Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by Jughead, Sep 29, 2010.
Would you say that civ4 religion was deeper?
I guess that I don't see depth in a game by the same defintion. I consider depth to be different ways to meet an end goal. In civ IV and in civ V, I feel that I have plentiful options to get me to the same endpoint of the victory i'm shooting for. I'm not saying 5 is deeper, but I certainly don't think it's any less deep than 4, which is a comment I have seen often on these forums.
Pick a victory condition. Lets look at cultural:
IV: Follow a strat of open borders to get religions to spread. Build missionaries of each religion you gain and spread to each of your 3 culture cities. Build all the religious buildings. Build great artist factory, make 3 culture cities, 1 production city for units hit next turn until you win.
V: Follow strat of building stonehenge and picking out social policies. Move up tech tree to allow yourself first access to imporant wonders (sistine chapel, cristo redenter). Use Great artists to build landmarks or spawn golden ages for wonder production. Build 3 or 4 cities and all cutural buildings in all of them. Produce enough units to not get smoked by an AI juggernaut. Hit next turn until you win.
When you boil either game right down to it, there really is no depth. Depth is a perceived concept in civ games. The formula for firaxis is: set the pace of the game so that you want to keep getting to that next turn to have the next step along your path happen. That is the only depth to any civ game.
When you boil the mechanics of any of the CIV games, can all be reduced to this: pressing enter until the next thing you are trying to do happens. Seriously, try to explain why civ is fun to someone who has never played it.
"Wait, you click into little squares (hexes), and move icons around to arrange them, pick something from a list and press enter until the number from that list reaches 0, and then repeat this over and over until you make something bigger?
It sure doesn't sound fun. Hell, back when I met my wife and was playing civ 3, she was like "this looks stupid". But I got her to try it, and she's been hooked ever since. I guess my point in all this is that while I agree V is easier than IV, I don't get the "one more turn" feeling any less than I do from any other version I've played. The only difference now is that V is a lot nicer to look at and I find I'm enjoying the combat aspect a lot more even with the poor AI execution of it. The depth of options for me to reach the goal of winning doesn't feel any less than IV had. I still have choices that if I execute incorrectly will cause me to not be as efficient.
I am really starting to think the crux of the whole issue others have with V is the ease of destroying the AI in combat even when it has overwhelming odds against you. A cultural victory is pretty easy to get because even if that AI who has a military 4 times the size of yours declares, you can still fight him off so there is no risk of not completing your chosen victory path.
Considering that it was unpredictable, monasteries/temples/cathedrals were a large factor in culture and science, and one could manage religion depending on the situation then yes, it was.
A simple thing - whether to side with one type of faith, another or no state religion at all (therefore forfeiting possible bonuses to production/GPP/XP for units) was often a tough nut to crack, and could constantly change (like side with large block to spread your own religion into their lands, then change over and try to put other civs on your side - sometimes it worked, at other time it didn't).
Not to mention that religious civics (or civics in general) could affect AI disposition towards you, a thing that Civ5 diplomacy is severely lacking
Dammit, even writing about this makes me want to play Civ4
I agree, if the AI was in better shape a lot of these other issues would not be that important. The bad AI is really the problem. Even now, after years of civ 4, a game on immortal will almost certainly beat me. The actual threat of losing makes the game more enjoyable, now with 2 cannons at a choke point I can indefinately hold off my enemy. Granted, the AI has never been good, but the simplicity of combat in civ 4 (which I did not like) made it easier to compensate the AI, he would just show up with a ridiculous amount of units.
Don't get me wrong, I can't wait to go home to play civ 5. But I remember the sense of accomplishment I had the very first time I beat civ 4 on monarch, emperor and immortal. The fact that it was hard to win on those upper levels kept me coming back, trying new strategies etc, and like civ 5 the most effective strategy at those levels (emperor+) was war and war often. Civ 5 is the same in that respect except the AI is so bad right now that it becomes a joke to win.
after reading all the post that came after my original post...I took a poll of the posters who liked the game and those that didn't.......18 like the game ...4 don't. also.....my past was my own opinion of the game with no outside influence what so ever......happy civ 5 playing.
Separate names with a comma.