Civilization needs to stop taking itself so seriously.

[cloudwasher]

I have very much enjoyed Civ 4 and 5, but being someone who has played every civ game since civ 1, I've felt that there is something that has been missing in the civ series as of late. I remember playing civ 2 for and getting wrapped up in it for endless hours in ways that I haven't been able to with civ 4/5.

What was different about the earlier games that allowed you get so much more wrapped up in it?

It didn't take itself so seriously. What do I mean by that? Its become too dry, too strategic. Not enough options for customizing your nation in an immersing sort of way. Civ 1/2 offered features where you could assemble a palace/throne room as you progressed in points. It allowed a degree of customizing your country as your own. I'd really like them to bring this back in some more advanced, updated fashion. You could also get a far better aerial view of the city in earlier civs... Being able to look over your creations makes building it all the more pleasing. I'd like to see something that could allow you to customize city layouts/architecture and could of course just remain the default for people who don't like to do such micromanagement. I also remember one of my favorite features from civ 2 was a council of advisors that would play videos based on what your economy needed/what age you were in and I actually quite enjoyed those.

Basically what I'd like to see from civ is to get back to a stage where its not just about the strategy of the game, but also nation-building in the sense of being able to put your own footprint on your country, rather than just the dry exercise of the strategic side of the game.

[SilentWulf]

I don't think that Civilization V takes itself more seriously than the other games.

Furthermore due to the policy tree and in the future the religion, you have even more ways to cusomize your nation and shape its perks to fit your play style.

I agree however that there seems to be a lack of immersion here. When in Civilization 4 I had chosen 'Free Speech', 'Emancipation' and so on, I actually felt like my country being a democracy and identified with that.

The policies now also have names suggesting political or social conepts, but you choose so many of them that it renders their names meaningless.

It always especially bothers me, when I have a fully developed liberty tree and choose the first policy of another tree that my title changes from 'Consule' to whatever, even if 'Liberty' is still the strongest feature defining my state. The leader's title is there, but it's meaningless, making it hard to identify with one's state.

[SlickSlicer]

Some of the leader quotes in the game, particularly by Montezuma, demonstrate that Civilization doesn't take itself very seriously at all.

[JFD]

Some of the leader quotes in the game, particularly by Montezuma, demonstrate that Civilization doesn't take itself very seriously at all.

Or Catherine. Or Suleiman.

[sectoid]

I think we can all agree, the past is over.

[Gooner]

The palace and throne room were great additions, but they're not necessary parts of the game. It's important to get the game play right rather than the little additions. Nonetheless, I'd be happy if they brought something like that back.

[steveg700]

Civ Rev was tons of fun. The epitome of fun! Insane that they're not going to follow that up.

[circuitrider]

In one of the config or xml files you can change how close you can zoom in on the map to see you city buildings better..

[civdiss]

Personally I would say the exact opposite, civ needs to take itself more seriously e.g. get rid of GDRs.
I have been playing since "CIV I" as well but always was interested in the strategic part of the game rather than pretty graphics. I hope that they will work on that, improving the AI instead of other features such as city viewing, throne room etc

[mrbadxampl]

I think we can all agree, the past is over.

be real confusing if not... but anyway...

[oblio]

So when I see players say they have been around since Civ 1, I just have to wonder if its not the game that has changed so much in its core but its the player. A lot easier to be immersed in the minutia of a game when you are 20 in a dorm room than in your 40's or older with a job, mortgage, kids and spouse etc.

I remember Civ 1 and that I didn't get it then(or now), then got into Civ 3 a bit because my high schooler was playing but then hit big on BTS when that then college age child was playing it. So now its Civ V as a simple diversion. Maybe my expectations are not all that high but its only entertainment.

[SlickSlicer]

Personally I would say the exact opposite, civ needs to take itself more seriously e.g. get rid of GDRs.
I have been playing since "CIV I" as well but always was interested in the strategic part of the game rather than pretty graphics. I hope that they will work on that, improving the AI instead of other features such as city viewing, throne room etc

On one hand I agree with the idea of focusing on strategic aspects instead of just improving the graphics and adding in frivolous fanservice. On the other hand, I appreciate humor and don't mind the developers injecting a bunch of it into the game. There's a lot to laugh about when it comes to history, even if tragedy is usually history's chosen genre.

[lietkynes]

I have very much enjoyed Civ 4 and 5, but being someone who has played every civ game since civ 1, I've felt that there is something that has been missing in the civ series as of late. I remember playing civ 2 for and getting wrapped up in it for endless hours in ways that I haven't been able to with civ 4/5.

What was different about the earlier games that allowed you get so much more wrapped up in it?

It didn't take itself so seriously. What do I mean by that? Its become too dry, too strategic. Not enough options for customizing your nation in an immersing sort of way. Civ 1/2 offered features where you could assemble a palace/throne room as you progressed in points. It allowed a degree of customizing your country as your own. I'd really like them to bring this back in some more advanced, updated fashion. You could also get a far better aerial view of the city in earlier civs... Being able to look over your creations makes building it all the more pleasing. I'd like to see something that could allow you to customize city layouts/architecture and could of course just remain the default for people who don't like to do such micromanagement. I also remember one of my favorite features from civ 2 was a council of advisors that would play videos based on what your economy needed/what age you were in and I actually quite enjoyed those.

Basically what I'd like to see from civ is to get back to a stage where its not just about the strategy of the game, but also nation-building in the sense of being able to put your own footprint on your country, rather than just the dry exercise of the strategic side of the game.

I agree on one point, Civ5 suffers of lack of immersion a bit, some small details and some design choices went into that direction.
For example in Civ4 population has nationality, when you conquer a city population belongs to a civilization that is currently hostile to you and this has consequences that you have to deal with, and slowly over time population nationality of that city will shift towards your civilization. In Civ5 you build a courthouse and that's it, a conquered city is instantly the same as a city you founded. It's not that the Civ4 system is good or the Civ5 system is bad, but it's undeniable that Civ4 has more immersion.

About the game taking itself too seriously, I am not really sure what it means.

[haterx732]

I agree on one point, Civ5 suffers of lack of immersion a bit, some small details and some design choices went into that direction.
For example in Civ4 population has nationality, when you conquer a city population belongs to a civilization that is currently hostile to you and this has consequences that you have to deal with, and slowly over time population nationality of that city will shift towards your civilization. In Civ5 you build a courthouse and that's it, a conquered city is instantly the same as a city you founded. It's not that the Civ4 system is good or the Civ5 system is bad, but it's undeniable that Civ4 has more immersion.

About the game taking itself too seriously, I am not really sure what it means.

I think what he means when he says "Civ needs to stop taking itself so seriously" is that it's always straight to the point, no distractions like health and it's mechanics really aren't that complicated like in older Civs. It could just be me, or the crappy diplomacy, but the game feels like it always about War! and who can be the most aggressive. The perks of becoming friends with a Civ feel rather lackluster. Civ 5 feels more.. 'restricted' then the earlier games.

G&K adds some of these good ol' mechanics back. But I'm praying for a little bit more then religion and espionage. A reworked health would be nice or something other then happiness holding you back from aggressive expansion. I think for some people when it comes to Civ..

Complexity = Depth = Immersion - something Civ 5 clearly lacks.

[VicRatlhead51]

I kind of know what the OP is talking about. I remember funny leader animations in 3 that I kind of miss. The leaders clothes would change with the eras and the anachronisms were kind of funny (Lincoln in furs or Gilgamesh in modern clothes, etc.) Also they used to animate the emotions too which was kind of fun. I don't think it'd slow the game too much, if they could do it back on 3 today's machines could handle it easily.

[Magic_Hotdog]

Civ V is serious? You can get nuclear subs without getting diesel subs first. Also flight without combustion. What part of this game was serious again?

[Black Gate of Mordor]

Civ V is serious? You can get nuclear subs without getting diesel subs first. Also flight without combustion. What part of this game was serious again?

Not to mention you can have ICBMs without rockets. And harbours don't appear until the medieval era...

[VicRatlhead51]

He's not talking about accuracy or anything. Its not a sim at all, just a strategy game akin to Risk. Its just that some of the lighthearted humor from previous installments is missing. Although I suppose the GDRs are kind of funny. Honestly the complaints about historical accuracy are kind of silly.