Do you like the way Civ5 portraits the diffrent nations?

[BSPollux]

I vented some steam in some other threads allready, but I thought it would be good to ask for your opinion in a seperate thread. I think this is a very broad but also very important topic. Not that I think discussing it would change anything, but it would still be nice to know what you think.

One thing befor we start: I love Civ5s gameplay. This is no Civ5 bashing thread. At least I hope it wont turn into one. Its about discussing a change of theme that I think has happened.

So:
Do you like the way Civ5 portraits the diffrent nations? Should real life politics play a big role in the way the civ is designed? Should nations be narrowed down to reflect just one part of theire culture or history? Should they be forced into one direction (x is a warmonger, y is for culture, z is for teching)? Should there be a starting bias and UAs related to that (Arabs start in desert, oasis bonus etc)?

And:
How realistic is the portrait of nations right now in civ5? Are the hitting the tone right? Do they show what the nations are realy like, or do they show propaganda or cartoonish exaggeration?

Plus:
Do you think its allways been like that in older Civ games? Should it be like that? Is it good for the game? is it fun to play that?


I realy hope some people value this post with a reply. While discussing in the G&K forum i came to realize that I hate the way firaxis designed the nations. I will post a long statement later on.

 

[Aldhissla]

Aside from the token female leaders I'm mostly fine with the civs and their portrayal, though my historical knowledge is sporadic at best so I can't ascertain whether its always completely accurate.

 

[Matthew.]

Civ is simply a game, one of which "war" is one of the main elements. IMO some folk are asking too much as far as trying to turn a strategy war game into a world history simulation. Nor do I think Civs being portrayed a certain way is terribly "wrong". I don't load up Age of Empires and wonder why all the empires are portrayed as war-mongers--it is part of the game.

People wonder why so many of the original Civs have double UU's... probably because the game was designed to have every Civ go to war, just like AoE or any other strategy game. Can accept reality and the game for what it is or constantly be disappointed that it never matches history.

 

[g3istbot]

I really don't care for the idea of shoehorning in female leaders just for the sake of including them, as I think it's an insult to some of the real true great female leaders we've had in the world.

Other than that, I don't really care how realistic they are portrayed. I've had some games where Ghandi is a warmongering tyrant who does know the meaning of "Peace", and I've had some games where he just seems really feeble and weak. All of which are kind of funny in their own way, and over all make the game more fun. I think trying to add "realism" to it only opens the doors for people to bias as well. People would argue Washington should be extremely aggressive and be eating children and stealing land; or that the Japanese are dishonorable hate mongering people, etc. etc.

a random factor with some minor constants is better.

 

[PreLynMax]

Civ should never just be a "strategy war game". If I wanted that I'd fire up my copy of Empire Earth II, but it should be a world history simulation. War should only be a portion of what this simulation should offer. I blatantly reject Matthew's ramblings with logic.

 

[Matthew.]

Playing as Washington in 4,000BC.

What logic?

 

[BSPollux]

Playing as Washington in 4,000BC.

What logic?

Please dont say 'one thing is not logic, so we may not have any logic' ok?

 

[Dogmouth]

It's not possible to satisfy everyone's taste on historical aspects of the game. Some people will resent the fact that CiV shoehorns certain civs into a "warmonger" model, while others will be upset that warmongers are portrayed too favorably. Some people will be upset that maps don't match leaders, and some people will be upset that certain leaders are stuck with terrain biases. The way that CiV deals with this is to allow us to mix up AI personalities (random personalities), abandon or start with start biases, choose maps, and choose mods. I don't have any problem with this approach.

 

[Homusubi]

The bit I hate is that the Japanese second UU regards World War Two, when the Japanese have many much more honourable choices that do not relate to a part of history that people there would rather forget. That and including city names like Sapporo (Ainu) and Naha (Ryukyuan) in their city list.

 

[_Calyx]

This was one advantage of the multiple leader set-up in cIV - want to play Russia as an economically powerful warmonger? Choose Catherine. Want to play Russia as a cultural powerhouse? Choose Peter.

This allows multiple aspects of a nation/culture to be represented - which is good, because some of the cultures included in the Civ series span thousands of years.

There are some things in CiV that bug me about this topic; Gandhi as the leader of India, for instance. In general, though, the designers have done alright (though many things do lean towards the caricature side).

 

[kirbdog]

I think they aim to capture whatever holds the popular imagination about each civilization and by and large succeed. Usually when I think about what the most important UU or UB that I'd put in for a civ is, it's there. The leader choices are reasonable. They lean on the liberal interpretation of civilization when including Celts and Huns (and Zulu?) but that's Civ. The series has more civs than ever in this iteration, which is fun.

 

[Vintage Port]

Overall I think they did a good job. There is a little bit of something for everyone. Obviously they could have done some things different but I do appreciate some of the quirks each leader has.

I guess there is the option in the settings of turning off start bias as well as make each leader "random" personality.

I think each Nation has enough in it to make it unique and trying to capture some of the history but also keeping it fun. Tough to balance the strengths and weaknesses while trying to keep true to the history.

 

[sebwiers]

I don't think there's really all that much diversity in how the leader impacts game play. Tech development (and to a lesser extent culture choices) creates a much larger difference in what your empire can do than the leader's specialization / special units. It seems to me that in many cases the leader's ability just saves you some build effort in one realm, but that just offsets other places where you are working to get ahead.

To my mind, if different leaders choices meant you were forbiden two of the four victory conditions, it would be much more indicative of the (stereotypical) cultural norm. For example, Ghandi might not be able to win via war or a space race, since those are fairly aggressive. Hiawatha & Montezume would ONLY be able to win through war or culture, to put some time pressure on them and enhance the "low tech" approach (though winning wars is rarely "low tech", its not a tech victory per se).

Mot people probably do this anyhow; playing Hiawatha makes warfare victory an easier path to take, for example. So maybe that is enough... but seeing the "cultural tradition" behind Hiawatha taking out the world with aircraft and bombs, takes some imagination!

 

[whyidie]

Some of the leader videos are quite cartoonish.

Catherine intrigued at the idea of being captive once you've defeated her ? Filth.

Alexander has the mannerisms of a street thug, not an emperor.

Montezuma is incredibly over the top. Yet I'm not offended by this somehow....

Leaders and civilizations have always had their "distinctions" exaggerated. My recollection is that there was always an element of exaggeration in past releases.

I rather liked having multiple leaders to choose from. I felt it gave equal time to civilizations whose culture varied throughout history.

As for female leaders, as long as they existed, I have no problems with them. To be a female and have stood out enough to be mentioned in a positive light during the ages they lived in is an amazing accomplishment in and of itself.

 

[Colmar]

Well in light of Portugal's intro speech, I definitely have to say that they're not showcasing some Civs well. They chose Maria I simply because she has a 'crazy' persona. If they needed a token female (which is the unwritten law of Civ apparently,) they could have used Maria II. Saying that, i think neither Maria is really notable or representative of Portugal and exploration.

My other qualms are just the usual stuff, like "Why is Gandhi leading India?" and "Maria T's voice isn't making her annoying personality any easier to deal with."

 

[Dark_Jedi06]

At the very least, the actual artistic renderings of the leaders are far less cartoonish in Civ V then they were in IV. For example, Gandhi now has a head proportional to his body...

 

[Cahillicus]

Its fun when civs play as they became famous in real life, but people that complain about war-mongers need to stop whining and accept that civ isn't supposed to represent history. I mean, the first screen you see when you start it up, if you read the fine print(which isn't that fine), it says that it is not a historical representation.

Also the leader portraits in Civ IV where way to cartoonish

 

[fuzzatron717]

I think this game should be very minimal when it comes to representing the real life politics. Games like these are supposed to be fun and possibly make you interested in certain things. If we wanted a game to represent what actually happened we would be outside experiencing it via plays, books, simulations with good friends. This game is for fun and not for a simulation of history.

 

[Zezima]

Do you like the way Civ5 portraits the diffrent nations? Should real life politics play a big role in the way the civ is designed? Should nations be narrowed down to reflect just one part of theire culture or history? Should they be forced into one direction (x is a warmonger, y is for culture, z is for teching)? Should there be a starting bias and UAs related to that (Arabs start in desert, oasis bonus etc)?

Humor me: what is the alternative to shoehorning civs into different playstyles while still providing a variable and dynamic game experience? And mentioning cIV's method of providing multiple leaders with different abilities is a cop-out. It's been done before, and it quite frankly doesn't solve the issue you present.

Not all civs/leaders are portrayed as being specifically one type of culture/personality and that is it. Some civs perform equally well in different categories, and the variance in leader personalities causes them to behave differently from one game to the next. And yes, some civs have an inherent advantage over others in terms of the unique traits that they have. But isn't that in a sense paying homage to these civilizations that once were? To me, Civ acknowledges the achievements and cultural differences of these civilizations by making them come to life in these games. Even so, you could choose to throw these advantages into the wind and play diplomatically as Attila or militaristically as Gandhi if you so choose. You are ignoring civ's biggest facet: choice. You alone have the choice to mold the outcome of each and every game as you see fit.

Also take into consideration that the behavior of these civs is not entirely dictated by the way Firaxis coded them. Context plays a gigantic role in the outcome of diplomacy and relations during the course of the game, just as it has played in reality. The way we feel about historical figures would be entirely different if the contexts they dealt with were different than the ones we have learned about in history books. What if the British colonists failed to found the United States of America? What if Hitler never created the Nazi party? This is what civ is about: creating an empire and watching it unfold as a result of each and every choice you make.

The in-game civs and their traits are simply a mechanic to make the game more enjoyable to play. If you want a politically correct civ game that allows you equal opportunity to develop any civ in any way possible, then that simply is never going to happen, from both a development standpoint, and gameplay standpoint. No one wants 30+ nameless civs with no variety and no personality, all for the sake of making sure we don't step on people's feet. God forbid we have a little chuckle about the past.

I think you are making a mountain out of a molehill and taking this way too seriously. The realism and portrayal of the CiV civs is exactly on key, IMO. It takes history, and it takes humor, and it combines them to create a gaming experience I have quite honestly never seen before. I never worry about if I'm hurting the real Genghis Khan's feelings by putting an end to his militaristic tyranny in a video game. To me, CiV honors these figures and nations by keeping them alive in our minds and sparking interest in history for individuals who might otherwise never be interested in it. I sincerely hope I never live to see a civ game that is 'politically correct,' because then it will have lost its entire point.

Catherine intrigued at the idea of being captive once you've defeated her ? Filth.

Alexander has the mannerisms of a street thug, not an emperor.

Montezuma is incredibly over the top. Yet I'm not offended by this somehow....

Truthfully, I find assessments like these to be high and mighty. How can any of us assume to know the true personalities of these historical figures? Why is it so offensive to consider that they might in fact have been flawed... or humorous... or dare I say, human? I see no enjoyment in assuming that anyone with the clout to lead an empire was required to behave like they had a stick up their bum.

 

[whyidie]

Truthfully, I find assessments like these to be high and mighty. How can any of us assume to know the true personalities of these historical figures? Why is it so offensive to consider that they might in fact have been flawed... or humorous... or dare I say, human? I see no enjoyment in assuming that anyone with the clout to lead an empire was required to behave like they had a stick up their bum.

We may be seeing the leader videos differently. I think, for the most part, the leaders are done in the style of caricatures.

We can find this humorous, but I don't see it as the leaders in game trying to be funny. I see it as the people who characterized the leaders trying to be funny. Same way as with a caricature. The person being drawn isn't making the joke, the person doing the drawing is making the joke, and those who see the drawing have the laugh.

I don't find that it makes the leaders more human or adds depth to their characters by exposing their human "flaws". I don't see the leaders as deep character studies, more as cartoons. Nor do I expect it to.

The series has long had exaggerated leader antics. If you find it to be an altogether realistic and human presentation, all the better!

As with most attempts at humor, its hit or miss.

To use your analogy, sometimes the sticks too far up the bum, other times people will complain there isn't enough stick.