Who else agrees that Civ 5 has been dumbed down?

[Charvel1]

So if you state that the dumb Ai make abyssal mistakes even on highest levels, how can you enjoy the challange?

If Emperor is so easy for me now, when I barely won on the same level after two years on Civ IV, what's enjoyment are we talking about?

Why is this hard for you? Obviously, you're not getting any enjoyment out of it. However, I am.

Hmmmm, I wonder. Did we have different parents, different life experiences, live in different parts of the world, enjoy different things, listen to different music, read different books, look different? Is it possible we just enjoy different things about the same game? Hmmmm, I wonder.

 

[fredcdobbs]

The only CIV 4 I've played for a long time has been FFH, and CIV 5 is definitely less complicated than that mod. I do like some aspects of CIV 5, and with some patches & mods it might become a very good game.

 

[Jediron]

Charvel1
Why is this hard for you? Obviously, you're not getting any enjoyment out of it. However, I am.

Great to see you like the game and you have a opinion. Good for you.

For any one who played and mastered CIV 1 till CIV 4 well, Civ V is dumbed down. We all know it and we are discussing why that is. That you see it otherwise, again, fine for you. Happy gaming.

 

[Charvel1]

Great to see you like the game and you have a opinion. Good for you.

For any one who played and mastered CIV 1 till CIV 4 well, Civ V is dumbed down. We all know it and we are discussing why that is. That you see it otherwise, again, fine for you. Happy gaming.

I've played and mastered CIV 1 till CIV 4 but I don't think Civ V has been dumbed down. You don't ALL know it; 40% said that it hasn't been dumbed down. That's not insignificant so you're not allowed to use ALL. So, when you say Civ V has been dumbed down you're basing that off of your own opinion but you're trying to state it as a fact.

Here's a fun little experiment:

'The AI in Civ V sucks' -- Opinion
'The AI in Civ V needs improvement' -- Opinion
'The AI in Civ V can be improved' -- Fact

See the difference?

 

[Kadath]

Actually, I can counter that undeniable opinion.

This incarnation of CIV has flaws which will eventually be worked out but even right now is an extremely satisfying game.

There, see? I countered your opinion with my own.

You counter my opinion expressing... MY VERY SAME OPINION (though without the "extremely")? Man, you're made of win
The only difference relies in the fact I consider flaws disappointing, you consider 'em satisfying nevertheless. But may god strike me before I begin pointing out things like "the vast majority of people think a kick in the nuts is unpleasant, so it's rather balanced to gather from that that a kick in the nuts is - in fact - an unpleasant thing"! The majority isn't always right! And I've lots of respect for you masochists, everyone is entitled to his tastes.

 

[Charvel1]

You counter my opinion expressing... MY VERY SAME OPINION (though without the "extremely")? Man, you're made of win

So a very different opinion to you equals the VERY SAME OPINION? Cool.

Also, thanks for stating that your comments were your opinion and not 'undeniable facts'.

 

[Markstar]

The thread actually has some reasonable posts in it every now and then.

I think so, too, especially in the first few pages. There are plenty of valid arguments for the game being dumbed down that have nothing to do with it not being Civ4 or the lack of a good AI. Those arguments are so overwhelming (plus, of course, my own experience with the game), that I just can't take any post seriously anymore that contradicts it. Sure, every human has the right to their own opinion, but we do get to the point where arguing that the earth is 6000 years old just makes you look like a fool ... and there are still millions of people who still believe just that.

Sure, this thread has also become about people just venting and thinking about what to do next, but to say this thread is just about that is not fair imo.

 

[Kadath]

Here's a fun little experiment:

'The AI in Civ V sucks' -- Opinion
'The AI in Civ V needs improvement' -- Opinion
'The AI in Civ V can be improved' -- Fact

See the difference?

BTW, I see you have serious issues at distinguishing facts from opinions. For instance, you forget a thing called "standards". So, let's see how the little experiment would actually be:

'The AI in Civ V sucks' -- Opinion
'The AI in Civ V is subpar compared to previous standards' -- Fact
'The AI in Civ V needs improvement' -- Opinion, but a logical consequence of the previous fact. Except for masochists, of course. But one can't really consider every opinion to be valid in any circumstance, no matter how minoritary it is... is it a valid opinion to dress in white sheets and consider fun to burn black people? I mean, white sheets are so unfashionable!
'The AI in Civ V can be improved' -- OPINION! Or, better said, supposition. A fact would be:

'The AI in Civ V would benefit from an improvement' -- fact. That it is at all possible is no more than a supposition, even though realistic.

 

[IgorS]

Would you mind explaining this a bit more?

Well, the game is called "Civilization". So it should be about the civ and it's culture and history, not about a certain leader. In Civ IV you didn't play as Egypt - you played as Ramesses or as Hatshepsut. In Civ V you can really feel that ou play as the civ, and the leader is just a representative figure and could actually be anyone. I believe that in civ games a leader doesn't need to have any traits, the traits should belong to a civ as a whole. I hate it when, for example, people complain that Gandhi is too aggressive, this is a game, and the AI also wants to conquer other civs, even if his name is Gandhi. If we go back to Civ IV, I admit, that I was pleased when I saw that Civ IV had multiple leaders per civ, but over time it became a nuisance. As more and more cool LHs were made by the community (including myself) I felt that we got carried away and addicted to adding more LHs to every civ in the game to the point we got mods that took 15 minutes to load... So sometimes restrictions are actually good.

 

[Charvel1]

BTW, I see you have serious issues at distinguishing facts from opinions. For instance, you forget a thing called "standards". So, let's see how the little experiment would actually be:

'The AI in Civ V sucks' -- Opinion
'The AI in Civ V is subpar compared to previous standards' -- Fact
'The AI in Civ V needs improvement' -- Opinion, but a logical consequence of the previous fact. Except for masochists, of course. But one can't really consider every opinion to be valid in any circumstance, no matter how minoritary it is... is it a valid opinion to dress in white sheets and consider fun to burn black people? I mean, white sheets are so unfashionable!
'The AI in Civ V can be improved' -- OPINION! Or, better said, supposition. A fact would be:

'The AI in Civ V would benefit from an improvement' -- fact. That it is at all possible is no more than a supposition, even though realistic.

Nope, you failed miserably.

'The AI in Civ V sucks' -- Opinion (we agree on that one)

'The AI in Civ V is subpar compared to previous standards' -- Opinion. For YOU it might be subpar but for others it might not be. I happen to agree that it is subpar but that doesn't make it a Fact. The statement is an opinion that happens to be held by at least 2 people, you and me.

'The AI in Civ V needs improvement' -- Opinion (yep)

'The AI in Civ V can be improved' -- Fact. This one is a no brainer and I'm not sure why you would answer either 'opinion' or 'supposition'. Any AI in any game can be improved given enough time/resources/knowledge. Even if it never DOES get improved it still CAN be.

Here's another little experiment:

'I think my daughter is the most beautiful 8 year old in the world' -- Fact (she might not actually be but I THINK she is so my statement is a fact about my thinking, not a fact about her beauty.

'My daughter is the most beautiful 8 year old in the world' -- Opinion (I happen to think that she is but that doesn't make it so.)

 

[Venereus]

I don't get why defenders of Civ V don't grasp the fact that 1UPT is part of the AI problem, and may be the hexes too. So everytime I read "I like 1UPT and hexes; sure the AI needs some work, but it's a good game", I'm appalled, again.

ANY opinion whatever? I have always been taught that only justified and well-informed opinions make for valid counter-arguments, whereas misinformed and unwarranted opinions do not. But nah, you're right...let's forget about that "realism-is-better-than-fantasy" obsession. After all who is to say when an opinion is better justified than another, or, for that matter, either true or false, and on what grounds? So, ladies and gentlemen, welcome to "opinion relativism"! Yeah folks... believe what you will! Anything goes, and anyone's opinions is just as good as anyone's else. Which gives all of us a powerful universal refutation: "But this is only what you think."

You were taught in an outdated paradigm, because that's exactly how it works. Everything goes. Now go find a reason to believe in something, good luck with that.

 

[JLoZeppeli]

Nope, you failed miserably.

'The AI in Civ V sucks' -- Opinion (we agree on that one)

'The AI in Civ V is subpar compared to previous standards' -- Opinion. For YOU it might be subpar but for others it might not be. I happen to agree that it is subpar but that doesn't make it a Fact. The statement is an opinion that happens to be held by at least 2 people, you and me.

'The AI in Civ V needs improvement' -- Opinion (yep)

'The AI in Civ V can be improved' -- Fact. This one is a no brainer and I'm not sure why you would answer either 'opinion' or 'supposition'. Any AI in any game can be improved given enough time/resources/knowledge. Even if it never DOES get improved it still CAN be.

Here's another little experiment:

'I think my daughter is the most beautiful 8 year old in the world' -- Fact (she might not actually be but I THINK she is so my statement is a fact about my thinking, not a fact about her beauty.

'My daughter is the most beautiful 8 year old in the world' -- Opinion (I happen to think that she is but that doesn't make it so.)

Ok, i can have bad eyesight, so i can't be a good archer... So i need sights to aim and i want to take part in competition as well.. But one moment, maybe if i have some help is not fair to the ones that not have my problems to shoot without sights...

So if you have problem is more possible that you are not good to play strategic games like Civ or wargame with hexes... So your difficulty is streamlined only to the people that don't play strategic, you can't have sights to shoot with us, maybe you can learn little by little, maybe you can play something more simple and friendly than Civ...

 

[lschnarch]

Well, the game is called "Civilization". So it should be about the civ and it's culture and history, not about a certain leader. In Civ IV you didn't play as Egypt - you played as Ramesses or as Hatshepsut. In Civ V you can really feel that ou play as the civ, and the leader is just a representative figure and could actually be anyone. I believe that in civ games a leader doesn't need to have any traits, the traits should belong to a civ as a whole. I hate it when, for example, people complain that Gandhi is too aggressive, this is a game, and the AI also wants to conquer other civs, even if his name is Gandhi. If we go back to Civ IV, I admit, that I was pleased when I saw that Civ IV had multiple leaders per civ, but over time it became a nuisance. As more and more cool LHs were made by the community (including myself) I felt that we got carried away and addicted to adding more LHs to every civ in the game to the point we got mods that took 15 minutes to load... So sometimes restrictions are actually good.

All good reasons.
Yet, if I look at your statement:

Originally Posted by IgorS
one leader per civ and a unique ability for the CIV and not the leader are really great things!

... there seems to be a contradiction.
UA for only the leader AND having only one leader per civ, but both is being good...

This seems like praising the same thing twice, no?

 

[Charvel1]

Ok, i can have bad eyesight, so i can't be a good archer... So i need sights to aim and i want to take part in competition as well.. But one moment, maybe if i have some help is not fair to the ones that not have my problems to shoot without sights...

So if you have problem is more possible that you are not good to play strategic games like Civ or wargame with hexes... So your difficulty is streamlined only to the people that don't play strategic, you can't have sights to shoot with us, maybe you can learn little by little, maybe you can play something more simple and friendly than Civ...

Yeah, I could go back to Civ IV if that's what you're saying, but I'm enjoying V too much.

 

[Kadath]

Nope, you failed miserably.

'The AI in Civ V is subpar compared to previous standards' -- Opinion. For YOU it might be subpar but for others it might not be. I happen to agree that it is subpar but that doesn't make it a Fact. The statement is an opinion that happens to be held by at least 2 people, you and me.

Fact. You can or not be satisfied with it as it is now, but that it is inferior is A FACT. Let alone the combat AI, that would be comparable only to other titles (still a valid comparison for a standard, but let's keep this simple), let's take the diplomatic AI that can be compared with CIV4's one. This AI considers you a warmonger after helping it in a defensive war, this AI hates you when you free its cities from a conqueror because, well, conquering cities is warmongering, this AI goes nuts trying to understand when you settle close to it and when not, and tons of other similar, ridiculous issues. Issues that weren't in before. This AI doesn't take into account + or - for helping it, doesn't asks for help in a war after the war is actually started - and not by it but by another AI - this AI takes into account far less things than the previous, and what it takes into account, it takes it dumbly with lots of bugs and erratic behaviours.
As such this diplomatic AI is - in fact - inferior to the previous one. You can like it or not, but it IS subpar.

'The AI in Civ V can be improved' -- Fact. This one is a no brainer and I'm not sure why you would answer either 'opinion' or 'supposition'. Any AI in any game can be improved given enough time/resources/knowledge. Even if it never DOES get improved it still CAN be.

You don't know. For instance, improving the combat AI teaching it to take advantage from terrain, or to protect its artillery, could on the other hand lead to serious slowdowns between turns, which is a very realistic side effect. The same goes for border detection related to the "don't settle near us" issues with the diplo AI, as geographic detection is a rather heavy feature.
As such, even though it is REALISTIC to suppose that up to a certain improvement is possible without serious repercussions, you can't be sure it isn't already as advanced as it can before making the side effects too serious to be feasible. Unless you are the one who coded it, of course, and have already tried it.
As improving it would be possible per se, it could lead to utterly breaking the game. For what we are concerned, then, it would equal to not being reasonably possible.

Here's another little experiment:

'I think my daughter is the most beautiful 8 year old in the world' -- Fact (she might not actually be but I THINK she is so my statement is a fact about my thinking, not a fact about her beauty.

'My daughter is the most beautiful 8 year old in the world' -- Opinion (I happen to think that she is but that doesn't make it so.)

'I think your daughter is the most beautiful 8 year old in the world' -- that, instead, would be a... creepy fact.

 

[JLoZeppeli]

Yeah, I could go back to Civ IV if that's what you're saying, but I'm enjoying V too much.

But did you play it only on Chieftain to have such bad memories?

 

[Charvel1]

You don't know. For instance, improving the combat AI teaching it to take advantage from terrain, or to protect its artillery, could on the other hand lead to serious slowdowns between turns, which is a very realistic side effect.

And yet the AI is still improved by your example. Whether it leads to performance issues is beside the point. The AI has been improved.

As such, even though it is REALISTIC to suppose that up to a certain improvement is possible without serious repercussions, you can't be sure it isn't already as advanced as it can before making the side effects too serious to be feasible. Unless you are the one who coded it, of course, and have already tried it.
As improving it would be possible per se, it could lead to utterly breaking the game. For what we are concerned, then, it would equal to not being reasonably possible.

Again, whether it breaks the game or not is beside the point. If the AI has been improved but turn times get worse, then the turn times need to be fixed. But the AI has still been improved. Thus, the statement 'The AI in Civ V can be improved' holds as a fact. Every AI in every game can be improved. Whether you think the AI should be improved toward playing more human-like, or more computer-like is a matter of opinion of course.

'I think your daughter is the most beautiful 8 year old in the world' -- that, instead, would be a... creepy fact.

Not sure why you have to make personal attacks in your arguments but if that's what you're all about be my guest.

 

[charon2112]

...but that it is inferior is A FACT...

...You can like it or not, but it IS subpar...

You are incorrect, those are your opinions. A more factual statement would be that you thought it was inferior or subpar.

 

[Charvel1]

But did you play it only on Chieftain to have such bad memories?

You are quickly losing me with your snide remarks.

I loved Civ IV. Awesome game. Easily one of the best games I've ever played and, in my opinion, with the BTS expansion, better than Civ I, II, and III.

Fall from Heaven 2. Awesome mod. Best thing to happen to the franchise.

However, I like Civ V better than Civ IV. Do I think it's been dumbed down? No. Do I think it's a different game from the rest of the series and especially Civ IV BTS? Yes. And that's what I love about it.

See? No need to be snide or condescending or rude. My opinion about this game is different from yours. Why does that bother you?

 

[Aristos]

I've played and mastered CIV 1 till CIV 4 but I don't think Civ V has been dumbed down. You don't ALL know it; 40% said that it hasn't been dumbed down. That's not insignificant so you're not allowed to use ALL.

when he says "all", he is referring to "we ALL HARDCORE civvers"... of course, there are some "hardcore" that seem to think otherwise, but for the most part, we ALL agree on the overall leveling down of this iteration...