joyous_gard
Prince
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2010
- Messages
- 476
I agree that V lacks depth.
My take on it
- Thread starter gunnergoz
- Start date
the343danny
Emperor
I like the way you just try to diminish people who like Civ 5 because you think your precious Civ 4 was sooo complex with its 1 dimensional health and religion aspects. Mind you, I played Civ 4 quite a bit, and I just went on to mods simply because I thought Civ 4 was too simple, every game the same, next to no repercussions on going on a rampage around the world, etc.
And to all, I agree Civ 5 lacks depth next to say, Hearts of Iron, but next to Civ 4? No. Try downloading the Balance mods or Economy mods which adjusts the buildings and adds new ones as well. It felt more like Civ 4. Honestly people who are out there shouting that Civ 4 is soo much deeper than Civ 5 just mistook the blandness of empire building as simplicity. Honestly, just a few tweaks on the buildings made empire building much better.
prefect example of what im talking about, thanks for proving my point.
To me, the simplification doesn't say that this is where they want the game to be. I read into it as leaving room for both DLC and expansion packs as separate entities.
That way DLC can be additional civs and scenarios, and expansion packs can be additional layers of mechanics, with less overlap between the two.
They'd never admit this openly, of course. But it's a business.
their is probally more truth to this than has been given weight
if you look on steam for cIV u see the package name is "Sid Meier's Civilization IV: The Complete Edition". I would say it is a business model that has been planned from day one. hopefully this will lead to more thoughtout expantion packs?
i am currently enjoying ciV as it is but am looking forward to meaningful updates and polished mods to come out
builer680
eats too much Taco Bell
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2010
- Messages
- 525
Celevin's quote in the following Spoiler:
If you want to argue about the definition of "meaningful decisions" and "depth", we simply won't get anywhere. No matter what I or another person says about this or that mechanic, the fallback position will be "Health didn't really add depth, Religion wasn't really that meaningful of a mechanic..." It's just a headache to argue this way, and it's really pointless.
It's my personal view that Health, Religion, City Maintenance, Cottages, Civics, etc... contributed to meaningful decisions. I'm sure someone played a game somewhere that showed you could win while paying 0 attention to one mechanic or another, but this really proves very little. In general, you were better off considering all these things when making a decision.
I agree that not all decisions are meaningful... nor are they all in the game's best interest. As an example, I don't believe having the option of ICS is good for the game, though many would argue that its removal would decrease depth. In this case, I'd sacrifice that "depth" for what I consider to be the greater depth of encouraging excellent City placement.
I just don't feel same way about mechanics from Civ 4 that are now missing. I cared more about all the little details with my Cities because of all the little things going on that mattered to the performance of a City, and the empire as a whole.
There are less things to care about now, and I don't see that as progress.
Spoiler :
It's my personal view that Health, Religion, City Maintenance, Cottages, Civics, etc... contributed to meaningful decisions. I'm sure someone played a game somewhere that showed you could win while paying 0 attention to one mechanic or another, but this really proves very little. In general, you were better off considering all these things when making a decision.
I agree that not all decisions are meaningful... nor are they all in the game's best interest. As an example, I don't believe having the option of ICS is good for the game, though many would argue that its removal would decrease depth. In this case, I'd sacrifice that "depth" for what I consider to be the greater depth of encouraging excellent City placement.
I just don't feel same way about mechanics from Civ 4 that are now missing. I cared more about all the little details with my Cities because of all the little things going on that mattered to the performance of a City, and the empire as a whole.
There are less things to care about now, and I don't see that as progress.
You mean to tell me that you dont see the "depth" in looking at your happyness and seeing it about to drop below 0 and going "opps I need to rush buy a colosseum".
CivFanaticMan
Warlord
Ok here is what I have to say: Civ5 and Civ4 have the same amount of "depth". Honestly their both not that deep. Civ4 was an empire builder immersive fun game; Civ5 a strategy game with a history theme.
The difference is, is that Civ5 was meant to be a strategy game, but it isn't deep. Civ4 is fine being shallow, because its a fun little empire builder. Civ5 on the other hand isn't, because its suposed to be about strategy. Strategy is so simple in Civ5 though. Heres why:
1. You hardly ever have to transition into a different style of play based on current events in the game because the SP tree is unchangeable to a degree. You are forced to stick with your plan from beginning to end. Transitioning into a different style of play is something that makes strategy games deep.
2. Victory is simple to achieve. You want to go a military victory? get SP's that improve unit strength. You want a Culture victory? Build wonders, get culture SP's.
3. Diplomacy has always been weak in Civ, but Civ5 it is almost non existent. The AI is no longer a friend or an enemy, it is just an AI that you are trying to beat.
4. Unhappy? build colosseums.
5. Lower building times: less to build, less to do, less depth.
6. And I expect an argument about 1UPT and how that adds depth... well: 1upt is an over complication of something that was not needed to be over complicated. It adds pointless micromanagement that does not further the depth of the game. 1upt restricts the player on all aspects of the game. Restrictions are shallow, and Civ5 has a lot of it.
Civ has always been a shallow game. There is the illusion that it isn't shallow, but really, its the shallowest strategy game I have ever played (besides Checkers). Therefor Civ's place is not as a strategy game, but as a civ builder.
The difference is, is that Civ5 was meant to be a strategy game, but it isn't deep. Civ4 is fine being shallow, because its a fun little empire builder. Civ5 on the other hand isn't, because its suposed to be about strategy. Strategy is so simple in Civ5 though. Heres why:
1. You hardly ever have to transition into a different style of play based on current events in the game because the SP tree is unchangeable to a degree. You are forced to stick with your plan from beginning to end. Transitioning into a different style of play is something that makes strategy games deep.
2. Victory is simple to achieve. You want to go a military victory? get SP's that improve unit strength. You want a Culture victory? Build wonders, get culture SP's.
3. Diplomacy has always been weak in Civ, but Civ5 it is almost non existent. The AI is no longer a friend or an enemy, it is just an AI that you are trying to beat.
4. Unhappy? build colosseums.
5. Lower building times: less to build, less to do, less depth.
6. And I expect an argument about 1UPT and how that adds depth... well: 1upt is an over complication of something that was not needed to be over complicated. It adds pointless micromanagement that does not further the depth of the game. 1upt restricts the player on all aspects of the game. Restrictions are shallow, and Civ5 has a lot of it.
Civ has always been a shallow game. There is the illusion that it isn't shallow, but really, its the shallowest strategy game I have ever played (besides Checkers). Therefor Civ's place is not as a strategy game, but as a civ builder.
Rystic
Turtle Wizard
I see it less as a question of "is it deeper and/or more complex, or is it simpler and/or more shallow?"
You can have a game that is simple but elegant. You can have a game that is complex, but to no real purpose.
What I see as the problem with Civ 5 is that you have a game which is less COHERENT than previous entries.
Now, admittedly, I've not played all that much. Barely 4 hours. Maybe 5 at most. But I played plenty of Civs 1-4, and have seen the series evolve over time. While not every concept always worked in the past, to me, Civs 1-4 tended to hold together a bit better because there seemed to be an overall sense that what was being added/changed was being done with consideration to how it affected the game as a WHOLE rather than as a discrete system.
To me, based on what I've seen so far, Civ 5 seems to have made substantial changes to various elements of the game, without any real regard for how the pieces fit together as a whole. So we're talking about the depth or shallowness of this or that system, or the complexity or simplicity of such and such game element, when the real issue is how they all fit together as a whole game.
I think that there are very complex elements of Civ 5 that can add a lot of depth to the game...but not in a particularly effective way for the overall game. Case in point: 1UPT. We now have fundamentally tactical combat in a strategic game. Yet at the same time, the map still remains a fundamentally strategic map with VERY limited space. You also have long build times for these units (which would suggest a more strategic focus), but have to use them tactically. The tactical system is deep and complex, but I don't think it works with the rest of the game particularly well.
City-States are another element of gameplay. They are simple and shallow...even though they can (apparently) have a pretty serious effect on the later game. And I'm not sure that they work particularly well as implemented. Certainly in the early game, they are fickle money sinks that offer relatively little benefit for the cost. At least from what I can tell.
We can nitpick this or that system all we want, but the ultimate point is not whether they are simple or complex, deep or shallow, but rather what they add to the game as a whole. I never thought that espionage in Civ 2 was particularly deep or complex, but it added a layer of gameplay to the whole in a way that fit well with the rest of the game AND seemed to have been considered as part of the overall game.
With Civ 5, many of the decisions seem to me to have been more haphazard without regard for their impact on the game as a whole. The most obvious of these is the 1UPT decision, but take a look at the interaction between social policy and city improvements. You can adopt social policies that improve build times, or improve worker productivity, but to what end? What do the buildings actually provide for you and are they all that useful in the first place? You can adopt policies that make your units stronger when next to other units and which give them more XP, but to what end when your map is too small to field a big enough army to do anything worthwhile? You can engage in various diplomatic endeavors (research treaties, open borders, "declarations of friendship" and "denunciations", but to what end if you're essentially still dealing with AIs that have all become psychotic Monty/Toku/Napoleons who will turn on you in a heartbeat? What's the point of all those different options -- which are complex and could be fairly deep -- if the AI can casually disregard them (the same way a player would) and say "Ha ha! NOW YOU DIE, SUCKERS!!!"
As I've said elsewhere, so far the sense that I get is that certain design mandates were issued to the dev team, and they did them all (to greater or lesser degrees) so that they could check them off a list. Animated less-cartoony leaders? Check. Prettier graphics? Check. Got rid of religion and espionage? Check. 1UPT? Check. "Streamlining" to make the game less about min/maxing? Check. Road maintenance to prevent spaghetti networks everywhere? Check. These decisions, however, all seem to be DISCRETE decisions without regard to the impact on the game as a WHOLE.
But not so much time seems to have been spent on the overall impact and how these various discrete changes interact with the game as a whole. The thing that I see happening here with the Civ franchise is that decisions were made to make big and small "tweaks" without regard to WHY (at least beyond "because it's cool" or "because the focus group wants it"). There's less of a sense of direction with the game, less a sense of coherence. There seems to be less of a sense of what the purpose of this or that game mechanic is on the whole, and less of a sense of what these things are supposed to represent in terms of gameplay and what the GAME is supposed to be doing as a whole.
Take the thread on the tech tree and how you now need umpteen bajillion techs to get to railroad...like...acoustics. Huh? Acoustics? I need to know how to build an amphitheater or a guitar or violin in order to make a railroad? Why? What exactly does this tech tree represent anyway? And is THIS approach to it the BEST approach to implementing that? Is the argument that you NEEDED to develop Acoustics in order to develop the Railroad? Or is the argument that developing Acoustics led to other things which made it EASIER to develop the Railroad? In other words, is it an absolute prerequisite, or is it merely beneficial? I'd bet you dollars to donuts that the devs....don't know. Or their answer would be muddled and would evince a general lack of serious consideration. Or they were just tinkering with the tech tree and decided to make it take "more time" to get to certain very important milestones. I have no idea, really. I wonder if they did, though. I mean, why not have the tech system have absolute prerequisites, but also reduce the cost of final discovery because of other "contributory but non-essential" discoveries? Like, I wouldn't say Archery is an absolute prerequisite for Gunpowder, but I can see where what you'd learn FROM an understanding of Archery would come into play in developing firearms.
When you're looking at a particular system or element of the game, forget whether it's complex or simple, deep or shallow, and ask yourself "why is it here, and why is it being implemented THIS way?" I suspect that much of Civ 5 will leave you saying "Beats the hell out of me..." I'd also believe that the devs would give answers that were more focused on discrete outcomes than on holistic game design. IE: "We thought that gunpowder could be beelined too easily, so we made it take longer" or "We hated stacks o' doom and how they made conquest so easy." Those are answers, sure, but they don't suggest an overall concept for the game (at least not to me). They suggest tinkering with PARTS of a game like Microsoft might tinker with the tools provided in an Office release. But Civ is not Office. Office is a collection of tools designed to perform various functions. Civ is meant to be a complete game that works together. Ask yourself if Civ 5 does that, in your opinion.
You can have a game that is simple but elegant. You can have a game that is complex, but to no real purpose.
What I see as the problem with Civ 5 is that you have a game which is less COHERENT than previous entries.
Now, admittedly, I've not played all that much. Barely 4 hours. Maybe 5 at most. But I played plenty of Civs 1-4, and have seen the series evolve over time. While not every concept always worked in the past, to me, Civs 1-4 tended to hold together a bit better because there seemed to be an overall sense that what was being added/changed was being done with consideration to how it affected the game as a WHOLE rather than as a discrete system.
To me, based on what I've seen so far, Civ 5 seems to have made substantial changes to various elements of the game, without any real regard for how the pieces fit together as a whole. So we're talking about the depth or shallowness of this or that system, or the complexity or simplicity of such and such game element, when the real issue is how they all fit together as a whole game.
I think that there are very complex elements of Civ 5 that can add a lot of depth to the game...but not in a particularly effective way for the overall game. Case in point: 1UPT. We now have fundamentally tactical combat in a strategic game. Yet at the same time, the map still remains a fundamentally strategic map with VERY limited space. You also have long build times for these units (which would suggest a more strategic focus), but have to use them tactically. The tactical system is deep and complex, but I don't think it works with the rest of the game particularly well.
City-States are another element of gameplay. They are simple and shallow...even though they can (apparently) have a pretty serious effect on the later game. And I'm not sure that they work particularly well as implemented. Certainly in the early game, they are fickle money sinks that offer relatively little benefit for the cost. At least from what I can tell.
We can nitpick this or that system all we want, but the ultimate point is not whether they are simple or complex, deep or shallow, but rather what they add to the game as a whole. I never thought that espionage in Civ 2 was particularly deep or complex, but it added a layer of gameplay to the whole in a way that fit well with the rest of the game AND seemed to have been considered as part of the overall game.
With Civ 5, many of the decisions seem to me to have been more haphazard without regard for their impact on the game as a whole. The most obvious of these is the 1UPT decision, but take a look at the interaction between social policy and city improvements. You can adopt social policies that improve build times, or improve worker productivity, but to what end? What do the buildings actually provide for you and are they all that useful in the first place? You can adopt policies that make your units stronger when next to other units and which give them more XP, but to what end when your map is too small to field a big enough army to do anything worthwhile? You can engage in various diplomatic endeavors (research treaties, open borders, "declarations of friendship" and "denunciations", but to what end if you're essentially still dealing with AIs that have all become psychotic Monty/Toku/Napoleons who will turn on you in a heartbeat? What's the point of all those different options -- which are complex and could be fairly deep -- if the AI can casually disregard them (the same way a player would) and say "Ha ha! NOW YOU DIE, SUCKERS!!!"
As I've said elsewhere, so far the sense that I get is that certain design mandates were issued to the dev team, and they did them all (to greater or lesser degrees) so that they could check them off a list. Animated less-cartoony leaders? Check. Prettier graphics? Check. Got rid of religion and espionage? Check. 1UPT? Check. "Streamlining" to make the game less about min/maxing? Check. Road maintenance to prevent spaghetti networks everywhere? Check. These decisions, however, all seem to be DISCRETE decisions without regard to the impact on the game as a WHOLE.
But not so much time seems to have been spent on the overall impact and how these various discrete changes interact with the game as a whole. The thing that I see happening here with the Civ franchise is that decisions were made to make big and small "tweaks" without regard to WHY (at least beyond "because it's cool" or "because the focus group wants it"). There's less of a sense of direction with the game, less a sense of coherence. There seems to be less of a sense of what the purpose of this or that game mechanic is on the whole, and less of a sense of what these things are supposed to represent in terms of gameplay and what the GAME is supposed to be doing as a whole.
Take the thread on the tech tree and how you now need umpteen bajillion techs to get to railroad...like...acoustics. Huh? Acoustics? I need to know how to build an amphitheater or a guitar or violin in order to make a railroad? Why? What exactly does this tech tree represent anyway? And is THIS approach to it the BEST approach to implementing that? Is the argument that you NEEDED to develop Acoustics in order to develop the Railroad? Or is the argument that developing Acoustics led to other things which made it EASIER to develop the Railroad? In other words, is it an absolute prerequisite, or is it merely beneficial? I'd bet you dollars to donuts that the devs....don't know. Or their answer would be muddled and would evince a general lack of serious consideration. Or they were just tinkering with the tech tree and decided to make it take "more time" to get to certain very important milestones. I have no idea, really. I wonder if they did, though. I mean, why not have the tech system have absolute prerequisites, but also reduce the cost of final discovery because of other "contributory but non-essential" discoveries? Like, I wouldn't say Archery is an absolute prerequisite for Gunpowder, but I can see where what you'd learn FROM an understanding of Archery would come into play in developing firearms.
When you're looking at a particular system or element of the game, forget whether it's complex or simple, deep or shallow, and ask yourself "why is it here, and why is it being implemented THIS way?" I suspect that much of Civ 5 will leave you saying "Beats the hell out of me..." I'd also believe that the devs would give answers that were more focused on discrete outcomes than on holistic game design. IE: "We thought that gunpowder could be beelined too easily, so we made it take longer" or "We hated stacks o' doom and how they made conquest so easy." Those are answers, sure, but they don't suggest an overall concept for the game (at least not to me). They suggest tinkering with PARTS of a game like Microsoft might tinker with the tools provided in an Office release. But Civ is not Office. Office is a collection of tools designed to perform various functions. Civ is meant to be a complete game that works together. Ask yourself if Civ 5 does that, in your opinion.
CivFanaticMan
Warlord
It is... look at it. Civ games aren't that complex. The thing that made Civ4 seem deeper than Civ5 was because in 4 you had the illusion of role playing. Civ5 isn't so much about roleplaying a civilization from what I have seen. Roleplaying works our minds, and expands our imagination to give us the illusion of something being deeper than it is. Civ5 just doesn't seem to offer much roleplaying, since its more gamey.
Both games are terrible strategy games, therefor I don't play them as a strategy game, but more as a Civ sim. Civ5 doesn't offer that, therefore i don't play it.
Thats just my theory on the situation.
I have no desire to wade into another Civ 5 quagmire thread but this quote was pretty loleriffic. "Civ 5 has just as much depth as Civ 4... as long as you download these mods which make it way better!"
(No offense meant, Danny. I don't mean this as criticism, just inadvertently highlights the problem here. When you have to mod the game to give it "depth," you're basically admitting there's none there to begin with.)
Anyway, carry on and enjoy.
When you have to mod the game to give it "depth," you're basically admitting there's none there to begin with.)
Anyway, carry on and enjoy.
Rystic
Turtle Wizard
What about things like worker micro, city placement and teching for resources. I mean, on lower difficulties, yes, you can automate your workers and do fine. But higher up, if you want to pull ahead, you need to make intelligent decisions. Just because I'm curious, what do you consider a good strategy game? I want to know what you're comparing Civ against.
I feel that Civ 5 does not lack depth completely (otherwise we would get a blank screen on startup) but I feel a lot of the decision-making has been more "simplified." I do not feel this is a bad thing. Civ 4 takes a lot of knowledge and patience to fully unravel the impacts each of your decisions will have, both in the long run and short run. Civ 5 it is more easy to see and build your empire according to your vision. For instance, forges in Civ 4 would add +1 unhealthiness (if I remember right) and buildings such as this in Civ 5 that add to production are more income. Where in Civ 4 we had to ensure we had the ability to create the proper buildings, improve tiles with health bonuses, was it worth it over this building, can I also eventually have an airport, etc, in Civ 5 the major deciding factor is just "do I have enough gold to maintain this to my liking?"
Personally I usually enjoy playing Civ 5 over Civ 4 for this reason. Don't get me wrong, I do enjoy Civ 4 from time to time, and I do enjoy its complexities, especially BTS, but I have to be in the mood for it as opposed to Civ 5 which requires less focus and overall knowledge of the game, in my opinion. True, the game does require some focus and knowledge, as all games do, but I personally feel it is not as much as Civ 4 (fully up to date Civ 4 that is).
Personally I usually enjoy playing Civ 5 over Civ 4 for this reason. Don't get me wrong, I do enjoy Civ 4 from time to time, and I do enjoy its complexities, especially BTS, but I have to be in the mood for it as opposed to Civ 5 which requires less focus and overall knowledge of the game, in my opinion. True, the game does require some focus and knowledge, as all games do, but I personally feel it is not as much as Civ 4 (fully up to date Civ 4 that is).
bryanw1995
Emperor
you've got me, I've only got 35.9 hrs in the past 2 weeks, though I'm showing 645.8 total.
CivFanaticMan
Warlord
I don't consider Civ a strategy game so I would compair it to something like Sim City. If I were to compair it to a strategy game I would compair it to a paradox game. I think the problem with Civ as a strategy game, is that things are too transparent. Your given all the data you need before you in pretty colors. Most good strategy games are less transparent. Things are less obvious.
timtofly
One Day
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 9,445
That last patch really ruined it for you then.
CivFanaticMan
Warlord
I'm not talking about Civ5, I'm talking about the series as a whole. What I'm saying is, Civ is not meant to be a true strategy game. Its more of a Civ sim. Theres still strategy involved though, but the real fun in the game is about building a Civ, not perfectly executing some build order, or having an ingenious strategy that wins you the game. If your building a Civ, then its a good thing that information is transparent. As a strategy game it's not.
Civ5 is trying to be too much like a strategy game, and is straying away from being a true Civ builder, while still being transparent. It just doesn't work out.
Tbh there are a ton of poorly selected XML values that leave the AI looking dumber than it actually is. Also, players tend to overlook their own actions when considering the AIs.
You ever wonder what's the cause for an AI bringing overwhelming force to bear down on you, only to fall into the unit shuffle and slowly get picked off? The AI isn't a fan of sacrificing units (as defined in the XML), so when they run into that player who has Himeji, Oligarchy, a GG and more combat bonuses stacked, they don't have the slightest idea of how to begin picking apart your defenses. They move, they check combat probabilities, they understand the very very low odds you've arranged for them, and they reposition. With no memory of the previous turn, they discover the next turn that they're at war with you, and set paths to invade, only to repeat the cycle.
One way around this is to drastically decrease the AI's value of its own units, in a sense. Increasing the likelihood that the AI willingly throws good units into bad fights would help bring its production advantage to bear, while probably providing a great challenge for the human. For example, RB3 - Daring Deity with Ottomans may very well have been a loss if the AI didn't prize its units so highly, and wasn't so easily intimidated by a couple of stacked combat bonuses.
Basically, the AI could be directed to build only melee units which it sacrifices freely, and would provide a greater tactical challenge than it currently does.
As an added aside, consider the AI-AI wars. The AI can basically only capture a human player city in the modern era. However, we witness the AI capture AI cities throughout the game. We even used to witness succesful ancient and classical era AI-AI wars until the changes to horses, cities, city healing, etc. Why? Because the AI is terrible at using its combat bonuses. It actually engages in a proper war when facing another AI, because neither runs into the issues I described above, of the player stacking too many combat bonuses while the AI, with literally no memory at all, hits a cycle of push/retreat.
Similar threads
