CIV 7 issues raised by a Native American

[Professor Phobo]

Civilizations are not static, but they evolve, they certainly don't transform like that suddenly. Do you know any civilization that has transformed from Sedentary Agricultural to Nomadic? If so, which ones (I teach history and my specialization is medieval history)

I do not, but it's not that sudden - in the abstraction of the game, it's the consequence of a crisis followed by a time jump. That's sort of what I mean by a brute force approach, since it we're basically highlighting two Dramatic Transition points instead of a real evolutionary process. I could easily see them having gone a different route and have you "buy" the special abilities of civilizations not in the game. Sort of like a "Civilization Respec" instead of a "Civ Switch." You'd stay as Egypt, but you'd be able to respec your civilization twice to account for these big transition periods throughout the game, with a new slate of unique stuff.

I mean I could ask the same question, does any civilization actually remind you of the one in we typically play in the game? I just finished a game as Rome in Civ 6. I built six cities and sat around waiting until I discovered how to go to space, then I went to space. No revolutions, no plagues, no wars, no economic crisis, no political scandals...

 

[TheGrayFox]

We're not exactly representative, and still more than 50% intend to buy it.

I wasn't even refering to that poll. if you go by that poll over 70% of users are negative towards the change specifically even if it won't prevent half of them from buying. (which again after they actually experience it, they may change their tune entirely just like when Humankind failed)

And no matter what: This change was announced so widely that everyone's grandma has now heard it, and it's only 6 month until launch, so no time to change even if someone wanted to.
Chance of the complaints having any effect on this here is effectively 0. Only the sales numbers will have an impact.

That's why many are publicly announcing they have no intention to buy the game. It's very unlikely they make serious design changes 6 months out from launch without serious delays but if sales are bad enough, they can't retain a playerbase/sell DLC, and/or get enough negative criticism, they'll eventually change their tune and walk back controversial designs or fail/succeed underwhelmingly)

 

[The_J]

With Civ8 earliest .

 

[pokiehl]

With Civ8 earliest .

In the reveal video, Sid said they planned to support Civ 7 for a very long time. Civ 8 may be a decade or more away!

 

[lt22677]

I do not, but it's not that sudden - in the abstraction of the game, it's the consequence of a crisis followed by a time jump. That's sort of what I mean by a brute force approach, since it we're basically highlighting two Dramatic Transition points instead of a real evolutionary process. I could easily see them having gone a different route and have you "buy" the special abilities of civilizations not in the game. Sort of like a "Civilization Respec" instead of a "Civ Switch." You'd stay as Egypt, but you'd be able to respec your civilization twice to account for these big transition periods throughout the game, with a new slate of unique stuff.

I mean I could ask the same question, does any civilization actually remind you of the one in we typically play in the game? I just finished a game as Rome in Civ 6. I built six cities and sat around waiting until I discovered how to go to space, then I went to space. No revolutions, no plagues, no wars, no economic crisis, no political scandals...

If you mean by invasion crisis, well then it is not an evolution, but simply an amalgam of the invaders with the invaded, but in the case of Egypt - Mongolia brought by Firaxis you simply have that if the Egyptians have three horses they transform into Mongolia which means passing from a Sedentary Agricultural to a Nomadic way of life which is TOTALLY ANTI-HISTORICAL. Furthermore, the Evolution of civilizations is also linked to the territory and the resources of the same Example the Egyptians were invaded by the Hyksos (Nomadic peoples) but in the end it was they who adopted that they adapted to the Egyptian lifestyle, certainly not the other way around

However, since we are now talking about evolution from the point of view of historicity and not gaming, give me a concrete example





Feedb

 

[Professor Phobo]

If you mean by invasion crisis, well then it is not an evolution, but simply an amalgam of the invaders with the invaded, but in the case of Egypt - Mongolia brought by Firaxis you simply have that if the Egyptians have three horses they transform into Mongolia which means passing from a Sedentary Agricultural to a Nomadic way of life which is TOTALLY ANTI-HISTORICAL. Furthermore, the Evolution of civilizations is also linked to the territory and the resources of the same Example the Egyptians were invaded by the Hyksos (Nomadic peoples) but in the end it was they who adopted that they adapted to the Egyptian lifestyle, certainly not the other way around

However, since we are now talking about evolution from the point of view of historicity and not gaming, give me a concrete example

Is your point that the gameplay abstraction of civ-switching isn't historically accurate, because that's not how civs switch?

Civs don't "switch" in real life. They're not discrete entities. They have fuzzy boundaries with their neighbors. They are a conceptual object, not a physical one. No one is playing a "civ" in real life! There's no magical spirit directing events across centuries and coordinating some kinds of policy and not others. It feels historical to have a certain amount of churn, because history is full of change and nothing is static in the same way it is in the game. The game doesn't have to match how history actually works, it has to match how history feels, and it certainly feels like there's a bunch of history under our feet and things are not the same as they once were.

 

[TreVor_ish]

In the reveal video, Sid said they planned to support Civ 7 for a very long time. Civ 8 may be a decade or more away!

Unless it sells below expectations or have underwhelming reviews in community.

 

[lt22677]

Is your point that the gameplay abstraction of civ-switching isn't historically accurate, because that's not how civs switch?

Civs don't "switch" in real life. They're not discrete entities. They have fuzzy boundaries with their neighbors. They are a conceptual object, not a physical one. No one is playing a "civ" in real life! There's no magical spirit directing events across centuries and coordinating some kinds of policy and not others. It feels historical to have a certain amount of churn, because history is full of change and nothing is static in the same way it is in the game. The game doesn't have to match how history actually works, it has to match how history feels, and it certainly feels like there's a bunch of history under our feet and things are not the same as they once were.

Perfect. But then don't justify Civ-Switching with the concept that civilizations evolve because evolution is something completely different.

(if you were my student I wouldn't have promoted you, I'm joking )







Feedback

 

[Professor Phobo]

Perfect. But then don't justify Civ-Switching with the concept that civilizations evolve because evolution is something completely different.

Sure and to an extent that's already in the game - what's technology and culture other than evolutionary change in your civ - but I dunno, if we're talking what is and isn't justified by history, I don't know if I can do another thousand obsessive hours in a game where all I do is eat one neighbor, befriend the other, then press the spaceship button.

 

[TheGrayFox]

Is your point that the gameplay abstraction of civ-switching isn't historically accurate, because that's not how civs switch?

Civs don't "switch" in real life. They're not discrete entities. They have fuzzy boundaries with their neighbors. They are a conceptual object, not a physical one. No one is playing a "civ" in real life! There's no magical spirit directing events across centuries and coordinating some kinds of policy and not others. It feels historical to have a certain amount of churn, because history is full of change and nothing is static in the same way it is in the game. The game doesn't have to match how history actually works, it has to match how history feels, and it certainly feels like there's a bunch of history under our feet and things are not the same as they once were.

it doesn't feel like history either

Civilizations lead by people from 1700s leading ancient civilizations which then all morph into completely different peoples and cultural groups at the start of "era" (read: game round) which began because of arbitrary crisis they all faced at exactly the same time before mighty morphing is not how history feels.

Again if you want the feel of history. go play a Paradox game that does the idea of tagswitching and historical "simulation" so much better than Civ or if you like the idea of civ swapping so badly go play humankind or millenia... see how it feels... you and the 1000 people still play either

 

[The_J]

it doesn't feel like history either

Feeling is purely subjective, and many people will disagree.

 

[TheGrayFox]

Feeling is purely subjective, and many people will disagree.

Sorry I should've said it doesn't feel like history to all but the 19-25% of you who apparenlty want this change and view it with any sort of positive feeling.....

 

[Paisley_Trees]

Making sure that a loud minority doesn't outscream a the silent majority.
But I should be sleeping or reading a book or cleaning my house or literally anything else TBH.

But then you would be just a civ fan and not civ fanatic! It’s interesting you say the historical accuracy angle is all marketing, I think that’s exactly right now that I saw Ed Beach say on IGN the biggest feedback during testing was players wanting something closer to historical reality. Remains to be seen how much the marketing will match the game or if it even matters at all!

 

[pokiehl]

Unless it sells below expectations or have underwhelming reviews in community.

You’re right but in a different way than you meant.

In today’s environment of shareholders demanding immediate returns on their investments, commercial failures are more likely to end the franchise or force it into hiatus, rather than convince publishers to dump even more money into a project even sooner.

So yes, a decade for Civ 8 be incorrect if Civ 7 fails. Could be far longer.

 

[lt22677]

Sure and to an extent that's already in the game - what's technology and culture other than evolutionary change in your civ - but I dunno, if we're talking what is and isn't justified by history, I don't know if I can do another thousand obsessive hours in a game where all I do is eat one neighbor, befriend the other, then press the spaceship button.

Even on the concept of technological, social evolution etc... there would be a lot to say, but obviously I understand that it is a game, but at least I find this more digestible than the absurd Civ-Swithing, but I honestly would have preferred a system like Civ 5 improved in modifying civilization, thus simulating an evolution that is at least historically credible compared to this thing that if you have 3 horses you become Mongolia

 

[The_J]

It’s interesting you say the historical accuracy angle is all marketing, I think that’s exactly right now that I saw Ed Beach say on IGN the biggest feedback during testing was players wanting something closer to historical reality. Remains to be seen how much the marketing will match the game or if it even matters at all!

To note: I do like the civ switching mechanic, and think it is more "accurate".
It is also obviously marketing, no matter which way you look at it. The rest can be true (and I would believe it), but everyone will agree that it is at minimum marketing.

 

[lt22677]

You’re right but in a different way than you meant.

In today’s environment of shareholders demanding immediate returns on their investments, commercial failures are more likely to end the franchise or force it into hiatus, rather than convince publishers to dump even more money into a project even sooner.

So yes, a decade for Civ 8 be incorrect if Civ 7 fails. Could be far longer.

Here I agree with you, if Civ 7 is not a success the Civilizaton series is at risk and therefore even more so I don't understand why to focus on a path of non-success i.e. that of HK (I doubt that Amplitude will make HK2 soon if it doesn't even remain a unique title) after all, we have had successful series that ended due to bad choices like Master of Orion and Heroes of Might and Magic

 

[pokiehl]

Here I agree with you, if Civ 7 is not a success the Civilizaton series is at risk and therefore even more so I don't understand why to focus on a path of non-success

Yep. Games get one bite at the apple to be successful. That’s why I’m inclined to believe they are sure they’re on the right path. They’re not going to bet the farm on a bad idea.

Just because you registered a few days ago and have made 82 consecutive posts (and growing) repeating that you hate this idea doesn’t make it a “path of non-success.” Your dislike of the idea says nothing about its actual merits.

 

[lt22677]

Making sure that a loud minority doesn't outscream a the silent majority.
But I should be sleeping or reading a book or cleaning my house or literally anything else TBH.

you know that it was Nixon who brought up this story of the silent minority and I would say that it went badly for him (but I'm not an expert in modern American history, but in medieval history )

 

[TheGrayFox]

Yep. Games get one bite at the apple to be successful. That’s why I’m inclined to believe they are sure they’re on the right path. They’re not going to bet the farm on a bad idea.

Just because you registered a few days ago and have made 82 consecutive posts (and growing) repeating that you hate this idea doesn’t make it a “path of non-success.” Your dislike of the idea says nothing about its actual merits.

*laughs in Simcity*