Reasons why there is no civ atmosphere

[Ignorant Teacher]

Games are a work of fiction and, as such, should have well-defined characters IMO. There's no contradiction between having an efficient AI and an AI that role plays a bit. None of the two games did a great job in that department.

 

[Knightly_]

Maybe some didnt get my point. I say that Firaxis failed to create an atmospheric game... where you actually have the feeling that everything fits together. This is not about high end graphics quality, not about computer AI, music tracks itself and it has nothing to do with if you win a game or not. Very good examples of great atmosphere games are (for me) Half Life and Call of Duty 2 (first mission of Russia just blew my mind). While it is easier to create an atmosphere in a first person shooter the civilization series always created this "I build up a nation out of nothing and make my way through history" feeling for me. This is what i am missing in civ5. All things i mentioned contribute to this:

-the music is not giving you the feeling that you move on in history (just the same sometimes even annoying music themes. To say that you could get atmospheric music yourself is not an argument... the game music should support the atmosphere)
-ugly tradings posts represent exactly what in real world ? Every huge metropolis has its own surrounding area with tons of smaller cities. You even can connect them in the way they did it with farms so they look more natural. This is clearly a better representation of the true world and would therefor create game atmosphere. No question we dont want an overrealistic strategy game but small towns just make more sense in every way i think about it
-roads look like mud paths even in the modern eras again giving you no indication that your empire is evolving. Same for most of the resource tile improvements as far as i remember
-wonders do not give you a feeling that your empire has done something epic
-overall bad UI design feels hostile for you (or just me )

Im am not sure about the leaders and how predictable they should be. I clearly prefer a game where they are not as predictable as in civ4. Maybe we dont know the leaders well enough yet and what makes them angry and what not. Maybe its an exploit to adopt a religion, gift a city to an enemy and be pleased with him for 1000 years. But i would say that this is also strategic planing and at the moment i feel that you have less ways of creating such strategies in civ5 because the enemies play opportunistic.

Greetings Knightly_

 

[KMRblue1027]

Storyline? in Civ?? I cannot imagine ever playing any of the civ games in this manner, or being able to. Does it take a lot of imagination? Is the game played to where no one should win?

Obviously you haven't played RFC. The whole point of that Civ4 mod was to play the story of your nation.

 

[NCC81701]

I know some have said this before but I have found this to be puzzling. In the many Civ4 games that I have played, I have never seen this to be the case. All I had ever wanted was a challenging AI to play against at the level I am comfortable playing at. That certainly wasn't the case in Civ4 and even worse than Civ5. If they HAVE to have personalities, make them all hard to beat.

Some people, like you, play civ to win. Others, play because they're looking for the experience building an empire. That's what Civ 5 lacks, the feeling that you are building a civilization through history because all of the AIs are out there to win, the civs are completely interchangeable with the exception of a token special unit/building/ability.

Removal of Religion and espionage along with the lack of little things like pollution, global warming, cottage growth, corruption, waste, city distance effects, tree growth contribute greatly to the lack of a empire simulation atmosphere. Some of these changes might have made for a more balance (and some say better) gameplay, but IMO it took out a lot of what made a civ game different than your run of the mill strategy/empire building game.

 

[Buccaneer]

Civ2 didn't have those, I don't think. Thought that was a great civ game.

 

[andrewlt]

Essential element? Or the most exploitable aspect of Civ 4 AI?

On Immortal+, the game was about using exploits to get the AI to make bad deals with you because of the huge cash and tech bonuses the AI got. Also, diplomacy at that level didn't add to the 'atmosphere' of the game in any way. It was simply about how much you could bamboozle the AI for on any given turn.

Yeah, seriously. And people love religion partly because it is one of the biggest exploits against the AI. Some people here are way too in love with the idea of feeling superior because they know AI diplomacy exploits that allow them to beat difficulty settings that are otherwise unbeatable by other people.

 

[Sven Anka]

I agree with op, good sum up!
As a true Civaddict playing them all since CIV 1 on amiga 500, this is the first time i feel disappointed with Civ.
The game kind of works but I don't get the same one more turn feeling and the old atmosphere that I loved is all gone.
I had high expectations for this game and now I'm just a sad panda.

 

[NCC81701]

Civ2 didn't have those, I don't think. Thought that was a great civ game.

Civ 2 may not have had all of those things I listed that was added in subsequent games but it still had...

Corruption
Waste
City Distance effects
Pollution
global warming
Espionage (Spies/diplomat/embassies)

In Civ 2, different civ definitely had different personalities. You know Shaka Zulu is always just waiting for a chance to lob off your head while Honest Abe was generally pretty honest. Also Civ 2 had other things that the other iterations of the game did not pick up that made the atmosphere more empire simulator like,Civ advisers videos, use of historical footage in wonder movies... and it's also a 15 year old game and at release Civ 2 was the best civ game that could have been done at the time.

Anyways going back to the original point, Civ 5 lack a lot of elements that made other civ games feel like you're guiding an empire through time. Civ 5 feels more like a board game.

 

[ArchaicWarrior]

Hi, first time poster here but as i've just bought Civ5 for A$100, I was expecting alot more! I agree with knighlty mostly.

My main gripe is that I expected high res textured 3D terrain and units, old 2D stuff doesn't cut it anymore. Plus nothing is to scale, in the ancient period every turn is 20 years and it takes FAR TOO long to do anything! 15+ turns to train spearmen - that's 300 years!!!!! LOL!! And what's this idea of BUYING extra land??? who am i buying it off!??? shouldn't this be an extended conquest by building a road or something? Games like Total War should have pointed out the direction to go.

Overall I give it a 6 out 10. But I suppose they have my A$100 .. but I won't be buying any more Civ titles.

AW.

Plus, the music was average at best, what happened to the addictive opening tune from CIV 1 or great tunes from CIv4??

..

 

[Mathochism]

Some of these changes might have made for a more balance (and some say better) gameplay, but IMO it took out a lot of what made a civ game different than your run of the mill strategy/empire building game.

What would be an example of a run-of-the-mill turn-based empire-building strategy game, exactly?

I'm trying to think of a comparison and I can't.

 

[Buccaneer]

Good, thoughtful posts. Something different to think about.

 

[Bad Brett]

Civ 5 reminds me of the old turn based computer game "Empire". You begin with a city that can produce military units. You use those units to capture more cities.

I remember playing this game as a kid. I did like the game, but it was when Civ I came out that I really got hooked. Civ 5 feels like a step backwards somehow. There are other options than war, but those are no fun.

When I play on deity and use it as a tactical combat game, I'm almost enjoying myself. But my definition of Civ is more a combination of Empire and SimCity. You know, you've decided that you should call it a night and shut off your computer, but you keep sitting there for half an hour, just admiring what you've built.

 

[Ignorant Teacher]

What would be an example of a run-of-the-mill turn-based empire-building strategy game, exactly?

I'm trying to think of a comparison and I can't.

Unfortunately, you are right. And that's precisely the reason why the devs let themselves make these watered down games, like Civ Rev 2. Lack of decent competition.

 

[NCC81701]

What would be an example of a run-of-the-mill turn-based empire-building strategy game, exactly?

I'm trying to think of a comparison and I can't.

Sins of a Solar Empire, Galactic Civ,Imperium Galactica, Master of Orion, Master of Magic (soo wish they'd make a remake) ,deadlock, Europa Universalis, Star Trek: Birth of a Federation, Star Wars:Rebellion/Empires at War, Total War series (kinda). Yes most of them are sci fi, and depending on which iteration/franchise some of them are very good games. But Civilization IMO had always been a better game/franchise until Civ 5.

 

[Dashwood]

A big detriment to the atmosphere of the game is the "play to win" attitude of the AI civs. I prefer to see AI civs as NPC characters that shape the storyline rather than as algorithms.

I'm glad I stumbled onto this thread. The forum, insofar as I saw, is mainly filled with the idea that an AI created solely to try 'win' was superior to the predictable and transparent AI of Civ4. I am not saying that it isn't, since Civ5's AI has its own merits, but the paradigm comes at the cost of 'immersive play' done in the manner Thimble suggests. Prior to this, actually, I thought I was alone in my sentiments.

I play Civ to enjoy the storylines of a nascent peoples. My neighbours and early encounters lay the brickwork for that story--if my neighbours are douches, I can hold a grudge and later conquer them; if they are cooperative, I can exist happily as one state amongst many, trading techs and so forth, relying on collective security rather than the singular might of my own army. This is where I had the most fun in Civ4 and its variety of leadership personalities.

Civ5, however? In Civ5, everyone thus far has just been a douche waiting to strike and conquer more land and take your capital, etc. It's like I'm playing against an unchanging world of Genghis Khans, all stuck with the idea that a bigger empire is a better empire. This means that the game never changes. It means that I'm always playing to 'win' and never playing to just play. For me, that gets boring. Very boring. However fun Civ5 is currently, if EVERY SINGLE AI is trying to win by any means possible (usually conquest), I will not stick to it for the years and years I've stuck by other games (Civ4 FfH2, Crusader Kings, EU3, etc). My ideal solution would be a variety of AI still trying to win the game, but by different and distinct means that don't all get resolved on a battlefield.

Can't wait for the source code to get released to modders, seriously.

 

[EmpireOfCats]

I never play any game with music (except for L4D, where it gives you clues to what is happening). But you're right about the wonders, they just aren't, well, wonderous. And with the leaders talking in their native languages, it's just rather boring, as my Chinese is not very good. Bring back the salad jokes!