Who else agrees that Civ 5 has been dumbed down?

[isau]

I voted no, not dumbed down. I'm not a "hardcore" player, which may be a mark of shame around here, but I think Civ IV is not quite as complex as people are saying. "Cluttered," certainly, but "complex"--at least "more complex than Civ V" I mostly disagree with.

I'm not saying there aren't things in Civ V I don't like. Mounted units defeat cities far too easily at the moment. The essence of "Domination" victories needs to be rethought. The AI needs some tweaks. Diplomacy needs to be much more transparent. Research and building costs need a shakedown. I think the Culture cost per extra city should be dropped from 30% penalty to 10%, OR grant us a policy/tech that eventually makes that change later in the game.

But Civ IV had its own problems. "Early religion or reroll" is, thank god, removed from the game. Same for the early mad rush to settle as a default strategy (because Policy bonuses for a small empire are much easier to acquire with just your starting city, under some strategies it actually pays to wait to net a few good policies/eras before expanding.) The AI actually attempts Culture Victories now--it didn't in Civ IV until BTS.

With policies specifically, what I think needs to happen is we need to earn "respec" points. Perhaps one per great person generated. Or perhaps a great person whose ability is to let you respec. Or you can respec any time during a Golden Age. I may look into modding that if there is interest in it and it proves doable.

Meanwhile I give this game a 7/10. Civ IV Vanilla was a 9/10 for me, so I did like it better, but most of my reasons for feeling that way are tied to the tech tree and buildings being much better balanced. The pathetic AI is a major concern as well, of course, although I much much prefer Civ V's 1UPT to the Civ IV stacks of death.

 

[Buccaneer]

I agree that the Cultural Victory in Civ5 is far superior to Civ4. I also think the Space Victory is better too. The others (besides Time), not so much so.

 

[Ogaburan]

I agree that the Cultural Victory in Civ5 is far superior to Civ4. I also think the Space Victory is better too. The others (besides Time), not so much so.

I always play with time "off", i find it somewhat stupid.
I also use a mod to end the tech in the modern time, i kind hate the future.

 

[Thormodr]

I agree that the Cultural Victory in Civ5 is far superior to Civ4. I also think the Space Victory is better too. The others (besides Time), not so much so.

The cultural victory is worse. It is almost identical to the space victory. Just choose purple instead of blue. Whee!

The space victory is about the same.

Trucking your parts to your capital is better.

Having less parts is worse.

Not being able to launch a quicker speedier spaceship in order to beat the competitor to the finish line is worse.

 

[Charvel1]

Erm, 47.19% is > 43.35% ergo a majority.

Uh, no. Anything less than 50% in this case is a plurality. Not a majority.

 

[da_Vinci]

Erm, 47.19% is > 43.35% ergo a majority.

Uh, no. Anything less than 50% in this case is a plurality. Not a majority.

In reality, and especially considering the confidence intervals (looks like +/- 2 percentage points with current sample), the difference between the proportions for the two opinions is too small to be meaningful, much less to be arguing about.

If 50.1% thought it was dumbed down, would that really mean anything different from 49.9% thinking it was dumbed down? So let's stop worring about the term "majority" here.

dV

 

[Flavorable]

So, can anybody explain to me, bluntly, how Civ V has been dumbed down? I don't mean having redundant features such as Health or broken features such as tech trading removed. And I'm not talking about the broken AI, I'm discussing the core mechanics.

I mean, how has the strategy suffered from the reduction of features? From what I've seen, its only become more complex.

 

[Guardian_PL]

I voted no, not dumbed down. I'm not a "hardcore" player, which may be a mark of shame around here, but I think Civ IV is not quite as complex as people are saying. "Cluttered," certainly, but "complex"--at least "more complex than Civ V" I mostly disagree with.

I'm not saying there aren't things in Civ V I don't like. Mounted units defeat cities far too easily at the moment. The essence of "Domination" victories needs to be rethought. The AI needs some tweaks. Diplomacy needs to be much more transparent. Research and building costs need a shakedown. I think the Culture cost per extra city should be dropped from 30% penalty to 10%, OR grant us a policy/tech that eventually makes that change later in the game.

But Civ IV had its own problems. "Early religion or reroll" is, thank god, removed from the game. Same for the early mad rush to settle as a default strategy (because Policy bonuses for a small empire are much easier to acquire with just your starting city, under some strategies it actually pays to wait to net a few good policies/eras before expanding.) The AI actually attempts Culture Victories now--it didn't in Civ IV until BTS.

With policies specifically, what I think needs to happen is we need to earn "respec" points. Perhaps one per great person generated. Or perhaps a great person whose ability is to let you respec. Or you can respec any time during a Golden Age. I may look into modding that if there is interest in it and it proves doable.

Meanwhile I give this game a 7/10. Civ IV Vanilla was a 9/10 for me, so I did like it better, but most of my reasons for feeling that way are tied to the tech tree and buildings being much better balanced. The pathetic AI is a major concern as well, of course, although I much much prefer Civ V's 1UPT to the Civ IV stacks of death.

Wow. I'm sorry for somewhat personal attack but from your post I definitely agree that you have little experience with Civ4 complexity. "Early religion or reroll"? "Early mad rush to settle?". Where did you get that stuff from, Prince? What's next, stuff about "boring Oracle slingshot to Civil Service or reroll"?

I agree with Thormodr that people who deny Civ4 complexity, while accusing it of being "a cluttered mess" simply didn't get that game.

And at the same time as saying that Civ5 has not been dumbed down you state that you give less score to Civ5 then you gave to Civ4. I don't get it, please explain.

 

[Guardian_PL]

So, can anybody explain to me, bluntly, how Civ V has been dumbed down? I don't mean having redundant features such as Health or broken features such as tech trading removed. And I'm not talking about the broken AI, I'm discussing the core mechanics.

I mean, how has the strategy suffered from the reduction of features? From what I've seen, its only become more complex.

Ah yes, health was useless and tech trading was broken. Right. And trading your resources to every AI for 300 and selling conquered city for 50/turn while they accept it every time is more complex.
And it's not like gold is everything, you can buy with it every aspect of the game - culture, science, growth, army... Such a complexity...

Simple equation that more population=more science, war has no detriments (no "redundant" war weariness) and actually boosts your scientific progress - you call that complex and not broken?

I'm sorry, I can't explain it to you then.

 

[Flavorable]

Ah yes, health was useless and tech trading was broken. Right. And trading your resources to every AI for 300 and selling conquered city for 50/turn while they accept it every time is more complex.

I'm sorry, I can't explain it to you then.

whoa, I'm not saying that its polished by any means, if you were around during the launch of any other Civ's, you'd know that they've all had serious issues with AI and how they evaluate resources throughout the game, I'm talking about the basic mechanics, because the rest will be fixed in due time with patches.

 

[Guardian_PL]

(...) I'm talking about the basic mechanics, because the rest will be fixed in due time with patches.

When that will happen I'll be a happy bunny and jump to enjoy the new installment in series. Shame though that I've paid for, hehehe, "Deluxe" version that is, well, unfinished (to put it mildly). So instead of being rewarded for my trust in Firaxis I'm actually being punished by receiving a slop-job.

I don't know, we're being bred all our lives to accept the fact that everyone is s***ing on our heads by selling stuff that doesn't work or falls apart shortly after purchase but it still baffles me that people actually use that to justify existing state of things.

Like, "oh, Civ4 release was the same so it's ok, shut up and eat that crap, everyone does".

Civ4 release wasn't the same (though similar in some aspects), and it's not ok to accept that as standard. Is that so surprising to expect devs to come out and say "oh hey, we've screwed up badly and we're working hard to sort it out, we won't do such embarrassing mistakes again, and certainly not in future installments - that'd mean we're useless, hahaha"?

 

[zonk]

So, can anybody explain to me, bluntly, how Civ V has been dumbed down? I don't mean having redundant features such as Health or broken features such as tech trading removed. And I'm not talking about the broken AI, I'm discussing the core mechanics.

I mean, how has the strategy suffered from the reduction of features? From what I've seen, its only become more complex.

In a nutshell - city management was boiled up to global levels. Only food remains localized at the city level. I'm coming around to the idea that this isn't "dumbed down" -- it's just different -- but I still don't like it.

Everything now feels like you're basically just filling up "progress bars" -- culture, science, and happiness are now just global empire bars to fill any way you can... you build things in cities, but it doesn't really matter WHICH city (i.e., a coliseum in your small city has the same impact as it does in your biggest).

There's a balancing mechanism, of course - but again, it's empire level, not city level. Even the one mechanism left at the city level -- growth -- is frankly out of place.

Not my cup of tea... I just think that cities were always the core management of Civilization, the series, and that's largely been lost.

 

[Adam7Eight]

...you build things in cities, but it doesn't really matter WHICH city (i.e., a coliseum in your small city has the same impact as it does in your biggest).

There's a balancing mechanism, of course - but again, it's empire level, not city level. Even the one mechanism left at the city level -- growth -- is frankly out of place.

Bingo.

 

[Thormodr]

In a nutshell - city management was boiled up to global levels. Only food remains localized at the city level. I'm coming around to the idea that this isn't "dumbed down" -- it's just different -- but I still don't like it.

Everything now feels like you're basically just filling up "progress bars" -- culture, science, and happiness are now just global empire bars to fill any way you can... you build things in cities, but it doesn't really matter WHICH city (i.e., a coliseum in your small city has the same impact as it does in your biggest).

There's a balancing mechanism, of course - but again, it's empire level, not city level. Even the one mechanism left at the city level -- growth -- is frankly out of place.

Not my cup of tea... I just think that cities were always the core management of Civilization, the series, and that's largely been lost.

Yep. The cities really are just resource depots now.

Civ has now lost its soul.

cIV was made by listening to the fans. I remember there was a 165 page or more list of suggestions from the fans and Firaxis really listened.

I get the feeling that with cIV, JS didn't listen to the fans at all and just did his own thing. Ego trip maybe? Too stubborn? Likely inexperience though.

I remember Soren Johnson thanking Sid and Jeff for giving him the "keys to the car".

He realized the true worth of Civ and what it meant to its fans. He took good care of that car and returned it in great shape. Polished and running well.

JS took that car and wrapped it around a telephone pole. Let's sincerely hope that it isn't totalled and that the next driver will be more responsible.

 

[Aristos]

Yep. The cities really are just resource depots now.

Civ has now lost its soul.

cIV was made by listening to the fans. I remember there was a 165 page or more list of suggestions from the fans and Firaxis really listened.

I get the feeling that with cIV, JS didn't listen to the fans at all and just did his own thing. Ego trip maybe? Too stubborn? Likely inexperience though.

I remember Soren Johnson thanking Sid and Jeff for giving him the "keys to the car".

He realized the true worth of Civ and what it meant to its fans. He took good care of that car and returned it in great shape. Polished and running well.

JS took that car and wrapped it around a telephone pole. Let's sincerely hope that it isn't totalled and that the next driver will be more responsible.

completely, absolutely, totally on spot!

hey Vancouverite, I'm in Langley, how far are you? We should meet or talk some day, and try to start a "Fire Shafer" Vancouverite movement or something...

 

[isau]

Wow. I'm sorry for somewhat personal attack but from your post I definitely agree that you have little experience with Civ4 complexity. "Early religion or reroll"? "Early mad rush to settle?". Where did you get that stuff from, Prince? What's next, stuff about "boring Oracle slingshot to Civil Service or reroll"?

I agree with Thormodr that people who deny Civ4 complexity, while accusing it of being "a cluttered mess" simply didn't get that game.

And at the same time as saying that Civ5 has not been dumbed down you state that you give less score to Civ5 then you gave to Civ4. I don't get it, please explain.

I said I gave it that score for game balance reasons. I did enjoy that game, but there's a reason I stopped playing it years ago.

 

[Venereus]

completely, absolutely, totally on spot!

hey Vancouverite, I'm in Langley, how far are you? We should meet or talk some day, and try to start a "Fire Shafer" Vancouverite movement or something...

You can go burn Sid's birthplace for what it's worth.

 

[PieceOfMind]

I'm not sure how you can say in 3. "SPs are not powerful enough to dictate your path to victory"

You're slightly misquoting me there, and the difference is important in this case.

I said they don't completely dictate your path to victory. Obviously it is a bit more relevant when going for a culture victory, but even then the choice of path is pretty much open. There is one tree that gives the 2 free policies at the end, but otherwise there's still a fair bit of freedom in choosing a direction in a culture type game.

By the way, I agree with the "who cares about 50% settler bonus". In many games, I simply don't see much advantage in that, compared with the Honor branch.

Yes, the SPs could use a bit of work, but in my previous post I was responding to someone who was essentially claiming that SPs turn your empire into something completely inflexible to change, saying that you will literally lose the game (or restart) if you don't pick the "right" path at the start of the game. It's nonsense. You might pick a path that later you wish you hadn't wasted culture on, but ultimately it doesn't wind up as being that great a disadvantage.

EDIT to address your edit:
Sorry - but this is ALMOST complete bunk when it comes to the subject at hand.


Of course - don't throw good 'resource' (be it money, production, or science) after bad.

But - then what good is culture? The only thing you spend it on -- the only value it has -- is for SPs. By the time you get to the point that you've figured out the Utopia spaceship (whatever) isn't in the cards -- and figure you can open other trees, rather than finishing off started trees -- the entry bonuses are generally pointless.

What you quoted is really just a smart-sounding way of stating the obvious....

It basically means - cancel those broadcast tower builds... of course, you're probably now stuck with museums you wish you could sell/demolish (but can't).

I was more referring to the social policies that one had invested in but was no longer likely to get a benefit from due to changing direction of the empire. Better to start on a more useful tree than stick it out with an unfinished one. In this way, often Tradition and Liberty aren't worth finishing IMO, even if started.

 

[Venereus]

I was more referring to the social policies that one had invested in but was no longer likely to get a benefit from due to changing direction of the empire. Better to start on a more useful tree than stick it out with an unfinished one. In this way, often Tradition and Liberty aren't worth finishing IMO, even if started.

I agree, many trees are better left unfinished, just grab what you need and move on. You should only start backfilling once you're decided on the Cultural Victory (you probably won't get into more than 5 trees anyway).

Unfortunately, many Civ fanatics suffer from OCD or developed it because of Civ. So it's sometimes really really hard to leave those trees incomplete, or with an uneven number of chosen policies (god forbids) for the most severe cases.

 

[Webrider]

It is dumbed down simply for the console port. They put thought into how they will expand the game features for profit. Come on a Giant Death Robot is all you could come up with for the future>?