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

[Buccaneer]

I probably didn't write it in the best way, and it ended a bit confusing.
What I meant is that Civ4's leaders behaved more in the way that a "real" leader would make : like if he's trying to rule a nation, following some personnal preferences.
Civ5's leaders behave more like players trying to win a game.

But we need the AI to try to beat us. Ok, so they have different traits or specialties. Fine. If the purple civ is supposed to be good at culture, let them be ahead of me in SP and I will try to catch up and win. If the red civ is suppose to be good at military, let them be aggresive in attacking me, putting me on the defense. If the green civ is supposed to be good at expansion and growth, let them be ahead of me on the tech tree and I will try to beat you to UN. If the brown civ is supposed to be good at production, let them try to beat me to the spaceship. If any of the civs are more well-rounded, let them be unpredictable and surprise me in jumping ahead in one of the victories. I do not know what "rule a nation" means in civ, nor should it mean anything except trying to beat me. It could not do that well without cheating in Civ4 and in Civ5, it doesn't appear they are able to be that good at anything, without luck.

 

[Skwink]

It is because Civ V is new. Next time, everyone will be saying How bad Civ 6 is compared to civ 5. You guys are over analyzing.

 

[charon2112]

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

How is this any different than Civ IV? ...you have victory conditions that need to be met to win, and you try to meet them.

 

[damnyankees]

How is this any different than Civ IV? ...you have victory conditions that need to be met to win, and you try to meet them.

Because Civ IV was never about that, to me. Civ IV wasn't about "winning" - it was about building a civilization. I barely even put any thought into which specific method I would try to win using until the end of the game. I took too much pleasure in creating an empire - that act was fun in and of itself.

Civ V, on the other hand, seemingly dissuades you from actually creating a civilization in favor of following specific paths to specific victories. That's how it feels to me, anyway.

 

[charon2112]

I just realized that, maybe, Charon2112 is a Rush (the band) fan....and as such is 100% OK in my book!

you got it!

 

[charon2112]

Because Civ IV was never about that, to me. Civ IV wasn't about "winning" - it was about building a civilization. I barely even put any thought into which specific method I would try to win using until the end of the game.

this is exactly how I have felt about every Civ game...V also.

 

[John-SJ]

To the OP:

Yes, i really agree with the assessment. In fact, as I read the 2K forum thread, I came to realize something about Civ games, and my personal play style.

See, when Civ III came out I began to feel that the game was getting too complex to be really enjoyable. I had absolutely loved Civs I & II and played them endlessly. But III was a little bit of a disappointment, and IV was no better in my mind.

In fact, I made the argument on several occasions that a complex game was not necessarily a better one, and used games such as chess and go as examples of very simple games that have nearly infinite strategy potential and have, as anyone must admit, stood the test of time.

So, now I understand as well why I am liking Civ V more than III or IV.

The explanation fits perfectly in my mind.

 

[brianshapiro]

this is exactly how I have felt about every Civ game...V also.

Thats how I've felt and why I want the designers to see it more like a simulation than a board game. Because I want to have fun watching my empire grow, and the more real and detailed it is, the more fun it is to watch grow.

I don't hate civ5 though, in fact, as I've said, I think it plays a lot better than civ4, and I'm enjoying playing it. This is just an abstract argument to me. ie, How would I like the game more?

I think strategy in the game is a good thing also, but I also think the lack of realism in some cases makes the strategy boring. People say this about civ5, but even with civ4 and civ3, I felt that after a while I was playing every game the same way, because there were limited ways to play the game that actually worked.

 

[blizzrd]

this is exactly how I have felt about every Civ game...V also.

But you've only played Civ Rev and Civ 5. So that statement isn't worth much.

Moderator Action: Please discuss the topic at hand, not individual posters. Thanks.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[dexters]

Because Civ IV was never about that, to me. Civ IV wasn't about "winning" - it was about building a civilization. I barely even put any thought into which specific method I would try to win using until the end of the game. I took too much pleasure in creating an empire - that act was fun in and of itself.

Civ V, on the other hand, seemingly dissuades you from actually creating a civilization in favor of following specific paths to specific victories. That's how it feels to me, anyway.

All Civ games are about building Civilizations. Attributing this to a Civ4 feature is incorrect. And perhaps shows your own personal bias for Civ4.

I'd also argue Civ3 gives you more fun doing it just because things were less structured, if you're a sandlot/narrative player.

Vassal states for example, I initially welcomed as boosting diplomacy, but the more I think about it, the more retrograde the concept became. Because it had the opposite effect. Whereas in Civ3 you could easily have 8 civs, all independent, all lounging around creating situations for great power diplomacy (Persia invades a tiny Civ, human player seeing this as a challenge, intervenes etc.) , creating a lot of opportunities for deal-making and what I call power arbitrage (the transfer of your Civ's power to another purely for geopolitical reasons), Civ4 AI tends to clump up into 1 big Civ with 1-2 vassals, so by the middle to end game, the game admittedly slows down and get quite boring and becomes a match between 2-3 Civs, while all the rest just follow along as vassals of this big state or that. And your interactions narrows from 6-8 down to 2-3. Huge difference.

 

[Ex Mudder]

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.

I agree with OP and this quote, except that I would call Civ an Empire Builder game rather than a god game, and Civ V simply a strategy game. The empires you can build in Civ V are pathetic compared to Civ 1-4 (and SMAC), plus Civ 5 feels like a hex based TBS with base management.

I was expecting Civ IV with hexes, not Panzer General with city building.

 

[afa2000]

How is this any different than Civ IV? ...you have victory conditions that need to be met to win, and you try to meet them.

At Civ IV you could roleplay. I had a lot of fun saving my religion buddies, starting wars against the infidels, helping a civ who wants to become a vassal, pleasing or pissing of some AI because of his personality, managing revolutions (RoM mod), playing in a 18 civs pangaea small map and trying to make friends and avoid enemies, etc. That's all about immersion, as OP said. That's over now. City states are no more than gold looters and random quest makers. Leaders are all the same, just trying to be lame copies of the human player. There aren't good enough gameplay elements.

I wish I could express myself better, but I think OP points are good enough to do so.

 

[monsterfurby]

There's chess players (plain and challenging), Ludo players (plain and simple), Advanced Squad Leader players (elaborate and challenging) and Lord of the Rings RISK players (elaborate and simple).

That also translates into computer and video gamers.

I prefer something between p/c and e/c, which was what Civ 4 gave me. Civ 5 is slightly tilted towards e/s, but I can't judge it since I haven't played it yet.

Afa2000: Is roleplaying really dead with Civ 5? I think our expectation towards a Civ game might be similar, so that statement seems somewhat distressing...

 

[Oneluv]

But you've only played Civ Rev and Civ 5. So that statement isn't worth much.

I'm sorry. Am I too understand that charon2112 has only played Rev. and CiV?

wow, those have been some pretty strong opinions if that's, in fact, the case.

 

[afa2000]

Afa2000: Is roleplaying really dead with Civ 5? I think our expectation towards a Civ game might be similar, so that statement seems somewhat distressing...

I think so. What can you do at Civ 5 besides trying to "win" ? Nothing else. Maybe my biggest complaint is about leaders losing their personalities and trying to win at any cost, looking like human players. That "killed" the sense of immersion.

 

[ohioastronomy]

I probably didn't write it in the best way, and it ended a bit confusing.
What I meant is that Civ4's leaders behaved more in the way that a "real" leader would make : like if he's trying to rule a nation, following some personnal preferences.
Civ5's leaders behave more like players trying to win a game.

The problem isn't that Civ 5 AIs are trying to win. The problem is that they're working in a system where the only way to win is backstabbing and war. You can design a game so that all members of an alliance win - and so an AI could win if they join you in diplomacy. You can design a system (like Galactic Civilizations or Europa Universalis) where foreign trade is very lucrative - so that warmongering or being economically isolated actually has in-game penalties. In such a system the AI wants to make (good) trade deals with you and won't mess up the gravy train without good reason.

However, if you give the AIs incentive only for endless war then you end up with the rule of the jungle and every game ending up with someone beating their chest as king of the hill. That's a very cramped vision.

 

[DarkSchneider]

I thought the very first Civ felt boardgamy as well, even if they were trying for a God Game. But Civ II-IV were all very immersive. This one, not so much.

 

[afa2000]

The problem isn't that Civ 5 AIs are trying to win. The problem is that they're working in a system where the only way to win is backstabbing and war.

I have to disagree. As you can see, Monty is one of my favourite Civ IV AIs, although I'm not a warmonger. I have no problem with his backstabs, his psycho style. It's just the way he is, unique. I also like Mansa Musa trying to get an extra advantage in all trades. What I cant tolerate is not being able to tell the difference from Monty and Gandhi now. There are two words to describe every AI now: annoying and stupid.

 

[ohioastronomy]

I have to disagree. As you can see, Monty is one of my favourite Civ IV AIs, although I'm not a warmonger. I have no problem with his backstabs, his psycho style. It's just the way he is, unique. I also like Mansa Musa trying to get an extra advantage in all trades. What I cant tolerate is not being able to tell the difference from Monty and Gandhi now. There are two words to describe every AI now: annoying and stupid.

I don't think we're disagreeing. Having some warlike AIs is a great idea. Having all of them be the same is not.

I'd also note that you could easily design a system which disadvantages the warrior nations as much as the current system disadvantages the peaceful ones.

 

[charon2112]

But you've only played Civ Rev and Civ 5. So that statement isn't worth much.

what in the world makes you think that?