Was there anything GOOD about streamlining?

[Haig]

Before the release of Civ V, the designer and 2k people liked to throw around the word "streamlined" a lot.

If I understand it correctly, it should be about making things work in a more clever way and with a better interface, without losing any important detail and deepness of the game. Instead I think it's just been about oversimplifying the game in the way of CivRev..

For me, after the initial rush, Civ V has been a big disappointment. And besides the AI and diplomacy, it's actually all the streamlining/simplifying/cutting down choices and variations that ruins the Civ feeling for me.

Cutting down the amount of tile improvements, units etc.

Embarkation, while in the beginning seemed like an example of good streamlining, is something that takes away some of the strategy and epicness of building a vast invasion fleet.

Instead of keeping or improving religion and espionage, taking them off.

All this and more makes the game dull when there's not a war going on.
Maybe the lame end screens without replays and poor multiplayer is some sort of streamlining too?

I'm wondering do you have examples where the streamlining did good to the game, or is it just some sort of consult jargon that sounds good at meetings?

 

[GCavalry]

Streamlining is good to get less AI stupidity, bugs and the programmers to concentrate on the main factors. And it is open to more casual gamers. Some sophisticated gamers don't like it but they are not willing to pay 200usd a piece for someone to make their own game.

The problem with Civ 5 is that after the streamlining, player still find shocking bugs after just one hour of playing.

 

[Thormodr]

Streamlining is good to get less AI stupidity, bugs and the programmers to concentrate on the main factors. And it is open to more casual gamers. Some sophisticated gamers don't like it but they are not willing to pay 200usd a piece for someone to make their own game.

The problem with Civ 5 is that after the streamlining, player still find shocking bugs after just one hour of playing.

Good point. If a game is streamlined to a point where the AI can fully handle everything and is very challenging then I suppose that would be a good thing.

However in Civilization 5: Nothing but the Sword, even with streamlining, the AI is brutal. So, you've got a double whammy. A streamlined game that doesn't hold the interest of, as you said "sophisticated gamers" and an awful AI. They really should fire the people in charge of the AI.

 

[NoAnswer]

This is EXACTLY what I was just telling my friend about on the phone, after just a couple of hours playing Civ 5 for the first time. Everything is gone! It's like an iPhone game now.

I mean, seriously? The whole "you no longer have to worry about" mentality runs contrary to the nature of Civs, in that, the point of the game IS to worry about everything - like an actual leader does.

Do you think Obama only orders units around?


So now, they think it's more fun since you don't have to worry about:

science/tax/culture slider
actual border expansion
technology race/trading
defending cities against barbarians
money
transporting units over water
building cottages
building roads

I've only gotten to the classical era so that's all I've noticed so far.

It really breaks my heart.

 

[Bibor]

I'm wondering do you have examples where the streamlining did good to the game, or is it just some sort of consult jargon that sounds good at meetings?

The rush is gone because Civ5 plays differently. Yes, around 30% of options available in CIV4:BTS were cut out in CIV5. That doesn't mean they won't appear in an expansion. When compared to vanilla CIV5, I'd say around 20% of the game was cut out.

But that's not the reason why this game is boring for many. 20% of SMAC was cut out of CIV4 as well. Yet I didn't complain. Much.

The reason why you find it boring is because there's no (or little) "instant buttons of happiness" like whipping, switching civics, drafting, building units every turn etc. Whatever you do in CIV5 takes 5-15 turns to take effect.

That period of wait for an effect to take hold isn't popular by today's schizophrenic players who feel severe anxiety if their PC takes longer than 15 seconds to boot, or a webpage takes more than 2 seconds to display.

A perfect example would be massive moaning on how happiness in this game is a problem when having a large amount of cities (lets say 10). Building a colliseum in each would take, say 15 turns at an early age, but would provide 40 extra happiness (and unlocking the circus maximus for 5 more).

Nothing prevents anyone from investing into new happiness buildings 10 turns before an invasion (to prevent plummets into severe unhappy), but nobody is willing to delay their conquest by 10 turns -- that's preposterous!

This game suffers from many tiny bugs and a huge amount of tweaks is still neccessary, but it's not a simpleton's game.

If you look at players' complains about CIV4, I'm sure you'll find many reasons why CIV5 was built in the way it was.

 

[djtim_3000]

The rush is gone because Civ5 plays differently. Yes, around 30% of options available in CIV4:BTS were cut out in CIV5. That doesn't mean they won't appear in an expansion. When compared to vanilla CIV5, I'd say around 20% of the game was cut out.

But that's not the reason why this game is boring for many. 20% of SMAC was cut out of CIV4 as well. Yet I didn't complain. Much.

The reason why you find it boring is because there's no (or little) "instant buttons of happiness" like whipping, switching civics, drafting, building units every turn etc. Whatever you do in CIV5 takes 5-15 turns to take effect.

That period of wait for an effect to take hold isn't popular by today's schizophrenic players who feel severe anxiety if their PC takes longer than 15 seconds to boot, or a webpage takes more than 2 seconds to display.

A perfect example would be massive moaning on how happiness in this game is a problem when having a large amount of cities (lets say 10). Building a colliseum in each would take, say 15 turns at an early age, but would provide 40 extra happiness (and unlocking the circus maximus for 5 more).

Nothing prevents anyone from investing into new happiness buildings 10 turns before an invasion (to prevent plummets into severe unhappy), but nobody is willing to delay their conquest by 10 turns -- that's preposterous!

This game suffers from many tiny bugs and a huge amount of tweaks is still neccessary, but it's not a simpleton's game.

If you look at players' complains about CIV4, I'm sure you'll find many reasons why CIV5 was built in the way it was.

Your post is eloquent, and well thought out but it only serves to highlight a major issue with Civ5 - most of the time, nothing is happening. What else are you supposed to do while you wait those 10 turns to declare war?

I know... click end turn (while clearing a mind-numbing number of notifications and watching the same barbarian boat bombard the same healing land unit for the 100th time).

Because everything takes so long to build (including improvements) and the size of the game has been scaled down in general, if you are not at war moving units then there are basically no decisions to make apart from to continually click turn.

This is painfully obviously trying to get a culture victory - a massively painful exercise in end turn clicking tedium. Whats the point of an empire builder, if not to continually make grand decisions that affect the course of your empire. With only a few basic decisions to make in Civ5 and each one not taking affect for many turns, its not about not being a game for ADHD schizophrenic gamers, not even a game for most reasonable gamers - really only those whose patience borders on the end of extreme. To be honest, the game isn't bad but its not that great either - most normal gamers (those that are used to Empire, Civ4 or even any paradox interactive games) are probably just bored with it.

 

[Bibor]

I know... click end turn (while clearing a mind-numbing number of notifications and watching the same barbarian boat bombard the same healing land unit for the 100th time).

Because everything takes so long to build (including improvements) and the size of the game has been scaled down in general, if you are not at war moving units then there are basically no decisions to make apart from to continually click turn.

This is painfully obviously trying to get a culture victory - a massively painful exercise in end turn clicking tedium. Whats the point of an empire builder, if not to continually make grand decisions that affect the course of your empire. With only a few basic decisions to make in Civ5 and each one not taking affect for many turns, its not about not being a game for ADHD schizophrenic gamers, not even a game for most reasonable gamers - really only those whose patience borders on the end of extreme. To be honest, the game isn't bad but its not that great either - most normal gamers (those that are used to Empire, Civ4 or even any paradox interactive games) are probably just bored with it.

And this is why people become frustrated. CIV4 teaches us that we can just whip-in anything we want, instantly gaining whatever we want at expense of a few turns of city growth.

The basic and flawed premise of people moving from previous CIV games is that delaying investment doesn't affect the game much. With exception to, maybe, connecting luxury resources. They also fail to undestand the fundamental value of in CIV5.

Lets take your scenario: cultural game. Lets say you have 3 cities on a normal map and are going for a peaceful culture win. Rush-buying 3 temples costs 1300, rushbuying 3 opera houses costs 1800.

No CIV4 convert would even dream about rush-buying those buildings. Because, you know, money is better spent into buying out city-states. Yet you would gain 9 and 15 per turn, respectively, not counting any extra modifiers. Instantly. With these turns saved (and I'd say that's roughly 40-60 production turns saved), your cities could build a world wonder (or two) each, and gain the +100% culture boost from Freedom. Not to mention unlocking specialist slots. So, while the investment into cultural city-states with those 3100 looks appealing, you'll actually be getting more culture from rush-buying your own culture buildings (and free up your cities to do other stuff).

Before you say "but end turns!" let me remind you that getting 3100 is not easy. And neither is keeping the tech pace for unlocking these buildings.

And there are at least 3 different ways to handle culture gains! Unlike in CIV4 in which you had only one option: religion. Okay, maybe two: religion + science or religion + espionage.

Just because the mechanics are different, it doesn't mean the game itself is boring.

 

[Oerdin]

The whole point of "streamlining" (read: dumbing down) was to appeal to casual gamers. That is anything which requires more then 1 seconds of thought scares the casual people off so you want to dumb the game down as much as possible, even if this makes the game a much worse game, just so you don't scare off those skittish casual folks. From a market stand point it is much better for the company to sell twice as many games even though 90% of the casual folks will play a few times and then forget about the game then to have a loyal hard core (and oh so demanding) audience so I can understand why gaming companies do it but the result is games continually get worse and more superficial.

 

[swordspider]

The whole point of "streamlining" (read: dumbing down) was to appeal to casual gamers. That is anything which requires more then 1 seconds of thought scares the casual people off so you want to dumb the game down as much as possible, even if this makes the game a much worse game, just so you don't scare off those skittish casual folks. From a market stand point it is much better for the company to sell twice as many games even though 90% of the casual folks will play a few times and then forget about the game then to have a loyal hard core (and oh so demanding) audience so I can understand why gaming companies do it but the result is games continually get worse and more superficial.

Here you have it in a nutshell. 'Gamers' today are not like those of us who played Civilization (of any kind) in the past. 'Gamers' of today need constant, stimulating, and instant gratification to keep their attention- thus why games like Call of Duty are so popular: you get to kill someone every 2 seconds and with 100 different options of weapons. The concept of actually building an empire to stand the test of time... I mean come on people, look at the current generation and ask yourself if they are capable of building anything, let alone something to stand the test of time. The answer is a resounding 'No'. So since Firaxis is out to make $$$, they have to try and get the best market share possible and not care about how they do that- and thus you have Civilization V, the most un-civilization game ever made.

OH, and point in case: This thread titled "Why is it so Boring? Too long between Rewards". To a tee, this 'poor teenager' simply can't understand why they don't get more instant gratification... http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=411228. Face it, Civilization as you know it is toast. Get ready for "Call of Civilization" a massive-online multiplayer FPS.

On a side-political note, we're all doomed.

 

[jacyp]

Whatever you do in CIV5 takes 5-15 turns to take effect.

Great, so what's the point in waiting for 5-15 turn to something to take effect if you will just smash the "end turn" button during this 5-15 turns?

It's good that things take longer to build, it isn't good that you have absolutely NOTHING to do while you wait them to be built.

You may, as well, tune things to take 1-3 turns to take effect, the result will be the same, only with less mindless "end turn" hits.

And most of the time, the "instant gratifications" that you talk about in Civ 4 were accompanied by instant drawbacks to solve.

Your post is eloquent, like someone said, but it really makes no sense.

The whole point of "streamlining" (read: dumbing down) was to appeal to casual gamers. That is anything which requires more then 1 seconds of thought scares the casual people off so you want to dumb the game down as much as possible, even if this makes the game a much worse game, just so you don't scare off those skittish casual folks. From a market stand point it is much better for the company to sell twice as many games even though 90% of the casual folks will play a few times and then forget about the game then to have a loyal hard core (and oh so demanding) audience so I can understand why gaming companies do it but the result is games continually get worse and more superficial.

And that's exactly why many people, me included, think that Sid Meier's Civilization 5 is actually Civilization Revolutions 2.

The question is: why they didn't give the game the correct name while we could be here waiting for a real Sid Meier's Civilization 5 with no problem.

 

[Venereus]

The question is: why they didn't give the game the correct name while we could be here waiting for a real Sid Meier's Civilization 5 with no problem.

That's not really a question, we know why, to milk us long-time cows.

 

[lschnarch]

The reason why you find it boring is because there's no (or little) "instant buttons of happiness" like whipping (1), switching civics (2), drafting (3), building units (4) every turn etc. Whatever you do in CIV5 takes 5-15 turns to take effect.

(Numbers inserted by me)

And this is why people become frustrated. CIV4 teaches us that we can just whip-in anything we want, instantly gaining whatever we want at expense of a few turns of city growth.
<snip>
Lets take your scenario: cultural game. Lets say you have 3 cities on a normal map and are going for a peaceful culture win. Rush-buying 3 temples costs 1300, rushbuying 3 opera houses costs 1800.

As Bibor correctly points out, there were much more options in Civ4 than there are in Civ5(see first quote).
Regarding the acceleration of building items or units, he is right as well: in both games you have the means to accelerate buildings (as an example). Yet, in Civ5 you only have one option to do so: spending gold.
This is not bad per se, but it means to have less options than in the previous game.

Because Civ5 was specially designed for a certain audience, you only have gold to speed up things.
Even better, with gold you can substitute anything: you buy food, culture, science and military.
So, gold is the one item you have to get in Civ5. It is a game based on binary decisions: have gold or don't. Doing so, it successfully targets its audience. Don't look left or right, buy what you need. To make it easier, you even don't have to balance the current process against the costs, as you will always pay the full amount. Easy, isn't it?

And once again Bibor is correct: there are people who are happy about being confronted with such overwhelming amounts of decisions. Civ5 is the right game for people who think that leaning back until enough money has been accumulated means to have made a BIG strategic decision.

 

[Bibor]

Your post is eloquent, like someone said, but it really makes no sense.

I'm sorry but it's your post that makes no sense. You can play on quick or advanced start. I played mostly Epic games in CIV4, sometimes marathon, sometimes normal. I'm used to marketplaces taking 25 turns to complete. If you can't stand it, go with a faster game speed.

 

[Smote]

Streamlining is adding a nice cover picture with a glossy surface, and a stylish table of contents to a book. It really makes a huge difference to a passing reviewer and will make it stand out among all other books.

 

[need my speed]

Streamlining is good, but to me, streamlining is having the same amount of information, details, etc, but more easily accessable. I probably understand it wrongly though.

 

[Venereus]

Streamlining is good, but to me, streamlining is having the same amount of information, details, etc, but more easily accessable. I probably understand it wrongly though.

No, you got it right. One might think Firaxis got it wrong, but that's not the case. It was just another lie thrown out as a selling point during their marketing campaign.

 

[SuperJay]

Real streamlining is definitely useful.

Civ 5 just uses the word to mean "removed" not "redesigned."

 

[Ivan Groznyi]

Nothing is wrong with streamlining, a game shouldn't be needlessly complicated. It's a matter of striking a balance; maybe they haven't found it with Civilization V, I don't know, but I'm not willing to give up on it until I've seen the first expansion.

 

[Calouste]

This is EXACTLY what I was just telling my friend about on the phone, after just a couple of hours playing Civ 5 for the first time. Everything is gone! It's like an iPhone game now.

I mean, seriously? The whole "you no longer have to worry about" mentality runs contrary to the nature of Civs, in that, the point of the game IS to worry about everything - like an actual leader does.

Do you think Obama only orders units around?


So now, they think it's more fun since you don't have to worry about:

science/tax/culture slider
actual border expansion
technology race/trading
defending cities against barbarians
money
transporting units over water
building cottages
building roads

I've only gotten to the classical era so that's all I've noticed so far.

It really breaks my heart.

That a rather laughable comment. If there was one thing you didn't need to worry about in Civ4 but do have to in Civ5, it's border expansion. In Civ4 it was build a monument (or let religion spread/play a Creative leaser, even easier), wait 10 turns for the border pop and that was it for the rest of the game. In Civ5 the ability to buy hexes makes for some interesting decisions what to do with your cash in the early game.

Defending cities against barbarians wasn't also that hard in Civ4, you'd just post a couple of fogbusters and they would never show up in the first place.

 

[need my speed]

There is nothing like taking cities over with culture or things like that, which I guess NoAnswer meant.