Not enough 'civilization' feeling

[Naokaukodem]

I feel that Civ5 has a weak theme : historical incentive and distinction between civilizations are not enough supported. It's like ruling and playing against tasteless factions rather than highly cultured civilizations.

However, each civilization have its different leader, unique unit, border colors, city buildings... but i don't have this feeling that in the other iterations of the game made me feel like rewriting History. First do you agree and why ?

Is this because civs don't touch themselves and are separated by no man's land ? It has less a taste of a craddle of civilizations like that.

Similarly, is this because of the poor trade system and the fact that we don't have the need to build any roads to any ally ?

Is this because the AIs play to win, denounce you, have a schyzophrenic behavior ?

Is this because the rough mechanics that take all the place in the player's mind ?

Is that because developpers concentrated too much on mechanics rather than on the theme of the game ?

Is this because Civ5 sucks ?

Is this because of all of the above ?

Please feel free to enlight me if you have any answer to that.

 

[janboruta]

historical incentive and distinction between civilizations are not enough supported.

Neither were in Civ IV. Leaders just had two traits drawn out from a limited pool. Heck, before the expansions they didn't even have a UB or ethnic diversity in unit graphics.

I have no problem with the whole "rewriting history" thing. First, I don't rewrite anything if I start on a randomly generated map. Second, I rather "reimagine" history, especially when, as Germany, I spawn in the Far East on Earth map.

The trade system could be better - building roads to your neighbouring civs and getting a gold boost would be great, although the AI already gets a large handicap.

The AIs FINALLY play to win, while retaining their coded-in personality. If this isn't an improvement, then what is? At last there is something to stop you from winning, apart from having a Cultured AI achieve three Legendary cities a turn before you capture the last city needed do Domination victory.

If you dislike the mechanics, then why not play something else? I still play Civ IV, but find Civ V to be a little refreshing.

 

[MkLh]

The AIs FINALLY play to win, while retaining their coded-in personality. If this isn't an improvement, then what is? At last there is something to stop you from winning, apart from having a Cultured AI achieve three Legendary cities a turn before you capture the last city needed do Domination victory.

If there weren't anything to stop you from winning in previous Civs, then anyone could beat Deity on regular settings any moment. This wasn't the case, so apparently there was something that stopped you from winning.

 

[Babri]

Neither were in Civ IV. Leaders just had two traits drawn out from a limited pool. Heck, before the expansions they didn't even have a UB or ethnic diversity in unit graphics.

Infact cIV was much worse in this aspect. UUs were bland & unfun. Here in ciV Unique units & buildings are actually 'unique'. And UAs are much superior to those copy paste traits in cIV.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

If there weren't anything to stop you from winning in previous Civs, then anyone could beat Deity on regular settings any moment. This wasn't the case, so apparently there was something that stopped you from winning.

Yes, increasingly brute force bonuses and the degree of sheer chance screwing you over. Bonuses to make the AI competitive in civ IV were so high (because it so often didn't try) that if the RNG decided to screw you on deity, you just lost. No exceptions, no excuses, no chance in hell. When Alex DoW's you in civ IV with 5 metal units at 2500 BC (it can happen on deity. It HAS happened on deity), you die. Nobody can come out of that alive without completely sacrificing any hope of winning as a matter of course on the off chance that it "might happen".

In pointing out civ V's flaws (and there are plenty), let's not paint too rosy a picture of IV's. Never in civ IV can you consistently see all participating AI civs attempt to win the game. Some make decisions that objectively eliminate any hope of them competing for a win.

 

[KillingMeSoftly]

It would be nice if we could build roads to other civilizations that have an effect on trade. So there's less of that "no man's land" feeling early in the game.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

Hmmm, personally, I agree with you, there is something missing, and I think that, since I only played 3 and 4.

In 3, while it was pretty much the same, the era-specific cities/leaders gave it a small flavour, but the diffrence between cities in 3 and 5, is the fact that in 5, it's barely noticable, so it looks like ntohing is really changing.

While in 4 you had Religion, Espionage, A.P and U.N, and you Diplomacy was way more expanded and affected. Which is what is missing in 5.

As well as that, I find the game boring after few games since I take on the same paths in technology, policies etc, usually just so I win.

 

[Ellye]

Civilization series never had a "rewriting history" feeling to me.
It doesn't even make sense, there's nothing historical (or geographical) at all in this series apart from names, at least not without mods designed for that, and even then it's just pretty bland.

Civilization has always been the arcade of the X4 market, it's just a shallow, quick and fun game (as shallow and quick as this genre can be).

For the "rewriting history" feeling, there's Europa Universalis and such.

 

[King Patrick]

As well as that, I find the game boring after few games since I take on the same paths in technology, policies etc, usually just so I win.

If you play any game exactly the same every time, then it will feel pretty much the same every time. I don't think that's really a failing of the game, though.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Civilization series never had a "rewriting history" feeling to me.

It happened that in Civ2 or Civ3, I was amused by the names of the different factions : seeing England on a continent, or near China, had something really noticeable.

The fact is, I noticed it, which isn't the case with 5 (nor 4 for that purpose...)

Was it because the rest of the game was more likely ? (civilizations roleplaying, more civs on the map, civs of the same region near each other, etc... see above)

Also, peace was encouraged, in the sense that war wasn't really. In that way, trade was encouraged, and the other civs seen as permanent honourable factions to consider, instead of cyclothymic silly dude that only deserved death.

Also, I remember that units were not generic, they nearly all had a bias that increased the feeling of History, be it totally messed. (Legions for all, Hoplites, Elephants, etc...) Maybe the game was taking itself less seriously, what was more in accordance with its nature, so we could see that the 'rewrite History' was on the same level than the others aspects of the game, not too serious, therefore adapted, and finally noticeable ?

Or a melting of several of the reasons above ?

It doesn't even make sense, there's nothing historical (or geographical) at all in this series apart from names, at least not without mods designed for that, and even then it's just pretty bland.

Civilization has always been the arcade of the X4 market, it's just a shallow, quick and fun game (as shallow and quick as this genre can be).

For the "rewriting history" feeling, there's Europa Universalis and such.

However it long has been the advertisement of firaxis for its franchise...

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Hmmm, personally, I agree with you, there is something missing, and I think that, since I only played 3 and 4.

In 3, while it was pretty much the same, the era-specific cities/leaders gave it a small flavour, but the diffrence between cities in 3 and 5, is the fact that in 5, it's barely noticable, so it looks like ntohing is really changing.

While in 4 you had Religion, Espionage, A.P and U.N, and you Diplomacy was way more expanded and affected. Which is what is missing in 5.

As well as that, I find the game boring after few games since I take on the same paths in technology, policies etc, usually just so I win.

Espionage was the one truly good and fairly well-balanced expansion mechanic in civ IV. It's also one of the few that could be ported into V without going crazy.

AP was a travesty, auto-win for building it and it shared the UN skeleton code for resolution choice (IE see a list of possible reso, pick 1 at random, regardless of interest).

Religion is interesting, but the problem is that civ IV actually overblew it. Civs certainly use religions as excuses for war in real life, but just as often you see nations align for other reasons entirely. With the realism check failed, the larger gameplay check came into play, and that's where religion largely had a too-rng-dependent feel.

Diplo in civ iv cheats (detecting things that can't possibly be detected), is irrational (travel across the world to DoW when worst enemy is next to you and hates you, can't prepare war for when peace treaties end, ignore "worst enemy" and hit a neutral civ), and can be gamed really badly...probably more so than V via vassal state abuse and the use of techs as a chip.

V's diplo isn't all that bad, but the AIs need to be more sensible. Maybe once they are we can get a better evaluation of its basic design, but V has other priorities now IMO.

 

[Gehennas]

Religion is interesting, but the problem is that civ IV actually overblew it. Civs certainly use religions as excuses for war in real life, but just as often you see nations align for other reasons entirely. With the realism check failed, the larger gameplay check came into play, and that's where religion largely had a too-rng-dependent feel.

Yes. Religion was great idea, but it failed. If Firaxis includes religion into game again, it shouldn't affect diplomacy.

...(travel across the world to DoW when worst enemy is next to you and hates you...

Actually there were such cases in real history.

For me the disadvantage of Civ5, is feeling that units become outdated in Civ5 too fast. Don't know why this happens.

 

[Ellye]

For me the disadvantage of Civ5, is feeling that units become outdated in Civ5 too fast. Don't know why this happens.

It's the same as before for me, and it's the reason I started playing on Epic Speed in Civ4 (and never even tried Standard or Quick speed on Civ5).
Though, personally, I really could do with much, much less "free techs" (for all Civ games, not just Civ5). Ideally, zero free techs would be good.