Is Civ About Re-Writing History.. or Playing It?

Many times on these forums, often when a contraversial issue appears, the first thing said is "Civ is about rewriting history!". But is it really? Most of the civs in the game are those who have influenced our world. For example, Rome (Italy) and Greece are not very influential right now, but "back in the day" they had large empires that influenced the way the world works. Why aren't certain civs in the game? They really didn't have that much influence in real world. But if civ is about rewriting history, what does it matter?

Or is civ more of a "What if civ X did this?" For example, what if the Roman empire was actually communist, and were stuck on an island? What if the Mayas set off the nuke? I believe this is the vision that Sid had in mind when he though of the concept.

It's not about rewriting history, because if it would, Civ would let you pick a civilization and select it's stats. You would also get to chose your own unique units and whatnot, since England's reign was only like that in real history, but in Civ it's on a pangea, and doesn't have the naval advantage anymore. But that would be no fun.

It is about rewriting history. The Mayans never met the Romans, the Mongols never met the Americans, and the Shaka never had curry with Gandhi. You don't get to select the traits and such because that would take some of the fun out of it. If I could choose my traits and UU I would always choose the Sipahi and Agricultural/Industrious. You are given a set nation, and forced to carve yourway through history with the tools given to you.

'Civ is about rewriting history' is often used as a bad argument to justify ones position.
Of course the player shouldn't be forced into a unbreakable path where there are no choices, it's obvious. The problem is that the argument is used like the socialists use the poor for their agenda, it sounds good but in reality a balance between the two extremes might be best... rant rant rant some arguments are so bad they just annoy me..

Neither. Civ is a game, pure and simple. The historical setting is simply there to add decoration to a turn-based strategy game. Anyone who gets too caught up in Civ games not being "realistic" is missing the point entirely - which is to have fun!

Civ cannot be about playing history because you cannot be playing the game without the option of choosing something different from what the historical figure chose. You could choose not to disavow violence and pursue a peaceful rule when confronted by the barbaric consequences of your choices. You could choose not to cross the Rubicon. You could choose not to shut down your exploration programs and close your nation off to the world, sacrificing global leadership to Western barbarians. You have to be able to make such choices in order to have a game at all. Otherwise, it's just a movie. Interesting and informative, perhaps, but non-interactive and read-only.

Loppan Torkel said:

Of course the player shouldn't be forced into a unbreakable path where there are no choices, it's obvious.

Click to expand...

Why, of course this is what we want to do -- in order to get the Foundation through the next 1000 years and revive the Galactic Empire.

It has nothing to do with history. Not replaying not redefining.
It is just a game where you are in control of a group of people that grow into a civilization.
The other parties are known civilizations to boost up the imagination.

I don't think Sid ever had a thought about redefining history by a game...or replaying it.
The man had a fantastisc concept of being in charge of a civilization. And that concept still works...today

You are good and you are going to write history new! Praise the lord! (as long as the computer don't crash and food & drinks are cose to you) ;-)

It's about playing a game, within a historical context.

Sullla said:

the point ... is to have fun!

Click to expand...

Exactly. Enjoy it !

sassoundwave said:

It has nothing to do with history. Not replaying not redefining.
It is just a game where you are in control of a group of people that grow into a civilization.
The other parties are known civilizations to boost up the imagination.

Click to expand...

Civilization is inextricably linked with history. That's a design fundamental that separates it from SMAC, which had no need to be accurate. It's why the civilizations are real ones (and why people argue so long about who deserves to be in), the units are derived from real ones, the leaders and great people are real ones, the city names are real ones, the technologies are ones of historical significance, etc.

sassoundwave said:

I don't think Sid ever had a thought about redefining history by a game...or replaying it.
The man had a fantastisc concept of being in charge of a civilization. And that concept still works...today

Click to expand...

To be fair, the original computer game was at least partly derived from the board game.

Alas, none of the two. You don't play History because nothing is realistic nor organized as in reality. You don't rewrite it because you follow anyway the paths and features of History, like the tech tree. It never changes, there is never an industrial age in 50 B.C., and there is no completely new technology to amaze us. I would so love that it does the two. Play AND rewrite History. But it would need some theorized systems to represent a kind of Historic evolution: how does states evolves? What parameter would make this or this to be able to change? Answer each question asking why is it nowaday how it is and not an other way. But I am not even sure if we can theorize History. Anyway, Firaxis seems to stick to a basic "click & play" development concept, when i'm not sure theorizing the game concepts in the development would make the game more complicated to play.

Sullla said:

The historical setting is simply there to add decoration to a turn-based strategy game.

Click to expand...

Scuse me but out of historical setting you call this STRATEGY? Huh, let me laugh.

Sullla said:

Anyone who gets too caught up in Civ games not being "realistic" is missing the point entirely - which is to have fun!

Click to expand...

I think it is you who are missing the point entirely. Since when realism is antagonist to fun? I would find it fun to have an industrial age in 50 B.C. in Civ, I would find it fun to find an imaginative technology that does not exist in our world in Civ, call it reaslistic. More, why do people play to Laser Quest, Role Playing Games or Paintball instead of just video games? Why do extreme sporters does not just stick to video games instead of risking their lives? Why? Because it is more fun in the reality. So don't say that realism is not fun. Heck, if anyone want a realistic game, that's really for that very reason: he would have more fun to play with it. Realism is a perfect excuse for gameplay mechanics, be it complex or simple.

sassoundwave said:

It has nothing to do with history.

Click to expand...

Of course it has. The tech tree.

apatheist said:

Civilization is inextricably linked with history. That's a design fundamental that separates it from SMAC, which had no need to be accurate. It's why the civilizations are real ones (and why people argue so long about who deserves to be in), the units are derived from real ones, the leaders and great people are real ones, the city names are real ones, the technologies are ones of historical significance, etc.

Click to expand...

Well look it at this way. You easily could have a civilization version with the Smicks and the Aridors, using a techtree with inventions as syntox allignment.
Would that be fun?
I guess not, because it doesn't say a thing. That is why it is historic, so the player recognizes it and not to have a historical rewrite or whatever

apatheist said:

To be fair, the original computer game was at least partly derived from the board game.

Click to expand...

Oh yes, but as I remember the board game (the original) it was way nothing in comparisson with the computergame.

Naokaukodem said:

, there is never an industrial age in 50 B.C., and there is no completely new technology to amaze us. I would so love that it does the two. Play AND rewrite History. But it would need some theorized systems to represent a kind of Historic evolution: how does states evolves? What parameter would make this or this to be able to change? Answer each question asking why is it nowaday how it is and not an other way. But I am not even sure if we can theorize History. Anyway, Firaxis seems to stick to a basic "click & play" development concept, when i'm not sure theorizing the game concepts in the development would make the game more complicated to play.

Click to expand...

What on earth are you talking about ?

In Civ II you had players landing spaceships in AC at Deity level in 17 A.D.

In Civ III I've had the Industrial Age in 500 A.D. Heck, you even have players who've sent spaceships off to Alpha Centauri in 400 A.D. or less. If that's not rewriting History then I don't know what is.

Civ fans do not want "new" cool gadgetry futuritic techs. We have SMACX for that.

I couldn't care less to rewrite History, what a drag. You play to have fun with a historical background setting; it's all about strategy and decision-making not replicating History. Hello ? When have you seen the zulus building Space Rockets or nuking France ? Huh ??!! It's a TBS g-a-m-e. Capice ? Enjoy it !

"click & play development concept" WTH ? Look pal If you fail to see any strategy in this game I rest my case. You better go play Pac-Man, Doom or Super Mario Bros.

Drakan said:

What on earth are you talking about ?

In Civ II you had players landing spaceships in AC at Deity level in 17 A.D.

Click to expand...

Wow, fine for the performance, i'm ****ing impressed here man... but even them had to find all the prerequisite techs in order to do so. They couldn't shorten the tech tree.

Civ fans do not want "new" cool gadgetry futuritic techs. We have SMACX for that.

Click to expand...

What do you know about what want Civ fans you bloke?

I couldn't care less to rewrite History, what a drag.

Click to expand...

Fine for you, i will write you a letter.

You play to have fun with a historical background setting; it's all about strategy and decision-making not replicating History. Hello ? When have you seen the zulus building Space Rockets or nuking France ? Huh ??!! It's a TBS g-a-m-e. Capice ?

Click to expand...

No, no "capice", because your not very clear... in order to rewrite History, we should first be able to replay it in a simulation...

"click & play development concept" WTH ? Look pal If you fail to see any strategy in this game I rest my case. You better go play Pac-Man, Doom or Super Mario Bros.

Click to expand...

Wtf are you on about?? Strategy or? Crack? By "click and play" development concept I mean they just develop the game without theorizing History, just by adding elements the ones after the others. As for strategy, there is more of it in Super Mario Bros than in Civ.

Naokaukodem said:

As for strategy, there is more of it in Super Mario Bros than in Civ.

Click to expand...

Look, I don't feel like being agressive with you right now.

This web is called Civilization Fanatics. It's for people who love the game If you don't like it you're free to leave it. Feret it and move on.

As for my knowledge on what civ fans want or not is backed by a couple of years reading through civ fansites.

There's only a small minority that would want future techs as yourself in Civ. As i posted we already have SMACX for that which is one of the best TBS games ever to be made (thanks Bryan). So it's not that I'm against futuristic techs it's that Civ isn't the place for that. The overwhelming majority of fans would agree with me. And I say this because I have seen well-over ten threads on the matter over the years in different civ fan sites.

But hey, maybe I'm wrong and civ players have radically changed overnight, who knows ?

Obviously to reach AC you have to go up the tech tree, AND...?

As for History, I love History and there's a forum for History lovers in this web where we post. So I won't need your love letters, thank you.

This is not a game which intends to replicate History to it's finest details. If you want a very complicated wargame go play Gary Grigsby's Pacific War.

We're are not attempting to replay History at all, do you copy ? It's only the stage, the scenario; you pull the threads of the actors/units and put on the show they way you want it to be run. This is not an academic historical simulation-dissertation pal. Capice ? It's a G-A-M-E, a TBS, Turn Based Strategy in case you were too proud to ask.

I never said I don't like Civ. And I don't want future techs. That's better again, I want inovative techs. And I don't just want it, I want the system that comes with it.

Obviously to reach AC you have to go up the tech tree, AND...?

Click to expand...

And you don't rewrite History. Would you say the contrary?

We're are not attempting to replay History at all, do you copy ?

Click to expand...

No, I don't copy.

Capice ?

Click to expand...

No.

It's a G-A-M-E, a TBS, Turn Based Strategy in case you were too proud to ask.

Click to expand...

Oh, man!

So what's your point Naokaukodem ? Make it clear then !

For me rewriting History would imply that you played in a world map. Normally, in civ the maps are random so how on earth can we replicate History ? Hmm ?

Following the tech tree is a sort of historical path, true. Do you mean there shoul be other historical techs ? I thought you meant we should have techs à la CtP2 or CtP in civ.

Rewriting History does not necessarily need the real world map, because you very rewrite it... but why to say you rewrite it if it's completely different? Civ 1, 2 & 3 would do it perfectly then. Except for the tech tree and the civilizations names as the creator of this topic said. But to rewrite it, you would need indeed some basis that may help to identify it as our own History. So Civ would do the job pretty well already. But still, is it really rewriting it? What is rewriting, it is a good question. Anyway, would it need real world map? No. Real civilization names? No. Same tech tree? No. But mechanisms and theories. Why are we as we are. How. Like put those systems with the real Earth parameters and you obtain the real History. (wouldn't really work of course) Change them, you obtain an altered history, or a completely different one. That for the sake of diversity of situations and replayability, and enjoyment to have the feeling to participate at a real history, not a pre-determined one. Civ actually don't replay History, nor rewrite it as the tech tree is pre-determined. That's why I say I would like it to be able to both replay History and rewrite it. But until what point History can be theorised? Does History really explain why?