Ages, Leaders, Civs - and the question of immersion

[V. Soma]

I would like to read the forum's thoughts on the topic of "immersion".
For me, it is one important thing to feel, when I play civ - as I want to have a story in my mind that is inspired by the history of humanity...

So, I guess we have to accept that we change civs as ages shift.
If so, I am glad that we have only three ages, so only two changes and long time with the actual civ in an age.

AGES:

I am OK with having three ages in the game - I love the concept to have long, detailed, deep ages with their own story.
No problem with immersion here.

LEADERS:

This can the most problematic.
I simply cannot see how I (or the AI) would play with a leader in an age earlier than the age of the person in real history.
Like: leading antique Egypt as Benjamin Franklin? No way... not even as Jeanne D'Arc...

So I do hope it will be so that in a given age you can pick only leaders that are in the same age in real history, too.
That would be the best for immersion.

Maybe I can accept a soft version: the leader can be chosen if in real history the person lived in an earlier age.
So in Exploration age you can then choose Augustus to lead the, say, Normans...
This would be based on the concept that Leaders are "immortal" in this game...

And make it so that the AI Leader is matched to a historically real civ, if possible.

CIVS:

Immersion with playing three consecutive civs is of course depends upon how well the switches are explained, either:
- as a change referring to real history
- as a change that could have happened by some chance in real history (by some stretch of fantasy)

We saw some of Egypt's options so far.
If I am correct, we have the info that Egypt can become Songhai, Abbasid, or Mongolia (with 3 horses resources owned)
Of these, Abbasid is the best for immersion.
Songhai, well, maybe, with fantasy (both are North African)
Mongolia - I don't like it, as I simply don't have Mongolia as a civ ever close to Egypt in any conceptual way. Ok, I read that Mongolia got to the Middle East in history for a short time, but still.

This leads to the question, how it will be "solved" in the game.
Best would be to have a small(ish) number of antique civs (say: 8),
more civs in the Exploration age (say: 16),
and even more than that in Modern age (say: 24)
- this way it can be designed that all Antique and Exploration age civs can get changing that is OK with immersion...

 

[AriochIV]

Immersion is important for me in games (and in other media), but immersion in Civilization has always been a little bit wonky. Running into Canada's prime minister in 1500 BC was never not wonky.

When it bothered me, and sometimes it did, I would choose a group of period-appopriate leaders as opponents, and when Firaxis later added the option to ban some leaders, I used that.

I am going to guess that the AI players in Civ 7 will not normally choose weird ahistorical leaders, unless there is an option to get them to do it. If for some reason they do, there will presumably some kind of setting to prevent it. If there isn't, one will be modded in.

As for the player, if you think that choosing Ben Franklin to lead Egypt is silly, then all you have to do is not choose that. If you don't think that Egypt should transform to Mongolia... then don't.

Since the number of available civilizations will necessarily be limited at first release, the options for logical civ transitions will sometimes seem like a stretch. Hopefully over time as more civilizations are added this will fill out a bit.

 

[Krikkit1]

You don’t change Leaders each age. (You never change leaders)

Some civ options are geographic (ie in the real world this civ’s territory was located nearish to the predecessor civ’s territory)

Other civ options are gameplay focused. Mongols get bonuses with Horses (and probably rely on them) so if you want Middle age Cavalry Horde…well thats the alternate history (A Cavalry horde civ/leader arose near Egypt instead of near China…and got the name Mongols)

 

[V. Soma]

You don’t change Leaders each age. (You never change leaders)

Some civ options are geographic (ie in the real world this civ’s territory was located nearish to the predecessor civ’s territory)

Other civ options are gameplay focused. Mongols get bonuses with Horses (and probably rely on them) so if you want Middle age Cavalry Horde…well thats the alternate history (A Cavalry horde civ/leader arose near Egypt instead of near China…and got the name Mongols)

As for leaders I meant game starts - you can start in any age you want

 

[DST1348]

My first reaction when they revealed the civ change was negative. I don't like to switch civs mid-game, and I don't like my AI opponents change either. This feels very random to me. However, what I understood so far is that the choices of new civs will be related to your current civ, settled environment and past decisions. So the process does not seem as random as in Humankind.

Maybe Firaxis can pull it off, but I remain sceptical. That's why I will likely not pre-order.

 

[Dark_Jedi06]

I say this in all seriousness...bring back Cleopatra in a frontier-style dress/bonnet in the Industrial Age please.

That being said, the nature of the civilization franchise, the time span covered and the scope, will always require some suspension of disbelief in regards to some aspect of the game. I'm at the point where I'm more concerned about solid gameplay mechanics and an enjoyable game.

It also helps that I can get my immersion elsewhere in the 4X space these days.

 

[ombak]

To me, immersion is what happens when the gameplay or experience is such that you want to keep playing or participating. Your brain will do the heavy lifting of finding a rationale for how the world you're in works.

You can pre-emptively help that immersion by removing obstacles (lowering suspension of disbelief) or hinder it by making changes that I have a bias against and reduce my desire to try in the first place.

I understand players for whom new Civ iterations end up doing the latter, but having played Civ since forever, it has such positive goodwill with me from years of good gameplay, that I have yet to see a change I wasn't willing to try.

 

[Uberfrog]

The problem I have with “immersion” as a topic of criticism is that no one is quite able to define why some things break it (like changing civs per era) and others don’t (like running into Teddy Roosevelt in 4000 BC).

It seems to be shorthand for people to complain about design decisions they don’t like. Which is fine, but pretending Firaxis have broken some cardinal rule of historical strategy design is just silly.

For me, what makes the Civilization games so endlessly playable is how they capture my imagination and generate stories of how my civilisations grow and develop. Nothing about civ-switching gets in the way of that - it was never realistic to imagine my cities just trundling steadily along for 6000 years.

What is going to be more important is how engaging the gameplay decisions are and how Firaxis manages to make a campaign feel cohesive across the three ages.

 

[Olleus]

The problem I have with “immersion” as a topic of criticism is that no one is quite able to define why some things break it (like changing civs per era) and others don’t (like running into Teddy Roosevelt in 4000 BC).

People used to complain about "realism" in video games. Sometime around 2010 we all realised no video game was realistic (no matter the photorealistic graphics), and that any game that tried too hard to be "realistic" was going to be incredibly dull. So we kept the same complaints but started using the words "immersion" or "suspense of disbelief" instead, which have the advantage of being sufficiently subjective that nobody could prove us wrong.

 

[Gori the Grey]

I just said this in another thread, but if they let you keep the same map color, I think that will help me feel that I'm guiding one cultural entity that just happens to go through two major cultural changes in the course of history.

 

[Professor Phobo]

I sure hope the map color at least stays the same because that will be confusing if it doesn't.

 

[Mudokon Pop]

The problem I have with “immersion” as a topic of criticism is that no one is quite able to define why some things break it (like changing civs per era) and others don’t (like running into Teddy Roosevelt in 4000 BC).

When I played Civ for the first time - I absolutely found my immersion broken by modern leaders in the stone age. But in time I got used to it. It's part of the charm of the game at this point.

Now I have something else to get used to. Seeing Roosevelt in the Ancient Era is no longer jarring because it's happened enough times. People become blind to it and stop noticing it so no immersion is broken for them. I time we'll get used to this change too.

 

[Hannibal XIII]

I wouldn't describe my issues with switching as "immersion," since after a while I get into the next-turn-click zone and I start coming up with non-mechanical reasons for why stuff happens anyways.

My issue is more tied to the great leader-civ debate that rages before every game and especially before and during 6 -- does a switch make historical and cultural sense even in broad terms (in my subjective opinion) or is it Egypt-Songhai-Buganda? Does a leader make sense (in my subjective opinion) or is it Kristina the country-abandoning tradcath in charge of the major protestant power of early modern continental europe? Does a civ "merit" inclusion (in my subjective opinion) or is it putting in two non-American Anglo-settler countries and Gran Colombia and leaving major non-Western options on the table? Are they respecting history (in my subjective opinion) when trying to include a broader slice of it in their newer games or are they calling Nzinga Kongolese when she was a Mbundu leader in charge of an entirely separate polity and playing it off by including her actual title as part of her bonuses?

At least in previous games I could easily pre-design my game map, include what I wanted and leave out what I didn't (such as too many city-states, America et. al.) I also used to group AI civ placement by language family so as to make it make more sense to me personally -- switching definitely messes with that but its a minor gripe.

 

[Zaarin]

At least in previous games I could easily pre-design my game map, include what I wanted and leave out what I didn't (such as too many city-states, America et. al.) I also used to group AI civ placement by language family so as to make it make more sense to me personally -- switching definitely messes with that but its a minor gripe.

Hopefully the leader/civ pool is implemented much earlier in Civ7 than it was in Civ6. I also like to either control or influence who my opponents are.

 

[Navelgazer]

To me, this way of doing things feels potentially much more immersive, for several reasons, but I think the key factor is the way that the Ages will each reportedly build to an endgame in and of themselves. Playing a civilization that regularly is feeling like it's at the End of History is just inherently going to feel more immersive (to me, at least) than one which is waiting for when they're going to have their chance to really shine in a thousand years.

That concept is also why I think the Civ Evolution with new ages is going to be cool and interesting rather than eye-rolling and restrictive - there's a built-in narrative momentum to make it feel both like the previous age's Civ reached their potential in rising to the crises at hand, and that the new one you choose is a logical adaptation to changing times. Then, with parts of your old civ that you keep and parts that you build on top of, the history deepens and, to me, feels that much more "real."

(As a note, I always play Civ6 with Dramatic Ages enabled, for two reasons. The first is to add drama to whatever era I'm in so that I know I'm always working towards some immediate goal in addition to my long-term goals. The second is because it's more immersive to me to see empires around me falling from within, which will usually happen at least once when playing with Dramatic Ages. Somebody's gonna get stuck behind the curve and watch their empire totally balkanize, and that just feels more realistic and, well, immersive.)

As for Leaders, Meeting Ben Franklin leading Maya in Antiquity is going to be no more immersion-breaking for me than meeting Teddy leading America in the Ancient Era is now. It's not ideal, but the leaders have always been avatars of the eternal nature of the civs you meet (and play as) and that's true with the Civ7 mechanics as well.

 

[AriochIV]

I just said this in another thread, but if they let you keep the same map color, I think that will help me feel that I'm guiding one cultural entity that just happens to go through two major cultural changes in the course of history.

I would be very surprised if they changed the empire colors at Age transitions. That would be silly and confusing.

 

[Teutonic_Tirade]

I think what really helped my immersion as seeing Civ as a lived in world was really the Demographics Panel. I could see my Civ's population, GNP, production, landmass, etc. I really missed it in VI, even though there is a mod for it, I wish it was part of the base game. I do love looking at graphs, but I see why they want to make it less complicated. The simple points list was too simple in VI and I want to see graphs other than at the end of the game.

 

[TheGrayFox]

The problem I have with “immersion” as a topic of criticism is that no one is quite able to define why some things break it (like changing civs per era) and others don’t (like running into Teddy Roosevelt in 4000 BC).

People used to complain about "realism" in video games. Sometime around 2010 we all realised no video game was realistic (no matter the photorealistic graphics), and that any game that tried too hard to be "realistic" was going to be incredibly dull. So we kept the same complaints but started using the words "immersion" or "suspense of disbelief" instead, which have the advantage of being sufficiently subjective that nobody could prove us wrong.

Several of us have explained this repeatedly. So let's try and tackle the strawman one again.

The tagline of the game series and its entire foundation is taking a Civilization and building an empire that span all time. Civilization is not and has never been some strict 1:1 simulation of history and no one is expecting such historical realism and strict accuracy from a Civilization game. Immortal civilizations and their related leaders is a fundamental part of the series. They are how the series and how we as players ground the story and narratives being procedurally generated by the mechanics of this strategy game game, which are based on a loose abstraction of all of human history When we say our immersion is being broken, we are refering to how we identify with Civilizations and leaders we play and play against.. Which is why many of the same people who champion the brilliance of Ed Beach and defend civ swapping revolt at the thought of leaders changing every era instead of civilizations.

The reason why historical accuracy keeps getting brough up is because that is how the devolopers have tried to sell and package their gimmick. They've explained by appealing to some sense of historcity and accuracy and opened themselves up to that criticism as well but when we talk about our immersion playing the game, we are refering to something different than its historical accuracy.

 

[Uberfrog]

I am not attempting to build a straw man. I understand where the criticism is coming from. I am saying that what any person (including myself) finds immersion breaking is subjective.

Personally, I have never liked running into Australian or American warriors in the Stone Age. I didn’t like it when I played Civ IV, and I don’t like it in Civ VI. It breaks my immersion in that I feel a disconnect between what I am seeing on the screen and the story I wish to tell myself, which is of a Neolithic tribe encountering its neighbours for the first time. Of course I perfectly understand this to be a feature of the game and the series to date. What I disagree about is whether this is a “fundamental part of the series”. That is an opinion, a particular interpretation of a marketing tagline.

There are thousands of civ players out there with their own history of playing the series, their own immersion and their own ideas of what should and shouldn’t be changed in every new instalment. Lots of you feel that civ-switching is a mistake. You might be proved right. But don’t make out that this design decision is objectively and fundamentally at odds with the franchise’s character when plenty of other players, developers l, and even Sid himself, seem to disagree.

 

[TheGrayFox]

I am not attempting to build a straw man. I understand where the criticism is coming from. I am saying that what any person (including myself) finds immersion breaking is subjective.

Honestly the strawman comment was more directed towards the second comment quoted than your original post. Though I tried to adrress your original comment as best I could as well

Personally, I have never liked running into Australian or American warriors in the Stone Age. I didn’t like it when I played Civ IV, and I don’t like it in Civ VI. It breaks my immersion in that I feel a disconnect between what I am seeing on the screen and the story I wish to tell myself, which is of a Neolithic tribe encountering its neighbours for the first time. Of course I perfectly understand this to be a feature of the game and the series to date. What I disagree about is whether this is a “fundamental part of the series”. That is an opinion, a particular interpretation of a marketing tagline.

Personally, what things break or make your immesion in the experience you may be completely different than what immerses many others (and I understand clearly that comment can be returned back to me). For many of us, Australian and American in BC doesn't ruin my immersion because we are looking for a strict historical simulator from a 4x Civ game. it is undeniable however that the game series is built around taking a civilization and building an empire that spans all time and that staple/relationship between immortal Civilizations and their leaders has been built into the series and its design philosphy since the beginning.

There are thousands of civ players out there with their own history of playing the series, their own immersion and their own ideas of what should and shouldn’t be changed in every new instalment. Lots of you feel that civ-switching is a mistake. You might be proved right. But don’t make out that this design decision is objectively and fundamentally at odds with the franchise’s character when plenty of other players, developers l, and even Sid himself, seem to disagree.

and there are thousands of civ players out there with their own history of playing the series, and many of us are telling you that these changes to the foundations of the series will potentially break our in-game immersion and we do not like or want them. Pointing to the fact that Sid is smiling in the backround of a trailer while the game's head designer is someone else doesn't change how many of us feel.