Civ 5...still a bit silly?

[blackcatatonic]

I could do with an option to turn taunts off - purely because in the late game/on larger maps my computer takes aaaaaaaages to load the diplomacy window. I can hear the Civ's theme music - sometimes with the shorter ones I hear it play all the way through before the screen loads - so I like to play a game called 'guess what Ramesses/Catherine/Bismarck/Oda wants', in which I use the 30-90 seconds it takes to load the window to guess if I'm about to be denounced, offered a DoF, RA or Open Borders. Of course, if the AI in question is already Hostile, I know that it's going to be a pointless taunt, so I don't get to play the game.

I need a new computer.

 

[Gatsby]

I thought you could disable the diplomacy window visuals? I've seen an online video of a Civ5 game where the diplomacy window was a featureless grey.

 

[Deggial]

Based on what I have seen and read about Civ5, ...

So you have only second hand knowledge and don't own the game? If yes, I think such a harsh judgement as your final statement might be a little bit unfair. You should definitely have the whole picture of the game to be able to compare it to earlier versions.

... it goes beyond merely being silly and instead comes off as crass and infantile.

By no means, in my regard! The leader screens are way more serious than those of Civ4, the game graphics are more realistic and less cartoony. There have always been funny text lines (leaders, technologies,...). Et cetera, et cetera... there are so many examples already mentioned in this thread.

Personally, I don't care about some "silliness". Do people feel offended by "pointy sticks"? Really? C' mon guys, take those sticks out of your a** and relax ! It's a game! Some (and, over all, it is not more than 'some', in CiV) humorous winks are highly recommended!

 

[blackcatatonic]

I thought you could disable the diplomacy window visuals? I've seen an online video of a Civ5 game where the diplomacy window was a featureless grey.

I don't doubt that you can. Problem is, I like the diplomacy window visuals and 90% of the time, I don't mind if they take a while to load. They're pretty. I just hate that occasionally, after they take ages to load, it just turns out to be the AI saying 'wow look at your tiny army LULZ' or something equally pointless.

 

[Gatsby]

Yes my knowledge is second-hand. The reason why my knowledge is second hand is because, as a long-time Civ fan, I decided it would be best to see how people (especially long-time fans such as myself) reacted to this latest iteration before I made a decision to purchase it. Having gauged the overall reaction from the fan community, official previews, screenshots, fan-made reviews and play-through videos, I decided that Civ5 was not worth buying. One of the reasons for that decision was that I got an overwhelming sense that Civ5 had a more infantile tone than most of its predecessors.

Do I need first hand experience of the game to know that the AI taunts are an obnoxious waste of computer resources? No. Do I need first hand experience to understand that the GDR is a jarring asinine addition that completely disrespects the whole idea of a history-based game? No.
Even if the rest of the game was fine - which it clearly isn't - these sorts of features are not merely silly but stupid and they contribute nothing of value to the overall game.

It's ironic to see "serious" Civ5 leader screens cited as an example of an improvement over Civ4. Leader screens are primarily decorative features which add little to actual gameplay; that the developers of Civ5 clearly put so much of their money and effort into super-duper leader screens, i.e. effort and money which could have gone into improving gameplay instead, illustrates just how screwed up their priorities were, and this is reflected in the end product. If anything, they should have toned down the leader screens for Civ5 in order to make it not so incredibly demanding on graphics cards.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

It's ironic to see "serious" Civ5 leader screens cited as an example of an improvement over Civ4. Leader screens are primarily decorative features which add little to actual gameplay; that the developers of Civ5 clearly put so much of their money and effort into super-duper leader screens, i.e. effort and money which could have gone into improving gameplay instead, illustrates just how screwed up their priorities were, and this is reflected in the end product. If anything, they should have toned down the leader screens for Civ5 in order to make it not so incredibly demanding on graphics cards.

. . . but it HAS ALWAYS BEEN THAT WAY! Were you around for CivilizationIII's "Civ of the Week?" Every iteration of Civ has boasted of its leader screens leading up to release, since CivIII at least. I remember every week waiting to see what new leader goes up on the preview site, and wondering what they will look like. It was kind of a thing to get excited for, and it's always been a selling point and an emphasis for the developers--to say otherwise is revisionist history. I also remembering if my graphics card would handle it. And what's more, I don't remember anybody having an issue with the practice until the release of V. If their priorities are screwed up NOW, then they were also screwed up when they tried graphics improvements (including on the leader screen) for every single previous generation of the game before now as well. If I were you, I'd hold back on CivilizationII until we see what this "Wonder Videos" thing is all about and how much it detracts from the meat of the game.

And back to the original post, I also don't understand the perception that the series before CivilizationV was very serious and this is a new thing with V. People are romanticizing things from the past (their childhoods?) and making them into something they just weren't. Or hey, maybe I'm wrong and Dan Quayle on the victory screen, videos of Elvis advisors, "New Tokyo," "I studied on Killin' You," "All your Base are belong to us," etc., etc., are entirely sober and stoic and "appropriate."

 

[Deggial]

It's ironic to see "serious" Civ5 leader screens cited as an example of an improvement over Civ4. Leader screens are primarily decorative features which add little to actual gameplay; that the developers of Civ5 clearly put so much of their money and effort into super-duper leader screens, i.e. effort and money which could have gone into improving gameplay instead, illustrates just how screwed up their priorities were, and this is reflected in the end product. If anything, they should have toned down the leader screens for Civ5 in order to make it not so incredibly demanding on graphics cards.

Well, after all, this is the topic of this thread, isn't it? It is not about existing or imaginary flaws of the base game. It is about it's representation and the question, whether or not this representation is more silly than the previous iterations.

And here, my opinion is: No it's not - and leader screens *are* an evidence for this opinion. (Feel free to disagree, of course.)

--

Regarding second hand experience: I didn't want to blame you for anything. Nobody is forced to like or buy this game. I (and I'm a Civ fan since Civ2, too) like CiV and I think, you miss a very fun game experience. Never mind!

But by only relaying on other peoples opinions (reviews, posts, even play-throughs) you have to face the fact, that everything is filtered by *their* perception of the game. If they don't like it, they will emphasise especially their dislikes.
Maybe (and I want to stress it again: MAYBE!) you might find CiV way more pleasant, when playing it yourself.
Maybe you might find out (as I did), that - for exampel - the GDR doesn't has as much impact as feared, as it simply doen't show up in your games, because you finish them way earlier.
Maybe you might feel the silly "pointy sticks" as negligible, as this info window shows up only two or three times in a game.

But I really don't want to convince you to love this game. Do whatever you feel is right. I just think, that judgements as your "crass and infantile" are a little bit unfair to the game, if spoken without own experience...

Peace!
Deggial

 

[Immacolata]

Personally, I don't care about some "silliness". Do people feel offended by "pointy sticks"? Really? C' mon guys, take those sticks out of your a** and relax ! It's a game! Some (and, over all, it is not more than 'some', in CiV) humorous winks are highly recommended!

Mostest literate people of the world chart springs to mind

Sid games have been serious in their mechanics since forever, but I think from at least Civ 2 there's always been a bit of jestery in their designs. Think of RRT or Railroads, Pirates and its remake. Colonization and You may kiss my Pinky Ring. Yes, Civ is a game with awesome well thought out mechanics. If I wanted dry boardgamery I'd stick with Avalon Hill or Battlefront.

 

[mitsho]

One has to distinguish between humour and silliness. Is Caesar offering you a salad silly and stupid or just humour to lighten the mood? (That's civ4).

Civ 5 does deviate a lot more from what we called realism, but it does it by relaying on gimmicks. Carthage being able to cross mountains is a gimmick relating back to a myth that has not much to do with actual history. But then it's a game. And History is debateable after all, especially if you want to translate those things into gameplay advantages (Romans build better when they have a prototype in the capital?).

But yes, Civ 5 has stepped away from complex simulations (Trad Routes) towards more straightforward gameplay. In this regard, they chose to put in more "Historical" Pop Culture References, which I guess is okay. Civilization is Fantasy enough as it is. Should the next itineration go back more towards a "realistic" simulation with complex calculation of city growth, health issues, army sizes or go even more to a GodGame where you, the player, chose what to put where. (but that's a question for another thread).

 

[SammyKhalifa]

But yes, Civ 5 has stepped away from complex simulations (Trad Routes) towards more straightforward gameplay.

Actually, I'd say that it simplifies some areas while further developing others. I do miss the old trade, though.

 

[mitsho]

I meant regarding calculations. Civ 5 seems to me to limit the number of factors x influencing yield/element y to a low number. I'm not talking about actual gameplay, but behind the curtains machinations. (I'm actually just asking )

 

[eris]

Stupid, Silly, Boring, Trite, Cute, Droll, Amusing, Hilarious. All are points along a highly subjective spectrum of reactions.

My subjective reaction is that Civ V is a roughly equivalent nonsensical and entertaining segment in the series. It is a subjective opinion and I cannot see it is any better or worse than any one else's subjective opinion. I certainly won't try to defend my amused reaction as compared to someone else's need for historical accuracy, epic feel, or other subjective immersion factor. Civ needs to honor all the geeks in our crowd, the history geeks, the military geeks, the culture geeks, and of course, all us geeks with a really fringe sense of humor.

However, my mind does blank when trying to come up with anything either entertaining or silly about CivRev. Maybe it's just blanking on the whole experience. Does that make CivRev the "less silly than Civ 5" example we can offer in this discussion?

 

[Kingreaper]

@gatsby: If you want to criticise Civ 5 for being too much like the other civilisation games, you're doing a great job.

Putting effort into graphics/leader screens. Common
Silly bits. Ubiquitous
Unrealistic future technology. Cure for cancer anyone? It's a cliche (like a GDR) that's completely unrealistic (like a GDR)

 

[jjkrause84]

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!

Yeah, but Civ 2 was also a LONG time ago!

 

[headcase]

Personally I say bring on the silly as long as it's balanced and flows well. But that's just my taste; If combat took place in cartoon clouds of violence I'd be fine with that even (if only because the current combat is a little mechanical looking). Hopefully there will be more serious mods out there after G+K and the dlls are released.

VEM does have trade in Civ 5 already, though it's simple and doesn't require roads or anything. Just gold for open borders and more gold for open borders + friendship.

 

[Simplicity4]

Regarding the leader screens. There's a reason they exist, but that reason is fairly complex. Do they add *anything* to the game strategy? No, of course not. That's not why they are there.

They exist for three reasons:
1) Graphics. Video game makers have learned that as much as strategy gamers say that graphics don't matter, they actually do. Game play experience is improved when graphics are improved. This is pretty much considered settled law at this point, and has been mentioned by Firaxis developers. Of course pretty graphics don't make the game worth anything by itself. But BAD graphics can leave an ick feeling that make people not want to play a game.

2) Reviews. Game success (and sometimes PAYMENT for game success) is tied to reviews for the game. And most game reviews have a category for game graphics.

3) Soul. Somewhat related to item 1. Civ 5 could have all the fun of playing an excel spreadsheet. Click End Turn until number A is greater than number B. Then you can raise other numbers! What elevates it from that? A variety of components from graphics to strategy. What makes Civ 5 an enjoyable experience as opposed to a Skinner Box? Really, this comes to the expression of the game's soul. Its art.

TLDR; I don't think it's infantile.

 

[Securion]

I personally would have liked a more "historical" and "serious" tone in the game, but i think its ok as it is.
Good graphics is a must in any game imho.

 

[Carver]

I agree with the OP. Previous versions of Civ were fun and humorous, but not as silly as Civ5. It's a clear step backwards.

...'beep beep beep beep'.

I thought that was a great touch in Civ4. Simple but very serious simultaneously.

 

[smallfish]

I thought that was a great touch in Civ4. Simple but very serious simultaneously.

It was serious.

For about two seconds.

 

[King Flevance]

As for the argument that civ has always been silly, it isn't the same thing. Bandages and black eyes in Civ 3 were when the game was over. Civ 2's advisors were negotiable and you could play 100 games and not listen to them once. These features that are being discussed in Civ 5 are in and effect the balance thus gameplay itself. Civ4 leader heads being cartoonish, again didn't effect gameplay. While I didn't care for it, it didn't directly encroach on the gameplay.

Civ 5 has silliness directly effecting the gameplay in unbalanced ways. Civ has NOT always been this silly. The only time it has was with Civ Rev and that didn't go over too well with long time fans. It is true that Civ is a light hearted reimagining of history, but to add in El Dorado and the fountain of youth? Why not add in alien attacks and Merlin UUs? Those are legends too.
I know a lot of people want to defend the franchise because they find these things entertaining or whatnot. But Civ has been getting more campy bit by bit. I personally would like them to tone back down a notch to where it used to be. I don't like it invading my gameplay where I like the angle of reumagining history as opposed to picking which fairy tales we're going to pretend actually existed. A random event that alluded to a legend the people of your empire believed existed and having different ways to respond is fine. Saying a thing that exists only in legend as a gameplay component, civ has indeed stepped into a more silly realm than it had ever put foot in.