Who else agrees that Civ 5 has been dumbed down?

[kuukkeli]

No it isn't! It's supposed to be a new game. Warlords was an upgrade from Civ4. Civ5 is a completely new game, built from stratch. Whether you like Civ5 or not, you should be able to recognise this.

Yes it is!

Seriously then, as there's small chance that I was using a wrong adverb (I don't think so but then again English isn't my first language) let me explain. We have this game called Civilization. This far there has been five iterations of the game. Each new iteration is, or at least it shoud be, an improvement (I was using the word upgrade but I admit it may be a bit confusing when talking about computer programs) from the previous iteration; if it isn't there's no gain for the customer because they could keep the previous better iteration for free.

Warlords and BTS were upgrades to (not from) Civ4 and as of now the fourth iteration of Civilization is Civ4 + patches + expansions. Fifth iteration is Civ5 and what little patches have come to this day. From the customer's point of view only the quality of iterations matter - the fact that Civ5 has no expansions yet doesn't make me enjoy it more, it's irrelevant to game's current quality.

And yes, Civ5 is probably a new game built from the scratch but more importantly it is a Civilization game. Again the specifics of the code are irrelevant when reviewing the game. Whether it's new code or 99% recycled from Civ4 has nothing to do with the matter.

Did I make myself clear this time?

 

[PieceOfMind]

Ok, so I found a couple more definitions of 'dumbed down'.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dumbed+down
dumb down: To rewrite for a less educated or less sophisticated audience.

http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/dumbed+down
dumbed down: Simplified, with a strong connotation of *over*simplified. Often, a marketroid will insist that the interfaces and documentation of software be dumbed down after the designer has burned untold gallons of midnight oil making it smart. This creates friction.

wikipedia...
dumbed down: Made condescendingly simple

All along I've been using the last of those 3 definitions. The other two seem to make a bit more sense with the complaints I've seen from most people.

In any case, consider this my departure from the argument (that is, of whether the game is dumbed down or not), with the following comments my final ones. I can certainly see now why people get annoyed about these complaints, because it suggests that if they are satisfied with the game they are at least one of 'less educated' or 'less sophisticated', and I can also see why people think the game has been simplified too far. However these arguments about whether it's dumbed down or not are monumentally pointless. To those who think the game is dumbed down, please focus on being constructive and making suggestions about how the game can be improved, and whenever possible avoid simply stating what things you liked about civ4 as being your only reasons. This game is not civ4. If you want to play civ4 or even civ4.5, then play civ4 or one of its high-quality mods. Heck I myself even provide to you a mod of civ4 bts that I believe improves on its (already high quality) gameplay.

 

[falconne]

To those who think the game is dumbed down, please focus on being constructive and making suggestions about how the game can be improved, and whenever possible avoid simply stating what things you liked about civ4 as being your only reasons. This game is not civ4. If you want to play civ4 or even civ4.5, then play civ4 or one of its high-quality mods. Heck I myself even provide to you a mod of civ4 bts that I believe improves on its (already high quality) gameplay.

Most who are disappointed write up walls of text about why and all that happens is they get told to "Go play Civ 4 instead", so what's the point? And suggesting we explain how Civ 5 can be improved without using anything from Civ 4 doesn't help.

 

[PieceOfMind]

No, I said things from civ4 being the "only reasons". But yes, I agree sometimes that's the easiest way to conduct the criticisms. Civ5 has problems and those need to be pointed out. But criticisms along the lines of "this was removed from civ4 for civ5 - that's all my complaint is" are not very productive. e.g. a few posts ago, complaining about no espionage, vassal states, tech trades. These things were purposefully removed for a reason. But I suppose it's possible for people to restrict their complaints about civ5 only to things that civ4 did better, and nothing from outside the square.

 

[eoran]

No, I said things from civ4 being the "only reasons". But yes, I agree sometimes that's the easiest way to conduct the criticisms. Civ5 has problems and those need to be pointed out. But criticisms along the lines of "this was removed from civ4 for civ5 - that's all my complaint is" are not very productive. e.g. a few posts ago, complaining about no espionage, vassal states, tech trades. These things were purposefully removed for a reason. But I suppose it's possible for people to restrict their complaints about civ5 only to things that civ4 did better, and nothing from outside the square.

Productive for what?

I was just giving my opinion about the game, and If someone had told me that this game would have no more corporations, religions, vassal states, goverment systems, taxes, culture influence, spionage, multiple trade routes, health, local hapiness... and Civ 5 is just a Civ2 with borders and hexagons I probably would not have bought the game and had continued playing civ 2 that also dont have stacks of doom and is more complex than civ 5.

That would have been a very constructive criticism for me.

 

[PieceOfMind]

Those are all fair criticisms, and I can understand the disappointment with all of them being removed. Not that I'm arguing it any more, but it's the whole reducing all of that into an argument about whether the game is dumbed down or not which I think is unproductive.

 

[katipunero]

How can anyone intelligently appraise a game without some point of reference or comparison? The title of the OP implies that Civ5 is being compared or at least set in parallel to its predecessors, specifically civ4, in terms of, among others, gameplay mechanics, user interface and focus. The argument that Civ5 took steps towards another direction by adopting new concepts and discarding old ones is an open admission of a conscious effort towards game design and mechanics by the developers. It so happens that these decisions do not sit well with some players here, most, in fact, opining that the level of complexity has been taken down a notch. These are people who have seen how great the civilization series has (or will ever) been. It pains them, at least in my opinion, that the rug, over which their hopes of a grander and more ambitious game in 5, has been pulled.

If i may quote: "When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward" --flight, in this case, was civ4 in the series.

 

[falconne]

No, I said things from civ4 being the "only reasons". But yes, I agree sometimes that's the easiest way to conduct the criticisms. Civ5 has problems and those need to be pointed out. But criticisms along the lines of "this was removed from civ4 for civ5 - that's all my complaint is" are not very productive. e.g. a few posts ago, complaining about no espionage, vassal states, tech trades. These things were purposefully removed for a reason. But I suppose it's possible for people to restrict their complaints about civ5 only to things that civ4 did better, and nothing from outside the square.

Well there was a general opinion that the vast majority didn't like those features in Civ 4 and it's important to show that this isn't true. You don't know if the developers are dead set against them being added back in or not, so if they are just testing the water, it's important that they see what the distribution of opinion is.

I personally can't see why any of it, aside from religion, was removed. And even religion should have been fixed and added properly... the game is called "Civilization"; religion is as relevant to it as the wheel.

 

[PieceOfMind]

Fair points. Practically speaking, I think for the moment it's good those things are not in the game considering how horrendously resource-hungry it is (and hence slow).

By the way, I hope you guys had a chance to read the thoughts I posted a few weeks ago, relating to how comparisons would be made to civ4:

Ricci, maybe some time after the release date, if I get the game, I'll get back here to answer the poll, if I can be bothered.

My advice to anyone who has greatly enjoyed the civ series so far is still to try and not create expectations for the new game of civ5. Treat it as a new and different game if you want to be less likely to be disappointed.

I argued why in a previous post in another thread, but I won't repeat it here as the concept I spoke of is usually poorly understood and then misused (like here). Read only if interested (this poster applied the concept in the intended way, and had a good explanation of it).

I suggest following the bolded links.

 

[Markstar]

It seems this thread fragmented into 2 discussions:

1. Is the CiV dumbed down?
   1. What does "dumbed down" actually mean?
   2. Was this the intention of the designers to make it this way and can we do anything about it?
2. Can you compare it to CIV?

I think both are valid topics, so while I think the second part belongs in a separate thread, I'll address them both:

1.: Yes, definitely. My And I also think that this was "by design". It is a proven business concept that you make much more money when you keep it simple while making them look nice (just take a look at movies, where PG films like Avatar (with an ending that is predictable after the first 2 minutes) and Transformers make billions and studios try to avoid R-ratings if possible, because the target audience it simply much, much smaller.

We *might* get patches to improve the AI and to fix some bugs, but the direction is obvious: Civilization was too complex to target enough people and civfanatics are not what Firaxis is gunning for.

2.: I do think you can compare CiV to previous versions and agree with others who have stated this and that a new revision of a game needs to be an improvement over the old one, otherwise there is no need for a new version. You take the old installment, look at what worked, look at what didn't, add something new (I remember someone high up on the Firaxian food chain giving a presentation about this very mechanism, but can't remember who atm).

Personally, I never liked CIV (because of many reasons) and stuck with Civ3 until I stopped playing altogether. But it is undeniable that every previous version made a lot of things right compared to the one before and most people seem to prefer CIV over the other installments of the series (yet I find it interesting how many people are still playing Civ2 or FreeCiv, but hey, Civ2 is my favorite as well).

What we have with CiV is some (not so great) eye-candy with limited depth, where you have not a whole lot of stuff to do and spend too much time in between turns or for some animation to load/finish.

 

[falconne]

I would have been quite happy, as those links imply, to enjoy Civ V on its own merits and play it as a different game. But as much as people insist it's a different game, I don't quite see it that way. If this was different in a way that some mechanics were removed but other mechanics were added, to give us a new and fresh experiece, that would have been great. But that's not what's happened.

The only "new" thing that's worth speaking of is combat. Social policies and city states are ok, but rather "meh". Meanwhile, the rest of the game is pretty much Civ 4 with many mechanics taken out, heavily simplified and abstracted. It doesn't give us a new gaming experience, it gives us a diluted version of what we used to get.

In fact, so much was removed that with Civ 5, we're essentially back to Civ 3 rules with a new combat engine. That would have been a worthy successor to Civ 3, but it's not good enough after Civ 4.

 

[PieceOfMind]

Keep in mind, my advice from back then to "try and think of it as a new and different game" was actually to try and help people avoid being disappointed. If you're already disappointed, it doesn't mean I should or I would want to try and convince you not to be. If anything, it was more a pessimistic prediction that it was inevitable that a large proportion of people who enjoyed playing civ4 were going to be disappointed with civ5, myself included, and that there was nothing that could be done about it. It was a statistical effect that was bound to be observed, like it is being done so now. I am a bit disappointed with civ5, but even in its unfinished state I can still see the game being enojayble. As a modder, I put great weight, for example, on how moddable it is and it appears Firaxis have made significant progress in that regard. I also put great weight on MP and sadly it looks like that is a disaster at the moment. I also put great weight on interface usability, and I think I have mixed views on that. Some things like Zoom-To-Cursor seem small to most but are big things in my book, but the lagfest that is scrolling around on large maps is annoying - this game being far too resource-hungry for my tastes. I still play pbem games in civ4 bts and when I go back to that game everything is extremely slick and smooth - no frame rate drops or interface hesitating to accept my mouse clicks.

 

[Senethro]

People are just disappointed to realise that Firaxis, in not expanding hugely, has gone from a typically sized developer to a small one thats still trying to deliver AAA products. Same happened with id software, there is some doubt as to whether the men who invented 3D gaming, with their next product can deliver something as good now as the memories were then.

They're no longer in the big leagues, or where the new lines have been drawn as expectations have changed, and you're all just going to have to deal with it.

The game is clearly a finished product, this ain't no Elemental. Many aspects show polish. If this was a new franchise from an untested developer of similar size it would be gathering much praise and patience would be given for that parts that need work.

 

[mike_cf]

If this was a new franchise from an untested developer of similar size it would be gathering much praise and patience would be given for that parts that need work.

This is important: If this was a new franchise then at most people will say it's poor Civ rip off and that would be the biggest critic. But is Civ 5, a sequel to a beloved deep strategy franchise. I find it very natural that most veteran players are pissed off, they want Civilization enhanced, not a new franchise which milks the Civ name.

 

[MarkC1]

Changing direction in a major series like this is never a good idea... look what happened to the HoMM series. If they wanted to go down a whole different path, they should have called it a different name, like Civilization Revolutions 2, which is what this is.

You don't see the irony here? Civ 4 was a complete 180 turn gameplay-wise from Civ 3. By your philosophy that games shouldn't go down a different path, Civ 4 should never have been made, since it's the odd man out.

I agree that Civ5 is dumbed down but I don't see it as too much of a problem. Civ 4 made me cringe late in game.. having to micromanage Espionage units, Religious units, overspecific combat promotions, the flood of WW, etc.

Civ5 still has room for addons so I dont see any problems with the current base as a starting point

 

[PieceOfMind]

People are just disappointed to realise that Firaxis, in not expanding hugely, has gone from a typically sized developer to a small one thats still trying to deliver AAA products. Same happened with id software, there is some doubt as to whether the men who invented 3D gaming, with their next product can deliver something as good now as the memories were then.

They're no longer in the big leagues, or where the new lines have been drawn as expectations have changed, and you're all just going to have to deal with it.

The game is clearly a finished product, this ain't no Elemental. Many aspects show polish. If this was a new franchise from an untested developer of similar size it would be gathering much praise and patience would be given for that parts that need work.

Thanks for the unique (and refreshing) perspective.

This is important: If this was a new franchise then at most people will say it's poor Civ rip off and that would be the biggest critic. But is Civ 5, a sequel to a beloved deep strategy franchise. I find it very natural that most veteran players are pissed off, they want Civilization enhanced, not a new franchise which milks the Civ name.

And this is exactly the problem that I argue. Civ5 is a sequal to a much-loved game, and by that very fact alone civ5 is doomed to be a disappointment to a lot of people. It doesn't matter what the developers changed; The people who loved civ4 the most are statistically speaking still the most likely group to be the most disappointed with civ5.

The very reason that sequels cause disappointment to die-hard fans is that they expect the sequel to outdo the prequel. On the other hand, the people who hated civ4 are almost certain to find civ5 more enjoyable than civ4.

 

[ohioastronomy]

Thanks for the unique (and refreshing) perspective.


And this is exactly the problem that I argue. Civ5 is a sequal to a much-loved game, and by that very fact alone civ5 is doomed to be a disappointment to a lot of people. It doesn't matter what the developers changed; The people who loved civ4 the most are statistically speaking still the most likely group to be the most disappointed with civ5.

The very reason that sequels cause disappointment to die-hard fans is that they expect the sequel to outdo the prequel. On the other hand, the people who hated civ4 are almost certain to find civ5 more enjoyable than civ4.

It's not just that the design is different: it's that a lot of aspects of it are simply careless. Here is an example: the new model for culture growth around a city. I like the underlying idea, but once you play for awhile you start to notice some very basic problems with the implementation. You can't direct the passive growth of the city, and it is very expensive to buy tiles that the AI doesn't like. It's OK to pay to speed things up, but paying through the nose to fight the AI feels rotten. The more limited real estate cripples strategies like harvesting forests to build cities. And we used to have the ability to grow cities through culture, pushing back our neighbors. We lost this ability, which loses us a clever option (and a tactic that clever AIs used to use against us.) It just feels as if the designer made some arbitrary decisions and didn't think through their consequences. It feels like an arrogant design - only people who play the game the way that the designer likes to play it count. If you like big empires, or diplomacy, or culture wins - you have to fight the game.

 

[Senethro]

It's not just that the design is different: it's that a lot of aspects of it are simply careless. Here is an example: the new model for culture growth around a city. I like the underlying idea, but once you play for awhile you start to notice some very basic problems with the implementation. You can't direct the passive growth of the city, and it is very expensive to buy tiles that the AI doesn't like. It's OK to pay to speed things up, but paying through the nose to fight the AI feels rotten. The more limited real estate cripples strategies like harvesting forests to build cities. And we used to have the ability to grow cities through culture, pushing back our neighbors. We lost this ability, which loses us a clever option (and a tactic that clever AIs used to use against us.) It just feels as if the designer made some arbitrary decisions and didn't think through their consequences. It feels like an arrogant design - only people who play the game the way that the designer likes to play it count. If you like big empires, or diplomacy, or culture wins - you have to fight the game.

So place your cities to cover the most important tiles instead of the "optimal" location and build Ankor Wat to speed cultural expansion?

 

[Me,myself,and,I]

UPDATE ON POLL (10/1): Yes, you guessed it! The numbers continue to even out for those who think the game has been dumb down, which now sits at 41.19 percent. The number of undecided is at 10.18%, while those who don't think it has been dumb down now drops below the 50 percent mark to 48.63%. At this rate the majority will think the game has been dumb down will even out with the opposite view in less than a week. Stay tuned...

Or, perhaps it's because the people who like the game have stopped voting on this thread?

 

[Jharii]

The only thing that has been dumbed down is this poll.

Some things have been improved upon while other things have been eliminated. This does not mean that it's "dumbed down." It just simply means that the game is advancing. The core of CivV is highly evolved from its predecessors. I also expact expansions so fill in any gaps.