Anyone else feel... cheated?

[GKrumble]

As an avid civilization player, I can't help but be disappointed with one thing in Civilization V that has never been a problem in other Civilization games...

The little biography on the leaders at the start of each game, and the inability to rename your cities.

The biography pisses me off the most however. Why, are we being told the accomplishments of a leader, when we are the first leaders of our civilization that is being started... why are we rebuilding our "former glory"? This makes no sense to me, since a normal game of Civ starts out in 4000 BC, so why have we already built an empire according to this lame biography that we are forced to listen to and apparently we ruined it, and are support to rebuild it... back in time? It is so confusing, and I will not try to rationalize it further.

The whole point of Civilization is to create your OWN history, and to make your OWN civilization! Why are we being given a predefined goal to reestablish the English empire or whatever we may have chosen?

This I have to say, is the biggest issue I have with Civ 5. Flame as you will, but it just annoys me greatly. It just kills the sense of role play I feel


Apologies, I did not know you could rename cities, it isn't insanely obvious the way they set it up

 

[Villager720]

I understand the concern over your leader bio, but I suppose it was done just to give an idea about the background of your civ, and therefore explain their UA, UB, UUs. Just a thought.

Also, you can rename cities. When you pull up the city menu/options, there sould be an edit button at the bottom of the title window for the city.

 

[Sonereal]

Of all the things to complain about, this is not one of them. Seriously, I thought this thread would be about modding, balance, DLC, or whatever crossed someone's mind today. But the thing that gets you is accomplishments? You know what's a good way to fix your problem?

Turn off the speakers and don't read. Seriously, that's all that is required to fix your problem. It doesn't require any patch or advanced modding skills. It just requires that you know where the off button is on your speakers.

 

[GKrumble]

Of all the things to complain about, this is not one of them. Seriously, I thought this thread would be about modding, balance, DLC, or whatever crossed someone's mind today. But the thing that gets you is accomplishments? You know what's a good way to fix your problem?

Turn off the speakers and don't read. Seriously, that's all that is required to fix your problem. It doesn't require any patch or advanced modding skills. It just requires that you know where the off button is on your speakers.

that is not the point, its an annoying fact in the game that makes it look like we're not important leaders, but simply in the shadow of those who came before

 

[insaneweasel]

I agree completely. It makes zero sense, unless you consider the fact that the devs didn't put much thought into this game. I also don't like many of their choices for leaders-Napoleon, Ghandi and Bismarck are awful choices imo. They should have had ancient leaders like Charlemagne, Asoka, Barbarossa and other ancient leaders.

 

[GKrumble]

I agree completely. It makes zero sense, unless you consider the fact that the devs didn't put much thought into this game. I also don't like many of their choices for leaders-Napoleon, Ghandi and Bismarck are awful choices imo. They should have had ancient leaders like Charlemagne, Asoka, Barbarossa and other ancient leaders.

Not to mention Wu Zetian, seriously... why her out of all people!? I liked mao in IV

 

[I_qua_I]

I'm with GKrumble.

I always thought the intro screens were ridiculous for much of the same reasons. And when it comes to city naming I wish they had it set up like Civ4 were you were given the option to name/rename it from the get-go and not have to go through the city selection screen after it's already been selected.

 

[Villager720]

Not to mention Wu Zetian, seriously... why her out of all people!? I liked mao in IV

Id chalk it up to need/want for a decent number of women leaders.

 

[awesome]

for a lot of them, they went with some of the best known leaders. for china, they just went with a chick.

 

[Sonereal]

that is not the point, its an annoying fact in the game that makes it look like we're not important leaders, but simply in the shadow of those who came before

Then ignore it like so many writers in the story section have managed to do. So, the part about the leader history angers you because you think it messes with your ability to roleplay and create your own history. HOWEVER, the fact that you get pre-determined UUs that you must research the pre-determined technology for doesn't bother you?

Again, if this such a big issue, turns the speakers off. You didn't explain why you couldn't simply turn the speakers off and push play when the game is done loading.

Not to mention Wu Zetian, seriously... why her out of all people!? I liked mao in IV

The Yellow Emperor would make more sense than anything. One started the insane Cultural Revolution and the other one didn't. Therefore, the Yellow Emperor (whoever he is) is a better choice.

 

[cccv]

that is not the point, its an annoying fact in the game that makes it look like we're not important leaders, but simply in the shadow of those who came before

Not really. The idea seems to be that yes, you are those great important leaders, and you're getting another chance in another reality to try again. "Rebuild your former glory" doesn't sound so much to me like "do /exactly/ what you did before" as it sounds like "do anything you want to be as great as you used to be/are now." No, the only thing that bugs me about it is the sycophantic hyperbole and horrible voice acting that occasionally seems to be delivered mid-orgasm (I get a pretty unpleasant picture in my head when he's saying "OH, great leader!!!!").

And like someone said, you can change city names. Easily.

 

[GKrumble]

Then ignore it like so many writers in the story section have managed to do. So, the part about the leader history angers you because you think it messes with your ability to roleplay and create your own history. HOWEVER, the fact that you get pre-determined UUs that you must research the pre-determined technology for doesn't bother you?

Again, if this such a big issue, turns the speakers off. You didn't explain why you couldn't simply turn the speakers off and push play when the game is done loading.

I am simply ranting about how unnecessary it was, and how I would had preferred a splash screen, or one of those "the world was created such and such". I am ranting because it goes against civilization tradition. Unique units are different, because they're not telling me exactly what I should be doing, or who I am . Sorry if you view it as annoying, just wanted to bring it up

 

[vcutag]

Why, are we being told the accomplishments of a leader, when we are the first leaders of our civilization that is being started... why are we rebuilding our "former glory"? This makes no sense to me, since a normal game of Civ starts out in 4000 BC, so why have we already built an empire according to this lame biography that we are forced to listen to and apparently we ruined it, and are support to rebuild it... back in time?

I just tell myself we're doing the Battlestar Galactica thing. "All of this has happened before, and it will all happen again."

 

[Sonereal]

Unique units are different, because they're not telling me exactly what I should be doing, or who I am . Sorry if you view it as annoying, just wanted to bring it up

Except that in many cases, the UUs DO tell you who you are. The Samurai doesn't exist in the void, there's a culture around it. Same with the Janissary, the Minuteman, the Legion, and pretty much every UU that isn't a Panzer (and even then, connotation).

If there's something based on your complaint that is worth complaining about, it's the fact that Jesus is born in every game and the calendars all bend around the date.

 

[BobDole]

The biography pisses me off the most however. Why, are we being told the accomplishments of a leader, when we are the first leaders of our civilization that is being started... why are we rebuilding our "former glory"? This makes no sense to me, since a normal game of Civ starts out in 4000 BC, so why have we already built an empire according to this lame biography that we are forced to listen to and apparently we ruined it, and are support to rebuild it... back in time? It is so confusing, and I will not try to rationalize it further.

The whole point of Civilization is to create your OWN history, and to make your OWN civilization! Why are we being given a predefined goal to reestablish the English empire or whatever we may have chosen?

I think it's just there to give someone with no knowledge of history a bit of historical background, that's all. For example, I really don't have any knowledge of Siamese history, but hey, the little story at the beginning at least gives you an idea of their exploits and why they're in the game in the first place. Not sure why you're so worked up over it, seeing how you CAN can create your own history. Go have the Songhai send a rocket to Alpha Centauri; I'm pretty sure that didn't happen in history before. Besides, this whole thing is one of the most minor parts of the entire game.....

I won't go into city renaming since it's been pointed out that it's there already, and it's not very hard to do if you want to do it.

 

[Save_Ferris]

I agree completely. It makes zero sense, unless you consider the fact that the devs didn't put much thought into this game. I also don't like many of their choices for leaders-Napoleon, Ghandi and Bismarck are awful choices imo. They should have had ancient leaders like Charlemagne, Asoka, Barbarossa and other ancient leaders.

They wanted a different selection of leaders than they had in IV. I personally prefer Napoleon over Louis XXIV and Bismarck over Frederick, but I agree with you on Ghandhi.

 

[Lose]

you can rename your civ and cities..

 

[wcbarney]

They wanted a different selection of leaders than they had in IV. I personally prefer Napoleon over Louis XXIV and Bismarck over Frederick, but I agree with you on Ghandhi.

I actually like Civ V way better than Civ IV. But one Civ IV feature that I did like was that you could choose between two leaders for any particular civ. Each leader brought a unique civ attribute. It's been years since I had Civ IV installed, and I donated the game to the Salvation Army a long time ago, so I don't remember many of the leaders & attributes. But I do remember that I could choose between George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, for instance.

 

[P-Zombie]

What bugs me about the bios is how little they actually say; they're so lacking in real substance they're almost vacuous.

"Something or other about the local vegetation. Great wealth. Grinding poverty. Industrious people. Blah blah blah, the end."

Of all the things to complain about, this is not one of them.

Go ahead and bash fantasy/roleplay all you want - it's essential to this kind of game. Think about it. Instead of granaries and libraries you could have "permanent bonus #1" and "permanent bonus #2". Do away with all the graphics and have different colored tiles, populated with different colored wood chips to represent units. Things like production and gold could be nameless point counters associated with tiles labeled "point generation hubs" instead of cities.

Every game in this entire genre of games is a marriage of fantasy and math. And fantasy is in the driver's seat. Math is just the vehicle.

 

[Furycrab]

Like many people have pointed out, the cities can be renamed, and you only have to listen to the biographies for as long as your computer takes to finish loading up the map and you to press start.

How you can manage to hate any dialog read by arguably one of the biggest still alive science fiction actors is beyond me, but I certainly don't feel cheated.

=P