Civilization's most persistent criticism (It's not realistic)

[Leucarum]

Pretty sure anything dependant on a physics engine has significant abstractions if we're being pedantic.

 

[Nikolai II]

People, who search for realism in a video game, should really reevaluate their hobby. Video games are not about realism.

The other aspect is more pressing when it comes to Civ 7. Civ switching and the ages system are simply not fun for me. The ages just limit the sandbox.and the mandatory civ switching is hands down one of the worst systems that I have ever seen in any video game.

I dont care that both of these systems are not realistic. But I do care that they take me out of an experience that I otherwise enjoy.

Well, some realism is good. Too much, and it becomes a chore, like the RL activity often would be. Or too hard to manage for the average player, giving frustration and the chore feeling again. Some games are all fun and fantasy, but a certain amount of realism is needed, else it becomes pure fantasy. Pure fantasy can be good, if it's a game suited for it, of course.

 

[Gorbles]

Microsoft Flight Simulator

Have you, uh, flown a plane? I mean, full disclosure, I haven't, but I don't think "one joystick" (and optionally a keyboard) cuts it.

 

[Maiq]

Have you, uh, flown a plane? I mean, full disclosure, I haven't, but I don't think "one joystick" (and optionally a keyboard) cuts it.

Yes

 

[Gorbles]

Yes

And you feel confident in saying that the PC peripherals that work with Microsoft Flight Simulator are a realistic match for how to actually fly a plane?

By the way, console peripherals also work with Microsoft Flight simulator.

 

[Hellenism Salesman]

Have you, uh, flown a plane?

-CivFanatics, in a thread about the Civilization video game franchise

 

[Gori the Grey]

There are people who build whole cockpits:

 

[disjointaccount]

I've never been a goat but I feel confident Goat Simulator is a good representation of the experience.

Power Washing Simulator, meanwhile, does not hit the same as doing it irl

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

We must be playing different games! It's getting my vote for game of the year everywhere I can. I'm very happy with Paradox's reaponse speed to issues, and the launch seems to be very well recieved. Especially for a Paradox game at launch I'd call it a minor miracle.

You don't like that some historical outcomes seem less likely at the moment? I'd imagine that's going to change, as Paradox seem to be focussing on getting the core gameplay systems properly tuned before dealing with those kinds of specifics.

But it's a very, very good example of how even the most "simulation-y" of simulations have to abstract things in order to be games.

I never said it was a ghastly game, but it is a mess of narratives and mechanics that do not work in precisely the ways they intended, and frequently (based on copious Reddit/Discord and other posts from gamers) result in wildly offbeat results.

And, also as stated, they are working very hard to 'tone down' the worst and most off-putting things in the game - but they've still got a long way to go, and they have to walk a fine tightrope between allowing gamers to fulfill their fantasies of Conquering the Renaissance World as Potsdorf and also keeping some semblance of historicalish veracity in the proceedings.

The point, which I obviously did not adequately make to you, is that history is so full of wildly unexpected events and consequences that any game that attempts to model them also allow in-game events that are a hair Too Wild or radically unbalance the game - there is already a major Balance problem with EU V because starting Major States like France, Ming China, the Golden Horde and Bohemia don't seem to crumble as some of them historically did no matter what you do to them. France is, at the moment, the worst offender, probably because it was the Major State in Europe for much of EU's time period, so it will present a balance problem unless the game is skewed against it in some un- or semi-realistic way.

I put in 40 hours or so in EU V in the first week after launch, but I have backed off playing until the worst of the problems are addressed - after which, based on my experience with EU III and IV, I fully expect to blow hundreds of hours on the game. But right now EU presents far too many wildly unbelievable WTH moments to be playable (for me).

 

[Leucarum]

I never said it was a ghastly game, but it is a mess of narratives and mechanics that do not work in precisely the ways they intended, and frequently (based on copious Reddit/Discord and other posts from gamers) result in wildly offbeat results.

And, also as stated, they are working very hard to 'tone down' the worst and most off-putting things in the game - but they've still got a long way to go, and they have to walk a fine tightrope between allowing gamers to fulfill their fantasies of Conquering the Renaissance World as Potsdorf and also keeping some semblance of historicalish veracity in the proceedings.

The point, which I obviously did not adequately make to you, is that history is so full of wildly unexpected events and consequences that any game that attempts to model them also allow in-game events that are a hair Too Wild or radically unbalance the game - there is already a major Balance problem with EU V because starting Major States like France, Ming China, the Golden Horde and Bohemia don't seem to crumble as some of them historically did no matter what you do to them. France is, at the moment, the worst offender, probably because it was the Major State in Europe for much of EU's time period, so it will present a balance problem unless the game is skewed against it in some un- or semi-realistic way.

I put in 40 hours or so in EU V in the first week after launch, but I have backed off playing until the worst of the problems are addressed - after which, based on my experience with EU III and IV, I fully expect to blow hundreds of hours on the game. But right now EU presents far too many wildly unbelievable WTH moments to be playable (for me).

Each to their own I guess. I'm loving the ahistoricity which is bubbling up, but then I always played EU games wanting a world that was very different. I'm honestly struggling to find much to fault with the game, and I'm really not seeing the community disquiet being especially widespread. There's some for sure, but compared to Civ7's launch EU5 is on a roll!

As you said though Paradox have a great track record for giving various game setting enabling more or less historicity so I fully expect everyone will be happy soon.

 

[Kumbao]

Microsoft Flight Simulator

Wow, thats one. Yep, got a whole genre here. Thanks for your input, Maiq. You are cooking here.

 

[Evie]

Microsoft Flight Simulator

Does Microsoft flight simulator simulate the tension between having to take care of your mental health as a pilot and the fear of being screened out as a resultif you seek any sort of professional help in the process?

Or does it (wisely) abstract that away becaus the point of the game is flying planes, not learning psychology?

 

[_hero_]

People, who search for realism in a video game, should really reevaluate their hobby. Video games are not about realism.

I don't think anyone expects perfect realism, but a game that's about human civilization inherently has a degree of historical accuracy baked into the immersion aspect of the game. When people say the game lacks realism what they're saying is that the game is so far from reality to them that it breaks the immersion for them. The entire goal, for those people, is to role play a "what if" scenario with human history. They need to feel that what happens in the game is at least plausible. Saying they should not care at all about realism in a game that's always marketed itself as a game playing homage to human history is like saying no one should expect magic in fantasy based games.

Also, if the game isn't giving an immersive degree of realism, what is it giving you? If people want a fantasy 4x game there are several of those. If people are looking for a deep, challenging strategy game, it's not really giving you that. What is the point of Civ 7 specifically other than just continuing the Civ franchise? With the previous Civ games, I think a case can be made for what specific itch each game was trying to scratch that the previous titles didn't scratch. What is that itch for Civ 7? You say video games aren't about realism. Fine. What's Civ 7 even about beyond simply being another civ game.

 

[Kumbao]

I don't think anyone expects perfect realism, but a game that's about human civilization inherently has a degree of historical accuracy baked into the immersion aspect of the game. When people say the game lacks realism what they're saying is that the game is so far from reality to them that it breaks the immersion for them. The entire goal, for those people, is to role play a "what if" scenario with human history. They need to feel that what happens in the game is at least plausible. Saying they should not care at all about realism in a game that's always marketed itself as a game playing homage to human history is like saying no one should expect magic in fantasy based games.

Also, if the game isn't giving an immersive degree of realism, what is it giving you? If people want a fantasy 4x game there are several of those. If people are looking for a deep, challenging strategy game, it's not really giving you that. What is the point of Civ 7 specifically other than just continuing the Civ franchise? With the previous Civ games, I think a case can be made for what specific itch each game was trying to scratch that the previous titles didn't scratch. What is that itch for Civ 7? You say video games aren't about realism. Fine. What's Civ 7 even about beyond simply being another civ game.

Are you honestly implying that Civ should either be realistic and I should see it that way, or there is no point in playing Civ?

And guess what. There are fantasy games out there that dont include magic.

I really dont get what you want to express here or what reaction you want from me specifically.

 

[Gorbles]

There are people who build whole cockpits:

Oh, I'm aware of what people do (same goes for racing games, and generally anything involving a real-world analogy that can be built). This is about what the developers do, to systems in a game (when pulling from real-world examples in any way).

There are many, great, detailed simulation-heavy video games. They all ultimately abstract things.

Of course this is all an aside because I agree that people can like realism or abstraction as much as they want - I don't agree there is "no" place for realism in games. However, I object to realism being held up as a core motif for a franchise and indeed genre where multiple things have always been abstracted, often pretty heavily. It feels like another stick to beat VII with from people who have no real interest in VII in the first place. These arguments ("VII isn't for me") can be made without invoking some spectre of "it needs realism" (except as a preferential, I guess!).

 

[stealth_nsk]

In my opinion, simulation, of course, have value for some players. A lot of games dive into simulation to some extend, that's a range, not a binary value - from Tetris to Microsoft Flight Simulators with a lot of games in various points between. The thing is, Civilization as a franchise does not focus on simulation - if we take strategic games, it will always be on more abstract size with games like Europa Universalis or Total War leaning towards simulation much more. So, Civilization is a history-themed strategic game, not a historic simulator (unlike, say, EU).

I think it doesn't make sense to discuss all games, but for Civilization, realism is surely not an advantage, while those games stay true to the franchise.

 

[Gedemon]

People, who search for realism in a video game, should really reevaluate their hobby. Video games are not about realism.

I feel deeply insulted by this post. I suppose you don't realize it, but who are you to tell people how to use their free time ?

Realism is the core of any simulation.

The thing I can fully agree with, is that civ is not a simulation, never was, won't be.

But I've never seen anything bad in trying to make it less gamey. Especially boardgamey, it's when civ took that road that I've lost interest in its non-modded gameplay.

Sadly it's also when it took that road that it became less moddable.

 

[Gedemon]

Pretty sure anything dependant on a physics engine has significant abstractions if we're being pedantic.

totally agree, and if we want to be pedantic, we do not talk about "realism" or "realistic handling" when driving a car or flying a plane in real life.

You use "realism"/"realistic" when you talk about something not real but that tries to look/feel real. In video game it's the simulation genre.

fun fact, when prompting for an AI to make an image as realistic as possible, using the words "realism" or "realistic" can make the result less realistic, because the AI will weight tokens about realism/realistic from its learning, and those apply to... illustration/painting, not photo.

 

[Evie]

"Very simple genre" versus "Simulation without abstraction" is a contradiction in terms.

If it's a simple genre, it does abstract things away in order to keep things simple and focused on the part of the game they actually care about.

 

[Maiq]

Does Microsoft flight simulator simulate the tension between having to take care of your mental health as a pilot and the fear of being screened out as a resultif you seek any sort of professional help in the process?

Or does it (wisely) abstract that away becaus the point of the game is flying planes, not learning psychology?

It just gives you a bottle of Jameson and an STD and sends you on your way. Very realistic actually.