Who else agrees that Civ 5 has been dumbed down?

[Guardian_PL]

This isn't Stardock. You can't expect a big name developer to do that kind of thing. What we've learnt from the experience is that the core Civilization series is no longer infallible as it had been for 20 years - next time I won't be so eager to purchase without giving it due diligence.

This. From now on before buying any Firaxis game it will have to wait for at least a year or two after so it can mature, because freshly after release it's just a piece of broken crap. Sad but true.

 

[Thormodr]

Well back when most of the people were here right after their first few hours of play and were voting on first impressions, these polls were happily used to discredit the detractors as a vocal minority. But now that the folks arriving at the forums have had a chance to play the game a while and the trend has swung heavily the other way, the polls are meaningless.




This isn't Stardock. You can't expect a big name developer to do that kind of thing. What we've learnt from the experience is that the core Civilization series is no longer infallible as it had been for 20 years - next time I won't be so eager to purchase without giving it due diligence.

Exactly right. After all, if the Final Fantasy series can derail so horribly with their latest creation then surely the Civ series is not immune. Great game series have been destroyed before and it could happen again. Apologists on here just laugh it off but I am deeply saddened with the possible beginning of the end after 19 years of entertainment.

Hopefully mods and FFH3 will save this current inception and Civ VI will get back to the way the series has always been. It's no sure thing though...

Anyway, Civ players definitely deserve better. Firaxis and woefully substandard 2K Games better show some humility and set things straight.

 

[PieceOfMind]

I'm not saying threads like this shouldn't exist just that I generally feel they are ultimately pointless.

As a source of constructive feedback, it's not a good way of organising and discussing the valid shortcomings of the game, because, as I said threads like this tend to elicit responses that aren't conducive to that. I think threads like the civ 5 issues thread (which I believe exists both on here and on the 2k forums) do a far better job of promoting discussion, presenting useful feedback, and compiling it in a way that's easy to digest.

Collating it into a poll does nothing to change the opinions of anyone on either side of the argument- it simply leads to a lot of posts arguing that 'you're wrong the game is great and not dumbed down at all' and 'no, you are x feature is clearly inferior to what we had in civ iv'.

This is only my opinion, of course, but what threads like this do is present valid criticisms in such a way that often lead to arguments and flaming rather than real discussion. My point is, is it better to complain about what's broken, and argue with others about whether something is bad or not, or discuss what could do with changing, or what's missing without making judgements that are ultimately non-constructive?

This is the most relevant post of the entire thread, yet it demonstrates the irrelevance of the thread.

I understand that you think the game isn't dumbed down and this grates on your nerves to see a thread like this. Like I said though, no likee, no clickee.

Did I say anything to that effect? I think you will in fact find I'm agnostic on whether or not the game is dumbed down, and most of the time I've only been arguing whether it's productive or not to get into arguments about whether it's dumbed down, just like Collic did (but so much more efficiently than I ). Moreoever, I believe the dd phrase itself is offensive to a lot of players which is part of the reason it evokes negative responses a lot of the time. People aren't happy calling the game simplified or lacking in strategic depth. No, they have to go so far as to call it "dumbed down", as if they're too good for the game and above anyone who happens to enjoy playing it. I personally am not offended by it, but I can see perfectly why some people are, and that is why I recommend for people who have legitimate concerns about the game to try and keep above the dumbed down method of simply condensing an argument (or merely summarising an argument) into one of it being 'dumbed down'.

I have plenty of complaints about the game and have been one of the contributors to the Civ V Issues thread, though most of my suggestions so far have been about the UI rather than the gameplay, because I haven't played it enough yet to make good suggestions about rebalancing it.

 

[Thormodr]

This is the most relevant post of the entire thread, yet it demonstrates the irrelevance of the thread.


Did I say anything to that effect? I think you will in fact find I'm agnostic on whether or not the game is dumbed down, and most of the time I've only been arguing whether it's productive or not to get into arguments about whether it's dumbed down, just like Collic did (but so much more efficiently than I ). Moreoever, I believe the dd phrase itself is offensive to a lot of players which is part of the reason it evokes negative responses a lot of the time. People aren't happy calling the game simplified or lacking in strategic depth. No, they have to go so far as to call it "dumbed down", as if they're too good for the game and above anyone who happens to enjoy playing it. I personally am not offended by it, but I can see perfectly why some people are, and that is why I recommend for people who have legitimate concerns about the game to try and keep above the dumbed down method of simply condensing an argument (or merely summarising an argument) into one of it being 'dumbed down'.

I have plenty of complaints about the game and have been one of the contributors to the Civ V Issues thread, though most of my suggestions so far have been about the UI rather than the gameplay, because I haven't played it enough yet to make good suggestions about rebalancing it.

I'm sorry if people find the term "dumbed down" offensive. However, we need to deal with reality here and that is the product we've been given. They made a conscious decision to make Civ more "accessible" to the mass market. I sure am not happy about and evidentally, there are many people that share my opinion.

Anyway, I really like this poster's take on things from the 2K Forums about how the game is a board game design and not a god game design. That really sums up my feelings well. Count me in decisively on supporting the god game design model.

Board game design principles:

* Board games have no interest in recreating/simulating any form of reality - it's all about creating a FUN GAME based on an abstracted theme.
* Board game designers are experts in distilling complex themes down into a few hard but logical rules that act as nicely defined limits of the game.
* In board games, LESS IS MORE. The best board games are those where the theme can be nicely represented by, and abstracted into as few rules as possible - but still allow huge scope for alternative strategies to be employed within them.
* The fun/challenge of playing board games is developing strategies to master these limited rules and compete against others.
* Board games are not about experimentation and what-if's as much as applying the rules to achieve a definite victory over competitors.

Civ V was designed by Jon Shafer - who I would strongly suggest comes from the board-game school of design.

http://forums.2kgames.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1196145

 

[Saarud]

This. From now on before buying any Firaxis game it will have to wait for at least a year or two after so it can mature, because freshly after release it's just a piece of broken crap. Sad but true.

True! It would so much better to be around here if people knew what they bought.

Personally I do not think CIV 5 has been dumbed down. It has been streamlined for sure but absolutely not dumbed down. Because CIV 4 has more options and details doesn't mean it is has more strategy in it.

Maybe I am one of the few but I actually think more strategic in CIV 5 especially on how to form my civilization than I ever did in CIV 4. To me that is not dumbed down.

Oh and AI is totally rubish in CIV 5. They should have hired the guys that made the tactical AI for the game series Massive Assault. In that game you will struggle against the AI even if you know your way around.

 

[PieceOfMind]

Anyway, I really like this poster's take on things from the 2K Forums about how the game is a board game design and not a god game design. That really sums up my feelings well. Count me in decisively on supporting the god game design model.

Board game design principles:

* Board games have no interest in recreating/simulating any form of reality - it's all about creating a FUN GAME based on an abstracted theme.
* Board game designers are experts in distilling complex themes down into a few hard but logical rules that act as nicely defined limits of the game.
* In board games, LESS IS MORE. The best board games are those where the theme can be nicely represented by, and abstracted into as few rules as possible - but still allow huge scope for alternative strategies to be employed within them.
* The fun/challenge of playing board games is developing strategies to master these limited rules and compete against others.
* Board games are not about experimentation and what-if's as much as applying the rules to achieve a definite victory over competitors.

Civ V was designed by Jon Shafer - who I would strongly suggest comes from the board-game school of design.

http://forums.2kgames.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1196145

See, that's good. Those are some discussions about the game's design and some arguments about why it is flawed according to that design framework. Many people will agree to it, and many won't, but importantly it isn't implicitly deriding a particular group of people on the forum.

I have not viewed that particular thread much myself, apart from looking at the OP, but could you perhaps tell me whether it has received as many flamey or trolling responses as this one has? Has it received more or less productive discussion?

 

[falconne]

See, that's good. Those are some discussions about the game's design and some arguments about why it is flawed according to that design framework. Many people will agree to it, and many won't, but importantly it isn't implicitly deriding a particular group of people on the forum.

I have not viewed that particular thread much myself, apart from looking at the OP, but could you perhaps tell me whether it has received as many flamey or trolling responses as this one has? Has it received more or less productive discussion?

That's interesting. The reason I dislike Civ 5 so much is that it plays exactly like a Euro boardgame. I love them as boardgames, but only in that social medium. In a computer game I expect more reality.

It's clear there's a lot of people who've not experienced the elegance of those German boardgames - because they see it for the first time in Civ 5 and are really enjoying the new concept. That's all well and good, but it's a shame to have the Civ series derailed because of it.

 

[Thormodr]

See, that's good. Those are some discussions about the game's design and some arguments about why it is flawed according to that design framework. Many people will agree to it, and many won't, but importantly it isn't implicitly deriding a particular group of people on the forum.

I have not viewed that particular thread much myself, apart from looking at the OP, but could you perhaps tell me whether it has received as many flamey or trolling responses as this one has? Has it received more or less productive discussion?

It was generally well received. Most people agreed with his theory.

The Op explains what he's trying to do here:

Considering I was saying the arguments that Civ V is simply dumbed-down to appeal to a dumb audience are wrong - your post is massively ironic.

Now, it is possible that the game hasn't been "dumbed down" per se but it's more a question of semantics then. I definitely consider the game watered down and that's a natural consequence of the board game design that the designers used.

I definitely prefer the god game design.

God game design principles:

* In god games, designers aim to create a believable miniature living world for us to play with.
* The playability/enjoyment for the player is in finding and tweaking the details and watching cause and effect principles in action. In other words, it's about letting the player experiment and 'play' with this alternative world to see what happens.
* The rules of god games are adapted to fit around the constraints imposed by real-world considerations and the setting of the game world (historical in this case). So the immersiveness of the game world comes first, the 'game' (what you need to achieve in order to win) comes second.
* The fun of god games comes from the "what-if's" and the seemingly unlimited possibilities for developing new strategies to achieve a better result next time. It stems from god-games creating an environment where it's not totally clear exactly how to win. Put another way, it's more about competing with yourself - the satisfaction of progressively optimising your performance in order to win better/smarter.

This is how the Civ series has been designed until now. This has been the expectation and accepted 'Civ way' of doing things. The design team were all about adding little touches to create more immersion and believability in the miniature world they created. They wanted everything to feel alive and somewhat unpredicatable - and for us to have access to play with every little aspect in order to win the game in a very organic way.

I really like this post as well. I understand his position completely as I never was a big fan of the cottage economy or specialist economy, etc. I liked playing my own way, even if it was suboptimal.

You hit the nail on the head...a few times. I've gone through a similar experience as well going from disappointment and outrage to resignation to play Civ on its own terms. To reach god game status its going to take massive modding and AI enhancement. I'm impressed with your analysis and how it explains the modest difference in resource tiles and plain tiles, the modest impact of any given structure and the modest, incremental impact of social policies. Civ 5 is very much a game where a 'strategy' develops to win. Its a formula similar to the cottage/specialist argument in Civ 4. I HATE games whereby there are such limited strategies and obvious 'paths to victory'. In 4 I could ignore these and still have a fun, engaging game. Perhaps I wasn't as 'efficient' but I was having fun, which is kinda the point huh? In 5 I really don't have the option to venture outside the paths. I feel like I'm being herded down the path rather than making big choices. The constraints to overgrowth, production etc, feel too heavy handed and scripted rather than organic like they should. This also makes my cities feel less than epic.

Perhaps this deserves its own thread. It does explain quite well the division amongst Civ players and definitely why I don't like it.

 

[Thormodr]

That's interesting. The reason I dislike Civ 5 so much is that it plays exactly like a Euro boardgame. I love them as boardgames, but only in that social medium. In a computer game I expect more reality.

It's clear there's a lot of people who've not experienced the elegance of those German boardgames - because they see it for the first time in Civ 5 and are really enjoying the new concept. That's all well and good, but it's a shame to have the Civ series derailed because of it.

I am a big fan of the German board games myself. I quite like the work of Klaus Teuber.

However, I am not a fan of the board gameification of Civ. This design shift was ill advised in my opinion.

 

[falconne]

I am a big fan of the German board games myself. I quite like the work of Klaus Teuber.

However, I am not a fan of the board gameification of Civ. This design shift was ill advised in my opinion.

I'm trying to write an AI for Agricola as a personal project myself. They are great games.

And yeah, that guy was saying exactly what I was thinking. Previous civs were simulations, this one is a boardgame. Some people like the latter, but I suspect it's those that haven't had a chance to play complex Euro boardgames and get their fix from those. I think Civ V has gone too far down the boardgame path to be fixed by expansions - if they try it I think we'll get a halfway house jumble of conflicting game designs.

It would be up to mods to completely revamp it and make it a god game/empire sim again. Incidentally, I don't really like the name "god game", because I prefer simulations where you don't have complete control over every aspect (I like the way Paradox games do it more).

PS: I love the first response to his thread. Typical of the modern ADD driven gamer - how do they end up in a series like Civ?

 

[Thormodr]

I'm trying to write an AI for Agricola as a personal project myself. They are great games.

And yeah, that guy was saying exactly what I was thinking. Previous civs were simulations, this one is a boardgame. Some people like the latter, but I suspect it's those that haven't had a chance to play complex Euro boardgames and get their fix from those. I think Civ V has gone too far down the boardgame path to be fixed by expansions - if they try it I think we'll get a halfway house jumble of conflicting game designs.

It would be up to mods to completely revamp it and make it a god game/empire sim again. Incidentally, I don't really like the name "god game", because I prefer simulations where you don't have complete control over every aspect (I like the way Paradox games do it more).

PS: I love the first response to his thread. Typical of the modern ADD driven gamer - how do they end up in a series like Civ?

I do agree that the designers trying to revert it to a god game design would probably be disastrous. That will be the challenge to the modders. I guess fans of the god game design will have to wait until Civ VI for actual game to revert to its roots. It's a shame to have to wait 5 years but that's the way it is. It was a good run anyway.

I do enjoy Paradox games very much as well. I've been having a lot of fun playing Victoria II. Very well done. EU3 HTTT as well.

 

[PieceOfMind]

I'm trying to write an AI for Agricola as a personal project myself. They are great games.

And yeah, that guy was saying exactly what I was thinking. Previous civs were simulations, this one is a boardgame. Some people like the latter, but I suspect it's those that haven't had a chance to play complex Euro boardgames and get their fix from those. I think Civ V has gone too far down the boardgame path to be fixed by expansions - if they try it I think we'll get a halfway house jumble of conflicting game designs.

It would be up to mods to completely revamp it and make it a god game/empire sim again. Incidentally, I don't really like the name "god game", because I prefer simulations where you don't have complete control over every aspect (I like the way Paradox games do it more).

PS: I love the first response to his thread. Typical of the modern ADD driven gamer - how do they end up in a series like Civ?

Civilization games, I would argue, have never been simulations. They are turn based strategy games with a historical theme, and spanning the entirety of civilization.

It might be more simulation-like than a board game that is even more abstract, but ultimately civ games make pretty much no attempt to simulate anything, and focus more on engaging the player in challenging and thought-provoking gameplay. (You are allowed to disagree that civ5 does that. )

 

[r_rolo1]

Civilization games, I would argue, have never been simulations. They are turn based strategy games with a historical theme, and spanning the entirety of civilization.

It might be more simulation-like than a board game that is even more abstract, but ultimately civ games make pretty much no attempt to simulate anything, and focus more on engaging the player in challenging and thought-provoking gameplay. (You are allowed to disagree that civ5 does that. )

True enough , but there is a thin line between doing a civilization game with a PG ( or whatever bord-style tactical warfare game you want to toss here ) touch or to make a PG game ( see above ) with a civilization theme And I don't find strange that some people think that the devs crossed the line ... ( I'm a little over the fence in this issue, to be honest )

 

[ohioastronomy]

That's interesting. The reason I dislike Civ 5 so much is that it plays exactly like a Euro boardgame. I love them as boardgames, but only in that social medium. In a computer game I expect more reality.

It's clear there's a lot of people who've not experienced the elegance of those German boardgames - because they see it for the first time in Civ 5 and are really enjoying the new concept. That's all well and good, but it's a shame to have the Civ series derailed because of it.

It's a partial attempt at a Euro boardgame, but they couldn't achieve some very basic ingredients of what makes the new-style boardgames so engaging. Some very basic principles from what I'd call the German design philosophy:

1) Boardgames should have simple rules, play reasonably quickly, and maintain a consistent pace;
2) The simple rules should permit deep strategies, with multiple viable paths;
3) Everyone should feel as if they have a chance to win; especially in multi-player games, people should not be asked to spend a lot of time in a lost cause.

I think that Civ 5 fails badly at the third key point and is quite imbalanced - basically it's a wargame (never a strength of this series) with some token empire-building options retained from prior versions. The bank account (excuse me, Diplomacy) win is a case in point.

 

[Nutteria]

I don`t want to go in to the board game vs simulation debate but I have to say that I do feel like playing chess against computer on begginer difficulty sometimes.What is worse when I play on immortal I feel like I am playing against the same begginer computer but this time he has 4 queens instead of one.

I have to say this tho - The "civilization feel" is ever more dwindeling after every game I win/loose.

 

[drkodos]

All good things come to an end.

 

[hendo]

It has been dumbed down imo, but that doesn't mean I don't like it.

 

[falconne]

Civilization games, I would argue, have never been simulations. They are turn based strategy games with a historical theme, and spanning the entirety of civilization.

It might be more simulation-like than a board game that is even more abstract, but ultimately civ games make pretty much no attempt to simulate anything, and focus more on engaging the player in challenging and thought-provoking gameplay. (You are allowed to disagree that civ5 does that. )

They may not have been as close to simulation as Paradox games, but if you were to make a scale with sim on one side and boardgame on the other, with each version Civ definitely drifted towards the sim end. Civ 4 and its expansions made it a game where experience, intuition and grand strategy mattered more than number crunching, because there were too many numbers. Civ 5 has gone way back the scale, towards the boardgame end, back to Civ II level. Now it's a game of number crunching and micro strategy.

The only silver lining is that it might be interesting to work on the AI, because this boardgame format makes a brute force AI more plausible. The community can produce a far more optimal AI to play against than Civ 4 does, but it would have no personality... it would be like playing chess against the computer.

 

[elijahtary]

It has been dumbed down imo, but that doesn't mean I don't like it.

Compared to Civ IV, it has been massively dummbed down. Hopefully they'll release an expansion, like BTS for Civ IV, that will add a lot of complexity to it.

 

[Achilleslastand]

This has been dumbed down and has all the strategic depth of playing with a box of marbles. We are being fed key phrases such as "socially responsible"{for lack of a manual in other words saving a buck} to being "streamlined"{features that were in prevoius gms were mysteriously left out}.
1. 2K games are in financial straits and needed the revunue from Civ5 to help them.
2. The game still needed 2 or 3 months of development but im sure 2K wouldnt let Firaxis push back the date as they needed the payday.
3. 2K games track record{or lack of}speaks volumes.
Isnt it odd that no 2k reps have visited the forums in the last 17 days? And what about their promise of multiplayer will be awesome.
Connect the dots and smell the coffee people weve been bent over and royally screwed.