Are we trapped by design decisions into very limited gameplay, with an illusion of choice?

[Atlas627]

that's a weird take.... why didn't they just keep the same Egypt civ until modern age and give Egypt more/different bonuses as each Age progress? The #1 reason for this civ switching is to sell more civs through DLC and that is a fact!

Because then they'd be making up Egypt mechanics without any theme at all. Isn't that strictly worse than theming the new age mechanics around a civilization that did actually exist in the corresponding time period?

The entire framing of your post is daring me to dismiss it.

 

[Glassmage]

They become an Egyptian people who adopted the Songhai way, or a Songhai people who adopted the Egyptian traditions. No magic's here, just context. The Crisis system will provide those proper context to the civ switching.

Oh wow I’m sure all the Shawnee people will be thrilled when this game says their people adopt USA traditions lmao

 

[JNR13]

Your title just describes literally every video game ever. Your actual problem just seems to be "base game lacks African civs". Like, it's not really a consequence of the game's fundamental design as much as it is just of the roster decisions made. In Civ VI you also had no choice when it came to playing a Sub-Saharan civ. All you had was Congo. There wasn't any choice if you wanted to play a South American civ, either. If you wanted to play a Native American or Southeas Asian civ, you didn't even get *any* pick. Like, the idea itself wasn't even an option, let alone getting a choice in how to go about it.

So the problem is just a consequence of all content being finite.

 

[Leyrann]

Oh wow I’m sure all the Shawnee people will be thrilled when this game says their people adopt USA traditions lmao

How about you just watch the livestream they did with the Shawnee leaders they've worked together with?

 

[RedCourtJester]

How about you just watch the livestream they did with the Shawnee leaders they've worked together with?

Still without a modern civ like the Anishinaabe or Oceti Sakowin to land on, it would all be kind of meaningless effort.

 

[Krikkit1]

Oh wow I’m sure all the Shawnee people will be thrilled when this game says their people adopt USA traditions lmao

Two points
1. in the game, you specifically keep the “traditions” of your previous civ while adopting the new civs uniques that fit the era (which seems a good model of what they actually do, keep their Shawnee traditions and adopt other practices that would be described as American)

2. Also in the game, that the Shawnee could adopt more than just American uniques in the modern age.
They may unlock another civ automatically?Mexico? in the base game…more with DLC (at some point fairly soon there will be Modern Age Native civs)
They may also unlock any other Modern Age civ, with gameplay unlocks you could have Shawnee->Siam, Buganda, Meijii Japan, France, Mughal, etc.

There is limited choice in the beginning, but that limit is pretty high and will go up.

I hope that soon they give you the ability to keep/customize the Name of your civ even as the uniques change.

 

[UWHabs]

Your title just describes literally every video game ever. Your actual problem just seems to be "base game lacks African civs". Like, it's not really a consequence of the game's fundamental design as much as it is just of the roster decisions made. In Civ VI you also had no choice when it came to playing a Sub-Saharan civ. All you had was Congo. There wasn't any choice if you wanted to play a South American civ, either. If you wanted to play a Native American or Southeas Asian civ, you didn't even get *any* pick. Like, the idea itself wasn't even an option, let alone getting a choice in how to go about it.

So the problem is just a consequence of all content being finite.

Especially content that "resets" in a new cycle. VI was limited at launch, it will be a while into the cycle before we have a big enough crowd of civs to really balance it out.

 

[Naokaukodem]

If I wanted to play a game with an African flavor, for example, there is no real choice at all, and it is a poor one at that.

This reminds me of the Civ3 musics, where tribal musics all had an air of Africa... this was so good. (even though there was few african civs and that even the non-african civs used those themes, like even Greece but it would be 'normal' if the tracks were the same for every civ, I don't remember - no, yes, I think, from the look at Civ3 music 'labels' on youtube, that there was different sets of musics for different set of civs, for example european, eastern, etc. but funnily enough I can't see an "Africa" 'label' !!) Oh, I loved so much those tracks, I like Africa, I like smooth way of living, moving...

 

[Evolena]

This is one of the biggest reasons why I suspect there aren't only 30 games at release.
[...]

I think people should be patient and see how this plays out. Everyone is panicking over a very incomplete picture and a single press statement.

And, if it turns out that we don't get better African paths at launch, then just don't buy the game. Wait till DLC fleshes it out to the degree you think it should be.

"If you get the Shawnee pre-order bonus, you will be playing with 31 civs on day one" do mean there will be 30+1 civilizations at launch, not more, don't do that to yourself again. They would not have made such a planned announcement if it was not true and literal.

 

[Dedrytus]

Why people see 30 civs? For me it's only 10 at the start. Other thing is map variations. It looks like only some version of "old world" script is vailable option. Then crysis mechanics hits no matter what. I think this iteration looks more like role playing game than strategy.

 

[Leyrann]

Why people see 30 civs? For me it's only 10 at the start. Other thing is map variations. It looks like only some version of "old world" script is vailable option. Then crysis mechanics hits no matter what. I think this iteration looks more like role playing game than strategy.

idk man I might have a bad impression from the three or four hours of gameplay I've seen so far but it reminds me much more of Civilization VI than it reminds me of Skyrim.

 

[TheGrayFox]

How about you just watch the livestream they did with the Shawnee leaders they've worked together with?

In their consolutation did they tell the Shawnee leaders that their civilization would disappear at the end of the Exploration Era to be replaced by a completely unrelated tribe and/or the United States ?

 

[Leyrann]

In their consolutation did they tell the Shawnee leaders that their civilization would disappear at the end of the Exploration Era to be replaced by a completely unrelated tribe and/or the United States ?

Considering the Shawnee leaders involved play Civilization themselves and are fans of the series and have been involved in the process for three years?

Yeah, they probably know. In fact, there's a good chance that unlike us, they actually know what the historical progression path for the Shawnee on release is going to be.

 

[TheGrayFox]

Considering the Shawnee leaders involved play Civilization themselves and are fans of the series and have been involved in the process for three years?

Yeah, they probably know. In fact, there's a good chance that unlike us, they actually know what the historical progression path for the Shawnee on release is going to be.

"probably" means we're assuming

 

[Leyrann]

"probably" means we're assuming

We're also assuming that the people we talk to on this forum are humans, and not bots. But some days I'm not so sure...

 

[Gedemon]

In their consolutation did they tell the Shawnee leaders that their civilization would disappear at the end of the Exploration Era to be replaced by a completely unrelated tribe and/or the United States ?

considering they keep their city names, with the exception of the capital, if they want, their tradition, and their unique buildings, it seems this interpretation of the mechanism is wrong.

they're becoming the US, they're not replaced by it.

and they played the game for 2 years, they seemed fine with it during the presentation.

 

[queenpea]

considering they keep their city names, with the exception of the capital, if they want, their tradition, and their unique buildings, it seems this interpretation of the mechanism is wrong.

they're becoming the US, they're not replaced by it.

and they played the game for 2 years, they seemed fine with it during the presentation.

I think we should refrain from assuming that everyone who identifies as Shawnee, or indigenous American for that matter, approves of a likely civ switch from pre-modern Shawnee to modern USA.

It’s also very possible that no one outside of Firaxis, including Chief Barnes has played through a civ switch at this point.

Your interpretation of a civ switch is just one interpretation of many. We don’t know how this is going to feel until we play it, and even then people will disagree.

It’s safe to say that to some people this may feel like a historical simulation of genocide.

 

[Leyrann]

I think we should refrain from assuming that everyone who identifies as Shawnee, or indigenous American for that matter, approves of a likely civ switch from pre-modern Shawnee to modern USA.

It’s also very possible that no one outside of Firaxis, including Chief Barnes has played through a civ switch at this point.

Your interpretation of a civ switch is just one interpretation of many. We don’t know how this is going to feel until we play it, and even then people will disagree.

It’s safe to say that to some people this may feel like a historical simulation of genocide.

No 100% of people will ever agree on anything. If you make "don't offend even a single person" a requirement you might as well quit developing a Civilization game right now. Heck, you might as well quit doing anything, because I'm sure if you make a fantasy civilization someone'll get offended at a perceived real-world parallel.

The people whose responsibility it is to take care of the Shawnee have concluded that the inclusion of the Shawnee in Civ VII is not problematic. Unlike making everyone agree, that's actually a reasonable standard to expect Firaxis to fulfill.

Oh also: This is a game that, even if it takes a bit of a more lighthearted and optimistic tone, is based on history. And history is chock full of genocide, slavery, war, murder, and so on. Don't whitewash or ignore it, but rather acknowledge that it happened and that it was morally reprehensible.

 

[queenpea]

No 100% of people will ever agree on anything. If you make "don't offend even a single person" a requirement you might as well quit developing a Civilization game right now. Heck, you might as well quit doing anything, because I'm sure if you make a fantasy civilization someone'll get offended at a perceived real-world parallel.

The people whose responsibility it is to take care of the Shawnee have concluded that the inclusion of the Shawnee in Civ VII is not problematic. Unlike making everyone agree, that's actually a reasonable standard to expect Firaxis to fulfill.

Oh also: This is a game that, even if it takes a bit of a more lighthearted and optimistic tone, is based on history. And history is chock full of genocide, slavery, war, murder, and so on. Don't whitewash or ignore it, but rather acknowledge that it happened and that it was morally reprehensible.

You may have missed my point. No one has a problem that the Shawnee are in the game. I think it’s great.

The touchy part is situating them as a pre-modern civ. So far, we don’t have evidence of a modern, indigenous North American civ, so a switch to USA is likely.

Previous civ games have avoided some of the hot topics you are referring to, so whitewashing is absolutely part of how Firaxis treats Civ.

 

[Leyrann]

You may have missed my point. No one has a problem that the Shawnee are in the game. I think it’s great.

The touchy part is situating them as a pre-modern civ. So far, we don’t have evidence of a modern, indigenous North American civ, so a switch to USA is likely.

Previous civ games have avoided some of the hot topics you are referring to, so whitewashing is absolutely part of how Firaxis treats Civ.

I'm personally expecting a trio of indigenous North American civs in the base game, as many people have theorized, with the Shawnee being an alternate historical path in the Exploration Age. While I think that 'succeed through conquest' is an acceptable age transition, this specific context is a very sensitive subject in modern discourse, and I expect Firaxis will want to avoid stepping on toes there.

As for avoiding contentious topics, I know that Firaxis does that, in particular in more recent editions (Civ IV had Slavery as a government civic), and it's something I dislike. I'm very much in favor of putting players in the moral conundrum of an evil act being beneficial, which is often why evil acts were being perpetrated historically, in particular slavery. And of course, through gameplay mechanics you can also simulate growing resistance to such practices, until there's a tipping point where it stops being beneficial due to the unhappiness among the people - which is often a major factor in why societies moved away from it historically.

That said, I recognize that I probably have a more blunt view on these matters than most people.