Historical Immersion Factor

[polypheus]

SHORT VERSION:

For me, what makes Civ compelling was its historical immersion. It was the feel of taking my Civ starting from the dawn of history and watching and guiding the history of that Civ and also watching the history of the world of that Civ unfold. For that to happen, the overall mechanics and the flow and development of a Civ game flows in a way that would be "broadly" plausible and realistic and sensible.

If they kept the exact game mechanics, but renamed the civs "Green Team", "Yellow Team", etc, and the units "Offensive Unit A," "Offensive Unit B", "Defensive Unit A", etc, then the game would be distinctly less fun. Civ is not a purely abstract game, like chess. It's a game where things are intended to represent certain very broadly historical advancement. That representative nature allows you to become much more immersed in the game than if it were purely abstract.
...
The philosophy of Civ3/4 seems to be more towards increasing historical immersion. But vanilla Civ5 is clearly taking the game towards more the pure strategy game end of the spectrum due to removing many historical immersion mechanics and replacing them with gamey non-sense mechanics.

And I think that this is one of the key things dividing people that love or hate Civ5.



----------------------------
LONG VERSION:

There have been many posts about "builders" vs "warmongers", "god-game" vs "board game", micromanagement vs streamlining, "simulation" vs "strategy game", "realism" vs "gameplay", etc. But I think for me personally, these things hit on but somewhat miss the point.

Ever since Civ3, what has interested me most about Civilization wasn't that it was just a pure strategy game like, say, Total War or Panzer General. What made it compelling was its historical immersion. It was the feel of taking my Civ starting from the dawn of history and watching and guiding the history of that Civ and also watching the history of the world of that Civ unfold. Victory conditions are nice so that I have some goal to achieve as I don't want to just have a pure "sim" game but my primary interest in Civ is not to just "play to win" but also to play for the overall historical immersion experience.

For me, what makes Civ fun is the immersiveness: the sense of history you get when playing it. If they kept the exact game mechanics, but renamed the civs "Green Team", "Yellow Team", etc, and the units "Offensive Unit A," "Offensive Unit B", "Defensive Unit A", etc, then the game would be distinctly less fun. Civ is not a purely abstract game, like chess. It's a game where things are intended to represent certain very broadly historical advancement. That representative nature allows you to become much more immersed in the game than if it were purely abstract.

Now let's contrast that to, say, a pure strategy game like Empire or RISK or such. Here these are pure strategy games where each faction is trying to win all out. In these games, the "historical immersion" factor is fairly low. Not quite as low as, say, Chess since these games do have some minor elements from history. But certainly much lower than the best example of the most historically immersive series I know, Europa Universalis.

Civ1/2 were certainly much more in the mode or Empire or RISK. The historical immersion factor was fairly thin. It was only in Civ3 and especially Civ4 that the historical immersion factor increased dramatically with culture, transparent diplomacy, war weariness, occupied resisters, religion, trade pacts, great people, etc. And using the core design, player-designed Civ4 mods like Rhyes and Fall, Rise of Mankind took the game to even higher levels of historical immersion!

Realism is tangentially related to historical immersion but only in the sense that the overall mechanics and the flow and development of a Civ game flows in a way that would be "broadly" plausible and realistic and sensible. For example, in Civ 4, expansion and city growth was limited by an empire's gold and heath which made complete sense both realistically and more important historically. These mechanics added to historical immersion. But in Civ5, this global happiness mechanic which makes no sense in any way detracts from it and become just an arbitrary game rule. The uber-powered city-state mechanic that provides such huge overpowering benefits to full-Civs also detracts from historical immersion as it resembles nothing that makes sense historically or realistically. Also research tied directly to the size of your population? Again entirely bunk historically and one that Civ4 had right and Civ5 had completely wrong.

One thing that I need to note now is that historical immersion is completely unrelated to concepts of streamlining, micromanagement and "complexity" and such. You could totally have a game that was streamlined and yet had a high historical immersion factor.

For instance, take the concept of religion. I could implement it so that founding and spreading of religions was random and uncontrolled by individual Civs but had certain effects such as on relations and on happiness and such. And to shake things up I have the founding of religions at different times and different rates and even have religious schism (Catholic/Protestant, Shia/Sunni, etc). But if this was added in this manner as a background running event that no one had to actively micromanage a-la Civ4, it would introduce the historically important concept of religion into the game dynamics without anyone having to actively micromanage it to found it or spread it and such.

It is also completely unrelated to being a "builder" vs a "warmonger". I have played as both a peaceful builder type and also a world conquering type in Civ4 and enjoy both as a part of the history immersion experience.

Now as this is the Civ5 forum, I will only say this. The philosophy of Civ3/4 seems to be more towards increasing historical immersion. But vanilla Civ5 is clearly taking the game towards more the pure strategy game end of the spectrum. And I think that this is one of the key things dividing people that love or hate Civ5.

 

[SHaW1986]

Bingo!

 

[Peregrine]

Extremely important, and I feel precisely the same.

If I wanted a straightforward tactical game, there are plenty to play.

There are (were?) very few of the Civ caliber.

I'm looking at Paradox games site, however, as it seems like there are some possibly enjoyable games there. Not seeing them in the stores though.

 

[Thormodr]

I agree with you 100%.

Historical immersion is very important to me and I felt cIV did that in spades. Civs I, II and III did as well but not as much. As the series went on, they gradually increased the level of it.

I want to feel like I'm playing in a historically plausible world. That really makes the game fun for me. I want to feel like I'm telling a story. I very much loved reading the cIV AARs and stories and tales. There were so many excellent ones because there was so much variety. So many different ways to play.

ciV doesn't do that for me at all. It's like they've taken a giant step backwards in that area. I feel more like I'm playing in a giant game like Tron or I am a rodent in a maze scurrying to get out while surrounded by psychopaths. It just isn't fun for me.

I started a thread about sort of the same thing. A poster on the 2K Games forums (link is in my sig) talks about how Civs I through IV were god game designs but that ciV was more like a board game design. The differences outlined in these two approaches to game design mirror what you said about game immersion in my opinion.

Thanks for a well though out post.

 

[Thormodr]

Extremely important, and I feel precisely the same.

If I wanted a straightforward tactical game, there are plenty to play.

There are (were?) very few of the Civ caliber.

I'm looking at Paradox games site, however, as it seems like there are some possibly enjoyable games there. Not seeing them in the stores though.

You don't seem them in stores very often. It is best to buy them online.

Paradox Interactive owns Gamersgate and they have provided excellent service to me.

http://www.gamersgate.com/

Paradox Interactive also has a pretty good forum here:

http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/forum.php

If you need to know anything more, let me know.

I like the historical immersion in their games. They really listen to their fans and they are always improving their products.

 

[Thormodr]

Seems most people like historical immersion and it seems to be why ciV has been so poorly received.

 

[polypheus]

I agree with you 100%.
...
I want to feel like I'm playing in a historically plausible world. That really makes the game fun for me. I want to feel like I'm telling a story. I very much loved reading the cIV AARs and stories and tales. There were so many excellent ones because there was so much variety. So many different ways to play.
...

Good to know you (and apparently the large majority) agree. If people want just a pure strategy wargame devoid of historical development there are SO many games that do it better. It is the historical immersion that draws a lot of us to this game!

This is what I think should be the guiding philosphy of Civ development. As a Civ4 modder, Schaffer should have used Civ4: BTS RoM mod as a starting point as this is by far the most historically immersive mod there is.

He could have streamlined it, simplified it. That is not the issue. As I said, historical immersion does NOT mean more micromanagement or complexity if done right. Religion, for instance, could be a global background event that no one actively manages.

The thing is that with Civ4, even vanilla, you could easily spin a good historical narrative of a given game. With present Civ5, the dumb-down non-sense mechanics, the shallow diplomacy, etc just doesn't lend itself to that.

The only hope now is that the modding platform of Civ5 is strong enough to get back most if not all of the mechanics (or equivalent) features of Civ4 that can bring back historical immersion. But I just don't know if this is possible. This is the key.

Can they write a Civ5: RoM/AND mod that is at least as good if not better than on Civ4? Of this I doubt highly as the "dumbed down" core game design being used as a foundation seems to be too weak for that.

 

[Thormodr]

Good to know you (and apparently the large majority) agree. If people want just a pure strategy wargame devoid of historical development there are SO many games that do it better. It is the historical immersion that draws a lot of us to this game!

This is what I think should be the guiding philosphy of Civ development. As a Civ4 modder, Schaffer should have used Civ4: BTS RoM mod as a starting point as this is by far the most historically immersive mod there is.

He could have streamlined it, simplified it. That is not the issue. As I said, historical immersion does NOT mean more micromanagement or complexity if done right. Religion, for instance, could be a global background event that no one actively manages.

The thing is that with Civ4, even vanilla, you could easily spin a good historical narrative of a given game. With present Civ5, the dumb-down non-sense mechanics, the shallow diplomacy, etc just doesn't lend itself to that.

The only hope now is that the modding platform of Civ5 is strong enough to get back most if not all of the mechanics (or equivalent) features of Civ4 that can bring back historical immersion. But I just don't know if this is possible. This is the key.

Can they write a Civ5: RoM/AND mod that is at least as good if not better than on Civ4? Of this I doubt highly as the "dumbed down" core game design being used as a foundation seems to be too weak for that.

Thanks. There are many people that think like us.

I predict the ciV stories and tales is going to be quite boring. As the game is more focused on winning then on playing, I think it will reflect that to a large degree.

 

[polypheus]

Since Civ5 mechanics bear low resemblance to historical reality and make little sense, I think perhaps abstracting the game would work as a pure strategy game. For instance:

1) Since all factions act like crazed madmen rather than historical Nations, we should just forget about Civ names, called them Faction 1, Faction 2, etc

2) City-states resemble nothing in history. Let's call them, I dunno, mercenary corps. You pay them a whole bunch of money and get benefits, sounds about right.

3) Happiness -> Shafer Rating
The way global happiness works right now makes no sense. I don't know what to call it as it is completely a gamey mechanic devoid of any reason. All it is now is just some counter that you keep filling up. Let's rename all happiness buildings and techs and policies into Shafermachine1, Shafertech1, etc.

I try to come up with more...

 

[Jerrymander]

Historical immersion doesn't matter to me at all. I'm here to play a game.

 

[polypheus]

Historical immersion doesn't matter to me at all. I'm here to play a game.

Me too. I am here to play a historically immersive game however. That's what I look for in Civ. There are other better pure strategy games out there if I don't care about that. I guess for you if things were renamed Faction1, Tech1, etc, that you don't care much.

But I realize that not everyone does and that's fine too.

 

[Jerrymander]

I guess for you if things were renamed Faction1, Tech1, etc, that you don't care much.

I wouldn't. Immersion helps, but it's not necessary. I like to play Go and Chess, and other games that lack fancy names. Sometimes the immersion can even get in the way of strategy. :/

 

[Junuxx]

If they kept the exact game mechanics, but renamed the civs "Green Team", "Yellow Team", etc, and the units "Offensive Unit A," "Offensive Unit B", "Defensive Unit A", etc, then the game would be distinctly less fun. Civ is not a purely abstract game, like chess. It's a game where things are intended to represent certain very broadly historical advancement. That representative nature allows you to become much more immersed in the game than if it were purely abstract.

Nice story you have there, and I definitely agree with the part I quoted above, but I can't really say you 'nailed it'.

Because what does or does not create historical immersiveness, as you call it, is a very personal thing.

For me, exploring the great unknown matters a great deal. I want to wander around and discover a new world that could've been Earth, but doesn't look anything like it. I'm very picky about the features of the map too; I want the immersiveness, the believability of locations that could be cradles of civilizations. Which means not starting sandwiched between Tundra and Deserts and a lot of other details.

For other people, random maps are enough to destroy all immersion. They want highly detailed maps of Earth to play on. And if the starting locations are randomized, it's simply not acceptable.

Yet another group of Civ players want dozens of tank and airplane types because a game that doesn't model their favorite WW2 era in exquisite detail does not give them what they need to suspend their disbelief.

In other words: Just like the 'many posters about "builders" vs "warmongers", "god-game" vs "board game", micromanagement vs streamlining, "simulation" vs "strategy game", "realism" vs "gameplay", etc' you've found a new but overly cerebral way to rationalize your emotional response to the game. I don't think these abstractions add a lot of insight beyond the impression that the game seems somewhat unfinished and the fact that its enjoyability depends on personal preferences.

 

[Becephalus]

I agree its important, but I do not feel civ 5 is any more or less immersive than Civ 4. They both have little to nothing to do with history.

ALso what the above poster said particularly

For me, exploring the great unknown matters a great deal. I want to wander around and discover a new world that could've been Earth, but doesn't look anything like it. I'm very picky about the features of the map too; I want the immersiveness, the believability of locations that could be cradles of civilizations. Which means not starting sandwiched between Tundra and Deserts and a lot of other details.

For other people, random maps are enough to destroy all immersion. They want highly detailed maps of Earth to play on. And if the starting locations are randomized, it's simply not acceptable.

Yet another group of Civ players want dozens of tank and airplane types because a game that doesn't model their favorite WW2 era in exquisite detail does not give them what they need to suspend their disbelief.

In other words: Just like the 'many posters about "builders" vs "warmongers", "god-game" vs "board game", micromanagement vs streamlining, "simulation" vs "strategy game", "realism" vs "gameplay", etc' you've found a new but overly cerebral way to rationalize your emotional response to the game. I don't think these abstractions add a lot of insight beyond the impression that the game seems somewhat unfinished and the fact that its enjoyability depends on personal preferences.

 

[Lokit]

I don't play Civ games for immersion, when I want that particular urge satisfied I play Paradox games.

It's pretty much impossible for me to be immersed in Civ when the Americans are dicking around in 1000 bc and Bismarck builds the Pyramids. They're still great games obviously, but meh.

 

[polypheus]

I don't play Civ games for immersion, when I want that particular urge satisfied I play Paradox games.

It's pretty much impossible for me to be immersed in Civ when the Americans are dicking around in 1000 bc and Bismarck builds the Pyramids. They're still great games obviously, but meh.

Its really unfair to use this as a criteria for lack of historical immersion and comparing it to Paradox games. This is a game where you start out in 4000BC and it is the development of history on an alternative world but using familiar names of Civs and leaders and wonders from our own history.

Your point about America holds but only in the general sense that many nations were born later from rebellions and revolutions rather than from the start like India and China and this is not modeled (but look to great Civ4 mods that DO!)

Anyway, I suppose they could just make up brand new fictional leaders and nations and such but it would lose some flavor. The point though is that I'm not asking for Civ to be historically immersive Paradox-style. I am looking for it to be historically immersive on a broad, grand style using mechanics that make sense and with the history of Civ development broadly plausible. Civ4: RoM/AND was not perfect but it comes the closest. Civ5 is clearly moving away from that even comparing to Civ4 vanilla.

 

[polypheus]

Nice story you have there, and I definitely agree with the part I quoted above, but I can't really say you 'nailed it'.

Because what does or does not create historical immersiveness, as you call it, is a very personal thing.

For me, exploring the great unknown matters a great deal. I want to wander around and discover a new world that could've been Earth, but doesn't look anything like it. I'm very picky about the features of the map too; I want the immersiveness, the believability of locations that could be cradles of civilizations. Which means not starting sandwiched between Tundra and Deserts and a lot of other details.

For other people, random maps are enough to destroy all immersion. They want highly detailed maps of Earth to play on. And if the starting locations are randomized, it's simply not acceptable.

Yet another group of Civ players want dozens of tank and airplane types because a game that doesn't model their favorite WW2 era in exquisite detail does not give them what they need to suspend their disbelief.

In other words: Just like the 'many posters about "builders" vs "warmongers", "god-game" vs "board game", micromanagement vs streamlining, "simulation" vs "strategy game", "realism" vs "gameplay", etc' you've found a new but overly cerebral way to rationalize your emotional response to the game. I don't think these abstractions add a lot of insight beyond the impression that the game seems somewhat unfinished and the fact that its enjoyability depends on personal preferences.

What creates immersiveness is definitely a very personal thing.

When I play Civ, I am trying to point out that I am looking for historical immersion in a very broad sense not in fine details. Except for scenarios, it is about starting in a brand new world with its history yet to be written. The names of Civs, names of leaders, names of wonders, techs, units is just so we are using things familiar to us as opposed to a Civ-like game on a totally alien world.

So when I say that Civ4 had high immersion factor while Civ5 does not, it is because of many mechanics that were changed that made a lot of sense realistically and historically to totally nonsense stuff that is just too gamey.

Not that Civ4 didn't have gamey stuff mind you. Its just that Civ5 right now has a lot more. But what's frustrating is that they removed stuff that made sense from a realistic historical perspective to stuff that makes no sense. Global happiness "system", rigid social policy that sets you on a course since 4000BC that can't be changed, weird "city-states" that you bribe for huge benefits, these things are just way too whacked.

Civ4's maintenance cost per city/per distance and health system made total sense. Civ5's global happiness makes no sense. Civ4's research based on spending on science made sense, Civ5's big population means more science does not. Scientific advancement mostly happened in smallish countries not big massive ones. Even today that is true. Many of the underdeveloped countries are also very large and have very large populations. Civ4 models this to some extent, Civ5's way is a complete nonsense. I could go on and on.


So FOR ME, I'm not talking about stuff like how I lose immersion because of archers shooting a couple of hexes and hexes are suppose to represents hundreds of kms of distance or turn/time scale stuff. I am more broadly talking about major mechanics that model human history and development.

 

[Andoo]

I found ciV to be more historically immersive for me.

Well, obviously the hex tiles make the world as well as my empire look much more realistic.

The fact that most of the land is not occupied by civilization during early ages and that there's much vacant space even during 1600AD or so seem more historically correct.

The fact that militaristic conflict or at least enough force to expel one is unavoidable is also more historically immersive. I don't expect an empire full of science, culture and all that juice with no defense to be untouched by warmongering neighbors.

I also think city-states are there to help the world feel more realistic. It was over simplification to have 8 countries and babarian cities to defict the history of the world. Now that we have 8 civs along with 12 city-states the world feels more organic for me.

 

[joyous_gard]

Yeah, well said. I was going to do a series on why I am not "in it" as much as 3 and 4, but you said it very well. Historical immersion. I used to play on chieftain and automate my workers in Civ 4. That is dumbed down. I would slide a slider every once in a while. That is dumbed down. I didn't micromanage anything, but I still had a fun game and was immersed in a game that was taking me through the history of mankind. I then got a nice little summary at the conclusion of my game that showed me what I had accomplished.

This game is not like that at all.

 

[Gamemaster77]

I agree, it is exciting when you get the feeling of raising a brand new civilization spanning the globe from just one settler.