Who else agrees that Civ 5 has been dumbed down?

[Abegweit]

I miss the Civ3 cultural victory (the one city version).

 

[charon2112]

The problem is that these games can take quite a few hours, so being forced into a fixed path has some drawbacks. And the AI tendency to attack you means that peaceful empire building is just not practical on many maps. It's a problem for peaceful builders.

Well, you're not really forced into a fixed path, you're forced to plan out a path...

 

[Psyringe]

Whatever else the games faults may be, this I think is a positive thing. In this respect, V requires more forethought and planning. You really shouldn't be able to turn your civilization on a dime, 3/4 of the way through its history. This accentuates the empire building aspect of the game, in my opinion.

I disagree with that statement. By that token, you could totally rip the governement out of the game, put each implemented civilization on rails by giving it its own hardwired government/civic system, and still claim that this was a positive thing because it requires forethought and planning right from the start. ("I'm playing on an Archipelago map, so I'll play the Dutch, because they have these nifty bonuses for overseas trade.").

You don't create an enticing strategy game by removing options, forcing players to stick to a decision no matter what, and then telling them that it's a good thing to remove all these options because it enforces more planning. Having options, making decisions is a huge part of what's making strategy games so enjoyable - one of Sid's old mantras is that the enjoyment a player gets from a strategy game is a function of meaningful decisions per playtime. Civ5's is the opposite of that, because once you made your decision, you're severely limited in the amount of further decisions that are still available to you, and there's no way going back.

A good strategy game doesn't restrict the player, it gives him options and opportunities and associates these with costs. If you think that in Civ4 it was too easy to totally switch your government around, then don't rip the whole mechanic out - fix it. Increase the costs of changing governments. Implement long-term repercussions on diplomacy or happiness for switching to an oppressive government. Add a negative diplo modifier like "Your erratic behavior makes it difficult to trust you" if the player changed government very often. There are tons of possibilities, and all these increase the strategical depth of the game, and reward careful planning and forethought, without ripping a whole mechanic out of the system.

I also think that it's a pretty strange decision for a game that creates a lot of its players' enjoyment through hooking into human history, to consciously take something out that was responsible for the most defining moments that history has to offer - the French Revolution, the German oscillation between a democracy, fascism, and a democracy again, the crumbling of the Soviet Union, all these are now totally impossible in a game that presents itself as depicting 6000 years of human civilization.

 

[Doctor Phibes]

[...]

I also think that it's a pretty strange decision for a game that creates a lot of its players' enjoyment through hooking into human history, to consciously take something out that was responsible for the most defining moments that history has to offer - the French Revolution, the German oscillation between a democracy, fascism, and a democracy again, the crumbling of the Soviet Union, all these are now totally impossible in a game that presents itself as depicting 6000 years of human civilization.

It is kind of funny that once you're a communist state in this game you stay communist until the End Of History (or 2050, whichever comes first).

 

[charon2112]

That's part of the strategy though, to figure out your leaders strengths and take advantage by combining his special abilities with certain wonders, buildings, social policies and play styles. You're not forced to play that way, but you gain and advantage if you do. IV was just like that, certain leader traits worked well with certain wonders, civics and play styles. It's not that different in V.

I disagree with that statement. By that token, you could totally rip the governement out of the game, put each implemented civilization on rails by giving it its own hardwired government/civic system, and still claim that this was a positive thing because it requires forethought and planning right from the start. ("I'm playing on an Archipelago map, so I'll play the Dutch, because they have these nifty bonuses for overseas trade.").

You don't create an enticing strategy game by removing options, forcing players to stick to a decision no matter what, and then telling them that it's a good thing to remove all these options because it enforces more planning. Having options, making decisions is a huge part of what's making strategy games so enjoyable - one of Sid's old mantras is that the enjoyment a player gets from a strategy game is a function of meaningful decisions per playtime. Civ5's is the opposite of that, because once you made your decision, you're severely limited in the amount of further decisions that are still available to you, and there's no way going back.

A good strategy game doesn't restrict the player, it gives him options and opportunities and associates these with costs. If you think that in Civ4 it was too easy to totally switch your government around, then don't rip the whole mechanic out - fix it. Increase the costs of changing governments. Implement long-term repercussions on diplomacy or happiness for switching to an oppressive government. Add a negative diplo modifier like "Your erratic behavior makes it difficult to trust you" if the player changed government very often. There are tons of possibilities, and all these increase the strategical depth of the game, and reward careful planning and forethought, without ripping a whole mechanic out of the system.

I also think that it's a pretty strange decision for a game that creates a lot of its players' enjoyment through hooking into human history, to consciously take something out that was responsible for the most defining moments that history has to offer - the French Revolution, the German oscillation between a democracy, fascism, and a democracy again, the crumbling of the Soviet Union, all these are now totally impossible in a game that presents itself as depicting 6000 years of human civilization.

 

[squibby99]

I've now played all 5 Civ games back since the first one was released in the early 90s... I've never signed up to this site before, but I think that's because I've never ever had trouble forcing myself to play Civ. I've always preferred to go play rather than talk about the game.

See, you guys sit here and write comments on a forum (and I'm thankful for that given the number of technical and strategic help I've found over the years) but to be honest I find myself willing myself to go play civ V rather than physically craving it. That is definitely a first. And a worry.

Dumbed down...you're spot on.

I'll give it one week more. And if it doesn't improve I'm heading back to civ IV

 

[Thormodr]

I've now played all 5 Civ games back since the first one was released in the early 90s... I've never signed up to this site before, but I think that's because I've never ever had trouble forcing myself to play Civ. I've always preferred to go play rather than talk about the game.

See, you guys sit here and write comments on a forum (and I'm thankful for that given the number of technical and strategic help I've found over the years) but to be honest I find myself willing myself to go play civ V rather than physically craving it. That is definitely a first. And a worry.

Dumbed down...you're spot on.

I'll give it one week more. And if it doesn't improve I'm heading back to civ IV

Welcome to the forums. I share your pain and completely understand your feelings.

I, myself will be heading back to cIV. cIV ROM is fantastic. I'm going to try the mod mod cIV ROM-AND. (cIV Rise of Mankind - A new dawn) Should be a good challenge.

 

[falconne]

Well, you're not really forced into a fixed path, you're forced to plan out a path...

While having to pick a path at random at the start, then being forced to stick to it, instead of changing your strategy due to changing conditions is not very enticing in a strategy game, what makes it worse is that you can figure out these linear paths in your very first game of Civ V and they play out exactly the same way every game. There's no replay value in this game, because the lack of interconnected variables and mechanics prevents the chaotic scenarios that occur in a Civ 4 game. You don't need to change your plan because the conditions never change... it's like a linear story game; once you play through once, there's little excitement left in playing again.

 

[Jolly Rogerer]

Whatever else the games faults may be, this I think is a positive thing. In this respect, V requires more forethought and planning. You really shouldn't be able to turn your civilization on a dime, 3/4 of the way through its history. This accentuates the empire building aspect of the game, in my opinion.

It seems like it would be an immersion killer to have to plan your victory from the time you have only one city and no knowledge of the world. It certainly kills immersion in any historical sense, as empires have definitely changed direction (e.g. internal vs external focus) rapidly throughout history. Many of my funnest games of Civ have been those where an opportunity (or a serious set back) has forced me to change directions in the middle of a game in order to win it. Learning to design a strong and nimble empire "just in case" was fun in itself.

 

[Thormodr]

It seems like it would be an immersion killer to have to plan your victory from the time you have only one city and no knowledge of the world. It certainly kills immersion in any historical sense, as empires have definitely changed direction (e.g. internal vs external focus) rapidly throughout history. Many of my funnest games of Civ have been those where an opportunity (or a serious set back) has forced me to change directions in the middle of a game in order to win it. Learning to design a strong and nimble empire "just in case" was fun in itself.

You are correct. It always paid to be flexible and versatile when playing cIV. The wealth of options you were given, especially with the expansions made it extremely fun. Players like options and don't like to be restricted.

Being funneled into one strategy or another right from the get go gets extremely dull very quickly.

 

[charon2112]

You are correct. It always paid to be flexible and versatile when playing cIV. The wealth of options you were given, especially with the expansions made it extremely fun. Players like options and don't like to be restricted.

Being funneled into one strategy or another right from the get go gets extremely dull very quickly.

The thing is, you're not funneled into anything. You can play any ruler any way you want. But you gain an advantage if you play to their strengths. As far as policies go, just play differently in your next game, learn from your mistakes, learn what policy trees work well with each ruler. I'll still take this any day over being able to instantly switch to a more convenient government on the fly. Same for sliders, it's not very good to be able to say "ok, everything into research for ten turns...all right, that's done, let's put everything into culture now...or espionage." Controlling your empire through it's policies and buildings is a much better system. In my opinion, of course.

 

[Thormodr]

The thing is, you're not funneled into anything. You can play any ruler any way you want. But you gain an advantage if you play to their strengths. As far as policies go, just play differently in your next game, learn from your mistakes, learn what policy trees work well with each ruler. I'll still take this any day over being able to instantly switch to a more convenient government on the fly. Same for sliders, it's not very good to be able to say "ok, everything into research for ten turns...all right, that's done, let's put everything into culture now...or espionage." Controlling your empire through it's policies and buildings is a much better system. In my opinion, of course.

Of course you can choose any leader you want. Invariably, some are better than others at certain victory conditions than others.

However, say you want to go for a cultural victory. Any leader will do really.
Stay small, spam cultural buildings, get a little defence, and then pick basically the same policies game after game. They even chose them for you. I am surpised they didn't use big neon flashing letters for the "THIS IS GREAT FOR SMALL FOCUSED CIVS. USE THIS FOR YOUR CULTURAL WIN!!!" policy tree. Dull...

If you can't learn how to do this after one or two tries then you have serious problems. The replayability of this game is going to be the worst for any Civ game.

Stay on target or you'll crash out and have to start again. Whee!

 

[Venereus]

The thing is, you're not funneled into anything. You can play any ruler any way you want. But you gain an advantage if you play to their strengths. As far as policies go, just play differently in your next game, learn from your mistakes, learn what policy trees work well with each ruler. I'll still take this any day over being able to instantly switch to a more convenient government on the fly. Same for sliders, it's not very good to be able to say "ok, everything into research for ten turns...all right, that's done, let's put everything into culture now...or espionage." Controlling your empire through it's policies and buildings is a much better system. In my opinion, of course.

Strategy players love optimization and efficient play. When the game gives you very few options, very few variables, and UAs that pretty much yell at your face what each leader is made for, you just figure out the optimal strategy, and run with it. Sure, I can play with Greece and not bother with City-states, but then, why not try another leader for that playstyle, instead of wasting your strengths on purpose. You don't just get an advantage, you just don't conceive another way. Couple that with the fact that the game sessions themselves are pretty straight foward, and you've got yourself a low replayability title.

 

[charon2112]

Strategy players love optimization and efficient play. When the game gives you very few options, very few variables, and UAs that pretty much yell at your face what each leader is made for, you just figure out the optimal strategy, and run with it. Sure, I can play with Greece and not bother with City-states, but then, why not try another leader for that playstyle, instead of wasting your strengths on purpose. You don't just get an advantage, you just don't conceive another way. Couple that with the fact that the game sessions themselves are pretty straight foward, and you've got yourself a low replayability title.

I don't know. I see huge re-playability here. Just being given options isn't good enough, I want a system that makes some kind of sense. Being able to completely change your civ's government to something else that happens be more convenient during those few turns, never made a lot of sense to me. So, options, just for the sake of options, isn't necessarily a good thing.

Also, the fact that you can win in Civ V with one or two cities, is so incredible to me. That's something I always in a Civ game.

 

[falconne]

I don't know. I see huge re-playability here. Just being given options isn't good enough, I want a system that makes some kind of sense. Being able to completely change your civ's government to something else that happens be more convenient during those few turns, never made a lot of sense to me. So, options, just for the sake of options, isn't necessarily a good thing.

Also, the fact that you can win in Civ V with one or two cities, is so incredible to me. That's something I always in a Civ game.

I think you keep missing the point of our arguments. The point is, most of us figured out a fairly optimum strategy for every victory condition after playing just one or two games. The strategies may not be 100% optimum, but it's fairly obvious from the mechanics that they are pretty good - any further obsessive compulsive number crunching would only bring victory closer by a few dozen turns. Although I stopped at Immortal, I'm sure those winning at Deity are using pretty much the same logic.

This is pretty much right after the game is released and now there is no fun left for us. There is nothing left to discover until the expansions come out. That is why we're disappointed - there wasn't enough fun it. What is the point of playing any more when you know the exact path to victory, when trying anything different simply delays victory and isn't going to help you discover better gameplay techniques?

Seriously, I needed more mental effort for Empire Total War... that's saying something.

 

[Venereus]

I don't know. I see huge re-playability here. Just being given options isn't good enough, I want a system that makes some kind of sense. Being able to completely change your civ's government to something else that happens be more convenient during those few turns, never made a lot of sense to me. So, options, just for the sake of options, isn't necessarily a good thing.

Also, the fact that you can win in Civ V with one or two cities, is so incredible to me. That's something I always in a Civ game.

Oh, come on! Changing to what's more convenient is strategy at work, and we still do it in Civ V. Just that now Theocracy and Free Religion run at the same time, and somehow that makes more sense to you, because it's not a short-term change.

 

[charon2112]

I think we have a difference in play styles. I don't go for the quickest win I can. I like to build slow and experiment. Anyway, there were a ton of quick win exploits in IV, and it didn't stop people from loving that game.

I think you keep missing the point of our arguments. The point is, most of us figured out a fairly optimum strategy for every victory condition after playing just one or two games. The strategies may not be 100% optimum, but it's fairly obvious from the mechanics that they are pretty good - any further obsessive compulsive number crunching would only bring victory closer by a few dozen turns. Although I stopped at Immortal, I'm sure those winning at Deity are using pretty much the same logic.

This is pretty much right after the game is released and now there is no fun left for us. There is nothing left to discover until the expansions come out. That is why we're disappointed - there wasn't enough fun it. What is the point of playing any more when you know the exact path to victory, when trying anything different simply delays victory and isn't going to help you discover better gameplay techniques?

Seriously, I needed more mental effort for Empire Total War... that's saying something.

 

[MickyLuv]

That's just it, instead of having to go and manage your cities like in previous Civ games, this one pushes you in a certain direction. It's become a choose your own adventure, instead of what should be create your own adventure.

Hello there

I've not read this whole thread (and have no intention of doing so), and I've not spent, IMO, enough time with the game to make a call on whether it's been dumbed down or not. But this comment from the OP on the first page intrigues me.

How does the game push you in a certain direction (unless that direction is towards one of the victory conditions)? I may be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure selecting production, sorting research, choosing which buildings to build, who to be friends with, who to fight, what units to build, yadda yadda yadda was part of every civ I've played. I still spend a lot of time managing my cities.

Also your concluding sentence really puzzles me. Could you explain it for me?

Thanks

 

[charon2112]

Oh, come on! Changing to what's more convenient is strategy at work, and we still do it in Civ V. Just that now Theocracy and Free Religion run at the same time, and somehow that makes more sense to you, because it's not a short-term change.

I see more strategy in the social policy system. With Civics, if something isn't working...hey just wait three turns, then change it back. That's not strategy.

 

[Thormodr]

I see more strategy in the social policy system. With Civics, if something isn't working...hey just wait three turns, then change it back. That's not strategy.

Right...because everyone played like that. Creating anarchy over and over. I seriously hope you didn't play that way.

cIV is all about choosing your civics and knowing when to move out of them. It's like driving a standard. You have to know when to switch gears.

For example, when do you go to Free religion for the science bonus? Do you do it as fast as you can and possibly weaken an important religious alliance or do you wait a while and possibly fall further behind in the tech race?

Social policies are fire and forget. Pick them and forget about them. *Yawn*