1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Who else agrees that Civ 5 has been dumbed down?

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by KingYosef, Sep 23, 2010.

?

Who else agrees that Civ 5 has been dumbed down?

  1. Yes

    853 vote(s)
    50.7%
  2. No

    677 vote(s)
    40.2%
  3. Undecided

    152 vote(s)
    9.0%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. PieceOfMind

    PieceOfMind Drill IV Defender Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2006
    Messages:
    9,312
    Location:
    Australia
    According to wikipedia:

    dumbed down: Made condescendingly simple

    Civ5 may have its issues (e.g. its tactical AI) but it's too much of a stretch to try and call it condescendingly simple. Then again, the advisors have a pretty condescending tone, but I'd be turning them off before long anyway.

    I seem to be having practically no trouble at Immortal in the demo, but again that can just be due to fairly poor AI rather than an intentional condescending design decision made by the devs.
     
  2. makrisgialos

    makrisgialos GREEK REBEL

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2007
    Messages:
    256
    Location:
    GREECE
    i was only 19 when i played civ 1 in 1992.
    also,many years passed monitoring its progress.
    So far civ II, AND iv were simply the BEST.
    As for civ 5...

    -a HUGE minus for not puting units to same tile.Its both breaking my nerves and my mouse.they could at least set a limitation for this!
    -no random events...
    -no religion
    -no great specialist add in the city(from great people)
    -no health...
    -no bonus production (double spead with marble) etc
    -no copper resource (the most important in ancient world)
    -no way to adjust tech/money/culture
    -no tech trading (perhaps the worst)
    -no villages
    -no workshops
    -no tech boost when conquering an enemy city(via some mods of course)
    -no idea about your enemies tech progress
    with a few words?
    MANY,MANY ,many fewer things to do(i had also a lot of things in mind,couldn remember post them)!

    about the positives...
    +stunning graphics
    +improved interface
    +bying tiles
    +bombardment ability
    +city states(lets consider them minor civilizations)
    +natural monuments(very clever idea)
    +improved diplomacy


    Game seems more simple but i dont have problem with that.Problem i have with many of its features removed.
    ending i would like to say that civ v supposed to add some features that civ iv didnt have.it somehow did that,but tons of things you could intervene were removed.
    Its like owing an car with abs,airbags,cd system and the next version has a gps mounted already but without abs,airbags,cd.Its exact the same thing.
    5 fingers spreaded (in my country called"Μούτζα")to Sid letting us down so hard.
    People here expect so much from civ v.I m playing it though only cause i needed something fresh,but fresh doesnt mean its better.I m pretty sure i will bored with it soon enough.
    Also something else is through CFC or some other site producers could at least ASK the community with an internet vote about certain features to be removed or not.They know the existenece of this communtity;some ideas i m certain that they get from players or modders;and i m sure they read a lot of reccomendations from here.Sad to say,selfish attitude they have.
    Thts my opinion,hard to hear but thats what i believe,free speech we have here,and proud to support it.
    Modders (and perhaps ...a new expansion)are our only hope now.They have proved if not better,at least equal to 2k personnel.
    Civ v is not a bad game to these who first "see"civilization series first time.But for the most players,its long heritage and its name its something civ v cant stand.
    Good to see a man starting a thread with this subjest( critics fro civ v ).Sid and his team should hear and the bad reviews as well,cause players have the last word.
     
  3. jagdtigerciv

    jagdtigerciv Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2007
    Messages:
    468
    I lol'd. Dumbed down? Give me a break. I can't believe some people are upset over the removal of sliders? You kept it at 100% all game (if possible) and dropped it to upgrade units when you needed money. Was it that necessary? Is actually creating a stable commerce economy (among others) in Civ5 'dumbed down' when compared to out-dated sliders?

    Get over it. Enough with the QQ.
     
  4. Generals3

    Generals3 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    156
    I voted "yes" simply because a lot has been lost.

    Sure the City states are a nice addition but they're way too shallow . I feel like city states could have been implemented in a a lot more interesting way than this . Now its basically either conquer, ignore or become little buddies for a small bonus which in many cases isn't worth the investment . (i feel like the only city states worth the money are the maritime city states if you have a big empire , otherwise you can just use the money to purchase units/culture buildings to replicate the so called "bonus" )

    Sure the combat is more complex and more strategic , but unless you play against other players it doesn't matter because the CPU is braindead military wise. It actually simply makes it a lot easier for players with a minimal IQ to steamroll the CPU's . (i used to have a lot of problems early in game in Civ IV because i usually focused on science/expansion and the CPU's would steamroll me , now they declare war to me and i end up obliterating them with 3 units >>)

    Sure hexes are nice , but to be honest i've never felt in my entire civ career that the squares were outdated and needed to be change . Its a change i gladly welcome but not really game-breaking to my opinion.

    And than we have happiness which has been dumped down from a micro concept to macro concept which is boring to manage .

    No more diseases

    No more war weariness (unless you consider the annex unhappiness until you build a courthouse war weariness . Lamest system ever made if you ask me )

    Lots of bugs / incomplete features

    No more corporations (i understand this was a BTS feature , but i do feel like a new volume should be compared to the last version of the previous volume , which in this case is BTS)

    No more religions , while i disliked the way it was implemented in Civ IV i have always felt some tweaking could have made it awesome. But firaxis chose the easy way out.

    Everything is too slow, making peace-time gaming extremely boring .

    Resources are pathetic in the sense that they provide minimal tile bonuses .

    The new luxury resources system is lame. I would like improvements to buff certain luxury resources' effects.

    Wonders are often underwhelming and not worth it unless you're egyptian/invested in specific social policies. National wonders are ********, plain and simple.

    What happened to espionage?

    I feel social policies are way too static . You never know how the game will end up being and it might be possible the choices you made early game end up being crippling because of A or B . While the civic system was too dynamic due to a lack of punishment for switching civic system i believe the social system requires a bit of dynamism.

    What happened to international trade routes? Not only did that sometimes have effects on your economy if at war but it could also open some doors for interesting social policies.


    I think that is all but maybe i forgot something
     
  5. James009

    James009 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2002
    Messages:
    276
    Its been dumbed down a bit BUT not all for the worse. For example, I'm liking the happiness, culture, and lack of religion. However, I dislike the lack of espionage, building simplification, unit simplification, and diplomacy simplification. They could improve the game greatly by expanding those things.

    They've also made too many things more complex. This is regarding the way they do expansion (# of cities) and maintenance. I don't quite understand it yet...
     
  6. dannythefool

    dannythefool Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    657
    That's why Russia immediately went from communism to major economy. They just adjusted a slider and changed a few civics! Explains it all really.
     
  7. wizeguy525

    wizeguy525 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2001
    Messages:
    7
    Sadly Civ5 is a HUGE let down compared to Civ4, and being compared to Civ4 directly, I feel it's definitely dumbed down.
     
  8. Thoras

    Thoras Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    45
    I Lol'd really hard at you interpretation of numbers :goodjob:
     
  9. Crezth

    Crezth 話說天下大勢分久必合合久必分

    Joined:
    May 26, 2006
    Messages:
    10,388
    Location:
    北京皇城
    Exhibit 1: Application of scientific method in a way that stabs Isaac Newton in the eye.

    Consider: Numbers don't lie but people can certainly be or act stupid. If a majority (or in your case, a clear minority) thinks something is true, it is no more likely to be accurate than if they were a majority, or if they consulted some magical sky beast before making the decision.

    I propose that a majority is not always correct (ex: electing George W. Bush for a second term), and that if this is true, then neither is the minority always correct (ex: flat-earthers).

    Therefore, your proposal is laughable at worst and insulting at best.
     
  10. craig123

    craig123 Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 13, 2010
    Messages:
    314
    Location:
    UK
    Q: "Who else agrees that Civ 5 has been dumb down?"
    A: Less than one in three voters. (Numbers don't lie, don't you know!)

    To answer a few specific points:
    Requires more planning - more complex than "I'll keep the science slider as high as I can afford."

    Rather than 20 civics (of which half were hardly ever used) we have 60 social policies to choose from. Leads to more interesting decisions.

    Weren't in vanilla civ4. (Although not a replacement, we now have puppet cities.)

    Had too strong an effect on diplomacy. Will probably return in an expansion (hopefully in the form of Holy City States).

    Perhaps a fair point, although with science and gold now independent (i.e. no commerce slider), a town producing 5 gold would probably be overpowered.

    In civ4, health and happiness were too similar and to an extent health was redundant.

    Boring - rarely used (IMO).

    More complex.

    Not in vanilla civ4. Often turned off. Partially replaced by city-state quests.

    Each civ has a unique trait, which is far more interesting than generic traits like financial, organised, etc. Leaders now also have 'flavors'. Regarding one leader per civ, I would argue that with fully animated leaders it is much harder to add another leader to a civ than it was previously. I would rather they spend the effort producing new civs than new leaders for existing ones.

    How is that relevant to being dummed down? Will probably be added later anyway.

    Not relevant to being dummed down.

    I think it is also worth mentioning that combat is now much more tactical than "who can build the biggest stack" and city-states add a new layer to the game.

    I would recommend giving this post a read.
     
  11. Thoras

    Thoras Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    45
    Did the majority of americans vote for him, or was it still some obscure voting rules?
    Was it the first time only that he was elected without the majority of voters?
     
  12. CrimsonEdge

    CrimsonEdge Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2006
    Messages:
    256
    If I remember correctly, he didn't get the popular vote, but the popular vote is redundant.
     
  13. dannythefool

    dannythefool Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    657
    According to http://steamcommunity.com/stats/CivV/achievements/:

    11.3% have beaten the game on chieftain, 8.3% on settler, 4.1% on warlord, and 2.6% on prince. Only 0.4% have beaten it on king, and 0.1% on emperor or deity.

    As you can see, most players haven't beaten the game yet. Only a tiny minority has beaten it on equal terms (prince) or above.

    Until that changes, complaints about the game being dumbed down too much make you sound like an elitist prick.
     
  14. draxil

    draxil Chieftain

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2010
    Messages:
    24
    Location:
    manchester, gb

    Still think that now that some more people have voted?

    Different doesn't mean dumbed down.

    Is the combat system dumbed down? I think not!

    Are social policies simpler than Civics? Nope.

    Etc..
     
  15. jjkrause84

    jjkrause84 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2010
    Messages:
    959
    Location:
    UK
    Correct. Americans don't really vote for the President (even though they think they do and are told they do). The Electoral College votes for the president.


    ANyways....health and happiness were in NO way redundant. You couldnt't spam happy-buildings like Civ5 and expect an over-industrialized hell-hole to continue to grow and be productive. It was one more thing to balance and, I think, quite fun and interesting.


    The lack of war-weariness I only recently picked up on in my last game.

    WOW!!!

    How on earth can you get rid of that!? Think about it...you NEVER have to worry about your people getting upset when you're at war (as long as you don't take enemy cities....raze them?).

    This was designed as a war game? Nah! You're crazy! What would make you think that!? :(
     
  16. PieceOfMind

    PieceOfMind Drill IV Defender Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2006
    Messages:
    9,312
    Location:
    Australia
    Irrespective of the point you're trying to make, the conclusion you're drawing here is not likely to be accurate.

    For example, it doesn't take into account:
    -People who quit a game that is clearly already won but too tedious to finish (I'd count those as wins).
    -People playing in offline mode.
    -People playing an unaltered-gameplay mod. e.g. one that adds the clock to the interface.
    -Possibly others... but as a quick example, I've only been able to play the demo so far (so no achievements) and have already found myself in a dominant position before turn 100 on Immortal. According to solver the AI gets stronger in later eras so it's still possible that Immortal will provide more than a significant challenge as the game goes on.

    For the record, I haven't voted - I usually don't vote in polls like this.
     
  17. jinxdone

    jinxdone Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2007
    Messages:
    7
    I just finished my first game on the weekend, heres the initial thoughts.

    + The new combat system and hex grid is much better.
    + I like how cities expand! No more "optimizing" city placing by leaving a cross pattern of squares for each city (that was just a pain in the ass)
    + I'd consider missing religions or corporations as extra features, so it's OK in my book those are missing from the vanilla Civ5 (if something HAD to be left out).
    + City-states are a good idea, but..
    - ..more depth to the City-states please.. especially diplomacy with them.
    - User interface could use some improvement. (for example; why is there no button for "show enemy moves"?, why don't you see where your units are going to when you click on them if you have set them a multi-turn-move earlier?)
    - Needs more options for diplomacy
    - No spies? BRING THEM BACK!
    - Needs better AI, playing on prince was easy, even for a first game.
    - Gut feeling is that the game has some balancing issue(s) that made my first completed game too easy (domination victory).. going to try different play styles next.
    - No timeline playback at the end of the game! I really liked that feature.


    I'm assuming they will release addons that bring back some of the missing features, so i'm feeling hopeful this will be the best part of the series so far. If it would stay like this then yes this is a case of one step forwards and two steps back..

    btw, I voted for 'no'.
     
  18. Smuggo

    Smuggo Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2009
    Messages:
    35
    Hmmm... this is the kind of stat manipulation you see from politicians etc... :)

    Fact is, most people who took the poll do not think the game is dumbed down, but hey if you're not really interested in an objective viewpoint then carry on.
     
  19. dannythefool

    dannythefool Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    657
    Yeah that's going to be it. Everybody is quitting their worthless deity games :)

    The first doesn't matter, there are 25.000 people playing it *right now* and >70k peak *at the same time*, so these figures are statistically representative. There are enough players who play online.

    From the "play with a mod" achievement we know that only 16.3% have played the game with a mod installed, so this doesn't change anything either. (Side note: If you want a clock but keep earning achievements, use the steam overlay, it has a clock and an in-game browser.)

    The AI bonuses working as they are, it's reasonable to expect them to become stronger as they gradually build their lead.
     
  20. PieceOfMind

    PieceOfMind Drill IV Defender Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2006
    Messages:
    9,312
    Location:
    Australia
    Everybody is quitting their worthless Prince games.;) Don't try and get away from a perfectly valid point by just making me look ridiculous.
    Only 86.7% have founded a second city. It sounds like there's a fair number of people who simply haven't had time to complete a game yet.


    Does that achievement get earned when you launch a game with a mod or when you finish a game with a mod?
    Probably.

    Anyway, my point is that I think it's you jumping the gun saying someone looks elitist by calling the game dumbed down. As civfanatics it's likely that people here have put more time into the game than the average owner of the game - a group that is not at all represented on civfanatics.

    Suppose for example that a civfanatic here is finding he/she can win the game about 80% of the time on Deity. It would be reasonable for that person to make complaints about dumbing down even if the vast majority of players haven't even finished a game on any difficulty yet. Your point is to wait and see, which I agree with, but then you go and accuse someone of being elitist, or at least sounding elitist, just because the evidence from people who barely play the game is that most haven't finished a game yet.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page