Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by anandus, Jun 5, 2016.
Great video. And Japan is in!!
You couldn't tell that from the Samurai in the very first screenshot a month ago?
What's your bet for Japan's leader?
There was a rumor from someone who supposedly saw the gameplay demo who said that the Japanese leader looked like a samurai, but was neither Tokugawa nor Nobunaga. If true, that leaves plenty of potential obscure options, but not really any "famous" ones that most Americans would recognize.
Take that with a grain of salt. I don't have a prediction. I'd personally like to see one of the samurai from the Genpei Wars era (such as Taira Kiyomori or Minamoto Yo****une), but in game terms it doesn't really matter, as they'll all act like stereotypical samurai.
I'm actually kinda baffled they have elected to include Japan in the base game. TSL is not its friend and it's never been prominent even on the regional stage really, until the 20th century.
When there are other amazing standout civs like the Khmer in Asia, who genuinely may continue their single appearance streak, it seems strange for the devs to have become so attached to a civ like Japan.
All civs prominent in the 20th Century (ie WWII) get in automatically. (basically Permanent Security Council+ 2 Major Axis)
So we have had a half dozen or so videos from E3, but it seems they won about 18 Best in Show awards. I doubt many magazines would hand out such an award without a write-up. I expect a flurry of new articles within the next week.
I'd rather say all civs prominent in eurocentric perspective get in automatically - those which interacted with Westerners have much more chances of being recognized that greater civs which didn't.
I really, really dislike this ignorant notion and it can be observed on numerous occasions. Look: Persia (Iran, to use native term, not Western one ) has 2500 years of history, with post-Achaemenid periods of it IMO more glorious and impactful than Achemenid empire, yet in civ series it is always 100% consisting of Achaemenid empire which lasted less than 250 years. Why? Because it was defeated by Westerners (Greeks - 'westerners' in classical ignorant perspective). Enormous cultural and scientific impact of Islamic Persia - ignored. Safavid empire - ignored, Nader Shah (absolute military genius) - ignored, because they weren't directly encoutnered by westerners.
Japan for most of its history was isolated bothering its own problems (in general I'd risk saying it is one of the most peaceful civilisations in human history), with no impact on the outside world till 20th century (so actually for like 95% of its history), but it is guaranteed to be in because it impressed Western people who encountered it. It also always have very strong military focus, despite real life Japan attempting outward expansion twice in ~2500 years of its history! Why? Because one of those periods of expansion, 1905-1945, just happened to be against Westerners.
Aztecs are less impressive than other Precolombian peoples (Mayas, Olmecs, Zapotecs...) but they are here because Western people encountered them first.
Zulus are a complete joke, primitive tribe which in no way should be among 'particularly great historical empires', but it is here just because British popculture noticed it.
Roman opponents get an unwarranted attention in civ series even if they, objectively speaking, didn't matter historically, they're here just because Romans encountered them - Carthago is here but Phoenicia not, Boudicca is here despite being failed leader of stupid suicidal rebellion, Attila was here despite being ephemerical as hell and quite quickly stopped...
Oh, and I very dislike Gandhi both as a leader of Indian civ and historical person (IMO he is the most overrated person of 20th century) and again I think he is here only because of Western popculture encountering him, while there were tons of much cooler and greater Indian leaders across history - just not encountered by West.
Maybe they have to change like the way they did with Roosevelt? I think they can't resist community demands that long..unless they tend to resist it.
They tried with Casimir, Adolphus, Theodore, and The Shoshone. I think Casimir and the Shoshone are popular (in terms of popular in Poland, and almost gameplay rage in the community) so I think that they might try something new if possible.
PS I don't know but about India I think they can choose different leaders but due to the divided factions (I think, one of them is religions) choosing one will hurt the other and the nationalism of that side would blame the other and it would cause more problems. Just my personal opinion though but I do agree about Western nations met other nations theory.
its just because most of the civ's auditory is from the western world and more precisely english speaking countries - usa, uk, canada, australia make more than half of all players (with 35% being from usa), one third are europeans and whats the rest, like 15% at best are non-westerners.
imagine you're reading a sci fi book but theres no mention of human race, earth, sun and other unimportant stuff from the outskirts of the milky way. but there are non-humanoid qwertyianians, asdfoids and their strange affairs. it would be fun for some but most will find it boring and disappointing.
same here with Civ. gilgamesh, hatshepsut, ramkhankhaeng (or whatever its spelled) - who are these people?
civ6 is an anniversary product, will have alot of hype in media and targeted at as wide audience as possible. thats why we have cleopatra, disney style animations, childish graphics etc.
After watching the E3 video, it really just looks like an expansion pack for Civ 5. I highly doubt they will be able to magically fix the combat AI after 6 years of not being able to with Civ 5, so this is will probably be the first Civ game I don't buy, and Firaxis recent games have all been complete trash at launch anyway, I don't doubt this one will be also.
Honestly, I never understand this argument. Just because it looks similar to civ5 in that it still has hexes, units, cities and tile improvements, does not mean that it is just an expansion. You have to look at the gameplay mechanics. Civ6 is a brand new engine and has a lot of mechanical differences from civ5. So I would hardly call it an expansion. Plus, what does the game need to do for you not to consider it an expansion? Every time the issue comes up whether the next civ game should be radical, players say "no". How can the game not be radical but at the same not be "just an expansion" in your eyes?
Yes, of course you doubt it..
Despite the fact that nothing has been at all carried over from Civ 5.
It's as if you have this idea in your head that they literally copied and pasted the game's code into Civ 6 and called it a new game.
This is an entirely re-written game.
I don't get Civ fans sometimes. We've complained about poor performance, and about the lack of featurse in Civ 5, they give us better performance (well, that is a question) and no removal of any Civ 6, and you still find a reason toc omplain.
This isn't an expansion pack as it's an entirely RE-WRITTEN ENGINE from scratch.
NOTHING, other than Design Concepts, has been carried over.
I'm sorry, but if you don't know of The Epic of Gilgamesh, you are not smart enough to play Civilization. And maybe my keen interest in Egyptology biases me, but is Hatshepsut really that obscure? Sure, she's not as famous as Cleopatra or Ramesses II, but I daresay she's more famous than, say, Akhenaten (who I'd love to see as a DLC leader if multiple leaders will be a thing, even if on the whole I don't care for the idea). I grant you that I had never heard of Raemkhankhaeng before Civ5 (South Asian history isn't my strongest subject, sadly), but I would venture that most Civ players are the type interested in history who enjoy learning new things. I would be astonished if the people who buy the game specifically for recognizable leaders like Cleopatra are a significant part of the market. Are there pet historical figures I'd love to see in the game? Sure. They'd make my day by including Zenobia of Palmyra, Akhenaten of Egypt, or Alfred the Great of England. But obviously I already intend to buy the game, and their inclusion or exclusion doesn't influence that decision.
::Questions the last 22 years of his life::
(Although of course I know about Gilgamesh - he was in a previous Civ game. Luckily, Civ has always welcomed people that want to learn more about history, via the Civilopedia, rather than being a gatekeeper to a game that requires no historical knowledge.)
For what it's worth all i know of Hatshpsut is from this forum, and that extends to the fact that she is female, and Egyptian. And I've heard of Gilgamesh and his Epic, but I've never been much of a fan of the smurfs so I don't know much more than that. I have heard of Akhenaten though through the Mummy films, i think the woman the mummy was trying to bring back was his wife or something?
I think it's less people buying the game for specific leaders, and more, people who aren't familiar with the game browsing the steam store and seeing the game represented by a really famous figure who peaks their interest and draws them in. Unfamiliar faces would be scrolled past, but Napoleon, Cleopatra, Alexander, all are the kind of figures that you'd recognize and think, what is this game that has such a group of people mixed together?
Just think about the way they advertised Civ V and its expansions in the past, G&K stands out for me, because Attila and Boudicca were literally at the forefrunt of every presentation they did to advertise it. The idea is to show off some badass and familiar characters who spice up the game and make it accessible to a casual audience.
I don't think the animations are Disney style. In fact, they look extremely well done and polished. The graphics aren't childish, either. As Ed Beach said, there is a lot more detail in them. They really seem to come alive.
The game looks a lot more like cIV than the rather sterile looking Civilization 5. Colour me impressed.
When I saw the knights knocking down the barbarians, I thought it looks a bit over the top. But it's not that important. The game mechanics are what's important.
For the most part I agree, but the combat animations are pretty cartoonish -- melee weapon hits cause giant explosions (which obscure much of the action), and tank hits cause target figures to fly wildly backwards and do somersaults.
Separate names with a comma.