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

[Ryika]

Just because you it has the word in it doesn't mean it.

More than anything Goat Simulator is a satire game. It doesn't take itself seriously and makes "fun" of other Simulators like that are out there (the hundreds, hundreds of pointless simulators)

Yes, my point was that that title is not some sort of "Holy Grail" because people were tagging all sorts of "conditions" onto it. "It's listed as simulation, so the Devs must have intended it to be realistic!", etc.- that just doesn't follow. Most simulations don't try to be hyper-realistic.

Count me in... VERY slow tech tree though... And it wouldn't be Civilization really... Because indeed one of the main reasons that makes Civilization so attractive and binding is the realworld-related framework - helps immersion A LOT!

Well, it would be like Beyond Earth. But better of course.

Tech Tree would need to be somewhat stylized. You'd research new methods diplomatic shenanigans or something.

 

[TRoosevelt]

this, exactly! I like to second V. Soma, too. Immersion is the name of the game! That is why wonder movies being back is so wonderful, That is why "I hate Alexanders guts" is such a good thing!

That's what I was getting at, but forgot to say it - immersion. That's why we enjoy these kinds of historical-based games - to feel like we are actually in control of a small but growing civilization - "to stand the test of time". That's why I played AH boardgames so long ago, because of the, "YOU are in command..." excitement factor.


I just wish that now that we have more powerful computers (vs when Civ I came out), the game designers would focus a little more on better and more realistic game mechanics and less on flashy eye candy. I find it irritating to my senses when archers can shoot at targets 2 hexes away (which represents 10, 20, 50, 100 miles - take your pick), or weaken a city surrounded by stone walls to the point of capture. And seeing Alexander have his whole territory around his capital filled with combat units - both because of the 1upt and because he HAS to build something each turn - shuffling his units around each turn like a herd of cattle, and then wondering who he is going to strike next. DUMB!! Like I should be able to see that anyway. They really need to implement a large-scale tactical map (250m/hex) on which to have combat, and coincidently, place their so-called districts on that, surrounding the city center. Maybe I'm in the minority here, but wouldn't that be more realistic without destroying gameplay?

played all from Civ I - CiV - never multiplayer. I'm sure SP-Community is bigger, and more alive...

ditto. I admire and support those who have the time to play CIV mp, but I wouldn't have the time to commit to it. The unlimited gametimes I used to enjoy are a distant memory for me now.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

That's what I was getting at, but forgot to say it - immersion. That's why we enjoy these kinds of historical-based games - to feel like we are actually in control of a small but growing civilization - "to stand the test of time". That's why I played AH boardgames so long ago, because of the, "YOU are in command..." excitement factor.


I just wish that now that we have more powerful computers (vs when Civ I came out), the game designers would focus a little more on better and more realistic game mechanics and less on flashy eye candy. I find it irritating to my senses when archers can shoot at targets 2 hexes away (which represents 10, 20, 50, 100 miles - take your pick), or weaken a city surrounded by stone walls to the point of capture. And seeing Alexander have his whole territory around his capital filled with combat units - both because of the 1upt and because he HAS to build something each turn - shuffling his units around each turn like a herd of cattle, and then wondering who he is going to strike next. DUMB!! Like I should be able to see that anyway. They really need to implement a large-scale tactical map (250m/hex) on which to have combat, and coincidently, place their so-called districts on that, surrounding the city center. Maybe I'm in the minority here, but wouldn't that be more realistic without destroying gameplay?





ditto. I admire and support those who have the time to play CIV mp, but I wouldn't have the time to commit to it. The unlimited gametimes I used to enjoy are a distant memory for me now.

Wait, you want to feel like you're in the scene, yet at the same time don't mind if all of the units are represented by ASCII characters?

 

[m15a]

They really need to implement a large-scale tactical map (250m/hex) on which to have combat, and coincidently, place their so-called districts on that, surrounding the city center. Maybe I'm in the minority here, but wouldn't that be more realistic without destroying gameplay?

It would be more realistic, and I wouldn't say that it would *destroy* gameplay, but it would drastically change gameplay and, I think, the overall feel of the game. To me, that would make the game "not really Civ" (although as a scenario or spinoff game, it might be cool). The fact that combat is made abstract in such a way that it can work on the world map is, in my opinion, a feature of Civ, not a flaw (and one that has been around since Civ I even though Civ V and VI make it more obvious in some ways).

 

[KrikkitTwo]

It would be more realistic, and I wouldn't say that it would *destroy* gameplay, but it would drastically change gameplay and, I think, the overall feel of the game. To me, that would make the game "not really Civ" (although as a scenario or spinoff game, it might be cool). The fact that combat is made abstract in such a way that it can work on the world map is, in my opinion, a feature of Civ, not a flaw (and one that has been around since Civ I even though Civ V and VI make it more obvious in some ways).

I think the immersion problem arises when they try to make combat tactical...
If they kept combat strategic, it could be abstracted without losing immersion.

 

[m15a]

I think the immersion problem arises when they try to make combat tactical...
If they kept combat strategic, it could be abstracted without losing immersion.

I don't agree. Prior to Civ V, there were a lot of people that complained about how slow units moved relative to turn speed - those people's sense of immersion was broken because unit movement wasn't in line with the real world. Civ V just shifted that line of immersion breaking over so it reaches more people's threshold (or reaches people's threshold more often).

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I don't agree. Prior to Civ V, there were a lot of people that complained about how slow units moved relative to turn speed - those people's sense of immersion was broken because unit movement wasn't in line with the real world. Civ V just shifted that line of immersion breaking over so it reaches more people's threshold (or reaches people's threshold more often).

Though civ V botched the unit movement vs real time aspect . It's pretty damaging to immersion for the game to be incapable of keeping up with human inputs while every machine spec is at or significantly above recommended.

Trying to do something the game allows and having the game get in your way via basic inputs is murder to immersion :/.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I don't agree. Prior to Civ V, there were a lot of people that complained about how slow units moved relative to turn speed - those people's sense of immersion was broken because unit movement wasn't in line with the real world. Civ V just shifted that line of immersion breaking over so it reaches more people's threshold (or reaches people's threshold more often).

That's because Civ1 was also too tactical.

For 'strategic' units, they would act more like aircraft, based in a city/military outpost, they perform a mission in a certain range of movement points)...in a single turn a scout would search the tiles in a path up to 10?15 tiles away (unless it was intercepted and killed by a barbarian.)

An army of 10-15 units (acting like one super unit) would invade/conquer in one turn (relocating to the conquered city unless it was intercepted/destroyed by defending armies)

 

[m15a]

Though civ V botched the unit movement vs real time aspect . It's pretty damaging to immersion for the game to be incapable of keeping up with human inputs while every machine spec is at or significantly above recommended.

Trying to do something the game allows and having the game get in your way via basic inputs is murder to immersion :/.

Truuuuue... but I'm not trying to make a pro-Civ-V or anti-Civ-I-thourgh-IV argument. I'm just saying that the scale abstraction, which has been present in Civ from the start, is appreciated for gameplay reasons despite the fact that it is immersion breaking.

Even if Civ V made things worse or pushed things too far for some people, I don't think the solution is to keep pushing the boundary until Civ has a separate tactical battlefield layer.

 

[Biz_]

No. This is wrong for so many reasons. With this reasoning, every RPG ever was a multiplayer game because there are NPCs, and Civilization I was multiplayer, although it didn't even have an MP mode. Just no.

NPCs are not racing you towards victory conditions in RPGs

offline civ games are always competitive multiple player games.

just like chess is always a competitive 2-player game whether you play against the AI or a human.

 

[bjbrains]

I fundamentally have never understood the trend to try to pin realism to Civ. Realism has never been a design goal for Civ. Civ is themed around actual history, and represents characters, units and wonders from history, but had never tried to have a realistic context for them. They've always been in service of he mechanics.

 

[m15a]

offline civ games are always competitive multiple player games.

just like chess is always a competitive 2-player game whether you play against the AI or a human.

Chess is a 2-player game. And 2 players are multiple players. But chess against an AI isn't a "multiplayer video game" - a "multiplayer video game" (sometimes called "multiplayer game" for short) is a video game with multiple human players.

 

[Acken]

Also civ often has cooperative mechanics that just arent designed for human players. Tourism for open borders for example or international trade routes.

 

[rastak]

That's because Civ1 was also too tactical.

For 'strategic' units, they would act more like aircraft, based in a city/military outpost, they perform a mission in a certain range of movement points)...in a single turn a scout would search the tiles in a path up to 10?15 tiles away (unless it was intercepted and killed by a barbarian.)

An army of 10-15 units (acting like one super unit) would invade/conquer in one turn (relocating to the conquered city unless it was intercepted/destroyed by defending armies)

Did you really mean Civ 1?

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Did you really mean Civ 1?

Yes, A v D, unit v unit battles determine the fate of armies, attack first to win

Not a lot of tactics but more than Civ should have (especially because of the simplicity of everything else)

 

[rastak]

Yes, A v D, unit v unit battles determine the fate of armies, attack first to win

Not a lot of tactics but more than Civ should have (especially because of the simplicity of everything else)

Yea, I'm playing a game of Civ 1 as I type this and since you kill a whole stack with a win, hitting first as defense is pretty critical.

 

[Cristoval]

picking a symbolic and recognisable representation of phenomena over a realistic one in most cases. Whether it works or not is a matter of personal taste but the commercial success of Civ5 shows that it works for most people, at least.

If Civ4 and Civ5 came out at the same time I am almost positive that the former would have performed better than the latter. Civ5 came out during a different time in the computer game industry, and steam I have no doubt helped fuel its sales and visibility. By the time Civ5 came out civ4 was a 5 year old game.

 

[Cristoval]

I'd also like to add that paradox games aren't more realistic than civ. I feel they just employ a different philosophy in representing real-life events in game terms. This just involves numbers being used to represent different events, and goings-on in your empire.

For example: Civ does not use a province-based movement system. In civ you are free to move your units in different parts of an area the equivalent of a province in a paradox title. The civ system provides different gameplay experiences that you wouldn't be able to achieve in paradox, and vice versa. Both games use numbers/stats for combat so neither are more realistic than the other.

I feel that focusing to build a board game rather than an empire builder causes the game to lose it's focus, and purpose. It's why I think civ5 got the backlash that it did from civ4 players. An empire builder can provide a lot of natural gameplay decisions and features.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

If Civ4 and Civ5 came out at the same time I am almost positive that the former would have performed better than the latter. Civ5 came out during a different time in the computer game industry, and steam I have no doubt helped fuel its sales and visibility. By the time Civ5 came out civ4 was a 5 year old game.

If 4 came out after 5, people would instead complain about 4's differences because they are different. 5 has some shortcomings, but people would concentrate on 4's instead because they would be NEW shortcomings; and yes there are many things CivIV didn't quite get right. We just didn't notice them as much because it was the way we were used to.

You're right in that five came out in a different time. One of the differences is that we had more to compare it to. Side by side, with the new eyes of someone who has seen neither, I don't think they would quite match up as you think they would. You're right in that when civ5 came out that four was a five-year-old-game--so people had been playing four for five years and had gotten comfortable with it. And of course, it was fully expanded compared to a brand new (and flawed out of the box ) Civ5.

 

[rastak]

If 4 came out after 5, people would instead complain about 4's differences because they are different. 5 has some shortcomings, but people would concentrate on 4's instead because they would be NEW shortcomings; and yes there are many things CivIV didn't quite get right. We just didn't notice them as much because it was the way we were used to.

You're right in that five came out in a different time. One of the differences is that we had more to compare it to. Side by side, with the new eyes of someone who has seen neither, I don't think they would quite match up as you think they would. You're right in that when civ5 came out that four was a five-year-old-game--so people had been playing four for five years and had gotten comfortable with it. And of course, it was fully expanded compared to a brand new (and flawed out of the box ) Civ5.

Completely agree.