[R&F] Governors are kind of immersion breaking.

[Ryika]

The Civilization series is a representation of a world, not our world.

Giving the governors unique names would make it virtually impossible for us to discuss the governors on these forums, for a start. So the only other reasonable option to address this complaint would've been for the governors not to have names at all. Firaxis apparently decided that giving them names helped the game, so they did.

Incidentally, if Firaxis HADN'T given them names, then I imagine the major complaint would've been that Victor's portrait would not fit in a civ like Kongo or something. So Firaxis can't win either way.

Give them an "Advisor Type" that is fixed, and a randomized name. Not that hard, really.

I don't recall people complaining about how the advisors in Civ 5 looked, despite the fact some of them might not be "immersive" to some civs. Maybe people have forgotten about the Civ 5 advisors at this point?

The Civ 5 advisors are not really part of the game. You don't have to interact with them, you won't ever see them unless you want to see their advice, which you will never do, unless you're a total beginner. They do run into the same problem with immersion but... not really, because I never have to see them.

In Civ 6, they will be on the screen all the time.

But to be honest, I don't think it's much of a problem in itself, it's just symbolic of the Civ 6 design philosophy that I dislike.

 

[drubell]

Speaking of naming Governors... they took the effort to give ethnic names to every trade delegate and spies, and they're not doing research to find significant people in every civilization to give great Governor names?

Because all spies have the same abilities regardless of names, and governors don't. If you were to come and talk about your Mongolian governor Altansarnai, you're going to have to clarify who you're talking about.

 

[Duuk]

Give them an "Advisor Type" that is fixed, and a randomized name. Not that hard, really.

Basically.

 

[drubell]

Give them an "Advisor Type" that is fixed, and a randomized name. Not that hard, really.

I'm going to refer you to my previous post.

If I can give Firaxis credit, it's that Firaxis understands that Web 2.0 is a very important part of the Civilization series, and will (correctly) choose not to be historical in design if it means that discussion about the game to other players is needlessly complicated.

 

[Lord Lakely]

You could also expand the possible governor pool (ie: add more of the same type, with different ability trees)


Personally, I see no reason to change them. Most empires were known to have employed private tutors from foreign lands, you could see the ethnically different governors as foreigners who've been invited to work for your empire based on their own personal achievements in their homelands.

 

[MrRadar]

I see this as a primarily practical measure to maximise clarity and help instant identification who exactly does what and who do you need at the moment. Go with a plethora of names and characters, be they colour coded or whatnot, and headaches will never end trying to remember or identify all the very individual and realistic specifics for dozens of civs.

If you need some immersion, look at this as there being seven global guilds/trade unions/what you want, where the person’s name and ethnicity comes as integral part of the profession. And they lend their services to whatever ruler needs them, a bit like a generic Assassins guild. Or lawyers. Absolutely no problem. For ‘deeper’ and more ‘serious’ immersion, well, Europa Universalis and Crusader Kings are always there for you.

 

[Ryika]

I'm going to refer you to my previous post.

If I can give Firaxis credit, it's that Firaxis understands that Web 2.0 is a very important part of the Civilization series, and will (correctly) choose not to be historical in design if it means that discussion about the game to other players is needlessly complicated.

If having a title for a unit and a flavor-name is "too complicated" for today's Civ players, then maybe I have indeed just grown out of the Civ Series.

 

[Gedemon]

For ‘deeper’ and more ‘serious’ immersion, well, Europa Universalis and Crusader Kings are always there for you.

I've seen this argument a lot on those forums each time someone mention immersion, is there a mod or something for one of them that allows you to build a civilization that will stand the test of time from 4000BC to 2050AD on a world map ?

 

[Browd]

Nope. The closest one I'm aware of is the Extended Timeline mod for EU4, which allows you to start as early as 2 AD and end in 9999 AD.

 

[Duuk]

I've seen this argument a lot on those forums each time someone mention immersion, is there a mod or something for one of them that allows you to build a civilization that will stand the test of time from 4000BC to 2050AD on a world map ?

You start in EU:Rome, play it to the end, export it to CK2, play it to 1453, export it to EU4, play till 1836, export to Victoria 2, play to 1933, export to HoI4, play to end, drink some tea, ponder your life for a while, load Stellaris, play until your Roman galactic empire is wiped out by the Blorg.

 

[drubell]

If having a title for a unit and a flavor-name is "too complicated" for today's Civ players, then maybe I have indeed just grown out of the Civ Series.

I'm arguing that all Civ games have been that way, to design the game around encouraging Web 2.0 discussion, not that Civ 6 has changed the goalpost.

 

[heinous_hat]

I don't recall people complaining about how the advisors in Civ 5 looked, despite the fact some of them might not be "immersive" to some civs. Maybe people have forgotten about the Civ 5 advisors at this point?

Civ5 advisors were a low-budget afterthought. People grumbled lightly, and then turned them off. The "advice" was pretty dispensable anyway.

The Civ2 advisors were unique in that you had the same comic personalities in period garb, which was kind of fun. Entirely dispensable advice, but at least they put effort into the presentation. Could you disable them when you got tired of the schtick? I don't remember.

Similarly, leaders in Civ3 all wore changing period dress, which i thought was a cool way to treat the "same leader for all of history" concept. If you were beating Abe Lincoln in an ancient war, he was wearing a tunic and a helmet, with a bandage over his eye. They should have returned to this at some point by now... it was a great way introduce some comedy, while still communicating the passage of time through different eras, different relationship states, etc. The best conceived artistic design by far, IMO.

I'd like to see that approach taken throughout the game. Use common personalities... or even objects (e.g. wonders)... but give them cultural flare. Imagine what an Asian Colossus, or the European Pyramids would look like. Juxtaposition like that is fun, while still conveying a sense of historical placement.

 

[Duuk]

I do miss period garb for leaders.

 

[DJ_Tanner]

I've seen this argument a lot on those forums each time someone mention immersion, is there a mod or something for one of them that allows you to build a civilization that will stand the test of time from 4000BC to 2050AD on a world map ?

No, that would be immersion breaking.

The general point is, if you want more historical simulation then play a game that is a historical simulation. EU is that, Civ is not. Civ uses history as a theme, but at no point does it ever try to be an accurate presentation of actual history. So its like getting mad at a screwdriver for not being a good hammer.

 

[Ryika]

I'm arguing that all Civ games have been that way, to design the game around encouraging 2.0 discussion, not that Civ 6 has changed the goalpost.

Man, I was just making fun of your argument. It's not the least bit "complicated" to have a title for each of the Governor types and then have a flavor name for them that shows up in the Governor Overview only. Discussions would just happen using the Governor type, while the name would be purely for ingame flavor.

The real reason, I assume, is what I've already mentioned, this design philosophy as a "virtual board game" as opposed to "empire management". Firaxis desperately wants everything to be "characters", things we can relate to. As game objects, they want them to have as much flavor as they possibly can, and they have to always be the same so we can develop a "relationship" with them, thereby pushing them into the center, and they don't have a problem with it if it ruins the "overall view", of the empire, which is another way of saying "it ruins the immersion". That's a decision they can make of course, but it's a decision about preferences, not "right and wrong", and I personally don't like the way they've chosen.

Compare it to Stellaris for example, where you have leaders, and their roles are clear, and the fact that they're randomly generated is not in the way of the system at all. It just means that you create less of a "personal relationship" with the individual figures in your empire, and focus more on the overall picture. A step into that direction is what I want. But it seems like I have to wait until either Paradox decides that it's time to get into direct competition with Firaxis, or some new player appears on the battlefield and decides to create a "historical 4x" with a wholly fresh design philosophy.

 

[Gorbles]

Don't merge arguments, the point about Elvis is that you'll never see him on the map or any screens outside those related to "your" civilization, so it was "your" Elvis, he was unique.

Don't make argument for other people, perhaps. There's no way of presuming for each person what their individual breaking points are. I just found it funny to cite a rather obvious and silly example that already exists within the Civilisation franchise.

You can rationalise that for yourself however you wish. Doesn't mean that it isn't precedent, nor does it excuse the complaints about "multiculturalism" as a negative.

 

[Gedemon]

No, that would be immersion breaking.

The general point is, if you want more historical simulation then play a game that is a historical simulation. EU is that, Civ is not. Civ uses history as a theme, but at no point does it ever try to be an accurate presentation of actual history. So its like getting mad at a screwdriver for not being a good hammer.

I don't wan't actual history, I want empire management in a believable universe, civ used to be good at that, up to civ4 at least.

There's no way of presuming for each person what their individual breaking points are.

agree on that.

 

[Ryika]

nor does it excuse the complaints about "multiculturalism" as a negative.

Immigrants should learn the language of the country they immigrate into, and obey laws, values, and traditions of their host countries. Multiculturalism leads to parallel societies and therefore remains a lie.

*triggered*

Moderator Action: Please get back to topic and do not troll. leif
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[drubell]

Man, I was just making fun of your argument.

Well maybe you could acknowledge it instead because:

It's not the least bit "complicated" to have a title for each of the Governor types and then have a flavor name for them that shows up in the Governor Overview only. Discussions would just happen using the Governor type, while the name would be purely for ingame flavor.

You're proposing that Firaxis only stick with one piece of relatable information (Governor type) rather than two (Governor type and Governor name). How does that open more avenues of discussion than less? Again, as I wrote,

If you were to come and talk about your Mongolian governor Altansarnai, you're going to have to clarify who you're talking about.

The real reason, I assume, is what I've already mentioned, this design philosophy as a "virtual board game" as opposed to "empire management". Firaxis desperately wants everything to be "characters", things we can relate to. As game objects, they want them to have as much flavor as they possibly can, and they have to always be the same so we can develop a "relationship" with them, thereby pushing them into the center, and they don't have a problem with it if it ruins the "overall view", of the empire, which is another way of saying "it ruins the immersion". That's a decision they can make of course, but it's a decision about preferences, not "right and wrong", and I personally don't like the way they've chosen.

Do you feel this is any different than how Great People have specific abilities attached to their names? This of course is a Civ 6 addition, so I'm just curious about your response. Whether or not such a system is breaking immersion, though, is questionable to me. I personally feel that Civ 6 can be less "immersive" than it can be because of the game's UI and Firaxis' decision to require several unnecessarily clicks to perform basic functions, but that doesn't mean I'm right. Similarly, I don't feel that you're right by saying that a character portrait is less "immersive" because it exists. It's just a semiotic representation to me, and doesn't bother my "immersion" as much. Immersion is relative.

Compare it to Stellaris for example, where you have leaders, and their roles are clear, and the fact that they're randomly generated is not in the way of the system at all. It just means that you create less of a "personal relationship" with the individual figures in your empire, and focus more on the overall picture. A step into that direction is what I want. But it seems like I have to wait until either Paradox decides that it's time to get into direct competition with Firaxis, or some new player appears on the battlefield and decides to create a "historical 4x" with a wholly fresh design philosophy.

I haven't played Stellaris so I can't make an informed comparison to argue with this. As far as Paradox goes, I have CK2 and EU3 and 4 so the best I can answer is: I can understand that you want less of a personal relationship with the individuals in your empire, but your advisors, just like in Civ 6, has portraits. Not only that, but through a playthrough, you're likely going to see people with different names with the same portraits. I have been on the Paradox boards, and I've never seen people talk about the advisors outside of their specific abilities; the portraits are just representations. Why specifically is that different in Civ 6 for you? Do you think that maybe after a couple weeks of R&F being released that you will also only look at the governors as representations, not characters?

 

[Ryika]

You're proposing that Firaxis only stick with one piece of relatable information (Governor type) rather than two (Governor type and Governor name). How does that open more avenues of discussion than less? Again, as I wrote,

It's not about discussions, it's about immersion within the game. For discussions, you can just refer to the Governor type. Surely, the average Civ player is intelligent enough to understand that they have to use that if they want people to know what they're talking about.

Do you feel this is any different than how Great People have specific abilities attached to their names? This of course is a Civ 6 addition, so I'm just curious about your response. Whether or not such a system is breaking immersion, though, is questionable to me. I personally feel that Civ 6 can be less "immersive" than it can be because of the game's UI and Firaxis' decision to require several unnecessarily clicks to perform basic functions, but that doesn't mean I'm right. Similarly, I don't feel that you're right by saying that a character portrait is less "immersive" because it exists. It's just a semiotic representation to me, and doesn't bother my "immersion" as much. Immersion is relative.

Yeah, and I'm telling you that for me it matters. Not that much in the greater picture, but it's still annoying.

It's actually very similar to... let's say great people were not actually sorted by era. If you could get Einstein in the Classical Era or something, that would be completely irritating. Like I said before, they do run into the same issue of not fitting your empire, but at least you buy them, use them and then they're gone. They're not presented as an integral part of your core empire.

I haven't played Stellaris so I can't make an informed comparison to argue with this. As far as Paradox goes, I have CK2 and EU3 and 4 so the best I can answer is: I can understand that you want less of a personal relationship with the individuals in your empire, but your advisors, just like in Civ 6, has portraits. Not only that, but through a playthrough, you're likely going to see people with different names with the same portraits. I have been on the Paradox boards, and I've never seen people talk about the advisors outside of their specific abilities; the portraits are just representations. Why specifically is that different in Civ 6 for you? Do you think that maybe after a couple weeks of R&F being released that you will also only look at the governors as representations, not characters?

Because as others have pointed out, it makes no sense at all to play as Kongo or something similar, and then have a governor who is white and has a British name. If they make them into characters, then those characters have to fit your overall empire, if that's not the case, then there's a problem with a person being pushed in your face as this "unique person that is totally a part of what makes your empire great", because that person is not how you envision your empire. A white, British person is just completely out of place in your Civilization of black people who have not yet met any Brits yet.

So really, to make things immersive, they would either have to make those characters unique per Civ, which is likely way too much work, or generate them with a set of random variables.