Who else agrees that Civ 5 has been dumbed down?

[Thormodr]

I agree -

As I said in another thread, the 'swimlanes' have become much more rigid, too. I.e., if you're going spaceship/science -- there's very little point to building any other building types... maybe a few production buildings for the places you plan to build SS parts, but that's about it.

The counterpoint is that there is more "synergy" between aspects -- techs + Social Policies + Build Limitations, and I really tried to give that line of thought a chance... What I found is that yes - this is completely true. The problem, though -- and this why I completely agree with and share your puzzlement over the non-universal agreement over "less complex" -- is that once you do recognize that, it makes matters worse, not better. There's no bleed or crossover between victory paths or even the gold/economy vs. science vs. diplomacy vs. production swim lanes.

Buildings and Policies are simply multipliers and what's worse -- they're "simple" multipliers -- so it becomes really obvious really quickly that your path to victory is a matter of maxing out the multipliers. Don't waste your time on anything not in your lane.

There was more subtlety in IV -- this an area where religion being excised really hurts, for example.... Temples weren't just "happy" buildings... they were stepping stones to bigger religious buildings which had culture AND happiness implications. They had religious spread implications.... which in turn had diplomatic implications... and even a smattering of science and gold (when paired with civics and religious wonders) implications.

Add in health -- which meant a lot of buildings had multiple purposes... you had some food-only and health-only buildings, but you also had a fair number of "both" buildings. Most science buildings likewise had cultural aspects/bonus.

Once you discover the proper synergies -- which SPs make the most sense for which type of game -- everything becomes very push button.

I just don't find myself with a lot of "decisions" in any real sense -- once you start down a path, stay on that path, and don't wander off it.

Good points made here. It does seem like each victory condition has its own "swim lane." Just plow straight ahead until you reach your goal and then watch a crappy ending screen that seems reminiscent of a movie that ran out of budget near the end.

The buildings themselves seem pretty dull for the most part as well. Overly expensive and specialized for each "swim lane."

No great decisions to be made. Just cookie cutter molds to use. Easy for little Johnny FPS to figure out though. That probably was Firaxis and 2K Games' intention.

 

[mrt144]

Good points made here. It does seem like each victory condition has its own "swim lane." Just plow straight ahead until you reach your goal and then watch a crappy ending screen that seems reminiscent of a movie that ran out of budget near the end.

The buildings themselves seem pretty dull for the most part as well. Overly expensive and specialized for each "swim lane."

No great decisions to be made. Just cookie cutter molds to use. Easy for little Johnny FPS to figure out though. That probably was Firaxis and 2K Games' intention.

Whoa whoa whoa, are you saying there isn't complexity in FPS? TF2 would like to have a word with you.

 

[KingYosef]

I have always felt like I have been in control while playing the Civ game. Civ 5 has me feeling like someone is holding my hand throughout the whole game as I'm being fed a choose your own adventure bedtime story. I just found myself hitting the next turn button without much to focus on or manage. Very disappointing.

 

[D10_TheGreat]

I have this constant feeling while playing Civ V that im actually not doing anything.

 

[KingYosef]

I have this constant feeling while playing Civ V that im actually not doing anything.

Here is a great thread that basically explains why we get that feeling... http://forums.2kgames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=92858

 

[Monadenia]

As I said in another thread, the 'swimlanes' have become much more rigid, too. I.e., if you're going spaceship/science -- there's very little point to building any other building types... maybe a few production buildings for the places you plan to build SS parts, but that's about it.

The counterpoint is that there is more "synergy" between aspects -- techs + Social Policies + Build Limitations, and I really tried to give that line of thought a chance... What I found is that yes - this is completely true. The problem, though -- and this why I completely agree with and share your puzzlement over the non-universal agreement over "less complex" -- is that once you do recognize that, it makes matters worse, not better. There's no bleed or crossover between victory paths or even the gold/economy vs. science vs. diplomacy vs. production swim lanes.

I really don't see how this follows. Are you arguing in Civ V that you can ignore gold and culture (and for the most part, production) and just focus on Science, still expecting a victory? Without culture, you will not even unlock the "push-button" Rationalism, or any other policies for that matter. With only a "few" production buildings, how will you finish building the science buildings along your "swimlane", and still have enough for defence?

Choosing the right set of Civics in Civ IV, for a science victory, wasn't subtle either. The thing is that, in both games, you've got other things you need to worry about other than just a) discover all the requisite techs, and b) build the spaceship parts.

It's for this reason that I don't see a whole lot of difference between the "both" buildings of Civ IV, and the more focused buildings of Civ V. You'd figure our what your city needs, and build the optimal building(s) that satisfies those needs. I'm not convinced that giving buildings multiple effects makes the decision of what/when to build more interesting. Deciding what you need is the important part to me; if you decided you really needed a hamburger, getting a free side of fries is a nice bonus, but you're not going to order a salad if you don't get the fries. (On the flip side, if you decide you want both hamburger and fries, the combo deal becomes obvious).

In some sense, I see what is being said. Civ V makes it easier to see how to get more science, or more culture, or more gold. But the how wasn't fundamentally any more interesting in Civ IV. What neither game tells you is why you'd want any of these things.

 

[katipunero]

@kingyosef re: link, so civ 5 is not much of a sand-box game like the rest of the series?

 

[Minmaster]

i actually used civ5 for insomnia couple times. within 30 minutes of play, i was dozing off and ready for bed. the previous civs had the opposite affect, but i guess my $50 bought me some sleeping aid.

 

[Thormodr]

Here is a great thread that basically explains why we get that feeling... http://forums.2kgames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=92858

I must concur. The Op strikes the nail on the head.

Hopefully mods and FFH3 will save ciV.

In the future I hope that Civ VI can get back to a god game design instead of a board game design.

 

[insaneweasel]

Okay, subjectively speaking, the AI stinks at war. I think most of you will agree with me there. Thing is, I don't think that the AI is much worse than in civ 4.

Why? Look at the game mechanics.

-In 4, defense had a massive advantage over offense. You usually had to have a massive force or a significant tech advantage to win wars; longbows could hold their own in cities against muskets and knights, same with rifles vs. infantry, etc. You had to sacrifice units to do anything.

In 5, most units get defense penalties, and cities can be taken easily when undefended.

-In 4, you could only move one tile, slowly taking city after city. This could mean very long wars, which would cause your tech rate and happiness to plummet, which would hurt your civ in the long run. Turns would be spent healing, and enemy counter attacks hurt. You would often need to stop wars to keep from being eaten by costs.

In 5, you can war forever, and your fast-moving horsemen can take capitals across the map in no time at all.

So basically, the AI could just wait back in 4, while in 5, the attacker is rewarded.

Moderator Action: Merged your thread with the already long-running thread on the same subject.

 

[moscaverde]

Here is a great thread that basically explains why we get that feeling... http://forums.2kgames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=92858

I agree with you too.

Civ 5 is all about winning the game or competitive play. The buildings and systems are streamlined to be very gamey, the other civs (AIs) with theyr personalities overrided by winning mentality (with much less flavor) etc.

When the foreign advisor explained about City-states ("not trying to win the game") was frustrating. Previous civs I would've though -what game she is talking about?

 

[DripInc.]

This game has been SEVERELY dumbed down. Lack of sliders, not many milestone techs (none like Liberalism, or even Bronze Working) and global happiness make things just much too simple. The games only saving grace is the new complexity of the battle system. But even then, Horseman are very, very overpowered. It's not even a challenge to sweep an entire continent on Immortal with just four Horseman and a couple instaheal upgrades.

 

[DireAussie]

2. Don't like the city states, or atleast how they are implemented too much into the game. They are just annoying and uninteresting.

I like them, but the AI doesnt exploit them as well as a player can

Omitting religion from Civ is like omitting the egg in an omelet.

To jog your memory, civ 4 was the first civ with religion; 3,2 and 1 had no religion. However I think religion needs to be in the 1st expansion.

4. They took away almost all the great features. I'm talking about: vassal states, tech trading, map trading, diplomacy, espionage, religion, health/sickness, random events, scenarios, wonder animations, end-game cinematics, and culture, research, and commerce sliders. This is just the ones that I can recall off the top of my head.

- random events introduced in 2nd expansion - unfair comparison
- vassal states introduced in 1st expansion - unfair comparison
- espionage introduced in 2nd expansion iirc - unfair comprison
- tech trading replaced by better system of research agreement.
- map trading was always horrible and took away the need to explore/fun of exploration
- the sliders have been replaced by having to plan your empire more carefully from start to finish rather than just switching percentages around on a whim.
- wonder animations...well they have pictures now and to be honest I skipped the animations most of the time

Also, civics. Now civics has merely become a ladder of perks that you upgrade. Has absolutely no flexibility. These are features that kept your mind buzzing as your culture advances into each era.

Yeah, its different, more interesting because you need to choose whether to go for the early civics or wait out until the later ones. Also you need to PLAN better, not just be able to go "oh i'm at war now so i'm going to change my whole society democracy to communism". Yeah you dont have as much flexibility, civ 5 is more of a future planning game, shaping the way you want your empire to develop as a culture.

In conclusion, I'll be setting this game on the shelf and hoping for a big change.

Sounds like you just want another civ 4, its been out for years why not go and play it.........

 

[PieceOfMind]

I hate civ5! it crashes everytime I play , I got very high configuration and 1gb nvidia graphic card , I even tried on low setting but it still crashes no matter what I do. I never use to save game often, but their is not a single game in which it didn't crashed so I started saving after few turns but, even this didn't help, on turn its fix to crash no matter what change i make or load game in directx 9 or 11 or change building in production or diplomacy, I feel like they launched game without testing it.

Go to My Documents\My Games\Sid Meier's Civilization 5
and open the file UserSettings.ini with notepad.

Locate 'TurnsBetweenAutosave' and change it to 1, then save the file.

Note that there is a save-reload bug at the moment where if you reload a save from in-game (as opposed to form the main menu) your save file will start to grow in size and can become large enough to crash the computer (possibly).

 

[pennjersey83]

If you dislike Civ 5, please just go back to playing Civ 4. Civilization Revolution brought in many console gamers including myself. It is financially more practical in 2010 to make a game that appeals to a broader audience. This isnt like 2005 when they made Civ 4 a niche game. Just go back to playing Civ 4 if you are disappointed. Get a refund

Moderator Action: Infraction for spam. Please do not make the same reply to multiple threads. In particular, repeatedly telling people to play civ4 instead.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Thormodr]

If you dislike Civ 5, please just go back to playing Civ 4. Civilization Revolution brought in many console gamers including myself. It is financially more practical in 2010 to make a game that appeals to a broader audience. This isnt like 2005 when they made Civ 4 a niche game. Just go back to playing Civ 4 if you are disappointed. Get a refund

Please stop spamming the same response in every thread on these forums. I and many others are not interested in a watered down ciV that appeals to everyone. By trying to please everyone, you end up pleasing no one. This watered down approach has killed game franchises before.

 

[pennjersey83]

Please stop spamming the same response in every thread on these forums. I and many others are not interested in a watered down ciV that appeals to everyone. By trying to please everyone, you end up pleasing no one. This watered down approach has killed game franchises before.

Go play Civ 4 if you're not interested in playing watered down civ...I love civ 5

Moderator Action: Infraction for trolling. Please do not intentionally antagonise other posters.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Minmaster]

If you dislike Civ 5, please just go back to playing Civ 4. Civilization Revolution brought in many console gamers including myself. It is financially more practical in 2010 to make a game that appeals to a broader audience. This isnt like 2005 when they made Civ 4 a niche game. Just go back to playing Civ 4 if you are disappointed. Get a refund

Moderator Action: Infraction for spam. Please do not make the same reply to multiple threads.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

this right here says it all. the game ACTUALLY appealed to a civ rev fan.

the sad thing is, civ5 is more like civ rev than pc civ games of the past.

 

[pennjersey83]

this right here says it all. the game ACTUALLY appealed to a civ rev fan.

the sad thing is, civ5 is more like civ rev than pc civ games of the past.

and what is wrong with Civ rev? you sound extremely elitist in your attitude and it is unnecessary yet I am the one getting moderator infractions

 

[Generals3]

and what is wrong with Civ rev? you sound extremely elitist in your attitude and it is unnecessary yet I am the one getting moderator infractions

The problem is that Civ V is a sequel on Civ IV and not Civ Rev . I didn't buy Civ Rev II and i don't want to own Civ Rev II . Give me my real Civ V , like in the sequel of Civ IV and not Civ Rev.