Is Civ 5 really "being dumbed down"?

[hardcore_gamer]

One common complaint I have heard from gamers about Civ 5 is that the game is being dumbed down compared to Civ 4, but I fail to see how. Sure religion is gone, but it never worked well in Civ 4 anyways and was actively annoying so removing it isn't really dumbing the game down. Things like spies and stuff weren't introduced until BTS was released so that doesn't really count either.

Culture can't be used to convert cities anymore, but I never found the idea of cities simply being able to leave its owner without permission to make a shred of sense to begin with.

"Yea, we know you are technically our ruler and all but we just don't like you. Smell ya later!"

So I for one saw the decision to remove it from the game as a perfectly logical one both from a gameplay and a realism point of view.

The only dumbing down I can see is the shift from city happiness to empire wide happiness, but I actually welcome it since having to manage the happiness and health of every single city simply did not work well after your empire had reached a certain size as it resulted in tedious amounts of micromanagement since it meant you had to spend a unreasonable amount of time checking every single city to see if something was wrong. It appears that most of the people whining are the micromanagement junkies who become unhappy the moment they stop being able to spend at least 30 min every turn repeating the same basic build orders for every single worker, and the people accusing other forums members of "trying to ruin Civ" for criticizing some parts of the micromanagement are just borderline trolls.

What some of the pro-micromanagement people seem to forget is that more micromanagement doesn't actually result in a deeper game if said micromanagement doesn't add anything to the gameplay. Clicking on a worker, then telling him to move one tile forward and then have him build something, and then repeating that same task 30 times during that same turn until all 30 workers have moved one tile forward and have the same identical build order is a great example of micromanagement who's sole purpose is consuming tedious amounts of time.

The only valid complaint I can see is that there are things that suggest you can no longer see diplomatic information about other players. This isn't 100% confirmed, but if you can't see what different AI players think of each other then I will admit that it could indeed be a very considerable problem and I hope that this isn't the case.

Also, some say City states can't be destroyed but this has yet to be confirmed so I will reserve judgement until more is revealed in this regard.

Is Civ 5 really being dumbed down? Most of the complaints just sound like nitpicking to me.

Discuss.

 

[cr0ws]

DUmbED DoWn 4 sure

 

[Zhahz]

No.

"Dumbed down" is just a trendy thing to say these things in regards to games. It's a phrase I'm really sick of reading/hearing because it's overused.

More than anything, Civ 5 is just going to be different.

Better UI and presentation isn't dumbing down.

Eliminating some gameplay elements in favor of others isn't dumbing down.

Far more strategic and quality combat isn't dumbing down.

 

[bjbrains]

I haven't found a single convincing argument that Civ 5 is being "dumbed down" overall. Yes, some mechanics are simpler, but that doesn't make the game less difficult to play well.
For example, happiness is less complex on the face of it, but now there's a lot more to consider about it: In Civ 4, it was basically a hard pop cap that you could invest into via luxuries/civics/religion/buildings. In Civ 5, it's affected by a combination of city pop, number of cities, and conquest. Now luxury resources don't just increase your "pop cap", but also make conquest/expansion profitable. Also, surplus happiness actually has an important role now: It starts golden ages and, with a social policy, add to empire culture. Instead of trying to run happiness at "0" like in Civ 4, there's an incentive to keep your happiness high. Also, happiness producing buildings cost gold to maintain, making them much more costly than in Civ 4.

So just for happiness compared to civ 4:
There's an incentive to get happiness beyond the minimum required. After a certain point in Civ 4, happiness became mostly irrelevant in most of your cities, and often was never relevant for your expansion cities.
Happiness buildings can be built anywhere, but cost significant amounts of valuable gold.
Unhappiness is far more important since it's not just a dampener on growth in one city, but a near-stoppage of growth in all cities. And you're pretty much dead if you get stuck in "very unhappy".

So how is the happiness system simpler again?

 

[hardcore_gamer]

No.
More than anything, Civ 5 is just going to be different.

This is largely how I see it as well.

 

[rastak]

I wouldn't give two Moderator Action: <sinp> if it was dumbed down if it's fun.

Moderator Action: You should be able to express yourself with resorting to swearing. Please refrain from it in the future.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

That's the entire point of the exercise.

 

[Cyberian]

Maybe sometimes it is not facts but some psychological factor I am experiencing right now with ppl my generation (30+).

The latest maiden album is not that good as the old stuff, movies are way worse than 15 years ago and of course they don't make real computer games anymore. Sometimes this is not really based on facts but a glorification of ones best years and the realization that its getting downwards from now on

As Civ is a very old franchise this could be the case with some older die hard fans. It is sometimes hard to regain the magic of playing Civ1 on a 486 or Amiga in your summer holiday in your teens comparing to now when the baby is crying, wife is nagging and you are tired as hell from work.

But I hope the magic will be back nevertheless

 

[hardcore_gamer]

I wouldn't give two horsehockys if it was dumbed down if it's fun.

A product can still be fun without being great.

 

[PawelS]

Some things are streamlined (no religion and espionage), some improved (combat), and there are also some new features introduced (city states).

Edit: typo

 

[migkillertwo]

One common complaint I have heard from gamers about Civ 5 is that the game is being dumbed down compared to Civ 4, but I fail to see how. Sure religion is gone, but it never worked well in Civ 4 anyways and was actively annoying so removing it isn't really dumbing the game down. Things like spies and stuff weren't introduced until BTS was released so that doesn't really count either.

Culture can't be used to convert cities anymore, but I never found the idea of cities simply being able to leave its owner without permission to make a shred of sense to begin with.

"Yea, we know you are technically our ruler and all but we just don't like you. Smell ya later!"

So I for one saw the decision to remove it from the game as a perfectly logical one both from a gameplay and a realism point of view.

The only dumbing down I can see is the shift from city happiness to empire wide happiness, but I actually welcome it since having to manage the happiness and health of every single city simply did not work well after your empire had reached a certain size as it resulted in tedious amounts of micromanagement since it meant you had to spend a unreasonable amount of time checking every single city to see if something was wrong. It appears that most of the people whining are the micromanagement junkies who become unhappy the moment they stop being able to spend at least 30 min every turn repeating the same basic build orders for every single worker, and the people accusing other forums members of "trying to ruin Civ" for criticizing some parts of the micromanagement are just borderline trolls.

What some of the pro-micromanagement people seem to forget is that more micromanagement doesn't actually result in a deeper game if said micromanagement doesn't add anything to the gameplay. Clicking on a worker, then telling him to move one tile forward and then have him build something, and then repeating that same task 30 times during that same turn until all 30 workers have moved one tile forward and have the same identical build order is a great example of micromanagement who's sole purpose is consuming tedious amounts of time.

The only valid complaint I can see is that there are things that suggest you can no longer see diplomatic information about other players. This isn't 100% confirmed, but if you can't see what different AI players think of each other then I will admit that it could indeed be a very considerable problem and I hope that this isn't the case.

Also, some say City states can't be destroyed but this has yet to be confirmed so I will reserve judgement until more is revealed in this regard.

Is Civ 5 really being dumbed down? Most of the complaints just sound like nitpicking to me.

Discuss.

well there certainly is a lot of tedious micromanagement being removed in Civ 5 from earlier installments of Civ, so in that sense yes, Civ 5 is being "dumbed down", but I for one welcome this "dumbing down", because quite frankly the micromanagement involved in Civ 4 made games in the modern era just boring. I always lost the energy to manage my cities and improve their production by the time I reached the modern era.

Perhaps Civ 5 will alleviate this, but personally I'm not holding my breath.

Now, on the other hand, its hard to say that Civ 5 has, on the whole, been dumbed down from previous games. The combat system has been RADICALLY altered from Civ 5. No longer can you just move stacks O' Doom around the map and destroy your enemies. In Civ IV wars, you just moved your SOD towards the enemy's SOD and whoever had the biggest SOD won the day. This time around, In order to prosecute wars, you're going to have to deploy the right units at the right places, and strike your enemies at exactly the right places to exploit (IMHO) critical advantages.

Case in point; In ancient warfare, you're going to have to put archers behind melee units, heavy infantry at the front, and mounted units to the sides.

Archers soften up your opponent, Cavalry attacks the enemy's sides and then moves on to the rear, and melee units attack the enemy at the front. None of this sort of planning was required in earlier Civ games, and I for one welcome the change.

 

[Dale]

I wouldn't call it dumbed down, the mechanics are Civ will still function exactly the same (so complexity is maintained which counters the dumbed down argument). The simple fact is people calling Civ5 "dumbed down" are confusing a better UI.

 

[12agnar0k]

Was the title of this thread "dumbed down" for effect and as a spin on the meaning of the title?

As for the answer, no the game isn't dumbed down. Don't listen to anyone saying otherwise, their obviously crazy people.

This game will be full of depth, and is relatively easy to learn to play, with streamlined controls (which can be altered for the information overload fans).

 

[rastak]

A product can still be fun without being great.

Since I'm buying it to have fun I guess it's a moot point. Having played every version since day 1 of Civ I the thing I look for is the fun factor. This isn't a job. It's a game.


That having been said, your original question is valid for discussion. I don't think so myself, removing some micro-management doesn't equal dumbing down. I know many enjoy micro-management but that ain't me as they say.

 

[Mercade]

Was the title of this thread "dumbed down" for effect and as a spin on the meaning of the title?

Yeah, our Hardcore Gamer friend needed to get his quota of catchy threads created today.

As for the answer, no the game isn't dumbed down. Don't listen to anyone saying otherwise, their obviously crazy people.

This game will be full of depth, and is relatively easy to learn to play, with streamlined controls (which can be altered for the information overload fans).

Agreed.

 

[PawelS]

If you want a dumbed down Civ, play CivRev

 

[rastak]

If you want a dumbed down Civ, play CivRev

Which also is fun as hell......big screen and lazy boy recliner.......fun game.

 

[ButSam]

I remember when Civ 4 came out, it was being "dumbed down" because the combat system was simplifed without different attack and defense values and governments were being replaced by a more quirky social system. (I actually like the social system, but I recall at release a lot of people were complaining about it saying you should have to choose a form of government and take the good with the bad.) Now that Civ 5 is coming out, it is being "dumbed down" since there is no comment at all about spies and religion.

I can somewhat understand, since religion was such a big deal in Civ 4 (and in real-life civilizations' relationships), and the spy system was *so* slick in BTS I don't see why they nerfed it...I expect at least spying to be added back in at a later point in a mod if it isn't in there already. But the fact is they are different games. Look at all of the changes from Civ 2 to Civ 3, for example...or Civ 3 to Civ 4. They are different games.

That said, my single biggest complaint about civ -- the stacks phenomenon -- is guaranteed to *finally* be resolved for real in this latest version of Civ, so I will take a few hard knocks for what looks like a fun game. If I want religion and spy points, I'll play BTS; if I want what by all accounts looks like a much better combat system than any previous Civ and elimination of my primary complaint against civ (combat taking forever and seeming to favor whoever produces the most units, not as much the quality of the units), I'll play Civ 5. As long as my system can run Civ, I'll happily play it.

 

[Conspirator]

I hope spying is in similar to how it was in Civ2, i.e. the use of embassies. So much simpler.

 

[Grunthex]

Every sequel ever released since the advent of message boards has been "dumbed down" compared to the original, if you believe the people posting.

So yes, Civ5 is "dumbed down". It certainly won't appeal to any of you who think this. So go away.

 

[Spatzimaus]

(Back after a multi-year absence... did I miss anything?)
Simplification isn't necessarily bad, if the mechanisms are in place to expand the functionality later on without completely rewriting the rules and/or strategies.

I'll explain.

In Civ 4, they added Religion. I thought it was an interesting system, but it had two fundamental problems:
1> You couldn't really turn it off. Even if you modded the game so that there were no religions, too many other things were tied to it (like the various Civics).
2> The AI would never handle them well. If he had two religions in his empire, he'd never want to switch to the one his allies shared, and would persistently alienate everyone by sticking with the first religion to arrive (unless you, as the player, swarmed him with missionaries to a different religion).
So basically, while Religions added complexity to the game, they didn't add it in a good way. It was too polarizing; either you adopted a religion-heavy strategy or didn't care about it at all.

Contrast with the Corporations added in the expansions. While they had considerable effects (a bit too strong in some cases), playing without them did not cripple the game, and their straightforward effects meant that AI players handled them better. Likewise, the espionage overhaul worked very well. So obviously, complexity CAN be added without ruining the game. As long as the game is constructed in a way that makes this easy to do (which coincidentally helps modders), I'm happy. The problem with most "dumbed down" games is that they lack this expandability; what you see is what you get, and if what you see isn't much...