Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by jjkrause84, Jun 4, 2012.
the "My Little Pony" achievement has nothing to do with "My Little Pony".
If the game took itself much more seriously, it probably wouldn't sell as well and that is the bottom line. Those of us that like serious historical simulations are a small fraction of the purchasing public. I don't mind the silly parts because most of them can be modded out. It is in the end entertainment and not simulation.
But I would probably buy a "serious" civilization simulation if one were ever to appear. As it is, the existing serious historical simulations, like the WW2 "monster game" War in the Pacific, are difficult to master and not for the faint of heart. They sell to a different niche of the market and are priced accordingly.
I don't think this makes much sense. Putting in internet references where only people who have already purchased the game would see them is not going to attract potential customers. Likewise, the references are not gonna make anyone stick around if they don't like the game. Even if they were more up-front, how many people who have never played Civ before would think, "I'm not yet sure about this Civilization game, but I'll buy it....they make internet jokes!".
On a sidenote to the "Tea and Crumpets" achievement: I've never once met an American who actually knows what a crumpet is (and only Americans seem to harp on about the fictional 'tea time'!). Can we kill this bizarrely persistent myth here and now?
Suggesting that the game be a little less silly is not the same as saying it must be a completely dry, serious historical simulator. Civ has always been lighthearted.....I just don't think it's been as flippant in previous installments (although I admit, it might be quite a fine line to many).
A game about history needs to respect that fact.Fantasy elements like Giant Death Robots, El Dorado are stupid.
Do you know for a fact that Giant Death Robots won't exist?
On a more serious note, I think we should dissociate the achievement names from the game. The achievements are in a way outside the actual game and it's more acceptable, to me at least, for them to have silly names. Anyway, lots of developers have silly names for their achievements, even in significantly more serious games. Modern Warfare 3, which otherwise has a very serious tone, some of the achievement names are: Too Big to Fail, We'll Always Have Paris, This Is My Boomstick, For Whom the Shell Tolls, Get Rich or Die Trying.
Do you realize GDR is about as much fantasy as Space Victory (ie. subluminal interstellar colonization)?
But is it a game about history, though? I thought it was a game about civilization. Sure, most of the building blocks are historical, but you can assemble them any way you choose. That's the fun of it.
OK, so this has all been expressed about 50 times in this thread by now, but I'll say it anyway: To me, the 'silliness' has been part of the franchise since its early days (Civ I is the only one I've never played, so I can't comment on that). If anything, CiV is the one out of all of them which takes itself most seriously. For the first time ever, the leaders are actual people, rather than silly cartoonish leaderheads who deal in puns and update their outfits with changing eras. Sure, there are a couple of silly elements (Catherine and her boobs, Gandhi being nuke-loving) but by and large these are Civ-specific memes that have been around for ages. The point is, the silly references are something that have been around for ages. They're part of Civ, not just CiV.
Also, most of the criticisms that have been made of Polynesia as a Civ also apply to the Celts, but no-one's (really) complaining about them as they've been around for ages and are far more popular anyway.
As has been stressed above: it is NOT a question of 'realistic' or not...it is a question of tone!
I could not have said it better myself.
Just watch a TMIT let's play if you don't know what we're talking about. He probably brings it up at least once per game.
Fully agree. I never understood the "Civ IV looks so cartoonish - we want back the serious look of Civ III" rants. I mean if there's a Civ that has really silly and (some really childishly) cartoonish leader, then it's Civ III. Although I really liked the idea with the anachronistic clothing and stuff.
Maybe the problem with Civ V is that it sticks more out in a game that tries to take itself more seriously, has a pretty Art Deco look, gives pages of historic background details, etc. - and then you read infantile stuff like "People smiling the most".
Btw. I think the "sillyness" in Civ I actually came from the dead serious, bombastic, majestic "Fear our mighty hordes" lines the low-res leaders threw at you or the cosmic creation introduction and also the huge scope of gameplay in the very simplistc and basic looking game Civ I was even in it's time. Which was an interesting twist...
Sorry, I actually meant the New Zealand coat of arms or seal features the Maori, as you can see here. Has since the early 20th century. They're a unique part of New Zealand's culture.
I understand what the OP is saying. Elvis aside, Civ II did feel more like a robust world in which I participated than do the others, which feel more like game boards. Even little things, like talking to emissaries with portraits of their rulers behind them instead of the rulers themselves (far more realistic), contributed to that earnestness. That didn't mean there was no room for a little humor now and then but, Elvis again excepted, it wasn't as camp as later versions have been.
I credit Reynolds, since I see the parallels in tone and atmosphere to Alpha Centauri, which was masterfully immersive and even achieved novel-esque characterization of its leaders. I still maintain that it is the unacknowledged crown jewel of the Civ series.
I agree with your post, but I'd hardly call Alpha Centauri the "unacknowledged crown jewel" since it seems to be one of the most highly esteemed 4x games ever.
I think you missed the point, actually. It's not a false equivalency, it's a legitimate question of why pop culture references qualify as silly but historic inaccuracies don't. Sure, the OP has made it perfectly clear that he doesn't consider the latter silly, but he doesn't seem to have explained why, or more importantly why that's less bothersome (or whatever the actual objection is) than things he's dubbed "silly".
That said, I would argue that Civ V is not appreciably more "silly" than previous instalments. If it is just a question of "tone" I'd argue that Civ IV's cartoonish artwork would by itself push up the silliness quotient of that game, and Elvis and Caesar salad have already been discussed to death.
This silliness is not new to Civ5.
In Civ4 Caesar would offer you some salad that he made himself when you talked to him, and was designed with cartoony graphics on purpose - hardly the sign of a game that takes itself seriously. In Civilization 2 your advisors would start fighting each other when they disagreed in a hilariously over the top way.
My hypothesis is this:
Civ5 takes itself as seriously as previous games of Civ, but you've become older and have changed your tastes.
The CN Tower is a marvel from a cultural standpoint. The only thing that can directly input Canadian culture into the United States (Ok, just Buffalo... but still!). Imagine if this weapon of mass influence were to fall into the hands of Iran or Russia? The damage could be irreversible! Canada has a sacred duty to safeguard this most treacherous world wonder which would tempt and pervert lesser nations.
If I remember correctly the designer explicitely stated they wanted a more realistic and serious and consistent presentation for Civ V. From a preview at www.civilized.de:
Für Firaxis sei es - besonders auch in Hinblick auf neue Spieler - wichtig, bereits im Intro deutlich zu machen, worum es bei Civilization geht, was auf dem Weg der Spieler liegen kann und wo die Ziele liegen. Auch nach dem stimmungsreichen Intro bleiben die Figuren im Spiel glaubhaft, so wie die Spielwelt bei Civ5 insgesamt glaubhaft bleiben soll. Dorian meinte, dass Firaxis bei Civilization Revolution die cartoonartige, überzogene Darstellung von Charakteren bewusst auf die Spitze getrieben habe. Nun sei auch einmal die Zeit für eine glaubhafte Darstellung für die ernsthaften PC-Spieler gekommen, und man habe sich deshalb dieses Mal bewusst die früher gelegentlich üblichen Übertreibungen und Witze verkniffen. Civ5 erscheint mir damit - zumindest hinsichtlich der Präsentation - der glaubhafteste Teil der Serie zu sein.
Firaxis allready wanted to make clear in the Intro, what Civ V is about. After the Intro the characters in the game stay believable, as the game world should stay believable. Dorian said the cartoonish, over the top display of characters in Rev was pushed to the limits. Now it's time for a realistic display for serious PC-Players, and this time they deliberately set aside the usual exaggerations and jokes. Civ V seems - at least in terms of presentation - to be the most believable part of the franchise.
Happy Military Leader in Civ2 stands out as being the silliest I can think of in any civ game ever
The Civ 5 balance of silliness is just fine to be honest. And the version I've been playing since I bought the 75% off pack last weekend has been damn fun!
Based on what I have seen and read about Civ5, I see what you mean and agree. There's nothing wrong with silliness in itself - imo the silliness in the previous Civ games enriched the overall gaming experience. The problem with Civ5 is that it goes beyond merely being silly and instead comes off as crass and infantile.
PS: I have no problem with the Polynesians as a civ, in fact I think it's about time they were included in a Civ game. It's just a pity that they made their official debut in Civ5 (as a DLC to boot!). The GDR and the AI Leader taunts though are just stupid: they could have at least provided players with a "disable unnecessary infantile features" option when starting up a new game.
Separate names with a comma.