MantaRevan
Emperor
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2011
- Messages
- 1,537
I also roleplay, although I don't see the game as opposed to that in any way.
Do you like to play this game immersively?
- Thread starter Cissnei
- Start date
Securion
Civ Veteran
Immersion is EVERYTHING for me when I play games. If the game can't immerse me, its out the window immediately.
VainoValkea
Emperor
The thing is, Civilization V is a game, not a simulator. I like it more than the earlier establishments precisely for this reason. In particular, I like how the AI plays to win and has some of that "human ruthlessness" and "dickery" you'd expect from human players too. In a competitive game like Civ, if the AI role-plays, the player is at an unfair advantage for being serious about winning.
I think there are multiple definitions of "immersion" being used here. Which is inevitable, of course; it's a flexible word. "Immersion" for some people could mean really viewing the opponents as other people, viewing the units as real collections of soldiers, imagining a turn as truly being X number of years, etc. Or it could mean something more like role-playing, where you make decisions based on an imagined theme or "civ personality" instead of based on what is mathematically best in a given situation. Or a little bit of both of these. Or something totally different. Etc., etc.
The first kind of immersion is readily available, and is limited only by your creativity. I find that BNW's archaeology additions really contribute here. It's easy, especially on faster game settings, to forget that "hey, 5000+ years have gone by and wow that's pretty crazy!"; with archaeology you have an in-game reminder of that fact, and it's easy--and fun--to imagine your Industrial-era civilization relearning its distant past, dimly reconstructing the very years and turns that you yourself commanded not too long ago. That kind of immersion goes hand in hand with any other method of playing the game.
It's the second kind of immersion, role-playing, that can be a little trickier to pull off on the harder difficulty levels. As Vaino commented, at the bottommost level Civ has to be a game, and games have rules and winners, and the winners are those who best min-max to get the most out of the rules. Roleplaying doesn't always mesh well with the kind of extreme min-maxing needed to win on the hardest levels, because choosing to pass up vital gameplay mechanics in order to focus on a theme would be deadly on those levels. For instance, if I get a hankering to play a civilization of foodies who actively base their entire settlement and terraforming strategy around access to food-based resources--Wine, Citrus, Deer, Banana, Cattle, Salt, Truffles--to the exclusion of everything else, then I'm probably not going to be competitive on Immortal or Deity.
But you know what? That's what the lower difficulties are for.
I see no shame in bumping down the difficulty in order to relax the need to adhere to strict min-maxing. Nothing wrong with that at all. In fact the game can be so easy on middle or lower levels that it practically invites such role-playing. "Okay, this time I want a culture of claustrophobes -- no cities greater than 5 population, and no woods or jungle allowed!" heh.
The first kind of immersion is readily available, and is limited only by your creativity. I find that BNW's archaeology additions really contribute here. It's easy, especially on faster game settings, to forget that "hey, 5000+ years have gone by and wow that's pretty crazy!"; with archaeology you have an in-game reminder of that fact, and it's easy--and fun--to imagine your Industrial-era civilization relearning its distant past, dimly reconstructing the very years and turns that you yourself commanded not too long ago. That kind of immersion goes hand in hand with any other method of playing the game.
It's the second kind of immersion, role-playing, that can be a little trickier to pull off on the harder difficulty levels. As Vaino commented, at the bottommost level Civ has to be a game, and games have rules and winners, and the winners are those who best min-max to get the most out of the rules. Roleplaying doesn't always mesh well with the kind of extreme min-maxing needed to win on the hardest levels, because choosing to pass up vital gameplay mechanics in order to focus on a theme would be deadly on those levels. For instance, if I get a hankering to play a civilization of foodies who actively base their entire settlement and terraforming strategy around access to food-based resources--Wine, Citrus, Deer, Banana, Cattle, Salt, Truffles--to the exclusion of everything else, then I'm probably not going to be competitive on Immortal or Deity.
But you know what? That's what the lower difficulties are for.
I see no shame in bumping down the difficulty in order to relax the need to adhere to strict min-maxing. Nothing wrong with that at all. In fact the game can be so easy on middle or lower levels that it practically invites such role-playing. "Okay, this time I want a culture of claustrophobes -- no cities greater than 5 population, and no woods or jungle allowed!" heh.I think adding in "human only features" is a terrible idea and would turn Civilization into something that's not. There should be no role-playing elements in the game for the sake of role-playing - it is a strategy game not a RPG. The game should not be everybody, only for those that love to play strategy games and they have made mistakes in the past when they tried to expand their audience to include non-strategy gamers. They can play CivRev instead. For Civ5, the gameplay is the thing and all work should be geared towards improving gameplay against opponents, including the diplomacy victory, getting the AI opponents to go for victories more effectively and for the various AI civilizations to use their attributes better.
CivFanaticMan
Warlord
That's always been my problem with Civ5. It's gotten a lot better though I can say now that I do thoroughly enjoy the game. If they added a colony system I would be thrilled. I think right now it's important to fix the AI's problems. That's been one of the big immersion killers. Hopefully some good mods will come out for the game, like in Civ4. I still go back to Civ4 every now and then just to play those awesome mods.
simonthesinner
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2013
- Messages
- 83
I do. Once i renamed all the defected barb units i got as Germany after diffrent germanic tribes. I i play peacefully I hard-build a worker instead of stealing, even though it's no reprecussions, I DoW civs that bully city-states that I protect, stuff lika that.
I assume in the Civ context, Roleplaying is meant as a general catchall of how the AI interacts in the game.
Some people like tense cold wars, something they can craft into a story, and the AI leaders playing a role that's sort of coherent.
One of the criticism of Civ5 is that when the AI played to win, the AI did not have a coherent personality. Right now the pendulum has probably swung a little too passive and it's even hurting personalities as the warmongers seem tamer. Though I did just put Ghengis in his place in the most recent game when he attacked and took two of my city state allies.
Arachnofiend
Perturbed Pugilist
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2012
- Messages
- 1,950
Had an... Interesting bout of the AI playing to win in my game as France earlier today. My continent was shared with Hiawatha, Suleiman, and Gajah. Hiawatha wrecked Suleiman early so that was no factor, but Hiawatha was becoming the runaway quick and I felt the need to stop him. I had to go through Indonesia first, wiped them off the map (bizarrely I didn't get ANY great works out of them even though I personally witnessed him use a Great Artist). Hiawatha joined in on the fun late, managed to beat Gajah before Hiawatha got to snatch up any of the cities.
At this point Hiawatha was waaaay ahead of me in terms of military. I probably could have regrouped and pushed through to Onandaga eventually but I was going for a culture victory (still need the Strength Through Joy achievement) and I knew that kind of war would push me too far back in culture production. So I denounce what's left of the Ottomans, praise the AI gods when Hiawatha takes Autocracy, propose to embargo China who the Iroquois were already being aggressive towards, and just generally do everything I possibly can to accrue positive diplo points with Hiawatha. The strategy then was to make my way towards Battleships and harass Spain and China with them while using Cult of Personality to push my way towards Influential status with the Iroquois.
It looked like a really good plan until Hiawatha backstabbed me. I had put so much effort into building culture/naval war that I couldn't stand up to his land rush and had to quit the game. He was obviously going for a domination victory and would need to take my capital eventually but I was kind of hoping that the mass amounts of positive diplo would make him wait until he had gone through China at least...
I guess you can always count on Hiawatha to play to win, heheh.
Gabriel Pyyrhic
Warlord
Yes I do , very much so, and I don't really agree with you.
If Civs are not really playing to Win, and by Win in Civ it really only means focusing on one of 4 areas of endeavour, then it lessens the realism/immersion in my opinion.
I think the beauty of CIv V is that it can be played pretty much either way.
I also think your definition of IMMERSIVE may be narrower then others.
When I play I do the following :
1. No exploits (using my own definition of exploit, ie if I think it only exists due to AI limitations, bugs, etc then I do not use it).
2. I defend/attack the AI the way I would a human player, so in other words I never try to take advantage of known AI exploits (ie you do X then the AI will do Y guaranteed). Also means that should I delve in multiplayer I do not have any automatic bad habits following me.
3. I play the Civ to its own inherent strengths, and to some extent its historical context (which are often aligned anyway).
4. I make gameplay choices based upon the situation at hand, and potential future situations that will arise, rather then I need to get Wonder X by turn Y, then Policy Z etc.
5. I never reload (except when starting a gaming session), I take whatever the game gives me no matter what.
6. I choose an ADVANCED SETUP based upon what makes the game more challenging for me, ie a few more Civs to ensure early warfare is a possibility, etc (but not to many to unbalance play).
Doing the above allows me to play at a reasonable level (ie King through Immortal) allowing for more balanced gameplay options.
That's just my opinion, and my way of playing (most of the time anyway). Each to their own and all that.
I do agree more items on the side of IMMERSION are welcome, but I do think that ED BEACH is far more this type of gamer then JON SCHAFER ever will be. The combination of the two, IMO, makes for a good mix.
Gabriel Pyyrhic
Warlord
Not sure how that is breaking the game ?
Civ IV had events and you could turn them off or on, keeping both sides happy.
This isn't Chess either BTW if we are going to invoke the absurd.
VainoValkea
Emperor
The random events of IV feature some very stupid things. Diplomatic marriage, ho ho! Essentially the computer tells two players that "you must now like each other". Same in reverse for faux pas. I wonder why anyone would reasonably care about a popup telling them that "the random roll decided that Khmers are a bunch of losers, so treat them accordingly".
Rambuchan
The Funky President
I enjoy playing Civ the most when I play it immersively. By that I mean I create my own fantastical narrative, based around the map I've rolled and events that have happened in the game, nothing to do with actual history. I am the leader of some group of people, which I sometimes name or I sometimes imagine has something to do with the civ I've chosen or rolled, but is not the actual Portuguese, Romans or whoever. If I want to immerse myself in an actual historical scenario then I will load up an actual historical scenario.
So, for example:
I roll the Portuguese in some forests with lots of elephants and some pearls off the coast, nearby are deserts with incense and Gajah is on the other side.
The narrative I create will be something like this:
My people, birthed into the world amidst the splendour of great trees and with an ancient spiritual relationship with these majestic creatures the elephants, go out into the world...
There they discover another people who call themselves the Indonesians, accustomed to living out in the open, in arid conditions and working with a peculiar fragrant substance which they harvest from these dry sandy lands. These people have no appreciation of animals or their powers to better our lives (I take the productivity pantheon to reflect the influence these regal beasts of burden have had on my people). Instead they live a mystical existence, touched by a penchant for transcendental thought (they've taken desert folklore) and, much to the curiosity of my advisors, have found ways to enrich themselves from this fragrant substance (they've hooked up the incense and have a decent economy running).
Our peoples meet and trade our wares, our language, our customs, but there is a tension. These Indonesians, as they call themselves, explore our forests and show no respect for our ancient companions the elephants. They show no regard for the ways of the forest. Their language takes on worrying bywords for our ancient heritage. In turn, my people, especially the emergent merchant classes, begin to sow seeds of discontent and jealousy. They tell me we must reject these peoples and, in the process, take their fragrant mystical substances from them because it makes them wantonly disregard our way of life and possesses some power to make them wealthy. Moreover, those of my people living nearer to these people, on the edge of the desert, have begun to adopt their religion and even their language!
So, on the advice of my merchants, and with the support of the martial classes of my people, we make war on the Indonesians. We take their city which controls this stuff they call incense. We banish their religion from the city, install our own forest and elephant worshipping ways in these desert climes and begin trading in this stuff incense. I was well advised. My people's have not only rejected these ignorant and decadent others, but we have recreate peace in our forests and my kingdom gains strength. But, in time, I see that those merchants who settled in the new desert lands adopt those foreign ways, perhaps the wealth and fumes of the incense have gone to their heads. Their religion creeps into their way of life, their dress is affected and they speak a bizarre hybrid language. (I'd rename the city to something that sounds a bit Indonesian). Still, I decide to tolerate it because I can see some economic benefit.
Meanwhile, there is a new section of my society which took to the seas, trading in pearls. These people have come to realise that, somewhere locked within our inner nature, we have a talent for sailing the seas and for trading. I would be an unwise ruler not to allow my people to express their natural talents, to enrich my people as a result, and to take our superior ways to other distant people that may be out there.
And so it goes on thus...
What does the game do to promote or hinder this kind of play?
Well, it's mainly up to me. The tools are there to create such a narrative. The civs, the map and terrain, the resources, pantheons, wonders etc. The only thing I feel that I need is the ability to add labels on the map. In the above example I may label that first area of desert I discovered. I would probably label the first elephants I discovered, the site of the first battle with those mystical decadent incense lovers. And so on. Just give me labels and I reckon I'd be happy.
So, for example:
I roll the Portuguese in some forests with lots of elephants and some pearls off the coast, nearby are deserts with incense and Gajah is on the other side.
The narrative I create will be something like this:
My people, birthed into the world amidst the splendour of great trees and with an ancient spiritual relationship with these majestic creatures the elephants, go out into the world...
There they discover another people who call themselves the Indonesians, accustomed to living out in the open, in arid conditions and working with a peculiar fragrant substance which they harvest from these dry sandy lands. These people have no appreciation of animals or their powers to better our lives (I take the productivity pantheon to reflect the influence these regal beasts of burden have had on my people). Instead they live a mystical existence, touched by a penchant for transcendental thought (they've taken desert folklore) and, much to the curiosity of my advisors, have found ways to enrich themselves from this fragrant substance (they've hooked up the incense and have a decent economy running).
Our peoples meet and trade our wares, our language, our customs, but there is a tension. These Indonesians, as they call themselves, explore our forests and show no respect for our ancient companions the elephants. They show no regard for the ways of the forest. Their language takes on worrying bywords for our ancient heritage. In turn, my people, especially the emergent merchant classes, begin to sow seeds of discontent and jealousy. They tell me we must reject these peoples and, in the process, take their fragrant mystical substances from them because it makes them wantonly disregard our way of life and possesses some power to make them wealthy. Moreover, those of my people living nearer to these people, on the edge of the desert, have begun to adopt their religion and even their language!
So, on the advice of my merchants, and with the support of the martial classes of my people, we make war on the Indonesians. We take their city which controls this stuff they call incense. We banish their religion from the city, install our own forest and elephant worshipping ways in these desert climes and begin trading in this stuff incense. I was well advised. My people's have not only rejected these ignorant and decadent others, but we have recreate peace in our forests and my kingdom gains strength. But, in time, I see that those merchants who settled in the new desert lands adopt those foreign ways, perhaps the wealth and fumes of the incense have gone to their heads. Their religion creeps into their way of life, their dress is affected and they speak a bizarre hybrid language. (I'd rename the city to something that sounds a bit Indonesian). Still, I decide to tolerate it because I can see some economic benefit.
Meanwhile, there is a new section of my society which took to the seas, trading in pearls. These people have come to realise that, somewhere locked within our inner nature, we have a talent for sailing the seas and for trading. I would be an unwise ruler not to allow my people to express their natural talents, to enrich my people as a result, and to take our superior ways to other distant people that may be out there.
And so it goes on thus...
What does the game do to promote or hinder this kind of play?
Well, it's mainly up to me. The tools are there to create such a narrative. The civs, the map and terrain, the resources, pantheons, wonders etc. The only thing I feel that I need is the ability to add labels on the map. In the above example I may label that first area of desert I discovered. I would probably label the first elephants I discovered, the site of the first battle with those mystical decadent incense lovers. And so on. Just give me labels and I reckon I'd be happy.
I'd like the leaders to change through the history of their country. I see that it would need many leaders but it would be good to negotiat with a leader who bears no personal grudge but carries with him the collective memory of his nations diplomacy in the for m of modifiers
CyberSabotage
Chieftain
I feel the same way a bit.
I normaly restart the game over and over again, not because of a bad start or lack of resurces but because the land does not look beutiful I want that land to be my home, i want to protect it. And leave some areas unimproved if it makes it look nice, and dont get me started on roads 
im obsessive about them, they have to be perfect if they twist and turn when merging i will find another route to make it look "nice"
I would love a mod that would give bonuses to areas that are not improved, to role play as the native tribs like Iro, Sho ect
I love playing as the iro as i dont need to many improvments and my forrests look nice.
I know this is not the "right" way to play. I do play "normaly" sometimes as well.
But role playing is very fun too
I normaly restart the game over and over again, not because of a bad start or lack of resurces but because the land does not look beutiful
I want that land to be my home, i want to protect it. And leave some areas unimproved if it makes it look nice, and dont get me started on roads im obsessive about them, they have to be perfect if they twist and turn when merging i will find another route to make it look "nice"I would love a mod that would give bonuses to areas that are not improved, to role play as the native tribs like Iro, Sho ect
I love playing as the iro as i dont need to many improvments and my forrests look nice.
I know this is not the "right" way to play. I do play "normaly" sometimes as well.
But role playing is very fun too
Immersion is very important for me. During a game I keep playing "what if?" scenarios in my head.
Personally I would like to see more work put into each leaders and what they are saying, to have unique sentences, a bit like in civilization 3 which did very well in that regard.
Personally I would like to see more work put into each leaders and what they are saying, to have unique sentences, a bit like in civilization 3 which did very well in that regard.
newarkinvaders
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2013
- Messages
- 78
If you want to play a game where you build your civ at your own pace and decide the way the world flwos just play on settler etc
poom3619
Ping Pang Poom!
I REALLY want to be able to stick labels on areas of the map for this reason, i would absolutely love it. While we're at it as well, i'd love it if they changed the way you name units so you're not just limited to doing it when they upgrade.
And some more interactive advisers would be nice too. Maybe with some actual gameplay function and influence over your empire. Then if you could kill them or promote them or whatever that would be even better, with game-lasting effects
I would just never be happier than if they simply added the ability to name tiles and groups of tiles with labels though. I would never stop playing then, and it might actually get me immersed enough to finish a game once in a while. I don't want number crunching, i want story and fantasy (made by myself)!
Adviser, ADVISER! First time I heard about it that Civ5 have advisers before it's release, I immediately think about Civ2 adviser and kind of expect them to be like that, because I never play Civ2 and eager to experience it but I know what it feel like when you have funny subordinate (Tropico 4). If civ5 had "real" adviser, I wish I can "promote" him by finish a civic tree and ROFL by what they said.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UjIQCRK3dw?
I didn't use Label much back in Civ4. But I would like their inclusion, by the way.
Randall_Flagg
The Evil One
The ability to Immerse your self in Roleplay is limited only by your own imagination.
I play it inmersively & enjoy it a lot (more than I enjoyed cIV). I even try to choose the SPs & ideology based on what the leader/civ would have chosen & rationalising invasions & treaties etc is kind of fun...
Sent from my HTC One V using Tapatalk 4 Beta
Sent from my HTC One V using Tapatalk 4 Beta
Similar threads
