A theory on why ciV has been so divisive to the community.

[falconne]

I seem to have the same tastes you do, but I just have no idea what you are talking about with this statement.

So here are games on an abstraction scale. Lets say Chess is a 1, Manstein is a 10, Civ 4 is a 200 and Paradox Games are a 500.

That's your view of the scale, here's my view (going to 1000 to make it easier):

Chess is 1, Victoria II is 1000, Civ4 is 450, Civ4+BTS is 600, Civ 5 is 200.

That's how Civ 5 feels to me and that's why I don't like it.

 

[JoxerNL]

I disagree largely with the guy who posted the boardgame/godgame thing.
He does not understand godgames at all, first of all.

Yeah i'll go and load up "Populous 1" now for my daily dose of reality in a mini-world... LOL

So with that small point refuted let's press on :
I think the poster dude only makes this conclusion maybe subconsciencly because of the Hexes, Settler's of Catan for example
Maybe he played it once and it struck him as boardgame-errific.

To me it feels they gave a sleek designed product with immense mod-capacities.
To all the people who complain about Civ V not being like Civ 4, how about you guys actually use all that energy and make a totall Civ 4.5 conversion for Civ 5?

You got everything needed in the Civ 4 and Civ 5 folders!

For me Civ 4 was too tedious, which is funny cause i love most prior civ-games and adore SMAC, just 4 felt tedious, too many things cluttering my main goal.

Civ 5 thusfar keeps me playing, i got the need to play another game, and another game etc etc...
Anyways just my 2p,
-J

 

[EscapedGoat]

I have to disagree. In V, what you just can't do is to build an "empire" (well, at least not on large or huge maps).

What kind of simulated is a loose confederation of city states like in ancient Greece. Nothing more, nothing less.
For sure it is not an empire which you "build".

And this is intentional. The designers clearly tell the player: "Obey!"

The player wants to have more cities than the designers thought to be sufficient for their preferred play style? Well, you will be punished by limited growth, limited industrial and limited military capacity.
The player wants to have more troops than the designers thought to be sufficient for their preferred play style? Well, you will be punished by costs (which you can only reduce by killing TWO units), you will be punished by limited industrial capacity.

You really managed to be successful in war? You are proving this by conquering an enemy city? Well, you will be punished by having to raze it.

This game is about playing happily with say up to 5 cities and be satisfied with such an "empire".
If you try to grow, you are just punished. Because you dared not to share the developers' intentions.

This game doesn't open chances and opportunities, it limits you. Therefore, it is much closer to a board game than any Civ game before.

Oh please - Civ4 had VERY clear punishments for expansion (ramping city costs) as well & happiness was also a limitation. A larger army = more upkeep.

Yes, the designers of Civ4 put SOFT CAPS on ICS (which was a monster from Civ 2 + Civ 3 + SMAC) in the form of cost + happiness. It's the same thing in CIV5 only implemented a little differently. Of course you have to play by the designer rules - that goes for any game. But if you really think you are limited to 5 cities you need to experiment more

 

[falconne]

I disagree largely with the guy who posted the boardgame/godgame thing.
He does not understand godgames at all, first of all.

Yeah i'll go and load up "Populous 1" now for my daily dose of reality in a mini-world... LOL

So with that small point refuted let's press on :
I think the poster dude only makes this conclusion maybe subconsciencly because of the Hexes, Settler's of Catan for example
Maybe he played it once and it struck him as boardgame-errific.

You too aren't understanding what he means by "god game". He doesn't mean a literal god game, but empire building sims like Paradox makes.

And no, there's no "Civ 5 has hexes like Settlers of Catan" connection here. He's referring to Euro games which are a huge and popular genre. The Civ 5 designer must like them a lot, because it is designed very much like one.

But if you really think you are limited to 5 cities you need to experiment more

You can build more, but it becomes counter productive after about 8. The resources you spend on building happiness to support them and units to protect them will only slow down your victory path, not make it any easier. A few good cities is better than several mediocre ones.

 

[JoxerNL]

I just wiki'd it and indeed one of the first Euro Games mentioned is Settlers of Catan.

And tbh im not going to go into a discussion with a third party over what someone may or may not have ment, cause that's like discussing one of Freud's books with the current Civ V AI

 

[falconne]

I just wiki'd it and indeed one of the first Euro Games mentioned is Settlers of Catan.

And tbh im not going to go into a discussion with a third party over what someone may or may not have ment, cause that's like discussing one of Freud's books with the current Civ V AI

Settlers of Catan is a popular Euro game but only because it's one of the few that's mass marketed in America. It's nowhere near being a representation of the complexity of the genre. This is what Euro games are (well, most of them are): http://www.boardgamegeek.com/browse/boardgame?sort=rank

For board gamers this is a big deal... just because you haven't heard of them doesn't change the debate. For those who know (and there are several on this forum if you bother to read the threads), Euro games are very complex, unlike the regular American board games. Comparing Civ V to one of these board games is not like comparing it to the kind of games you're thinking of. And the Civ V rules have been designed along the same philosophies as those games are (as I expect the designer fully intended).

 

[lschnarch]

Oh please - Civ4 had VERY clear punishments for expansion (ramping city costs) as well & happiness was also a limitation. A larger army = more upkeep.

All of them you could overcome.

Yes, the designers of Civ4 put SOFT CAPS on ICS (which was a monster from Civ 2 + Civ 3 + SMAC) in the form of cost + happiness. It's the same thing in CIV5 only implemented a little differently. Of course you have to play by the designer rules - that goes for any game. But if you really think you are limited to 5 cities you need to experiment more

The point is in V you are literally not able to create an empire. In IV you could do so very easily.
Look at a huge map in the beginning and then think of "Replenish the earth, and subdue it" - no way to do so in V.

In quite some points we are back at Civ3. Our borders literally mean nothing except access to the yield of tiles.
Even the AI settlers happily marching to the other end of the world and settling there are back.
Even worse, the human player is forced to do so as well to get access to luxuries.

The result is a map looking like rag rug.

Playing around for an hour or two? Yes.
Empire building? No.

 

[jjkrause84]

I think we can argue over his word choice but the core of his idea is solid. Older Civs let you do things that were in no way essential to the game (espionage, corporations, etc.). You could easily ignore them and the game went unchanged BUT should you wish to use them you could (I can rememebr staging a few coordinated, MASS spy attacks. It was awesome!). Civ5 holds up the 'core gameplay' (largely, but not entirely, war) and say, "Do that!" and then it took away "unnecessary distractions". Older Civs (2 and 4 especially) had plenty of unnecessary distraction but, for me, they made those games more immersive, fun and gave the player more options on how to enjoy him/herself.

As the OP seems to state there is no "right" or "wrong" way. Some peopel want a good "game" and don't want to be bothered with anything that does not contribute towards 'winning'. Others want to be given a box-full of toys (some of which are maybe bent or broken and they'll never use) and be told "Have at it". In one model gameplay mechanics come first (and content is moulded around that); in the other concepts come first and are then fitted into the larger game (I'd say this is especially true for religion in Civ4. Someone said, "Let's have religion in the game!" and then they set about trying to do it).

 

[stealth_nsk]

I found term "god game" causes some mess. The god game is where you don't impersonate someone, but play as ultimate force, controlling a lot of different aspects of the world. Nothing about gameplay. What is described here as "god game" is actually "sim game". Check "The Sims" against the list - they fit perfectly.

"Boardgame" is also doesn't suite well - usually it means simple rules, but anyone knows unit maintenance formula? Other formulas (like social policy cost aren't simple as well). Everything is tweaked here for computer game.

From my point of view, the reason for divide is simple - people don't expect new game, they expect expansions. That's it. I could discuss every single point where people think the game is less realistic (former enemies converting to allies in several turns? c'mon guys, remember European wars of XIX century), but I just don't see any reason for it. I have a lot of fun with Civ 5 and I wish everyone try to have it to.

 

[Dariush]

I agre with the differnce between god games and board games but you have to keep one thing in mind, mos board games wih hexes are focused solely on war, period ! I think that developers had that in mind as a strategi board game (diplomacy, Civilization) don't need squares or hexes.

 

[KingMackem]

Re: Board gamers V god gamers. good theory... I agree.

 

[jjkrause84]

Oh, and can we please stop with the "Civ4.5" trolling? Was Civ4, "Civ3.5"? Civs 3 and 4 certainly shared a lot of the same mechanics and ideas. Heck, the same argument could be made about Civ 2 > 3 (albeit, less effectively). Just because people wanted the sort of continuity that almost 20 years of development has led them to expect does not mean that they wanted an XP to Civ4, or a Civ4 remake.


Let's try not to rush to extreme and wind up becoming trolls.

 

[falconne]

From my point of view, the reason for divide is simple - people don't expect new game, they expect expansions.

I wish people would stop parroting this. No one expected Civ 4.5, we wanted a better game than BtS. There's plenty of reasoning from people who are disappointed as to why they feel that way... very little of it gets read by the other side. Most of it boils down to very much the topic of this thread... previous Civs were trending towards empire sim and we liked that. This one has become a board game and we don't like that. Ignoring it just to use the convenient "You just don't like change" line to dismiss detractor arguments as insubstantial is even more annoying.

 

[troytheface]

i have played monopoly and all the civs

i have no idea what the premise of board or god game even means

a god game would be you get to be like allah and play chess against Satan or something and a board game you get a board and a car

the division is from the calculators and control freaks vs the normal people that play civ

 

[falconne]

i have played monopoly and all the civs

Oh boy. You sir, have not lived. I suggest you read the posts on this thread. Then find some folks with enough attention span to play a real board game.

 

[Me,myself,and,I]

Did he talk about board games not trying to simulate reality? You sir are not playing the right board games. Squad leader and WiF for starters, then we can move on to the TCS artillery system.

I've played monopoly and all the civs.

If your gonna talk about board games then I suggest that you play somethin' more complex then monopoly son.

 

[blizzrd]

i have played monopoly and all the civs

i have no idea what the premise of board or god game even means

a god game would be you get to be like allah and play chess against Satan or something and a board game you get a board and a car

the division is from the calculators and control freaks vs the normal people that play civ

Oh dear. Please tell me you are not some 12-year old with an internet connection.

Moderator Action: Please keep discussions on the topics, not on other posters.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

To be clear, because apparently you don't get the difference:

The premise of the OP was that Civ1 to Civ4 were essentially games where you could control how the world developed with many small and some large decisions. A game where you get to play god with your own little world, is a good analogy. This concept has nothing to do with Allah or Satan though and by suggesting that it does, I suspect that you are somewhat lacking in your exposure to concepts outside of fifth grade.

Oh boy. You sir, have not lived. I suggest you read the posts on this thread. Then find some folks with enough attention span to play a real board game.

Amen. Seconded.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I wish people would stop parroting this. No one expected Civ 4.5, we wanted a better game than BtS. There's plenty of reasoning from people who are disappointed as to why they feel that way... very little of it gets read by the other side. Most of it boils down to very much the topic of this thread... previous Civs were trending towards empire sim and we liked that. This one has become a board game and we don't like that. Ignoring it just to use the convenient "You just don't like change" line to dismiss detractor arguments as insubstantial is even more annoying.

I've read a lot of threads and responded in a lot. I could say there are reasonable points (like AI poor unit choice - 100% agree), but 90% of whining is about "why they removed feature X". The Civ 5 just has better gameplay (you could call it "becoming a board game", but I described in the previous post why it's incorrect) and different set of features.

 

[falconne]

I've read a lot of threads and responded in a lot. I could say there are reasonable points (like AI poor unit choice - 100% agree), but 90% of whining is about "why they removed feature X". The Civ 5 just has better gameplay (you could call it "becoming a board game", but I described in the previous post why it's incorrect) and different set of features.

It's you're interpretation based on your knowledge, but it doesn't make it true. It's besides the point that board games don't force you to calculate unit costs. We're not saying it's a board game played on a computer. We've played many empire sims and many European board games and as far as "what it feels like to play Civ 5" goes, it's "definitely not" like playing an empire sim but "a little like" playing a Euro game.

 

[poncratias]

Civ V is all about going for the victory conditions. Like a board game.

You have these sets of rules, and you haven to do this , this and this and then you win.

Civ V really misses all those "small" features, all those little hidden goodies that made you excited when you uncovered them.


I remember when I came to Civ IV from Civ III, I didn't like it in the first place.
But that was mainly because of the graphic style I think.
But then I went back to it and started playing, maily because I LOVED all those little added functionalities, that have not been in Civ III.

Civ V is a parade-example for FAIL in Game concepting.