Civ series History viewed by myself, and conclusions about the direction to follow

[Naokaukodem]

I never felt that Civilization sequels were as much groundbreaking as the first installment. I ALWAYS have been fairly disappointed by them.

Only bit of exception is Civ1/2 : I just tried Civ1 at a friend's home (didn't have a computer at that time), and when my parents did get a computer, some friends of mine gave me Civ2 (free version hehe ) and I could play it all I wanted. So that's really with Civ2 that I debuted my Civ playing, so I couldn't really have been disappointed by it.

Then came Civ3 : really excited about it, but when I played it I felt addings were not that convincing. However, the really improvement on my playing universe that civ3 was was the multiplayer. It was Internet growing at that time and I had a real pleasure to try Civ with a community. But the solo game, no I played it sure because it was still Civ and with improved mechanics (no more ZOCs, strategic ressources, armies, culture victory... for example) that I had to try out, but past them it was set.

Civ4 I never really appreciated, particularly because of the maintenance system that was obscure and confusing, and because of the subsequent too high difficulty in higher difficulty levels, that I felt as highly frustrating. To say all, I finally learned to play on Emperor only by seeing TheMeInTeam playing on youtube ! "Hello, in order to play your game correctly you will have to watch Youtube videos ! Bye bye !" Huh !?? Plus one of the argument of the game was that it was in 3D, but it was not really nicer than Civ3, and the 3D were not really used. Let's note that I also played a lot of Civ4 multiplayer, but as I felt the game too complicated, I couldn't give the best of myself and too often got dominated without understanding. One very memorable game was against noobs, basicaly I killed them all in a row, was very exciting like being on LSD, LOL ! Very surprising from that type of game...

Civ5 well I was colded back by Civ4 but still had a lot of hopes. First game was biased because I clicked on the first option of the menu, didn't choose my civilization and started as Hiawatha. Don't really remember how it unfolded, I probably just cared at the flavor (good one) at that time, without caring too much about the mechanics. What I remember however is that the mechanics got me very frustrated (again) in a notable number of games. Principally because of the AI behavior (whore expanding when we are limited, buying all city states around, etc.) and the happiness system, which I find, too frustrating.

What I can say of all that, is that I focused more on mechanics and how frustrating / confusing they were, instead of doing barely anything else, except with Civ3 were the mechanics were still open enough and where the really good surprise was the multiplayer. I also counted on it in Civ5, but even that was not at the rendez-vous. Multiplayer in Civ5 was unplayable. So I would have barely downloaded a pirate version to play it only in solo that it would have been the same.

All in all, I found ALL the sequels of Civ2 not revolutionary enough, and the TWO LAST too frustrating. Is that a sign of the direction the series has taken ?

With Civ3, designers limited themselves to implement with more or less success the players' ideas, after a long pause in the developement of the series due to licencing stuff. It was good, pleasant, but unfortunately... not pushed ahead enough. It was barely a corrected version of Civ2, with some stuff out (for balancing, like the caravans) and some new stuff (culture borders), but badly implemented. (I always prefered to have frontiers with civs rather than frontiers with the None, I think it puts more a sense of ruling a true country among others) But the fans were still not satisfied. The most common critique of Civ3 was the ICS. It became critic as the expansion Play The World permitted to play against other players, and some imagined an imbalance between players who practiced ICS and players that didn't. It put an emphasis on ICS being a big flaw. It was a critic that came over and over on forums and players' discussions. At the point that Firaxis elaborated a heavy and radical solution to implement into the upcoming Civ4 : city maintenance.

I said it, I feel it way too confusing for my part ; for example one can't know the amount of gold per turn a new city will cost him, not speaking of the evolution of it. Barely uncontrollable. (for me) But, wow, "players" suddenly felt they touched the perfect Civ. Those same players that love to publish diagrams and tables in the forums... Seriously ? Have really this type of players to be satisfied ? Is Civ about diagrams and tables ? Seriously... Myself, sure am not this type of player. I'm sure not "fan" enough to be annoyed with those things. I want to play peacefully without anything else than the game under my eyes. In that regard, Civ4 failed miserably.

Of course, there was still critiques of Civ4. One of the most famous is the SOD. Always critics aimed at the too high simplicity of the game, because "players" can't take pleasure with a simplistic game, of course. But that's not because of the 1UPT that Civ5 is frustrating. It's because of an idea of "simplification" the developers have had on their own, this time : global happiness. Since the difficulty mode Prince, happiness is too rare for my taste. It hinders expansion. Greatly. Without wonders that improve it, I could barely never grow as well as I'm doing in Prince. I really wonder how i would do in higher diff.mode. And still, unless playing on Settler, I barely never reach the level of expansion I tend to want, and even on Settler, the need to have the same buildings in every city in order to build a national wonder hinders my expansion. Greatly. Call me bad player, but that's it. I can't seem to get accustomed to this global happiness.

So, beyong not being as revolutionary as expected, the two last sequels of the series were frustrating. I'd say it's just time to let the majority advice aside, and to definitely stop to introduce artificial "simplifications" that makes the game a lot more frustrating.

 

[CoolLizy]

All in all, I found ALL the sequels of Civ2 not revolutionary enough, and the TWO LAST too frustrating. Is that a sign of the direction the series has taken ?

I think it's more personal taste than anything else. I began with the original Civilization in DOS and have always despised Civ 2. Starting with Civ 3 I've always enjoyed each new game more than the proceeding one.

 

[comatosedragon]

Yeah, I started with civ II, which got me hooked. I LOVED civ III. Moving on to Civ IV was hard for me, and at first I did not like it, and in fact continued playing III for several years. Eventually (after both expansions) Civ IV grew on me, and once I started playing heavily, I never went back to III. I was a day 1 purchaser of civ V, and like many here, was very disappointed at first, mainly for lack of depth. 600+ hours later, I find it hard to go back to IV now, and indeed with G&K on the way it seems (to me at least) that civ V will finally live up to its name. I guess older players like us are Jaded, and living in the current climate of games being released in a much earlier state than they would have been say 10 or 15 years ago is just something we have to live with.
I also greatly enjoyed Civ Revolution, although much much simpler, it's nice to play a game in a couple of hours and still have the same general 'feeling' of being a civ game.

 

[cain3456]

I found Civ3 to be the biggest revolutionary leap, it requires almost a completely different mindset from Civ2. I remember trying my Civ2 strategies on Civ3 and thinking the game broken. Civ4 is essentially an enhanced Civ3.

I'm going to make a theorem that says the odd number games are the innovators and "new" engines, while the succeeding even numbers are refinements. Civ2 was just more of Civ1, and Civ4 fleshed out some things that Civ3 wanted to do, but wasn't able to do so.

 

[comatosedragon]

the odd number games are the innovators and "new" engines, while the succeeding even numbers are refinements.

Like the exact opposite of the Star Trek films ...

 

[iamdanno]

I'm going to make a theorem that says the odd number games are the innovators and "new" engines, while the succeeding even numbers are refinements.

If that holds true, then Civ 6 should be outstanding!

 

[GenjiKhan]

Since the difficulty mode Prince, happiness is too rare for my taste. It hinders expansion. Greatly. Without wonders that improve it, I could barely never grow as well as I'm doing in Prince. I really wonder how i would do in higher diff.mode. And still, unless playing on Settler, I barely never reach the level of expansion I tend to want, and even on Settler, the need to have the same buildings in every city in order to build a national wonder hinders my expansion. Greatly. Call me bad player, but that's it. I can't seem to get accustomed to this global happiness.

I would like to know one thing . If this system,which purpose is to balance Tall/Wide empires,isn't good enough,what would be your suggestions to improve such thing,considering that,unlike other Civ games,this/these suggestions needs to be good for Tall/Wide/Conqueror empires,instead being only good for Wide/Conqueror empires?

 

[Naokaukodem]

I would like to know one thing . If this system,which purpose is to balance Tall/Wide empires,isn't good enough,what would be your suggestions to improve such thing,considering that,unlike other Civ games,this/these suggestions needs to be good for Tall/Wide/Conqueror empires,instead being only good for Wide/Conqueror empires?

Well I'm not really a game designer, but I think it's definitely inevitable to inject some complexity in the Civ formula. Not something that would be frustrating to play though. That, if you absolutely want tall empires balance, which I see as dispensable. But if you want it, maybe some developer could allow a system of rare and sharp golden ages, or a complex system of trade/opportunities that could make some small countries powerfull.

By the way, having tall countries that could be as powerfull as wide ones goes in the box of revolutionary ideas, which could not be made with such a simplistic and frustrating system as global happiness we see in 5.

 

[CoolLizy]

By the way, having tall countries that could be as powerfull as wide ones goes in the box of revolutionary ideas, which could not be made with such a simplistic and frustrating system as global happiness we see in 5.

Actually, thanks to the global happiness system, this is the first Civilization game where a tall empire is really feasible strategically in the long term.

 

[trueblue]

everything was better back in the day, all the way back to Civ2.

 

[GenjiKhan]

Well I'm not really a game designer, but I think it's definitely inevitable to inject some complexity in the Civ formula. Not something that would be frustrating to play though. That, if you absolutely want tall empires balance, which I see as dispensable. But if you want it, maybe some developer could allow a system of rare and sharp golden ages, or a complex system of trade/opportunities that could make some small countries powerfull.

They are already doing this in the first expansion of Civ5,Gods and Kings . Religion can be deeply customized and can mitigate the unhapiness per number of cities,which is one of the solution to discourage ICS,while it can also helps tall empires to prosper as much as wide/conqueror empires .

By the way, having tall countries that could be as powerfull as wide ones goes in the box of revolutionary ideas, which could not be made with such a simplistic and frustrating system as global happiness we see in 5.

That idea seem exactly what you want,but it is so complex to implement and would change the game so radically that it would be better implemented in Civ6 or even in Civ7 (depending on your point of view,you could say that such suggestion would be as as much frustating as the system adopted in Civ5,but you can't say it's unrealistic) :

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=425972

What's your opinion about it?

 

[Naokaukodem]

They are already doing this in the first expansion of Civ5,Gods and Kings . Religion can be deeply customized and can mitigate the unhapiness per number of cities,which is one of the solution to discourage ICS,while it can also helps tall empires to prosper as much as wide/conqueror empires .

I think ICS is already impossible with the patches. If you mean a lesser form of ICS, the one which is constantly used by the AI, I think it is already discouraged by the base happiness cost of a new city (4) and the rarity of ressources. The nut thing is that AI have plenty bonus happiness, so it can expand like CRAZY some times. (and thanks to its dumbness it doesn't do all the time)

Other than that, Religion seems yet another highly frustrating system from what you tell me of it. (I will not buy the expansion therefore didn't get interested by it)

That idea seem exactly what you want,but it is so complex to implement and would change the game so radically that it would be better implemented in Civ6 or even in Civ7 (depending on your point of view,you could say that such suggestion would be as as much frustating as the system adopted in Civ5,but you can't say it's unrealistic) :

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=425972

What's your opinion about it?

Well I like that idea on its own, but its purpose is debatable. Not sure it could give the victory to a smaller civ in the state.

 

[SHaW1986]

yeah... i dont like happiness in this game, i like going tall and wide

 

[GenjiKhan]

Other than that, Religion seems yet another highly frustrating system from what you tell me of it. (I will not buy the expansion therefore didn't get interested by it)

The expansion hasn't been launched yet,so doing such judgement of this system now is too premature .

Well I like that idea on its own, but its purpose is debatable. Not sure it could give the victory to a smaller civ in the state.

If you mean a scientific victory,it can make smaller civs who invested heavily in science more scientific productive than larger civilizations,whose whole research potencial of the cities can't be fully utilized . For Cultural victory,which is the speciality of tall empires,this is even better,since they wouldn't lose World wonders of latter ages so often because they can't keep up with the Scientific research .
.
.
.
The whole idea of "Tech Spreading" was built as a solution to the technological gap between Tall/Wide empires and the problem that such system is too unrealistic . This idea is just a sketch,which needs more improvement to be applied on the game and since such idea would change ALL the elements of the game,in order to get balance between the differente styles,it would be better to be implemented in a major mod or in Vanilla editions of Civilization games .

 

[Naokaukodem]

The whole idea of "Tech Spreading" was built as a solution to the technological gap between Tall/Wide empires and the problem that such system is too unrealistic .

An average tall empire should have the same science as an average wide empire as the beakers are based on population. Of course, a tall empire can't become wide suddenly, while a wide one can grow its population and become wide + tall. However, it sounds pretty "normal" that a wide + tall empire is better than a simply tall one.

By the way, the fact that science is based on population is highly unrealistic, and fails to represent reality large empires (+1 billion inhabitants...) like China which remained highly backwarded in the whole XXth century.

So to have a real small versus large countries, one would have to elaborate a system independent from population.

This idea is just a sketch,which needs more improvement to be applied on the game and since such idea would change ALL the elements of the game,in order to get balance between the differente styles,it would be better to be implemented in a major mod or in Vanilla editions of Civilization games .

I'm pretty confident that this kind of system will be implemented one day or another, by the way it has already been done, the thing being that it has not been exploited as a key and grown frankly and always has been very shy. One day or another such a system may be implemented as one of the centers of the game. IMHO, that's the future of the series ; I don't say it will be easy, myself I fail to determine all beginnings and all ends of such systems, but i'm sure that if you are a good game designer (which I am not) it could be a good challenge.