Maybe I *have* been thinking of Civ5 the wrong way!

[boredatwork]

If you apply the simplicity of civ0.5 to your sex life, wholy cow man...

may I have your wife's cell number?

That makes absolutely no sense.

Where did I link Civ5 and my sex life together?

I merely said enjoyable things don't necessarilly have to be intellectually challenging... unless of course you think trying a new position is somehow the equivalent to rocket science?

Now please go away creepy guy.

 

[Aristos]

That makes absolutely no sense.

Where did I link Civ5 and my sex life together?

I merely said enjoyable things don't necessarilly have to be intellectually challenging... unless of course you think trying a new position is somehow the equivalent to rocket science?

Now please go away creepy guy.

you obviously have trouble with humour too... yeah, there are things we southamericans do with a lot more... "spark", if you know what I mean...

Sense of humour. Not that simple, not like civ0.5... what else can we do than take civ0.5 with a (HUGE) grain of humour???

creepy guy...

 

[boredatwork]

That's all very true, but pretty irrelevant at the same time. We're talking about a strategy game franchise specifically - which should, to me, provide some level of intellectual engagement, depth, and complexity.

You were the one who brought up harry potter!!


But regarding Civ5, and I'm not saying I enjoy the game, I think it was fairly poorly designed - I'm merely stating whether a game is complex or not is not directly proportional to how enjoyable it is - CivIII for example was arguably more "complex" then Civ2 - does that mean a majority of Civ Fanatics would preffer it to it's predecessor?

 

[krunsh]

There is only one reason why Civ 5 is different than the others civs, and it's because it's made by someone else.

Like in cinema, watch the alien quadrilogy, all made by differant director and they all have a very unique style (like it or not). 28 days later and 28 weeks later. Another guy come in to design the whole thing with is own vision.

Now it's not about planning to make a game ''not for the old fan'' and only for casual player. That guy had his vision of a civilization game and he was allowed to create it. Now if you like it or not, it's only a matter of taste. I've been playing civ for a long time, I like all the game and I think that Civ 5 is a good game with it's flaws (Live civ 4 at release for that matter.).

Please give them a break with all the conspiracy talk, call it art or not... This is a creation and everyone who works on it try to make it as good as he can, and as we can see right in this conversation... It's not everyone who likes Harry potter (I know I don't.), but it's not a bad book it's realy just a matter of taste.

For me, Civ 5 is much better than Civ 4. But right now the AI can't keep up with the complexity of the game and sadly the multiplayer is incomplete. So I can't wait 'till more patch come out!

 

[Achilleslastand]

When you compare this to the old game of fitting the square peg in the square hole and the circle peg in the circle hole,etc etc,then you will realize there isnt much difference between the two.

 

[JLoZeppeli]

I think that explain better why civ V is not so good...

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/2454-Easy-Games

 

[Helmling]

Yeah, seriously. I know, it sounds ridiculous, but bear with me:

Maybe my problem is that I was hoping for Civ 5 to be engaging, complex, deep, and replayable for me - but perhaps it wasn't even intended to have that appeal, but rather to appeal to players that are new to strategy games or the Civ series. Nothing shocking here, we knew that was a big part of the target audience. Obviously it also appeals to a lot of Civ veterans too, maybe those for whom depth and complexity in previous games was redundant, unnecessary, too unwieldy, etc.

Maybe the value in Civ5 is drawing in those players who wouldn't otherwise be interested in Civ. (I thought Civ Rev was supposed to be the gateway drug, but I guess they need to be eased in with a little more complexity.) I do think that's a good role for a game to play, because of course I do want the franchise to draw more players, and am happy to see people discovering Civ for the first time.

But maybe I should think of Civ 5 like the Harry Potter novels - not something I'm personally interested in experiencing, but something that will get people interested in something they might not be otherwise. I don't hate Civ 5, and I don't hate the Harry Potter books. I don't own those books, though - because I knew they weren't written for me and wouldn't really appeal to me. (It's not like the Harry Potter series was advertised as being written by J.R.R. Tolkien; then I would have bought them and felt similarly disappointed.) I'm glad Harry Potter has such a massive appeal - I think it's awesome that they got so many kids interested in reading books.

I should probably let go of the idea that Civ5 was supposed to be appealing to players like me in the first place, and get over the disappointment I felt when it wasn't fun or engaging for me. Accept it as being intended for another audience altogether, value it for getting some new players interested in the franchise, and move on altogether. Maybe Civ 6 will be designed for players who enjoy those redundant, unwieldy, complex systems - in five years or so, the Civ 5 vets may want something with more depth to it and then we'll all be happy. Only time will tell. Til then, I think it's time to let go of the hope that Civ 5 will somehow become the game I thought I purchased, because the chances of that happening seem pretty slim.

I think there is some truth in this. At least to the extent that we are a finicky audience. Still, I think there were elements neglected in this game that would've clearly made the game better for everyone, newbies and grizzled veterans alike--sharper AI and more robust diplomacy stand out as shortcomings in my view.

 

[lschnarch]

This is a creation and everyone who works on it try to make it as good as he can, <snip>

Which is exactly the problem.
Civ5 has a lot less elements than previoius iterations. And honestly, whatever it still has, it is poor, to say the least.
I will just pick the two elements mentioned by you.

But right now the AI can't keep up with the complexity of the game and sadly the multiplayer is incomplete. So I can't wait 'till more patch come out!

When Steam was announced, self-proclaimed "experts" promised how easy this would make multi-player.
Similar it was with the 1upt. So many less units to control, this would give the AI finally a chance to be competitive.

You say, Civ5 is weak due to "complexity". Forgive me, but this is wrong.
There isn't that much "complexity".
The rules are made so that you shall know from the very beginning where you want to go.
Aiming for a cultural victory AND enhancing your "empire" (what a ridiculous term for like 5 cities, btw) is almost impossible.
City States haven't added any "complexity", as they are just sitting there, waiting to be bribed and others to
a) fight barbs
b) bribe them
c) get a great person
d) find a certain tile on the map (Natural Wonders)
e) build a street

Combat is not only easy, but boring too. You need some 6 units which have to approach the enemy's city. Bombard, attack, conquer.
Where are the fronts, which have been promised before we could lay hands on this obscenety?
Diplomacy, which has consumed so much manpower to create "living" leaders, is just a joke. And a bad one, too.
And finally, even the easiest victory type, the diplomatic victory, which would be just bribing city states, is unavailable for the AI. It even wouldn't have to build the UN by itself, yet doesn't get what it takes to get this victory.

Complexity in Civ5? Then Monopoly was a very complex game, too.
Yet, it is mostly played with children.

 

[Aristos]

Complexity in Civ5? Then Monopoly was a very complex game, too.
Yet, it is mostly played with children.

At least the children need some math skills when playing Monopoly...

 

[cytreck]

What I think we have here is the old problem many organisation has.
It is simple, when the bean counter win the fight, expect a poor product.

I agree CiV was for a more casual audience. (legitimate bean counter argument for $$ in)

The problem is that the only way old gamer would get a challenge now should be by playing multiplayer.
This is not an issue with me. Playing Battlefield series for example is only challenging online.

Now since multiplayer don't work too well, this is where I feel the customer got fooled by marketting/bean counter. Casual and fanatics player are let down.
The dev team must have lost a couple argument with bean team because I don't know any engineer/programmer/tech who would accept having their name on a bad product unless they don't know about the issue or they lost a battle, not just an argument with bean team..

 

[ClarenceSeedorf]

Yeah or maybe you shouldn't approach the game with this much snobism.

 

[cytreck]

Reading myself again ya it could sound "snobism" probably because has you realised I identify myself with one of the 2 group. I accept the critic

 

[ClarenceSeedorf]

Reading myself again ya it could sound "snobism" probably because has you realised I identify myself with one of the 2 group. I accept the critic

There are two groups, yes. People who like it and people who don't.

Only it has become a sport for some veteran civ players to bash CiV by saying its become for the masses and doesnt have any depth and bla bla...

Moderator Action: Inappropriate troll content removed - warned for trolling.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

Well, if that made you feel better about yourself...good for you.

 

[cytreck]

Well you would be surprised how noobs I am myself but I am a bit dissapointed with the multiplayer and the fact that after I read a couple of walk thru and manage victory at level impossible for me in any kind of game. I just feel there is something that does not fit

My intend was not to shine as you would think but to be in the perspective on the Dev team.

I think CiV would be super for me if Multiplayer would work. This is an opinion against fact and I think my post was clear on it. No snobism in that.

Having a more casual game is OK with me, I never talked about immersion or complexity, I refer it to legitimate bean counter argument. Legitimate argument is this bashing on any one?

The fooled by marketting part is more in line with the ability of a product to perform as advertised. I was under the impression that the feature I was much anticipating got canned at one point and from my own experience, when a product feature is canned it won't be comming from the Dev team. But the bean team

Sorry if you felt offended or anybody who associate themself to the the team I refer to bean counter.

 

[fed1943]

Bad bean counter.
A good manager knows when he displeases his clients with a deal, said deal is the last one he
can make.

 

[lschnarch]

Bad bean counter.
A good manager knows when he displeases his clients with a deal, said deal is the last one he
can make.

Not if you have the privilege to deal with mainly younger audiences, inexperienced and prone to fall for advertisement hypes.

 

[Tatran]

But all you're basicly doing is sticking a feather up your own ass. Look at me everyone!!

This and your nick go very well together.
You must love civ5 with all its penalties.

 

[Eskel]

Simplicity of Civ5 IS a problem.
Why? Because it is oversimplified.

Good game should offer a player limited number of options, but many combinations between those options, resulting in many different viable ways to victory.
Reassumnig, good game should have:
- several strategies
- different approach to game
- game that suits "casuals" as well as "hardcores"

Complexity through too many options make game dull, boring and tiresome.
However, a large number of options and rules IS NOT necessary to build complex game.

Let's look at the chess for example. Someone above said that chess is simple game, less complex than said Civ 5. IMO it is false logic.
Chess has simple rules, but combinations of gameplay startegies enrich game with additional layers of complexity, making a wholesale VERY interesting game.
Civ 5 is the opposite, and IMO because of bad design. It has a vast variety of options, but very limited choice of strategies leading to victory (small number of combinations). Thats why it posses small replayability value and quickly becomes boring.

It seems most players that actually like Civ5 are pleased just with some of its aspects, particulary 1UPT (which actually is simple in rules but makes unit placemant more challenging and complex) as a best example. I like unit vs unit combat mechanism that is more predictable and rational than in prevoius versions.
Nevertheless, my total experience is unsatisfying - few good ideas doesnt make it up for the whole game.

It looks that devs mistook simplicty of rules with lack of complexity.

 

[DRJ]

Sadly I find that the popularity of the Harry Potter series can explain this. The majority of people reading the Harry Potter series were adults rather than children and, I feel, reveals a rather sad state of affairs in that adults are at the reading capability of teenagers. After all there are many many other great books out there on the market that are far more complex and involving but are read by a smaller minority than Harry Potter. The conclusion I have reached (albeit a general one) is that the general level of intelligence is reducing, therefore the franchise would deem it a poor economic strategy to continue to retain the complexity of Civ IV.

Have you seen the film "Idiocracy" yet? If not so you really should...

Regarding the topic: I would like to see civ6 shipped out with 2 discs: one designed for civ veterans, one for beginners.

Or a "starter package" is sold as well as the additional "veterans package", which would be more expansive but actually would provide strategic depth.

By now civ5 is console kiddies heaven. But I believe in the Modders- there is simply no other chance, because if we are honest, all the publishers will provide in the future is an engine, the content will then be created and organized by the consumers themselves. That's rationalisation and profit maximization...

-

Btw. I can't believe that stupid AIs bug to gift much too much gold, luxuries cities etc for peace wasn't found before the release---

 

[Banjo]

Perhaps we have been thinking of Civ5 the wrong way. I fully understand why people are unhappy with this release, and their reasons why, as well as the reasons why people love it. As for myself, I love most of the changes that were made to the game that draw so much critisism, but have many of the same feelings as to why they are disliked. I suspect that the people who tested this release may share several of these opinions too. But...

Suppose the same issues that are now being trumpeted by too many whining threads were known by the testers. Having very limited game beta testing experience (none in Civ), I think the game passed the test. It generally worked upon its initial release. All software needs to be patched to some extent as not all users computers are the same. In that light, the playtesters did their job. That might explain the glaring issues that are so obvious to new and old players alike. But what about those issues, and why did they make it into the release?

One of my ways of thinking about Civ5 the wrong way is that the game was released with these issues intact on purpose. Yes that means we are being used as beta testers as some have put it, but on design. The reason being in this scenario would be to get the feedback that they are getting from the community and to patch the game as close as they can get it to standards that we the consumer/player expect it to be, without bringing it to that level without buying an expansion as Warlords and BTS were added to Civ4. Civ5 vanilla is such a radically different game with 1upt and hexes that if they can balance it and make it playable, I would be happy with it.

On the other hand, if the first expansion beyond vanilla Civ5 does not push the game beyond Civ4 BTS, I think we will know that they are just rehashing old ideas in a new package. If they added the means to continue play beyond the victory conditions as we know it now and still have a challenging game it would be a start. For example, if one wins a cultural or diplomatic victory, one could continue on to building the spaceship, even if other civs win other victories in the meantime. To push the game even further, the game should be able to play well into the future eras onto other planets in other solar systems. In order to do this diplomacy would need to be a primary factor. Resource management and trade would have a greater impact. health happiness and the enviroment would come into play also. Domination is a fun victory, but should be almost impossible to achieve. It has never happened and probably never will. There will always be one person who has the ability to prevent it from happening. These are the types of expansions we need, not just rehashing the same game over and over again.

This is only a thought as to why Civ5 is the way it is. If it is true was it a good idea to release the game as I described, I don't know. If it was, then perhaps the message that we got about the game could have been presented in a better way, although from a marketing standpoint, that would probably not have been recieved very well. Who knows.

Lets hope that the best of the past four versions are implemented into Civ5, and pushed beyond what we have experienced in those past four versions. That will determine if the Civ series will stand the Test of Time. Sorry couldn't resist the reference.