A theory on why ciV has been so divisive to the community.
- Thread starter Thormodr
- Start date
The reason it's so divisive is it's the latest in a well established franchise. It changes things, and not everyone likes those changes. The other reason is it's missing the (5?) years of balancing, polish and expansions that civ iv has enjoyed.
There are issues, problems and imbalances, but I'm reasonably confident these will be taken of. When that happens (and customising mods take up any remaining slack) i would imagine more will be happy with the game, and we'll be seeing more converts than disappointed people, just like in past new iterations of civ.
There are issues, problems and imbalances, but I'm reasonably confident these will be taken of. When that happens (and customising mods take up any remaining slack) i would imagine more will be happy with the game, and we'll be seeing more converts than disappointed people, just like in past new iterations of civ.
ohioastronomy
King
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2005
- Messages
- 714
People play Civ in a lot of different ways, and the designers of Civ 5 had active contempt for a lot of those styles. The people whose gamplay style was embraced - and who don't mind the lack of challenge and absence of choice - well, they like it. The others don't. A divide is not surprising.
And for the "afraid of change" mantra, perform the following exercise. Go to the top of the Civ 5 and Civ 4 general discussion boards. Choose "start from the beginning" and sort by number of views. You have to wade quite far into Civ 4 to find critical threads, and they are mostly "the game is buggy". For Civ 5 the critical threads dominate. You can blame the messenger, or you can perhaps consider the possibility that this game is just bad, unlike the previous ones, and that is why folks don't like it.
And for the "afraid of change" mantra, perform the following exercise. Go to the top of the Civ 5 and Civ 4 general discussion boards. Choose "start from the beginning" and sort by number of views. You have to wade quite far into Civ 4 to find critical threads, and they are mostly "the game is buggy". For Civ 5 the critical threads dominate. You can blame the messenger, or you can perhaps consider the possibility that this game is just bad, unlike the previous ones, and that is why folks don't like it.
Dave Hartwick
Prince
What a load, unless by "regular" you mean "party" or "children's". Ever heard of Avalon Hill? Advanced Squad Leader? UpFront? Magic Realm? Programmed rules that made your eyes swim and covered nocturnal infiltration with a broken weapon? Ring any bells? Anybody? Anybody? Bueller?
I agree 100%, great theory.
The game how it´s now is too simple for PC gamers, if I want something "easy to read" I would buy a PS3.
Maybe this game is intended to be a PvP and not an PvAI. To have an offline ciV we will need to wait an expansion or a mod...
The game how it´s now is too simple for PC gamers, if I want something "easy to read" I would buy a PS3.
Maybe this game is intended to be a PvP and not an PvAI. To have an offline ciV we will need to wait an expansion or a mod...
False dichotomy followed by groupthink, IMO.
falconne
meep
Meh. Yeah it was a generalisation. I've played Axis & Allies and ASL. They are good games, but on par with Euro games. My point being that level of complexity is standard for that part of the world.
I just get annoyed when people hear "board game" and they think "Monopoly" and that "Settlers of Catan" is "Advanced".
I was just thinking along those lines myself. It's as if the developers of Civ5 absolutely hated Civ4 with venom!
Not to pass a value judgement on Civ5, however it also seems to me that the gamers who like it the most and are defending it are also those who dislike Civ4 most, too. Witness the contempt poured on SOD, religion, health etc etc. This didn't happen with the jump from 1 to 2.
It is strange how the developers ripped into the Civ line (not just 4), how they said things like they were "going back to core" as if Civ 4 was some flop. It wasn't . It was a hugely succesful masterpiece of games development. I would have thought it sound business sense to build on that, not reject it.
falconne
meep
Considering several people on this forum, including myself, brought up the Euro board game similarity long before that thread was seen, I'm pretty sure it's not groupthink.
I think people are over-analysing something really simple. There are simple reasons people don't like Civ 5.
Bugs in gameplay
Crashes
AI so dumb that it's boring to play against
Very poor multiplayer with bugs and exploits
Clunky console type interface
Not that these can't be fixed, but as the game is *now* it's say a 7/10, and for some people it's basically shelf quality until they fix the issues above.
Then there are fanboys who say its 10/10 clearly ignoring any issues, or stating that "they will be fixed" - the problem here is that are we talking about the same thing (or even game)? - half the people are talking about the game as it is now, the fanboys seem to be thinking about some *"notional patched" game that may or may not exist in the future.*
Bugs in gameplay
Crashes
AI so dumb that it's boring to play against
Very poor multiplayer with bugs and exploits
Clunky console type interface
Not that these can't be fixed, but as the game is *now* it's say a 7/10, and for some people it's basically shelf quality until they fix the issues above.
Then there are fanboys who say its 10/10 clearly ignoring any issues, or stating that "they will be fixed" - the problem here is that are we talking about the same thing (or even game)? - half the people are talking about the game as it is now, the fanboys seem to be thinking about some *"notional patched" game that may or may not exist in the future.*
I disagree with his analysis.
Civ is still the same to me, I have the same feeling, the same excitement in the first turns, exploration, building, wars, growing until the renaissance and then boring in the modern era
The UI is a bit different, some features are a bit unfinished and there are a lot of bugs that ruin immersion a bit. For example I can't build many trading posts, even if I should for my economy. Or I will not accept resources and luxuries when a Civ demands for peace, because there is a bug and they will keep giving me those goods forever.
But the core of the game is really the same as all the previous Civ games, and Civ5 gives me the exact same feeling as Civ1,Civ2,Civ3,Civ4
Research agreement is much more exploitable than tech trading ever was.
Namaspamus
Warlord
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2010
- Messages
- 206
I think Civ has always been walking on a "god game" leg and a "board game" one. A mix of... say Sim City and Risk.
A board game because of wars, and because of the (almost) symmetrical competition between different civs even in single-player. this is not the case in Sim City.
A god game because you place the first stone of your empire (very important imo), you build and conduct it with love, with the feeling your people have a form of reality, and when the game ends you have a kind of emotion to leave a world you spend so many hours in. This is not the case in board and real 4x games.
So there was always room in Civ for narrative and purely-competeitive playing.
Civ never really was a 4x game, and that's what it's becoming now to me. We're just mining the map to victory like in Starcraft or Age of Empire. The main cause is they killed cities with the empire wide-happiness system (and it's absurd causes). As I read somewhere, it' s now "resource depot 1", "resource depot 2", etc... In the 2K thread, someone said the devs intention was to keep us in the main view all the time, it's very true. We just enter the "city-screen" to switch focus, or almost. The fact we can't name cities, only rename, is a detail but the kind that tells a lot. I want to name my resource depot.
The "playing to win" AI, the lack of interaction between the civs out of war, the absence of alliances are another source of disappointment for narrative players.
The giant moved so much of his weight on his board-game/4x/wargame/whatever leg that he's now falling for many people.
A board game because of wars, and because of the (almost) symmetrical competition between different civs even in single-player. this is not the case in Sim City.
A god game because you place the first stone of your empire (very important imo), you build and conduct it with love, with the feeling your people have a form of reality, and when the game ends you have a kind of emotion to leave a world you spend so many hours in. This is not the case in board and real 4x games.
So there was always room in Civ for narrative and purely-competeitive playing.
Civ never really was a 4x game, and that's what it's becoming now to me. We're just mining the map to victory like in Starcraft or Age of Empire. The main cause is they killed cities with the empire wide-happiness system (and it's absurd causes). As I read somewhere, it' s now "resource depot 1", "resource depot 2", etc... In the 2K thread, someone said the devs intention was to keep us in the main view all the time, it's very true. We just enter the "city-screen" to switch focus, or almost. The fact we can't name cities, only rename, is a detail but the kind that tells a lot. I want to name my resource depot.
The "playing to win" AI, the lack of interaction between the civs out of war, the absence of alliances are another source of disappointment for narrative players.
The giant moved so much of his weight on his board-game/4x/wargame/whatever leg that he's now falling for many people.
Cão;9741707 said:
I think that's the point. True board games are all about human opponents. Original civ was all about single player experience.
Now we have a game which is basically about hot-seat hex tactical war, with simplified rules (ladders) and some nice PvP additions (city-states).
dalowrider
Chieftain
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2010
- Messages
- 29
I just thought it was funny he posted that because i myself had came to the same conclusion about CiV be more board gamy and less sim-like than CIV while playing
which is a shame because I was looking for a more sim like aspect
too many board games and not enough god games as is...
which is a shame because I was looking for a more sim like aspect
too many board games and not enough god games as is...
afa2000
Time to die
I couldn't agree more.
Interesting analysis, but that's not it for me. While i started playing civ games as godsims, in civ4 i have switched to playing it for the win. Play the map, draft war, cavalry war, you know, whatever works. I have recently gone back to civ3 and i now play that the same way.
Even with huge content full conversions like FfH, after a couple games i started to play for the win, not the goodies or optimising everything.
So i already played civ4 like an euro-boardgame, but i still don't like civ5 much and i still can't exactly pinpoint why.
Even with huge content full conversions like FfH, after a couple games i started to play for the win, not the goodies or optimising everything.
So i already played civ4 like an euro-boardgame, but i still don't like civ5 much and i still can't exactly pinpoint why.
About the different set of features we may agree, as this is not really something new.
Better gameplay for V?
Depends very much on one's attitude, I think. Therefore I take the chance to say no, no better gameplay.
An easier one with less choices, ok. Grab some resources early, make money, bribe City States. Occasionally defeat an unable AI, raze their cities, and crawl along two different tech trees.
I mean people really should think about the fact why experienced Civ gamers are now playing on Immortal and Deity levels, while at Civ4 they were maybe King players. Do you hear any bell ringing?
And about the "whining about removed features": When you start a game, you're asked by the narrator if you are able to create a long lasting empire, if you can lead your nation to glory, if you can stand the test of time.
Now, where are the concepts which influenced the world for millenia? Where are religion, espionage, trading, colonies and different governmental systems?
Where is the adapting to the circumstances?
It is gone.
And that's what people are pointing out. You call it "whining" since you don't like this being pointed out.
But ok, you like games with limited, easy to recognize roads to success. Fine.
There are "whiners", who would like some more complexity, options and a more living world than this still life.
Honestly, I can't stand this "argument" any longer.
It is not as if V would have fallen out of the blue sky. It is the fifth iteration of a series, and many things could have been learned from past experience.
I don't mind some small technical issues here and there. Given the size of today's programs, these are unavoidable, pity enough.
What I do mind is the completely unpolished state of this game, not to call it a complete desaster.
On the technical side they seem to have made some of their homeworks, as the game runs for me (and I am very aware of the fact, that unfortunately this is not true for quite some others -- and for the moment I will ignore how slow it becomes when reaching the middle ages and some graphical glitches).
But the gameplay...
Oh my...I was just thinking along those lines myself. It's as if the developers of Civ5 absolutely hated Civ4 with venom!
Not to pass a value judgement on Civ5, however it also seems to me that the gamers who like it the most and are defending it are also those who dislike Civ4 most, too. Witness the contempt poured on SOD, religion, health etc etc. This didn't happen with the jump from 1 to 2.
It is strange how the developers ripped into the Civ line (not just 4), how they said things like they were "going back to core" as if Civ 4 was some flop. It wasn't . It was a hugely succesful masterpiece of games development. I would have thought it sound business sense to build on that, not reject it.
This is something which confuses me as well.
As far as I know, Civ4 was a mega-seller. And they literally kick it completely into the dustbin?
which is a shame because I was looking for a more sim like aspect
too many board games and not enough god games as is...
Check out Elemental. It's very playable at the current state (1.09E) and getting better with each patch. And it's a very looong gameplay, with huuuuge maps, and lots and lots of cities and stuff all needing lots and lots of micromanagement. Total old-school, very immersive with immediate "one more turn syndrome". And BTW, next turn takes around seconds, not minutes, even by the end of a game.
ohioastronomy
King
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2005
- Messages
- 714
I should have taken the warning from some of the interviews. The designers of Civ 5 were going on and on about how terrible Civ 4 was and how they were getting rid of all of the bad aspects of the it. There was no sense that there was anything good that they wanted to keep; the clear design goal was to merge the console and PC versions. Civ 4 apparently got pretty complex with the expansions, so reigning that it was a legitimate goal. But if you're going that route you really need to respect the core aspects that made the series successful. It's as if they didn't know how well Civ 4 was received (does game of the year mean anything to them?) or what people liked about it. And the sad thing is that the game is still too complex for a mass market, thus being neither fish nor fowl.
