Do you like to play this game immersively?

Actually, the immersion factor is a HUGE part of the game for me. If not for the names of leaders and specifically named Uniques, the game would just be a boring chess game to me

I find it hard to believe anybody who claims to like this game purely for the gamplay is being honest with themselves. Think of it this way: What if it was just a basic program with x's and o's representing units and hexes representing tiles? And instead of leader screens popping up it was code which you chose between to affect what opposing x's and o's do in the game

So yeah, the immersion is just as big as anything else for me. Yes the gameplay is the core and keep me playing the game, but the whole gimmick of building your own Civilization on realistic Earth-like maps with different leaders is very, very important
 
The biggest problem with all of this is those expecting to build a large civilization on an earth (or whatever) map without much opposition. They can continue to dumb down the game to allow that but then it wouldn't be a game anymore but a historical-based SimCity.

Creating stories based on the events of the game is a cool thing. There are usually 8 players in a game and each should have the chance to runaway or dominate the world. It can't be tailored to those that expect to peacefully build as if you are playing in a sandbox because a game (as oppose to simulator) has to have competition.
 
I've never got any immersion from Civ5. It's just too game-like with things like "we don't like you because you try to win the same way we do". It's not like a Civilization a simulator, rather a board game on a computer. As immersive as Monopoly really.
 
Well that's a surprise - a competitive game has AI players that hate you for trying to win.

For me, the immersion killer is an AI that doesn't hate me for trying to win.
 
I always play for immersion. I'll perform tactically unsound moves, perform city actions for the people's benefit and not mine, and make up elaborate stories for the usage of great people, how some units work without certain techs (gatling guns without gunpowder? revolving clockwork crossbows!) or simply game mechanics, all for the sake of a good story. If I had to chose, I would prefer a bombastic grandiouse defeat to a hollow and simple victory, though I still win the majority of my games.
 
The biggest problem with all of this is those expecting to build a large civilization on an earth (or whatever) map without much opposition. They can continue to dumb down the game to allow that but then it wouldn't be a game anymore but a historical-based SimCity.

Creating stories based on the events of the game is a cool thing. There are usually 8 players in a game and each should have the chance to runaway or dominate the world. It can't be tailored to those that expect to peacefully build as if you are playing in a sandbox because a game (as oppose to simulator) has to have competition.

NONE of the suggestions here have wanted a change in gameplay that sacrifices playability for roleplaying. All that is wanted are little add ons :)

You seem to have completely the wrong end of the stick :p
 
I'd be down with adding map labels. It would also be fun to have those "King" units from Civ 3. I think there was one where if you lost all seven of your "kings" you lost the game.
 
That was regicide. You could play it with one king or many (mass regicide). Civ III had - I mean has - so many cool mechanics.
 
If I had to chose, I would prefer a bombastic grandiouse defeat to a hollow and simple victory, though I still win the majority of my games.

I would too, for a different reason. I prefer a tough loss to where one of my opponents beat me (like they do on deity) over a cheesy victory. I learn a lot in defeat and how I should play better. But right now, a lot of people are having stupid victories with passive opponents and diplomacy. They need to fix that before they should spend resources on add ons.
 
Actually, the immersion factor is a HUGE part of the game for me. If not for the names of leaders and specifically named Uniques, the game would just be a boring chess game to me

I find it hard to believe anybody who claims to like this game purely for the gamplay is being honest with themselves. Think of it this way: What if it was just a basic program with x's and o's representing units and hexes representing tiles? And instead of leader screens popping up it was code which you chose between to affect what opposing x's and o's do in the game

So yeah, the immersion is just as big as anything else for me. Yes the gameplay is the core and keep me playing the game, but the whole gimmick of building your own Civilization on realistic Earth-like maps with different leaders is very, very important

This is something I've thought a lot about. The ludology side of game studies would argue just that, that the game is purely the gameplay, but I think what makes it compelling is the narrative that can be built using the gameplay mechanics. Even chess, in a fashion, has a sort of narrative. Would chess be as compelling without the historical context and the way, however abstractly, it is simulating medieval warfare?

So certainly the context around the gameplay is important, but I would still argue that the gameplay is the most significant feature.
 
If I had to chose, I would prefer a bombastic grandiouse defeat to a hollow and simple victory, though I still win the majority of my games.

Even as a non-roleplayer (or rather, one who roleplays to win!) I can agree with this - what point is there in shallow and simple victories? Even if I consider Civ V a purely competitive game, I do keep an eye on "style points" as well.
 
I love the word ludology, one that I've obviously been interested in since I started playing PC games in the 1980s. I thought about that in the context of how I played role-playing games (like skyrim and gothic) where I cared nothing about the narrative, just the gameplay. I wondered if it went back to me not ever pretending that I was someone else. I guess that's where my example regarding civ comes from. But in all this time, I had not known the root meaning of the word. It means study of play (from ludere 'to play').
 
Even as a non-roleplayer (or rather, one who roleplays to win!) I can agree with this - what point is there in shallow and simple victories? Even if I consider Civ V a purely competitive game, I do keep an eye on "style points" as well.

Yeah, which is a lot of the basis for the Diplomacy Victory discussion and to a lessor extent, the other victories. A victory should be earned, not handed to you or won accidentally. Some are ok with that but I hope firaxis is not. Who should they listen to?
 
I find it hard to believe anybody who claims to like this game purely for the gamplay is being honest with themselves. Think of it this way: What if it was just a basic program with x's and o's representing units and hexes representing tiles? And instead of leader screens popping up it was code which you chose between to affect what opposing x's and o's do in the game

Hey! Plenty of people LOVE Dwarf Fortress.
 
@Buccaneer
I think you're letting your panic and emotional dislike for a change cloud your judgement.

It's not as bad as you make it out to be, and 'a lot of people saying it' might as well be I heard from the friend of a friend who works at the FBI that Roswell is for real.

It's just not a very reliable metric. I agree there's a debate on this, and I even concede they should address it, if only for the benefit of people like you who want to see more wars.

You occasionally pull back and say all you want is the middle ground, but reading your comments across threads, you don't seem to show it. But you seem rather irritated all the time and absolutist about things being 'dumbed down' and about how victory is not earned anymore, which is not really true.

Even if we agree on the point that a change was made, The change wasn't THAT big if you take into account the variability of Civ5 games pre-BNW to begin with. Seems more like confirmation bias on games where there are no or few early wars, plus cherry picking anecdotes from like minded people complaining. The jury is still very much out on this.
 
Hey! Plenty of people LOVE Dwarf Fortress.

Heh, I can see why, it's certainly a unique experience. Although it's pretty opposite to Civ V in that it goes as far as crippling gameplay in favor of realism, while Civ V doesn't mind doing the reverse.
 
Dexters, I know, it's the familiar approach of staking a claim that may be out there in hoping it gets moved in that direction a little (instead of the opposite direction).

I have said before that as much as I love civ5 (and BNW), I hate cheesy and unearned wins. By the way, the only people I know in life that plays civ are here at CFC and I am influenced a lot by my brothers in strategy & tips forum.
 
What evidence do you have for your hypothesis?

Personally, I "role play" all the time in Civ V.

Me too. I think the WC and Tourism are immersive enough. Nothing wrong with them.
Random events would help with immersion, as well as map labels, though Ideological tenets did add some more depth.

Yeah I think so too. If they do add random events they should also add stuff like natural disasters and whatnot.
Well that's a surprise - a competitive game has AI players that hate you for trying to win.

For me, the immersion killer is an AI that doesn't hate me for trying to win.

Yeah the AI has to be more hostile towards you at the end game bcuz i just played a game as Morocco and won a cultural victory right b4 the start of the modern era. It was way too easy and pretty much all the ai hated me at that point and saw I was going to win as i was dominating their culture so they should have done some kind of joint DoW on me and try and win. That would have been an epic finish to my game instead of just winning so easily.
 
Top Bottom