joyous_gard
Prince
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2010
- Messages
- 476
I agree that V lacks depth.
I have to agree anytime I see civ 5 fanboys mindlessly saying things like the game has a huge amount of depth this is what I think.
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.
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.
Before this thread goes where I think it's going to go, can we please define depth and complexity? Every time there's a thread like this, the reason it doesn't progress is because everyone's using different definitions. We've seen it so many times before when arguing complexity. In fact I already see examples I wouldn't agree with:
You're directly comparing simplified to depth. Next thing you know, someone's going to being up complexity as being to the opposite of simplified, then we're into the same old mess.
For example, I would argue that virtually *every* mechanic will add depth. But the problem is when a mechanic doesn't add much depth, but makes the game a lot more complex. Espionage, for instance, definitely added a lot of complexity with its own currency, units, window with an adjustable slider per civ, etc. But did it add much depth given how complex it was?
Let's use the following definitions for the Civ context.
Complexity: The number of moving parts in a given mechanic. So, for example, global happiness isn't that complex. Opposite of "simple". For example: Espionage is complex. Global happiness is simple. 1upt is more complex than stacks of doom.
Depth: The amount of thought that produces a change in position in a given mechanic. For example: Building in Civ4 has a lot of depth, because the more thought I put into it the better my empire is. The tech trees in both Civs have a lot of depth.
It's obvious from these definitions that the goal of a game should be to be as deep as possible, and be as simple as possible.
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.
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.
ಠ_ಠ
How do you figure Civ4 is shallow?
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.
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.
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.
Not to insult you, but 44 hours is 6,2 hours per day. Depth comes from understanding the different approach to culture, science, diplomacy, expansion, build orders, tech paths etc. Vanilla CIV4 had similar "depth" to what CIV5 offers now. You seem to forget that Espionage, Corps etc. came at expansions. The only real "depth" CIV4 offered above CIV5 was religion, which was, by a common concensus, implemented poorly.
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 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.
That last patch really ruined it for you then.
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.and "The ai acts like a crazy person because its more realistic".