Historical Immersion Factor

[polypheus]

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.

To be fair there are aspects of Civ5 that do increase historical immersion. In prior Civs, there was definitely way too much early overexpansion and occupying every tile by 1AD. In that sense Civ5 is better. Also quantified resources is clearly better. Also lots of city-states amongst major powers is in and of itself not bad and definitely historically immersive. Its just that they are way too overpowered in terms of benefits and overly crude in that you just buy them off. So these city-states resemble like nothing in real world history.

But on net balance, Civ5 removes much more historical immersion than it adds. If they had kept all historically immersive elements from Civ4 (even if streamlining it or changing it somewhat) and added well implemented but good stuff that would have been great. But they added little and removed a lot that was good and replaced it with junk (like global happiness mechanic, science=population, etc etc) that are just way crude and flawed and largely destroyed historical immersion.

 

[Junuxx]

Jon Shafer totally agrees with you on the importance of historical immersion here:
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2010/09/10/code-to-joy-jon-shafer-on-civilization-v/

 

[Thormodr]

Jon Shafer totally agrees with you on the importance of historical immersion here:
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2010/09/10/code-to-joy-jon-shafer-on-civilization-v/

Hollow words sadly...

 

[ElephantRider]

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 reallt listen to their fans and they are always improving their products.

You can also find them on Steam.

And yes. Immersion is very important.

 

[Jediron]

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.

Have that anything to do with "immersive"
To me, that's just a graphical update.

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.

Or so....atleast you got that right (1600AD the world was pretty much populated, ALL over, and 1500, and 1400, and 1300...and...)

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.

Only if the AI's battle system weren't so broken....

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.

Yeah, it's prett realistic, 12 city states, 5000BC, with a more civilized population then you. instant trade, instant ally, instand "free units". Just give them some gold.

Helpfull ? ow yeah!
Realistic? ABSOLUTELY NOT!

 

[insaneweasel]

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.

Count me among the ranks!

The game is missing something...and I think historical immersion is a really good guess. Dumb AI really doesn't bother me as much.

 

[Thormodr]

Count me among the ranks!

The game is missing something...and I think historical immersion is a really good guess. Dumb AI really doesn't bother me as much.

Yes indeed. ciV has no soul. No feeling of a grand adventure. It doesn't feel like a book that you can't put down. I believe those books are called page turners. Page turners are the equivalent of one more turn classic Civ games.

It feels more like a dime store book instead of a classic novel.

 

[Becephalus]

Thomodr, I have yet to see you post a single positive thing and your views are so extreme as to just be absurd. Could you perhaps stop terrorizing this forum with your horrible attitude and go back to the Civ 4 forum since you love that so much? All you seem to do all day is sit around and piss all over these threads.

You will be happier not thinking about Civ 5, and the people who want to play or improve Civ 5 will be able to do so more easily without your half dozen posts explaining about how it isn't up to your standards...

Moderator Action: As has been said many times, people have a right to their opinions. If you have nothing nice to say in response, just ignore them.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[niall78]

Thomodr, I have yet to see you post a single positive thing and your views are so extreme as to just be absurd. Could you perhaps stop terrorizing this forum with your horrible attitude and go back to the Civ 4 forum since you love that so much? All you seem to do all day is sit around and piss all over these threads.

You will be happier not thinking about Civ 5, and the people who want to play or improve Civ 5 will be able to do so more easily without your half dozen posts explaining about how it isn't up to your standards...

I agree with Thomodr, maybe you should visit the 2k site where your opinions are enforced and freedom of speech is limited. Keep it up Thomodr, You're speaking for me as well at the very least.

 

[Lord Parkin]

Nice points, OP. I certainly enjoy feeling like I'm playing in a lush historical environment, and I do miss that a bit with Civ5 in its present state. Hopefully it will be improved with time, with improvements like boosting buildings and wonders, nerfing war, making AI less psychopathic and more competent strategically, and perhaps adjusting some of the mechanics like happiness.

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.

This is quite a good way of putting it, I think. Civ4 (especially Civ4 BTS) is a game you can play for the sake of playing, role playing or enjoying the environment. Civ5 at the moment is so biased towards war that it's lost some of that magic of playing simply for the sake of enjoyment. It obviously needs fixing, and I'm hopeful that it'll be fixed in time - if not in patches and expansions then certainly in mods.

 

[Thormodr]

I agree with Thomodr, maybe you should visit the 2k site where your opinions are enforced and freedom of speech is limited. Keep it up Thomodr, You're speaking for me as well at the very least.

Thanks. Yes, I like these forums because you are free to speak your mind as long as you are not insulting others or being rude.

2K Forums don't offer you the same freedom. If you are critical or negative about ciV (and there are many reasons for doing so) then your posts more often than not get deleted.

Thankfully, these forums do not paint a false picture of what's truly going on out there. People do want historical immersion and sadly ciV is rather lacking in that department.

 

[Moss]

Moderator Action: Lets stay on topic please.

 

[Lightzy]

Civ4 games had storylines that develop between ur nation and AI characters/nations.

Civ5 is a game played between you and bad combat AI that's completely flat in character and who you cannot develop relationships with, made all the more flat and ridiculous by the over-the-top leader animations.

Hah,

It's ironic how much time they spent talking on how they want you to feel like you're meeting great leaders of nations and then forgot to make them actual characters in the game experience, and what you actually got was cool animations and nothing else.

 

[Thormodr]

Civ4 games had storylines that develop between ur nation and AI characters/nations.

Civ5 is a game played between you and bad combat AI that's completely flat in character and who you cannot develop relationships with, made all the more flat and ridiculous by the over-the-top leader animations.

Hah,

It's ironic how much time they spent talking on how they want you to feel like you're meeting great leaders of nations and then forgot to make them actual characters in the game experience, and what you actually got was cool animations and nothing else.

That's a good point. They spent a lot of time and money on the animated leaders making them look good but they have such bad AI that they don't seem believable at all.

The graphics are really nice admittedly but the game play isn't. It seems to be style over substance here.

Perhaps with much better AI, the leaders will become much more interesting. That will likely take a very long time.

 

[the343danny]

I do like more immersion, but I think Civ 5 has a lot more potential to be immersive. Using the Economy Mod and the Balance mods (as well as my own buff to HP and sea tiles) help the game a whole lot, and along with Shiggs Earth, my current game is really quite brings me into the game. Sways of power here and there, powerful city states and some well developed cities as opposed to new cities really let me feel as if I am building my civilization. The Economy mod upped the research costs and lowered production costs, and balanced improvements (and adding upgrades for mines that were so much needed) and the Balance mod obviously balanced things, and it already made my game a whole lot better. Before, improvements were a bit weak, and you just didnt feel like you were growing your cities, as the improvements did so little. If such relatively simple mods can improve the game so much, and helps us immerse in the game, what lets us assume that Civ 4 is the king of immersion, when Civ 5 has just as much immersion and will continue to gain more through mods and expansions? Honestly, the most immersive part of Civ 5 came with the revolution mod packaged into LoR which I used. If the Revolution mod came out for Civ 5, IMO it will surpass LoR in immersion.

 

[polypheus]

@the343danny

Have you played Civ4:BTS RoM/AND mod? If Civ5 can exceed that (including expansions and mod) some day, then indeed you can say Civ5 has "more potential to be immersive". But it is likely that day won't come for a long time if ever. We'll wait and see.

 

[Rusty Edge]

Somewhat. I think BTS & it's mods represent the greatest game of all time- board, computer, console, and arcade included.

I like my games to be immersive. I usually come down on the god game/simulation/realsim side of things. Sometimes I build and sometimes I go to war.
I could do with a little streamlining. I prefer the Civ V governors. I only want to micromanage a few cities among dozens.

For me BTS hit the sweet spot. History in the Making and Legends of Revolution were even better. Rhyes and Fall of Civilization was another great one, however, it felt a little confining to me. It didn't have the replay value. Europa Universalis goes too far for my taste.

I still love Civ V . I'm looking forward to seeing it patched, balanced, and completed.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

But they added little and removed a lot that was good and replaced it with junk (like global happiness mechanic, science=population, etc etc) that are just way crude and flawed and largely destroyed historical immersion.

Those seem like two concepts that increase historical immersion...
Ideas (science) comes from population (better infrastructure/education improves that). (they failed to model the effect of losing science or transfer of ideas well but that is very hard without ruining gameplay)

Global Happiness... admittedly poorly named, but perhaps stability/administration, etc. This is what serves as city maintenance in civ 5, and it works well... your empire size is not limited by land... it is limited by happiness... keeping that empty space.

A lot need improving, but it seems more immersive in some ways than 4

 

[logintime]

That's a good point. They spent a lot of time and money on the animated leaders making them look good but they have such bad AI that they don't seem believable at all.

Not just that: They don't have personality. Beforehand, I always knew Monty was a back-stabbing psycho (and oh how I loved playing on the same maps as him). Mansa Musa was always looking to make a deal, even if he disliked you. Isabella's mood toward you depended almost entirely on whether or not you were the same religion as her- she could be a best friend or a worst nightmare. Gandhi was Gandhi. They all had distinct, noticeable personas and ways to interact with you.

Now? They basically all work the same: autistic sociopathic AI with little distinction between them. For all the talk about how they all have different traits on different scales, that's barely noticeable. Gandhi acts the same as Bismark acts the same as Monty acts the same as Washington. It doesn't feel like they're different people with differing values and approaches to governance. It feels like they are AI, and incomprehensible bad ones at that.

 

[zonk]

Somewhat important.

Don't get me wrong - history buff and I love EU, HOI, and Vicky is growing on me... but in a Civilization game, historical immersion is just awfully tough.

I recall Soren saying about IV, in discussing the concept of alternate tech paths, how it's interesting to think of "history" playing out differently on a grand scale, with the given example of projectiles over (birds? I think?) influencing early thoughts on human flight and humanity ending up with a completely different evolution of concepts we now take for granted.

I guess for that reason - I have hard time expecting too much historical immersion in civilization.... I mean - when you span 6000 years, a lot can change... Imagine humanity without the dark ages. Imagine if Zheng He hadn't died, the Chinese burned their fleet, etc.

The beauty of Civilization is (was.. sorry... couldn't resist) that you can/could do that -- but with radically different seeds, you end up with radically different outcomes - and that makes historical immersion difficult. It necessarily becomes very abstract... A few changes here and there and maybe we're all flying hover cars today - or conversely - still a bunch of squabbling tribes living in caves.

Paradox's titles intentionally limit the timeline so that they can keep historical guardrails in place -- but still allow you the fun of France never uniting, Byzantium never falling, the Ottomans hanging onto the Balkans, or what have you. That's extremely difficult to model when you get so expansive.

I'd love to see a game try to combine the historical majesty of EU/Hoi/Vicky with the sandox of Civilization -- but I just don't see how it could work. You're inevitably going to go off the rails.