Civ 5...still a bit silly?

[smallfish]

It's not as if Civ was realistic even in tone, it was always both abstract and a bit silly. It was relatively arbitrary and bought into pop-culture history in the game itself, if not in the Civilopedia.

On this, I'd like to add an example on the Giant Death Robot. They are pretty much pop culture future history. Therefore giant robots fit in entirely with the tone set by the franchise. They're a very fitting unit in Civ because it is pretty much the tone the game provides in the form of pop culture (and in-jokes).

 

[Simplicity4]

You're kidding, right?

The Civilization 2 council had Elvis on it. He would thank you. He would thank you very much. Civ just is not a hardcore simulation engine. It is light-hearted and always has been. That's not too say it is Petz or something. You can be light-hearted and still have a good crunch.

Go now, lest Gandhi smite you with his nukes a second time.

 

[Cicero63]

I am pretty sure the "pointiest stick" gag was in Civilization 4, correct me if I am wrong

 

[jjkrause84]

You're kidding, right?

The Civilization 2 council had Elvis on it. He would thank you. He would thank you very much. Civ just is not a hardcore simulation engine. It is light-hearted and always has been. That's not too say it is Petz or something. You can be light-hearted and still have a good crunch.

Go now, lest Gandhi smite you with his nukes a second time.

Very fair point.....I always forget about adviser Elvis.

 

[Lyoncet]

There is a shocking number of people on this thread mistaking "I wish this game weren't as silly as it is – just look at all these pop culture references" for "I wish this game were more realistic – America shouldn't be around in 4000 BC!!!!" Normally I wouldn't harp, but so many responses to the OP are just bringing down a strawman that wasn't even there to begin with that this thread is a difficult read.

 

[Peng Qi]

There is a shocking number of people on this thread mistaking "I wish this game weren't as silly as it is – just look at all these pop culture references" for "I wish this game were more realistic – America shouldn't be around in 4000 BC!!!!" Normally I wouldn't harp, but so many responses to the OP are just bringing down a strawman that wasn't even there to begin with that this thread is a difficult read.

It's not a strawman to say "wait, there's tons of silliness in this game and there always has been. Why do you only care about SOME of the silliness, and only in THIS iteration?"

 

[smallfish]

There is a shocking number of people on this thread mistaking "I wish this game weren't as silly as it is – just look at all these pop culture references" for "I wish this game were more realistic – America shouldn't be around in 4000 BC!!!!" Normally I wouldn't harp, but so many responses to the OP are just bringing down a strawman that wasn't even there to begin with that this thread is a difficult read.

Pop culture references and in-jokes add more brevity to the game than just pointless end turn clickfests.

Otherwise the game will be extremely boring...

Nay, not just boring.

Soulless.

You might as well play something else in the 4X genre, like the Paradox games.

 

[Zhahz]

I've always looked at civ as it being a game and don't consider any elements of it to be silly, just good gameplay.

Some people seem to take elements of the game far more seriously than I ever would, usually stuff I consider to be completely trivial, like which leaders or civs are in/out, which wonders are in/out.

I'm a programmer and I deal with lots of code and data. To me all of that stuff is just wrappers for stats and data. I love to be immersed and lost in a good game, but beneath the surface it's all 1's and 0's and I see little point in getting worked up over the dressing.

I also believe gameplay is the #1 priority and if rules need to be bent a little here and there in the name of better gameplay, I'm all for it.

 

[JFD]

...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.

Are they?

 

[OsmarChito]

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?

you shouldn't see the things by it's negative side and always look at it by it's positive so that you'll enjoy the game even more

 

[Lyoncet]

It's not a strawman to say "wait, there's tons of silliness in this game and there always has been. Why do you only care about SOME of the silliness, and only in THIS iteration?"

I wasn't talking about the people who got the point. It should have been apparent that I was addressing posts like this:

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.

and this:

Yes, yes, because Civilization is a HIGHLY REALISTIC franchise with nutshells like its two thousand year long wars, the ability to launch space rockets without combustion, General Patton leading the Cataphract Armies of Mao Zedong's China in 2000 BC (and continuing to live until 2050 AD), Darwin's Theory of Evolution causing China to discover rocketry and computers, and all those other pillars of INCREDIBLE REALISM like nuclear fallout leading to Global Warming.

e: the game I believe you are looking for is the Victoria/Hearts of Iron/any Grand Strategy game by Paradox Interactive

and at least one more from the first page but I believe it was either edited or deleted because I couldn't find it. As it is, it seems like you're deliberately missing the point since I was amply clear in my post that I acknowledged the "there's always been silliness" posts as right on target and only took issue with the "[not silly] = [chronologically and historically accurate]" false equivalency that a number of the posts implied the OP suggested, which it did not.

However, your post was a great example of making a straw man out of my straw man post. Well done.

 

[jjkrause84]

I've always looked at civ as it being a game and don't consider any elements of it to be silly, just good gameplay.

Some people seem to take elements of the game far more seriously than I ever would, usually stuff I consider to be completely trivial, like which leaders or civs are in/out, which wonders are in/out.

I'm a programmer and I deal with lots of code and data. To me all of that stuff is just wrappers for stats and data. I love to be immersed and lost in a good game, but beneath the surface it's all 1's and 0's and I see little point in getting worked up over the dressing.

I also believe gameplay is the #1 priority and if rules need to be bent a little here and there in the name of better gameplay, I'm all for it.

My guess is that Civ's developers would firmly, 100% agree with you.

Me? I'm a historian. I vaguely demand that things be done 'right'!

 

[nokmirt]

We are all nerds ain't we? Well I am a nerd military historian All civ games are rather silly. My brother is next to me playing CiV 2 with his 2D units and whopping 8 civs on the map. He's talking about how he is going to conquer Rome. To tell you the truth the diplomacy seemed to be better in Civ 2. Its like the Fraser show, except we are both historians rather than pyschiatrists.

 

[smallfish]

I wasn't talking about the people who got the point. It should have been apparent that I was addressing posts like this:

How about actually engaging the rest of my posts in this thread as a narrative whole rather than just chopping stuff up like a spaghetti debate without acknowledging it?

Or are you just making a strawman on a strawman of a strawman?

 

[Oohforf]

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

LOL, yeah.

Hammurabi's twitch.

 

[CivilizedPlayer]

Well as far as I can tell, there's two camps that Civvers are in:

1) The "Civ should be a lighthearted game" camp
2) The "Civ should be a relatively realistic simulation" camp

In order to maximize their fan base, the game is designed to fall around the center of these two ends of the spectrum. So they've got "pointy stick" ratings and silly leader dialogue, but you're also forced to manage your empire's happiness while staving off invasions and growing your cites. So I think that Civ V has done an excellent job of merging the silliness with the realism, better than any of the other games so far(Monty in a top hat, and a bald Joan of Arc were just too much for me).

 

[ampmclock]

Civ4 is definitively the silliest of the series. I like Civ 5's sense of humor, and things like "Pointiest Sticks" certainly don't have me face palming like some of the Civ 4 leader screens did.

 

[Lyoncet]

How about actually engaging the rest of my posts in this thread as a narrative whole rather than just chopping stuff up like a spaghetti debate without acknowledging it?

Or are you just making a strawman on a strawman of a strawman?

Ah, but now you're strawman's strawman strawman argument is insinuating that having chopped up the thread in one post means I didn't also engage in the conversation already back on the first page. Not that that's really something that's worth bringing up in its own post, but I'm just enjoying the way this conversation's spinning off into it's own little nerd realm.

Anyways, back on topic, the only time the silliness really grates that badly on me is all the pop culture references. Things like "Care for a salad? I made it myself!" and "Hands Free to Victory" don't bother me as much because I actually find them to be funny (and I love puns). It's things like Lonely Island on the Sydney Opera House art and "He Threw a Car at My Head!" that just make me facepalm. Yeah, it's funny, but I think Blizzard (I can't believe I'm saying this) had the right idea on this. The Druid talent "Blood in the Water" used to be called "Om Nom Nom" in test builds. When it was changed, they said it was because "Om Nom Nom" was a placeholder, and keeping that as the name would be funny for about 10 seconds, then cease to be funny, then just be horrendously lame in a year or two when we get past the point where making those sounds is funny.

I guess there are also just really bizarre choices like Panzer "Schafernator" General, Tea and Crumpets for Everyone, I Can Haz Nukes, and the existence of the My Little Pony achievement that make it seem like the creative team was in its early teens.

 

[smallfish]

Ah, but now you're strawman's strawman strawman argument is insinuating that having chopped up the thread in one post means I didn't also engage in the conversation already back on the first page. Not that that's really something that's worth bringing up in its own post, but I'm just enjoying the way this conversation's spinning off into it's own little nerd realm.

It's only an insinuation.

Aye, me axeskarl grows dim and rusty with the rain, and I grow tired of holding it for long. We should just call this bit a day.

Anyways, back on topic, the only time the silliness really grates that badly on me is all the pop culture references. Things like "Care for a salad? I made it myself!" and "Hands Free to Victory" don't bother me as much because I actually find them to be funny (and I love puns). It's things like Lonely Island on the Sydney Opera House art and "He Threw a Car at My Head!" that just make me facepalm. Yeah, it's funny, but I think Blizzard (I can't believe I'm saying this) had the right idea on this. The Druid talent "Blood in the Water" used to be called "Om Nom Nom" in test builds. When it was changed, they said it was because "Om Nom Nom" was a placeholder, and keeping that as the name would be funny for about 10 seconds, then cease to be funny, then just be horrendously lame in a year or two when we get past the point where making those sounds is funny.

I guess there are also just really bizarre choices like Panzer "Schafernator" General, Tea and Crumpets for Everyone, I Can Haz Nukes, and the existence of the My Little Pony achievement that make it seem like the creative team was in its early teens.

I have to agree that the devs, or rather, Shafer, really put himself up on the pedestal when that achievement was named after him. The rest of the achievement names I can get and might even agree... but what was the point of naming an entire achievement after him? What did he do that was so great or at least noteworthy in the hallmarks of popular culture, other than making this game? The whole theme of naming stuff after pop culture was disconnected the moment "Panzer Shafernator General" appeared in the list.

The misquoted phrase "how low the mighty has fallen" couldn't have been more apt in regards to Jon then, especially in the first few months when we all complained about the bugs and the terrible state of the game in general (Black Box diplomacy anyone?). And I don't think there wasn't even a high state for our designer friend to fall from - more like a false sense of height that he thought he had. I think its not any coincidence he had to move to Stardock when the negative criticisms of V first came to light.

On the flipside, I don't think think the devs were pretty... childish? in putting references to My Little Pony or internet memes. Rather, a large percentage base of Civ players were raised or lived through the Internet Age, and since an even larger number of potential audiences are fully immersed in it right now, the devs wanted to attract them by appearing as current as possible and played their hand accordingly. I never got the fad for ponies, but I can't fault the devs for adding that achievement and its a tiny little detail in a sea of pop culture themes. Last I checked, it was still pretty popular series after all.

(also, interesting tidbit on Blizzard; I knew they were big fans of scattering tiny little shout outs in their games, but never that they would discard it entirely because they figured it wouldn't be relevant in due time!)

 

[Dark_Jedi06]

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

This.

Enough said!