Who else agrees that Civ 5 has been dumbed down?

[dirtforker]

I've quit playing it. It was fun for 1 week. Will probably play Civ4 now to get my Civ fix. I probably should try and just return it but I'm hoping they will patch it nice or someone will mod it... it's not as bad as Elemental War of Magic out of the box, it is at least playable, but it's not that far off...

What is with publishers releasing these unfinished games on the PC lately? Seriously, I am about to just stop buying these games and start BT'ing them to try them first.

 

[viberider]

The players' ability to interact with the landscape has been made less interesting.

The players' ability to interact with his cities has been reduced.

The players' ability to interact with foreign states has been ???? made less interesting. How can foreign trade routes not be a factor in a game like this. They are a primary impetus for exploration. They have a huge impact on the "if, who, when, and how long" of warring and diplomacy.

I don't know, with all the bugs and general apparent meaninglessness, it is difficult get the vision for this game. The lack of the ending replay, (is there a "top ten cities" list? I haven't found it. should i have to look hard?), the childlike dialog, the lack of player engagement in things traditionally civ-like is baffling.

I don't know if the developers intend try to make what i consider a good (or even great) game here. There is soooo much ground yet to cover.

As of now, this is like one of those $3.99 games i play (rarely) from my browser homepage.

I am very disappointed with the current game. I hope future patches will pull it together but there seems to be such a long way to go.....

Just let me feel like I am playing "Civilization"!

 

[Kissamies]

Yes, some of the new features I actually like as ideas at least, but they have been simplified and streamlined to death. Because they are ruined by simplification, they don't make up for all the removed features. Doesn't run very smoothly either.

 

[Adam7Eight]

I can't get over how much they ripped out. This is barebones Civ at it's finest. So much has been completely cut out, and for what purpose? Small examples - no end-game replays, no option in game setup for "always war" or "turn off friendly animations". Things like that. How does this affect streamlining? Why remove this stuff? What's the point? I am in total disagreement with less is more when it comes to options.

 

[Thormodr]

The players' ability to interact with the landscape has been made less interesting.

The players' ability to interact with his cities has been reduced.

The players' ability to interact with foreign states has been ???? made less interesting. How can foreign trade routes not be a factor in a game like this. They are a primary impetus for exploration. They have a huge impact on the "if, who, when, and how long" of warring and diplomacy.

I don't know, with all the bugs and general apparent meaninglessness, it is difficult get the vision for this game. The lack of the ending replay, (is there a "top ten cities" list? I haven't found it. should i have to look hard?), the childlike dialog, the lack of player engagement in things traditionally civ-like is baffling.

I don't know if the developers intend try to make what i consider a good (or even great) game here. There is soooo much ground yet to cover.

As of now, this is like one of those $3.99 games i play (rarely) from my browser homepage.

I am very disappointed with the current game. I hope future patches will pull it together but there seems to be such a long way to go.....

Just let me feel like I am playing "Civilization"!

Welcome to the forums. I agree with you. It doesn't feel like I'm playing Civilization either. The game designers took this iteration of Civ in a much different direction and frankly it doesn't appeal to me. I'll be going back to playing cIV for my Civ fix.

 

[Stefanskantine]

The players' ability to interact with foreign states has been ???? made less interesting. How can foreign trade routes not be a factor in a game like this. They are a primary impetus for exploration. They have a huge impact on the "if, who, when, and how long" of warring and diplomacy.

Meh. I can trade resources with foreign civs, just as I could in prior iterations. I have more options for trading lump sumps versus gold/commodities per turn than previous iterations. I can form research pacts which I could not do in previous iterations.

Foreign trade routes in Civ IV didn't really involve any interaction. A number of gold with a foreign city name attached to it popped up in my cities seemingly at random. Plus blockading anything was virtually impossible/nonexistent.

I'd rather focus on trading actual resources in a hands on manner. Not see some random bonus appear in my cities, dictating who I should be peaceful with. Now if you want to institute a system like CTP had, where you created an actual trade route that you could see which could be pirated anywhere along its length, then you have my attention. But I think Civ V handles foreign trade interaction as well or better than IV.

 

[KingYosef]

UPDATE ON POLL (10/7): Here is the most recent poll results; Yes - 47.19%, No - 43.35%, Undecided - 9.45%
That is less than 3% needed to take the majority, more than 50%, who agree that Civ 5 has been dumbed down.

 

[Thormodr]

Meh. I can trade resources with foreign civs, just as I could in prior iterations. I have more options for trading lump sumps versus gold/commodities per turn than previous iterations. I can form research pacts which I could not do in previous iterations.

Foreign trade routes in Civ IV didn't really involve any interaction. A number of gold with a foreign city name attached to it popped up in my cities seemingly at random. Plus blockading anything was virtually impossible/nonexistent.

I'd rather focus on trading actual resources in a hands on manner. Not see some random bonus appear in my cities, dictating who I should be peaceful with. Now if you want to institute a system like CTP had, where you created an actual trade route that you could see which could be pirated anywhere along its length, then you have my attention. But I think Civ V handles foreign trade interaction as well or better than IV.

Trading with foreign countries in ciV doesn't even require you to build a road or a harbour in order to trade with them. I think it would be great to be able to disrupt an AI Civ's ability to trade by severing these trade links. Likewise, it'd be great to see the AI do it to you. Can't say I'm a big fan of the new simplified trade system.

 

[charon2112]

UPDATE ON POLL (10/7): Here is the most recent poll results; Yes - 47.19%, No - 43.35%, Undecided - 9.45%
That is less than 3% needed to take the majority, more than 50%, who agree that Civ 5 has been dumbed down.

I would like to, respectfully, suggest changing the name of the poll, and maybe re-doing it. Something like, "Has Civ V been dumbed down?", is more un-biased. Calling it "Who else agrees that Civ 5 has been dumb down?", will attract people who already agree with the polls slanted title. It's similar to creating a poll called "Who else thinks asparagus tastes bad?". People who like asparagus are unlikely to even enter the thread, and people who agree that asparagus tastes bad will see the title and flock to the thread.

Just a suggestion. (or maybe I'm just hungry)

 

[charon2112]

Trading with foreign countries in ciV doesn't even require you to build a road or a harbour in order to trade with them. I think it would be great to be able to disrupt an AI Civ's ability to trade by severing these trade links. Likewise, it'd be great to see the AI do it to you. Can't say I'm a big fan of the new simplified trade system.

I actually agree with you here. I don't like the over-simplified trade system at all.

 

[viberider]

Meh. I can trade resources with foreign civs, just as I could in prior iterations. I have more options for trading lump sumps versus gold/commodities per turn than previous iterations. I can form research pacts which I could not do in previous iterations.

Foreign trade routes in Civ IV didn't really involve any interaction. A number of gold with a foreign city name attached to it popped up in my cities seemingly at random. Plus blockading anything was virtually impossible/nonexistent.

I'd rather focus on trading actual resources in a hands on manner. Not see some random bonus appear in my cities, dictating who I should be peaceful with. Now if you want to institute a system like CTP had, where you created an actual trade route that you could see which could be pirated anywhere along its length, then you have my attention. But I think Civ V handles foreign trade interaction as well or better than IV.

Hmmm...It was not (and should not be) a "random bonus". Blockading should be implemented.

IMHO to not recognize trading and economic influences as fully as possible in a game like this makes it incomplete as an empire building game. Of course, the game would have to contain a viable diplomatic model to go along with it.

 

[Fistalis]

IMHO to not recognize trading and economic influences as fully as possible in a game like this makes it incomplete as an empire building game.

Here's where your disconnect is.. Civ V isnt supposed to be an empire building game.. its a strategy war game. With alternate victories for flavor.

 

[charon2112]

Here's where your disconnect is.. Civ V isnt supposed to be an empire building game.. its a strategy war game. With alternate victories for flavor.

I don't think you're correct here. Where did Firaxis/2K state this?

 

[falconne]

Meh. I can trade resources with foreign civs, just as I could in prior iterations. I have more options for trading lump sumps versus gold/commodities per turn than previous iterations. I can form research pacts which I could not do in previous iterations.

Foreign trade routes in Civ IV didn't really involve any interaction. A number of gold with a foreign city name attached to it popped up in my cities seemingly at random. Plus blockading anything was virtually impossible/nonexistent.

I'd rather focus on trading actual resources in a hands on manner. Not see some random bonus appear in my cities, dictating who I should be peaceful with. Now if you want to institute a system like CTP had, where you created an actual trade route that you could see which could be pirated anywhere along its length, then you have my attention. But I think Civ V handles foreign trade interaction as well or better than IV.

That's not "foreign trade", that's bartering. The game may be called "Civilization" but you're stuck in a tribal society from 500BC. Foreign trade in Civ 4 was a significant income earner and the main reason to sign open borders pacts. It was also a detriment to going to war, because loss of open borders and blockades was a significant drain on your profits.

In Civ 5 there's no reason to sign OB pacts, since the AI is just random and there's no reason to stop a war once started, till you destroy the enemy.

 

[Doctor Phibes]

[...]

I'd rather focus on trading actual resources in a hands on manner. Not see some random bonus appear in my cities, dictating who I should be peaceful with. Now if you want to institute a system like CTP had, where you created an actual trade route that you could see which could be pirated anywhere along its length, then you have my attention. But I think Civ V handles foreign trade interaction as well or better than IV.

Unfortunately, though I am pro-CTP in many respects, all you could do was see the trade route - you had no control over the route and they often veered all over the map in an odd fashion. It would have been boring to have to manage them, but if the game had tweaked the routing every turn to account for who you were at war with and so on, could have been good.

I agree that concrete trade routes you could see was a good idea, though. It was also rather amusing that you could have little animated trade goods floating around all over the map - that map screen could get pretty busy.

Trading with foreign countries in ciV doesn't even require you to build a road or a harbour in order to trade with them. I think it would be great to be able to disrupt an AI Civ's ability to trade by severing these trade links. Likewise, it'd be great to see the AI do it to you. Can't say I'm a big fan of the new simplified trade system.

Yes, this has been irking me, yet another absurdity.

 

[Fistalis]

I don't think you're correct here. Where did Firaxis/2K state this?

There was an interview with one of the designers that stated they were trying to get away from the empire buliding and go back to the core of a strategy game.. IF i can find it ill post a link.. i haven't been able to find it at all after the first time i read it but ill continue to look in the name of objectivity.

Edit** Blah i still can't find it.. so for now well assume this is just my feeling about the game and not something anyone actually involved with CIV V said. If anyone comes across this interview plz post a linky somewhere for us.

 

[falconne]

I would like to, respectfully, suggest changing the name of the poll, and maybe re-doing it. Something like, "Has Civ V been dumbed down?", is more un-biased. Calling it "Who else agrees that Civ 5 has been dumb down?", will attract people who already agree with the polls slanted title. It's similar to creating a poll called "Who else thinks asparagus tastes bad?". People who like asparagus are unlikely to even enter the thread, and people who agree that asparagus tastes bad will see the title and flock to the thread.

Just a suggestion. (or maybe I'm just hungry)

I concur. It won't stop the counter arguments that "only the detractors are hanging around in the forums so the opinions are mis-represented", but there's no reason to have an inflammatory thread title.

 

[Doctor Phibes]

There was an interview with one of the designers that stated they were trying to get away from the empire buliding and go back to the core of a strategy game.. IF i can find it ill post a link.. i haven't been able to find it at all after the first time i read it but ill continue to look in the name of objectivity.

Huh? But it's *Civilization*, for heaven's sake. Empire building is one of the things at the core of it and has been since 1991. What is going on?

 

[charon2112]

There was an interview with one of the designers that stated they were trying to get away from the empire buliding and go back to the core of a strategy game.. IF i can find it ill post a link.. i haven't been able to find it at all after the first time i read it but ill continue to look in the name of objectivity.

well that would suck if they said that. I wonder if that was one of the employees that got fired?

 

[Thormodr]

Here's where your disconnect is.. Civ V isnt supposed to be an empire building game.. its a strategy war game. With alternate victories for flavor.

Correct. I posted a link a couple of pages back on a brilliant analysis by a person on the 2K Forums. He talked about two different design philosophies. Board game design and god game design. He explained how Civs I through IV had been designed with the god game design in mind but that ciV took a radical turn and used the board game design.
Very insightful I think and it explains why myself and many others don't particularly care for the game. Here it is again:

http://forums.2kgames.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1196145