Is Civ 5 really "being dumbed down"?

"Dumbed down" is such an ugly, politically incorrect expression.

Streamlined to be more accessible for the casual gamer FTW!!!
 
Kamamura said:
Streamlined to be more accessible for everyone FTW!!!
Click to expand...

Fixed that for you.

Really, Civ V got rid of much of the old needless slag which disabled many cogwheels in the gameflow, or slowed them down... there are almost too many things to count. (popups, happyness per city, tedious diplomacy, water-transports, etc...)

Sure, there are things missing yet, and it's almost anywhere from perfect (like everything in the world), but never forget: you are comparing a vanilla 1.00 version with years old, many patched games with expansions and rich field of mods.
 
Lancor said:
Sure, there are things missing yet, and it's almost anywhere from perfect (like everything in the world), but never forget: you are comparing a vanilla 1.00 version with years old, many patched games with expansions and rich field of mods.
Click to expand...

Thank you Lancor, I felt many people were missing that.

PawelS said:
If you want a dumbed down Civ, play CivRev :)
Click to expand...

I take some offense to that. Remember that CivRev was an experiment led by Sid himself to try and make a complex strategy game viable and playable on a console. I think CivRev succeeded, to be honest. The advisors were a bit annoying as I was a PC Civ player before CivRev, but the game was still Civ. And civ in any form is a great way to kill some free time playing a game.

Finally, in general response I don't understand why people think changing things, removing features that don't work in the new "concept" of Civ, or just simplifying some elements of the gameplay are considered "dumbing down" in order to reach a, by implication "dumber" audience.

Yes, we play strategy games and we may be good at them, but what's wrong with creating a strategy game that is both complex and simplified at the same time. The complexity will attract those of us who already love and play strategy games, while the ease of use due to the simplification may attract new gamers to the fold and will help Civ continue on in the future.
 
I didn't mean to be offensive, I just meant that CivRev is simplified compared to the Civ games, and IMO Civ5 isn't (some elements are simplified, but some more complex than in Civ4).

To be honest, I haven't played CivRev (I don't have a console), I know it only from reviews.
 
Chess is a far simpler game than any of the Civ games but I doubt anyone would call it 'dumbed down' or 'dumb'.

And TBH, if anything it's being 'smartened up'. The removal of random chance from things like culture flipping and GPs, and combat being multi-phased [2 full hp units have a good chance of surviving the first round] and from what I can tell more predictable, are examples of this.

Also I really applaud the move to hex-based combat. Anyone who plays tactical games will probably agree that hexes are superior - if you abide by the rule that only edges are traversible, a square tile in Civ4 actually has 8 'edges' - just four are hidden. It takes 8 units to surround a city completely in Civ4 - in Civ5 it'll take 6, even though the visible shape has two more edges!
 
PawelS said:
I didn't mean to be offensive, I just meant that CivRev is simplified compared to the Civ games, and IMO Civ5 isn't (some elements are simplified, but some more complex than in Civ4).

To be honest, I haven't played CivRev (I don't have a console), I know it only from reviews.
Click to expand...

Okay. I was just responding to the negative connotation using dumbed down to simplified, I guess. I do agree with you that Civ5 is nowhere near the simplification levels of CivRev. Firaxis, IMO, took lessons from CivRev and applied them to a PC version of Civ, and I feel that's a good thing.

If you ever have a chance to try CivRev, I suggest doing so. Go in with the mindset that it is a different game than on the PC and I think you might enjoy it. It definitely gives you a different brain workout as you have to think quicker strategically.
 
CivRev was definitely way more dumbed down than Civ5 will be. You can tell just by the screens.

The thing that bothered me most about CivRev wasn't that it was made easy for new players in the console arena. It was that the game AI and systems also seemed poorly programmed. The AI was so simple that I hated it. All it ever did was demand something from you, and declare war if you said no too many times, or if you were about to win. Every 2-3 turns they'd just pop-up demanding something. That's it.

I hate that.
 
Also, it was too easy to beat Deity. Every civ game needs to have a difficulty level that is difficult for even the most hardcore players to beat. If that means significant handicaps (aka bonuses) then so be it. The biggest threat to replayability is losing the sense of challenge and the game becoming a cakewalk.
 
"(when you can't see the relations, it's basically the same as they didn't exit at all)."

I don't agree with this statement. If we are discussing the game being "dumbed down" then I think you have to decide if it requires more thought to play without the numbers, or with the numbers.

I agree with the people who say it is going to be much harder to learn how to manipulate the other leaders without the numbers and the equations spelled out, than with them.

Now, what it looks like you are saying is that it is too difficult, or impossible to master diplomacy without the numbers, which is a fair comment; But the game isn't dumbed down, quite the reverse.
 
I am getting tired of people saying what Civ IV had but they had them in expansion packs. So fracking what. Civ I had it in the original game. Civ II had them in the original game. Civ III... I don't remember, but I believe it had them in their originally as well.

Just because Civ IV had it in an expansion pack is no excuse that Civ V dosn't have espionage in vanilla. All it means is we are suckers for paying something again in an expansion.

All it means is Firaxis can't think of anything new to put in an expansion, so it's basically like "Hey Sid, what are we going to put in an expansion?"

Sid "I have no idea, why not leave espionage out, and then put it in and call it a DLC or expansion. The people will buy it up."

So maybe instead of saying Civ V is dumbed down, I would have to say Sid is dumbed down, because he can't make an awsome vanillia game without Brian Renyolds.

Or is it Soren Jorenson now? So maybe the developers are dumbed down, because all that is new is hexes. OOOOOOOO how original, games 20 years ago used this approach. So what else is new and inventive in the game besides hexes?

I still think I will like the game though. I like Civ Rev and it's simplicity, so this would actually be refreshing in a Civ PC game.
 
Good point that this happens with each new release, but I would still say a fair contribution is coming from the fact civrev is the most recent civ on everyone's minds, and to the established fanbase (of civ 1 to 4) it (civrev) is generally perceived as being a dumbed down game.
 
I said it once, I will say it again. If Civ V is dumbed down, who cares. It can still be a great game even better than Civ IV with all it's expansions? So many people say Civ Rev is a dumbed down game. You know what? I spend many many hours having fun with that game, so it dosn't matter if the game is dumbed down. I have lots of fun with dumbed down games, so who cares what anyone says. Hell I say it is, but I will still play it hopefully, and I think I will love it.

Why are people getting so upset when someone says Civ V is being dumbed down. Who cares. Are you really that insecure about yourself you have to get upset on what other poeple say.

So I say the game is dumbed down. So what. Just because someone calls the game dumbed down, does that make you stupid for playing it? If that is why you get upset, then you have more problems with someone calling a game a name.

Grow up.
 
I dont think you could get more dumbed down than Civ 4 tbh.

Based on what I see of the combat system alone, it should be certainly more interesting than Civ 4.
 
Davor said:
I said it once, I will say it again. If Civ V is dumbed down, who cares. It can still be a great game even better than Civ IV with all it's expansions? So many people say Civ Rev is a dumbed down game. You know what? I spend many many hours having fun with that game, so it dosn't matter if the game is dumbed down. I have lots of fun with dumbed down games, so who cares what anyone says. Hell I say it is, but I will still play it hopefully, and I think I will love it.

Why are people getting so upset when someone says Civ V is being dumbed down. Who cares. Are you really that insecure about yourself you have to get upset on what other poeple say.

So I say the game is dumbed down. So what. Just because someone calls the game dumbed down, does that make you stupid for playing it? If that is why you get upset, then you have more problems with someone calling a game a name.

Grow up.
Click to expand...
Some people actually like a bloody complex game you know. And if Civ 5 doesn't deliver on that, then what game would? :wallbash:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
Civ 5 is disappointing
Replies
5
Views
4K
Bonyduck Campersang
Bonyduck Campersang
Djospe
Civ 7 reduces micromanagement, but stronger—and uncapped—penalties for exceeding the settlement limit are needed to keep it that way
2
Replies
23
Views
2K
Djospe
Djospe
H
Civ 5 load time taking too long
Replies
1
Views
453
Naokaukodem
Naokaukodem
A
CIV 5 Cocoa and Bison
Replies
2
Views
710
Actic_Civ
A
L
Civ 7 Commander for Civ 5
Replies
1
Views
434
Ashbery76
A
Back
Top Bottom