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.
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.
A game about history needs to respect that fact. Fantasy elements like Giant Death Robots are stupid.
Do you realize GDR is about as much fantasy as Space Victory (ie. subluminal interstellar colonization)?
the "My Little Pony" achievement has nothing to do with "My Little Pony".
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.
...
The point is, the silly references are something that have been around for ages. They're part of Civ, not just CiV.
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 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".I wasn't talking about the people who got the point. It should have been apparent that I was addressing posts like this:
and this:
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.
My hypothesis is this:
Civ5 takes itself as seriously as previous games of Civ, ...
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]
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?