I really don't see how this follows. Are you arguing in Civ V that you can ignore gold and culture (and for the most part, production) and just focus on Science, still expecting a victory? Without culture, you will not even unlock the "push-button" Rationalism, or any other policies for that matter. With only a "few" production buildings, how will you finish building the science buildings along your "swimlane", and still have enough for defence?
Choosing the right set of Civics in Civ IV, for a science victory, wasn't subtle either. The thing is that, in both games, you've got other things you need to worry about other than just a) discover all the requisite techs, and b) build the spaceship parts.
It's for this reason that I don't see a whole lot of difference between the "both" buildings of Civ IV, and the more focused buildings of Civ V. You'd figure our what your city needs, and build the optimal building(s) that satisfies those needs. I'm not convinced that giving buildings multiple effects makes the decision of what/when to build more interesting. Deciding what you need is the important part to me; if you decided you really needed a hamburger, getting a free side of fries is a nice bonus, but you're not going to order a salad if you don't get the fries. (On the flip side, if you decide you want both hamburger and fries, the combo deal becomes obvious).
In some sense, I see what is being said. Civ V makes it easier to see how to get more science, or more culture, or more gold. But the how wasn't fundamentally any more interesting in Civ IV. What neither game tells you is why you'd want any of these things.
Well, first - let's set aside defense... enough has been said about the crappy AI - beyond games where every CiV near me decides to take me out 30 turns in (and yes, I lose those on deity) - defense right now just isn't a challenge... I don't even waste my time on walls/castles/etc anymore.
There's such a thing as TOO much synergy.
Everything becomes self-reinforcing. I think the 2K thread someone linked is actually spot-on.... It feels like a game of monopoly -- you get 2 green properties, what are you spending the rest of the game doing? Trying to trade/land on the 3rd so you can then build up hotels on them.... Do it, there's a good chance you win... fail - you'll lose.
I played about 5 hours of a deity game last night (large map, marathon) and am now in late renaissance (another thing that really ticks me off... 5 hours to get to late renaissance... in a MARATHON game? Something's inherently wrong with a CiV game where you can get halfway through a game in a single evening of play on frakkin marathon!). I happened to get isolated on smallish continent, with about 8 CSs sprinkled on my continent and surrounding islands.
Decided this was a good game to try for my first cultural win.... do I need science? Sure - I've built a few libraries and unis.... But - my scientific thrust isn't to achieve technological supremacy or even parity -- heck, I didn't even bother with archery or bronze working until they were 2-3 turn research projects. I'm beelining towards all the sciences that provide culture-based wonders. Do I need gold? Sure - but only so I can keep the 3 culture-CS allied.
There are several facets to the problem -- I was fortunate to have 4 luxury resources (dyes, gems, ivory, wine) local, plus furs and pearls belonging to 2 allied CS. Now - I'm a RoM/AND player in IV - so I know vanilla is a bit different, but taking advantage of your resources forced you to deviate a bit from your science path.... to take advantage of your resources required more techs -- here, it was pretty automatic (calendar for Stonehenge and it's +8 culture being an obvious wonder to shoot for). I didn't have to detour for something like monarchy (to take advantage of the wine) nor wait for a later tech with a more thorough path (as calendar required in IV) to take advantage of dyes. It may seem like a small difference - but I think it adds a lot to gameplay to force the player on these little detours to take full advantage of different
facets of the game.
Here - there are no little detours.... I don't like perfect synergies.
Perfect synergies lead too directly and too rigidly towards winning the game -- and I don't think I'm quite alone in saying that "winning" was always, in a sense, secondary to Civilization gameplay. The
journey was the fun. Those little detours made it fun.... In a situation like above - not only would I have to detour technologically for certain tile improvement techs, but I'd have to build detour, too... it would be a good idea to pump out a few caravels to explore the area, see where my enemies are, maybe figure out if there wasn't another patch of land worth colonizing... In this game? The same scout I started the game with simply embarks and starts sailing across the ocean.
3 unmet majors have already fallen - in IV, I might get a little nervous about that... In V, I don't -- even if they fix the AI -- because it's pointless to worry... Especially on deity, whomever the conquerer(s) is/are probably already has tiles stacked to high heaven. Even taking away the current turkey shoot paradigm -- it's going to be pointless to try to take on such a monster militarily.... I'm just going to plow ahead on culture... or maybe consider a UN win. In IV, I might have felt the urge to detour, perhaps ally with a couple smaller civs, then build an expeditionary force to see if we can't knock down the behemoth a notch or two (not to mention, in RoM/AND, I had a lot of options.... I didn't necessarily need to fight him directly - I could use espionage or perhaps even something like open borders and religion to try to trigger a revolution and split him from within).
Yes - you have to pay attention to science, to culture, to gold no matter how you are playing.... but the "lead role" is determined relatively early, and for the rest of the game, everything is just ultimately playing a supporting role. IV was more of an 'ensemble cast' -- where different aspects each had their moment in the sun and their own storylines.
Detours were fun in IV... Detours are deadly in V.
Obviously, I mentioned above a mod that improved this in IV -- and I suppose it's perfectly reasonable to say V will some day have an RoM/AND, too...
BUT - can a mod break that fundamental paradigm? I'm not sure I see how. Ultimately, it's still all going to lead back to a "stay on this path because you're trying to win condition X". That's just not what I've come to love about Civilization... It was never about "winning" in any final sense... Sure - you were driving towards winning, but it was more fun to stop and smell the flowers, maybe take a little detour.
I know.
