1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Civilization "Depth" - A Civ 4 vs. Civ 5 Comparison

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by stethnorun, May 14, 2011.

  1. jbevermore

    jbevermore Warmongering Menace

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2010
    Messages:
    145
    Location:
    Southeastern US
    If you take away the negatives, it's just an opportunity cost like TMIT was saying. Part of what was interesting was those negatives, sure going all out on econ could make you crazy amounts of money but you risk an environmental meltdown if you push to hard (again for those that haven't played AC, +2 ECON meant +1 money on EVERY TILE throughout your empire. Bad environmental penalties meant randomly spawning hostile units). So the bonuses could be huge, but the penalties could be equally bad.

    I'm not suggesting that Civ should just mimic what AC did, I'm simply making the case that negative modifiers (carefully used) are not a penalty to fun. Far from it, when done right they can really make those "interesting choices" that Sid Meier talks about interesting.
     
  2. SammyKhalifa

    SammyKhalifa Deity

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2003
    Messages:
    5,821
    True, I don't think it hurt the fun either. But you could produce the same game results and the same game decisions by re-wording the game rules without using negatives. What if the baseline enviroment state was total environmental meltdown, with everyone but Morgan getting some small bonus? Same end result, same decisions to be made, no negative modifiers.

    I don't think a negative makes the game less fun, but I also don't think NOT using them makes it less "deep." That's all illusion and how the gamemakers word the mechanics.
     
  3. jbevermore

    jbevermore Warmongering Menace

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2010
    Messages:
    145
    Location:
    Southeastern US
    Haha, when you get down to it all game mechanics are illusions. The trick is to create an environment that's fun enough to play in.

    The specifics of which are rather malleable.
     
  4. Helmling

    Helmling Philosopher King

    Joined:
    May 2, 2004
    Messages:
    1,680
    Hi, welcome to CivFanatics. You'll find that 98% of what is said on these forums takes the form of "I wish Civ would do this..." and you'll also find that many of those ideas get picked up and turned into mods for the community. What's more, past discussions like that have actually become part of the main game since this forum has been monitored by the developers since Civ 3's inception.

    So you see, around here, we actually encourage folks to turn Civ into their own brainchild game. Again, welcome to the forums!
     
  5. Helmling

    Helmling Philosopher King

    Joined:
    May 2, 2004
    Messages:
    1,680
    I was hardly arguing that EVERY decision should have the potential to backfire (let me think about that some more, since I'm not saying the opposite either). I was arguing (agreeing with someone else actually) that the CIV civics systems was better than the linear progression in CiV. Of course, the CIV also had a heavy linearity to it because the later civics were almost invariably "better" modes of organizing your civilization, but at least the civics had some back and forth.

    Take this situation, it wasn't unheard of that I would have to, in a CIV game, back off my democratic civics to institute a draft through Nationhood (or whatever). Now, in CiV, I don't have that option and frankly, there are a few games I've abandoned as defeats when an unexpected war derailed my civilization completely.

    All of which also leads to my biggest complaint about Civ as a series, which goes back to the comment on the general gameplay dynamic someone made earlier:

    Civ is actually a racing game.

    Of course, the Rise and Fall mod for CIV dealt with this, though I never did try it out, but Civ presents its model of history as a linear progression, deeply rooted in an understanding of history as progressive (hence the observations about CIV's civics above).

    Now, like someone said, it's a game. What I've always said back to people when they throw up their arms like that with the "it's just a game" defense is that it is a game that derives its escapist fun from modeling history.
     

Share This Page