Who else agrees that Civ 5 has been dumbed down?

[Thormodr]

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.

I blame JS for imposing his board game style Civ on us.

I blame Firaxis for choosing him as the lead designer. You don't hand the keys to the car to someone as inexperienced as he was.

I blame 2K Games for leaning on Firaxis to get the game out way too early as they are always on the brink of bankruptcy.

2K Greg is just a stooge for 2K Games. I suppose I feel sorry for him too.

Still, even if Firaxis had adequate time and the game was much more polished, it wouldn't be what Civ fans wanted. He has strayed from the original vision of some truly brilliant men to do his own thing. He wanted to make a name for himself and he sure did. A man that could make even Civ look dull. Shame...

You are right though. We got taken in. However, Firaxis has now been put on watch. At least in my books and I hope in many other people's books. Fool me once, shame on me...

 

[falconne]

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.

Essentially, you're saying "The reasons other people don't like the game aren't relevant to me, therefore they are 'crap'. Surely everyone finds the same things enjoyable, so any argument as to why a mechanic I like is not enjoyable to them is 'crap'".

It's not just the fact the game is too easy... at least when a real AI from the community is released it will put up a fight, but the main problem is that there's so little to do in this version it's boring. For the first time, Civ is actually boring. Most of us figured out the optimum strategy for each victory in the first couple of games we played. Every subsequent game turns into a session of hitting "End Turn" over and over, occasionally getting a decision to make where it's so glaringly obvious what it should be, there may as well be flashing lights and signs at every screen saying "Playing for culture victory? Pick this option. Science victory? Pick this one".

The designers obviously tried hard to make sure this version didn't overwhelm any of its customers.

There has never been a Civ game so trivial that so many of us can amble to victory on Immortal and Deity like this.

 

[Thormodr]

I guess they found the cure for the Civ Anon group anyway.

Nothing cures the one more turn syndrome like dumbed down ciV.

That could be the contest winner 2K Games was looking for!

 

[Guardian_PL]

(...)You are right though. We got taken in. However, Firaxis has now been put on watch. At least in my books and I hope in many other people's books. Fool me once, shame on me...

Oh definitely, no doubt about that (which is even more heartbreaking because Sid Meier was the last name in the gaming industry I had trust in). And I agree with you on the earlier part too - that there were many factors ultimately responsible for this joke of a release. It's just that I somehow can't think about Jon Shafer like I do about Peter Jackson (your "JS wanted to make a name for himself" part). Somehow I can't stop thinking that someone out there went with the idea "oh we have to shake that rusty game series otherwise it'll go niche, let's find some nice link to the community that can be a perfect bait and in case of anything a sacrificial goat at the same time".

It is very logical to assume that JS wanted to do this or that. Too logical. Right now he's becoming the embodiment of failed Civ5 release (yes fanboys I know Civ5 is perfect, I'm only joking with Thormodr here ok?), taking all the heat (and yet another all too logical thing to assume - hey he's the lead designer, it's his bloody job to take the heat), while real culprits are sitting comfortably in their leather armchairs cooking up yet another "brilliant" plan feeling safe and very happy with themselves.

That's why I posted what I posted, because I think that JS is not a decisive factor in botched up release imo and I don't want those corporate arsewipes to think that they've fooled everyone.

...And that's why I said that my opinion is crazy - it's certainly a bit radical, and yet I stand behind it

 

[Celevin]

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

Read what I quoted. You're taking it out of line to try and prove your point. You have somebody saying "Jon Shafer's not an expert" when he helped design the last 3 expansions for the game that everyone who is chanting "Civ5 is dumbed down" holds on a silver platter. Just leave it as that guy's dead wrong, don't side with him, and drop it.

Essentially, you're saying "The reasons other people don't like the game aren't relevant to me, therefore they are 'crap'. Surely everyone finds the same things enjoyable, so any argument as to why a mechanic I like is not enjoyable to them is 'crap'".

It's not just the fact the game is too easy... at least when a real AI from the community is released it will put up a fight, but the main problem is that there's so little to do in this version it's boring. For the first time, Civ is actually boring. Most of us figured out the optimum strategy for each victory in the first couple of games we played. Every subsequent game turns into a session of hitting "End Turn" over and over, occasionally getting a decision to make where it's so glaringly obvious what it should be, there may as well be flashing lights and signs at every screen saying "Playing for culture victory? Pick this option. Science victory? Pick this one".

The designers obviously tried hard to make sure this version didn't overwhelm any of its customers.

There has never been a Civ game so trivial that so many of us can amble to victory on Immortal and Deity like this.

No, I read the arguments that people are posting and I see nothing but BS for the most part. I could care less if people agreed with me, but I am not seeing their arguments leading to the conclusion "therefore Civ5 is dumbed down". Hell, it's been pointed out numerous times that not everyone agrees on what that even means, yet we've got a poll on it? And people are pointing to the poll as proof?

Anyone who isn't satisfied with Civ5 will click "Civ5 is dumbed down". How is this grading anything but people's overall opinion? This is NOT grading how many people think the game is dumbed down. My huge argument a good 10 pages back was that the immediate answer people go to when they didn't like the game was that it's too simple for them. People, including me, are arrogant like that.

And finally, yes people can be wrong with their opinions. Express them all you want but you can still be wrong. What I'm getting from this thread is there's a bunch of people who don't like the game, but they don't know why they don't like it. Hell, the bottom of your post is pretty much the best reason I've read in this entire pile of a thread for a solid reason. At least I can see your point unlike 99% of the drivel.

 

[Ayt]

Celevin, I don't like it as much as previous Civ games because there are less decisions for me to make. The arguments as to why that is the case have been made all over this forum. It really is that simple.

 

[falconne]

No, I read the arguments that people are posting and I see nothing but BS for the most part. I could care less if people agreed with me, but I am not seeing their arguments leading to the conclusion "therefore Civ5 is dumbed down".

I think it's pretty clear from the posts that it's "dumbed down" for the reasons I mentioned in my second paragraph: There's fewer mechanics, leading to fewer decisions to make. Each decision is easy to make and the game takes pains to allow everyone to figure that out. Any Civ veteran can figure out the optimum strategies after playing a couple of games. There is no intellectual challenge in playing the game after that.

 

[Celevin]

Celevin, I don't like it as much as previous Civ games because there are less decisions for me to make. The arguments as to why that is the case have been made all over this forum. It really is that simple.

And I've said the exact opposite earlier.

I make a tonne more decisions in Civ5 than Civ4. I make more decisions in Civ5 Emperor than Civ4 Immortal/Deity, let alone Civ5 Deity. I have played the majority of the civs, I have played in numerous different ways.


You need to tell me WHAT you do in Civ4 that you don't do in Civ5. The last few posts I read that used this argument tried to say "diplomacy" and "city tile management", two things that YOU CAN ALSO DO IN CIV5! Some other posters also tried to say that civics were actually deeper than policies! It gave me a headache just reading it. I'm completely unconvinced.

I will still hold that the majority of people (maybe not you) arguing it's "dumbed down" simply do not like the game and don't actually know why. That's a good opinion, as long as they acknowledge it. I would not mind this poll at all if it was called "Who else doesn't like Civ5?". That question would fit most of the posters here instead of the current one.

 

[Celevin]

I think it's pretty clear from the posts that it's "dumbed down" for the reasons I mentioned in my second paragraph: There's fewer mechanics, leading to fewer decisions to make. Each decision is easy to make and the game takes pains to allow everyone to figure that out. Any Civ veteran can figure out the optimum strategies after playing a couple of games. There is no intellectual challenge in playing the game after that.

Let's play a game of chess.

Before we start, I'll give you the choice of declaring yourself the winner outright. I will completely acknowledge the win, and you will receive full credit for the victory.

Is our game of chess less deep of a game because of this new condition? Is the game any less fun? Difficulty or easy wins don't define how many decisions there are in a game.

I said it earlier. Everyone always thinks they know the optimum strategy, or the optimum strategy is on this forum, or the internet. Give it at least a year. Some random joe on this forum in a week or two will come up with something better than everyone else's, and a day after that everyone will treat it like it was always there.


Also, do not bring up "intellectual challenge". Here's a good rule of thumb: The more complex a game is, the more the AI will suck at it, and the less competitive it will be against other players. If you want to be intellectually challenged, play a classic game head to head against somebody else like chess, or bridge, or go. Play Civ5 to relax. If anything, the game being easy yet with a lot of work put into the AI shows that the game simply has too many decisions for the AI to deal with. Read up on why chess is easy for computers, but go isn't.

 

[Akkon888]

And finally, yes people can be wrong with their opinions. Express them all you want but you can still be wrong. What I'm getting from this thread is there's a bunch of people who don't like the game, but they don't know why they don't like it. Hell, the bottom of your post is pretty much the best reason I've read in this entire pile of a thread for a solid reason. At least I can see your point unlike 99% of the drivel.

To set the bar so high is ludicrous. One must review the game with the positive analysis, then they must become critical.

Setting the expectation to an extreme level nullifies all that is good about the game. It also magnifies one's critical views of flaws of the game.

In all, the astronomic expectations beforehand leave these people you describe in a mist of trying to find good points about the game they can cling onto. But, they cannot and so can have no basis on which to like a game.

This means that, the opinions of a person rely on the expectations one had to begin with. Hence, an opinion cannot be wrong because one can not do what you describe, which is to find proof of a non-A in one's artificial space muddled by preconceived judgement.

And yes, I agree with you. I do not like the way the poll exploded out of context. I see where you come from.

 

[falconne]

Let's play a game of chess.

Before we start, I'll give you the choice of declaring yourself the winner outright. I will completely acknowledge the win, and you will receive full credit for the victory.

Is our game of chess less deep of a game because of this new condition? Is the game any less fun? Difficulty or easy wins don't define how many decisions there are in a game.

I said it earlier. Everyone always thinks they know the optimum strategy, or the optimum strategy is on this forum, or the internet. Give it at least a year. Some random joe on this forum in a week or two will come up with something better than everyone else's, and a day after that everyone will treat it like it was always there.


Also, do not bring up "intellectual challenge". Here's a good rule of thumb: The more complex a game is, the more the AI will suck at it, and the less competitive it will be against other players. If you want to be intellectually challenged, play a classic game head to head against somebody else like chess, or bridge, or go. Play Civ5 to relax. If anything, the game being easy yet with a lot of work put into the AI shows that the game simply has too many decisions for the AI to deal with. Read up on why chess is easy for computers, but go isn't.

Chess is a good example for my point. It's a simple game, but it's fun because every decision you have to make is so hard. Go is simpler than chess, but after a few turns has way more decisions for you to make and the decisions are even harder, hence the reason no AI for it can beat a good human, despite the mammoth effort that goes in to creating Go AIs.

If Civ V only made its decisions anywhere near that hard, at least I'd get some enjoyment from it. Only after the C++ is released and the community can feed its strategies in to the AI will it start getting even remotely interesting. At least the AI is easier to optimise this time, because the strategies are more clear cut than for Civ 4.

Then of course, the problem remains that Civ is no longer an empire building game, but a glorified battle chess program. The division will be between those of us who prefer empire simulators to those who prefer Euro board games (even if they don't know it). That is a discussion of a different thread.

 

[Celevin]

You completely missed the point of the post, either that or ignored it completely...

This is going nowhere. People create opinions, then arguments after. I'm just as guilty of that. I'll stick to talking about the game rather than talking about how good/bad/complex/dumbed down it is.

 

[Akkon888]

Then of course, the problem remains that Civ is no longer an empire building game, but a glorified battle chess program. The division will be between those of us who prefer empire simulators to those who prefer Euro board games (even if they don't know it). That is a discussion of a different thread.

You are correct that the ideas of Civ5 revolve more around being a board game. However, the ideas cannot be so black and white; Civ4 cannot be categorized as one or the other.

In 2000 BC, people making Go did not wonder about making an AI to solve their creations, and this is exactly why such board games are not synergized to what we should expect.

But, the AI cannot fare with an empire simulation much better. The question must have been: "what is easier, and what will appeal more to our audience?" They obviously got this wrong though, as casual strategy fans do not bother with Civ, but with other games. The audience to find is non-existant.

The only thing left is to create from scratch a new game type, not like a board game but not like a simulation either - and this challenge will continue to perplex developers as the line is very thin and invisible.

 

[falconne]

You completely missed the point of the post, either that or ignored it completely...

This is going nowhere. People create opinions, then arguments after. I'm just as guilty of that. I'll stick to talking about the game rather than talking about how good/bad/complex/dumbed down it is.

I did miss it, because I only understood the second half. I couldn't unravel the first half... are you trying to say that if a single game of chess ends without many decisions this isn't a reflection of the complexity of the underlying game?

If this is the case, then you are suggesting that me playing my game on Immortal on a huge map with 12 AIs and deciding the game doesn't have enough difficult decisions is the same as starting a game of chess, agreeing on who wins without making a move, then deciding chess doesn't have enough decisions to make.

Edit: If what you actually meant was what Guardian_PL is saying below, then it makes almost no sense.

 

[PieceOfMind]

I am absolutely confident that if Chess was a game that could only be played against AIs, and the AIs were not very good, it would not be considered by most to be an interesting game, and people would almost certainly call it dumb down, whatever that means.

Some games require a challenging opposition to be interesting (e.g. Chess). Other games are not interesting even if one has challenging opposition (e.g. Noughts and Crosses aka tic-tac-toe).

 

[Guardian_PL]

Thanks Celevin -

Let's play a game of chess.

Before we start, I'll give you the choice of declaring yourself the winner outright. I will completely acknowledge the win, and you will receive full credit for the victory.

Is our game of chess less deep of a game because of this new condition? Is the game any less fun? Difficulty or easy wins don't define how many decisions there are in a game.

Definitely. How can the game be fun if you know you've already won? What's the point of looking for sophisticated gambits if you know you've won anyway? Difficult or easy wins exactly define how many decisions there are - I mean if you've won then you just mate the guy in few moves and go do something else.
^^^^
And that's the whole point of my issue - when I start the game I already know that I've won. There's no challenge, and whatever my decisions are they're ultimately meaningless because I'm finding myself kicking the puppy (meaning AI) again.

I said it earlier. Everyone always thinks they know the optimum strategy, or the optimum strategy is on this forum, or the internet. Give it at least a year. Some random joe on this forum in a week or two will come up with something better than everyone else's, and a day after that everyone will treat it like it was always there.


Also, do not bring up "intellectual challenge". Here's a good rule of thumb: The more complex a game is, the more the AI will suck at it, and the less competitive it will be against other players. If you want to be intellectually challenged, play a classic game head to head against somebody else like chess, or bridge, or go. Play Civ5 to relax. If anything, the game being easy yet with a lot of work put into the AI shows that the game simply has too many decisions for the AI to deal with. Read up on why chess is easy for computers, but go isn't.

I've got another rule of a thumb for you: The more sucky AI in a game is made, the more devoid of complexity game choices are becoming. Also, do not bring up "go play head to head with someone else", that phrase is almost as old as "the AI is playing to win now, that's why it's so easy to smash it to pieces ". Civ series to I'll dare to say majority of players were always about building your own empire amongst mass of other AI-driven nations and surviving it thanks to Interesting Decisions (tm). To me personally adding human player to my game is an excellent addon (especially when you've got him/her on a voice chat), but the AI has to be there. For deathmatches I can play Unreal Tournament.

Chess comparizon actually helps a lot to explain why I think that Civ5 has been (omg hate that phrase) "dumbed down".

It's not only the AI, there's more but if the AI could be at least a tiny bit of a challenge I'd be currently busy trying to win the game on King like in every other installment of Civ series and not posting here because I'm so fricking bored of Deity zergfest two weeks after release.

Is that helping you to understand my point?



EDIT @scratchthepitch
Very lousy flamebait, you have to try harder than that.

 

[scratchthepitch]

Dumbed down in comparison with Civ4? That's not really fair. How does one get dumber than that crud? Though one could consider Civ revolutions if they were a true masochist.

 

[Thormodr]

Interesting article here:

Review: Beautiful, Boring Final Fantasy XIII Loses RPG Magic

Some snippets. Seems vaguely familiar unfortunately. Just replace with "Beautiful, Boring Civilization 5 Loses Empire Building Magic."

The most important thing to understand about Final Fantasy XIII, the latest in the world’s most popular line of role-playing games, is that it isn’t a role-playing game.

This version’s gimmick is that it pares down the gameplay to a few basic elements: Turn-based battles against mobs of fantastic creatures and elaborate, movielike story sequences. But this time, Square Enix finally threw the baby out with the bathwater: The things that make RPGs feel so different from other games — the sense of a grand, nonlinear adventure and the rising and falling action of an open-ended world — are gone.

And I mean everywhere. Final Fantasy XIII is an almost entirely unbroken string of battles against mobs of monsters. One of the reasons this isn’t an RPG is that role-playing games have some degree of variety. Previous games in the series, for all their differences, have been set in large, open-ended worlds that players can explore leisurely. You could find new towns and locations on the map, talk to people, buy new equipment and spend time hanging around the town fighting low-level monsters to raise your stats before tackling the next big dungeon.

In contrast, XIII is all big dungeons. The exit of each one is stitched directly onto the entrance of the next. You can never slow down and take the game at your own pace; it’s a constant rush forward, with no time to deliberate or relax. This is the big mark in the loss column for Final Fantasy XIII, because the sense of rising and falling action, tension and release, is what made previous games in the genre uniquely enjoyable. That’s why RPGs feel like epic journeys and not just really long videogames.

With the game design thus stripped down to a series of battles, the moment-to-moment action of the battle system — being the only meaningful interaction between the player and this game — must carry the player’s enjoyment all on its own. And although it has some appealing features, on balance, it didn’t do this for me.

http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2010/03/final-fantasy-xiii-review/

 

[Thormodr]

Seems to be a popular topic nowadays.

Are video games being dumbed down?
I've been gaming for a long time, but recent games seem to be trending toward content that has really turned me off. Video games in general seem to be easier, but more visually appealing. In my experience, the two best examples of this are World of Warcraft and Final Fantasy 13.

In WoW, everything after the TBC made it easier to play, although most of these changes occurred with Wrath. It got to the point where playing with people that wouldn't have been able to make it to 40 in Classic without quitting, but now somehow have 80's. This, combined with the stupid easy content meant everyone was getting 'the best' loot and nothing was really unique anymore.

In FF13, the game was dumbed down to nothing but an RPG shooter. The rigid linearity of the game almost made me not want to play it anymore. The paradigm system is fun at first, but the fact that the computer has more control of your characters is not only sometimes frustrating ("HEAL THE GROUP LEAD- ...game over. Again.") but also boring. The lack of exploration and side quests until Gran Pulse was ma major disappointment. Even the story seemed redundant at times.

Anyone else seeing this trend with games? Perhaps the makers are trying to appeal to a wider audience? Or maybe they just want to see more profit? Agree or disagree, tell me why.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100503075454AAgrEr3

 

[mrt144]

Let's play a game of chess.

Before we start, I'll give you the choice of declaring yourself the winner outright. I will completely acknowledge the win, and you will receive full credit for the victory.

Is our game of chess less deep of a game because of this new condition? Is the game any less fun? Difficulty or easy wins don't define how many decisions there are in a game.

I said it earlier. Everyone always thinks they know the optimum strategy, or the optimum strategy is on this forum, or the internet. Give it at least a year. Some random joe on this forum in a week or two will come up with something better than everyone else's, and a day after that everyone will treat it like it was always there.


Also, do not bring up "intellectual challenge". Here's a good rule of thumb: The more complex a game is, the more the AI will suck at it, and the less competitive it will be against other players. If you want to be intellectually challenged, play a classic game head to head against somebody else like chess, or bridge, or go. Play Civ5 to relax. If anything, the game being easy yet with a lot of work put into the AI shows that the game simply has too many decisions for the AI to deal with. Read up on why chess is easy for computers, but go isn't.

It's absolutely less fun. If I win through actually beating you it makes it feel hollow because i expended all that energy on a forgone conclusion, and if I lose through gameplay it doesn't matter because I already won.

A game that's fun is one that engages the player regardless of outcome. I don't know how you can be an adult and miss this simple concept.