Is Civ 5 really "being dumbed down"?

[Wuddel]

We have to play it. I think they made the metagame more challenging. It's not anymore about getting the biggest empire. But lay down a plan and execute/modify it. Especially they put this more in the forefront, even for less experienced players.

 

[Bad Brett]

In earlier versions of the game, you could always switch back, and you were always going to unlock all of the possibilities eventually. Now you have a limited number of number of choices over time, and you decide how many there are going to be by deciding how many resources you are going to divert into culture, and how many cities your empire will have. To me, this sounds a lot more complex. Social policies are basically like the tech tree. Of course, all techs are useful, but if you choose the wrong focus, or if you can't keep up with the neighbors, you're out of the game.

In that case, a game like Diablo is more complex than Civilization, because that's exactly how it works. You collect points and pick an upgrade in one of four trees. Since every upgrade improves the tree, you're very unlikely to fill out all trees. Oh no, the final boss is fire resistant! Too bad you spent all your points on fire upgrade.

Sorry, but no... no, no, no. This is not complex, this is not tactical. This is plain stupid. Playing Civ shouldn't be about prediciting the future, it's should be about adaption. And most likely there will be a couple of trees that you'd want to complete every time, such as the one with 100% extra Exp.

On of few things I liked from Civ:Col, was the new founding fathers system, where you collected policital points (that would be culture in Civ V) but also, other points, such as exploration points. If you wanted to get good military upgrades, you had to fight a lot etc.

Well, maybe you'll want to be able to defend yourself with a small amount of units. And if roads initially lose money, they become a skill test: Instead of blindly using roads like before, you will now have to know when roads become profitable. And if you don't place them right, you'll make them too long which costs you money. Some players wouldn't care about a handful of gold per turn, because they won't buy tiles anyway, but I thought such decisions would suit your style.

Also, now that you won't have roads to your resources, how will you protect them from the barbarians in time?

As you may have noticed, I do support that roads cost maintainance. Actually that's one of my favourite changes. That's why I'm disappointed that you won't have to connect cities and resources anymore, because that would have been really interesting. I think it's pretty obvious that they had that option, but thought that it would be too complex for casual players.

Simplified? It used to be so trivial that anyone knew when and how much the borders would pop. Now the majority of players will see exactly one new tile, while only the advanced players could predict several tiles in advance, and change the city's focus (while, at the same time, locking the tiles worked by citizens) in order to change the direction of automatic expansion. Dumbed down?
Also, you claim that the option to buy is so expensive that you can never exercise it? This depends, of course on how much you focus on gold, but it strictly gives the player more control, and adds more complexity. And if you find but four city states first, you'll have enough money to buy your first tile. Would you? Or would you rather spend the gold on something else?

Trying to predict what the AI will do for you and then try to make it right by saving gold isn't my definition of great gameplay. Again, it's pretty obvious that they thought that manually expanding borders would mean to much micromanagement. But at least they could have given us to option to turn it on, right?

Which buildings? Or should you build buildings at all, which cost money? But fortunately, Civ5 is so dumbed down that even on high levels it doesn't matter which buildings to build since you'll win even with an inferior strategy, right? Good luck in your first deity game, and don't say you haven't been warned.

Already in Civ IV, you'd eventually produce science in all your cities. I thought this was really stupid, so I wonder what you will build when you can't afford buildings and can't build anymore units.

Also, as a side note, the AI has always been bad in Civ. The only reason they can compete with you on deity, is because they're given insane bonuses. I mean come on, seven Civs should be able to compete with ONE without cheating.

 

[iop]

IPlaying Civ shouldn't be about prediciting the future, it's should be about adaption. And most likely there will be a couple of trees that you'd want to complete every time, such as the one with 100% extra Exp.

Ah, I see. Long term planning is not your thing, then. Strategic thinking is all about anticipating the future, and to make sure that you're flexible enough to handle whatever the game throws at you. I guess having to think ahead about which SPs you will be able to adopt, instead of just getting the options automatically with scientific progress, and being able to switch forth and back is a bit too complex for you?

Trying to predict what the AI will do for you and then try to make it right by saving gold isn't my definition of great gameplay. Again, it's pretty obvious that they thought that manually expanding borders would mean to much micromanagement. But at least they could have given us to option to turn it on, right?

Well, they made the game a bit more difficult. As I said, you can even micromanage which tiles the city values highly, and you could thus calculate which tiles would become available in the future. But I guess that would mean that you have to whip out a calculator and start calculating tile valuations.

You know, I actually agree that it would have been nice if you would have been able to choose the next tile without having to resort to micromanagement. However, having the option to buy tiles instead does add a nice layer of complexity in my opinion. What I really cannot see is how this dumbs down the game from earlier versions of Civ.

Also, as a side note, the AI has always been bad in Civ. The only reason they can compete with you on deity, is because they're given insane bonuses. I mean come on, seven Civs should be able to compete with ONE without cheating.

Have you ever won on Noble (where there's no cheating) with seven Civs in a permanent alliance against you? The only reason you survive on deity is that they fight each other as well - and that they're handicapped by not nuking you for example. You may want to have a look at this presentation about the Civ game AI.

 

[tom2050]

Perhaps Civ 5 has been "dumbed up"?

 

[silentknight111]

After watching the live stream I defintiely believe the game is not dumbed down. There were plenty of screens with lots of detailed info that hardcore users can browse to their heart's content. It certainly looked way better than Civ Rev, which is entertaining, but really lacks depth.

 

[PieceOfMind]

Perhaps Civ 5 has been "dumbed up"?

With all the talk of the game environment feeling more organic, I think "sexed up" might be an even better description.

 

[Bad Brett]

Ah, I see. Long term planning is not your thing, then. Strategic thinking is all about anticipating the future, and to make sure that you're flexible enough to handle whatever the game throws at you. I guess having to think ahead about which SPs you will be able to adopt, instead of just getting the options automatically with scientific progress, and being able to switch forth and back is a bit too complex for you?

Ahead of time? How can I do long time planning if I don't even know which my opponents are? The decision is rather "How do I want to play my game" than "What policy will suit my current needs the best". It's not complex, it's just stupid, because after you initially pick the trees you want, no further thought is required. If you think that's good game mechanics, good for you, but I prefer to be in control all the time.

Have you ever won on Noble (where there's no cheating) with seven Civs in a permanent alliance against you? The only reason you survive on deity is that they fight each other as well - and that they're handicapped by not nuking you for example. You may want to have a look at this presentation about the Civ game AI.

I have never play a game with constant war, because war is supposed to be like 10% of the game at the most. But I might to want to try that one out. But anyway, the AI should have one goal: To win. A human player will do anything to stop an AI from winning. Therefore, if you get to mighty, the entire world should declare war on you. Civ IV was really, really bad in this aspect, because the AI only attacked you when you were weak. If Mansa Musa is building spaceship, Monty shouldn't bother attacking me just because I'm weak of defensive. Instead, he should form an alliance with me.

 

[iop]

Ahead of time? How can I do long time planning if I don't even know which my opponents are? The decision is rather "How do I want to play my game" than "What policy will suit my current needs the best". It's not complex, it's just stupid, because after you initially pick the trees you want, no further thought is required. If you think that's good game mechanics, good for you, but I prefer to be in control all the time.

Ok, I guess I understand better what you mean with "dumbed down" - you're unhappy that there are things that look like they are harder to control/more difficult to predict. I originally thought that you meant the game had lots its complexity.

And unless you stop producing culture, you'll always be faced with the choice of adopting new social policies to adapt to the new situation, or to forego the immediate benefits in order to be able to choose later on. So very early on, when you don't know a lot about your neighbours, you play according to "How do I want to play my game", whereas later on you will decide "which policy will suit my current needs best". It's just that you cannot undo your bad choices anymore.

the AI should have one goal: To win.

Did you have a look at the presentation I linked? The lead AI designer of Civ3/4 makes an interesting argument why this is not so much so in Civ.

 

[bjbrains]

I fail to understand how making the game harder by increasing the need for the player to adapt/make choices is dumbing down.
The idea is that you don't go into a game with a completely set strategy (especially with SPs). You make the choices based on the situation you are in: If you have lots of open land, than any civ is going to consider liberty. If you have a very rich capital site, than tradition starts looking good. If you want to be able to find and destroy barbarians, then honor. It's not like you have to finish every tree unless you're going for cultural (and even then, it's not like you have to go 6 SPs in liberty, 6 in Piety).
The reason the SP trees are set up with different subtrees/prereqs is to increase the amount of choices to be made. Giving players more choices is not dumbing down the game.

 

[Seven05]

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

Stuff that happened before was almost always better because it already happened, stuff that hasn't happened yet is unknown and many people fear the unknown. We also have imperfect memory and forget how bad those movies really were until we watch them again and gawk at the hair styles and outfits.

Of course the game is dumbed down, though I understand that a of players like it. The difference between a good player and a bad player in earlier releases, was that a good player always took time to check his cities every turn. These players could spend several days to plan an assault.

I'm glad somebody stepped forward to show exactly the type of player that considers something 'dumbed down.' And yes, I was nice and removed the name from the quote so this isn't taken as a personal attack.

I think it's insecurity, they found something that (they think) they did better than some other people and they're afraid that will no longer be the case. It doesn't matter if what they were doing wasn't actually difficult in the first place. You see this a lot on MMO forums, the 'PvP' crowd thinks they're better than the 'PvE' crowd so anything done that affects their play style is 'dumbed down' for the 'care bears.' Being afraid of change they feel the need to slander any changes so they have an excuse when they lose, they can say they don't like the game because it was 'dumbed down' and now any 'scrub' can win.

Because you can never make a bad decision, only a less good decision. In earlier games, you were often forced to change back and forth.

Nice argument of semantics. In reality there is no difference between 'bad' and 'less good' because either will have unwanted results. In Civ 5 the difference is that making a 'less good' decision can have reprecutions that you will have to deal with for a long time. How this is 'dumbed down' from a game that gave you the crutch of being able to say 'oops' and revert you choice is unclear to me.

The civics system in Civ IV was even more intersting, since there was always a risk of making a really bad decision.

And all of that 'risk' was completely negated by your ability to undo any changes you made if it really was a bad decision. In comparison, the 'dumbed down' social policies in Civ 5 will not be so forgiving.

I guess if you enjoyed watching people change to a series of cookie cutter civic combinations a few turns prior to starting a war (or doing it yourself for that matter) you'll be disappointed. But then when the game has been 'dumbed down' to the point where you have to think before you click you are bound to make some 'less good' decisions. Of course, again, not being able to change back and forth between 'good' and 'bad' choices will obviously make this easier, hense the game is apparently 'dumbed down.'

But other than that, the roads only makes your units go faster. The point is, if you don't want to go to war, there will be no point of building roads.

Right, because the players who are used to games that haven't been 'dumbed down' know that they'll never end up in a war that they didn't want.

The question is, what should you build instead? You have a limited amount of units and you will need less workers. So basically, your only option will be to construct buildings.

Are you talking about Civ 4 here? Because in Civ 4 the ONLY thing you did in 90% of your cities was build buildings. There was rarely a reason not too. It really is a shame that Civ 5 will be so 'dumbed down' that you have to chose a bit more carefully when and where you do build those buildings.

Anyway, even though I can't even begin to understand your reasoning I do applaud your tenacity.

 

[Zhahz]

Giving players more choices is not dumbing down the game.

Presenting difficult choices that have significant impact is what makes for good strategy gaming, IMO.

I think they've done a good job of ditching elements that didn't really involve much choice or impact and tweaking or adding elements that will involve a lot of decision making.

I think some people are underestimating some of the changes.

 

[Davor]

If you want a dumbed down Civ, play CivRev

Which from what we have seen is Civ V. More detail on leaders. Less units. It looks like Civ V is an offspring of CivRev but for the computer. That could be a good thing. Speeds the game up.

Is this dumbing down? Hard to say when we havn't played the game yet. We can say if it's dumbed down once it's played.

Then again, maybe not. If people can bash CivRev without trying it, I guess we can say that Civ V is dumbed down. Look at Olivion. It has been dumbed down to market to a bigger crowd, so I wouldn't be surprised if Civ V is dumbed down. I can see where the original poster means.

He didn't say the game is no good, but just easier, made for a bigger, larger market, for the casual gamer.

Someone said there is no espionage but the removal is ok because Civ IV didn't have it orignally. Well even CivRev had espionage, so yes I would say it is dumbing down.

If we can handle Civ games with espionage and to take it away so people who never played a Civ game before will have an easier time get into, then yes Civ V is dumbing down. Dosn't mean that it will not be a fun good game. Oblivion for all it's faults and "dumbing" down is still a very good excellent game.

 

[silentknight111]

Theres a big difference between dumbing down, which implies just making the game "easy", and removing needlessly complex or micro manage heavy systems in favor of more user friendly ones.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Someone said there is no espionage but the removal is ok because Civ IV didn't have it orignally. Well even CivRev had espionage, so yes I would say it is dumbing down.

CivIV didn't even have embassies or Caravan units.

 

[Shurdus]

CivIV didn't even have embassies or Caravan units.

That is because part iv is the dumbest one to date yet.

 

[Davor]

CivIV didn't even have embassies or Caravan units.

Not shure where you are going with this.

But before I go any further, all I am seeing is that 2K told Bethesda and Firaxis to make the game for the ADD casual gamers. Nothing wrong in trying to make more money.

Just expect a bit too much simplification that is all. Same thing happened to Oblivion, but it is still a good fun game to play. I still believe Civ V will be a good fun game to play. I just believe that some of the complexitiy, that some of us like in a game will be taken away.

As someone said in this thread already, more complexity was added in one area, and less complexity was taken out in other areas. If the are where we like it complex becomes less complexity, then we get upset a bit. Just look at the reactions about the tech tree how it's more simplified. I would love to have our Civ II or Call to Power 2 tech trees again. But this dosn't apeal to the casual game so it was taken away.

I am not saying "dumbed down" means you are stupid. I believe when people say a game is dumbed down means the game is less complex that it's predecessor. If that is good or bad depends on the people. Some people like complexity, then you have the casual gamer which most people do not like the complexity.

So maybe instead of saying dumbed down, maybe the question should be asked if Civ V is less complicated since too many people here are getting upset with the word dumbed down.

So does a person who likes to play checkers stupid? No, all it means they like playing a fast paced quick game. They can still love to play chess as well. Not everyone likes to play chess though.

 

[Davor]

I see alot of people here love to bash Civ Rev. Why is that? Most peopel here havn't even tried Civ Rev but yet say it's a dumbed down version? Why is that? So if Civ Rev is a dumbed down version, the same can apply to Civ V as well.

But if Civ V is just a different game than Civ IV, the Civ Rev is a different game than Civ IV and not a dumbed down version.

I find it funny how so many people can say that Civ Rev is a dumbed down version but take offence when someone says the same thing about Civ V. What is even funnier is they take offence as to why Civ V is dumbed down, when they say the exact same thing about Civ Rev.

 

[bjbrains]

Perhaps because Civ Rev really is significantly simpler, while Civ 5 is not? I think you're misunderstanding people's arguments, and what dumbed down means.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Not shure where you are going with this.

Only that people have been raising the "they're simplifying/'Dumbing Down' the game" flag AT LEAST since Civ III info started leaking out. It was there for the IV release too. "No Colonies?" people cried. "But that was such a great addition to III. They're making it easier!"

If those people were always right then Civ would have turned into Farmville by now.

 

[EmpireOfCats]

I'm one of the people who was really, really worried about Civ V being dumbed down and turned into a war simulator. After spending those two hours watching the 2K game, I'm convinced that this is not the case. In fact, the 1upt will force a lot more tactical thinking. Though some of the emphasis is different, and I still think it was a mistake to remove religion, this is Civ, and I'm sure I'll love it. Just give it to me already!