Is anyone else disappointed by the quotes for Techs/Wonders?

Yes it was funny (at least for some time).
It wasn't any more seriously useful than the Civ6 quotes discussed here thought, which was my point.

Didn't knew back than Mr. Spock was the voice actor. Live long and prosper, and thanks for this information.
 
labellavienna said:
I knew something was off the moment I saw the graphics, and the whole "it was designed this way to make spotting things easier" excuse was to hide the fact that they are dumbing down this amazing game. I really hope I am wrong but my intuitions tell me this will be a much shallower version of its former self.

Please let me be wrong....I've been waiting for civ 6 forever!
Click to expand...

I completely agree.

CIV6 looks (very) promising in terms of gameplay updates, but they failed in tone. The graphics, the quotes. Someone high up in the development team doesn't quite get the feel of Civilization, the grand historical themes, the gravitas of human history.

I understand what they tried to go for with the map. It's not to be a "satelite view", but a map that could be laid out on some table in the age of exploration. The idea was solid. The execution was not.

It becomes doubly apparent when the music has the correct historical pathos, and is played together with Sean Bean quoting stand-up comedians. It's simply a horrendous crash in aesthetic.

In addition there are other nags that just feed into this picture, like the silly combat of religious units. The whole thing just feels off.
 
Sic said:
I completely agree.

CIV6 looks (very) promising in terms of gameplay updates, but they failed in tone. The graphics, the quotes. Someone high up in the development team doesn't quite get the feel of Civilization, the grand historical themes, the gravitas of human history.

I understand what they tried to go for with the map. It's not to be a "satelite view", but a map that could be laid out on some table in the age of exploration. The idea was solid. The execution was not.

It becomes doubly apparent when the music has the correct historical pathos, and is played together with Sean Bean quoting stand-up comedians. It's simply a horrendous crash in aesthetic.

In addition there are other nags that just feed into this picture, like the silly combat of religious units. The whole thing just feels off.
Click to expand...

To be honest it has more of a civ IV feel. It is serious still but not unwilling to joke around. As mentioned previously civ IV had humorous, if not downright silly, quotes, as well as other odd things (Gilgamesh shaking the camera comes to mind). The game really doesn't need to have a serious tone, I mean, it is a game, I don't know about you but I do in fact play games for fun.



They said there making the graphics easier to read so you can identify things more easily because this civ is more complex than its predecessors and you somehow you interpret that as them dumbing down the game because things on the map are easier to read so this makes it an excuse for hiding something. I don't really understand how you can claim something with your only evidence being misconstruing something one of the devs said.
 
Staler87 said:
To be honest it has more of a civ IV feel. It is serious still but not unwilling to joke around. As mentioned previously civ IV had humorous, if not downright silly, quotes, as well as other odd things (Gilgamesh shaking the camera comes to mind). The game really doesn't need to have a serious tone, I mean, it is a game, I don't know about you but I do in fact play games for fun.



They said there making the graphics easier to read so you can identify things more easily because this civ is more complex than its predecessors and you somehow you interpret that as them dumbing down the game because things on the map are easier to read so this makes it an excuse for hiding something. I don't really understand how you can claim something with your only evidence being misconstruing something one of the devs said.
Click to expand...

When I said "I agree" I meant the sentiment, not necessarily every detail of her post. I think I quite clearly state my position in my post. If you want to discuss the details in the post of someone else, you should quote them. As is, your post makes no sense.

In any case, she is saying the graphics are a symptom of a larger problem, and by the way, Beach said something completely different than the "all the better to see your stuff with" shtick, during the summer. If memory serves, his first argument was that it was supposed to look like a map from the Age of Exploration (that's what he says in the Eurogamer interview), which makes a lot more sense than "it needs to perfectly and swiftly communicate tile qualities". It's a turn-based game (there is no time pressure), people will need to learn new mechanics (and related visuals) anyways, and things that might be visually confusing (like districts), are still visually confusing. There are loads of ways to solve that problem without changing the art style completely.

The second part of your argument is that it's just about the main map view. Well, it isn't. This clash of aesthetics is permeating throughout the entire game. It's in unit visual design, it's in unit design, it's in quotations, it's in leader visual design etc. etc.

Staler87 said:
To be honest it has more of a civ IV feel. It is serious still but not unwilling to joke around. As mentioned previously civ IV had humorous, if not downright silly, quotes, as well as other odd things (Gilgamesh shaking the camera comes to mind). The game really doesn't need to have a serious tone, I mean, it is a game, I don't know about you but I do in fact play games for fun.
Click to expand...

This is an absolute rubbish argument. Horrendous, in fact.

It should have an aesthetic that works, for it to be the best game it can be, just like any other art or entertainment product.

Nothing needs to have any specific tone. Schindlers List doesn't need to be serious, and Anchorman doesn't need to be funny. It fits not having a drab looking black and white comedy about killing jews, and a drama about Will Ferrell acting like an idiot, though, doesn't it?

... and you're saying that you can't have fun with games that has "a serious tone"? I mean, honestly. I hope you understand how silly that sounds.
 
Last edited:
Honestly, listening to people wax poetic about history in this very thread is a lot more cringe inducing than any of the quotes from Civ 6.

History is a largely silly story that deserves to be mocked at every available opportunity.
 
The social media civic has this funny quote by TS Eliot with regards to being distracted by distraction from distraction (and those pursuing the cultural victory would have to hear that quote often).
 
Humorous quotes in Civ are OK by me, and Sean Bean did a great job.

However, the quality of the quotes are so inconsistent I can't escape the feeling that Firaxis gave the job of finding them to an intern. He or she googled "brainy quotes" and completed the job in an afternoon.

The worst quotes, imho, aren't even about the subject at hand. Examples: The wi-fi quote is about wi-fi, not Kilamanjaro. Same with Rome and AC.

As an example of a good quote, I give you Monty Python's "watery tart", which for all it's silliness is specifically about divine right.

Finally, since we don't have a forum for suggestions for Civ VII yet, I want to encourage Firaxis to crowd source the next game's quotes. This site alone would be a motherlode.
 
Sic said:
This is an absolute rubbish argument. Horrendous, in fact.

It should have an aesthetic that works, for it to be the best game it can be, just like any other art or entertainment product.

Nothing needs to have any specific tone. Schindlers List doesn't need to be serious, and Anchorman doesn't need to be funny. It fits not having a drab looking black and white comedy about killing jews, and a drama about Will Ferrell acting like an idiot, though, doesn't it?

... and you're saying that you can't have fun with games that has "a serious tone"? I mean, honestly. I hope you understand how silly that sounds.
Click to expand...

It's actually a good argument. It only doesn't work if you're taking the game far too seriously.

Specifically, Staler87 said "The game really doesn't need to have a serious tone, I mean, it is a game, I don't know about you but I do in fact play games for fun."

So by definition, they're saying that the game doesn't need a serious tone, that games should be fun. So you've completely missed their point.

I'm not sure what point you're attempting to make with Anchorman vs Schindlers List, but the argument doesn't hold true. Subject matter has no need to be conveyed in any other way than the artist conveying it wishes to. Mel Brooks has done comedies on WWII, it would only be an extension of that apply the same artistic formula to any given subject matter. Star Wars could have been done like any other space opera of it's era. We're lucky that it broke that mold.

Let's be serious for a moment, these are tech quotes. They literally pop up for a second and get dismissed. If they're breaking your game play to the point where it's worth considering it part of the overall "aesthetic", then there is a dire need to find something more constructive to do than pretending you're a world leader that can live 6000 years and manage the entirety of human civilization from your desktop...
 
Last edited:
Xyriach said:
It's actually a good argument. It only doesn't work if you're taking the game far too seriously.

Specifically, Staler87 said "The game really doesn't need to have a serious tone, I mean, it is a game, I don't know about you but I do in fact play games for fun."

So by definition, they're saying that the game doesn't need a serious tone, that games should be fun. So you've completely missed their point.
Click to expand...

No. You're reading whatever you want into a statement that has an inherent specific meaning.

There is no inherent relationship between the degree to which a game has a "serious tone" (as a whole) and the amount of fun anyone has with it. The two are completely and utterly disparate, and have no direct connection to each other whatsoever. One is a description of a type of style, the other is a description of a player response. The type of style, or type of formal attributes, of any aesthetic object doesn't factor into how much "fun" (an emotive response) it elicits in the player.

Since I repeat, almost verbatim, what you're saying I've misunderstood, in my previous post, I think it's fair to claim that I, in fact, did not miss anything at al-—and that it's not a bad idea to read texts thoroughly before responding to them.

Xyriach said:
I'm not sure what point you're attempting to make with Anchorman vs Schindlers List, but the argument doesn't hold true. Subject matter has no need to be conveyed in any other way than the artist conveying it wishes to. Mel Brooks has done comedies on WWII, it would only be an extension of that apply the same artistic formula to any given subject matter. Star Wars could have been done like any other space opera of it's era. We're lucky that it broke that mold.
Click to expand...

So you claim my argument "doesn't hold true", then repeat one that is similar, if not the exact same, as a "counter-argument"? I don't even know how to respond to that.

Let me make this a bit easier for you.

Everything else being equal, would you think a serious monologue about the Holocaust would fit in a film like Anchorman? What about a slapstick sequence in Schindlers List?

If I were to say to you that both those changes in style, or formal qualities would diminish the extent of my having "fun", would that clear things up for you? It's not the type of style that is the issue, it's that type of style not fitting into the existing aesthetic. I can enjoy both a "serious tone" and a "comedic tone", but if it's not integrated into an aesthetic whole that makes sense as an autonomous work, I will not be having "fun".
 
Last edited:
Xyriach said:
It's actually a good argument. It only doesn't work if you're taking the game far too seriously.

Specifically, Staler87 said "The game really doesn't need to have a serious tone, I mean, it is a game, I don't know about you but I do in fact play games for fun."

So by definition, they're saying that the game doesn't need a serious tone, that games should be fun. So you've completely missed their point.

I'm not sure what point you're attempting to make with Anchorman vs Schindlers List, but the argument doesn't hold true. Subject matter has no need to be conveyed in any other way than the artist conveying it wishes to. Mel Brooks has done comedies on WWII, it would only be an extension of that apply the same artistic formula to any given subject matter. Star Wars could have been done like any other space opera of it's era. We're lucky that it broke that mold.

Let's be serious for a moment, these are tech quotes. They literally pop up for a second and get dismissed. If they're breaking your game play to the point where it's worth considering it part of the overall "aesthetic", then there is a dire need to find something more constructive to do than pretending you're a world leader that can live 6000 years and manage the entirety of human civilization from your desktop...
Click to expand...

I was about to make the same reply then saw yours.
 
Edit - Some battles are simply not worth the effort....
 
Last edited:
I like it better when we had funny quotes but from historical figures, not just comedians. Like Napoleons quote about steam power from civ 4.
Now ALL the quotes seem to be from modern comedians! Some of them thrown in here and there, sure, but it feels very silly.
 
skyclad said:
I like it better when we had funny quotes but from historical figures, not just comedians. Like Napoleons quote about steam power from civ 4.
Now ALL the quotes seem to be from modern comedians! Some of them thrown in here and there, sure, but it feels very silly.
Click to expand...

I agree especially when they are mainly American comedians, to a british ear they seem weird. the only one I have laughed at was the monty python Sanitation one but only because it brought back memories of LoB.
 
skyclad said:
I like it better when we had funny quotes but from historical figures, not just comedians. Like Napoleons quote about steam power from civ 4.
Now ALL the quotes seem to be from modern comedians! Some of them thrown in here and there, sure, but it feels very silly.
Click to expand...

That's because the designers are completely ignorant of history. They've made this clear from the beginning.

Heck, I still can't get over 'Sea Dog'....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Loupgarou
Making quotes persist after the Popup is closed
Replies
1
Views
320
Loupgarou
Loupgarou
C
[BNW] Deity Great library newb trap is baiting me
Replies
1
Views
3K
Genghis the Barbarian
G
S
Sun Tzu's Art of War is the Worst Great Wonder in The Game
2
Replies
30
Views
5K
justanick
J
M
UU/UB's and Wonders for map type, map speed and tech trading type
Replies
5
Views
3K
sampsa
sampsa
W
Apollo Difficulty Guide for Hutama (Rising Tides)
Replies
2
Views
3K
War-mongering_Child
W
Back
Top Bottom