Policies

[amboo]

I wouldn't say that. Doesn't look anything like an RPG to me.

No it only looks like an RPG to you!

You have to "make believe" to make this game make sense for you.

 

[Venereus]

I wouldn't say that. Doesn't look anything like an RPG to me.

Really? Does this look familiar to you?

 

[Thormodr]

They do look pretty RPGish actually. After all, that's some of the people that Firaxis and 2K Games are targeting with this watered down game. I can't say anyone should be surprised by that.

The social policy trees look like something out of Diablo II or Torchlight. Not identical of course but RPGers will be familiar enough with the concept.

EDIT: Beaten to the punch.

 

[Venereus]

Yeah, being an RPG veteran I don't mind it much. I do mind the useless XP bar they also took from RPG, where they do matter. And I definitely mind denial.

 

[charon2112]

Really? Does this look familiar to you?

So because the social policies are in a chart with symbols, that makes it an RPG? Or is it the fact that we have dynamic leader abilities now instead of static...that makes it an RPG? You guys are reaching a bit.

 

[AfterShafter]

It's called post-modernism. Ideologies are dead, anything goes, and everyone buys the media BS.

You realize this is supposed to represent state policy, not just what they're talking about in the media, right? This isn't a case of "Oh, this represents reality" this is a case of "The game never pretended to be real."

 

[Thormodr]

So because the social policies are in a chart with symbols, that makes it an RPG? Or is it the fact that we have dynamic leader abilities now instead of static...that makes it an RPG? You guys are reaching a bit.

Not really. They are targeting a certain demographic and I think it's quite clever of them. I have enjoyed playing Diablo I and II plus Torchlight over the years. Good casual fun.

I don't agree with them watering down the game to make it more accessible and appealing to RPGers among others though. They should have followed the god game design principles used in Civs I through IV rather than totally deviating and following a board game design trying to lure in the casual gaming crowd.

 

[AfterShafter]

Are people really trying to suggest that Civ V is an RPG because of one small mechanic?...

 

[Venereus]

You realize this is supposed to represent state policy, not just what they're talking about in the media, right? This isn't a case of "Oh, this represents reality" this is a case of "The game never pretended to be real."

You realize I was kidding, right? That was in no way a proper post in response to the OP, it "never pretended to be real".

Anyway, representing reality in games brings the huge reward of intuitive gameplay. What you know carries over and can be applied in a safe enviroment for you to play around and even role-play. That was the beauty of Goverments and Civics in past Civs.

 

[Venereus]

Are people really trying to suggest that Civ V is an RPG because of one small mechanic?...

No, no. You're missing the point. We're saying the Social Policies mechanic is based on RPG's skill/talent trees, that appeal to a wider audience. It's a great choice if, like in Civ V, you're streamlining/simplifying things. And we're talking about it because knowing that helps you make sense of it.

 

[Esckey]

If you could get some kind of refund on on your policies(not 100% like 50%), allowing you to select new ones it would be a pretty good system. I'm not a fan of being able to have every aspect of a tree.

But I think this could be modded in correct?

 

[AfterShafter]

No, no. You're missing the point. We're saying the Social Policies mechanic is based on RPG's skill/talent trees, that appeal to a wider audience. It's a great choice if, like in Civ V, you're streamlining/simplifying things. And we're talking about it because knowing that helps you make sense of it.

To quote you...

"Translation: it's an RPG."

THAT is what you said. Apparently you were suggesting or insinuating something different. You could stand to work on better communicating what you're actually trying to say pure text.

 

[Thormodr]

To quote you...

"Translation: it's an RPG."

THAT is what you said. Apparently you were suggesting or insinuating something different. You could stand to work on better communicating what you're actually trying to say pure text.

Ironically, I'm not sure what you are trying to communicate here to be honest.

Anyway, it definitely is RPGish and that's exactly what the developers intended. At least they had the courtesy not to shout "level up!" when you advanced an era.

 

[AfterShafter]

I'm not sure what you are trying to communicate here to be honest.

Anyway, it definitely is RPGish and that's exactly what the developers intended. At least they had the courtesy not to shout "level up!" when you advanced an era.

I'm trying to communicate that the fellow I was referencing has said two things and had to come back and explain "Oh, I was ACTUALLY saying this." If you say "So it's an RPG" that's not the same as saying "Oh, you see, they're adopting RPG elements to appeal to different demographics." In fact, they aren't even in the same ball park. If he wants to communicate the latter, the former - which is what he actually said - is a very poor way to go about it.

Besides, why are you responding to this? I was talking to him, not you.

 

[Venereus]

To quote you...

"Translation: it's an RPG."

THAT is what you said. Apparently you were suggesting or insinuating something different. You could stand to work on better communicating what you're actually trying to say pure text.

You could add the post that quote was a response to. Quoting out of context usually leads to bad communication.

charon2112 said the SP are like a civ leader with evolving traits. If you look at it that way, it's the twin borther of an RPG concept called "character development", wich is usually represented by talent trees in the UI, that unsurprisingly look just like the Social Policies display. If you played any classic RPG, what I said was all you needed to get me. Don't blame me for overestimating my audience.

 

[Thormodr]

I'm trying to communicate that the fellow I was referencing has said two things and had to come back and explain "Oh, I was ACTUALLY saying this." If you say "So it's an RPG" that's not the same as saying "Oh, you see, they're adopting RPG elements to appeal to different demographics." In fact, they aren't even in the same ball park. If he wants to communicate the latter, the former - which is what he said did - is a very poor way to go about it.

Besides, why are you responding to this? I was talking to him, not you.

I was kind of wondering why you bashed his communication skills and then produced a sentence which really didn't make any sense. I'm still confused about the "pure text" bit.

 

[AfterShafter]

You could add the post that quote was a response to. Quoting out of context usually leads to bad communication.

charon2112 said the SP are like a civ leader with evolving traits. If you look at it that way, it's the twin borther of an RPG concept called "character development", wich is usually represented by talent trees in the UI, that unsurprisingly look just like the Social Policies display. If you played any classic RPG, what I said was all you needed to get me. Don't blame me for overestimating my audience.

I actually read that before I responded and it really didn't help clarify that you weren't in fact saying the game was an RPG... Because, that's exactly what you said, with no further explanation of equivocation. Thormodr actually elaborated on this and I got his position quite clearly, but you never did. You just said "it's an RPG" and didn't bother to elaborate at all until I questioned it - at which point you further explained. The first I heard you mention anything about it being another type of game with RPG elements came after I questioned about it - your only comment prior to that was "It's an RPG."

I'm just suggesting, if you want people to think you think the game has RPG elements but is not an RPG, actually explaining that is a good place to start.

 

[Venereus]

I actually read that before I responded and it really didn't help clarify that you weren't in fact saying the game was an RPG... Because, that's exactly what you said, with no further explanation of equivocation. Thormodr actually elaborated on this and I got his position quite clearly, but you never did. You just said "it's an RPG" and didn't bother to elaborate at all until I questioned it - at which point you further explained. The first I heard you mention anything about it being another type of game with RPG elements came after I questioned about it - your only comment prior to that was "It's an RPG."

I'm just suggesting, if you want people to think you think the game has RPG elements but is not an RPG, actually explaining that is a good place to start.

What's the thread's title? "Policies". What was charon2112 post's subject? Social Policies. So, if a quote charon2112's post in a response to this thread, what made you think that by "it" I meant "Civ V"? Should I have said "it's an RPG mini-game within a strategy game"? Really?

 

[Guardian_PL]

I actually prefer social policies in V to the civics in IV. I never liked that you could completely change your entire civilizations form of government, have a few turns of anarchy and then 'bam'...everything's changed. In V, you build your civilization as you go, and the decisions you make permanently change your empire, and thus need to be weighed carefully. I wasn't a fan of any of the aspects of IV that allows this changing of your civilization on a dime, like sliders.

Yeah we all know how brilliant and polished Civ5 is to you, but I have to admit that your arguments are getting more and more... Strange. "Few turns of anarchy"... Maybe for you, for your nation it's like 20 years or 200 years. And yes, even in 21st century a lot of governments are using Police State or even Slavery while few centuries before they had Organized Religion or sth.

And now if you're "Pious" or "Great" you're to stay that way for the entire game. And you call that better? Oh no, I forgot, you can trasform from Piety to Rationalism in "few turns of anarchy, and then 'bam'...everything is changed". So how exactly it is good in Civ5, but bad in Civ4???

That comparizon to Diablo skill tree is spot on - it's exactly the same stuff, so it won't require to much thinking from the player (like people used to say that Spiritual trait is lame and requires juggling your civics every few turns to make any use from it )

But no matter what negative thing I'll say about Civ5 you'll still dismiss it or ignore so it's kind of pointless to discuss anything with you, I just wanted to underscore how strange your logic seems to me (that civics in Civ4 are to you worse than stiff and boring skill tree in Civ5).

 

[AfterShafter]

What's the thread's title? "Policies". What was charon2112 post's subject? Social Policies. So, if a quote charon2112's post in a response to this thread, what made you think that by "it" I meant "Civ V"? Should I have said "it's an RPG mini-game within a strategy game"? Really?

An RPG is a game type. "It's an RPG" really doesn't make much sense in referring to the policy tree, it makes sense referring to a game. A skill tree is no more a "mini game" here than it was in Diablo II - it's a skill tree, a gameplay element, it's not a game.

I'm simply suggesting, if you want to say "the Social Policies mechanic is based on RPG's skill/talent trees, that appeal to a wider audience" saying "It's an RPG" does a pretty poor job of explaining that and STRONGLY suggests something that you evidently weren't trying to say.

Up to you... Though I don't know why you're coming at me like I'm saying something out of sorts here. If you're trying to communicate information to your audience, I'm part of that audience - that your posts lead me to believe X when you wanted to say Y is much more likely your fault than mine, and it's up to you to correct it, not me.