Who else agrees that Civ 5 has been dumbed down?

[JLoZeppeli]

Where this dude come from, the 2k staff? The other poll hasn't half of the votes of this.... And it is from the same day... Probably abandoned so far...

By the way, It's the first installement that i try to play forcefully to repay the money loss... But it isn't good, the last two minutes ago, i was so annoyed at Emperor, bashing the poor Napoleon (the top leader in points...) that i quitted... Was not possible for me to beat so easy this level of difficulty at Civ IV after only six games... It's absolutely crazy....

And to conquer the French (Napoleon has only the capital now) my losses are...0!

And i was intended to win on diplomacy, but i'm allied with all the city state in my continent so, for now i have to wait for United Nation... Or kill the other idiots to pass the time....

I will post my save after a bunch of turn.... So every one will know that or i am the King of Civ V or the game is absolutely for dummies... No way out...

 

[KingYosef]

Where this dude come from, the 2k staff? The other poll hasn't half of the votes of this.... And it is from the same day... Probably abandoned so far...

Just people expressing their frustrations on a poll.

 

[falconne]

I brought up the one poll I could find that was clearly un-biased, in it's title and poll choices. Whether I agree with the results is irrelevant.

Except hardly anyone saw it after the first week. Every poll that continued to be voted on disagrees with your view. Since they all had that same composition and number of votes in the first week, we can assume all of them were being treated equally.

When you first brought it out you said you chose it because it was one of the oldest and has the most votes, so is the most accurate. When it was pointed out that it wasn't and most of the other polls have more votes (this one being older and having more than twice as many votes), you now claim it's the title makes it more accurate.

The rationalising doesn't really help your cause.

I'm sorry if you think the title is biased, but for all of us who voted Yes, the game is dumbed down. There's no point sugar coating it. The way the poll was voted on at the start showed it wasn't showing any bias towards one side. Every poll, since the first week, has shown the same trend in continued voting. Just because you don't want it to be true doesn't change things.

 

[Thormodr]

Almost 1500 votes so far. That's pretty impressive.

What seems to be holding true is that the more you play ciV, the less you like it. Once the newness wears off, it is exposed for the game it really is.

People are voting accordingly.

 

[Jediron]

Yeah, like the city-stats. Here pall, a bag of gold, friends for ever, right
What the games shows is; money buy everything. Temple ? np, gimmie a bag of...
Trade ? Give some cash to the states....etc.etc.
Need easy money ? Go kill some barbs....lol, walk away, come back a few turns later, and kill the barbs again.
Easy money.

 

[da_Vinci]

With that in mind, sometime this weekend I expect to post a poll about whether Civ 5 needs to be "smartened up", allowing multiple choices among various areas where improvement may be needed (and the choice of "no, leave it alone" as well). dV

As promised, this poll is up at http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=390297 so come over and vote.

dV

 

[Guardian_PL]

As promised, this poll is up at http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=390297 so come over and vote.

dV

So far the results are... Interesting, don't you all agree?

Now I'm only waiting for the last-resort excuse "oh but it's all those haters voting, people who adore the game are playing it now so that's why they're not voting"

 

[r_rolo1]

Now I'm only waiting for the last-resort excuse "oh but it's all those haters voting, people who adore the game are playing it now so that's why they're not voting"

Obviously, because those people have telepatic powers and they can read the minds of those that are playing but not posting, and because of that they can know without matter for doubt that the vast majority of the people playing civ V are enjoying it

Not that i give a lot of value to polls in here ( hey, atleast there was no call to arms from one side, like I seen in civ III forums once when someone posted a poll asking what civ game was the best ), but the simple fact that we get so negative results in a poll made in a forum of series fanatics is atleast worrying ... even 20% would be pretty bad.

 

[da_Vinci]

So far the results are... Interesting, don't you all agree?

Now I'm only waiting for the last-resort excuse "oh but it's all those haters voting, people who adore the game are playing it now so that's why they're not voting"

Even if you adore the game, you probably want it to save right, or to name a screenshot, or actually play a replay ...

I think there is an automotive analogy here ... if Civ 5 is a car, we can debate whether we wanted a sports car or a luxury car, or an SUV ... that is one issue. (and what the last option of my poll is getting at). But we all want it to have tires, have an enginge that will actually start, and be able to see out the windshield.

As I hid in my spoiler tab at the other poll, the ultimate and controversial question may boil down to whether Civ 5 feels like drawing a path on a blank canvas, where many paths are viable, or if it feels like finding the one path that works in a maze. Because once a maze is solved, it is uninteresting. If Civ 5 turns out to be the maze model, it will be an artistic failure, regardless of its revenue outcome.

dV

 

[DoubleAG]

I'm not gonna suddenly change my opinion of the game (I happen to not think that it was dumbed down) based on the results of a poll but its hard to argue with this. Clearly someone has some work to do. The good thing however is that most of the features that people are complaining about can be brought back or fixed. If Firaxis doesn't do it then the modders will.

 

[Celevin]

That's just it, people who mock this poll are forgetting that it was the other way around with the majority being those who don't think Civ 5 has been dumbed down. The trend change shows proof that this opinion is changing amongst users.

People who like Civ5 will say "No, it's not dumbed down" and people who dislike Civ5 will say "Yes, it is dumbed down. Moreover, a lot of people are linking negative reviews not for it being dumbed down but for it just not being a good game.

NEITHER of these things are showing it's dumbed down. Both are showing people's tastes. Your poll shows nothing of what you want, and you're making a fool of yourself by constantly posting updates on it.

Moderator Action: Please stick to the points a person makes, there is no need to insult other members, thanks.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[dr_AllCOM3]

AI is very dumb.
Diplomacy has like no effect.
City placement doesn't matter.
Building stuff is very slow.

 

[DarkSchneider]

Of course it's been dumbed down considerably since Civ IV: BTS and to a lesser extent since Civ IV Vanilla.

 

[Aristos]

People who like Civ5 will say "No, it's not dumbed down" and people who dislike Civ5 will say "Yes, it is dumbed down. Moreover, a lot of people are linking negative reviews not for it being dumbed down but for it just not being a good game.

NEITHER of these things are showing it's dumbed down. Both are showing people's tastes. Your poll shows nothing of what you want, and you're making a fool of yourself by constantly posting updates on it.

With all due respect, where is the warning here Moderators Sires????

You, Celevin, should learn to respect long term members of this community, who are clearly committed, in the long term, to the game series and the community. You are welcome as a new member, but you are still a newbie here. Show some respect, and in any case, show arguments. Or else, there is only one here making a FOOL of himself.

 

[afa2000]

With all due respect, where is the warning here Moderators Sires????

Do as I did: use the report post button, so they will come.

 

[Thormodr]

Do as I did: use the report post button, so they will come.

Exactly. If you see a questionable post then just report it to the mods. They do a good job and are quite quick about it. Keeps these forums from devolving into a 3 ring circus.

 

[ThunderLizard2]

I'd say Civ 5 is as dumb as a rock but that would be an insult to rocks everywhere. I won't repeat all the great comments about what's been removed. The only initially interesting feature I liked in my first game was City States. But after one game I realized how boring they were - you just keeping them gold - how interesting - and then they get invaded and can't defend themselves even after I gift them an artillery and mech. inf..

 

[Saarud]

Yes the AI are dumb as a rock but does that make CIV 5 dumbed down from CIV 4? I think people are being confused by the extremely baaad AI, thinking that the whole game including the gameplay has been dumbed down. I'd say CIV 5 has not been dumbed down.

I've almost played 100 hours now but when I first got the game and started playing I wasn't especially impressed with the gameplay and I thought as many other people do that the game was dumbed down from CIV 4. But the more I played the game the more I understood how well balanced (in theory) everything are and how little you have to do to change the entire game.

For example when I started playing I thought that global happiness was the stupiest thing since CIV 1 but as I've logged many more hours I now understand how you as a player can manipulate happiness to get bigger empire but doing so I have to give something else up. It's all about how I want to form my civilization.

As many others have said war are more fun now. Not only just becuase of 1upt, no mostly for me because I have to think about how I want form my military. I have to think if the decision to increase my military from 8 to 10 infantries are worth the extra cost in maintanance that I will get. If I can afford a military of 30 units what units would I get? Big Army (Mostly Infantry or would I rather have more tanks)? Big Navy (Should I go for some subs? And if I have a carrier how many other ships would I need to defend that?)? or perhaps a big Airforce? In CIV 4 it was mostly the oppertunity cost I was thinking about.

That being said Firaxis has some things they most take care about... first thing the AI. I have rarely seen such a bad battle AI since I started playing computer strategy games 1985 or so. Even though I said the game is very well balanced it can be awhole lotta better, and with the gamedesign they have constructed for CIV 5 it's all about the balance.

 

[Venereus]

Yes the AI are dumb as a rock but does that make CIV 5 dumbed down from CIV 4? I think people are being confused by the extremely baaad AI, thinking that the whole game including the gameplay has been dumbed down. I'd say CIV 5 has not been dumbed down.

I've almost played 100 hours now but when I first got the game and started playing I wasn't especially impressed with the gameplay and I thought as many other people do that the game was dumbed down from CIV 4. But the more I played the game the more I understood how well balanced (in theory) everything are and how little you have to do to change the entire game.

For example when I started playing I thought that global happiness was the stupiest thing since CIV 1 but as I've logged many more hours I now understand how you as a player can manipulate happiness to get bigger empire but doing so I have to give something else up. It's all about how I want to form my civilization.

As many others have said war are more fun now. Not only just becuase of 1upt, no mostly for me because I have to think about how I want form my military. I have to think if the decision to increase my military from 8 to 10 infantries are worth the extra cost in maintanance that I will get. If I can afford a military of 30 units what units would I get? Big Army (Mostly Infantry or would I rather have more tanks)? Big Navy (Should I go for some subs? And if I have a carrier how many other ships would I need to defend that?)? or perhaps a big Airforce? In CIV 4 it was mostly the oppertunity cost I was thinking about.

That being said Firaxis has some things they most take care about... first thing the AI. I have rarely seen such a bad battle AI since I started playing computer strategy games 1985 or so. Even though I said the game is very well balanced it can be awhole lotta better, and with the gamedesign they have constructed for CIV 5 it's all about the balance.

A Big Navy is a considerable choice for you in Civ V? You haven't played enough then. The AI pretty much has no navy all the time.

 

[Celevin]

With all due respect, where is the warning here Moderators Sires????

You, Celevin, should learn to respect long term members of this community, who are clearly committed, in the long term, to the game series and the community. You are welcome as a new member, but you are still a newbie here. Show some respect, and in any case, show arguments. Or else, there is only one here making a FOOL of himself.

You pointed out my post as something disrespectful, yet defended the post saying "Fire Jon Shafer!"? Was that really respectful? Posts like that crap harm the relationship between Civ Fanatics and Firaxis. No matter how many posts a person has, I'll show them the same level of respect. I don't care if it's a mod or a new member. I acknowledge I should have said "your post is foolish" or "your line of thinking is foolish" instead of "you're a fool".

And don't point to my post count. As ironic as it is that I've got more than you yet you're saying this, you need to know that a person's knowledge or how much respect they should garner is not dictated by that number. If that were the case, there'd be a lot more random posts of people raising post count. It always comes back to the strength of the argument a person makes.

If you read my post history and try and put my Civ5 posts into both positive and negative categories, you're going to notice I post a lot more negative stuff than positive. The reason I dislike this thread so much is not that it's negative or that people don't like the game. It's that it lacks direction greatly. I'm trying to get my point across, that this isn't a thread about game depth but about a general dislike towards its mechanics, but every time I do people don't even quote that part of my post.

I make an effort, whenever I'm talking about the game mechanics, to:
1) Post exactly what mechanic I dislike. In the past I've made the mistake of talking about overall complexity, and have had the thread degenerate into crap.
2) Try to post an example, because nothing gets the point across better.
3) Post a workaround that would improve the game.
I'm just not seeing it much in this thread. I *want* to see it, because I want to see what mechanics are considered completely dumbed down. The few people who have arguable reasons are being completely drowned out by the rioting mob. If this was a live forum, we'd have people wanting to go break windows in the street at this point.