceOfMind

Whoa nelly. That is a big call. It can't be better than civ4 to all people. That is important for you and others to remember. There are definitely people who think civ5 is better than civ4.
And 'better' is a matter of judgement/opinion. Like I've explained before, people who immensely enjoyed civ4 are statistically the most likely group of people to find civ5 less enjoyable. You can't escape that fact. It would still be fact if 70% of the people who own and play civ5 consider it to be better than civ4.

I think the polls and posts have shown that even among the people who like Civ 5, those who consider it better than Civ 4 + expansions is in the minority. The majority argument is that with expansions, Civ 5 will be better. I personally find it hard to see how; because the fundamental philosophy now seems to be less complexity – so I can't imagine how they will add more depth without increasing complexity.

Originally Posted by PieceOfMind

Well, that's a somewhat controversial opinion. As sad as it may be to admit, in general making a game more accessible to a wider audience is more likely to improve future sales. Again, you and I may not like it that way, but I think it's a bit of a stretch to argue that making a game more accessible hurts sales in the long run. Yes, you will lose the enthusiasm of some of the fans, but not the broader majority and the people with too much money for their own good.

No it's not. That's why it's called a “franchise”. There is brand recognition in the name “Civilization”. There's a “spirit of Civilization” - even if it's hard to explain, I know it's there. I felt it in 2, 3 and 4. It's not there in 5. There was never a point, in the lifecycle of any of the previous games, where I felt that spirit was missing. I was here when Civ 4 was released and very few complaints were about the game play. Everyone complained about the poor performance, but it was generally agreed to be a better game than Civ 3. There is a significant portion of the fanbase that think Civ 5 is not in the same vein.

Giving up on loyal fans to please a new demographic is not a good marketing plan. Especially because the new fans are likely to be a lot more fickle than the old ones. The new version is trying to be more “accessible” to the average gamer. That type of gamer is very likely to get bored with Civ after this version and not continue to buy the next one. Civ has always appealed to people who are somewhat obsessive compulsive. If they alienate this fan base, they will lose a lot of guaranteed revenue.

As I said before, if they wanted to expand their market, make a spin off. Then you satisfy everyone and make more money. Every game has a spirit and you need to stick to that, or you won't get “loyal” fans. StarCraft and WarCraft are similar games, but if Blizzard had tried to make one game that combines fantasy and sci-fi, they would not have been as successful. When you make a game, you identify its spirit and continue improving it in that spirit. If you want to try and expand your market, that's great, but don't try to milk an existing brand.

Originally Posted by PieceOfMind

When it comes to whether a sequel to a very successful game should 'reinvent the wheel' or 'start from scratch' is again a matter of much debate. I'm happy to sit somewhere in the middle on this one. There is no doubt that if civ5 didn't remove much of what was problematic or uninteresting in civ4 and only tried to cram more things in, there would be lots of the "hard core" fans expressing their disappointment that civ5 didn't do enough to innovate and cut the chaff or take risks with a new design. You simply cannot please everyone.

I'm not saying they shouldn't innovate, but I'm saying they shouldn't diverge from the spirit of the game to do so. In any case, I don't think Civ 5 innovated much at all. All we have is new combat and the AI can't handle it. Most of the “innovation” has been removal of mechanics.

Originally Posted by PieceOfMind

To those people though, I only want to encourage them to avoid turning discussions into what are essentially political debates, polarised over whether the game is dumbed down or whether it is not. The outcomes of such arguments are never really productive so I think it's a good idea for people to try and avoid over using such simplistic phrases. Especially those people who are willing to put in the extra time to elaborate and explain their thoughts, I think it would be wise. Every time such a person refers to the game as being dumbed down, someone who's enjoying the game gets offended and then feels the need to defend themselves, often attacking the person who wrote such complaints.

Despite the title of this post, as I've mentioned many times, those of us who are complaining are writing out pretty detailed descriptions of why we don't like it. If others who are enjoying it want to defend it, then that would be great, they should write out why they think this game improves on the previous, instead of resorting to “Go play Civ 4” retorts. Maybe then we'll discover something about the spirit of Civ 5 that makes it appealing to them and then perhaps we can come up with some ideas for future improvements that combine the spirit of the previous version with that of the new one and produce a whole that's worth more than the sum of its parts. That would make the game something the majority can agree is better than the last. You can't please everyone, but you have to try your best. If you observe, the people who like Civ 5 as it is are in the minority. The majority are those who say Civ 5 is good, but need expansions before it can take its place among the previous versions. Saying that is all well and good, but no one is talking about how to get there.

Originally Posted by PieceOfMind

In the case of productivity software, if a newer version is worse at its task than the previous version, people will simply not buy it. In the case of entertainment software, it's more necessary to provide a different experience. There is no written nor unwritten rule that sequels to anything always have to be better. They can always try, and I'm sure they always do, but it's never a given. People who think that sequels always have to outdo their prequels are simply setting themselves up for disappointment, because it's an impossible expectation to always deliver on. The problem is even more apparent when the prequel is extremely popular, because a larger proportion of people will find the sequel disappointing. Basically you're in the unlucky group who find the game disappointing.

I think it's perfectly acceptable to expect a sequel to improve on the previous version and provide a different experience. Look at the Total War franchise. Each version is significantly different to the last, but there is definitely a feeling that it's still Total War. Or look at any version of Civ prior to this one. I think the most successful series have consistently improved on previous versions. Ones that stumbled either had to recover quickly, or simply lost their grip on the market.

[Hassar]

I voted yes. Gone is the micromanagement, the planning and intensive thinking about what my next move will be. They removed too much content and simplified the whole game. It's ridiculously easy to steamroll Deity AIs in this game, their stupidity is.. Legendary, reminds me of that failure of a strategy game called Civ Rev. The only redeeming factors are hex tiles, 1upt and city-states. (although poorly implemented)

Tells me all I need to know about the direction Firaxis is going, and watching the series that I love so much get "dumbed down" to attract the casual gamers while shoo-ing their hardcore fanbase is a heartbreaker, many many game companies go down that way nowadays and it's a shame.

...and don't even get me started on all the bugs/imbalances and how obvious of a rush job this game is, what happened to quality products? wish I could get a refund.


- Long-time Lurker

[Generals3]

Is it just me who noticed a funny evolution ? Many said that with time people will learn to enjoy Civ V and learn about its depth. Yet it seems how more time passes by how more the vote gets closer to a stalemate . Seems like a lot of people who thought they would enjoy it after some time noticed it just doesn't happen .

But anyway, where's that patch which fixes the Military and Diplomacy AI ?

[r_rolo1]

To be honest, I had a similar feeling to what I'm experiencing now with civ V ... what I felt when I bought civ III after coming from SMAC : that strange sensation that something was missing ( don't get me wrong, I liked civ III as a game, but somehow it felt ... streamlined compared with SMAC : less victories, less diplo options , less terrain types, less worker actions, less units, no climate , less strategy options for a win, completely boardish map ( while SMAC ,even being on 2-D , had that sense of geography due to the existance of real height + the dynamic rivers ) ... it is true that civ III brought some good stuff, like culture, but in the end I always felt that civ III was a inferior product than SMAC : too little added to make up for what was taken ( better said, never putted there at all )).

The thing that I feel more the lack is the diplomacy in general. IMHO both the diplo AI, the diplomatic options and the diplomacy screens are seriously lacking in depth ... and this even comparing with civ III ( for which I have already expressed above my disregard ). The AI acts like a lobotomized gamer completely uncapable of scheming ( thus a very bad gamer ), the diplomatic options are little , badly thought in terms of game balance ( research pacts are clearly there ) and quite opaque in their effects ( meaning that a casual player will never get what they do ) and your foreign advisor is so underwhelming that will not even tell you what is the status between 2 civs you know ( i would fire that clear example of nepotism in action if I could ). The worst is that , without a decent diplomacy, all the sense of playing against active and cunning oponents goes by the window ( by either unexplainable decisions by the part of the AI or by the opaqueness of the diplo situation in general ) and this gets the looks of a turn-based Age of Empires ( P.S I mean those versions of AoE that had some diplomacy , not the last one . Anyway, the diplo of the AI in AoE was always quite underwhelming , to say the least ) ...

[PieceOfMind]

Look ^^^. Someone managed to do a summary of one part of their criticism without once mentiong the dd phrase.

I can say there are various things I think civ5 has done better than civ4, but to be honest I still haven't played the game enough to commit to writing them all down, as I may eventually change my mind. Of course, there are things I think they've mucked up on as well.

In this thread I did not really intend to argue either way whether the game is dd or not. I haven't decided yet, and I still haven't voted yet.

[OliverFA]

Originally Posted by PieceOfMind

Well, that's a somewhat controversial opinion. As sad as it may be to admit, in general making a game more accessible to a wider audience is more likely to improve future sales. Again, you and I may not like it that way, but I think it's a bit of a stretch to argue that making a game more accessible hurts sales in the long run. Yes, you will lose the enthusiasm of some of the fans, but not the broader majority and the people with too much money for their own good.

In my opinion, there is no controversy at all. Why a developer choose to name a game GAME_NAME_A 2? Because he hopes this will encourage people who liked GAME_NAME_A 1 to also buy GAME_NAME_A 2. Now, if you change so many things in 2 that it is very different from 1. Why call it with the same name anyway? You are selling a different game with a franchise name, and this in my opinion is nothing more than a marketing technique hoping to catch people who liked the first game. Hoping they will still believe it is the same game just because it has the same name and a "2".

In my opinion, is a very big contradiction to promise more of the same and then give something different.

Originally Posted by PieceOfMind

When it comes to whether a sequel to a very successful game should 'reinvent the wheel' or 'start from scratch' is again a matter of much debate. I'm happy to sit somewhere in the middle on this one. There is no doubt that if civ5 didn't remove much of what was problematic or uninteresting in civ4 and only tried to cram more things in, there would be lots of the "hard core" fans expressing their disappointment that civ5 didn't do enough to innovate and cut the chaff or take risks with a new design. You simply cannot please everyone.

I don't see any debate her (again, in my opinion). If people want a game that is different from GAME_NAME_A 1, then, why buy GAME_NAME_A 2? They should go buy GAME_NAME_B instead.

Removing unfun features is not reinventing the wheel. It's just improving the game. But reinventing the wheel or starting from scratch, is just lying to everyone (sorry, I don't find better word then "lying" right now).

Yes, players want some fresh air in the game. But they don't want the core essence removed from the game! Probably the famous 1/3 improved 1/3 old 1/3 new only works if the number of features is expanded in such number that the new iteration doesn't lose 1/3 of features from the previous game, but a lot less.

If developers want to do something different they should just do an spin-off. No one will feel betrayed and the customer base will probably get bigger.

Originally Posted by PieceOfMind

To those people though, I only want to encourage them to avoid turning discussions into what are essentially political debates, polarised over whether the game is dumbed down or whether it is not.

Again in my opinion, the game has less features, with less deep, and provides you less options. Maybe "simplified" is a word more polite than "dumbed down". It sumarizes what I think about the game. But my other complain is that too many features have been removed. So we end with a game that lacks features which for me are core for Civ and the ones that it still has are a lot simpler. I still think this should be CivRev for PC.

[r_rolo1]

@PieceOfMind

To be honest, I was very tempted to use the dd where I putted streamlined ... ( using a hype word spitted out by the developer to critic a game they done is far more devilish IMHO . But i digress ... ). But after your ( rather well pointed, I must add ) reasoning about the dumbing down of the debate by the excessive use of expressions like "dumbed down " , i prefered to use something more elegant

[PieceOfMind]

Originally Posted by r_rolo1

I putted streamlined

I know.

@OliverFA

Fair enough. I'm sorry but I really don't want to get into arguing about what the game's name has to mean for the game.

In my opinion, is a very big contradiction to promise more of the same and then give something different.

Sorry to nitpick-quote you here, but where did they ever promise "more of the same"?

Personally I have no problem with them trying to do something different while still keeping the same theme. Whether or not they are successful or not in making that different game just as or more enjoyable is another matter entirely.

[Psyringe]

I think it's pretty obvious that the developer's goals for Civ5 were to reduce complexity in some areas (e.g. empire management), while increasing it in others (tactical combat). Whether or not they intended to reduce the game's "total" complexity is hard to tell though, for a number of reasons:

1. The streamlined AI may give an impression of reduced complexity that's not necessarily true. It could be that the complexity is now just more under the hood than before. of course, it's also possible that the "hood" was pulled over the game mechanics to hide how simplistic they may have become - we just can't tell that yet.

2. We don't know Firaxis' plans for expansions and further development.

3. The main game mechanic that should have been more complex and challenging now (tactical combat) isn't working right now. The complexity added to the rules system gets lost because the AI fails to understand it. Planning unit positions against a competent AI might have been quite challenging indeed, but it doesn't feel that way when the Ai behaves imbecilic.

So, in short, I'm not sure whether a general reduction of complexity was intended, but I can see how it feels that way for many players.

Independent of that, I think that the term "dumbed down" lost its usefulness long ago. Whenever people don't like a new game mechanic, or miss an old one, they claim that the change has "dumbed down the game". This claim is made even if the level of complexity has actually risen - for example, during the Civ4 release days I saw a few people complaining that the change from two fighting stats (offense/defense) to one (strength) had "dumbed down" the game, because obviously dealing with one value was less complex than dealing with two, right? What they conveniently left out was that Civ4 also added a promotions system that allowed to fine-tune a unit's abilities and role to a much finer degree than the fixed offense/defense dichotomy could.

I'm not saying that this is exactly the same for Civ5, but my point is that the term "dumbed down" has become worthless in any kind of meaningful discussion about a game. It has simply become an emotionally loaded way of saying "I don't like it".

[ohioastronomy]

Originally Posted by Psyringe

I think it's pretty obvious that the developer's goals for Civ5 were to reduce complexity in some areas (e.g. empire management), while increasing it in others (tactical combat). Whether or not they intended to reduce the game's "total" complexity is hard to tell though, for a number of reasons:

1. The streamlined AI may give an impression of reduced complexity that's not necessarily true. It could be that the complexity is now just more under the hood than before. of course, it's also possible that the "hood" was pulled over the game mechanics to hide how simplistic they may have become - we just can't tell that yet.

2. We don't know Firaxis' plans for expansions and further development.

3. The main game mechanic that should have been more complex and challenging now (tactical combat) isn't working right now. The complexity added to the rules system gets lost because the AI fails to understand it. Planning unit positions against a competent AI might have been quite challenging indeed, but it doesn't feel that way when the Ai behaves imbecilic.

So, in short, I'm not sure whether a general reduction of complexity was intended, but I can see how it feels that way for many players.

Independent of that, I think that the term "dumbed down" lost its usefulness long ago. Whenever people don't like a new game mechanic, or miss an old one, they claim that the change has "dumbed down the game". This claim is made even if the level of complexity has actually risen - for example, during the Civ4 release days I saw a few people complaining that the change from two fighting stats (offense/defense) to one (strength) had "dumbed down" the game, because obviously dealing with one value was less complex than dealing with two, right? What they conveniently left out was that Civ4 also added a promotions system that allowed to fine-tune a unit's abilities and role to a much finer degree than the fixed offense/defense dichotomy could.

I'm not saying that this is exactly the same for Civ5, but my point is that the term "dumbed down" has become worthless in any kind of meaningful discussion about a game. It has simply become an emotionally loaded way of saying "I don't like it".

Your last point is perfectly fair - there are certain tactics which are bound to get a rise out of people, and saying something is dumbed down is one of them.

About the first point, however, it is very clear to me that the game is less complex in strategy as well as in appearance, and I'm surprised that this is controversial. Micro examples: you can't buy Wonders, you can't partially buy buildings or units. Tech example: the tech tree is drastically compressed and you have fewer choices. Victory conditions: you can't form stable alliances with AI players; you win by conquest or by bribing city-states and by going most of the way up the tech tree. Diplomacy is thus really a money/conquest win, not a diplomacy one. Culture wins have become more like an alternate spaceship win - build purple buildings instead of blue ones, get enough points to build your spaceship (excuse me, Utopia Project), and victory. You have 4 victory conditions in theory, and in practice you have two (with slight variations between space, culture, diplomacy.)

[zonk]

Originally Posted by ohioastronomy

Your last point is perfectly fair - there are certain tactics which are bound to get a rise out of people, and saying something is dumbed down is one of them.

About the first point, however, it is very clear to me that the game is less complex in strategy as well as in appearance, and I'm surprised that this is controversial. Micro examples: you can't buy Wonders, you can't partially buy buildings or units. Tech example: the tech tree is drastically compressed and you have fewer choices. Victory conditions: you can't form stable alliances with AI players; you win by conquest or by bribing city-states and by going most of the way up the tech tree. Diplomacy is thus really a money/conquest win, not a diplomacy one. Culture wins have become more like an alternate spaceship win - build purple buildings instead of blue ones, get enough points to build your spaceship (excuse me, Utopia Project), and victory. You have 4 victory conditions in theory, and in practice you have two (with slight variations between space, culture, diplomacy.)

I agree -

As I said in another thread, the 'swimlanes' have become much more rigid, too. I.e., if you're going spaceship/science -- there's very little point to building any other building types... maybe a few production buildings for the places you plan to build SS parts, but that's about it.

The counterpoint is that there is more "synergy" between aspects -- techs + Social Policies + Build Limitations, and I really tried to give that line of thought a chance... What I found is that yes - this is completely true. The problem, though -- and this why I completely agree with and share your puzzlement over the non-universal agreement over "less complex" -- is that once you do recognize that, it makes matters worse, not better. There's no bleed or crossover between victory paths or even the gold/economy vs. science vs. diplomacy vs. production swim lanes.

Buildings and Policies are simply multipliers and what's worse -- they're "simple" multipliers -- so it becomes really obvious really quickly that your path to victory is a matter of maxing out the multipliers. Don't waste your time on anything not in your lane.

There was more subtlety in IV -- this an area where religion being excised really hurts, for example.... Temples weren't just "happy" buildings... they were stepping stones to bigger religious buildings which had culture AND happiness implications. They had religious spread implications.... which in turn had diplomatic implications... and even a smattering of science and gold (when paired with civics and religious wonders) implications.

Add in health -- which meant a lot of buildings had multiple purposes... you had some food-only and health-only buildings, but you also had a fair number of "both" buildings. Most science buildings likewise had cultural aspects/bonus.

Once you discover the proper synergies -- which SPs make the most sense for which type of game -- everything becomes very push button.

I just don't find myself with a lot of "decisions" in any real sense -- once you start down a path, stay on that path, and don't wander off it.

[Psyringe]

Originally Posted by ohioastronomy

About the first point, however, it is very clear to me that the game is less complex in strategy as well as in appearance, and I'm surprised that this is controversial.

Note that I was talking about the design goals (i.e. the developers' intentions) in that statement, not about the current state of implementation. From the reports I read, I agree that Civ5 in its current state is less complex than Civ4. And this could be a hint that the devs intentionally created a less complex game. However, imho it could also mean that the mechanics which were meant to increase the game's complexity simply don't work right yet (1upt, diplomacy, possibly city states, etc.), Or it could mean that the plan is to sell a very stripped-down base game first and then provide a lot of DLC later on which actually expands gameplay options instead of just adding another civ or map. My point was that each of these three statements is possible, and we can't know (at least not yet) which ones(s) will turn out to be correct.

[byjimini]

Couldn't be arsed to read all 19 pages of this topic - I voted "no" on the poll.

Civ V is the same as Civ IV when it first launched - unbalanced, a few bugs, thin on the ground in terms of content. It was the two expansions that really took Civ IV by the horns, as well as numerous mods.

As impatient as I am, I know that we'll have to wait for DLC to spice things up a little, which is by no means "right", but that's the way it is. History shows that complaints against decisions in videogames never make any difference to sales or content, so to my mind it's basically a game of sitting back and waiting to see what happens. Civ is the go-to game for strategy fans, so I doubt this is some sort of cash-in on the franchise, and that Fireaxis will have some nifty tricks up their sleeves.

Civ V, as it is, is by no means a bad game, I just don't find it as exciting as I would have liked. Good things come to those who wait, and other phrases/puns etc.

[kickassdj]

I hate civ5! it crashes everytime I play , I got very high configuration and 1gb nvidia graphic card , I even tried on low setting but it still crashes no matter what I do. I never use to save game often, but their is not a single game in which it didn't crashed so I started saving after few turns but, even this didn't help, on turn its fix to crash no matter what change i make or load game in directx 9 or 11 or change building in production or diplomacy, I feel like they launched game without testing it.

[mrt144]

Originally Posted by zonk

I agree -

As I said in another thread, the 'swimlanes' have become much more rigid, too. I.e., if you're going spaceship/science -- there's very little point to building any other building types... maybe a few production buildings for the places you plan to build SS parts, but that's about it.

The counterpoint is that there is more "synergy" between aspects -- techs + Social Policies + Build Limitations, and I really tried to give that line of thought a chance... What I found is that yes - this is completely true. The problem, though -- and this why I completely agree with and share your puzzlement over the non-universal agreement over "less complex" -- is that once you do recognize that, it makes matters worse, not better. There's no bleed or crossover between victory paths or even the gold/economy vs. science vs. diplomacy vs. production swim lanes.

Buildings and Policies are simply multipliers and what's worse -- they're "simple" multipliers -- so it becomes really obvious really quickly that your path to victory is a matter of maxing out the multipliers. Don't waste your time on anything not in your lane.

There was more subtlety in IV -- this an area where religion being excised really hurts, for example.... Temples weren't just "happy" buildings... they were stepping stones to bigger religious buildings which had culture AND happiness implications. They had religious spread implications.... which in turn had diplomatic implications... and even a smattering of science and gold (when paired with civics and religious wonders) implications.

Add in health -- which meant a lot of buildings had multiple purposes... you had some food-only and health-only buildings, but you also had a fair number of "both" buildings. Most science buildings likewise had cultural aspects/bonus.

Once you discover the proper synergies -- which SPs make the most sense for which type of game -- everything becomes very push button.

I just don't find myself with a lot of "decisions" in any real sense -- once you start down a path, stay on that path, and don't wander off it.

This is something I don't think gets enough mention. Sure, stacks of doom are kind of boring and the combat of Civ was never on par with the best military wargames BUT the level of subtle complexity in Civ 4 is astounding upon inspection. The religion building scaling requisite thing and synergy with resources is great.

The resources themselves had more meaning in Civ 4.

You're spot on here.

Civ 4, despite its flaws with combat, presented one of the most interesting and varied gameplay experiences you can find.