CIV 7 issues raised by a Native American

[Siptah]

If you actually read the (whole) post, their concerns are quite valid.

I am not against the civ changing with the era, but do recognise that the message that is being sent by this mechanic is that these cultures no longer exist. Part of the story of history the game is trying to tell is that empires rise and fall and no culture remains the same for a thousand years, let alone six thousand.

The problem is, cultures do not completely disappear either. A European nation who had a vast continent-spanning empire during the game’s Exploration Age will still exist today as an independent nation. Of course the global empire of trade and conquest is more appealing from a game design perspective, but does that culture cease to exist in the Modern Era, obviously not!

This is even more problematic when depicting the colonised people themselves. The Maya and the Shawnee and the Songhai still exist. It is natural that the game depicts them at their historical height, but the game has them inevitably collapse and disappear in later eras.

Firaxis have to be careful here. I don’t think it is likely they will allow you to continue into a later era with the same civ, and even if you did it would be at a huge disadvantage. Of course Humankind had the same exact issue, even if it let you “transcend” as a culture this clearly wasn’t playing the game as it was designed.

I think much of how this goes down will depend on the variety of options of civs to pick in later eras, and whether there is a tangible and visible legacy of who you played before.

The problem in game, in a way, is that in HK and in civ 7 (as it seems), there will be visual remnants of the former civs on the maps. So your past is still there and also has an effect (you keep some bonuses etc.). However, you loose the name and apparently the cultural connection (no more buildings, units from the former civ available). In HK you at least kept the unique units (until you discovered an upgrade...). This gives the feeling of something that once was, and not something that still is present. With the crises, this will probably much more pronounced in civ 7 compared to HK. I don't think mixing names makes sense ("the egyptian-songhai-buganda empire"), the "best" solution to me seems to have pops with associated culture and not cities associated with civs, and some pops stay alive through the crisis if you do well enough. I don't see this happening however.

 

[MasterPaw]

The issue is a moderation issue
If people just have a leader with a civ they conquered/exploited/... I don't think it's enough to justify any action
If they start renaming cities in aggressive ways it should be the same as using the chat in agressing ways: being reported and potentially banned
One preventive way would be to have a "safe" option in mp where it disable chat/city renaming or hide it from you. Idk how it works in previous games

 

[UWHabs]

I think there is a tangible legacy (there are legacy bonuses) and hopefully visible legacy.

From some of the discussions, it sounds like your unique buildings will stay around. So the Egyptian Necropolis or the Roman Forum will still be in your cities in future eras.

It would be cool if civs had a future legacy bonus too. So there was something that if you choose Maya in the Ancient era lets you do throughout the game. Maybe even let you continue to build the unique buildings and units throughout the game. Sure, by the modern era you'd triple up on bonuses, but it might be an interesting nod to the culture continuing

 

[fantsu]

Its a video game. So what? Its not reality, its entertainment. I want that Gandhi launches some nukes.

 

[GeneralZIft]

Its a video game. So what? Its not reality, its entertainment. I want that Gandhi launches some nukes.

I agree. So it's just a game right?
Then why can't I have Roman Tanks? Since it's just a game!
But no, obviously, some parts are "unrealistic come on guys" and some parts are "okay, it's just a game"

 

[user330977]

The modern gaming world is one big arena of who can take the most offence quickest. Absolute nothingburger.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

I agree. So it's just a game right?
Then why can't I have Roman Tanks? Since it's just a game!
But no, obviously, some parts are "unrealistic come on guys" and some parts are "okay, it's just a game"

Isn't that whole argument kind of circular, and meaningless? Why can't you have Roman tanks? Because it's a game, and they decided in this game that the Ancient Romans cannot last beyond the Age of Antiquity. It's all unrealistic, it doesn't mean it can't be interesting or inspired by history.

 

[TheGrayFox]

Its a video game. So what? Its not reality, its entertainment. I want that Gandhi launches some nukes.

Another strawman. No one is asking for Civilization to be a strict 1:1 simulation of history/reality and strict historical accuracy isn't even what is being complained about nesecarilly in the OP or in this topic/thread.

 

[GeneralZIft]

It is interesting, it was always interesting, it was always inspired by history and always unrealistic, so none of these reasons should hold water when it comes to excusing the Devs

 

[TheGrayFox]

By the logic. it's a video game. It's entertainment, not reality so why even have historical characters in the series at all? Civilization is now fantasy 4x series and its magical races can merge together with other races and leaders evolve every era into cooler and cooler sci-fi robots.

 

[Harasar]

Legacies and ageless buildings seems to represent exactly the continuation of culture; the empire may have collapsed and a new one was born from it, but it still retained elements from its predecessor. And IMHO we need to wait to first see how much the things changes with each Age and how much is retained.

Players could rename things in Civ 6 as well, just because someone can use it to rename cities and units to something offending, doesn't make the game bad or game developers guilty in it, it is the fault of these specific players.

And, while people from some of the cultures represented in civ games are still existing, showing in Civ 7 how their empire at the peak collapsed, isn't any more inaccurate than showing them in previous games existing from 4000 BC to 2050. To me civ games are about alternate history and what if stories, not a factual recreation of real-life history. And IIRC for Civ 6 developers wanted to add Pueblo as one of the civs, but modern day leaders refused. I guess what for Civ 7 developers also contacted the leaders of Shawnee people for cooperation and likely got it, so I guess at least the leaders weren't offended by such a way of representation of their people and culture.

 

[Somebody613]

the "best" solution to me seems to have pops with associated culture and not cities associated with civs, and some pops stay alive through the crisis if you do well enough. I don't see this happening however.

Just name them Local_Culture, make them a persisting building that can spread that Culture to other cities, and tie some Cultural stuff to specific Culture buildings and/or effects.
Such a simple and innovative solution... oh, wait. MWAHAHAHA!!!

 

[Arent11]

https://www.reddit.com/r/civ/s/kiILRvoQJM

A perspective from a Shawnee person regarding the civ switching. Kinda sad reading from his thoughts and perspectives. Seem like Firaxis made a misstep.

Why are such topics always only an issue if a native American speaks up? The discrimination according to ethnic group is really annoying.

The USA also doesn't want to be ruled by Queen Victoria, what about the independence wars? And the Chinese don't want to be ruled by Genghis Khan, they will be livid.

I think combining civ & leader freely should be a game option as in civ 6 but they should not be standard.

 

[Somebody613]

Why are such topics always only an issue if a native American speaks up?

Wait, there's more to the WORLD than just America? Daaamn... /s

 

[Harasar]

I think combining civ & leader freely should be a game option as in civ 6 but they should not be standard.

But it is already optional; it is up to player to decide if they want to play with historical leaders or not. I don't see how adding some checkbox in settings to allow/block it would change anything. The only problem, I guess, is what it seems like not every civ would have a leader, so for some of them there would be no choice but play with leader from some other unrelated civ, but I'm not sure if it was already confirmed or it just speculations by now.

 

[TheGrayFox]

But it is already optional; it is up to player to decide if they want to play with historical leaders or not. I don't see how adding some checkbox in settings to allow/block it would change anything. The only problem, I guess, is what it seems like not every civ would have a leader, so for some of them there would be no choice but play with leader from some other unrelated civ, but I'm not sure if it was already confirmed or it just speculations by now.

No it is not optional as the humankind civilization swapping gimmick means you will inevitable end up as another civilizations lead by people who don't even belong to the same culture. If I want historical leader for the US, it means Ben Franklin has to exist in AD as the leader of the Greeks.

 

[Thrasybulos]

Part of the issue is the craziness of the times, with people choosing to take grievous offense at anything and acting as if everyone should care.

Another part is that the term "Civilization" is understood by everyone... while having no common definition.
For instance, I find it odd to have French, English, Spanish, German "civilizations".
They're all essentially the same.
Their nations have different histories, but their differences in culture, core values, political systems, technological levels are so minor that they should be dumped together imo into a "Western (European) Civilization".
The "Native Americans" may have had different "nations", but they were close enough that grouping them into a common "civilization" wasn't anything to take offense at.

In all honesty, Firaxis should have kept the "Civilization" pool restricted to ancient civilizations.
After all, modern "civilizations" have evolved from them, and in a game meant to cover the whole of human history, it makes sense to start... from the start.
There should be no "American", "Swedish", "Australian", "Polish" civilizations.

With Civ VII introducing "Ages" and civilization swaps , later civilizations could have been introduced. But again, the confusion between notions of "civilization", "nation", "ethnicity" is one that should have been avoided.
But I guess that ship has sailed a long time ago...

 

[Harasar]

No it is not optional as the humankind civilization swapping gimmick means you will inevitable end up as another civilizations lead by people who don't even belong to the same culture. If I want historical leader for the US, it means Ben Franklin has to exist in AD as the leader of the Greeks.

Oh, good point, I hadn't thoughted about the modern leaders. But then, it wouldn't be an option of "combine leader and civ freely", but back to "have the same civ from start to finish", so you can start as America with Ben Franklin in 4000 BC.

 

[Arcaian]

The "Native Americans" may have had different "nations", but they were close enough that grouping them into a common "civilization" wasn't anything to take offense at.

It's wild that you advocate for lumping only Western Europe into a group, but all of the 'native americans' can fit into one group too. Even assuming you only mean the indigenous people of north america/the lands occupied by the US today by that phrasing, how can you justify lumping the cultures of the pacific north-west (separated by geographic factors with a very unique culture), the south west (with their connections to mesoamerica and many distinguishing factors like architecture), the great plains (both the post-contact horse cultures that evolved there, and the hunting-farming nomadic cultures present for much longer), the mississippian nations (with a culture built around rivers and travel and a huge amount of long-distance contact down the rivers), the floridian groups (that interacted with the carribean), the rest of the south-east, and the nations in the north east (that interacted more with modern-day Canadian regions than most of the US) into one group? Your scare quotes around "nations" is already telling, but this is an incredbily dismissive perspective, akin to lumping all of Europe and the Mediteranian into one culture because they were 'close enough' culturally. Your own factors used for determination of Western Europe to be one civilization are obviously not met here: cultures hugely differ, values hugely differ, political systems massively differ, and technological levels differ. There's no possible justification for lumping together this group, other than ignorance or active hostility to the peoples being discussed.

 

[DSYoungEsq]

If you actually read the (whole) post, their concerns are quite valid.

I am not against the civ changing with the era, but do recognise that the message that is being sent by this mechanic is that these cultures no longer exist. Part of the story of history the game is trying to tell is that empires rise and fall and no culture remains the same for a thousand years, let alone six thousand.

The problem is, cultures do not completely disappear either. A European nation who had a vast continent-spanning empire during the game’s Exploration Age will still exist today as an independent nation. Of course the global empire of trade and conquest is more appealing from a game design perspective, but does that culture cease to exist in the Modern Era, obviously not!

This is even more problematic when depicting the colonised people themselves. The Maya and the Shawnee and the Songhai still exist. It is natural that the game depicts them at their historical height, but the game has them inevitably collapse and disappear in later eras.

Firaxis have to be careful here. I don’t think it is likely they will allow you to continue into a later era with the same civ, and even if you did it would be at a huge disadvantage. Of course Humankind had the same exact issue, even if it let you “transcend” as a culture this clearly wasn’t playing the game as it was designed.

I think much of how this goes down will depend on the variety of options of civs to pick in later eras, and whether there is a tangible and visible legacy of who you played before.

"The Maya and the Shawnee and the Songhai still exist." Their people still exist. Their cultures barely survive (I'd argue that Maya and Shawnee "culture" isn't really alive anymore in any significant way). But their EMPIRES have long since been ground into dust. As has the original Egyptian empire. As has the Roman Empire.

But I don't think that's really what the person was complaining about. It's more along the same sort of lines as what Paradox has to worry about with games like Europa Universalis, and not advocating, through game mechanics, genocide of technologically less "advanced" cultures.