Civ 5...still a bit silly?

You know, I was playing an earlier, less "silly" version of Civ just the other day, when a lion ate an entire caravan of people fully-supplied to build a city from scratch. Thank goodness it wasn't a "silly" game I was playing.
 
You know, I was playing an earlier, less "silly" version of Civ just the other day, when a lion ate an entire caravan of people fully-supplied to build a city from scratch. Thank goodness it wasn't a "silly" game I was playing.

He, tricky animals, those lions, :)
 
You know, I was playing an earlier, less "silly" version of Civ just the other day, when a lion ate an entire caravan of people fully-supplied to build a city from scratch. Thank goodness it wasn't a "silly" game I was playing.

You really like beating on some strawmen with your arguments don't you. Your previous comment towards me dismissed half of my claim so you could wail on one too. I said silliest flavor text AND gameplay features. But I suppose if you had to address my point as it stood you would have to be more clever than saying I am just romanticizing the past.

Here you again form a strawman to say someone is claiming previous Civ games weren't silly at all. I don't think I have seen anyone in the thread actually claim this. The argument is Civ 5 has ramped up the silliness, not that it is suddenly silly. If you aren't going to pay attention, why are you reading the thread?
 
I have never built a single GDR, mainly because my attention span wavers around the same time ALL of the world has been colonized and there's nothing to do anymore, and I usually restart the game so I can play another random map. But from what I hear about GDRs, they do sound stupid as hell.
 
I think that overall Civ V is more serious than the previous ones, but it does have a small number of elements that are actually sillier than anything we saw before.

I do agree with the people who hate the Fountain of Youth, El Dorado and the Giant Death Robot. For the latter, I don't really hate that it exists, but I hate the name very much.

But I think these are exceptions and otherwise the game is more serious than its predecessors, in my opinion.
 
So they added a funny little thing at the end as a little funny Sci-Fi bonus to represent the future.:hmm:

Also, I usually win long before ...
 
You really like beating on some strawmen with your arguments don't you. Your previous comment towards me dismissed half of my claim so you could wail on one too. I said silliest flavor text AND gameplay features. But I suppose if you had to address my point as it stood you would have to be more clever than saying I am just romanticizing the past.

Here you again form a strawman to say someone is claiming previous Civ games weren't silly at all. I don't think I have seen anyone in the thread actually claim this. The argument is Civ 5 has ramped up the silliness, not that it is suddenly silly. If you aren't going to pay attention, why are you reading the thread?


The only "ramped-up 'silliness'" I've seen mentioned are the two natural wonders and the GDR. I'll freely admit that I'm not a fan of El Dorado and FOY, but then again they only appear in about 10% of the games. GDR is no more "silly" than Alpha Centauri ship, "Cure for Cancer," planets shaped like a doughnut, etc. And of course Elvis and friends have been removed. Many non-serious "silly" gameplay features have been removed. No longer does "Leonardo's Workshop" instantly turn my warriors into Riflemen. Marco Polo (who may have never even been to China) no longer gives me intimate knowledge of every nation on Earth. I do not institute a modern Democracy in ancient ages because I made a pyramid some time BCE. I'm sure there are more (those are off of the top of my head and obviously my mind was going down the wonder track). Random Events--you say you didn't like them, and of course they've been removed. Are they more or less "silly" than a futuristic mech unit? What's the net "silliness" loss/gain there? Or are you just thinking about things added and not features removed?

Are you basing your opinion of the tone of the entire game largely on two rare features and one late-game unit?
 
I think with things like ruins upgrading to Mech Infantry and armies of bears from Civ IV popping up, we need to remember that there's a difference between silliness (intentional) and enormous design oversight (not intentional).

With that out of the way, /popcorn. :lol:
 
The only "ramped-up 'silliness'" I've seen mentioned are the two natural wonders and the GDR. I'll freely admit that I'm not a fan of El Dorado and FOY, but then again they only appear in about 10% of the games. GDR is no more "silly" than Alpha Centauri ship, "Cure for Cancer,"
I have to nip it right there.
First, getting randomly punched in the face by a stranger is no more tolerable due to how infrequent it happens. Having something you dislike happen is not made better by how often it does or doesn't happen. The thing is, I am not given the choice to not have these in my game ever. How many games they show up in is irrelevant. How many hours you put in a game only to find them and instantly hold contempt for the game is.
Second, cancer has treatments that sometimes cures it. While there may not be a magic "cure all" pill for all the types of cancer, cancer is currently a curable disease and the probability of recovery depends on the type, it's maturity, as well as your health conditions and medical history. In a way, a cure for cancer exists. That is why a doctor sticks his finger in you butt when you turn 35. You want a good chance of being cured? Get examined.
Third, Alpha Centauri is a victory condition for a technological victory. It could be replaced by the Apollo moon landing or something. But again, here recently they announced the space station so it could just be seen as a representation for sustaining life off the Earth. The point is, it is a technological victory condition (parameter) and it is loosely represents something real.

Giant Death Robots has NOTHING close to real to be based on. Same goes for the two wonders. Imagine two movies came out this year. One looks similar to the new Total Recall (or Minority Report) and the other is more along the lines of 24 but is centered around cybernetic implants being tested on humans. Both are set in 2017. You don't think the Total recall one seems a bit more silly than the other. It involves major growth in economy, infrastructure, manpower or population, and technology in the ridiculous time of 5 years. The other, just technology.

planets shaped like a doughnut, etc. And of course Elvis and friends have been removed. Many non-serious "silly" gameplay features have been removed. No longer does "Leonardo's Workshop" instantly turn my warriors into Riflemen. Marco Polo (who may have never even been to China) no longer gives me intimate knowledge of every nation on Earth. I do not institute a modern Democracy in ancient ages because I made a pyramid some time BCE. I'm sure there are more (those are off of the top of my head and obviously my mind was going down the wonder track).
Got to snip it again. Remember I have played Civ since release night of Civ 1. I have a tolerance for silliness. I have no problem with these things.


Random Events--you say you didn't like them, and of course they've been removed. Are they more or less "silly" than a futuristic mech unit? What's the net "silliness" loss/gain there? Or are you just thinking about things added and not features removed?
Actually, I presented the idea of random events on this very forum and some of my examples were used in the game. I said some are broken and feel they were poorly implemented but I modded them how I wanted them. I'll pull up that thread when I get off work and post it. I thought it was pretty awesome of Firaxis.
EDIT: Here it is. I don't like the idea of bugging the player to constantly rebuild improvements and stuff. I just wanted the to throw a semi-big decision your way and have everyone get one at the same time turn randomly shift momentum in no ones favor but just in general.
I would say they are less silly because the things they represent are less silly. If a random event was something silly like a soldier was bit by a radioactive spider and now ignores city defenses, it's the same. But none are. They deal in things like volcanos, flood, city activities, etc. (Real things) the balance issues are salt in the wound to these new additions.

Are you basing your opinion of the tone of the entire game largely on two rare features and one late-game unit?
I am basing my opinion of the entire game on the entire game. While I don't see the flavor text as encroaching on gameplay, it still adds to the total lulz tone of the game. It isn't 1 thing or 2 things, it's a bunch of things. I bring up GDR, FoY, and ED because they stand out as a new breed of silliness to the main game that should be easily recognizable to long time fans. Plus, the OP mentioned them and I fully agree with him.
 
As for the animals....sure the actual representation was a bit funny (as was said...'armies' of bears), but the effect was spot-on, I think. For early man nature was the biggest challenge...not enemy nations. I was really glad that nature was given some teeth in Civ 4.

Besides, those settlers did not have 'everything with them to build a city'.....a city with a pop of 1 is basically just some mud huts. It's not like they were ready to put in plumbing or anything.
 
As for the animals....sure the actual representation was a bit funny (as was said...'armies' of bears), but the effect was spot-on, I think. For early man nature was the biggest challenge...not enemy nations. I was really glad that nature was given some teeth in Civ 4.

Besides, those settlers did not have 'everything with them to build a city'.....a city with a pop of 1 is basically just some mud huts. It's not like they were ready to put in plumbing or anything.
Sure, but that risk was typically personified by winter or natural disasters, not lions and tigers and bears.
 
Yeah, but in Civ 4 it never said this when hovering over an AI civ's attitude towards you;
"They are worried you might be trying to win the game the same way they are!"

This is the biggest abysmal mistake of the feel in Civ 5. The game treats itself as a game, the tooltips even refer to it as that. NO immersion value what so ever.
It's akin to having the characters in Game of Thrones refer to themselves as "heh, as an actor i find this line of dialogue to be amusing".

It should NEVER be done. Not in a movie, nor in a game.
The first time i saw that tooltip i instantly was put off, regardless if the rest of it had a nice feel.
It's just such a huge blunder and i cant believe it was not patched out, you actually need a MOD to edit 1 text entry to remove this. Not to mention the "lulz pointiest sticks cuz we are kidz" text. What happened to logical "Most militaristic civs" text? That actually, u know, lets you know wtf it is you are looking at.

It's a terrible mistake. It's like some end boss in action game saying "hehe, you will never complete this game".
 
Best sillyness in any Civ was the council in Civ 2. If you don't know about them, you can find them on YouTube. I can't get myself to play Civ 2 because I can't get that feature to work anymore. But the premise was every 20 turns I think, your military leader, your economic leader, your foregn leader, your science leader and Elvis (entertainment) leader all convened and they would have serious issues to help you out but usual made in a fun way. Best one I can remember was the trade advisor showing you one hand, this is you, the other hand, this is a clue, than slapping both hands telling you to get a clue.
 
It's a terrible mistake. It's like some end boss in action game saying "hehe, you will never complete this game".

Actually, in Metal Gear Solid (the original, for PS1) one of the bosses (I think his name was Psycho Mantis, or something of the sort) would actually read you the contents of your memory card.

Yet somehow, MGS is still one of the best games I've ever played. :crazyeye:

So, while I agree that the "winning" diplo mod should go, I don't think something that breaks immersion necessarily makes a silly game.

~R~
 
Sure, but that risk was typically personified by winter or natural disasters, not lions and tigers and bears.

Could 'winter' be effectively added to Civ? Wild animals played a role in Civ 4, and played it well, I think.
 
Best sillyness in any Civ was the council in Civ 2. If you don't know about them, you can find them on YouTube. I can't get myself to play Civ 2 because I can't get that feature to work anymore. But the premise was every 20 turns I think, your military leader, your economic leader, your foregn leader, your science leader and Elvis (entertainment) leader all convened and they would have serious issues to help you out but usual made in a fun way. Best one I can remember was the trade advisor showing you one hand, this is you, the other hand, this is a clue, than slapping both hands telling you to get a clue.

Yes, but:

1) It was 'humour' more than lame silliness (I still laugh at the Civ 2 leaders.....I hardly ever groaned in agony)

2) Civ 2 was a LONG time ago. The aesthetics of games have changed....it is not a like for like comparison with Civ 5.
 
Top Bottom