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

[pokiehl]

Again why are we assuming that the Shawnee were consulted about ANYTHING outside of how their civilization is represented in game via unique buildings, units, and its leader?

Why are you assuming they weren’t, after being involved for 2 years, and after all the deference and respect Firaxis has shown to their culture?

 

[Evolena]

You know what? It's a game. Not even a simulation game. Thus it is an abstraction, not a modelization.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

1. It's Shawnee -> America, not Shawnee -> USA. Big difference here, because in "what if" game the particular America could vary a lot. And without knowing all the local culture and history you can't say how potentially offending evolving from Shawnee to Cree could be (cultures growing nearby often have deep grudges and prejudices against each other).
2. The appropriate way is to ask different Shawnee representatives how they feel about it. If they aren't offended, problem is solved.

So overall, the solution to consult with Shawnee and ask what they found offensive is the best solution to me and Firaxis seem to go that route.

America=USA in terms of Civ.
But considering Firaxis worked with the Shawnee and consulted them for years, possibly more than any other cultural group in the past, they seem to be fine with it.

 

[queenpea]

This. If the Shawnee are excited about it, we don't need to clutch pearls and be offended on their behalf.

You're assuming quite a bit here, and I don't think anyone here is clutching pearls.

We have seen the reaction of two individuals who are excited about how their civilization is represented in the Exploration Age. That's all we know.

 

[Zaarin]

We have seen the reaction of two individuals who are excited about how their civilization is represented in the Exploration Age. That's all we know.

We have their word that other people in the tribe are excited; I choose to accept their word because it costs me nothing and I have no evidence to the contrary.

 

[queenpea]

We have their word that other people in the tribe are excited; I choose to accept their word because it costs me nothing and I have no evidence to the contrary.

Right, obviously we are just in the wait-and-see times right now. I don't think it's helpful to be relentlessly negative or unflinchingly positive. This is a new mechanic and it's going to feel different to different players.

 

[queenpea]

You know what? It's a game. Not even a simulation game. Thus it is an abstraction, not a modelization.

Right, but considering how much weight VII has placed in mimicking a historical narrative which closely resembles our own history, this game is less of a sandbox than ever before. In my opinion, this game is being pushed closer to a simulation than any previous installment.

 

[Zaarin]

Right, obviously we are just in the wait-and-see times right now. I don't think it's helpful to be relentlessly negative or unflinchingly positive. This is a new mechanic and it's going to feel different to different players.

Yes, I agree.

 

[Evolena]

It's not more or less of a simulation, it's only more meaningfull choices to make.

 

[queenpea]

It's not more or less of a simulation, it's only more meaningfull choices to make.

I don't really understand what you mean.

For example, in VII, Great People are now tied to specific civilizations with cultural or historical ties. In your opinion, does limiting access to great people increase in more player choice, or less? How is that not closer to a historical simulation than VI?

 

[Zaarin]

I don't really understand what you mean.

For example, in VII, Great People are now tied to specific civilizations with cultural or historical ties. In your opinion, does limiting access to great people increase in more player choice, or less? How is that not closer to a historical simulation than VI?

I agree that Civ7 is a shift in the direction of simulation, though I still wouldn't put it in quite the same category as, say, a Paradox game.

 

[queenpea]

I agree that Civ7 is a shift in the direction of simulation, though I still wouldn't put it in quite the same category as, say, a Paradox game.

Yeah certainly it's not going as far as that! I didn't intend to suggest that.

 

[Evolena]

I don't really understand what you mean.

For example, in VII, Great People are now tied to specific civilizations with cultural or historical ties. In your opinion, does limiting access to great people increase in more player choice, or less? How is that not closer to a historical simulation than VI?

I was talking of simulation more specifically about the civilizations switching/choices, not about all single features.

 

[ombak]

I don't really understand what you mean.

For example, in VII, Great People are now tied to specific civilizations with cultural or historical ties. In your opinion, does limiting access to great people increase in more player choice, or less? How is that not closer to a historical simulation than VI?

I'd compare it more to a scenario or board game.

But as to the main point, about choice: if the old game gives everyone X great people to choose from, and the new game gives you only your own great people, that information doesn't tell us which of the two games gives us more choice, it only tells us that in the old game everyone had the same choices and in the new game everyone has to make choices from a unique set.

The new game isn't limiting your access to great people compared to the old game. Without looking at whether the choices in the old game (and new game) are actually meaningful and whether the new set of choices, though restricted to only one civ, is greater than the previous set of choices we can't just declare that we have less choice.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I agree that Civ7 is a shift in the direction of simulation, though I still wouldn't put it in quite the same category as, say, a Paradox game.

I think the game moves more towards strategy actually if we look at overall "chapter" mechanics. All the reasoning for it from developers are about gameplay, while all complains from the community are about immersion.

I don't really understand what you mean.

For example, in VII, Great People are now tied to specific civilizations with cultural or historical ties. In your opinion, does limiting access to great people increase in more player choice, or less? How is that not closer to a historical simulation than VI?

So far, Civ7 great people mechanics are totally different from Civ6. They are different features under the same name, they can't be compared.

 

[queenpea]

So far, Civ7 great people mechanics are totally different from Civ6. They are different features under the same name, they can't be compared.

They aren't wildly different. So far, the great people are activated on certain tiles for certain boosts. My point is simply that say, as Babylon, you will no longer be able to go for Einstein. The great people who are available to you are limited by the great people who are associated directly with the civilization you are playing.

Also, I'm going to keep comparing VI to VII, if you don't mind.

 

[stealth_nsk]

They aren't wildly different. So far, the great people are activated on certain tiles for certain boosts. My point is simply that say, as Babylon, you will no longer be able to go for Einstein. The great people who are available to you are limited by the great people who are associated directly with the civilization you are playing.

Also, I'm going to keep comparing VI to VII, if you don't mind.

Comparing Civ6 to Civ7 is all great, no problem here.

Speaking about great people, in Civ6 it's competitive mechanic to get specific bonuses and the ability to spend gold or faith in order to win the race. In Civ7 great people are built like regular units, without any race mechanics and they are unique to specific civs, meaning most civilizations don't get them at all. From gameplay perspective they barely share anything other than the name.

 

[Evolena]

From gameplay perspective they barely share anything other than the name.

Do they even, or is it a projection we've done from something familiar?

 

[Sagax]

I’ve been observing the civ-switching debate across all threads, and I think I can finally put in words why exactly I (and maybe some other players) am conflicted by this new mechanic.

First of all, let’s get the whole “historical accuracy” debate out of the way - neither approach is accurate, and debating which is better - an immortal Ben Franklin leading three “logical” consecutive civs in Africa and Middle East, or America existing since 4000BCE - is just a contest of lunacy.

Second, I’ll preface that I’m on board with the basic premise of a civilization evolving over time and taking over new traits, including the essence of other historical entities. In fact, that’s what excited me the most about Humankind, even though the game as a whole ended up being meh. And yet, when faced with the same concept in Civ7, I can’t shake off the unappealing sense in my mind, and I think I’ve figured it out why for myself.

At the end of the day, it’s all about flavor and roleplaying potential - and the role play choices that players have when building their empire. The gripes of people against civ-switching boils down to “we no longer have the choice that we had before”, while defenders of civ-switching respond with “what are you talking about, look at all these choices!”. The truth is, the civ-switching is not a net gain on previous roleplay options - it’s a replacement, and it’s painfully apparent because of the brute-forced way FXS implemented the system. You WILL switch your civ, you WILL abandon your old ways of naming the cities, and you WILL be reeling from the crisis dropped at you at precisely 10 o’clock Antiquity time (I’m aware that we don’t know anything substantial about the crisis mechanics yet). It just all feels unnecessarily forced, and I see no reason why it had to be implemented this way.

This entire debacle could’ve been avoided easily, without significant overhaul of the mechanics, by implementing either of these features (ideally both):

1. Allow keeping the civ when transitioning to the new age. Balance and handicaps be damned - people have no issues with OCC, let people play OcivC if they want.

2. More robust naming system. Cities are a given, but also let players get creative with how they name their evolved civs as a whole. Shawnee all of a sudden dropping their naming conventions and calling themselves “America” may be a bridge too far for some, but something like “United Shawnee States” would be much more palatable.

Are these just minor tweaks that don’t affect your turn-by-turn play? Absolutely. But I’d argue that flavor matters more than some would claim, in a game where the player is positioned as a leader entity growing an empire from scratch. Otherwise, we’d all be happy playing with spreadsheets, because that’s what Civilization games could always be reduced to.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Do they even, or is it a projection we've done from something familiar?

You're right! They even don't share the name...