I don't want to come off sounding like a whiner but man...

[Andoo]

It's not confusing.

People who have difficulty beating Civ4 on middle difficulties are beating Civ5 on hard settings.

It would seem to be an easier game.

Whether you want to call it dumbed down or simpler or streamlined or whatever, it is much easier to beat according to many people.
Even fairly new players are beating it on harder settings.

So, where do they go from there? Once it's easy to win on the hard setting then it's not much of a challenge to continue playing.

I admit CiV5 is arguably easier to beat at least up to emperor due to AI but being easy hardly has anything to do with being simple. The game doesn't have to have more stuff in order to be balanced between difficulties. AI can be fixed via patch and/or better AI mod like in civ 4 to play smarter making the game more difficult to beat. The OP was linking missing features with the game being bad in overall quality which I didn't agree with.

 

[Akka]

It's not confusing.

People who have difficulty beating Civ4 on middle difficulties are beating Civ5 on hard settings.

It would seem to be an easier game.

Whether you want to call it dumbed down or simpler or streamlined or whatever, it is much easier to beat according to many people.
Even fairly new players are beating it on harder settings.

So, where do they go from there? Once it's easy to win on the hard setting then it's not much of a challenge to continue playing.

That's a problem, but a totally different one.
The game is easier, but that may be purely an inadequate AI thing.

The real problem isn't so much that it's easier, it's that it's dumbed down. There is much less to do each turn, and the decisions to take are so simple and straightforward that even when there is things to do, they don't require as much thought. There is also the fact that all as been so streamlined and stylized that you don't have the feeling of leading a civ anymore, but rather simply looking at some numbers.

Loss of depth, thought and immersion : these are the real problem. The AI may be improved, but when the very pillars of the game make for a shallow game, then it's a case of fundamentally bad design that is much harder to correct, and has much deeper roots.

 

[tinstaafl]

This build-every-building argument baffles me, for two reasons:

1.
Who ever has enough production in every city in Civ 4 to do that? In a powerful production-specialized city you might just about build everything but the others have to pick and choose. A cottage city might be lucky if it manages to build a library and bank.

I can only imagine the people saying this are playing a civ4 game until time runs out.
It is funny how folk who never got close to "solving" civ4 (note that i too, didn't, i am a lowly emperor player) are making arguments that civ5 is better because "civ4 forced you to X" or "always allowed Y".

2.
I don't see build times being that long in Civ 5 anyway. Plus you can buy the buildings immediately if you want.

It's a complaint about something that isn't an issue, countered with an argument that makes no sense.

(Wow, that felt good! I actually stood up for Civ 5 instead of 90% of the time bashing at the moment )

I agree with this also. I have only played the first 200 turns 5 times now (so i don't really know too much about the game yet) and i have found there are many starting areas that have enough hammers. When i was russia on a plains/tundra hills start, hammers mines and granaries even seemed a superior option to the trading post spam many are complaining about.

(I also don't get how so many people say you have to expand so much slower in civ5. I have had better results expanding faster. And i don't mean rushing, even peaceful expansion. Happiness is an issue, but the fact is that settlers are comparatively cheap, increase empire production because city tiles are good tiles, it gives more places for building happy buildings in the middle ages, vertical growth gets very expensive food wise pretty fast, and horizontal growth results , more special bonus tiles, weak as they may be, and far better production. Some AIs actually go the same route)

This is me defending civ5's economy's complexity. "Trading post spam is always superior so it's a dumbed down game" doesn't convince me yet. People said and are still saying that about civ4 and cottages, and it isn't true either.

 

[wilebill]

"I don't want a civ rev 2" -- but that is what he got. Look closely at the interface that is based on the principles of the Civ Rev interface.

Now Civ 5 cannot be ported to console directly. However, a reasonable approximation of it could be written to use about the same interface. Civ 5 for the consoles is a real and very profitable possibility. And although it might be watered down a bit, in context it would be a better game than the PC version if only because there will be far fewer technical problems.

 

[Guardian_PL]

For one (of many), in Civ IV by the late game, because production was fast you would have every building built in every city. There was not much strategy to that. In V, building is slower and you can't build everything everywhere. You need to think long and hard about what you want a city to accomplish and build buildings accordingly.

I thought I'd add - in my last game of Civ5 that I've finished yesterday I actually did build every building there is to build in each of my three cities (Further twenty-three cities were my puppets, cause there's no game of Civ5 without bashing skulls ).
It was Immortal, low ocean continents. Now try to do that in Civ4 and be devoured.

 

[ancalimon]

I think the biggest problem with Civ5 is that there isn't much to do. I like marathon speed but it takes too long to see something happen. Not like Civ4.

The second biggest problem is the AI cannot handle onehexpertile and it becomes a problem. We could have the option of deciding how many men a unit could have. This would have fixed the design fault.

The third problem is that there isn't enough detail.
How can my workers chop forests down without bronze? Where did the bronze resource go?
For example they could have made it so we could see small caravans on the roads.


I still miss Civilization1 in which diplomacy screens would show the leaders dressed in a style appropriate to the age you were in.
or they would have rewarded you with palace parts.

 

[snoochems]

Civ 5 is easy.

Build a mix of farms and circus tents at start.
Get into bed with every CS you can, starting with the Maritime ones first.
Replace farms with more circus tents.
Buy everything you need.
Unlock Patronage policy tree (get the science one for insane beakers)
Toy with the stupid AI.

 

[zonk]

What is depressing is that, as a relatively new player to the Civ series, you are exactly their target audience.

Actually, given that I'm among those severely disappointed in CiV -- I find this report very encouraging...

If nothing else, perhaps it will cause Firaxis/Take2 to rethink this effort/at least rethink HOW they undertake this effort to go after 'casual' players... Either that, or they go under and Sid licenses the title to another dev shop that gives it the Civ TLC.

 

[fatgordy]

I know I'm not alone in saying that Civ4 is an amazing game and is by far my favorite game of all time! I never got tired of playing it because all of the complexity and depth made it nearly infinitely replayable. If Civ4 had been the last iteration ever released, I would have probably kept playing it for the next 50 years, never to get bored with it.

Just my opinion here, but that's really why I was hoping that Civ5 would have been an "upgrade" to Civ4....Civ4.5 in effect. Civ4 with hex tiles would be awesome! Civ4 with Directx11 graphics would be awesome! Civ4 with modern CPU support (multi-core) would be awesome! I would have paid $50 for those upgrades to Civ4 alone.

I really do see why the developers were trying to reinvent the game and broaden customer base. But quite honestly, I really don't want a reinvented game. I want an upgrade to my favorite game of all time! And I know you guys are gonna tell me to go back and play Civ4 if I love it so much. And that's fair. But will I ever get the Civ4 upgrades that I'm hoping for?

 

[zonk]

I know I'm not alone in saying that Civ4 is an amazing game and is by far my favorite game of all time! I never got tired of playing it because all of the complexity and depth made it nearly infinitely replayable. If Civ4 had been the last iteration ever released, I would have probably kept playing it for the next 50 years, never to get bored with it.

Just my opinion here, but that's really why I was hoping that Civ5 would have been an "upgrade" to Civ4....Civ4.5 in effect. Civ4 with hex tiles would be awesome! Civ4 with Directx11 graphics would be awesome! Civ4 with modern CPU support (multi-core) would be awesome! I would have paid $50 for those upgrades to Civ4 alone.

I really do see why the developers were trying to reinvent the game and broaden customer base. But quite honestly, I really don't want a reinvented game. I want an upgrade to my favorite game of all time! And I know you guys are gonna tell me to go back and play Civ4 if I love it so much. And that's fair. But will I ever get the Civ4 upgrades that I'm hoping for?

Actually - the game you want already exists... and it's completely free.

If you haven't yet -- you should really check out the Rise of Mankind/A New Dawn mod and mod-mod.... Afforess' latest/last implementation of AND is now self-contained (includes RoM), too (v1.75).

I've been playing AND for years now, and I would have gladly paid for it as a BTS expansion.

It's got about double the techs, double the buildings, double the wonders, doubles the resources, doubles the events, and double the units of BTS vanilla.

It adds in the "Revolution" option, which is a much more effective sprawl stifler (civilizations that expand too quickly get rocked by revolutions -- nationalist/separatist units spawn and try to gain independence).

It includes a barbarian civ option, where barbarian cities can eventually spawn into new civilizations, as well as allowing barbarians to spawn generals of their own.

It adds additional diplomatic options -- embassies, different types of access (Right of passage, which allows only non-combat unit access), as well as trading workers, certain military units ('machine-based' -- siege engines and ships), and contact with other players.

It even has a customizable 1UpT option where you can limit the number of units to occupy a single tile (changeable in game, as you play).

I'm among those sorely disappointed in CiV -- but as the sunshine brigade likes to say, CiV didn't uninstall IV.... and thank god for that, because having already spent 1000s of hours playing AND, went back to it this weekend and I think it's easily got another few thousand hours in it.

 

[tinstaafl]

@zonk
But he wants the hexes, and civ4-mods can't do that. But if this game really ends up being as moddable as civ4 was, we will probably see a hexes-civ4.5 someday in the future.

Also, you can't be very sure that when fatgordy says "i want an upgrade" that he means "i want double the techs and double the ressources". Many people do not.

Personally, while i'm not very happy with civ5, i subscribe to the "it's good that they reinvented it" standpoint. Anything less than reinventing it would also have been a letdown after civ4bts, which will probably be my favorite 4xgame for another 5 years now . At least, with reinventing, it had a fair chance

 

[Senethro]

That's a problem, but a totally different one.
The game is easier, but that may be purely an inadequate AI thing.

The real problem isn't so much that it's easier, it's that it's dumbed down. There is much less to do each turn, and the decisions to take are so simple and straightforward that even when there is things to do, they don't require as much thought. There is also the fact that all as been so streamlined and stylized that you don't have the feeling of leading a civ anymore, but rather simply looking at some numbers.

Loss of depth, thought and immersion : these are the real problem. The AI may be improved, but when the very pillars of the game make for a shallow game, then it's a case of fundamentally bad design that is much harder to correct, and has much deeper roots.

You don't know that the game is easier because you haven't played it. I'd not make these assertions that you are without some firsthand experience!

 

[zonk]

You don't know that the game is easier because you haven't played it. I'd not make these assertions that you are without some firsthand experience!

I think it's much easier --

It took me years just to be able to stalemate at Prince in IV, and playing the AND mod, I actually start on Warlord and use the Increasingly difficulty option.

I beat King already on V.... and would have won a deity game if I hadn't gotten bored with the prospect of few hundred more "next turns".

Part of this is probably my style of play -- I'm a dove and a builder, so in IV - it was critical that I kiss a lot of AI butt because my neglected army would make for easy prey for the AI.

In V -- since the AI is so utterly clueless militarily, I no longer suffer.... not to mention, militaristic CS allies supply my entire army (I'm not building more than 5 units or so.... for the entire game).

You'd think that would make V right up my alley -- but instead, I've found V to be incredibly boring as a "builder".... significant stretches of boring "Next Turn... Next Turn" play.

 

[rschissler]

Civ 5 is easy.

Build a mix of farms and circus tents at start.
Get into bed with every CS you can, starting with the Maritime ones first.
Replace farms with more circus tents.
Buy everything you need.
Unlock Patronage policy tree (get the science one for insane beakers)
Toy with the stupid AI.

In other words, the game gets pretty boring after awhile.

 

[PieceOfMind]

and would have won a deity game if I hadn't gotten bored with the prospect of few hundred more "next turns".

I'm not so sure of that.

You know, it's harder than you think (or at least I think it's harder than you think ). A lot of people don't realise the AI becomes a bigger obstacle to victory later in the game. It's particularly weak at the start of the game right now, particularly vulnerable to horseman rushes for example, but late-game Deity AIs are pretty scary.

I think Deity level is almost certainly one where you can't just claim you would have one it if you were a few hundred turns away still.

 

[charon2112]

So are you claiming that people who are complaining have not taken time to learn the game and have not unlocked its deep complexities?

Many of them, absolutely.

 

[zonk]

I'm not so sure of that.

You know, it's harder than you think (or at least I think it's harder than you think ). A lot of people don't realise the AI becomes a bigger obstacle to victory later in the game. It's particularly weak at the start of the game right now, particularly vulnerable to horseman rushes for example, but late-game Deity AIs are pretty scary.

I think Deity level is almost certainly one where you can't just claim you would have one it if you were a few hundred turns away still.

Scary how?

Unless it suddenly learns how to properly nest ranged units behind behind melee, not sure I'm seeing it.

Sure - on the higher levels, I've had the rest of the world go ape#### and gang up on me - but given the AI's complete inability to grasp 1UpT/hex as well how to properly keep it's embarked units from all dying - this is just a matter of not being caught flatfooted (either have the gold to buy your way out of trouble or make sure your army is properly dispersed).

Heck, in the deity game I didn't finish - this is precisely what happened. The remaining 7 civs all DoW me after I finished off (puppeted) the last civ on my continent. Not a problem, really... I had my militaristic CS units positioned around the CS allies abroad I wanted to keep, while the handful of caravels I built (never saw any point to upgrading them) were splashing tanks left and right (tanks which seemed to aimlessly wander around the sea). It just became a lot of boring whackamole - made much easier with a bunch of attack helicopters.

The only reason I stuck with as long as I did was to see the nuke gfx (sure, pretty cool).

 

[PieceOfMind]

And were you certain you would have won before an AI won a science victory? I do believe you, by the way, but I wanted to check how certain you were. Oh, and the scary AI I was talking about is this one.http://img801.imageshack.us/img801/8246/civ5screen0023e.jpg

 

[Akka]

You don't know that the game is easier because you haven't played it.

And how exactly are you supposed to know if I actually played the game or not ?
Does blind fanboyism give you psychic powers ? Or are you just blowing hot air in a desperate attempt at handwaving criticisms ?

 

[Svest]

Many of them, absolutely.

This is exactly correct. CiV does have a couple of major problems which are causing many people to mistakenly think the game lacks complexity. The real problem is that, mostly due to the AI being so bad, complex and well thought out strategies are simply unnecessary. It isn't really their fault for not seeing them when the game doesn't require it. Why rack your brain to come up with the perfect strategy when any strategy, even terribly flawed ones, will get the job done?

If/when the devs fix the AI so that it can actually put up a fight on the highest difficulties then people will have to start thinking and will see the complexity in the game. Until then (or if it never happens) we'll keep hearing about how its dumbed down and lacks complexity (because without working AI it is).

What the game really lacks (for some people), compared to CivIV, is not complexity, its flavor. This is why you have lots of people saying "It just doesn't feel right." Of course this part is always subjective, and so it only applies to some and not others.