"Build something that you believe in."... oh wait, let me play for you...

[aelf]

So is the concept of the world facing a common crisis at the same time

Not necessarily true in the game. I've had games where I didn't get the plague at all or where the happiness crisis didn't actually affect my empire at all.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Nor was there an event at the end of the "Exploration Age", which every civilisation in the world entered simultaneously, that forced every civilisation to evolve into a new one at exactly the same time.

When climate change forces Canada to evolve into Zimbabwe, let me know.

1. See Parker's Global Crisis, which in fact coincides with the end of the game's Exploration Age.

2. A sure sign that someone has no real arguments left is when they start throwing up Straw Men that don't exist: neither Canada nor Zimbabwe are in the game, nor are completely random progressions from Civ to Civ allowed in the game.*

* which is not to say that all their progressions make complete sense, as various posters have argued interminably already. I repeat, though, they make as much or more sense than the fantasy of the 6000-year Civ.

 

[awpioreubhnfgvv346260]

"One form or another" sure is doing a lot of work in that sentence. Empires & dynasties rose & fell and reorganized into completely different entities. I think there's a very strong argument that the civ 7 model is much more historically accurate.

Take India for example. What they did makes a ton of sense. The Maurya empire in Northern India was a strong point during their ancient history, but that empire fell. The Cholas were a completely different people from Southern India that had a strong trading empire in exploration age. And lastly the Mughals, were another completely different set of people - Muslim invaders from Persia. But they also created a strong empire in the relevant time period.

So what's wrong with this exactly? It's way more accurate AND FUN to play around with 3 different sets of abilities that are suited to the appropriate age, all while retaining Indian identity.

Once they add more natural evolution paths I think this issue will fade away. Roman fans need the Byzantines to feel like a natural successor state, etc.

No one is denying that empires and dynasties rise and fall and reorganise over time. What's ludicrous is that the game slaps down an arbitrary barrier, forces you to negotiate a lame "crisis" and then makes you evolve into a completely separate entity, distinct from the first. All civ games have had some form of civilisation-evolution going on throughout the game. No civ that started in 4000BC is the same in 2000AD - be it civics changing your government in Civ IV, social policies changing your direction in Civ V or the silly card game in Civ VI.

China and Rome neither existed as the same cultural, technological, or political entity for even 1000 years: by no coincidence, in less time than the Antiquity or Exploration Ages cover in Civ VII, they both changed radically.

As they would in any Civ game, as I have described above.

 

[Zaarin]

Nor was there an event at the end of the "Exploration Age", which every civilisation in the world entered simultaneously, that forced every civilisation to evolve into a new one at exactly the same time.

Actually, there was. The Columbian Exchange was probably the single most world-shattering event since the last Glacial Maximum.

 

[chazzycat]

No one is denying that empires and dynasties rise and fall and reorganise over time. What's ludicrous is that the game slaps down an arbitrary barrier, forces you to negotiate a lame "crisis" and then makes you evolve into a completely separate entity, distinct from the first. All civ games have had some form of civilisation-evolution going on throughout the game. No civ that started in 4000BC is the same in 2000AD - be it civics changing your government in Civ IV, social policies changing your direction in Civ V or the silly card game in Civ VI.

As they would in any Civ game, as I have described above.

I mean yeah it's a significant departure from previous games. I'm not gonna dispute that. But change is not necessarily bad. I think it's great...we just need more civs. The incomplete roster is the real issue to me. It will get there.

 

[CivLuvah]

Nor was there an event at the end of the "Exploration Age", which every civilisation in the world entered simultaneously, that forced every civilisation to evolve into a new one at exactly the same time.

When climate change forces Canada to evolve into Zimbabwe, let me know.

I don't see where you're going with these counter-arguments. Are you suggesting that old Civ mechanics are better because they're more "historically accurate"?

As a reply I say we just have to admit that Civ is a historical fantasy series all throughout its existence - "crises" or 6,000 year old civilizations, they're all just the same fantasy element. Otherwise, you just really don't like the mechanics conceptually, and you've been using "objective" counter-arguments to support your otherwise subjective opinion.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

No one is denying that empires and dynasties rise and fall and reorganise over time. What's ludicrous is that the game slaps down an arbitrary barrier, forces you to negotiate a lame "crisis" and then makes you evolve into a completely separate entity, distinct from the first. All civ games have had some form of civilisation-evolution going on throughout the game. No civ that started in 4000BC is the same in 2000AD - be it civics changing your government in Civ IV, social policies changing your direction in Civ V or the silly card game in Civ VI.

As they would in any Civ game, as I have described above.

In any (previous) Civ Game, Rome and China would exist from 4000 BCE.

Neither Rome nor China existed as political or cultural groups in 4000 BCE.

As far as we can tell from the archeological and paleolinguistic evidence, Romans didn't even arrive in Italy until over 2000 years after that date, and the earliest evidence of a settlement at the site of Rome isn't for another 1000 years. The earliest recognized 'Chinese' state and culture doesn't appear in any record until, again, 2000 years after 4000 BCE - and that is the Xia Dynasty, which is almost entirely mythological: you have to trudge another 4 - 500 years forward to get to the first 'historical' Dynasty, the Shang.

Playing them as if they were continuous entities of any kind for 6000 years is the ludicrous part.

 

[Zaarin]

As far as we can tell from the archeological and paleolinguistic evidence, Romans didn't even arrive in Italy until over 2000 years after that date, and the earliest evidence of a settlement at the site of Rome isn't for another 1000 years. The earliest recognized 'Chinese' state and culture doesn't appear in any record until, again, 2000 years after 4000 BCE - and that is the Xia Dynasty, which is almost entirely mythological: you have to trudge another 4 - 500 years forward to get to the first 'historical' Dynasty, the Shang.

Playing them as if they were continuous entities of any kind for 6000 years is the ludicrous part.

The only civ that existed in 6000 BCE was (Predynastic) Egypt. Even the Sumerians hadn't made it to Mesopotamia yet, where the Ubaid and Samarra cultures were flourishing.

 

[Patine]

The hoary old Civ concept of leading and building the same Civilization for 6000 years was and is a complete and utter Fantasy concept. It made everybody feel like they were some kind of Petty God, but it bore no relation whatsoever to any historical group, culture or civ. Whenever people blat about Civ 'never being a historical game', somehow they never seem to note this Whopping Big Fantasy that was the centerpiece of the entire game franchise

Now, is only switching civ identity twice, and abruptly, and everybody does it at the same time, and with a big arbitrary reset, and the immortal Petty God is not even necessarily tied to any of those civ's, any less fantastic, or just a different faery tale from the same Mother Goose collection? Be honest, here?

 

[Zaarin]

Now, is only switching civ identity twice, and abruptly, and everybody does it at the same time, and with a big arbitrary reset, and the immortal Petty God is not even necessarily tied to any of those civ's, any less fantastic, or just a different faery tale from the same Mother Goose collection? Be honest, here?

Less fantastic, yes; completely historical, no. Nor is being completely historical desirable; obviously compromises have to be made to make the game playable. I will admit I was skeptical about how leaders were being handled, but as implemented in-game I don't have a problem with it except the Mortal Kombat diplomacy. I have issues with the game, but I think how civ-switching was handled is reasonably elegant. It's a gamy implementation, but I think HK is an excellent case against more natural transitions. Really what the game needs is more...spirit, more panache. It feels competent and fun; it's very pretty; it just feels a little lacking in personality.

 

[Kwami]

Now, is only switching civ identity twice, and abruptly, and everybody does it at the same time, and with a big arbitrary reset, and the immortal Petty God is not even necessarily tied to any of those civ's, any less fantastic, or just a different faery tale from the same Mother Goose collection? Be honest, here?

Why does this matter at all? The point is that the old way of doing things wasn't historically accurate, either. We're talking about a game here, not a history dissertation.

Besides, everyone is ignoring the hand-wavy time jump between ages that's meant to smooth over the worse parts of the crisis and show the world building up again. That's what's really happening.

 

[Patine]

Less fantastic, yes; completely historical, no. Nor is being completely historical desirable; obviously compromises have to be made to make the game playable. I will admit I was skeptical about how leaders were being handled, but as implemented in-game I don't have a problem with it except the Mortal Kombat diplomacy. I have issues with the game, but I think how civ-switching was handled is reasonably elegant. It's a gamy implementation, but I think HK is an excellent case against more natural transitions. Really what the game needs is more...spirit, more panache. It feels competent and fun; it's very pretty; it just feels a little lacking in personality.

I don't see how it's less fantastic than other Civ iterations. It's just the fantasy has different rules and conventions - like comparing WoW to the LotR. Let's not kid ourselves. I'm fine with the fantasy, I've enjoyed since my first Civ2 copy with my first Windows PC in 1997 - it's the pretense that has already sprung up - this soon - around some Civ7 players that I am calling out, here.

 

[Patine]

Why does this matter at all? The point is that the old way of doing things wasn't historically accurate, either. We're talking about a game here, not a history dissertation.

Besides, everyone is ignoring the hand-wavy time jump between ages that's meant to smooth over the worse parts of the crisis and show the world building up again. That's what's really happening.

I am as well aware of the game nature of the Civ series as are, and that is what I enjoy. It's just, let's not pretend Civ7 is less fantastical and gamey, as opposed to on a different segue of fantastical and gamey. That is my point.

 

[Zaarin]

I don't see how it's less fantastic than other Civ iterations. It's just the fantasy has different rules and conventions - like comparing WoW to the LotR. Let's not kid ourselves. I'm fine with the fantasy, I've enjoyed since my first Civ2 copy with my first Windows PC in 1997 - it's the pretense that has already sprung up - this soon around Civ7 players that I am calling out, here.

I'm not arguing that it's historical, or that it should be. I'm arguing that it's a small step in the direction of being more historically grounded. Civilizations that change at an arbitrary point in time is less fantastic than civilizations that never change, if only by a small degree. It just doesn't play as neatly into (often politically motivated) pop perceptions of history.

 

[Sagax]

In any (previous) Civ Game, Rome and China would exist from 4000 BCE.

Neither Rome nor China existed as political or cultural groups in 4000 BCE.

As far as we can tell from the archeological and paleolinguistic evidence, Romans didn't even arrive in Italy until over 2000 years after that date, and the earliest evidence of a settlement at the site of Rome isn't for another 1000 years. The earliest recognized 'Chinese' state and culture doesn't appear in any record until, again, 2000 years after 4000 BCE - and that is the Xia Dynasty, which is almost entirely mythological: you have to trudge another 4 - 500 years forward to get to the first 'historical' Dynasty, the Shang.

Playing them as if they were continuous entities of any kind for 6000 years is the ludicrous part.

I think the claim being made here is that in previous games you already were NOT, in fact, playing as a continuous unchanging entity. If you start as “China” in 4000 BCE as a Chiefdom, then become a Merchant Republic around Medieval/Renaissance - is that not a change of state entity, even if more subtly presented? Yet it was abstract enough that players could rationalize it as a big change while still feeling like they’re keeping a coherent identity that transcends time. The way it’s currently presented in Civ 7 definitely feels more blunt.

This touches on one of my gripes with the current civ-switching: the line between “civilization” and “state/political entity” is being blurred to an uncomfortable level for some. It’s somewhat explainable for Antiquity>Exploration, gets stretchier for Exploration>Modern, and will be plain weird for a potential 4th age with an additional Civ roster. It’s pure speculation for now, but are you seriously going to claim that transition from “America” to a theoretical “United States” is truly “civ-switching”? Yet this would potentially exist in the same plane with something more bizarre like Buganda into United States.

Also, the argument that “X did not start in 4000 BCE” is irrelevant, because every Antiquity civ is still doing exactly that in Civ 7.

Why does this matter at all? The point is that the old way of doing things wasn't historically accurate, either. We're talking about a game here, not a history dissertation.

Besides, everyone is ignoring the hand-wavy time jump between ages that's meant to smooth over the worse parts of the crisis and show the world building up again. That's what's really happening.

1. It matters when arguments refer to the new way as an objective improvement over the old one when it comes to accuracy/immersion. Plenty of commenters are pointing out that they don’t feel so.

2. Exactly - “hand-wavy”. I’d like to be involved in that time jump and see for myself how my Egyptian architecture and units turn into classical castles and fair-skinned Chevalers.

 

[Zaarin]

This touches on one of my gripes with the current civ-switching: the line between “civilization” and “state/political entity” is being blurred to an uncomfortable level for some.

I agree with this, though Civ6 was already blurring the line considerably with "civs" like Australia and Canada.

 

[Patine]

I'm not arguing that it's historical, or that it should be. I'm arguing that it's a small step in the direction of being more historically grounded. Civilizations that change at an arbitrary point in time is less fantastic than civilizations that never change, if only by a small degree. It just doesn't play as neatly into (often politically motivated) pop perceptions of history.

I'm afraid, I see it as different, but not better in that regard.

And, for the record, even though Boadicea of the Celts was one of my favourites to play in Civ2, it was never a political or nationalistic thing because of the Scottish heritage on my mother's side, nor did it even occur to me.

 

[Zaarin]

And, for the record, even though Boadicea of the Celts was one of my favourites to play in Civ2, it was never a political or nationalistic thing because of the Scottish heritage on my mother's side, nor did it even occur to me.

I was making no accusations, merely a general comment on the franchise, which is firmly rooted in pop history and pop culture and has really only started to trend towards a more serious take on history since Civ5 (one could even argue since Civ6).

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I'm not arguing that it's historical, or that it should be. I'm arguing that it's a small step in the direction of being more historically grounded. Civilizations that change at an arbitrary point in time is less fantastic than civilizations that never change, if only by a small degree. It just doesn't play as neatly into (often politically motivated) pop perceptions of history.

I guess the question I'd like to ask is what do you find more of a fantasy? "Augustus leading Rome from 4000 B.C to the present" or "Augustus leading Rome, Normans and Great Britain from the year 4000 to the present?"
I'd argue the latter considering the Normans and Great Britain didn't exist with Augustus, but of course it's all preference.

I agree with this, though Civ6 was already blurring the line considerably with "civs" like Australia and Canada.

There were some people who also didn't like that they went with the dynasty name Ottomans all the time for the Turks, but now with China gone and split into Han, Ming, and Qing I guess that shipped has sailed.

 

[Zaarin]

I guess the question I'd like to ask is what do you find more of a fantasy? "Augustus leading Rome from 4000 B.C to the present" or "Augustus leading Rome, Normans and Great Britain from the year 4000 to the present?"
I'd argue the latter considering the Normans and Great Britain didn't exist with Augustus, but of course it's all preference.

I never saw the leaders as literal leaders in-game but as the zeitgeist of their civilizations. They have shifted away from that somewhat, becoming more avatars for the AI, but in neither case did I ever see them as relevant to the historicity of the experience. I think leaders fit conceptually better into previous Civ games, but they're also much more essential now as they've become the unchanging face of the civilization. Civ7 couldn't function without them.