Historical Immersion Factor

[Zydor]

I view the game as "inspired by" - not "emulating" historical factors.

Its impossible to emulate history in all its cultural, scientific and military detail, and to alledge we can is stretching reality somewhat to say the least - even today's computers cant work fast enough to cope with all the variations a genuine emulation would entail without a seemingly slow and clunky resultant game. It'll be years - aka 10+ maybe - before domestic computing power could cope with so many variations in a perceived instant time frame.

The difference between "inspired by" and "emulating" is huge in game terms, and would take the sting out of many never ending circular arguments if the difference between the two - and the attendent realities of computing power causing it - were appreciated more widely.

Regards
Zy

 

[CivFanaticMan]

Monumentally important! Its what I loved about Civ4 and its where Civ5 falls short. Civ4 give me a high when I guide my Civ from 4000BC to 2050AD and explore the world, colonize other lands, watch those colonies grow into full on civs, random events add historical events, wars are super fun because of the immersion, not the combat. Victory is not my end goal, it's only a bonus. When I finish a game of Civ4 I can feel the history of my Civ I just led through the ages run through my head. It captures my imagination and gives a love for history.

Civ5 is a game. It lacks in immersion. I play purely to win along with the AI, and therefor I have no real relationship with the AI. All the AI becomes is an enemy, or a competing friend who eventually becomes my enemy.

If I want to play a game where I review my play through critically and not in an epic story or historical sense, I can play Starcraft. Starcraft is gamey but most matches only last 30 minutes. Gamey games thrive when they are short. If they get long and drawn out like in Civ5, it gets old and boring after a while. Eventually all you want to do is get it over with.

So the gamey nature of Civ5 doesn't mix. It mixed well with Civ Rev because Rev games were much shorter than the average Civ game so the gaminess balanced out with the game time. Basically what I'm saying is: Gamey game = shorter matches, Immersive game = longer matches. That is why Paradox games are so good. Paradox games take forever, but they are so immersive that each moment in the game is filled with something that keeps the immersive feelings flowing. In Civ4 each turn something would happen that would keep you interested.

That is my philosophy when it comes to games.

 

[neptune2000]

When I finish a game of Civ4 I can feel the history of my Civ I just led through the ages run through my head. It captures my imagination and gives a love for history.

With Civ V, you need your imagination for this, since they took away the post-game replay...

Civ5 is a game. It lacks in immersion. I play purely to win along with the AI, and therefor I have no real relationship with the AI. All the AI becomes is an enemy, or a competing friend who eventually becomes my enemy.

Interesting way of putting it. Yes, in Civ < V I felt like when I won, I brought my "friends" along with me. In V it just feels like I won. Haha, suxxorz!

 

[AfterShafter]

I find that when you put any Civ game up to any actual scrutiny, the historical immersion factor goes down the toilet. Civ I is no exception, Civ V is no exception, and despite how much people idealize it, Civ IV was definitely no exception. I say it's somewhat important, but any sense of actual historical immersion requires a tremendous amount of willful of suspension of disbelief.

In my mind, it's a strategy game first and foremost with neat and largely superficial historical trappings. I do love the flavour those trappings give, but I never fool myself into any sort of really convincing sense of immersion.

 

[anti_strunt]

I find that when you put any Civ game up to any actual scrutiny, the historical immersion factor goes down the toilet. Civ I is no exception, Civ V is no exception, and despite how much people idealize it, Civ IV was definitely no exception. I say it's somewhat important, but any sense of actual historical immersion requires a tremendous amount of willful of suspension of disbelief.

In my mind, it's a strategy game first and foremost with neat and largely superficial historical trappings. I do love the flavour those trappings give, but I never fool myself into any sort of really convincing sense of immersion.

While I agree with you, I also think that removing too much chrome, even if it's superficial chrome, reduces the size of the sandbox playground, which it appears many people liked to roleplay in. Not to mention that the chrome is one of the selling points of the franchise, so there is an element of economic risk too...

 

[sketch162000]

I find that when you put any Civ game up to any actual scrutiny, the historical immersion factor goes down the toilet. Civ I is no exception, Civ V is no exception, and despite how much people idealize it, Civ IV was definitely no exception. I say it's somewhat important, but any sense of actual historical immersion requires a tremendous amount of willful of suspension of disbelief.

In my mind, it's a strategy game first and foremost with neat and largely superficial historical trappings. I do love the flavour those trappings give, but I never fool myself into any sort of really convincing sense of immersion.

This is true, except that every other game has mechanics that add to flavor or immersion in spite of the strategy game. Civ V is an exception because it'd be the first to systematically and deliberately remove/downplay stuff that added to the immersion factor, only because it removed from the strategy element. It seems to be the core of the design philosophy for Civ V, and is probably the reason, at the heart, why the game has not set well with a large portion of the fanbase.

I posted these examples earlier in the thread...

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.

You could arguably also add 1upt. It is less historical than stacking, but deals with the SoD problem...

 

[Solutrian]

Great discussion, though it seems that there's been a lot of argument over what really boil down to different opinions. That said, what follows are my opinions and I have no desire to try and sway anyone else's.

Also, I apologize in advance for not quoting but this thread is so long and so many good comments to respond to directly that if i start i will not be able to get home, get my family fed, and get back on the computer and play civ.

I answered the poll Extremely Important. To me, this has always been the importance of the civ games over other strategy games: the historical breadth and depth. Or perhaps it's more accurate to say that I like the attention to historical detail in creating each game's alternate history. Every game is like a little Harry Turtledove alternative history under my control (at least partially).

So I'm not looking for historical simulation. What fun would that be? It would be like a paint by number compared to having complete freedom with the paints on a blank canvas. What i want from civ games are high quality paints and canvas.

I think many options in ciV improve the game and increase it's historicity at the same time. The artillery/archers for example actually having ranged combat instead of attack mechanics equal to melee units. Admittedly, it does lead to strange situations, like bows/crossbows shooting farther than rifles, tank shells, anti-tank shells, etc. My only explanation is that bows/crossbows are ballistic weapons that can shoot over the heads of whomever is front of them while rifles can't, at least not practically.

I think 1UPT acts as a great proxy for unit support, i.e. the inherent limitations in supporting a massed army. What is a SoD eating? Yes, they cost gold, but the soldiers can't eat that. I'm glad there's a mechanism that forces them to spread out, without having to micromanage their supply lines.

I also like the limitations on strategic resources as being much closer to historicity, otherwise, why would the US need foreign oil if it can plant one well in Texas or Alaska?

A lot of the features that make ciV more of an empire-based game and less about a collection of cities, especially global happiness, detract from some of the historical immersion for me, because it seems artificial. OTOH, micromanaging cities individually to attain happiness and avoid riots could often be a pain, though probably a more realistic one.