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

[Thormodr]

One of the most precise posts I have read since this whole debacle started.

Some of us fail to deliver that message even if that is exactly what we think, so thank you for putting clear words to our "rebellion"... some of us may be aggressive sometimes, but only because we are trying to emphasize that this piece of mediocrity is NOT ACCEPTABLE.

And yes, another word to define "being fine with a mediocre product" is MEDIOCRITY. Like it or not.

Thanks, TMIT...

That's exactly it. By settling for an inferior product we are possibly doing irreparable harm to the Civ series.

The last thing we want to do is placate them for their shoddy work.

It's up to us to tell Firaxis and 2K Games that this horrible product is completely unacceptable.

It's the only way to ensure a quality Civ VI.

We are all in the same boat and we all want the same thing.

 

[jokoneli]

To newcomers to Civ, this latest one will be fun because it will be a challenge.

To us who played Civ1, this one is far too easy. CivIV was already easy, but this one is brutally easy.

The AI has not improved. The game has mutated and become more complex and unmanageable for the computer.

So unless we develop sentient computers soon, the only way to make it fun again to us old hands is a total re-write of the "AI" algorithm, or giving us the chance to play other monkeys.

Have you played CivIV on Deity?

 

[dguichar]

Basically either you haven't played 4e very much or you houserule so much that you aren't even playing by the game rules to begin with or are just plainly lying here. 4th Edition D&D is a very different game from the editions that came before it. It is precisely because of this arrogant decision to throw away the innovations of 3.5 and build anew rather than refine, improve, and innovate on the game that was already there is the D&D fanbase divided even more such that Paizo's Pathfinder game neck and neck in sales with 4E.

I don't need to play more or less.

I don't mind if i have to roll 1d8 or 1d10. Or if i have this power or that skill. I play my character's history through the storyteller's adventure.

Back on civ.

I've noticed that it's been a really long time since i haven't "win" a game nor even "lose" it. I just enjoy playing, recreating history and seeing how the empires progess in the game.

 

[goalie1971]

totally different game, but same idea... Madden fans were very upset with the dumbed-down version of that game in order to appeal to more people...

To take this back to the original topic, as introduced by SuperJay, I think the problem is systemic of the current trends throughout the world that no only encompass the gaming industry, but also literature and all other methods of entertainment that we have. The intrinsic problem we suffer is that everything is becoming "Dumbed down" in order to appeal to a greater audiance.

I have yet to play CiV, but from the threads that I have read on this site it strikes me that the gamers that have played this series for some time feel that the game is now to easy. This will be a direct result of the franchise wanting to shift more units.

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.

That said I do think that the general public i.e us that are paying the monies can force a general change with the franchise through forums like this.

I would also concur with Peregrine in that it is very easy to criticise, but that a solution/alternative should always be provided with the criticism i.e contructive criticism. This provides the opportunity for debate amongst us the players, but may also give the incentive to some bright spark to come up with an off shoot game that could appeal to those of us that liked the complexity.

Also I would like to say that I love the idea about feeding the army Peregrine that would make for an interesting development. I would also like to add that in the modern age what we find is that civilisations are beginning to fragment into smaller and smaller units because the wealth (particularily in the Western world, though perhaps not at the moment) enables us to do so. If you take the UK where I come from it won't be too long before it ceases to exist and Wales and Scotland become fully devolved. The lack of a clear and present danger (terrorism aside) means that the countries no longer need to direct support of each other. Technological developments (particulrily in Scotland) of gren technologies means that it has the potential to become financially self supporting. I think it would be great if the game could develop this trend somehow into the late game.

 

[PawelS]

That's exactly it. By settling for an inferior product we are possibly doing irreparable harm to the Civ series.

The last thing we want to do is placate them for their shoddy work.

It's up to us to tell Firaxis and 2K Games that this horrible product is completely unacceptable.

It's the only way to ensure a quality Civ VI.

We are all in the same boat and we all want the same thing.

I think it's better to point out specific things that should be improved instead of complaining about the "horrible product" in general (btw there is a difference between "mediocre" and "horrible", isn't it?) Both those who like it but don't think it's perfect (like me), and those who don't like it (like you) should work together to help the devs make it better for both groups. I don't think your whining will make them fire Shafer and go straight to Civ6, but if we discuss some features in detail and propose some changes to make them better, there is a chance they will implement them in patches and expansions, as they are already doing.

Also I don't know what "not accepting" the product means. How are you going to express your unhappiness? Whining at the forum again and again can get boring so maybe you start a petition or something...

"not a fan of civ" (according to your signature)

 

[fed1943]

Couldn't agree more.

And from a commercial point of view: both people who say it's all good I'll always buy and people who say I have been deceived and I'll never buy, do not count because they demand no new action to be done.

I want to buy new things after and if this one gets corrected. If not, I'll not buy.

 

[CornPlanter]

both people who say it's all good I'll always buy and people who say I have been deceived and I'll never buy, do not count because they demand no new action to be done.

Interesting observation

 

[SuperJay]

I read an interesting article today that has some bearing on the discussion in this thread. The author of this Slate article (excerpted below) draws an analogy similar to the one I did in the OP, but uses fast food instead of books or movies.

So... Civ 5 is the Big Mac of strategy games?

I'd argue that as plot and character, narrative structure, and emotional depth become more important in games, games are generally becoming easier than they have ever been. And it is about time. Developers are realizing that almost no one is going to want to experience all their fancy world-building and dialogue if they keep failing all the time. Tom may be a verisimilitude junkie, but most people don't want to play a game in which failure is permanent. That's why Red Dead, unlike the GTA games before it, includes multiple difficulty levels for combat.

Great games these days make difficulty optional. In other words, they allow the player to decide at what threshold they will feel sufficient achievement if they succeed. Given what you liked about Metro 2033, Tom, you should play Fallout: New Vegas. New Vegas includes a hardcore mode in which you have to eat and drink regularly during your journey through the post-apocalyptic wasteland. In hardcore mode, if you ruin a limb you actually have to visit a doctor (who may not be close by at all) rather than use a medical pack. Likewise, I would be shocked if Blizzard's Diablo III (scheduled for release next year) didn't include an online hardcore mode: Die once and your character is gone. What some players find frustrating others find merely realistic.

Meanwhile, one of the best things about Heavy Rain is that it's a game in which only you decide what failure really means. The decisions you make and the actions you take determine the fate of the story and its characters. Coupled with its harrowing emotional impact and overall sense of pacing and style, Heavy Rain is at least as meaningful at Red Dead (though obviously produced on a much smaller scale).

Beyond the influence of individual titles, the really big story about video games in 2010 is gaming's continued push into the cultural mainstream. Mobile games like Angry Birds and Facebook "games" (which I generally loathe) are reaching tens if not hundreds of millions of people who will never play Red Dead Redemption or Heavy Rain or StarCraft II or Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood. Rock Band 3 is probably the greatest mainstream music game ever, and Microsoft's Kinect and PlayStation Move are making games into reality. (Or is it the other way around?)

If experts like the people in this club are beginning to feel like their tastes are fundamentally diverging from those of the mass audience, that's not necessarily a bad thing. Food experts aren't necessarily supposed to like McDonald's, and music experts aren't supposed to like Justin Bieber, but they should understand those things and respect their appeal. So, no, Tom, there's nothing wrong with playing Black Ops in the wee hours. Just think of it as a quarter-pounder with cheese.

 

[vincentz]

No it isnt a hamburger.

Its an old Skoda that has been dressed in a Ferrari design kit.

It looks so appealing, but when running it, it feels like s..t.

 

[Pazyryk]

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.

Such a ridiculous comment. There are many aspects of civ5 that are deeper (e.g., removal of that ridiculous research slider, just to get started), and others that are shallower. Same can be said for micromanagement (which does not equal "depth"): more in some parts, less in other. I guess there has been a general reduction in number of units, buildings and so on (if that's what you mean by "depth"). It's a whole new system and it still has some serious problems, I'll agree to that. But the whole "depth" argument seems very shallow to me.

 

[Jolly Rogerer]

I’ve been playing Civ since the original, and am very positive about Civ5, once some initial glitches are gone. I don’t think they have made it easy, they have made it simpler, which isn’t the same thing. Excess complexity does not improve design. A lot of the best strategy board games you can learn in 20 minutes, but that doesn’t make you anywhere near competent enough to have much chance against experienced players.

Most of what has been removed was superfluous and tedious, what has been added is tactically interesting. The best games are always the ones that are quick to learn but challenging to be good at. There is a whole lot of talk about how easy this game is, but I’ll bet anything that once MP is working properly it will be much better than previous editions.

Most players talking about beating the top difficulty levels seems to be using exploits against a stupid AI, such as trading Open Borders and fortifying well placed rough terrain and watching the AI sacrifice units. Alternately they utilise nonsensical bugs like saving up Social Policies. The dominant strategy is ICS

These won’t hold in multiplayer, other players won’t pay you gold for your Open Borders as soon as you meet them. They won’t let you sprawl like crazy. They won’t come piecemeal at your fortified Mech Inf with 3 artillery waiting behind you. The tactical combat especially will become very interesting, along with the strategy to support it. In particular the battle for strategic and luxury resources will be more fierce than previous editions, it’s a fantastic change.

AI will never be really good in this kind of game, although the relative simplicity lends to the AI eventually becoming better for Civ5 than for Civ4. Wait for MP to judge, I anticipate enjoying thatmode much more than in Civ4

Human opponents make even the simplest (but potentially deep) games great. Diplomacy is one of the simplest games ever made, but because of the deviousness of the human animal it is also one of the greatest games. Unfortunately Civ is primarily (well over 90%) a single player game. And in this Civ 5 fails. A lot of bad design decisions which were also poor choices in terms of AI programming.

Even if MP worked properly, I'd rather play Diplomacy as long as were talking multi-player. I just enjoy good game design, and hate bad game design.

 

[Jolly Rogerer]

Such a ridiculous comment. There are many aspects of civ5 that are deeper (e.g., removal of that ridiculous research slider...

How exactly is the removal of a game control tantamount to depth? You can still adjust your economic focus without it, but it involves more micromanagement. That's just pointless labor, not depth. Depth would perhaps be what impels you to want to adjust your budget, not the hoops you have to jump through to end your turn several minutes later for the same result.

 

[Nares]

It's a whole new system and it still has some serious problems, I'll agree to that. But the whole "depth" argument seems very shallow to me.

I actually like the unit change, but with the changes to diplomacy, it and the streamlined tech tree are both very shallow. Likewise the other big new feature, city states; insert coin, ???, profit, reads like a troll thread, but is sadly the pinnacle of city state interaction.

 

[lschnarch]

Such a ridiculous comment. There are many aspects of civ5 that are deeper (e.g., removal of that ridiculous research slider, just to get started), and others that are shallower. Same can be said for micromanagement (which does not equal "depth"): more in some parts, less in other. I guess there has been a general reduction in number of units, buildings and so on (if that's what you mean by "depth"). It's a whole new system and it still has some serious problems, I'll agree to that. But the whole "depth" argument seems very shallow to me.

The point is, "depth" to many means having a set of choices which typically interact with each other.
Picking one option confronts you with the costs of opportunity of not having picked another option.
In this context the infamous slider actually means something: adjusting it may give you more gold out of your total commerce, but inevitably less science (or espionage, or culture).

In Civ5, you can simulate this by re-allocating the workforce from a trading post to a specialist's slot in a library, but you have to do:
1) select the proper city
2) deselect the trading post
3) select the specialist's slot
4) re-adjust city's workforce (based on the governor's settings)

This is an example how Civ5 actually increased micro-management without any gain. For sure, in this area Civ5 is by no means "deeper" - it is just more tedious in terms of manual work.

An example for depth would be that in Civ4 you could chose whether you wanted to build a pasture, a farm, or a hamlet on a tile with cows. In the case of going for the pasture you would also want to have a road...

Another example would be the civics: Although you literally could play the whole game with the same settings, it was advantegous to adjust them according to changed circumstances from time to time. Nevertheless, it came by the costs of having anarchy.

Similar it is with the infamous SoD: moving your stack was significantly easier than moving 4 to 6 units one by one, but to keep your attack going you would want to fight the siege in an optimal way.
This means to check which unit(s) have to attack first. Based on the individual combat results, you would want to change the sequence, sometimes meaning to sacrifice a less important unit to gain an advantage for the next unit.
Combat was completely different in Civ4, but for sure not less demanding.

Bottom line: in total, Civ4 was by far the "deeper" game. You constantly had to make significant decisions to get next to optimal results.
In Civ5 you are just rolling along predefined tracks.