Civ V => Civ IV

[Solo4114]

Talking about "Well, at Deity level..." is kind of silly, in my opinion. At the higher levels, the AI got so many advantages that OF COURSE your options would be limited. But when you're playing at that high a level, you're basically playing a mathematical equation, in my opinion. There is ONE right answer because there is one answer that will net the most efficient outcome, and where you need to have such an outcome to offset the AI's advantages. I get that people dig higher level games like that, but they really seem to me to be more about entertaining people who enjoy games for the sake of deconstructing game mechanics and "Seeing how it works" then figuring out the best way to achieve a given goal.

Not everyone plays that way, though. Personally, while I love Civ 4, one of my biggest complaints about it is that it eventually devolves into manipulation of game mechanics. Now, at lower levels, the game mechanics are meant to represent some underlying concept, and you can get away with playing "conceptually" because you don't have to offset the AI's advantages.

Other games, I think, tend to play more to the strengths of people who play "conceptually" where you have a good grasp of the bigger picture, but aren't interested in manipulating the minutiae. I find it tedious and boring to manage hammer/beaker/gold overflow. At lower levels, I don't have to do that because it's not as critical that I beat the AI to XYZ tech or rush out ABC units into the field as fast as possible.


The thing is, while at higher levels Civ 4 could devolve into "Manipulate Game Mechanic XYZ", at least when you lowered the difficulty, those game mechanics seemed to exist to support some coherent whole, and to represent some underlying concept of how empires function. Naturally, that'll devolve into SOME kind of equation/mechanic that can itself be manipulated, but that's because we're dealing with PC programs here. Civ 5, on the other hand, seems to be a collection of mechanics which are not intended to represent any coherent sense of how an empire operates. Instead, they're mechanics that exist to support some other mechanic, which exists to "solve" a different mechanic. They are trees that, taken together, do not form a forest. What I appreciate about Civ 4 is that you can play it at the "tree" level or you can play it at the "forest" level, and see continuity between the two. I don't get that from Civ 5.

 

[Anthropoid]

Civ IV, with BTS expansion (which presumably is what you'll get if you buy a "Complete" edition) is a fantastic game. Not perfect, but certainly worth the ~$50 you'll have to pay.

 

[JohnnyW]

Talking about "Well, at Deity level..." is kind of silly, in my opinion. At the higher levels, the AI got so many advantages that OF COURSE your options would be limited. But when you're playing at that high a level, you're basically playing a mathematical equation, in my opinion. There is ONE right answer because there is one answer that will net the most efficient outcome, and where you need to have such an outcome to offset the AI's advantages. I get that people dig higher level games like that, but they really seem to me to be more about entertaining people who enjoy games for the sake of deconstructing game mechanics and "Seeing how it works" then figuring out the best way to achieve a given goal.

Not everyone plays that way, though. Personally, while I love Civ 4, one of my biggest complaints about it is that it eventually devolves into manipulation of game mechanics. Now, at lower levels, the game mechanics are meant to represent some underlying concept, and you can get away with playing "conceptually" because you don't have to offset the AI's advantages.

Other games, I think, tend to play more to the strengths of people who play "conceptually" where you have a good grasp of the bigger picture, but aren't interested in manipulating the minutiae. I find it tedious and boring to manage hammer/beaker/gold overflow. At lower levels, I don't have to do that because it's not as critical that I beat the AI to XYZ tech or rush out ABC units into the field as fast as possible.


The thing is, while at higher levels Civ 4 could devolve into "Manipulate Game Mechanic XYZ", at least when you lowered the difficulty, those game mechanics seemed to exist to support some coherent whole, and to represent some underlying concept of how empires function. Naturally, that'll devolve into SOME kind of equation/mechanic that can itself be manipulated, but that's because we're dealing with PC programs here. Civ 5, on the other hand, seems to be a collection of mechanics which are not intended to represent any coherent sense of how an empire operates. Instead, they're mechanics that exist to support some other mechanic, which exists to "solve" a different mechanic. They are trees that, taken together, do not form a forest. What I appreciate about Civ 4 is that you can play it at the "tree" level or you can play it at the "forest" level, and see continuity between the two. I don't get that from Civ 5.

Very good post. I've been meaning to write up a post odiscussing min/maxing and why it will always be in strategy games. Obviously the harder the difficulty the more you will need to do it and the lower the less need (and more freedom).

Civ5 just isn't interesting, and it has nothing to do with the need to min/max to beat the game like many of its supporters say of civ4.

 

[sketch162000]

Very good post. I've been meaning to write up a post odiscussing min/maxing and why it will always be in strategy games. Obviously the harder the difficulty the more you will need to do it and the lower the less need (and more freedom).

Civ5 just isn't interesting, and it has nothing to do with the need to min/max to beat the game like many of its supporters say of civ4.

Exactly. From The divide over Civ V has really been, as far as I can see it, an ideological one between different types of fans--the ones who want to beat the game and the ones who want to play with it. What a lot people are calling "meaningless options" added a lot of flavor character and immersion for a distinct group of players, who have now been shafted with a Civ V that is just bland and boring if you're here for the experience rather than the win. Firaxis really dropped the ball on identifying the fanbase in that regard...

 

[joyous_gard]

Talking about "Well, at Deity level..." is kind of silly, in my opinion. At the higher levels, the AI got so many advantages that OF COURSE your options would be limited. But when you're playing at that high a level, you're basically playing a mathematical equation, in my opinion. There is ONE right answer because there is one answer that will net the most efficient outcome, and where you need to have such an outcome to offset the AI's advantages. I get that people dig higher level games like that, but they really seem to me to be more about entertaining people who enjoy games for the sake of deconstructing game mechanics and "Seeing how it works" then figuring out the best way to achieve a given goal.

Not everyone plays that way, though. Personally, while I love Civ 4, one of my biggest complaints about it is that it eventually devolves into manipulation of game mechanics. Now, at lower levels, the game mechanics are meant to represent some underlying concept, and you can get away with playing "conceptually" because you don't have to offset the AI's advantages.

Other games, I think, tend to play more to the strengths of people who play "conceptually" where you have a good grasp of the bigger picture, but aren't interested in manipulating the minutiae. I find it tedious and boring to manage hammer/beaker/gold overflow. At lower levels, I don't have to do that because it's not as critical that I beat the AI to XYZ tech or rush out ABC units into the field as fast as possible.


The thing is, while at higher levels Civ 4 could devolve into "Manipulate Game Mechanic XYZ", at least when you lowered the difficulty, those game mechanics seemed to exist to support some coherent whole, and to represent some underlying concept of how empires function. Naturally, that'll devolve into SOME kind of equation/mechanic that can itself be manipulated, but that's because we're dealing with PC programs here. Civ 5, on the other hand, seems to be a collection of mechanics which are not intended to represent any coherent sense of how an empire operates. Instead, they're mechanics that exist to support some other mechanic, which exists to "solve" a different mechanic. They are trees that, taken together, do not form a forest. What I appreciate about Civ 4 is that you can play it at the "tree" level or you can play it at the "forest" level, and see continuity between the two. I don't get that from Civ 5.

Well said.

 

[Solo4114]

Exactly. From The divide over Civ V has really been, as far as I can see it, an ideological one between different types of fans--the ones who want to beat the game and the ones who want to play with it. What a lot people are calling "meaningless options" added a lot of flavor character and immersion for a distinct group of players, who have now been shafted with a Civ V that is just bland and boring if you're here for the experience rather than the win. Firaxis really dropped the ball on identifying the fanbase in that regard...

But that boggles my mind as well, because I don't see Civ 5 actually doing well for EITHER camp.

It's extremely straightforward with not a ton to do for the people who like playing different kinds of options. If you play "conceptually", there isn't a unifying concept around which you can determine your actions. You just kind of click your way through without there being meaningful choices, and everything takes forever to do, so you keep clicking "Next Turn" -- after you clear out all your messages, of course.

But if you play to "beat the game" in the sense of taking the game apart, seeing what makes it tick, and figuring out the optimal strategy to beating it, that too is boring and unsatisfying since the AI is apparently easily overcome. You can city-spam because it ends up being more effective even with the happiness penalties. You can carpet-o-doom because you'll have enough cash that build times won't matter. The AI can't handle 1UPT, so combat is a breeze, and you know the AI's psychotic anyway, so there's no real "managing" of the AI personalities. It's not like "Uh oh...next door to Monty...better take him out before the Industrial Era or I'll never get rid of him..." EVERYONE is Monty.


So, there isn't enough variety or meaningful choice or unifying concept for "conceptual" players, and for "mathematical" players, it's a very basic equation to solve. As with other aspects of the game, the game doesn't go far enough in one direction or the other, when, by contrast, Civ 4 could easily go in either direction.

 

[moscaverde]

Agree with the last posts, I play (Civ4) on noble and most of the "at Deity this or that" are meaningless for me; never entered the war academy here in Civfanatics because I don't want or care for 'winning' strategies. This is what I disliked in Civ 5, playing in the go have very little immersion for me, doesn't feel like a empire is being created etc.

 

[Eskel]

Civ 5 is game which has many rules but very limited choice of strategies. Moreover, within this limited choice only one seems coherent (unfamous play-as-it was-intended with 1-3 cities) and other IMO go against reason and feel like cheap exploits (ICS, poor AI), which work despite many penalties and punishments used by designers to prevent them.
For me, it is quite opposite to good game design (limited set of rules, but TONS of viable strategies, e.g. chess).

 

[vandyr]

How long has it been now? 6 months, 7? First thing I see when I open up Civ Fanatics are the same old people making the same old tired rants about Civ V lol. Surprise, surprise.

Moderator Action: No one is forcing you to read the threads and certainly no one is forcing you to reply in such a manner.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Misotu]

Actually, if you've played Civ 4 on the higher difficulties, such a list isn't that hard, is it. Founding a Religion is a no go. Researching anything else but Bronze Working for the first few techs is a no go, not getting liberalism is a no go. Not stealing a worker in the beginning is a no go. Of course you could potentially start the game with nearly every opener, but most of them were not really choices that were good due to game mechanics.

In most of the games you'd cottage spam, maybe once in a while you'd get a start (without regenerating) where a specialist economy was worth it, but there was little diversity in the end, atleast in my games.

Um, look I hate to disagree but I've played a lot of Civ IV at higher difficulty levels and I rarely bee-line bronze working - more usually I will risk writing. I don't steal workers - but amazingly, I still win some games on immortal or deity. I often miss liberalism, or just don't try for it because it's not doable. I have won games without the free tech from liberalism, just as I have lost games where I coasted to liberalism in first place.

There are certain situations where, yes, I have founded an early religion as part of a strategy. It's actually not a bad defensive ploy sometimes.

I rarely have games where I spam cottages successfully - in fact, I'm often really poor at getting cottages up. I often focus on specialists: sometimes to spam them in the sense of an "economy", but more usually in order to generate the particular specialist I need when I need it - for my academy, to build the UN in a single turn, to bulb philosophy, or whatever.

I very often build very small empires, or perhaps go OCC. Works fine. Then again, sometimes 16 cities turns out to be the way to go so yes, a brief early war and then settle down again.

... there were always people who still said that X and Y was useful, when they clearly weren't.

I think perhaps some people play differently from the way you play? Having said that, I personally wouldn't rate the protective trait, for example, very highly.

I'd rather have fewer, meaningful choices instead of an abundace of choices just for the sake of diversity.

Sure ... but the problem is that your meaningful choices seem to be only a sub-set of my meaningful choices. And I expect that my meaningful choices are only a subset of someone else's choices.

Now, say someone made a game where the only choices available were your meaningful choices. You would probably like that game very much. But other people, for whom other choices were meaningful, might be disappointed?

 

[specialist]

You will like IV if you like min-maxing and almost no variation. The graphics should be standable for you if you use the blue marble mod.

Sorry, but what you are saying is a bit idiotic. Civ IV is very rich in terms of variation with a number of ways for winning the game. "if you like min-maxing"??? What is this supposed to mean? Winning strategy games always involves finding a "min-max strategy". You might as well say chess and poker are pointless, since they are all about min-maxing. Compared to these CIV IV has a lot of other content and the kind of depth that you will find in few computer games ever made.

 

[JohnnyW]

You might as well say chess and poker are pointless, since they are all about min-maxing.

lol, you just inspired me to visualize someone randomly moving chess pieces around in an attempt to be more immersed in the gameplay.

 

[sketch162000]

But that boggles my mind as well, because I don't see Civ 5 actually doing well for EITHER camp.

It's extremely straightforward with not a ton to do for the people who like playing different kinds of options. If you play "conceptually", there isn't a unifying concept around which you can determine your actions. You just kind of click your way through without there being meaningful choices, and everything takes forever to do, so you keep clicking "Next Turn" -- after you clear out all your messages, of course.

But if you play to "beat the game" in the sense of taking the game apart, seeing what makes it tick, and figuring out the optimal strategy to beating it, that too is boring and unsatisfying since the AI is apparently easily overcome. You can city-spam because it ends up being more effective even with the happiness penalties. You can carpet-o-doom because you'll have enough cash that build times won't matter. The AI can't handle 1UPT, so combat is a breeze, and you know the AI's psychotic anyway, so there's no real "managing" of the AI personalities. It's not like "Uh oh...next door to Monty...better take him out before the Industrial Era or I'll never get rid of him..." EVERYONE is Monty.


So, there isn't enough variety or meaningful choice or unifying concept for "conceptual" players, and for "mathematical" players, it's a very basic equation to solve. As with other aspects of the game, the game doesn't go far enough in one direction or the other, when, by contrast, Civ 4 could easily go in either direction.

What you observed about the mathematical style of play is probably where the whole argument about "potential" comes from, though. For the "mathematical" players, Civ V is just short of being very enjoyable, perhaps more than IV was. We hear arguments that "IF the AI could handle 1upt, IF the AI civilizations were less psychotic, IF the happiness system was tweaked a bit Civ V would be a great game." Potential. Essentially, Civ V supporters are taking issue with bugs, balance and general implementation of core game designs rather than the designs themselves...things that can be and have been changed in patches.

On the other hand, "conceptual" players have a problem with the fundamental game concepts themselves. We are the ones arguing that 1upt and tactics don't work and have no place in Civilization. We are the ones saying that global happiness is stupid and that city-states are useless, whereas Civ V fans argue that all these things merely need to be rebalanced or tweaked a bit. From the conceptual perspective, there is no potential in Civ V because, at its foundation, the game is not something geared towards what we enjoy.

It's why, personally, I haven't been able to bring myself to even start up the program for months now. I have a sinking feeling that, save a complete overhaul, no number of patching or expansions are ever going to make Civ V fun for me. And from what I can tell reading the forum, I'm not alone.