Historical Immersion Factor

[eric_]

since you are playing on a STRATEGICAL LEVEL. While it seems more tactical now, it inludies alot of drawbacks too.

The increased importance and effectiveness of tactical decisions makes for far more dynamic and interesting military strategy.

Some people seem to have the opinion that increased military strategy is bad because civ strategy can and does operate on a level that encompasses, and is not restricted to, military strategy (in other words, military strategy can comprise the entirety of your strategy for winning [domination], or it can be a cog in the wheel [helping you lay the groundwork/protect yourself] of a peaceful strategy for winning [cultural, diplomatic, etc]).

For me, the military is infinitely better than before, and makes for far more interesting strategic decision making (do I defend with a small military using wise tactics and get what what need via diplomacy, or do I go for a larger military to avoid confrontation and take what I need if i lack something)?

Much more life-like, imo.

 

[polypheus]

IV is more immersive than previous titles that are that dated simply based on its offering more and different kinds of decisions. However, when comparing reasonably modern games, it is VERY difficult to sort out what is just "they changed it now it sucks" vs legit immersion factor if one had started one or the other game without knowledge of the other. V offers things that previous titles do not; for people who REALLY like the tactical level, 1upt could overpower the flaws entirely. I do not suggest all games are equal, but I definitely do suggest that it is difficult, maybe impossible, to make a strong case that civ V is actually less immersive than previous titles in the series...ESPECIALLY the older ones which have less depth. The biggest problems with V are not with historical immersion, they are with how the game plays. That can certainly inhibit immersion of any kind though...but again these flaws are NOT new to V for the most part, clouding the comparison.

Ultimately it is completely subjective. But as I and others have said its the total picture and feeling when you play the game as a whole and not individual elements taken in isolation.

I just started a new Civ4BTS:RAND game with many realistic settings turned on (BTW this is a great mod which tries hard to emulate major historical elements and corrects many of the flaws of vanilla Civ4). Now is it perfect, of course not! It is still ultimately just a game with rules and hard-coded mechanics. But I can say that during my game, it just feels a lot more "real" to me as an actual world with plausible historical dynamics that give a good illusion of being true to life as far as a game of this scope can go.

But for a Civ5 game, I don't get that feeling AT ALL. The way a Civ5 game plays out is just totally lacking in any feeling of history in the making. It just feels a lot more abstract and less true to life in terms of the way Civs behave and interact. And the new game mechanics simply do not work for me in terms of historical immersion. Again its how all the elements of Civ5 interact AS A WHOLE that is the problem and not individual elements taken in isolation. Now maybe I've been playing too much RAND and have forgotten how much less immersive vanilla Civ4 was. Still I can say IMHO that when I first played Civ4 vanilla, it definitely felt a lot more historically immersive than Civ3. But looking at Civ5, it feels a lot less. Again I can't prove this to you because it is not provable. But I can say that many people beside myself feel this way.

 

[man-erg]

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.

I agree, to the extent that the Civ world needs to be internally plausable within it's own abstractions. Let's face it, the games were never "realistic" at all. The peculier time system wherte it took 25 years to move a unit 1 square. Wars that lasted 1,000's of years. City populations of "1". Was that 1,000's? 100,000's? Who cares? Knowing that you could research something you didn't know in exactly x years. Not one shred of historical realism there.

But the abstractions did make sense. And compared to Civ, Europa Universalis (which really does aim to emulate history) was much more realistic, but IMHO not as much gaming fun as Civ because the realism makes for an awkward, unbalanced game.

And despite the total lack of realism, I must confess that with previous versions, I often thought about my Civ when away from the game. Imagined them as a real civ with real people. Would think of different strategies to try.

ciV doesn't do that for me at all.

Nor me! Maybe not for the same reasons, though. It is difficult to pin down the problem, given that I was always accepting of Civ's lack of realism. But CiV makes no sense to me at all. Too many irritations that get in the way of 'immersion', whatever that is. Too much lunatic behavior from the tedious city states. The irritation of only being able to have 1 paltry unit in an area the size of Denmark. A research tree which doesn't even attempt to have any logic. Archers shooting over mountain ranges..etc etc etc

 

[sketch162000]

I agree, to the extent that the Civ world needs to be internally plausable within it's own abstractions. Let's face it, the games were never "realistic" at all. The peculier time system wherte it took 25 years to move a unit 1 square. Wars that lasted 1,000's of years. City populations of "1". Was that 1,000's? 100,000's? Who cares? Knowing that you could research something you didn't know in exactly x years. Not one shred of historical realism there.

But the abstractions did make sense. And compared to Civ, Europa Universalis (which really does aim to emulate history) was much more realistic, but IMHO not as much gaming fun as Civ because the realism makes for an awkward, unbalanced game.

And despite the total lack of realism, I must confess that with previous versions, I often thought about my Civ when away from the game. Imagined them as a real civ with real people. Would think of different strategies to try.


Nor me! Maybe not for the same reasons, though. It is difficult to pin down the problem, given that I was always accepting of Civ's lack of realism. But CiV makes no sense to me at all. Too many irritations that get in the way of 'immersion', whatever that is. Too much lunatic behavior from the tedious city states. The irritation of only being able to have 1 paltry unit in an area the size of Denmark. A research tree which doesn't even attempt to have any logic. Archers shooting over mountain ranges..etc etc etc

Spot on! The issue IMO comes down to the fact that a number of players experience Civilization as a kind of empire simulator instead of a pure strategy game. Until Civ V, the series has successfully straddled the divide between a TBS and a sim, but now the balance has been tipped almost totally in the favor of strategy. Simulation elements have been sacrificed for the sake of a balanced board-game like experience, which has alienated a sizable portion of the fanbase.

I posted a longer analysis in another thread which I think fits here...Spoilers for clutter purposes.

Spoiler :

There are people who like to play, and people who like to win. The "role players" sandbox, explore, and experience Civilization as an empire management sim. The "winners" ultimately see the game as something to be beaten, like a board game. Historical immersion and roleplaying are nice, but they come second to balance, challenge, and consistency. Role players argue more emotionally and viscerally. Winners argue more with strict logic, and cold hard facts. Role players generally dislike Civ V, and think that Civ IV was nearly, if not the absolute, best game in the series. Winners may like or dislike Civ V, but they often consider it to have more potential than Civ IV. Of course, there is overlap between the two groups.

Role players argue that the game is "shallow" or "dumbed down." These are derogatory misnomers borne out of frustration. What they mean to say is that Civ V lacks content relative to previous games, Civ IV in particular. This is true. Civ V has less units, less buildings, less options, less micromanagement in general. Firaxis used the term "streamlined" to describe Civ V.

Winners are usually able to demonstrate that Civ V is as complex, if not more complex, under the hood compared to previous iterations, however. Winners insist that role players should play at higher levels, think about the game differently, that they need to let go of Civ IV, and that they just don't understand the game mechanics. These do not solve the problem. Even open-minded role players are still bored and frustrated, and justifiably so, given their tastes.

Winners point out that previous games were characteristically inaccurate/inbalanced/nonsensical/abstracted, that these are hallmarks of the series, and as such these cannot be indicators of Civ V's somehow lower immersive quality.

This is not an entirely watertight argument. Civ V has a tendency to boldly favor balance above all else. There are features that are entirely inconsistent with any kind of rational, real world application and as such do not even meet the requirements of abstraction. Happiness and happiness buildings are major examples. A lack of civics/permanent SP's serve as another. AFAIK Civ V is the only game in the series that has completely omitted entire mechanics from previous games without an equivalent replacement, simply because they allowed for exploits (Religion.)

Viewing these two groups and their arguments, as well as Firaxis's comments on the development, I can only surmise that Civilization V was created with one play style in mind: playing to win. Devs prioritized balance in order to appease what they see as the core Civ fan...the player who would lament greater flavor and immersion if it compromises absolute balance; The player that would hunker down and learn extensive details of the game to remain competitive at higher level play. The problem is that they seem to assume that this is the only way to play, or the only way that matters.

Like a board game, Civ V encourages a grand, game-spanning strategy. Any flavorful concepts that were useless strategically, easily exploitable, or compromised long term strategy were tossed out, or consolidated.

Health gave you the feeling of maintaining a city by attending to its sanitation, but it was a more useless concept in terms of contributing to victory. It is gone.

Religion was easily exploitable, but it added to the detail and real world feel of the game. It is gone.

Civics were too easy to switch in Civ IV, but they allowed players to customize a government and adapt to changing times. They are now rolled into social policies, and are more or less permanent forever.

Random events gave players the feel of actively ruling their nation and handling the crises of the day on the fly, but they were likely to disrupt longer range strategies. They are gone.

Anyone could probably think of ways to improve those concepts very easily and immediately, but Firaxis just decided to get rid of them, because these things were not the priority. Coupled with the desire to attract more casual CivRev players (who also play to win but don't have the patience to learn a game as vast as Civ IV) this resulted in less of everything and a game that just feels numb in comparison to Civ IV.

Civ IV was great in that it allowed for many different kinds of play beyond the strict turn-based strategy. This is almost definitely why that game is so popular--it truly is what you make of it. What we got in Civ V was a game that simultaneously has the potential to play well for winners but is a much hollower game for role players. Maybe Civ VI will be broader in scope.

 

[polypheus]

Spot on! The issue IMO comes down to the fact that a number of players experience Civilization as a kind of empire simulator instead of a pure strategy game. Until Civ V, the series has successfully straddled the divide between a TBS and a sim, but now the balance has been tipped almost totally in the favor of strategy. Simulation elements have been sacrificed for the sake of a balanced board-game like experience, which has alienated a sizable portion of the fanbase.

I posted a longer analysis in another thread which I think fits here...Spoilers for clutter purposes.

Spoiler :

There are people who like to play, and people who like to win. The "role players" sandbox, explore, and experience Civilization as an empire management sim. The "winners" ultimately see the game as something to be beaten, like a board game. Historical immersion and roleplaying are nice, but they come second to balance, challenge, and consistency. Role players argue more emotionally and viscerally. Winners argue more with strict logic, and cold hard facts. Role players generally dislike Civ V, and think that Civ IV was nearly, if not the absolute, best game in the series. Winners may like or dislike Civ V, but they often consider it to have more potential than Civ IV. Of course, there is overlap between the two groups.

Role players argue that the game is "shallow" or "dumbed down." These are derogatory misnomers borne out of frustration. What they mean to say is that Civ V lacks content relative to previous games, Civ IV in particular. This is true. Civ V has less units, less buildings, less options, less micromanagement in general. Firaxis used the term "streamlined" to describe Civ V.

Winners are usually able to demonstrate that Civ V is as complex, if not more complex, under the hood compared to previous iterations, however. Winners insist that role players should play at higher levels, think about the game differently, that they need to let go of Civ IV, and that they just don't understand the game mechanics. These do not solve the problem. Even open-minded role players are still bored and frustrated, and justifiably so, given their tastes.

Winners point out that previous games were characteristically inaccurate/inbalanced/nonsensical/abstracted, that these are hallmarks of the series, and as such these cannot be indicators of Civ V's somehow lower immersive quality.

This is not an entirely watertight argument. Civ V has a tendency to boldly favor balance above all else. There are features that are entirely inconsistent with any kind of rational, real world application and as such do not even meet the requirements of abstraction. Happiness and happiness buildings are major examples. A lack of civics/permanent SP's serve as another. AFAIK Civ V is the only game in the series that has completely omitted entire mechanics from previous games without an equivalent replacement, simply because they allowed for exploits (Religion.)

Viewing these two groups and their arguments, as well as Firaxis's comments on the development, I can only surmise that Civilization V was created with one play style in mind: playing to win. Devs prioritized balance in order to appease what they see as the core Civ fan...the player who would lament greater flavor and immersion if it compromises absolute balance; The player that would hunker down and learn extensive details of the game to remain competitive at higher level play. The problem is that they seem to assume that this is the only way to play, or the only way that matters.

Like a board game, Civ V encourages a grand, game-spanning strategy. Any flavorful concepts that were useless strategically, easily exploitable, or compromised long term strategy were tossed out, or consolidated.

Health gave you the feeling of maintaining a city by attending to its sanitation, but it was a more useless concept in terms of contributing to victory. It is gone.

Religion was easily exploitable, but it added to the detail and real world feel of the game. It is gone.

Civics were too easy to switch in Civ IV, but they allowed players to customize a government and adapt to changing times. They are now rolled into social policies, and are more or less permanent forever.

Random events gave players the feel of actively ruling their nation and handling the crises of the day on the fly, but they were likely to disrupt longer range strategies. They are gone.

Anyone could probably think of ways to improve those concepts very easily and immediately, but Firaxis just decided to get rid of them, because these things were not the priority. Coupled with the desire to attract more casual CivRev players (who also play to win but don't have the patience to learn a game as vast as Civ IV) this resulted in less of everything and a game that just feels numb in comparison to Civ IV.

Civ IV was great in that it allowed for many different kinds of play beyond the strict turn-based strategy. This is almost definitely why that game is so popular--it truly is what you make of it. What we got in Civ V was a game that simultaneously has the potential to play well for winners but is a much hollower game for role players. Maybe Civ VI will be broader in scope.

I read your above "spoiler hidden" analysis and would agree more or less completely. When I played Civ4, even vanilla, I always played with the largest random Earth-like map with the most Civs. Because to me this scenario gave me the highest historical immersion experience in terms of simulating alternate-Earth human history. Now I play Civ4BTS:RAND and again I play with gigantic maps with as many Civs as is reasonable and at very slow speeds and with a lot "realistic" historical game mechanics selected. Also I turn on lots of random features. To me, it wasn't about winning as such, it was about the experience of my Civ alternate-Earth world's history unfolding with me as a participant and spectator. Sure I'd like to win but some of my best games were when I didn't win because of the interesting things that happened within that particular game.

I imagine that players that say Civ5 that say it is no less historically immersive than Civ4 never really played a Civ4 game as such. That's not to say that these people wanted a purely abstract game completely divorced from human history. But I think that a lot of such people would never play Civ4 mainly for the experience and a mod like Civ4BTS:RAND with historical features such as random disasters, barbarians becoming full-fledged Civs at a later time and also civil wars and insurrections, things that to me adds a great deal to the historical immersion experience would be completely unwelcome to a winner/powergamer who sees such things as ruining their gameplay experience because of its somewhat random and not completely controlled nature. To someone who is more of a empire and history simulator however, overcoming such things are part of the fun because again it isn't simply about winning but about the "historical" experience, to the extent that a Civ game with its broad scope can provide.

 

[DavidPBacon]

I have to agree with the two posts above. That is also my view, as I posted something similar but not so elaborated some time ago. It nails what the problem is.

 

[Lord Parkin]

I also read sketch's spoiler, and I think he hit the nail on the head perfectly. At the most basic level, Civ5 is simply lacking in content. The developers may call it "streamlining", but that doesn't make it any more satisfying for those of us who play for the experience more than for the win. It saddens me that I just don't find Civ5 anywhere near as intoxicating as Civ4, and it's largely because Civ5 feels bland and empty by comparison. It's got a good foundation, but the lack of content (more importantly, the lack of interesting and varied content) makes it duller to play relative to Civ4... at least from my perspective.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Lord Parkin, I really think you've summed up my own feelings very well. No matter how I try & get into Civ5, the whole thing feels like a bland, by the numbers affair. Even Social Policies don't seem to be igniting my interest the way they should. I've mentioned it before, but one classic example of my lower immersion is cultural mixing inside cities. In Civ4, I'd go into my city screen & sometimes see something like (85% Roman, 15% German). It may seem silly & simple, but that little touch made it so much easier to imagine the city as a *real* city-with a mix of cultures inside it. I'd often imagine how that German minority was faring inside an otherwise Roman City. Of course the mechanic was lacking in any real detail-but at least it was there. Civ5 could have really built on that to make it something even more interesting. What if the cultural mix of your cities impacted on your diplomatic relations with other nations? What if it impacted on Happiness during times of war or tension? What if there were social policies which could impact on both the rate of cultural assimilation, the growth of foreign culture in your cities or the benefits/penalties of mixed culture cities?
Instead, in the interest of "Streamlining", they removed the concept altogether, & now my city screen is lacking that immersive quality it once had!

Aussie.

 

[joyous_gard]

Spot on! The issue IMO comes down to the fact that a number of players experience Civilization as a kind of empire simulator instead of a pure strategy game. Until Civ V, the series has successfully straddled the divide between a TBS and a sim, but now the balance has been tipped almost totally in the favor of strategy. Simulation elements have been sacrificed for the sake of a balanced board-game like experience, which has alienated a sizable portion of the fanbase.

I posted a longer analysis in another thread which I think fits here...Spoilers for clutter purposes.

Spoiler :

There are people who like to play, and people who like to win. The "role players" sandbox, explore, and experience Civilization as an empire management sim. The "winners" ultimately see the game as something to be beaten, like a board game. Historical immersion and roleplaying are nice, but they come second to balance, challenge, and consistency. Role players argue more emotionally and viscerally. Winners argue more with strict logic, and cold hard facts. Role players generally dislike Civ V, and think that Civ IV was nearly, if not the absolute, best game in the series. Winners may like or dislike Civ V, but they often consider it to have more potential than Civ IV. Of course, there is overlap between the two groups.

Role players argue that the game is "shallow" or "dumbed down." These are derogatory misnomers borne out of frustration. What they mean to say is that Civ V lacks content relative to previous games, Civ IV in particular. This is true. Civ V has less units, less buildings, less options, less micromanagement in general. Firaxis used the term "streamlined" to describe Civ V.

Winners are usually able to demonstrate that Civ V is as complex, if not more complex, under the hood compared to previous iterations, however. Winners insist that role players should play at higher levels, think about the game differently, that they need to let go of Civ IV, and that they just don't understand the game mechanics. These do not solve the problem. Even open-minded role players are still bored and frustrated, and justifiably so, given their tastes.

Winners point out that previous games were characteristically inaccurate/inbalanced/nonsensical/abstracted, that these are hallmarks of the series, and as such these cannot be indicators of Civ V's somehow lower immersive quality.

This is not an entirely watertight argument. Civ V has a tendency to boldly favor balance above all else. There are features that are entirely inconsistent with any kind of rational, real world application and as such do not even meet the requirements of abstraction. Happiness and happiness buildings are major examples. A lack of civics/permanent SP's serve as another. AFAIK Civ V is the only game in the series that has completely omitted entire mechanics from previous games without an equivalent replacement, simply because they allowed for exploits (Religion.)

Viewing these two groups and their arguments, as well as Firaxis's comments on the development, I can only surmise that Civilization V was created with one play style in mind: playing to win. Devs prioritized balance in order to appease what they see as the core Civ fan...the player who would lament greater flavor and immersion if it compromises absolute balance; The player that would hunker down and learn extensive details of the game to remain competitive at higher level play. The problem is that they seem to assume that this is the only way to play, or the only way that matters.

Like a board game, Civ V encourages a grand, game-spanning strategy. Any flavorful concepts that were useless strategically, easily exploitable, or compromised long term strategy were tossed out, or consolidated.

Health gave you the feeling of maintaining a city by attending to its sanitation, but it was a more useless concept in terms of contributing to victory. It is gone.

Religion was easily exploitable, but it added to the detail and real world feel of the game. It is gone.

Civics were too easy to switch in Civ IV, but they allowed players to customize a government and adapt to changing times. They are now rolled into social policies, and are more or less permanent forever.

Random events gave players the feel of actively ruling their nation and handling the crises of the day on the fly, but they were likely to disrupt longer range strategies. They are gone.

Anyone could probably think of ways to improve those concepts very easily and immediately, but Firaxis just decided to get rid of them, because these things were not the priority. Coupled with the desire to attract more casual CivRev players (who also play to win but don't have the patience to learn a game as vast as Civ IV) this resulted in less of everything and a game that just feels numb in comparison to Civ IV.

Civ IV was great in that it allowed for many different kinds of play beyond the strict turn-based strategy. This is almost definitely why that game is so popular--it truly is what you make of it. What we got in Civ V was a game that simultaneously has the potential to play well for winners but is a much hollower game for role players. Maybe Civ VI will be broader in scope.

I read your spoiler as well and think it does a good job describing things. In reading it I remembered how I liked to use forts to build locks channels in my empire. I don't know how realistic that is, but it was fun. I would wait all game for a particular border to pop so I could have access to a new route across the map. It was a lot of fun and I always figured it was used strategically by the "winners" but that is gone too.

Anyway, nice spoiler post.

 

[YoHo]

OK, I didn't read all of this thread, but I read a bunch of it.

I kind of ignored it at first, because Historical Immersion is really not how I would describe it. But sketch162000 kind of nails some of the other terms I think are better and that I've used in my own threads.

Civ, the series has always had a bit of pen and paper role playing to it. And by that I mean, to a certain extent, winning the game is less important than the journey of the game. And a lot of the little things in these games are tweaked to be roleplaying rather than practical or tactical.
I think CiV isn't a complete failure here, but it very very much promotes the Meta/Min max type of role playing (I've been in arguments about the various versions of Dungeons and Dragons that follow the exact type of concepts as this very thread). CiV certainly, at it's core encourages a different type of game.

But, I don't think that it is impossible for the core game we have now to completely fail in this regard assuming that the SDK and modding tools get released/fixed. D&D 3rd edition was poo pooed by many players, because it focused on a different type of game and these players felt it sucked, but ultimately, the ruleset could and did work for the types of games these people wanted once the rules were understood and embraced and built on. Same happened in the tradition to D&D 4th ed. I think CiV follows the same type of path.

Civ4 Colonization is the first Civ game I've ever played where a mod makes the game work for me. I've played other Civ4 mods, but never needed them.
I suspect that CiV is going to be the same way for me. Someone will create a mod that makes this roleplaying work and that will fix the game for me and at that point I won't care about how bad or good vanilla is.

I think, and I might be wrong that with a few fixes in diplomacy and some subtle changes to the diplomatic AI, the core game could take a major shift to the positive for the "roleplayers" as I call them, Historically Immersive players as this thread calls them. Maybe not perfection, but I feel like that is where the major problem is and I feel like it's something that can be fixed.
City states being a little too powerful is a second issue that I think could pose a problem, but I think it's less of an issue. The city-states exploits are ones that seem easy for me to ignore.

Combat AI, SOD vs. 1upt, Religion, these are all, to me side issues. I need to be able to interact with the AI in a somewhat realistic manner.

There are other changes as well that would help more and that I would personally like, but I feel like they could be in the realm of mods without being a big deal.


Anyway, that was pretty random, so I'll sum up:
I agree with the OP, though maybe via different terms and subtle differences,
but I think CiV can be fixed and in the near term.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I also read sketch's spoiler, and I think he hit the nail on the head perfectly. At the most basic level, Civ5 is simply lacking in content. The developers may call it "streamlining", but that doesn't make it any more satisfying for those of us who play for the experience more than for the win. It saddens me that I just don't find Civ5 anywhere near as intoxicating as Civ4, and it's largely because Civ5 feels bland and empty by comparison. It's got a good foundation, but the lack of content (more importantly, the lack of interesting and varied content) makes it duller to play relative to Civ4... at least from my perspective.

Problem is, it has SO MANY present features which don't work properly, making it hard to justify adding more content.

For example, I am vehemently against new features/civs/whatever until they do things like:

1. Address time between turns. For real.
2. Allow queue hotkeys for cities...not this crappy mouse drag everywhere beginner garbage they're forcing down our throats
3. Allow selection of multiple cities
4. Fix the governor so that it does not AUTOMATICALLY STARVE YOU (between turns!) while focusing on certain things unless you LOCK EVERY SINGLE CITIZEN, KILLING THE POINT OF THE GOVERNOR. So much for that "streamlined" theory. I have posted video evidence of this on youtube. WHY is ANYONE even CONSIDERING anything else in this game when issues like this aren't resolved yet? Is random starving immersive? No. Is it good for competitive balance? Nyet. Is it fun? Negative. Does it add anything but extra manual inputs for players while screwing over anybody who doesn't know it can happen? Nope. I am literally offended by ignants who don't consider things like this TOP PRIORITY fixes. CONTROLS/GAMEPLAY FIRST.
5. Balance victory conditions for the first time ever in the series
6. Actually inform players of all game rules, rather than hiding chunks of important ones.
7. No "end turn" button actually cycling you to a unit that needs orders
8. No getting "stuck" on "a unit needs orders"
9. No "why is your army near us" when it isn't
10. No clicking on a city and having to click it again then get the production options screen out of the way just to read/do some things with the interface

More content? Wrong. That is not and will never be the answer until the current content *actually works*. Stacking duct tape on does not make the issue go away, and that's precisely what "new content" would be doing.

If you want to point toward a legit, objective reason this game lacks immersion, a very easy one is that it doesn't work properly. It's not a NEW problem to civ by any means, but V is a pretty bad representation of it and even if it kills immersion in previous games too, it DEFINITELY kills it in V...which is such a new experience that it seems less people look past the fact that it doesn't work and flings gobs of fake difficulty at us...even if that did in fact happen in droves in IV too.

 

[Zydor]

There will always be disputes over immersion/wargamer/builder yaddie yadda, particularly if someone has a preference for one orientation over the other. The major diference in Civ5 is the very obvious and extensive lurch - not shift - a positive lurch towards the far end of wargaming. That breaks the traditional Franchise, and changes what the game Civilisation is about. Had I known that before I bought it, I would not - for the first time in 12 years of Franchise play - had purchased this one.

Its been stripped out of any semblance of the wider aspects and realities of Empire Building in favour of "kill your neighbour and win the game". Does the latter aspect figure centrally in the realities of real historical empire building, yes of course it did, but even the two greatest Ancient Civilisations - the Romans and the Macedonians/Greeks, and further back Babylon, had culture and science as a very important part of their advancement and success. Its also true to say, I suspect, that even the most die hard Culturist or Technophile has had Civ moments resulting in "Right you have really hissed me off this time mate - now you die" , and a hapless AI gets exterminated with extreme predjudice and a great feeling of satisfaction and fulfilment. And thats fine, its all part of the mix, a balanced mix, the reason why the Franchise has been so successful.

That mix has been lost, stripped out in favour of the economics of programming to simplify the game mechnics, to maximise profit levels. I can see no other reason for the ludicrous attempt to try and make us believe that - as but one example - buying culture from some nutty City State, or getting loads of Units from santas freebie factory (Military City State) that even sports a "stop spawning units" button as a poor mans balance mechanism, can in anyway be called an attempt to represent historical empire building. As for that stupid robot , where the hell that came from I'll never figure, its pure fodder for the shoot-em-up genre, and has absolutely ziltch to do with the Traditional Franchise context.

Civ 5, as it currently stands, is in no mans land, its neither a Strategy game (it has military tactics, not Strategy), nor is it a successful shoot-em-up, plenty of other games around that successfully give you a "smash all in my path" game. There is still time, traditionally all Versions of the Franchise take a few months to settle, understandably due to complexities of the game.

This one really is different, the design philosophy is perfectly clear, and its no where near the Franchise traditions. The latter being a very powerful motivator for a large group of gamers to buy it as an escape from the ubiquitous and mind numbing number of "kill all and be dammed" approach to the majority of the Major Big games on the market. I really hope the balance returns in the coming patches, sadly I dont believe it will. Civilisation as we have known it for the last 25 years has died a death. Its very sad, and more than dispirating that no one will nail their cross to game that does not blow up everything in sight whilst even attempting to depict Cultural & Historical context.

Regards
Zy

 

[Nutteria]

Civ 5 is immersive enough if you ask me.What spoils this is the fact that the diplomacy and partly the warfare is at a very poor state currently.The lack of options and deeper motivation to do thinkgs combined with the very streamlined tech tree that allows huge slingshots takes away from the expirience.

Remember no matter if you are roleplaying person or a must-win player you will most of the times allways go for the path of least resistance and currently that part due to the unpolished game mechanics tarnishes the "immersive" nature of the game.

However the game as a core have a very very high immersion value in my eyes.

 

[sketch162000]

Problem is, it has SO MANY present features which don't work properly, making it hard to justify adding more content.

For example, I am vehemently against new features/civs/whatever until they do things like:

1. Address time between turns. For real.
2. Allow queue hotkeys for cities...not this crappy mouse drag everywhere beginner garbage they're forcing down our throats
3. Allow selection of multiple cities
4. Fix the governor so that it does not AUTOMATICALLY STARVE YOU (between turns!) while focusing on certain things unless you LOCK EVERY SINGLE CITIZEN, KILLING THE POINT OF THE GOVERNOR. So much for that "streamlined" theory. I have posted video evidence of this on youtube. WHY is ANYONE even CONSIDERING anything else in this game when issues like this aren't resolved yet? Is random starving immersive? No. Is it good for competitive balance? Nyet. Is it fun? Negative. Does it add anything but extra manual inputs for players while screwing over anybody who doesn't know it can happen? Nope. I am literally offended by ignants who don't consider things like this TOP PRIORITY fixes. CONTROLS/GAMEPLAY FIRST.
5. Balance victory conditions for the first time ever in the series
6. Actually inform players of all game rules, rather than hiding chunks of important ones.
7. No "end turn" button actually cycling you to a unit that needs orders
8. No getting "stuck" on "a unit needs orders"
9. No "why is your army near us" when it isn't
10. No clicking on a city and having to click it again then get the production options screen out of the way just to read/do some things with the interface

More content? Wrong. That is not and will never be the answer until the current content *actually works*. Stacking duct tape on does not make the issue go away, and that's precisely what "new content" would be doing.

If you want to point toward a legit, objective reason this game lacks immersion, a very easy one is that it doesn't work properly. It's not a NEW problem to civ by any means, but V is a pretty bad representation of it and even if it kills immersion in previous games too, it DEFINITELY kills it in V...which is such a new experience that it seems less people look past the fact that it doesn't work and flings gobs of fake difficulty at us...even if that did in fact happen in droves in IV too.

Well, you are thinking like a winner. "The game should work well, content is secondary," is the gist of what you are saying, from what I can tell.

As for me, I have noticed many of the bugs that you have listed (except for #4.) TBH, not particularly gamebreaking...I've worked through buggy releases before. They are really annoying, but I can ignore them as long as they don't make the game unplayable, but that's just me.

The fact that the game is not designed for the kind of play that I enjoy is what irks me to no end. If the underlying decisions at least hinted that I would eventually have fun when the game was patched up, then okay, I'd stop the incessant forum ranting.

But no, I get the sinking feeling that even if the game was tuned up to work like a well oiled machine, I would still pass out at the keyboard. The fact that the game has as many bugs as it does is just salt in the wound. Meh...different strokes. That my kind of thinking "offends" you is a bit disturbing...

 

[Paradigne]

So Brain, what do you want to do tonight?

The same thing we do EVERY night Pinky, try to take over the World...

 

[Lord Parkin]

Apologies for the thread necro, but I only just noticed some of the replies. TMIT, while I agree that the many bugs in the game are irritating and need to be fixed, to me the core issue is still that at the most basic level the game doesn't have enough options, enough things for the player to do... enough heart, I guess. To me, even if Civ5 was completely debugged and smoothly running tomorrow, it still wouldn't hold my interest for long because it just doesn't have enough "stuff" to make it interesting and challenging enough. In essence, even with all of the current issues fixed up, it still wouldn't be a fun game from my perspective.

I still recall when Civ4 originally came out. Sure there were horrible memory issues for quite a while, along with numerous bugs. But the core game itself was still so interesting, so enticing that I couldn't help but keep playing anyway. I'm sure I still complained bitterly and regularly about the poor performance, but the point is that I couldn't help myself from playing. I kept playing regardless because despite the ugly shell of issues, I could see from the outset that at its heart Civ4 was still a wonderful game. I never thought twice about going back to Civ3, after having been a fan of that game since its release.

Sadly, I can't say the same for Civ5. After a week or two of trying it out and giving it the best chance I could, I just couldn't get into it. I found I was forcing myself to play, forcing myself to give it one more chance... and that was never the case with Civ4. I haven't played Civ5 in two whole months now, having gone back to Civ4 while I wait for improvements. That's sad, considering it was never the case for the Civ3-Civ4 transition for me.

The simple fact is, Civ4 drew me in despite its initial warts; Civ5 pushed me away despite its initial shininess. It wasn't the bugs that really upset me (annoying as they were) - it was the fact that there just wasn't enough to the game. I just couldn't get into it. Sure the enhanced military combat was cool to play with for a while, but I'm a builder at heart, and I was saddened by the relative lack of attention to this part of the game. Building up an empire was no longer fun (let alone cost-effective) in this game - it was obviously all about the war and not much else. The lack of strategic building choices given to the player, and moreover, the high penalties for doing just about anything other than spamming an army and conquering rivals was just disappointing. Let alone all the neat concepts that were gutted from the previous versions of the game (and the severe lack of new cool concepts to replace them).

Basically, I'm now waiting in the hope that a large patch or possibly an expansion will bring Civ5 up to the level where I'll be able to play it and actually have fun, rather than the experience mostly feeling like a chore. I really want to be able to like Civ5 enough that it replaces Civ4 as my most-played game. But to get to that stage, the developers will really have to put a lot of work into bringing what I percieve to be the heart of Civ back: that is, being able to build up an empire purely for fun. Until I can do that without feeling like I'm forcing myself to play, I'm sticking with Civ4.

Civilisation as we have known it for the last 25 years has died a death.

Only just noticed this. Pretty sure it's 20 years, unless you're posting from 2015.

 

[LordTC]

Apologies for the thread necro, but I only just noticed some of the replies. TMIT, while I agree that the many bugs in the game are irritating and need to be fixed, to me the core issue is still that at the most basic level the game doesn't have enough options, enough things for the player to do... enough heart, I guess. To me, even if Civ5 was completely debugged and smoothly running tomorrow, it still wouldn't hold my interest for long because it just doesn't have enough "stuff" to make it interesting and challenging enough. In essence, even with all of the current issues fixed up, it still wouldn't be a fun game from my perspective.

I still recall when Civ4 originally came out. Sure there were horrible memory issues for quite a while, along with numerous bugs. But the core game itself was still so interesting, so enticing that I couldn't help but keep playing anyway. I'm sure I still complained bitterly and regularly about the poor performance, but the point is that I couldn't help myself from playing. I kept playing regardless because despite the ugly shell of issues, I could see from the outset that at its heart Civ4 was still a wonderful game. I never thought twice about going back to Civ3, after having been a fan of that game since its release.

Sadly, I can't say the same for Civ5. After a week or two of trying it out and giving it the best chance I could, I just couldn't get into it. I found I was forcing myself to play, forcing myself to give it one more chance... and that was never the case with Civ4. I haven't played Civ5 in two whole months now, having gone back to Civ4 while I wait for improvements. That's sad, considering it was never the case for the Civ3-Civ4 transition for me.

The simple fact is, Civ4 drew me in despite its initial warts; Civ5 pushed me away despite its initial shininess. It wasn't the bugs that really upset me (annoying as they were) - it was the fact that there just wasn't enough to the game. I just couldn't get into it. Sure the enhanced military combat was cool to play with for a while, but I'm a builder at heart, and I was saddened by the relative lack of attention to this part of the game. Building up an empire was no longer fun (let alone cost-effective) in this game - it was obviously all about the war and not much else. The lack of strategic building choices given to the player, and moreover, the high penalties for doing just about anything other than spamming an army and conquering rivals was just disappointing. Let alone all the neat concepts that were gutted from the previous versions of the game (and the severe lack of new cool concepts to replace them).

Basically, I'm now waiting in the hope that a large patch or possibly an expansion will bring Civ5 up to the level where I'll be able to play it and actually have fun, rather than the experience mostly feeling like a chore. I really want to be able to like Civ5 enough that it replaces Civ4 as my most-played game. But to get to that stage, the developers will really have to put a lot of work into bringing what I percieve to be the heart of Civ back: that is, being able to build up an empire purely for fun. Until I can do that without feeling like I'm forcing myself to play, I'm sticking with Civ4.


Only just noticed this. Pretty sure it's 20 years, unless you're posting from 2015.

I think part of the issue is the better quality of opposing games makes it easier to realize all the different flaws in the civ engine. If I want historical immersion I don't play a game that reduces the entirety of Alexanders life to a few turns (if you want to be very generous 4 turns (375-350 (he's 6 at the end of this one), 350-325BC, 325-300BC (only lives 2 years of this one))). Having a quality total war mod out for these time frames really points out these flaws, this wasn't an issue for me when I was playing Civ II, Civ III and even the early period of Civ IV. But the better alternatives out there for these kind of campaigns make you realize how silly the long turns end up being.

 

[anti_strunt]

I think part of the issue is the better quality of opposing games makes it easier to realize all the different flaws in the civ engine. If I want historical immersion I don't play a game that reduces the entirety of Alexanders life to a few turns (if you want to be very generous 4 turns (375-350 (he's 6 at the end of this one), 350-325BC, 325-300BC (only lives 2 years of this one))). Having a quality total war mod out for these time frames really points out these flaws, this wasn't an issue for me when I was playing Civ II, Civ III and even the early period of Civ IV. But the better alternatives out there for these kind of campaigns make you realize how silly the long turns end up being.

Could the basic Civ formulae be... obsolete? Frightening idea. (Though it would be fun to see Paradox try their hand at a pre-Classical game, and then finally link their whole franchise though that, Rome, Crusader Kings, Europa Universalis, Victoria and Hearts of Iron... Now that's a campaign!)

 

[moscaverde]

Apologies for the thread necro, but I only just noticed some of the replies. TMIT, while I agree that the many bugs in the game are irritating and need to be fixed, to me the core issue is still that at the most basic level the game doesn't have enough options, enough things for the player to do... enough heart, I guess. To me, even if Civ5 was completely debugged and smoothly running tomorrow, it still wouldn't hold my interest for long because it just doesn't have enough "stuff" to make it interesting and challenging enough. In essence, even with all of the current issues fixed up, it still wouldn't be a fun game from my perspective.

I still recall when Civ4 originally came out. Sure there were horrible memory issues for quite a while, along with numerous bugs. But the core game itself was still so interesting, so enticing that I couldn't help but keep playing anyway. I'm sure I still complained bitterly and regularly about the poor performance, but the point is that I couldn't help myself from playing. I kept playing regardless because despite the ugly shell of issues, I could see from the outset that at its heart Civ4 was still a wonderful game. I never thought twice about going back to Civ3, after having been a fan of that game since its release.

Sadly, I can't say the same for Civ5. After a week or two of trying it out and giving it the best chance I could, I just couldn't get into it. I found I was forcing myself to play, forcing myself to give it one more chance... and that was never the case with Civ4. I haven't played Civ5 in two whole months now, having gone back to Civ4 while I wait for improvements. That's sad, considering it was never the case for the Civ3-Civ4 transition for me.

The simple fact is, Civ4 drew me in despite its initial warts; Civ5 pushed me away despite its initial shininess. It wasn't the bugs that really upset me (annoying as they were) - it was the fact that there just wasn't enough to the game. I just couldn't get into it. Sure the enhanced military combat was cool to play with for a while, but I'm a builder at heart, and I was saddened by the relative lack of attention to this part of the game. Building up an empire was no longer fun (let alone cost-effective) in this game - it was obviously all about the war and not much else. The lack of strategic building choices given to the player, and moreover, the high penalties for doing just about anything other than spamming an army and conquering rivals was just disappointing. Let alone all the neat concepts that were gutted from the previous versions of the game (and the severe lack of new cool concepts to replace them).

Basically, I'm now waiting in the hope that a large patch or possibly an expansion will bring Civ5 up to the level where I'll be able to play it and actually have fun, rather than the experience mostly feeling like a chore. I really want to be able to like Civ5 enough that it replaces Civ4 as my most-played game. But to get to that stage, the developers will really have to put a lot of work into bringing what I percieve to be the heart of Civ back: that is, being able to build up an empire purely for fun. Until I can do that without feeling like I'm forcing myself to play, I'm sticking with Civ4.


Only just noticed this. Pretty sure it's 20 years, unless you're posting from 2015.

I completely agree with you, I don't mind much the bugs (eventually they'll be fixed), but the total lack of immersion and bad features are what drive me away from playing. Like you said, it feels like a chore.

 

[neptune2000]

Sorry, I haven't read the whole thread. One of the things missing for me wrt immersiveness is the expanding cultural boundaries from cIV. I loved watching my borders growing along with the other civs', inexorably expanding to take unclaimed land or putting pressure on foreign lands and cities. I don't know how historical that is, but it sure was a good catalyst for my imagination.

I also agree with someone above who posted that V feels much less like a god game than previous iterations, which imo is not a good thing. I'm still holding out some hope that it can get better. I do like parts of it.

Edit: I voted "somewhat important", since for me it doesn't have to be historically accurate (Americans in the BCs) but it should be "alternative-historically immersive".