Realism vs symbolism - or why Civilization isn't a Paradox game

[Thormodr]

Civilization has always been a mixture of realism and symbolism and that is appealing to me.

I love Paradox games, as well, but they fill a special niche and should remain separate.

That's not to say that Civ can't draw some things from Paradox. I am pleased to see that they have instituted Casus Belli, for example.

 

[nyyfootball]

You can't include real world elements and then not expect the baggage of these real world elements to accompany them.

If the goal is to be an abstract board game, then I don't think that Civilization should include real world entities and people.

 

[Acken]

You can't include real world elements and then not expect the baggage of these real world elements to accompany them.

If the goal is to be an abstract board game, then I don't think that Civilization should include real world entities and people.

Well I'm happy they don't listen to you then

 

[Browd]

You can't include real world elements and then not expect the baggage of these real world elements to accompany them.

If the goal is to be an abstract board game, then I don't think that Civilization should include real world entities and people.

You seem to view board games as somehow "abstract" and different from a "computer game" and therefore should not include real world elements. How do you conclude that? Monopoly is a board game, Broadway and the Reading Railroad, etc. are real world elements, but the economic and financial system is decidedly unrealistic, and yet it works as a game. I cannot recall how many Avalon Hill military board games I played when I was young (before these "computer things" could fit in ordinary homes), all based entitely on real world elements, but containing varying levels of abstraction and stylization, and they worked wonderfully as games. In fact, look no further than the EU and Hearts of Iron series for computerized "children" of the board game tradition.

Is Civ a board game? Oh, yes, and it would be much the less if it were not. And any game requires some abstraction from reality, to work as a game.

 

[Westwall]

It's actually impossible for any game not to have real world elements.

 

[rastak]

You seem to view board games as somehow "abstract" and different from a "computer game" and therefore should not include real world elements. How do you conclude that? Monopoly is a board game, Broadway and the Reading Railroad, etc. are real world elements, but the economic and financial system is decidedly unrealistic, and yet it works as a game. I cannot recall how many Avalon Hill military board games I played when I was young (before these "computer things" could fit in ordinary homes), all based entitely on real world elements, but containing varying levels of abstraction and stylization, and they worked wonderfully as games. In fact, look no further than The EU and Hearts of Iron series for computerized "children" of the board game tradition.

Is Civ a board game? Oh, yes, and it would be much the less if it were not. And any game requires some abstraction form reality, to work as a game.

Nicely stated and true to fact. 7Ages is an awesome game from what I can see (I own a copy) but will likely never get to play it due to the time commitment. I'd absolutely love a computerized version of that.

http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/3870/7-ages

 

[cseanny]

What do you guys think? Do you prefer realism or symbolism? Where do you see Civ6 going in that context.

Civ6 seems to be taking a route in which both realism and symbolism are being implemented into the game.

I prefer neither. I have never played Civilization to feel immersed or connected to history or the past (nor it's realistic or unrealistic features). The reason I've always enjoyed Civlization because it's one of the most in depth, strategical, and overall balanced game in it's genre.

I'd be more than happy playing Civilization with leaders named Leader 1, Leader 2, Leader 3, Leader 4, so on and so forth. If archers can shoot arrows 6 miles and kill tanks I'm ok with that too. The important thing is that all the game mechanics flow in a predictable and balanced manner.

 

[nyyfootball]

It's actually impossible for any game not to have real world elements.

Abstract board games such as Go or Checkers completely lack "real world elements".

If Civ wants to be an abstract board game, it should purge itself of anything that pushes it into the territory of Paradox games.

I get criticized for suggesting that Civ embrace realism and then I get criticized for suggesting that Civ become more abstract. You can't win on this forum.

You seem to view board games as somehow "abstract" and different from a "computer game" and therefore should not include real world elements. How do you conclude that? Monopoly is a board game, Broadway and the Reading Railroad, etc. are real world elements, but the economic and financial system is decidedly unrealistic, and yet it works as a game. I cannot recall how many Avalon Hill military board games I played when I was young (before these "computer things" could fit in ordinary homes), all based entitely on real world elements, but containing varying levels of abstraction and stylization, and they worked wonderfully as games. In fact, look no further than the EU and Hearts of Iron series for computerized "children" of the board game tradition.

Is Civ a board game? Oh, yes, and it would be much the less if it were not. And any game requires some abstraction from reality, to work as a game.

If Civ is truly a board game, then it should embrace its board gaminess. It should stop trying to be two things and only be one.

Civ should include fictional civilizations instead of real world civilizations. Something like Settlers of Catan.

 

[Acken]

No. You get criticized because you want it to be one or the other.

If Civ is truly a board game, then it should embrace its board gaminess. It should stop trying to be two things and only be one.

Why ?

 

[Westwall]

If Civ is truly a board game, then it should embrace its board gaminess. It should stop trying to be two things and only be one.

Why should it only be one thing?

Maybe it should be whatever it is and those who want it to be something else should play something else.

 

[Ryika]

I get criticized for suggesting that Civ embrace realism and then I get criticized for suggesting that Civ become more abstract. You can't win on this forum.

This is almost correct. The point you're missing is that you get criticized because you want to change a working formula because you arbitrarily decided that Civ must be more like one or more like the other and still haven't provided any reason for why it can't just stay the way it is.

 

[nyyfootball]

No. You get criticized because you want it to be one or the other.

It should be one or the other. Trying to be two different things at once usually doesn't work out that well.

Why ?

Because I want Civ to be a simple, complex, quality game, that is wholly consistent and not all over the board.

This is almost correct. The point you're missing is that you get criticized because you want to change a working formula because you arbitrarily decided that Civ must be more like one or more like the other and still haven't provided any reason for why it can't just stay the way it is.

Civilization has only become a board game since Ed Beach took over and started introducing overtly board game elements into it. Civ IV was wholly a computer game and was not a board game.

I want Civ to have a consistent vision and should explicate upon this vision with clarity.

Why should it only be one thing?

Maybe it should be whatever it is and those who want it to be something else should play something else.

I want Civ to be good. How can it be good at one thing if it's trying to be two mutually exclusive things simultaneously?

Moderator Action: Please use the multi quite function. Multiple posts in a row are spam.

Moderator Action: Merged the three posts.

 

[Thormodr]

I want Civ to be good. How can it be good at one thing if it's trying to be two mutually exclusive things simultaneously?

Because it can be a blend. It's not all or nothing. It can have some realism and some abstraction.

Some realistic elements are left out because they are dull. For example, supply trains for military units. They are abstracted because it will be too much work and hassle for too little benefit.

 

[nyyfootball]

Because it can be a blend. It's not all or nothing. It can have some realism and some abstraction.

Putting historical figures into the game without any context is not realism or abstraction, it is falsehood. People seem to want these historical figures in the game, but they don't want to have to learn anything about that historical figure.

Some realistic elements are left out because they are dull. For example, supply trains for military units. They are abstracted because it will be too much work and hassle for too little benefit.

What is boring about having cities expand realistically? What is boring about actually building buildings in your city instead of in rural districts? What's boring about have super large maps and/or realistic scaling?

 

[Acken]

I want Civ to be good. How can it be good at one thing if it's trying to be two mutually exclusive things simultaneously?

Civ isn't trying to be a good abstract boardgame or a historical simulation. It's trying to be a good video game.

Peanut butter + jelly is not trying to be butter or jelly. It's trying to be tasty.

Putting historical figures into the game without any context is not realism or abstraction, it is falsehood. People seem to want these historical figures in the game, but they don't want to have to learn anything about that historical figure.

The infamy ! Braveheart is crap too from a historical point of view. Still a fun movie.

 

[nyyfootball]

Civ isn't trying to be a good abstract boardgame or a historical simulation. It's trying to be a good video game.

Then why is so much focus being put on it being an abstract board game? It's lead designer is board game designer and all I hear on this forum is about how Civilization should avoid realism. I would rather the developers focus more on making Civ into a good COMPUTER game and less into a virtual board game.

Peanut butter + jelly is not trying to be butter or jelly. It's trying to be tasty.

I'll remind you that the next time you try and play Settler of Catan or Dungeons and Dragons on your computer.


Civilization should be one good thing instead of two different things.



Braveheart doesn't claim to be based on history. Braveheart is explicitly based on a fictional romance poem from the 15th century.

 

[malekithau]

Civ is far from realistic. Never has been. It's a great strategy game and that's all. It's as abstract as a game can get.

Why do we have America, Brasil, the Ottomons etc? None of these existed as a culture at 2000 bc and they are all the result of other cultures some of which didn't exist either. If we wanted realism then cultures would by necessity cease to exist or break apart in order for many of the in game cultures to come into being.

Single buildings in cities i.e 1 library is an abstract representation of the effect of a particular technology. The concept of cities as a whole when they really represent an entire country or region.

It's a game a fun game and as with all games shouldn't be taken too seriously.

 

[nyyfootball]

Civ is far from realistic. Never has been. It's a great strategy game and that's all. It's as abstract as a game can get.

Go is abstract. Civ is not abstract. Civ uses real life historical figures as its players.

Why do we have America, Brasil, the Ottomons etc? None of these existed as a culture at 2000 bc and they are all the result of other cultures some of which didn't exist either. If we wanted realism then cultures would by necessity cease to exist or break apart in order for many of the in game cultures to come into being.

Rhys and Fall includes realistic rise and fall of civilizations and starts civs during their appropriate time frames.

Single buildings in cities i.e 1 library is an abstract representation of the effect of a particular technology. The concept of cities as a whole when they really represent an entire country or region.

Now there won't be any libraries in cities at all though. Libraries will only be able to be built in rural districts.

It's a game a fun game and as with all games shouldn't be taken too seriously.

The whole point of this forum is to take the game seriously. Fanatics aren't casual.

 

[cseanny]

It's a game a fun game and as with all games shouldn't be taken too seriously.

I say this with 60 - 40 or maybe 70 -30 truth and fun.......

WT$ mang!!! Civilization is a lifestyle.

 

[Acken]

Then why is so much focus being put on it being an abstract board game? It's lead designer is board game designer and all I hear on this forum is about how Civilization should avoid realism. I would rather the developers focus more on making Civ into a good COMPUTER game and less into a virtual board game.

I have no idea what you're talking about. Civ5 is a good computer game.

I'll remind you that the next time you try and play Settler of Catan or Dungeons and Dragons on your computer.

Do you have a problem with people doing that ?

Civilization should be one good thing instead of two different things.

It's a good video game. That's a nice start.

Braveheart doesn't claim to be based on history. Braveheart is explicitly based on a fictional romance poem from the 15th century.

Proving my point. Neither is Civ.