Civ really did take a major diversion after 4.

[salty mud]

Steam cannot be blamed for the biggest disasters of Civ V. Namely one unit per turn, global happiness and dunderheaded AI.

 

[lymond]

I feel like a lot of the issue is just steam. You're appealing to masses of people now, pushing steam sales, dlc etc. It drastically changes how you approach the game design.

Lol....the failures of V and VI have absolutely nothing tio do with Steam.

 

[civvver]

The reception of those games does, and the reception drives future features. Why would they change civ7 at all if civ6 is so popular? Although civ6 is still way behind 5 in current players.

 

[lymond]

I still don't see your logic. PC games are already overwhelmingly distributed digitally by many online vendors. Had nothing to do with the decisions Firaxis made in developing V. The popularity of V certainly influenced the decisions of VI but that has nothing to do with Steam.

 

[Fish Man]

Lol....the failures of V and VI have absolutely nothing tio do with Steam.

It's more of the mindset of "make $$$ instead of good games", to be honest - which Valve exemplifies by just raking in the dough from Steam instead of actually releasing quality titles nowadays.

 

[Fippy]

Mixed on this too, i can see why Steam i.e. might have a negative effect on series like Civ.

 

[ztrapon]

I feel like a lot of the issue is just steam. You're appealing to masses of people now, pushing steam sales, dlc etc. It drastically changes how you approach the game design.

That's backwards logic. Obviously Civ V was developed before it was published on Steam, so unless Firaxis had in-house psychics, how could they have anticipated that?

It all boils down to people. I've worked in product development, and it's a recurring phenomenon: companies -- or more specifically people running those companies -- just wanna change products for the sake of change. And oftentimes they're neither users of said product, nor as talented as the initial innovator, so whatever changes made are disconnected from what consumers were actually asking for. The same is true in many areas of society: from politics to sports.

And if the new product is not a massive failure (which Civ V certainly wasn't), they consider the change positive. Problem is, since they never made a Civ IV-sequel, you can't ever compare.

I also think Soren Johnson was a key figure in making Civ IV what it is. When he left, new people took over, lacking his golden touch. They didn't understand what made Civ great, nor did they comprehend what an overhaul it would be switching board format, and limiting to 1UPT. I read some interview with the lead developer of Civ V, and his logic seemed senseless to me. What he did was basically decide on 1UPT because he disliked unit stacking in Civ IV, and from there on adjusted the entire game to it. Such a major tweak creates ripples across the entire game, and instead of polishing these issues, all they did was remove whatever didn't fit, and dumbed it down.

I can think of so many better ways to handle this problem: like limiting amount of units per tile, increasing unit maintenance, putting limit on unit types, etc. Anything but 1UPT -- playing Civ V and VI it's painfully obvious what a terrible concept that is.

 

[lymond]

I'm more inclined the blame the people spending of the money (admittedly I've been guilty of this) over one..albeit large...distributor of digital games. Firaxis did not even use Steam before V was released. I do certainly get the $$$ argument of the decline in gaming quality for sure.

edit: yeah..and as ztrapon says, the folks running these developers for sure.

 

[civvver]

I also think Soren Johnson was a key figure in making Civ IV what it is. When he left, new people took over, lacking his golden touch. They didn't understand what made Civ great, nor did they comprehend what an overhaul it would be switching board format, and limiting to 1UPT. I read some interview with the lead developer of Civ V, and his logic seemed senseless to me. What he did was basically decide on 1UPT because he disliked unit stacking in Civ IV, and from there on adjusted the entire game to it. Such a major tweak creates ripples across the entire game, and instead of polishing these issues, all they did was remove whatever didn't fit, and dumbed it down.

I can think of so many better ways to handle this problem: like limiting amount of units per tile, increasing unit maintenance, putting limit on unit types, etc. Anything but 1UPT -- playing Civ V and VI it's painfully obvious what a terrible concept that is.

Yes Jon Schafer or however it's spelled. He basically admitted that it was his personal preference, he hated stacks of doom, and as a kid he loved panzer general. So he tried to make civ5 combat like panzer general. It was same thing with roads, someone didn't like how cluttered the map looked with roads so they made them cost money.

And yes I do think it was Soren Johnson more than Sid. Idk if Sid Meier was even involved in civ4 development directly, and if you look at a lot of sid meier's recent games they are all super casual and not very good, more like glorified board games (ace patrol, spaceships etc).

 

[Archon_Wing]

Perhaps Civ 4 is the anamoly then? It makes more sense that way.

And no don't blame steam lol. Most games on it are crap only because most things are crap anyways.

 

[civvver]

Er I don't think so. Civ1, civ2, civ3 you could see very clear linear progression. Small features added, most stuff kept about the same though. More like features were enhanced. Like civ2 added firepower and hit points to units so you didn't get the infamous phalanx beating a battleship. Then civ3 took that a step further added hit points and healing but it was still like 2,3,4 hit points. They also added armies and promotions and counter types like spears vs horses (I think promos and counter types it's hard to remember). Then civ4 added great generals over armies, stacking defenses, tons of counter types, much better hp and combat system of rounds. But you can see the linear progression through each.

Similarily civ1 and 2 had zones of control which were your city radius. Civ3 had some sort of borders, I think they came from culture. Civ4 then had full on cultural borders and influences and open border treaties etc.

But some things drastically changed like civ4 introduced maintenance which was way different than any game before and hasn't been used after. So that makes it an anomaly.

 

[Lexicus]

hey also added armies and promotions and counter types like spears vs horses (I think promos and counter types it's hard to remember).

Nope, neither. Civ III had no rock-paper-scissors system of any kind and the only promotions were veterancy which would increase the health of the unit. Conscript -2hp, regular -3hp, veteran 4hp, elite 5hp.

 

[need my speed]

Similarily civ1 and 2 had zones of control which were your city radius. Civ3 had some sort of borders, I think they came from culture. Civ4 then had full on cultural borders and influences and open border treaties etc.

But some things drastically changed like civ4 introduced maintenance which was way different than any game before and hasn't been used after. So that makes it an anomaly.

No, I disagree (and you are wrong on many points, as Lexicus already indicates). Civilization III added the entire mechanic of culture - that is a far more drastic change than simply replacing corruption (III) with maintenance (IV). And why would IV be the anomaly, when this mechanic gets replaced by global happiness in V? III added veterancy, while IV removed different offence/defence hitpoints and added one single strength value, that can be altered by modifiers and promotions (V and VI use the exact same system). III added armies, while IV added Great Generals (that V and VI use too). II, I believe, had the mechanic of 'one unit of a stack dies > the entire stack dies', while III and IV didn't have that (maybe III compensated for this with the ranged bombardment mechanic, and IV definitely did so with collateral damage, but I do not remember how artillery works in II). And so on.

From I to IV, including Alpha Centauri and Revolution, Civilization was about empire-building, about expanding over a whole wide world, immersing oneself, conducting diplomacy, building up your civilisation. V and VI, then, are the anomaly, for ditching this fundamental vision of what a Civilization game is. For they lack immersion - they lack meaningful diplomacy - and lack scale - smaller maps, one unit per tile, one district per tile - and are filled with irrelevancies (archaeology) and plagued by a horrible user interface. It is mainly the vast reducing of scale and the decrease in immersion, though. Civilization V and VI remind me of the medieval-fantasy tactical wargames, such as Warlock: Master of the Arcane. They are not Civilization games.

 

[Lexicus]

while IV removed different offence/defence hitpoints and added one single strength value, that can be altered by modifiers and promotions (V and VI use the exact same system).

Just want to say one of the things I like about how IV handled that transition was allowing some units to receive terrain defensive bonuses while others cannot.

 

[civvver]

Yeah civ3 is fuzzy for me, I haven't replayed it at all since civ4 came out and I didn't play it a lot to begin with.

In 2 artillery were just another unit with high attack, low defense values. Like cannons were 8 attack 1 defense or something like that. So just a cheaper way to get offense.

Yes 5 and 6 are like completely new versions of the game. They don't have the same feel. 4 is drastically different but it still feels like civ.

The more I think about it you're right, civ5 just doesn't feel like civ. You tech stuff but it feels weird. The fantasy wargame comparison is apt.

 

[ztrapon]

The more I think about it you're right, civ5 just doesn't feel like civ. You tech stuff but it feels weird. The fantasy wargame comparison is apt.

This is maybe nitpicking but the sound design in recent Civ games ("the terrible two") is awful as well.

War declarations sounds like strumming your finger on the table, and battles hardly make sounds at all. In Civ 6 the technology quotes are horrible too, half the time they aren't even quotes, but snippets from some modern day TV show or movie, that just make you scratch your head.

Just googled to find a good example, and another guy is equally disappointed with this one:
"It was luxuries like air conditioning that brought down the Roman Empire. With air conditioning their windows were shut; they couldn't hear the Barbarians coming."
(Early Empire civic)

Unfunny, unmemorable and no relevance to the tech in question whatsoever.

 

[Lexicus]

This is maybe nitpicking but the sound design in recent Civ games ("the terrible two") is awful as well.

That's interesting; as much as I don't find Civ V fun I actually think it has the best music.

 

[ztrapon]

That's interesting; as much as I don't find Civ V fun I actually think it has the best music.

Music is great in both of them, I meant the sound effects (and choice of quotes).

 

[Lexicus]

Yeah. I do like some of the quotes in Civ V, especially the wonder quotes, but I think Civ IV has the best ones on the whole.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

Yes there are some very big changes between IV to V, I have played III, IV, V and VI with each of them having their good and bad stuff.

III is the best in terms of empire building, the corruption system is not really bad as it never punish you, just make the new cities weaker than old once which do make sense if you think about it and with specialists you can at large defeat the corruption You can build an empire in that game very early and have very large armies. The main problem with III is that it is really outdated which make it not fun to play.

IV is in many ways like III but it have aged alot better. Overall it is a better game than III but in some way III had the better immersion, like a wonder in III feels like a massive project taking enormous effort and a large empire feel more like a large empire in III than in IV.

V it dont even feel like you are an empire, just a city state. Even in terms of tile improvement IV did a better job by far. V lack both the feelings of the older games and it is tedious due to one unit per tile making it hard to move armies. It also have its good ideas such as how to make culture a valuable resource and resources themself are in some ways done better than in III and IV. But the bad parts of the game is really noticeable. Another 4x game (Pandora first contact) manage to use army stacks in my opinion better than any civ game and that game also show many other good ideas how civ series could have developed. I mean just the population growth system of pandora is probably the best I have seen in any 4x game.

VI is in many ways an improvement over V as it do allow empire building and I like the builder much more than the tedious and slow workers. Still the problems of one unit per tile and other such as limited option to go tall and lack of city infrastructure development and poor population growth system with multiple punishments to growing population (housing, exponential growth cost and amenties) encourage ICS and the lack of any penalty to conquer cities from the terrible ai ruin much of the game.