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

[SuperJay]

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.

 

[Markstar]

I was with you for most of your journey , except:

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.

But Civ5 WAS advertised as a worthy successor of the franchise. Only AFTER the release were we told that the target audience was more on the casual side.

and

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.

While it is true that only time will tell, the experience with the gaming industry as a whole, as well as Firaxis in particular, suggest the opposite.

But I agree, Civ5 was never made for you and me, nor probably the majority of Civfanatics.

 

[Tatran]

No, remember the 2k representatives showing up earlier this year at this site when civ5 was introduced?
They have misleaded the community with Steam and used secrecy + silence when people wanted to know more about civ5.
I simply can't believe the Frankenstein group didn't notice how bad the AI was.
The game development wasn't finished and needed at least one more year.
But 2k had other priorities and deliberately released an inferior product.

 

[kaibayashi]

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.

Possibly the best post about CiV in the world.

*This post is sponsored by Carlsberg*

 

[Rohili]

I happen to be re-reading the Harry Potter series now, in lieu of playing Civ V. I must say, the novels are way more interesting and addictive! Civ V is not even close.

 

[DaveGold]

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.

The Harry Potter novels aren't a bad read even for adults. In fact they're quite the opposite of CIV5. They were a whole new franchise that created a new reputation from a quality product and near enough maintained that quality through the book series, when many people expected it to tail off.

 

[Bill Bisco]

If they wanted to revamp the game into something that is not Civilization, they should not have called the game a sequel (Civ5) rather Civ Tactics or whatever.

But, they knew if they did that they wouldn't get your money, so they made their decision and took you for what they could, unabashed.

This is the same move made by the designers of 4th Edition D&D. That decision divided the community as it did this one: trying to call a very different game a sequel.

 

[Torgny]

I can not understand how it can be legal to sell a product like civ5 and claim it is a follow up of civ4. Is it really allowed to cheat people in this way? If civ5 had been marketed as an alternative it civ4 it had been ok for me. Many people have paid their money to buy a product that was not what it was said to be. Can companies really do what they want to earn money, is there no legislation against this?

 

[Kyroshill]

Can companies really do what they want to earn money, is there no legislation against this?

Cue the JB...




Living in America! I feel good!



LOL... seriously this is one of the funniest things I've seen on CFC... it may get added to my sig

 

[dguichar]

This is the same move made by the designers of 4th Edition D&D. That decision divided the community as it did this one: trying to call a very different game a sequel.

I'm sorry, but i've played D&D from just before 2nd edition was released. And, on (real) roleplaying games (not those so-called alike, but are just adventure games for computer/console), roleplay isn't dependant on the game system. And as i value roleplaying over the game system, i don't really mind playing OD&D or D&D nth edition. It'll still feel (for me) as D&D.

Minor changes on history of some worlds, also don't mind me. I can play any era with any game system... again, i don't mind.

But, all that written, civ5 is an strategy game and game system does matter. My computer doesn't have the minimum hardware and it'll pass a long time before i can upgrade. I guess someday i'll know what has done the game system change on Civ series by myself, i hope it's sooner than i believe.

 

[Yzman]

This game is not so radically different that it can't be called a sequel. Why do people wanna buy the same game over and over again?

 

[Bill Bisco]

We want a game that game that builds on its predecessors positively not one that throws away the good qualities of those who came before it. We want an Einstein to succeed our Newton to succeed our Copernicus.

 

[Bill Bisco]

I'm sorry, but i've played D&D from just before 2nd edition was released. And, on (real) roleplaying games (not those so-called alike, but are just adventure games for computer/console), roleplay isn't dependant on the game system. And as i value roleplaying over the game system, i don't really mind playing OD&D or D&D nth edition. It'll still feel (for me) as D&D.

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.

 

[Peregrine]

I don't think you've been thinking of civ the wrong way at all.

Having been with the series since CivI, I'd assert that any purchaser of a new Civilization game version should expect one thing; improvement. Civ1 was good, the initial empire builder game that really delivered, but it had some flaws and was too simple in many aspects. There were elements I wanted to alter, but couldn't. CivII was a godsend; it allowed me to change almost anything to make the game more palatable, historically accurate, increase the level of detail, and redesign the core game to simulate a specific era. But there were still problems, and too many simplistic elements that were hard-coded and couldn't be changed w/the ingame editors. Even so, I made mountains impassable, desert tiles worthless, made "shields" into "hammers," located petroleum resources geographically specific, added new resources, was the first to utilize a gigamap for scenario building, gave railroads limited movement, curtailed the ability to "terraform" tundra and ice tiles, experimented w/"army" size units, greatly expanded the tech tree, and, above all, TESTED these designs until they were 1) fully functional 2.) met the spirit of the design intent, and 3.) were FUN to play. CivIII failed to deliver; didn't purchase it. So I was pleasantly surprised to see many of the things I had created appear in CivIV. But CivIV also IMPROVED many elements. Religion was finally there in a meaningful way. Espionage was implemented with much more detail. Stacking was now an integral element of warfare. These were things I wanted to see changed, but couldn't alter in CivII. Now, V has removed many of these improvements and substituted elements that not only are disappointingly simple, but are steps backward, reintroducing problems. ICS is a problem. Simplification of resource use and allocation is a problem. Removal of the slider is nonsensical. 1upt is an astoundingly poor design decision, poorly implemented, and has reduced the AI to impotence.

Was IV better, at release, than V? I enjoyed vanilla IV enough to purchase BTS as quickly as I could find a copy. After testing the V demo, the same thing did not occur. For me, there is no comparison.

Will mods or expansions improve the core problems of V? My opinion, of course, but no is the answer.

Do I want V to be an expansion of IV? No. I wanted to see improvement.

Is improvement that difficult? Of course not. There is a reservoir of historical ideas available for those who are able to perceive them. Here are just a few, but I can think of more;

1.) Logistics. In II, armies were supported by the shields/hammers of production from cities. This is good, but incomplete. Yes, your soldiers need new armor/rifles/uniforms, but they need more than that. In IV, units require gold for support. Yes, soldiers usually require pay to keep them in the ranks. What seems lacking is that soldiers also need to eat. Food upkeep, either from worked tiles, city granaries, or specific tile food values could easily be implemented given the programming available. Techs that modify logistics could be created. Tile improvements that provide military logistics could be created, perhaps unlocked with associated techs.

2.) Dynastic Succession. Whether we are talking about the Sumerians or the Hohenzollerns, succession was a primary element in the longevity of any historical state/empire/polity. I can envision several ways to implement this, with effects ranging from seamless transition to civil war.

3.) Political Secession/fragmentation. In all civ versions, development moves in a simple, linear way. Playing any civ, you progress. Historically, this is extremely rare, if it is not downright unrealistic. Virtually every empire crumbled. Provinces break away forming new states, governors rebel establishing competing polities, rebellious generals take their armies and march on the capital, and internal revolts occur that sweep away entire regions from imperial control. Dynasties rise, prosper, falter, and collapse, only to see the cycle repeated anew. I can think of a dozen different ways to implement this idea, even utilizing the current programming.

I've included these ideas to, hopefully, forestall any of the usual complaints from the anti-criticism people. No, I don't hate the game. V was and is and will remain unacceptable as a purchasable game. No, I don't simply want CivIV; I wanted an improvement on CivIV. It certainly IS possible. And please, if all one can do to respond is to simply contradict, then don't bother. This post has been written to address the complaint that critics are simply ranting. This isn't a rant. It is a suggestion that what was left out of V was the idea that improvement is necessary for a game series like Civilization to continue to prosper and provide many of us with satisfaction and enjoyment.

 

[Quillur]

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.

 

[Mathochism]

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.

Eh, that's fine with me. 4E is the best edition of D&D since AD&D, IMO.

 

[Poorly deluded]

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.

 

[alpaca]

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.

However, this doesn't mean that there shouldn't be products catering to people who prefer it simple. The problem is, however, that in gaming niche products are much harder to do than in writing: Games just cost a lot more money. There are a few developers, like Paradox, who make a healthy living out of providing complex games for people who like to be mentally challenged by a game (puzzle-solving, in a way) but I fear that this is not the way to go for a AAA title.

If you overwhelm people with details and complexity, 90%* will just switch it off and go to another game. Only the rest will persevere and try to learn the game to an extent that they can beat it, or beat it every time. Creating a game with appeal for both groups is not a trivial design task at all, and requires a structural rethinking of how difficulty levels work. I think what you would have to do is to add a complexity slider to the difficulty selection and create differently complex rule sets for different player types. Players can then increase gameplay difficulty by either increasing rule difficulty (and complexity) or by increasing AI cheats and capabilities.

* number pulled out of thin air and not backed up by data

 

[drhirsch]

The intrinsic problem we suffer is that everything is becoming "Dumbed down" in order to appeal to a greater audiance.

This.



(this post has been simplified to be understandable by a greater target audience)

 

[Thormodr]

Your thinking is now in line with a large number of people.

This "Civ" if I can even call it that was made for the casual gamer. It was not intended to be deep, engaging or challenging. It was not designed for the long time Civ fan that loves immersion and deep and rich game play. This is not your daddy's Civ so to speak. Shame...

The fact that Firaxis and 2K Games lied about the game being designed to satisfy hardcore Civ fans is a huge slap in the face that won't be forgotten for a long time if forgotten at all.

They should be ashamed of themselves but I'm sure they aren't.