Civ 5...still a bit silly?

[jjkrause84]

One of my enduring complaints with Civ 5 is that it has felt silly (beyond flippant) in a way none of the previous games felt (to me). Giant Death Robots, El Dorado, the Polynesians (yes, Polynesians exist but....as a civ?), Carthage now crossing mountains, some pretty questionable wonders (the CN Tower?), some lame UAs ("Nobel Prize"!?), "who has the pointiest sticks", etc..

I feel like G&K is taking Civ 5 comfortably into a much better space than it was on release, but there still seems to be quite a bit of just plain silliness to the game. The tone in older civs (especially Civ 2) made me feel like I was interacting with the grand narrative of human existence. While I find Civ 5 fun (the patches have worked wonders!), I still find the tone to be wildly off. Anyone else feel the same way?

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

It's a matter of taste. There is no "it should be like this". I prefer a game that takes itself a bit more seriously, but I find that Civ 5 is just fine.

 

[Zaimejs]

While I find Civ 5 fun (the patches have worked wonders!), I still find the tone to be wildly off. Anyone else feel the same way?

I have to admit that I thought the GDRs were a joke... surprised to see that they are actually in the game, although I have not made them yet. You forgot to put on your Old Grumpy Man hat before you made this post.

I think that a bit of a sense of humor is good with these types of games, but you may be right about going a bit too far. I don't like the oversimplification that goes along with dumbing down the language for the sake of smarminess (Pointy sticks is a good example). This can make the game feel a bit childish. I think we also see this in our interactions with other civ leaders throughout the game. They are sometimes snide and sarcastic like teenagers when you are talking about very serious issues that involve millions of citizens. Some humor is welcomed, but I see what you are saying.

 

[CommanderZ]

Oh, because Civ IV was not silly. Come on, just look at those leaderheads in IV!

 

[SalemSage]

This is a game where the Aztecs can conquer Rome, where India can be the biggest threat to all of mankind, and where it can take literally either thousands of years to build a granary, or just two or three.

And with all that, you dislike things like Polynesia being a civ?

Just have fun with it, and take your own interpretation from it.

 

[Dregor]

Don't make me politely ask you to stop bagging on our CN Tower and then apologize profusely for the trouble!

 

[bcaiko]

I enjoy some of the silliness in the Civ games. I mean previous Civ games had Montezuma eventually dress up in a top hat. There's always been some silliness in the series. And that keeps it entertaining.

Though, I disagree with the "silliness" factor on Polynesia and the CN Tower. Polynesia falls well within the "What If..." idea driving the Civ games. And the CN Tower is a major architectural accomplishment. Silly would be giving the CN Tower a Justin Beiber quote.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Silly would be giving the CN Tower a Justin Beiber quote.

Do not give them any ideas!

 

[svett89]

Civ has never really been known for being a series that takes itself too seriously. I mean, just the fact that the same leaders rule each civ throughout the whole game is unrealistic and silly. As for the GDR's, I really don't think it's that bad, in fact, I think it's awesome. Since GDR's come so late in the game, you VERY rarely end up in a situation where you can actually build them and use them to win the game, making it all the more satisfying when you actually manage to conquer some enemies with them.

 

[jjkrause84]

So no one thinks Civ 5 is ANY sillier than previous Civs? Really?

[That's not to say previous civs aren't silly in some ways....it's that the tone has become far more flippant/tongue in cheek than it ever has been before]

 

[SammyKhalifa]

One of my enduring complaints with Civ 5 is that it has felt silly (beyond flippant) in a way none of the previous games felt (to me). Giant Death Robots, El Dorado, the Polynesians (yes, Polynesians exist but....as a civ?), Carthage now crossing mountains, some pretty questionable wonders (the CN Tower?), some lame UAs ("Nobel Prize"!?), "who has the pointiest sticks", etc..

I feel like G&K is taking Civ 5 comfortably into a much better space than it was on release, but there still seems to be quite a bit of just plain silliness to the game. The tone in older civs (especially Civ 2) made me feel like I was interacting with the grand narrative of human existence. While I find Civ 5 fun (the patches have worked wonders!), I still find the tone to be wildly off. Anyone else feel the same way?

"Welcome to Rome, SammyKhalifa. Care for some salad? I made it myself."

-Julius Caesar, CivilizationIV

 

[Securion]

"A Great Artist has been born in the city of *insert your cap here*"
And when you look, hes named Justin Bieber....
THAT would be silly.

 

[fenwayb]

Polynesia falls well within the "What If..." idea driving the Civ games.

I don't even think it's "What if"...it's simply an overarching civ to describe a variety of different countries with similar heritage. That's why most of their city names are actually countries in and of themselves. Their UA represents the fact that the Polynesians were arguably the first seafaring people in the world, and their UU are the Maoris of New Zealand (Or is it Samoa?) and their UB are the Easter Island Statues

 

[bcaiko]

...their UU are the Maoris of New Zealand (Or is it Samoa?)

It's New Zealand, you've got it right. They're even featured on New Zealand's flag.

 

[Txurce]

So no one thinks Civ 5 is ANY sillier than previous Civs? Really?

[That's not to say previous civs aren't silly in some ways....it's that the tone has become far more flippant/tongue in cheek than it ever has been before]

Any sillier, or far more flippant? Those two points are very far apart on the spectrum - possibly agreeing with the first doesn't remotely validate the second. When I think back to the black eyes and bandages of Conquest victims in earlier iterations, I'm reminded that absence makes the memory grow fuzzier.

 

[CommanderZ]

I don't even think it's "What if"...it's simply an overarching civ to describe a variety of different countries with similar heritage. That's why most of their city names are actually countries in and of themselves. Their UA represents the fact that the Polynesians were arguably the first seafaring people in the world, and their UU are the Maoris of New Zealand (Or is it Samoa?) and their UB are the Easter Island Statues

What's wrong with that? Civ IV had Native Americans

 

[MadDjinn]

Any sillier, or far more flippant? Those two points are very far apart on the spectrum - possibly agreeing with the first doesn't remotely validate the second. When I think back to the black eyes and bandages of Conquest victims in earlier iterations, I'm reminded that absence makes the memory grow fuzzier.

yeah, Civ 3 was fairly silly when compared to todays standards.

oh and:

'beep beep beep beep'.

 

[Glassmage]

I like Civ5 natural wonders although some stuff like El Dorado can be weird but it is no big deal.

 

[Civologist]

CiV can cater to a wide range of gaming tastes. It would be nice to allow us to turn off certain wonders/natural wonders/civilizations on the advanced set up screen but as I don't see them making money off of it(i.e. a dlc) I dont see it being high on their list of things to do.

Personally I would like to never see siam in a game again but still be allowed to choose random opponent.

 

[Lyoncet]

A little off-topic here, but El Dorado and the Fountain of Youth were obviously just included for the New World scenario. However, that's where they should have stayed. Having two natural wonders that don't exist out of the lot is really jarring. And they're both atrocious for balance purposes. "Hey, Skill Dorado! I won on turn 3!" "Settle Notre Dame? Don't mind if I do!"