It is horrible is it? I wouldn't say the game is horrible, I actually had more fun with CivRev than I ever did with Civ IV.
Yes I wish it had more options, and more complexity, but to say it was horrible, no you are wrong.
Is Civ 5 really "being dumbed down"?
- Thread starter hardcore_gamer
- Start date
It is horrible is it? I wouldn't say the game is horrible, I actually had more fun with CivRev than I ever did with Civ IV.
Yes I wish it had more options, and more complexity, but to say it was horrible, no you are wrong.
Well, to me it was horrible. On so many levels, first and most important of which being that it felt like a death sentence to Civ franchise. I draw many parallels with Sim City (I actually mentioned simcity 2000, my error, I meant sim city 4), as I had exactly the same feeling with Rev that I once had with Societies in 2007. I grew bored with it after the first city and never used it again.
Societies was an attempt to bring a complex game into a "fun realm" as you like to call it, but in essence it was an exercise to dumb down the game so that casual gamers would like it (and buy it) which ended up being a total fiasco, just as Revolutions was. Who played Revolutions? You did, but you are a Civ fan, how many people from the large majority of console owners do you know that replaced NHL/NBA/Fifa/NFS gaming habbit with Revolutions? I know of none (though there might be some, but not enough to call it a success), because their focus is not on strategies, their focus is on quick-fix fun which Civ will never offer unless you convert it to some franken-FPS. So how many simcities were there after Societies? Glowing ZERO (I am not counting even dumber handheld versions). Let face it, had Rev been a blockbuster success we would not be looking at PC Civ5, but instead would be looking at Rev2.
If you want me to tell you that Revolutions was not fun to the more casual of us here, I wont do that, simply because its not true; I am absolutely 100% confident that you and many others who think Civ5 is not dumbed down had tons of fun with Rev. Good for you. But I am not a casual gamer, I like to flex my brain muscle more than I crave for instant-gratification (which, btw, when I do need surely wont look for in Civ).
That all being said, I still must emphasize that I am not against Civ5 in any way, shape or form. I am ecstatic it is coming out. All the MAJOR things that are needed will be there, the hex, the 1upt, the combat mechanics, the policies engine, etc. All those things would be hard or impossible to retrofit into a game, everything else is fixable.
So what I am trying to tell you all is to lighten up a bit, who cares if its not the über Civ out-of-the-box, if there is enough interest, and there is, it will be made great for everyone. The CIV lives on, that is the most important thing we get out of Civ5. It wont DIE like SimCity!
CIV5 FTW!
Societies was an attempt to bring a complex game into a "fun realm" as you like to call it, but in essence it was an exercise to dumb down the game so that casual gamers would like it (and buy it) which ended up being a total fiasco, just as Revolutions was. Who played Revolutions? You did, but you are a Civ fan, how many people from the large majority of console owners do you know that replaced NHL/NBA/Fifa/NFS gaming habbit with Revolutions? I know of none (though there might be some, but not enough to call it a success), because their focus is not on strategies, their focus is on quick-fix fun which Civ will never offer unless you convert it to some franken-FPS. So how many simcities were there after Societies? Glowing ZERO (I am not counting even dumber handheld versions). Let face it, had Rev been a blockbuster success we would not be looking at PC Civ5, but instead would be looking at Rev2.
If you want me to tell you that Revolutions was not fun to the more casual of us here, I wont do that, simply because its not true; I am absolutely 100% confident that you and many others who think Civ5 is not dumbed down had tons of fun with Rev. Good for you. But I am not a casual gamer, I like to flex my brain muscle more than I crave for instant-gratification (which, btw, when I do need surely wont look for in Civ).
That all being said, I still must emphasize that I am not against Civ5 in any way, shape or form. I am ecstatic it is coming out. All the MAJOR things that are needed will be there, the hex, the 1upt, the combat mechanics, the policies engine, etc. All those things would be hard or impossible to retrofit into a game, everything else is fixable.
So what I am trying to tell you all is to lighten up a bit, who cares if its not the über Civ out-of-the-box, if there is enough interest, and there is, it will be made great for everyone. The CIV lives on, that is the most important thing we get out of Civ5. It wont DIE like SimCity!
CIV5 FTW!
hardcore_gamer
King
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2009
- Messages
- 672
I don't know about that. Sid Meir is one of the few people in the industry that don't strike me as being greedy sellouts and might actually remain loyal to the fans/core base.
But then again I also use to think CA would not end up screwing up Empire: Total war after the awesome releases of Rome and Medieval 2: Total War so perhaps I am putting to much faith in him.
JakeCourtney
Villain
So did they pretty much dumb down Civ V so they can add all the features that should have been, in the two expansion packs that will follow?
cf_nz
Prince
I can't think of a must have feature that was removed during the streamlining process 
.
.
King Jason
Fleece-bearer
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2005
- Messages
- 2,040
Would you rather have had civ4 in 2005 or civ4 "completely finished and never going to be updated again" in 2007?
I'll take civ5 now, thank you. Yes, they have plans for expansions. Yes, they could add in all of the content to the initial release. But since each expansion takes an addition 6 months to a year to develop; I'd rather have the vanilla version now.
JakeCourtney
Villain
What is this crap with DLC already? I thought the whole DLC scene was more geared toward the consoles. PC gaming really is dying it seems.
DLC has nothing to do with PC gaming dying (or thriving for that matter). The companies found a new revenue stream, and a revenue stream that appears to work well.
sdlufkin
Warlord
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2007
- Messages
- 144
Where have you been? DLC has been a mainstay of PC gaming for some time now. Any console game that gets DLC the PC gets, for example. Why should DLC be for consoles only? And how on earth does the existance of DLC spell the death knell for PC gaming?
JakeCourtney
Villain
DLC on the console is never free and is that currently the trend on the PC?
This concept does make me mad. It's because the game has to be steambased instead of like it's always been. So now we have the players by the balls, and we can charge them more for civs and other options for the game. And they are stupid enough to pay for it. I don't think you should have to pay for any DLC.
Instead you should pay for expansion packs!
DLC just gives developers $$$ to build add-ons for the game. It gives people more choices as they can pick what they want and don't want.
For example, lets say they come out with an expansion for $30 that includes 5 additional civs, 10 new scenarios and 5 new maps.
What if of those 5 additional civs, only 2 interested you...and what if of those 10 scenarios, only 5 interested you...and maybe you didnt care about the maps.
Now if they break them down into DLC's, you can select 2 civ's for say $6 and 5 scenario's for $10 = $16-$20 total cost compared to the $30 that you would have paid for the whole expansion.
I see this more as giving freedom to users to choose what they want than to call it a PC gaming killer...
What I don't understand is why we, the ones who actually are saving tree's & giving developers more money(by purchasing digital copies), have to wait until retail release to play this game.
The game is already complete! users who purchase digital copy should get the advantage to play it earlier. Those who want to further waste money and trees by purchasing the physical copies should be the ones who have to do the waiting.
This gives more incentive for purchasing digital copies and therefore helping developers and the Earth. Now doesn't that sound more business friendly?
sdlufkin
Warlord
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2007
- Messages
- 144
What are you talking about? Actually, scratch that, you don't seem well informed and I'm not getting dragged into some sort of crazy argument with you. PC games are teh d00md, you called it. Grats.
JakeCourtney
Villain
Let's face it. Strategy games are the last thing that PC gaming has as it dies out for the simplicity of console geared games.
The only genre that I can think of that has had a mass exodus from the PC platform is sports (specifically EA Sports games like Madden), but otherwise, PC gaming - especially in the RPG and strategy genre's - is not going anywhere anytime soon.
Similar threads
