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

[KahunaGod]

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.

We need some intrepid programmers to "Pathfinder" this Civ5 beast.

On DND: Roleplaying dissapeared upon release of 3.0. Since then the game has become nothing more that a tabletop miniature combat system where only one unit per tile can fight...........uhhhhhh......crap.

 

[bryanw1995]

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.

I like DAO a lot, and it's probably a better 4th ed d&d ruleset that the crap than wotc came up with. not least because I knew up front that it would be completely different, and bioware has a better reputation.

 

[bryanw1995]

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

best part is that he is english.

hopefully in two more years our govt will quit treating US like 3rd graders.

 

[Buccaneer]

Long ago, I have come to this conclusion (that PC games were not designed for me). I have been playing PC games since 1988 (both Mac and Intel) but I had never touched a console game (except to play something with my son, like Mario something). In the past 10 years, I have seen many PC franchises become console-ized or mmog-ed, this includes games from Firaxis. Civ4 was the brilliant expection since 2005 but with my favorite all-time series being: Civ, SimCity, Impressions City Building, Mafia and Total War, none of them are the same any more. But this is a common trend, happens every generation, esp. with TV show and advertising. I'm a baby boomer and no one wants to or needs to cater to me, esp. one that did not grow up or like playing console games.

 

[Torgny]

In Civ4 there is a choice. We can gradually learn more about the game and gradually play it on higher levels of difficulty. Or we can chose to keep playing it simple and continue to play on lower levels of difficulty. All can play it. In Civ5 I do not see this choice. You can only play it as the relatively simple game as it is.

As I understand it. Those who developed civ4 were given enough people, getting enough time and resources to develop the game. Everyone benefited from this. Players were happy and Firaxis earned more money. With civ5 it is the other way around. Players are unhappy, and Firaxis will earn less money.

 

[SuperJay]

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.

Oh, definitely. Note that I never said I was happy about feeling misled, just more resigned to it at this point. Hey - it was my own fault for trusting Firaxis in the first place, so chalk that up to a lesson learned. And of course, to many, Civ 5 is a worthy successor; those people aren't somehow "wrong" about anything, they just like the game. They may have felt that previous games were too cluttered with unnecessary details, too much information, redundant systems, etc - and be happy to see a streamlined Civ game that removes much of that. One man's "depth" is another man's "redundancy" basically.

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

Maybe, but majorities and minorities are impossible to establish. UNLESS WE MAKE A POLL-- oh wait those don't work either. Really, it doesn't much matter to me whether I'm part of a majority or not. I can draw my own conclusions, and what I'm coming to accept is that Civ5 wasn't intended to appeal to me in the first place, so why be mad at anyone? Cosmopolitan magazine isn't designed to appeal to me either, but I'm not upset with their publishers.

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.

All true, of course - I wasn't making a literal comparison between HP and Civ5. Just realizing that for me, the two occupy a similar niche: they were designed to appeal to an audience new to a certain activity or genre, and I'm happy that those people are finding enjoyment in that - be it reading novels or playing strategy games. Accessibility does have its virtues, but it's not something that appeals to me personally in these particular instances.

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.

Yeah, and while I'm trying to avoid being quite that bitter or cynical about it, I have to agree. That doesn't make me some advanced strategy guru or lofty high-minded literary snob (I hope), I just enjoy depth even when I don't fully understand it. I like knowing that there's more to it that I don't fully grasp. But I think at the root of it, you're right - it's a commercial, capitalistic trend. But who can blame companies for wanting to sell more products and make more money? It's just business; that's what they do. And like I said, I'm happy to welcome new Civ fans to the series. I think Civ 5 is a great entry point for people who haven't played a strategy game before. And if they end up wanting something deeper and more complex after awhile, I'll be happy to recommend Civ4+BTS. Whichever game they're playing, I enjoy helping them learn, even if I don't play that particular game myself.

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.

You know I agree with you in essence re: the game itself, but Firaxis only "lied" if you believe interviews and marketing hype as the literal truth, which I don't. I know better; I don't trust corporations to be honest, that's just silly. They're gonna tell you whatever they need to in order to sell their products. But I did allow myself to be misled, certainly; I thought Firaxis was an exception, and they aren't. But again, of course, to many people it's an improvement over Civ4, so the "new direction" is a good thing for a lot of folks. I'm just not one of them, and that's what I'm trying to come to grips with now, as positively as I can.

BTW, Peregrine, I agree with pretty much everything you're saying. Great post with great ideas.

 

[Akka]

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.

This.
This is why there is such an angry answer to Civ5, while Civ Rev, though not really well-appreciated, was given somehow a free pass.

 

[Aristos]

Maybe, but majorities and minorities are impossible to establish. UNLESS WE MAKE A POLL-- oh wait those don't work either. Really, it doesn't much matter to me whether I'm part of a majority or not. I can draw my own conclusions, and what I'm coming to accept is that Civ5 wasn't intended to appeal to me in the first place, so why be mad at anyone? Cosmopolitan magazine isn't designed to appeal to me either, but I'm not upset with their publishers.

Why be mad at anyone?

Because the gamers that sustained this franchise for a very long term, and made Sid's golden cupboard possible, were basically dumped into the trash of memories by this deformation. It is a falacy that you can NOT develop a complex game that can be played as a simple game. My example? Victoria 2, Paradox.

Victoria I was a beast, for many the best Paradox game ever (and that is a lot to say), but it was a complexity monster. I used to call it "the PhD game". If you had the patience and brains (oh no, I said it... it's about the brains), Victoria was a pleasure. If you lack one of them, it's almost unplayable.

Did they dumb Vicky 2 down? NO. Big NO. What they did is automatize every single function of the game, in order to make it playable even if you don't want to dig into details of micromanagement. Did they eliminate 75% of the features "to appeal to the mass markets"? NO. In fact, they added a lot of new and engaging features. It is as complex as ever, but also much, MUCH more playable than the first iteration.

All in all, it is a masterpiece. Some problems, of course, but nothing that Paradox won't solve in the mid term, and not game breaking for sure.

Now THAT is game development. Of course, it is as impossible to compare Shafer with Johan, as it is to compare Shafer with Soren. Very different breeds...

As for the majorities or minorities, refer to my signature...

In any case, the "brained minority" sums millions around the world, and was, and is, able to sustain a worthy franchise. If it is worthy, that is...

Un abrazo, Super...

 

[SuperJay]

This.
This is why there is such an angry answer to Civ5, while Civ Rev, though not really well-appreciated, was given somehow a free pass.

Yep, pretty much. I'd argued in the past that this should have been called Civilization: Tactics or something similar, to indicate that it wasn't a direct continuation of the flagship Civ franchise, but it wouldn't have sold as well if they'd given it a different name. And of course, to many (most?) players, it IS a direct continuation, just with all the unnecessary clutter from the previous games removed.

Did they dumb Vicky 2 down? NO. Big NO. What they did is automatize every single function of the game, in order to make it playable even if you don't want to dig into details of micromanagement. Did they eliminate 75% of the features "to appeal to the mass markets"? NO. In fact, they added a lot of new and engaging features. It is as complex as ever, but also much, MUCH more playable than the first iteration.

See, I wish that had been the case for Civ5, but I suspect that would have taken much more developer resources and wouldn't have helped out 2K Games financial report for Q4 2010. But I agree, I've seen that kind of approach in other games, and I think it would have been a far, far better way to cater to a much wider playerbase, rather than abandoning one in favor of another.

 

[boredatwork]

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.

I think this flawed argument illustrates the faulty logic of many people criticising Civ5 - specifically the notion that "simple is only enjoyable for simple minds."

Based on no evidence aside from your personal bias you assume the primary reason that adults read Harry Potter is they lack the capability to read anything more complex. Do you have figures to back that claim up?

Does cheering on your local sports team or sailing a boat or playing darts, or golfing, or gardening, or having sex take great amounts of intellectual skill either? No, but that doesn't stop alot of very smart people having fun doing all of the above.

Is Harry Potter a challenge for the average adult to read? No. Is it entertaining? I'm not claiming to have figures but I could certainly introduce you to dozens of university graduates, including myself, who did enjoy it. What you fail to allow for is most people when they choose pass times do so not based upon intellectual reasons or complexity but rather upon ENTERTAINMENT VALUE.


Back to games - compared to even Civ5 Chess is simple in the extreme - Only 6 types of units, 2 types of terrain, 1 8x8 map, 1 way to win, no cities, no improvements, stacking, etc

By your logic if Chess appeals to someone it must be because they have the mental capacity of a 7 year old because it's such a simple game?



IMO the mistake many critics of Civ5 make is blaming simplification. Complexity is irrelavent - whether they had made it more, less, or just as complex as Civ4, Civ5 would still have been a poor game, given the crappy unfinished job the developers did and the speed it was rushed out the door without adequate testing.

 

[JLoZeppeli]

I know dozens of university graduates that didn't know the capital city of West Germany.... For most of them was Munchen

 

[SuperJay]

Does cheering on your local sports team or sailing a boat or playing darts, or golfing, or gardening, or having sex take great amounts of intellectual skill either? No, but that doesn't stop alot of very smart people having fun doing all of the above.

Is Harry Potter a challenge for the average adult to read? No. Is it entertaining? I'm not claiming to have figures but I could certainly introduce you to dozens of university graduates, including myself, who did enjoy it. What you fail to allow for is most people when they choose pass times do so not based upon intellectual reasons or complexity but rather upon ENTERTAINMENT VALUE.

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. Does a book or movie or sexual position have to be difficult to be fun? Of course not, that's just stating the obvious. Elegance and simplicity can make for good design, but in Civ 5's case, there's just not much elegance to be found IMO.

But, the whole point is that there's no need for elegance and depth if the game is intended to just get players in the door. Maybe they won't stay long, or play the game for hundreds of hours over several years like many of us have with previous iterations in the series, but they'll buy a Firaxis game that says "Civ" on the front, and that's probably good enough these days. There's not much money to be made in people using the same base product for five years anyway; it's far more lucrative to string them along by selling them new expansions, DLC, and "sequels." Success means you nickel-and-dime your "fans."

Ooops, I'm starting slide back into bitter and angry territory, sorry. *deep breath* Okay, back to learning to let go of my favorite strategy franchise and move on. Maybe welcoming the players new to the series, hoping they enjoy it... perhaps that way I can find some kind of silver lining in this mess.

 

[jprc]

I know dozens of university graduates that didn't know the capital city of West Germany.... For most of them was Munchen

Well, and I agree with them.
Munchen is not the Capital City of Germany in terms of politics, but is indeed The Capital when it comes to the Beer Fest !!!!

perhaps they simply thought about it about a long night partying in a dorm...

Back on topic, I really agree with SuperJay.
Some interresting readings in this thread.

 

[Zydor]

........
But, the whole point is that there's no need for elegance and depth if the game is intended to just get players in the door. Maybe they won't stay long, or play the game for hundreds of hours over several years like many of us have with previous iterations in the series, but they'll buy a Firaxis game that says "Civ" on the front, and that's probably good enough these days. There's not much money to be made in people using the same base product for five years anyway; it's far more lucrative to string them along by selling them new expansions, DLC, and "sequels." Success means you nickel-and-dime your "fans."

Pretty well nails the situation. To judge Civ V an idea of the target gamer is needed. With the deliberate stripping out of so much of the traditional elements, leaving pretty well only a simplified military, and brain dead Culture/Spaceship alternates, the aim of widening the fanbase is clear.

"....a primary aim of the Version is to widen the fanbase" - Shafer in a Polycast 2 September

Ooops, I'm starting slide back into bitter and angry territory, sorry. *deep breath* Okay, back to learning to let go of my favorite strategy franchise and move on. Maybe welcoming the players new to the series, hoping they enjoy it... perhaps that way I can find some kind of silver lining in this mess.

I share your frustration, the Franchise has now irredeamably changed. They are shooting for a different fanbase mix comensurate with a wider potential gamer base. The hated but true phrase, its being dumbed down. The latter is often a knee jerk quote on Version changes in the past, this time the evidence stares us in the face - sadly.

It will leave a big gap in the marketplace, lets hope there is someone out there with the clout, and personal drive, to fill it with a genuine strategy game - not just one that uses the genre title as a marketing tool.

Regards
Zy

 

[J. Hercules]

Okay, back to learning to let go of my favorite strategy franchise and move on.

Just out of curiosity, what are you planning to move on to? Maybe I could find some solace as well if I had something worth while to play as an alternative. I'm thinking of giving this Victoria II that everyone is talking about a try.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

You can debate design philosophy of V vs other titles to death.

The "intrinsic" flaws of civ V is that it fails gameplay 101 checks:

- Controls
- Balance between options provided by the game itself being viable
- Stability
- MP balance.
- MP compatibility
- Allowing the rules of gameplay to be known to the player
- Running smoothly on the specs it advertises

The above issues can be looked at in isolation...no need to compare civ V to other civ titles. The above are all objectively proven, known, STAND-ALONE issues that any game pretending to be a top-tier release title has to avoid. I don't care if your target demographic is 5 year olds, only people who have been to space, casual players, or grandparents, the above are priorities in ALL games. They are also things at which civ V falls flat.

Oh, and if you want to argue that civ V manages to accomplish the above, you better bring objective, supporting arguments. I'm tired of people blathering broad generalizations and pretending they've countered an argument. I can (and on other threads have) given examples of civ V's failings at all of the above, and I am alone on none of them. For many of them, I've provided video evidence of civ V's failings. If someone chooses to counter this post, I expect some degree of competency.

 

[Zyxpsilon]

It's 2010 and we're driving Hybrid Cars instead of Horses.
Get over it already... gameplay follows suit.
We're all heads & toes in the broadband width era -- wider audiences' attention must be captured at all cost.
Or else. Die.

 

[Aristos]

I think this flawed argument illustrates the faulty logic of many people criticising Civ5 - specifically the notion that "simple is only enjoyable for simple minds."

Based on no evidence aside from your personal bias you assume the primary reason that adults read Harry Potter is they lack the capability to read anything more complex. Do you have figures to back that claim up?

Does cheering on your local sports team or sailing a boat or playing darts, or golfing, or gardening, or having sex take great amounts of intellectual skill either? No, but that doesn't stop alot of very smart people having fun doing all of the above.

Is Harry Potter a challenge for the average adult to read? No. Is it entertaining? I'm not claiming to have figures but I could certainly introduce you to dozens of university graduates, including myself, who did enjoy it. What you fail to allow for is most people when they choose pass times do so not based upon intellectual reasons or complexity but rather upon ENTERTAINMENT VALUE.


Back to games - compared to even Civ5 Chess is simple in the extreme - Only 6 types of units, 2 types of terrain, 1 8x8 map, 1 way to win, no cities, no improvements, stacking, etc

By your logic if Chess appeals to someone it must be because they have the mental capacity of a 7 year old because it's such a simple game?



IMO the mistake many critics of Civ5 make is blaming simplification. Complexity is irrelavent - whether they had made it more, less, or just as complex as Civ4, Civ5 would still have been a poor game, given the crappy unfinished job the developers did and the speed it was rushed out the door without adequate testing.

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

may I have your wife's cell number?

 

[J. Hercules]

Just out of curiosity, what are you planning to move on to? Maybe I could find some solace as well if I had something worth while to play as an alternative. I'm thinking of giving this Victoria II that everyone is talking about a try.

Never mind that one. I just read your post on the other thread. To bad my graphics card isn't good enough for the new Fall Out. Maybe upgrading my computer will fill the void ciV has left me with.

 

[oldguyofciv]

First Civ i didnt buy...and i played them all (even III).
Somebody wake me up when they bring an addon that
makes it a Civilisation game and not such a foolish children
klick and play software...