Who else agrees that Civ 5 has been dumbed down?

[Webrider]

OMG the future of mankind is dumbed down to a space ship or Giant Death Robot.

 

[da_Vinci]

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

It would be useful for you to describe here the ways in which you see it being more complex (note, this is NOT a sarcastic request ... I'd like to hear what you think on this).

Thus far, in my play of Civ 5 I feel like I am managing fewer details than in a typical BTS game for me, but I can't say yet whether that is because the details are not there to manage, or if it is just that I don't understand those details well enough yet (I overlooked a lot of the details when I started playing Civ 4 too). So I would be interested in your thoughts on the new complexity.

Remembering, of course, that challenge is not the same as complexity ... chess is challenging while being simple (relative to computer games) ... the game go perhaps even more so.

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.

Uh oh ... better get Maaco!

dV

 

[Thormodr]

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...

I'm in White Rock. I am going to Thailand at the end of the month but it'd be cool to meet up and talk Civ.

My girlfriend is sure going to be disappointed after the way I hyped Civ to her with Siam being in there and all.

Firing Shafer would be good but let him try to fix the mess first.

 

[Celevin]

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.

Yeah, it's pretty ludicrous to think your starting social policies would dictate the entire game. The reason the ending social policies are so powerful is they're supposed to have more impact on your empire, considering they won't be active for as long. It's making slingshotting even more powerful, which is weakening the game.

I'd much much rather all policy trees to be equal in power, but all of them to be active from the very start of the game. It might too be much choice too early, however.


The BIGGEST reason the AI is struggling in Civ5 is there's simply too many choices as is. It's a bit ironic that the biggest fault in the game, and the #1 complaint by people, is caused by too much complexity, the opposite of the #2 complaint by people.

 

[PieceOfMind]

The BIGGEST reason the AI is struggling in Civ5 is there's simply too many choices as is. It's a bit ironic that the biggest fault in the game, and the #1 complaint by people, is caused by too much complexity, the opposite of the #2 complaint by people.

I too find it more than a little amusing when people complain about the poor AI and lack of game complexity in the same post.

Arguments about complexity completely miss the point. People just want a game that works well, and if it doesn't work well quickly jump to the conclusion that it's because of game mechanics that it doesn't have, almost as if adding those game mechanics would suddenly make the game just "work".

The role of a fan on a fansite is a long way departed from a game designer / developer, but we all like to think we're experts.



By the way, I've also noticed myself wanting to slingshot industrial era to unlock those policy trees, and much of my planning is dominated by that desire. Of course, it's way too early for me to argue I'm playing anywhere near optimally but I agree that slingshotting feels like it's been made a bit too important and considering the generally streamlined nature of the game, this is an aspect of it that is not very intuitive. There needs to be some disincentive to beelining so far into the tree I think.

 

[apotheoser]

I too find it more than a little amusing when people complain about the poor AI and lack of game complexity in the same post.

Arguments about complexity completely miss the point. People just want a game that works well, and if it doesn't work well quickly jump to the conclusion that it's because of game mechanics that it doesn't have, almost as if adding those game mechanics would suddenly make the game just "work".

The role of a fan on a fansite is a long way departed from a game designer / developer, but we all like to think we're experts.

I don't think I'm an expert.

But I think Jon Shafer is even less an expert.

 

[Thormodr]

I too find it more than a little amusing when people complain about the poor AI and lack of game complexity in the same post.

Arguments about complexity completely miss the point. People just want a game that works well, and if it doesn't work well quickly jump to the conclusion that it's because of game mechanics that it doesn't have, almost as if adding those game mechanics would suddenly make the game just "work".

The role of a fan on a fansite is a long way departed from a game designer / developer, but we all like to think we're experts.

Combat is more complex for the AI to be sure.

The rest of the game, not so much.

 

[PieceOfMind]

I don't think I'm an expert.

But I think Jon Shafer is even less an expert.

I think you should apply for the top job then.

Combat is more complex for the AI to be sure.

Agreed. It's not just combat though - 1UPT reaches into other aspects of the game as well. Being able to move units around at all on one of those late-game continents-filled-with-units situations is probably a nightmare for the AI. That said, this particular AI difficulty could be caused by more of a design problem than anything else.

The rest of the game, not so much.

Most of the game is around about the same as civ4, I agree. For example, it's not as if the AI in civ4 ever made very intelligent use of espionage and it wasn't even a very complex game feature. It was because the AI was good with the core / main game that people didn't mind.

 

[Bad Brett]

For example, it's not as if the AI in civ4 ever made very intelligent use of espionage and it wasn't even a very complex game feature. It was because the AI was good with the core / main game that people didn't mind.

The AI has destroyed my spaceships parts several times when I was about to win... I can say that I was rather angry at myself for not paying more attention to espionage.

I think the problem with espionage was that it was rather boring. I think it would be more fun if they had brought back the spy unit from Civ 2, which had the ability to damage enemy units.

 

[Celevin]

Combat is more complex for the AI to be sure.

The rest of the game, not so much.

I will repeat the same point which everyone seems to ignore.

In terms of how many choices I have to make, between policies, diplomacy, buildings and units, when to expand, war, I am finding myself having to think much more than in Civ4 on a turn by turn basis.

In terms of playing the map, Civ5 is much more vibrant. If I put on certain settings in Civ4 and play game after game after game on those settings, my empire will look the same each and every time. If I play multiple games on the same settings in Civ5, even with the same civ, my empire can look drastically different and the game can play drastically different each time.


Other than people just generally not liking it (thus calling it "dumbed down"), the other reason I think people are peeved is it's just too easy. Because so many strategies can easily beat Deities, people think it's dumbed down. I think if there were some harder modes that hardly anyone in the community had actually beaten consistently, there'd be a lot less outcry.

I honestly find it hard to believe some people think it's dumbed down because the game's actually not as deep, or that the game actually doesn't make them think as much. I read some of the arguments for it in the thread, and they are quite bluntly, they are crap.

 

[tom2050]

and try to start a "Fire Shafer" Vancouverite movement or something...

I think Shafer should seriously be replaced. Better to have someone who knows what Civ is; then have Shafer fix his broken game with more broken non-Civ elements.

 

[Celevin]

I don't think I'm an expert.

But I think Jon Shafer is even less an expert.

You know those Civ4 expansions that you love?

Guess who worked on them.

 

[Aristos]

I think Shafer should seriously be replaced. Better to have someone who knows what Civ is; then have Shafer fix his broken game with more broken non-Civ elements.

well, let's start the petition then... I know it won't do a difference, but WHAT a point it would make...

 

[Aristos]

You know those Civ4 expansions that you love?

Guess who worked on them.

"working" on them is one thing, leading the design is another... and the latest experiment and its quality proves the point.

 

[njoel]

I couldn't agree more, this game has been a real disappointment for me and that's a first for Civ. Every civ I've ever pruchased I've been really happy with but this game feels like it was designed by fisher price. I'm sorry but the so called stream lined interface feels like romper room and sesame street.

I do not see all the information I love to see in a civ game like what resources my cities have, I cannot see a resource trade screen. I have to phyisically look at the map and see what resources my cities are beside to know what I'm mining or trading etc. the AI is tremendously boring, it's so simple. I cannot make elaborate defensive pacts or even trade technologies. The advisers are the worst in all the civ games, they are completely useless, I look at my military advisor and click next, next, next, next through pretty much the same repetative message he gives me about each of my cities and same goes for the rest of them. The game is an extremely poor performer in almost all areas. I don't understand where it's raving reviews are coming from, all these compliments on the interface when it's horribly simplistic and dumbed down to boring mode.

The whole game feels boring, advancing techs doesn't feel like a big accomplishment like the others civs made it feel, the world wonders are also boring, no interesting videos and really no real benefits from them either.

Also not being able to load a city with lots of military units seems unrealistic. Not being able to stack is an interesting twist but I can live with stacking or do without it either way. I like the new hexagon system and the graphics are pretty but I can sacrifice the pretty graphics for better computer performace. I have a duo core 3ghz with 4gb ram and a raid 0 set of hard drives and my system is chugging. I can totally live with civ 4 graphics and honestly civ 4 is better all around then civ 5. The new culture system is also a let down for me, spending culture points as talents, and in many cases I feel like I've waited so long to get to spend culture points and then to see I have to buy something that's of no real benefit to me to just gte to the next ladder on the culture tree to get the item I really want. Also if I want to change my government/culture down the road and choose a tree that conflicts with one I chose earlier in the game I have to loose that tree and all those culture points I spent are gone for nothing, I feel like I'm in warcraft having to retalent my civilization lol, it's a bad system and unrealistic in my opinion. The way resources are being handled is interesting, it does add an interesting twist to strategy which I find cool.

This game doesn't feel like civ at all. Not to mention that the game feels unfinished, its very buggy and unstable. I feel like I'm playing a game in beta mode.

I miss my civics, religion, performance, techs, and AI.

I hate to have a message that's all negative but civ 5 really isn't an appealing game and after waiting for like 5 yrs for it and seeing what I got here it's a real let down to all the fans.

In my opinion bring back Civ 4 ideas, touch up the graphics a little and bring back the Civ 2 advisors and you'll have a excellent civ game.

UPDATE ON POLL (9/25): As you can see, more than 1 in every 4 players think that Civ 5 has been dumb down. Numbers don't lie, this release is below Civ par.
UPDATE ON POLL (9/27): Now the numbers continue to rise as 33 percent - 1 in every 3 players agree that Civ 5 has been dumb down, while 11 percent are uncertain.
UPDATE ON POLL (9/28): The numbers continues to rise for those who believe that Civ 5 has been dumb down to a now 37 percent. Undecided still sits at 11 percent, while 52 percent are opposed.
UPDATE ON POLL (9/30): With the numbers still rising, now 40 percent of users think that Civ 5 has been dumb down with roughly ten percent undecided! That means only 1 in 2 users actually think there is no dumbing down of the Civ 5 game! Have us skeptics been wrong? Or is it only a matter of time before one realizes that the game is dumb down?
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 with the opposite view in less than a week. Stay tuned...
UPDATE ON POLL (10/3): The trend continues as it has been over a week now since Civ 5 has been released and the poll numbers are showing that users continue to agree that Civ 5 has been dumbed down. Out of a 1,045 voters, 44.31% now agree that Civ 5 has been dumbed down, while the declining 45.36% disagree. The number undecided holds steady at 10.33%.
UPDATE ON POLL (10/5): Well, we saw this coming. Now the majority of voters at 45.23% agree that Civ 5 has in fact been dumbed down. Those that disagree sit at 44.90%, while undecided declines also to 9.88%.
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.


1. 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.

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

3. Bring back religion. They should have just improved on this feature instead of omitting it. Omitting religion from Civ is like omitting the egg in an omelet.

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.

5. 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. If I want a barbaric Civ I can choose so... at any time I wish and any point in the game.

In conclusion, I'll be setting this game on the shelf and hoping for a big change. As for now, I can just go and play my PS3 and get the same feeling from a console game. Also, those who want to flame me, yes I understand that this is just a release of the game, and I do understand how Civ 4 was when it was released. I have made my opinion in light of that knowledge.

 

[Thormodr]

I couldn't agree more, this game has been a real disappointment for me and that's a first for Civ. Every civ I've ever pruchased I've been really happy with but this game feels like it was designed by fisher price. I'm sorry but the so called stream lined interface feels like romper room and sesame street.

I do not see all the information I love to see in a civ game like what resources my cities have, I cannot see a resource trade screen. I have to phyisically look at the map and see what resources my cities are beside to know what I'm mining or trading etc. the AI is tremendously boring, it's so simple. I cannot make elaborate defensive pacts or even trade technologies. The advisers are the worst in all the civ games, they are completely useless, I look at my military advisor and click next, next, next, next through pretty much the same repetative message he gives me about each of my cities and same goes for the rest of them. The game is an extremely poor performer in almost all areas. I don't understand where it's raving reviews are coming from, all these compliments on the interface when it's horribly simplistic and dumbed down to boring mode.

The whole game feels boring, advancing techs doesn't feel like a big accomplishment like the others civs made it feel, the world wonders are also boring, no interesting videos and really no real benefits from them either.

Also not being able to load a city with lots of military units seems unrealistic. Not being able to stack is an interesting twist but I can live with stacking or do without it either way. I like the new hexagon system and the graphics are pretty but I can sacrafice the pretty graphics for better computer performace. I have a duo core 3ghz with 4gb ram and a raid 0 set of hard drives and my system is chugging. I can totally live with civ 4 graphics and honestly civ 4 is better all around then civ 5. The new culture system is also a let down for me, spending culture points as talents. This game doesn't feel like civ at all. Not to mention that the game feels unfinished, its very buggy and unstable. I feel like I'm playing a game in beta mode.

I miss my civics, religion, performance, techs, and AI.

I hate to have a message that's all negative but civ 5 really isn't an appealing game and after waiting for like 5 yrs for it and seeing what I got here it's a real let down to all the fans.

In my opinion bring back Civ 4 ideas, touch up the graphics a little and bring back the Civ 2 advisors and you'll have a excellent civ game.

Yep. It's Civ on training wheels.

Massive, massive disappointment.

Oh well. I can wait 5 years for a proper Civ to come out.

Just keep JS away from Civ VI please.

 

[damnyankees]

I think I finally came across the best way of describing Civ V, and I just thought it.

To me, Civ V feels like playing Total War: Civ V. It feels like a Total War game, without the battles. The way cities are managed, the sense of cohesion, the telos of the game, all gives me the feeling of Total War: Rome, a game I actually liked. But it's not Civ.

 

[Adam7Eight]

"working" on them is one thing, leading the design is another...

Quite true.

 

[Thormodr]

JS couldn't undue all the good that Soren Johnson did in one expansion. He had to keep to the god game design. (Or Empire building design. Whatever.)

However, when he got the job of lead designer, he did what he liked and wanted and I daresay, what a minority of Civ fans liked and wanted.

Not many people wanted his vision of a souped up boardgame. There are many on this website that will tolerate it or accept it just because it is Civ, however, so it looks like there is more support than there really is..

I'm not one of them. They need to get back to the true roots of the game. That will be in Civ VI. It won't be fixed in any ciV expansions. If JS tries to change things mid stream it will be a cluster flock of birds.

Mods that get back that empire building feeling may do it. I am confident that FFH3 will be great.

Otherwise, 2015-2016 till we see a new Civ worthy of its fans.

 

[Guardian_PL]

Wow folks, so much passion... Calm down and stop slagging Shafer, I'm not fond of Blanket of Doom either but I seriously think that it's the 2K that is to blame for forcing the release of unfinished product. Stupid 2K CEO's, obviously thinking that they're soo bloody smart in style of "heh let's milk these civaddicts junkies, once they take a sniff of a new Civ game they'll kill their families for it, so let's keep them on their knees and let them beg for the fix, that way we can get a LOT more money selling them tiny chunks of the game boy aren't I'm brilliant?" are at fault.

I'm sure that the right type of pressure on right people have made all this disasterous decision to release Civ5 now happen, I don't think that the programmers themselves are responsible. It's the supervising financial division that's the culprit - you know there's this saying that "if you're not part of the solution then you must be a manager" and it's so often too true...

And before you'll go all "but that monster Shafer is the lead designer, it's his fault", just think about his background, how fresh he is in that industry and how easy to manipulate by the businessmen sharks he has to be. He's more of a celebrity from a boysband (with all this "hey it's the new face for Civ5, he's one of you so buy our product" marketing approach) then a person in charge to me.

The same way I can't be really angry on 2kGreg for fooling us around with the whole release disaster - if he wouldn't be doing what he was told (with one type of coercion or another), we would have 2kAndrew or 2kBob instead, it's as simple as that.

I think we are all angry because deep down inside we know that it's really our fault for being gullible, and it is that what makes us so pissed off - because we should know better, we should be cautious like we are in everyday life, not falling to street preacher's or car salesmen stories but we sooo wanted to believe in our dream of perfect new Civ iteration that we willingly discarded all doubt, opened ourselves to receive this beloved game of ours and right now we're brokenhearted and brutally put back into grey reality.

And all the haters-of-haters going "what, you expected that the game will be finished? sheeesh, what an idiot..." are only putting more oil to the flames because to many of us yes, that's what we were hoping for. With naive, passionate hope. Trust me, hitting the ground of reality is painful, so it'll take a while to accept that sad truth about Civ5 release.

Sorry for the drama but it's late at night and sometimes I just can't stop, probably noone will read that wall of text anyway...

So there you go, that's my crazy opinion for you about the state of things.