Historical Immersion Factor

[joyous_gard]

Still better than CivIV in that respect though. Or *gasp* Civ2, actually.



I'm pretty sure you can do that in CivIV too. Heck, it was probably easier with tech trading and such.



That's down to your strategy. You can hold off researching Rifling, if you're not out to rush anyone.



It's empire-wide happiness. I'd imagine the new citizens of the empire who've just been invaded and beaten wouldn't be too happy.



Culture bombs are crap in general. In my games, unless there's a resource I really need that's just out of reach, Great Artist = Golden Age.



Then don't use ICS.

Your oneliners aren't doing it for me. I don't think of you as having any extra contribution because of your douchebag one liners. People want to to know why we experience less immersion so we tell them. We're not interested in reading your "rebuttals" to our opinions. Loss of immersion is something that is pretty obvious for a percentage of the people on this forum. Get used to that and learn to accept an opinion different from yours.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Immersion for me as pertains to Civ is gameplay depth and attention to detail. It enables me to play countless games and not really feel like I have had one quite like it before. The current version of Civ has less gameplay depth and less attention was paid to detail. I can only compare it to what I know.

Fair enough, but be careful because gameplay depth is an objective measaure, while the perceived feeling you reference is not.

It's been a while since I have been let down by the immersion of the Civ V. I now am grinding out the achievements so I am in a different style of gameplay than my historical Civ style of play.

Achievements are a special can of worms in gaming. They've done a lot on both sides of it...let's leave this one neutral; one can always choose to ignore them.

Off the top of my head:

The tile enhancements are too simple and gamey. Loss of immersion. Can I elaborate? Yes. There are fewer enhancements and they feel contrived to me. In the predecessor it felt like enhancements were diverse and attempted to model civilization to a game. Windmills are tile enhancements not buildings. Loss of immersion. I know they were built in cities too, but in Texas, they are tile enhancements.

Farm: Both games
Cottage: IV
Trading post: V
Mine: Both
Lumber mill: Both
Special resource improvements: Both
Windmill: IV
Workshop: IV
Watermill: IV

Indeed, while the early games options are very similar (IV's windmills/watermills/workshops sucked beyond belief early game), you have a point here. I might be forgetting one or two for V but even so. This isn't historical immersion, but it's still immersion (you are distinctively losing the option to prioritize certain techs to make emphasis on tile improvements viable). +1 to the less-immersive argument.

Buildings are one dimensional (15% this or +2 F). Loss of immersion. A lot of detail was ripped out of the previous version. Like a forge did a couple of things.

I cut a lot of this wall of text. Buildings are more immersive in V than IV at competitive levels, simply put. Why? Because you have more factors to consider when building one. Over-investment in buildings was one of THE greatest rookie/midlevel player mistakes in civ IV. Wait...an empire building game that punishes buildings? Yeah, and they were consistently behind options, save for a few "obvious" ones that went in every city. In civ IV it was *usually* the case that a market wasn't worth it compared to building wealth X_X. In V you have the consideration of ROI against other options along with maintenance cost. Despite what you say, ultimate functionality of buildings has been very similar in every game in the series when it comes to tradeoffs.

Land resources (notwithstanding marble) all become active at the same time and are improved via one enhancement. Loss of immersion. Plantation for +5 smiles please. The previous version of the game had some diversity in where to get giggles. I fully expected more of that kind of attention to detail. I don't see any of that kind of attention to detail in this version. It is stripped out.

Now hold on a minute here:

Civ IV happy resources: Plantation, mine, camp, fishing boat (one resource) winery (one resource).
Civ V happy resources: Plantation, mine, camp, fishing boats (two resources).

Winery got lumped in with calendar while a new resource was added to coastal waters, where there had been none (whales were always ocean). I don't think you can make a strong case here...it's largely the same! is a different mechanic though, and sources of it are quite diverse...coming from resources, buildings, social policies. That is very very similar to IV, so you can't logically call this out for immersion.

Trading posts give +1 science because a social policy said so. Loss of immersion. I started a thread on this.

Hah. As if cottages didn't employ a similar gimmick. Farms too and other tile improvements, too. And jebus, V is miles ahead of titles before IV.

The tech tree feels constricted and narrow (compared to Civ IV). Loss of immersion. It doesn't feel as grand to me. It feels like there's a bottleneck right when I am coming into a period of great growth for my civilization. My cities are getting larger, I am secure in my borders and the only thing my people can think to research is Military Science?

It depends heavily on the path you choose - for example I've never been bottle-necked on MS. V allows for some DEEP beelines...even deeper than IV...and has much less reliance on gamey tech trade abuse (and luck on whether such is possible).

Researching penicillin. Loss of immersion. It's a discovery during the advent of pharmaceuticals. Give it a less hokey name.

You can do better than this. Every civ tree I've seen has crud like that. It's more of an immersion status quo, like a lot of your complaints actually.

Units obsoleted before I can build them. Loss of immersion. I stole that one from your Polycast. That is more game balance but it contributes to the awkward feel of the game.

Once again, immersion status quo. I think you'll realize that I've had problems with that "feature" since civ IV, unless playing on slow speeds. Pacing is off in V and it's been off for a while on standard speeds.

Victory screen. Loss of immersion, rage at how incomplete the game is. Serious kick in the balls. I played a five hour long Click Nextfest and all I get is this lousy screen?

Well, it's status quo more than you think, but I will definitely give it a +1. Actually, for any time I said "status quo" above, give it a +1. Mistakes from 5+ years ago should not be repeated constantly. Their lack of caring about known problems in favor of attention to graphics and other less-gameplay-relevant priorities is one of my greatest sources of frustration and I will not give them a pass for it. While this has been a consistent problem in the series, it doesn't make it "ok" now. While I stand by my statement that this game is not less immersive than other titles, it is still underwhelming.

Only two types of crops. Loss of immersion. That's in my trading posts thread.

You miss the extra bonus tile that badly, huh.

Regions of the earth less distinguishable than previous Civ version. Loss of immersion. I don't know about this one. But the maps all feel similar. This is definitely a feeling. I haven't seen a jungle in Civ V. I've seen jungle tiles. But no jungles. It just seems ignorant to me.

Graphics are the least of our concern. I will not accept graphics arguments. Their prioritization of pretty looks over gameplay is one of the greatest sources of immersion loss IMO. I will not accept arguments that things that actively kill it should be emphasized.

Ivory spawning near tundra. Loss of immersion. I've seen this. I wish I knew how to do screen caps. But resources seem to spawn randomly. It doesn't feel like the designers knew where to spawn stuff. Except for oil. That seems to spawn in the right places. Maybe they have to have resources spawn everywhere because happiness is so restricting now.

Or for balance reasons, although elephants can make it pretty far north in Asia actually.

There are many, many little things which just point at how little thought was given to the actually world and taking your civilization through time. It's as if they just thought "Oh that's a given. We got that." The intro at the beginning of game "Can you take your civ through time?" The game doesn't live up to the reputation that the series built.

"You're just now realizing this?". Certainly, you're not going to argue IV is better. Maybe III.

Let's take for example land smile resources. They all do the same thing. That is a loss of immersion because it is too simple for me. I don't need it to be dead on accurate where silk provides the exact amount of smiles as happened in ancient China. I just need some GD variability. Everything plantation. It is oversimplified to the point of distraction or loss of immersion.

There is such a thing as going too far in the other direction. If gameplay balance gets thrown too far off-kilter, any other efforts towards immersion die instantly. Indeed, this is ALREADY a fundamental problem in IV/V - war + big empires are simply too strong compared to alternatives.

Don't get me wrong. I never understood what everything did in the previous version. I would hover over a granary and see 50% this and +1 that if you have wheat. And I would think "Oh I have wheat, I will build it." And it made sense because granaries are where grain is stored. I wasn't trying for a way to optimize my GP production. I didn't need a dumbed down game so I could optimize my GP production. I needed a game that had depth and a certain amount of historical and geographical detail that is missing in this game.

Ouch. It's painful reading this. You *do* realize that granaries were priority #1 in every city that didn't need a border pop for a key tile, and priority #2 in those that did, right? They were the #1 economic building in the game, bar none. If you want to talked dumbed down, don't cite a "build this everywhere without exception" example.

I don't do that at all now. I am basically just waiting for the game to end now. Sure I check - colliseum, check; Circus, no horse darn, market, check; bank, check; stock exchange won't finish, check. This is a stripped down civ. Civ Barebones.

? You used to check for buildings, now you don't? How is that objective or even reasonable?

There are other things too I guess, but you wanted some examples so that is them for now. It is a reduction of depth in buildings, resources, enhancements. Everything "turning on" at calendar is just hokey. At least in Civ IV they had some variability with different timings and those timings tried to get tied to how mankind civilized the world.

I applaud your efforts. You have a lot of flawed understandings on mechanics in both games, but your inputs are still worthwhile in a thread like this and you raise legit concerns. I'm not sure you can topple my argument that V no less immersive than other titles in the series, but you certainly have called attention to YET MORE issues with this game that I've not considered.

 

[katipunero]

All this talk about 'historical immersion' reminds me of high school literary criticism. wow that's too long ago already. the words gravitas, verisimilitude and sublimity come to mind. the last one i believe is appropriate so i quote longinus on this one:

"When a man of sense and (literary) experience hears something many time over and it fails to dispose his mind to greatness or (fails) to leave him with more to reflect upon than was contained in the mere words, but comes instead to seem valueless on repeated inspection, this is no true sublimity. It endures only for the moment of hearing.

Real sublimity contains much food for reflection, is difficult or rather impossible to resist, and makes a strong and ineffaceable impression on the memory. In a word, reckon those things which please everybody all the time as genuinely and finely sublime. When people of different trainings, ways of life, tastes, ages and manners all agree about something, the judgment and assent of so many distinct voices lends strength and irrefutably to the conviction that their admiration is rightly directed.

historical immersion, in my opinion, is hardly the issue here. maybe its just semantics but i don't believe the feeling of emptiness and dissatisfaction from playing a game of civ is caused by its failure to conform to the exactitudes of historical reality. TMIT says it right, although scathingly, that each version of civ had its share of gameplay and thematic issues. No one can really claim that one is less or more historically immersive than the other.

Let's not forget that Civ4 had a ton of inaccuracies too. But for all its faults Civ4 was epic beyond words that most of the players were all too willing to ignore the occasional excursions to the world of the impossible and the improbable. Civ5 is no different from its predecessors in this aspect. What is surprising in Civ5's case is how the game has inspired so much desperate nitpicking and analyses in such magnitude and detail like never before seen in the franchise's history. Is it really because of the historical inaccuracies that make civ 5 such a failure in providing us with sublime gaming experience? or can it be that civ 5 while ambitious falls short of its aim at grandeur that most fans of the series find themselves surveying the horizon for flaws and errors if only to explain the shallow and broken feeling in playing civ 5?

so if i could take back my vote, i change my mind about historical immersion being extremely important. maybe more along the lines of being somewhat important and where gameplay balance is somewhat just as important.

as for sublimity, i'd say "baba yetu" (still use it to load BTS), nimoy's tech quotes, the gorgeous smiling and frowning tongue-in-cheek leader head animations, the era specific soundtrack/ambiance, the wonder and victory animations, the globe view, the detailed and functional advisor screens, and other doodads made civ 4 epic and sublime for me.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

That's not a point, that's an opinion, and one that is highly contentious.

Sorry, but in what way is my opinion more contentious than yours? I'd say my view is backed by the words of Dennis Shirk-who effectively admitted that Civ5 was designed to attract the CivRev crowd.
You also make a common error in conflating historical accuracy with historical immersion. The former is never going to be achieved when it takes 1,000 years to build a granary, or 200 years to cross a single desert. However, Civ4 (&, to a lesser extent, Civ3) achieved a great deal of historical immersion for me-by making me feel like I was part of a living, breathing & *dynamic* world. This sense of immersion was achieved via the implementation of a number of key features (like Rational Diplomacy, Health, Civics, Culture Wars & Religion). True they weren't perfect in their implementation but their complete absence in Civ5 robs the game of that dynamic, immersive feeling (especially as the *new* features implemented in Civ5 were done so even less perfectly). Thus what I am currently left with in Civ5 is a game that looks very pretty on the surface, but which is actually just a hollow shell of what Civ4 was. Had they taken some of these Game Features & improved on them, then I do believe that Civ5 would have been the most immersive game ever.

As a specific example-yes you're right that culture flipping wasn't "realistic", but it was dynamic & interesting-in spite of its flaws-& made me feel like I was in charge of a *real* empire. Now imagine if, instead of scrapping the mechanic entirely, they'd instead made it that more than 50% control of a tile gave you the ability to *buy* that tile from your neighbour (Louisiana Purchase, anyone?) Imagine if the cultural mix in your cities played a significant role in your happiness-especially if you went to war with a civilization whose culture was strongly represented in your cities. Imagine how good it would have been if foreign trade was a means of "infecting" foreign cities with your culture-making peaceful relations with said Civs much more achievable. Imagine if fighting a border war, or building a fort, allowed you to increase your cultural control of a tile &/or the tiles around it. Suddenly the game becomes *more* dynamic & immersive, & the key problem in the implementation in Civ4 is eliminated!
Unfortunately, as the CivRev crowd would probably have difficulty understanding these kinds of mechanics, they were simply stripped from the game altogether!

Aussie.

 

[frkhead]

Sorry, but in what way is my opinion more contentious than yours? I'd say my view is backed by the words of Dennis Shirk-who effectively admitted that Civ5 was designed to attract the CivRev crowd.
You also make a common error in conflating historical accuracy with historical immersion. The former is never going to be achieved when it takes 1,000 years to build a granary, or 200 years to cross a single desert. However, Civ4 (&, to a lesser extent, Civ3) achieved a great deal of historical immersion for me-by making me feel like I was part of a living, breathing & *dynamic* world. This sense of immersion was achieved via the implementation of a number of key features (like Rational Diplomacy, Health, Civics, Culture Wars & Religion). True they weren't perfect in their implementation but their complete absence in Civ5 robs the game of that dynamic, immersive feeling (especially as the *new* features implemented in Civ5 were done so even less perfectly). Thus what I am currently left with in Civ5 is a game that looks very pretty on the surface, but which is actually just a hollow shell of what Civ4 was. Had they taken some of these Game Features & improved on them, then I do believe that Civ5 would have been the most immersive game ever.

As a specific example-yes you're right that culture flipping wasn't "realistic", but it was dynamic & interesting-in spite of its flaws-& made me feel like I was in charge of a *real* empire. Now imagine if, instead of scrapping the mechanic entirely, they'd instead made it that more than 50% control of a tile gave you the ability to *buy* that tile from your neighbour (Louisiana Purchase, anyone?) Imagine if the cultural mix in your cities played a significant role in your happiness-especially if you went to war with a civilization whose culture was strongly represented in your cities. Imagine how good it would have been if foreign trade was a means of "infecting" foreign cities with your culture-making peaceful relations with said Civs much more achievable. Imagine if fighting a border war, or building a fort, allowed you to increase your cultural control of a tile &/or the tiles around it. Suddenly the game becomes *more* dynamic & immersive, & the key problem in the implementation in Civ4 is eliminated!
Unfortunately, as the CivRev crowd would probably have difficulty understanding these kinds of mechanics, they were simply stripped from the game altogether!

Aussie.

Amen to that!

 

[eric_]

That's fine but I didn't need to use much "imaginative thinking" to rationalize Civ4 local happiness mechanic. Sure its not perfect but it makes a lot more sense because again in Civ4, stuff that doesn't make sense like how circuses and colosseums in podunk towns have empire-wide effects just doesn't happen in the first place. So the more you have elements that require more rationalization and "imaginative thinking" the more its going to strain historical immersion.

And, you don't need to use much in Civ 5, either, hence "a very little". That's my point. Both strain credulity when held up against the real world, but both can be seen as reasonable analogs with a modicum of creative thinking. Also, I wasn't criticizing 4, I think 4 was equally unrealistic on the whole, but I don't think that constitutes a negative for either installation.

Yes there was anger wrt to the Iraq War as many people felt it was unjustified. But most of the current problems

You said people in the US support wars that the US is winning. The early phase of the Iraq war flies directly in the face of that assertion.

The "citizen unrest" over the Vietnam War was exactly what caused the US to pull out and let the South Vietnamese take over the anti-communist efforts.

A) It lasted for 20 years (1 November 1955 - to 15 May 1975) with protests beginning in the early - mid 60s (so at least 10 years of citizen opposition prior to withdrawal).
B) We left Vietnam because our mission was a disastrous failure.

How does Civ5 deal with it in a "localized fashion"? The point is that it doesn't and thus global happiness overall feels more gamey because its effects make less sense. You sort of seem to agree to some extent. So if that is the case, then it should makes sense how stuff like global happiness is going to feel less immersive and more gamey to a lot of people.

Because a localized decision (annex, puppet, or raze) has a quantifiable affect on overall happiness. I get that you don't like that unhappiness is spread across the empire rather than enumerated in each individual city, but it doesn't lead to different choices overall compared with 4 wrt to city buildings Civ4.

 

[eric_]

Sorry, but in what way is my opinion more contentious than yours?

Something about saying "people don't have the guts" is pretty contentious...and hilarious. I love when people get tough on the Intertron!

Second, I'm not sure you and Shu are on opposite sides of the issue. He seems to be arguing that Culture is focused at an origin point, which you agree with. Correct me if I'm wrong, he hasn't offered evidence of uniform expansion has he?

Correct on all counts.

Would you both support an system of asymmetric expansion in Civ V without the restriction of 1 tile at a time? If not, why?

This is in there, imo. You can buy tiles and thus expand by more than one tile at at time. This also replicates the earlier idea of "sending your peasants to some remote forest to harvest wood"). In the same vein, I do really like the idea put forward about being able to purchase borderlands from a rival if your culture is strong enough in a tile or a set of tiles.

 

[sketch162000]

Let's not forget that Civ4 had a ton of inaccuracies too. But for all its faults Civ4 was epic beyond words that most of the players were all too willing to ignore the occasional excursions to the world of the impossible and the improbable. Civ5 is no different from its predecessors in this aspect.

Thus what I am currently left with in Civ5 is a game that looks very pretty on the surface, but which is actually just a hollow shell of what Civ4 was. Had they taken some of these Game Features & improved on them, then I do believe that Civ5 would have been the most immersive game ever.

This. (These?)

Brings up an interesting point. For all the talk about Civ V being a "different" game, I wonder if the devs really took the design of a brand new game to heart. I mean, in many cases it seems like Civ V is trying *not* to be Civ IV rather than really being Civ V, so to speak. No tech trading, no religion, no espionage, obscure diplo...It seems like the devs actively removed these things from the equation, because they could be exploited in Civ IV rather than building a game from the ground up and figuring out what made sense and what didn't...Perhaps the devs considered IV too much in this regard. It seems like many of the design decisions were inspired by a desire to break away from IV.

I pulled it out of a hat, but it's just a thought.

 

[Vordeo]

Your oneliners aren't doing it for me. I don't think of you as having any extra contribution because of your douchebag one liners.

Was I talking to you?

*Checks*

Nope.

And calling people douchebags reveals a marked lack of class.

Also, no matter how much you don't like them, doesn't mean they aren't right.

People want to to know why we experience less immersion so we tell them. We're not interested in reading your "rebuttals" to our opinions.

So the following post never happened?

Can't help but notice that not *one* of Civ5 defenders has actually had the guts to challenge my list of anti-immersive factors. Maybe because, unlike them, I've actually backed my list up with *facts*!

Aussie.

Yeah, that's not a challenge to rebut opinions, not at freaking all.

Also, if you don't want people to reply to your opinions, don't post them on a public message board. It's common sense.

Loss of immersion is something that is pretty obvious for a percentage of the people on this forum. Get used to that and learn to accept an opinion different from yours.

So I can't post my own opinions because you don't like them now?

Also, if people post points that are flat out wrong, don't act surprised if people reply to them.

And again, this isn't really any of your business, is it? If you think I'm out of line, report me. If you think I'm wrong, rebut my points.

 

[Vordeo]

Sorry, but in what way is my opinion more contentious than yours?

This issue is contentious. Not your opinion. Apologies, I worded that poorly.

I'd say my view is backed by the words of Dennis Shirk-who effectively admitted that Civ5 was designed to attract the CivRev crowd.

No, not really. Not unless you can definitively prove a negative correlation between simplicity and historical accuracy/immersion.

Again, immersion is something that is entirely objective.

You also make a common error in conflating historical accuracy with historical immersion. The former is never going to be achieved when it takes 1,000 years to build a granary, or 200 years to cross a single desert. However, Civ4 (&, to a lesser extent, Civ3) achieved a great deal of historical immersion for me-by making me feel like I was part of a living, breathing & *dynamic* world.

So basically this is just your opinion?

Then why on Earth did you ask people for a rebuttal to your fact based points? This is all your opinion, there really isn't any point to debating it, is there?

I could say that I find 1UPT essential to immersion, so CiV would be more immersive than CivIV. How on Earth would you rebut something that is completely subjective?

Unfortunately, as the CivRev crowd would probably have difficulty understanding these kinds of mechanics, they were simply stripped from the game altogether!

Aussie.

That's total BS, and frankly insulting to everyone who enjoyed CivRev.

Something about saying "people don't have the guts" is pretty contentious...and hilarious. I love when people get tough on the Intertron!

Hahaha, QFT.

 

[eric_]

Sorry...QFT?

I could say that I find 1UPT essential to immersion, so CiV would be more immersive than CivIV. How on Earth would you rebut something that is completely subjective?

1upt leads to FAR more immersion for me.

For an example of how immersing ciV is for me in general, check out this post, particularly the Current Game description:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=9871760&postcount=37

 

[Vordeo]

Sorry...QFT?

Quoted For Truth.

1upt leads to FAR more immersion for me.

Agreed, personally. I'm mostly just saying that you can't really rebut opinions.

 

[eric_]

Aw, c'mon, that's the core allure of the Interwebs!

 

[Jerrymander]

Agreed, personally. I'm mostly just saying that you can't really rebut opinions.

Yes you can. A rebuttal is just a refutation of a contrary argument. This thread is full of successful rebuttals. Now, persuasion (over the internet) is probably impossible.

 

[Paradigne]

I've really been laughing at a lot of these posts. All I can say is: You get what you want out of it.The game CAN be immersive, but only if you let it be.

Is the game easier with ICS? Probably, I've never tried it. Name one country EVER that exploded like that. Cities are founded where they are needed, not where you want them. They are near resources, and rivers and points of interest. It's kind of funny that we get bonuses for those

Happiness buildings make perfect since. You build one coliseum and the people rejoice. "We can go to ROME and see the gladiators"!!! So what if it's halfway across the continent. We have a second coliseum: "My team is better than your team" - we have more happiness. How exciting would football be if there was only one football stadium?

Every improvement, every tactic can be explained if you want to. If you have a little imagination. If you try to make it historically immersive, it will be.

I guess growing up playing with a D&D rulebook, 5 dice, a piece of paper and a pencil kind of expanded my imagination a bit.

 

[ShuShu62]

Name one country EVER that exploded like that.

Ummmm,,,,, Texas?

Actually, cities are founded everywhere. And when one ICS begins overlapping another ICS, you get war.

 

[sketch162000]

Happiness buildings make perfect since. You build one coliseum and the people rejoice. "We can go to ROME and see the gladiators"!!! So what if it's halfway across the continent. We have a second coliseum: "My team is better than your team" - we have more happiness. How exciting would football be if there was only one football stadium?

...except it would be prohibitively expensive, dangerous, and wasteful for the average citizen to travel all the way across the continent just for the gladiators prior to railroad. It's like "Hey, I heard they built a massive stadium in the capital! Great, all glory to the empire. Too bad I'll probably never see it and it changes absolutely nothing about my quality of life here "

 

[Lone Wolf]

Think of "happiness" as "overall stability". I wonder why they didn't call it like that in the first place. Overextension had been a problem with many empires.

 

[Paradigne]

...except it would be prohibitively expensive, dangerous, and wasteful for the average citizen to travel all the way across the continent just for the gladiators prior to railroad. It's like "Hey, I heard they built a massive stadium in the capital! Great, all glory to the empire. Too bad I'll probably never see it and it changes absolutely nothing about my quality of life here "

But would you have to SEE a gladiator match to be regaled by tales of such an experience? I mean really, there wasn't much to do after the sun went down in the old days

 

[sketch162000]

But would you have to SEE a gladiator match to be regaled by tales of such an experience? I mean really, there wasn't much to do after the sun went down in the old days

By that logic I would argue that happiness buildings should make it worse...I'd get jealous and angry if some b*stard from a bigger city is gloating about the gladiator matches while our fearless leader has neglected to build even a granary in my city.