CIV 7 issues raised by a Native American

[Moriarte]

A major ambitious swing, that promises to introduce a whole rise-and-fall rhythm to the game, a compelling narrative pattern. Even just in pure gameplay terms, every Civ game has basically been over by the time you got to the middle ages or the renaissance at the latest. If they can solve that it's worth it to me to give up Space Babylon.

That one is solved by making a sharper version of AI and by populating the game with mid/end game mechanics and activities that make it interesting to play through the latter portions of the game. Forcing people to change civilisation twice is a silly answer to the question that wasn't asked. If there is nothing to do in the mid/end game, then there is nothing to do with any kind of civilisation, no matter how many times you swap them.

 

[lt22677]

I would disagree.

This would be true for a new IP, but Firaxis is not a new kid on the block and Civilization has over 3 decades of existance. It's almost like mario for platformers.
Sometimes new ideas might not necesserily work well for established franchise, and with a large community around a product, it's rather matter of urgency for potential damage control. (if this would happen)

comparing Civilization with the Mario Bros saga is wrong (which in any case Nintendo manages very carefully and taking few risks) Civilization should be compared with the HOMM saga which went up to 7 (released in 2015) which went very badly and at the moment the saga is in hibernation

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

This would be true for a new IP, but Firaxis is not a new kid on the block and Civilization has over 3 decades of existance. It's almost like mario for platformers.
Sometimes new ideas might not necesserily work well for established franchise, and with a large community around a product, it's rather matter of urgency for potential damage control. (if this would happen)

If Civ really wanted to branch out, I'm now imagining we could get Civilization Kart or a Super Smash Leaders platform fighting game.
Ironically, I think I'd like these ideas better than what we're getting.

 

[TreVor_ish]

comparing Civilization with the Mario Bros saga is wrong (which in any case Nintendo manages very carefully and taking few risks) Civilizaion should be compared with the HOMM saga which went up to 7 (released in 2015) which went very badly and at the moment the saga is in hibernation

Well, HOMM had more than one failed attempt in continuation before going silent, other example could be The Settlers which also took few games.

 

[TreVor_ish]

If Civ really wanted to branch out, I'm now imagining we could get Civilization Kart or a Super Smash Leaders platform fighting game.
Ironically, I think I'd like these ideas better than what we're getting.

I'm not sure I get it.

 

[lt22677]

Well, HOMM had more than one failed attempt in continuation before going silent, other example could be The Settlers which also took few games.

Two, respectively version 6 and version 7 (enthusiast of the HOMM series)

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I'm not sure I get it.

Well Mario eventually did branch out to more than just being a platformer game, though I guess things like Mario Kart and Mario Party are technically their own separate series. It was more of a joke.

 

[lt22677]

The settlers series remained similar in concept until version 4 and from then onwards it underwent a transformation that made it very different from the initial version (and to be honest I don't know when the decline began)

 

[timmychompchomp]

Non-issue if you ask me. Colonization happens and has happened everywhere. Either be apart of the game and history or not. Everyone will be Civ switching. Video games are not teaching tools(shouldn't be) and every single aspect of life shouldn't be a moralistic crusade to right every wrong committed by dead people. There is a time and a place for that. Also, there is a limit to what we can and more importantly, what we should do. I am not without empathy for the native americans, I am a descendent after all, but so far removed it is irrelevant to my life.

Firaxis showed the appropriate, in my opinion, amount of respect and sensitivity by engaging with the Shawnee. So much so, the Shawnee, as reported by the reddititor, are excitied about the game.

We can drop nukes in the game to win. What Civ transitions to whatever Civ, which is a choice, is a lame thing to be focused on with this in mind.

I guess he's more worried about multi-player, but that's incredibly ease to resolve. Don't play with crappy people. Humanity will never be void of crappy people, leaders, acts, and tragedies. Find your pleasures where you can and don't sweat the small stuff like a video game.

 

[Somebody613]

In various Pew reports, over 95% of Native Americans, Native Hawaiians, Canadian First Nations, and Inuit/Innu/Yupik identify as, "Christian," of some denomination or other. Syncretism with ancestral beliefs certainly exists, but it's impact, level of saturation, and practicing members engaging is difficult to gauge.

See? Such a "preservation of culture" there, ya know.

 

[Thormodr]

But everyone calls it Byzantine and it was culturally different... particularly Byzantine "Rome" of 1000 AD v. Rome of 1 AD

Even though Byzantium didn't conquer and wipe out the Romans.... So the name changed and the culture changed even the language of the majority of the population ended up different... But the people called themselves Romans and the Empire never exactly fell in the transition

So Transition to a "different civ" could mean...

You were wiped out... want to try again with something new? (and a few memories of those you defeated)
OR
You survived and changed

The more the player can control things which make EITHER of those interpretations make sense, the more fun the game will be.

So a Rome Civ could switch to Mongols, Change their civ name to Mongols and rename all of their cities from the Mongol list.
The Roman empire was razed to the ground and the Mongols resettled it for the good pasture land (like Genghis's initial plans for China...) (those towns are filled with mongol settlers... a few straggling survivors build the old way)
OR
A Rome Civ switched to the Mongols, kept the name Rome and all new cities are named from the Roman list.
Roman Generals becoming more powerful to the point of leading warbands across the empire during the Crisis.. breakthroughs in cavalry archery technology and tactics (some copied from invaders), allowed a particular commander to unite the warring generals and lead the empire into the next great phase of conquest.


Either of those stories are a Rome->Mongol Civ switch
If the Player can Easily ie by default control
1. The civs name
2. The city list options

Then the player can go for the feel/history they want.

The default for AIs (and probably human players) should probably be switch to new, but with portions of the old... but the option to keep all of the old (particularly in names) would be important.

This could be in
civ name
city name
city graphics
"flags"

(That way Rome and Aztecs and even Poland can into space)

Everyone calls it Byzantine but they clearly identified as Romans. Even the Turks when they invaded Asia Minor set up a Sultanate called the Sultanate of Rum. They wanted to be Rome, too.

 

[Patine]

Everyone calls it Byzantine but they clearly identified as Romans.

They used the term, but after Justinian I (sometimes called by historians, "the Last Roman") they were definitely becoming something else, in all meaninful ways.

 

[Thormodr]

The first is marketing, the latter a matter of taste.
So that is exactly the same as for every other game out there.



Very well, that is your choice.
What are you again doing here?

Well, he could be waiting for mods that roll back some of the drastic changes? That would be nice.

Anyway, I wasn't aware that forum participation was contingent on actually buying the specific iteration, though.

 

[HNation]

I must have missed the part where Queen Victoria could lead America in Civ 6?
As far as I know there's only Teddy Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln.

I meant Civ 7.

 

[TheGrayFox]

They used the term, but after Justinian I (sometimes called by historians, "the Last Roman") they were definitely becoming something else, in all meaninful ways.

No, not really.

1) The title of "last Roman" is something that has been used repeatedly throughout history, with its first documentation being from Caesar to Brutus. Most contemporary historians don't call or consider Justinian "the last Roman"

2) In what ways had it become so different culturally? That the state started speaking Greek as a first langauge because it was the lingua franca of the east?

There is most certainly a reason to awknowledge the historical divison of the empire and distinguish between Rome in Antiquity and Rome in the Middle Ages but that is no reason to try to divorce the Eastern Roman Empire from Rome (except for historiographic bias) . Again I also point out much of western historography is bias towards the Catholic Church and Germanic states claiming to be the true succesors of Rome.

 

[Acepox]

2) In what ways had it become so different culturally? That the state started speaking Greek as a first langauge because it was the lingua franca of the east?

Kind of hilarious that you play that down as if it was insignificant when it actually is one of the clearest markers of a cultural border.

Language is central to a nation's identity. It shapes how we define reality itself, how we relate to each other, how social interactions are governed, what values or traditions are elevated to preeminence, etc.

A shift in official language would be a hell of a good reason to switch over to a different demonym.

As far as the Reddit OP's post is concerned, all I can say is... I look forward to ruling southern African civilizations as the England leader. I mean, come on now, is he surprised that a game in which a victory condition is total global domination involves... domination? What else to expect from a Redditor lol...

 

[TheGrayFox]

Kind of hilarious that you play that down as if it was insignificant when it actually is one of the clearest markers of a cultural border.

Language is central to a nation's identity. It shapes how we define reality itself, how we relate to each other, how social interactions are governed, what values or traditions are elevated to preeminence, etc.

I didn't downplay anything.

1) The concept of a nation-state is a completely modern concept and you did not have to speak Latin to be a Roman citizen for most of Rome's history.

2) The difference is that I understand historical context and know that most educated people in the Roman Empire already spoke Greek before the split in the empire and that Greek as a langauge had been the lingua franca of the Roman Empire's east since before it was even conquered. The fact that the state administratively shifted official langauges to reflect the demographics it ruled specifically (while Latin still remainng a common langauge learned among the elite in east) really doesn't mark a sudden shift in the culture of the Eastern Roman Empire. They concerned themselves Romans, They were considered Romans by all their neighbors but Catholic/Germanic West. They were Roman citizens, followed Roman law, had Roman entertainment, it's social, religious, cultural, and archetcetural are a direct continuation of their late Roman tradition.. The emperor changing first langauge of the state alone doesn't immediately make Eastern Romans a completely different cultural group.

A shift in official language would be a hell of a good reason to switch over to a different demonym.

Not really, though as I've already pointed there already is an easy way of distinguishing Roman Empire of Antiquity and the Eastern Rome Empire of the Middle ages. The different demonym is something purely created b westerny historigraphical bias.

As far as the Reddit OP's post is concerned, all I can say is... I look forward to ruling southern African civilizations as the England leader. I mean, come on now, is he surprised that a game in which a victory condition is total global domination involves... domination? What else to expect from a Redditor lol...

I think you're missing the actual point bud.

 

[Verdant]

If Civ 7 sales bomb due solely to civ-switching, there is a tantalizing, simple idea for the first major expansion.

 

[Acepox]

I didn't downplay anything.

1) The concept of a nation-state is a completely modern concept and you did not have to speak Latin to be a Roman citizen for most of Rome's history.

2) The difference is that I understand historical context and know that most educated people in the Roman Empire already spoke Greek before the split in the empire and that Greek as a langauge had been the lingua franca of the Roman Empire's east since before it was even conquered. The fact that the state administratively shifted official langauges to reflect the demographics it ruled specifically (while Latin still remainng a common langauge learned among the elite in east) really doesn't mark a sudden shift in the culture of the Eastern Roman Empire. They concerned themselves Romans, They were considered Romans by all their neighbors but Catholic/Germanic West. They were Roman citizens, followed Roman law, had Roman entertainment, it's social, religious, cultural, and archetcetural are a direct continuation of their late Roman tradition.. The emperor changing first langauge of the state alone doesn't immediately make Eastern Romans a completely different cultural group.



Not really, though as I've already pointed there already is an easy way of distinguishing Roman Empire of Antiquity and the Eastern Rome Empire of the Middle ages. The different demonym is something purely created b westerny historigraphical bias.



I think you're missing the actual point bud.

That sounds like some commie gobbledygook.

Imagine if America became 50% hispanophone. Would you point to the vague "moment" Spanish hit 50% as the turn of an era? Or to the very precise point in time at which the state declared Spanish the official language and started conducting official business only in Spanish?

You know damn well what the answer is. A state elevating a language above another marks a tectonic shift. There are no ifs ands or buts about this.

Nothing "immediately" changes a cultural group other than eradication (from war or natural disaster), that doesn't mean you can't draw a line in the sand somewhere to differentiate between a preceding identity and a succeeding identity. If no categorization can be made then I guess we should just shutter all history departments in universities and Firaxis should reimburse all its Civilization sales, given it would be such a fraudulent title. After all, all that could be said about Human history is that "creatures of unspecified origin have used varied tools for a variety of purposes around the planet for an unspecified amount of time".

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

As far as the Reddit OP's post is concerned, all I can say is... I look forward to ruling southern African civilizations as the England leader. I mean, come on now, is he surprised that a game in which a victory condition is total global domination involves... domination? What else to expect from a Redditor lol...

But they will be unable to do it as their own culture, in the Modern Era, which was the point.

2) The difference is that I understand historical context and know that most educated people in the Roman Empire already spoke Greek before the split in the empire and that Greek as a langauge had been the lingua franca of the Roman Empire's east since before it was even conquered. The fact that the state administratively shifted official langauges to reflect the demographics it ruled specifically (while Latin still remainng a common langauge learned among the elite in east) really doesn't mark a sudden shift in the culture of the Eastern Roman Empire. They concerned themselves Romans, They were considered Romans by all their neighbors but Catholic/Germanic West. They were Roman citizens, followed Roman law, had Roman entertainment, it's social, religious, cultural, and archetcetural are a direct continuation of their late Roman tradition.. The emperor changing first langauge of the state alone doesn't immediately make Eastern Romans a completely different cultural group.

I'd have to comment that the schism between the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic was way more of a cultural divide between the two, than maybe the language that was spoken. So, I wouldn't necessarily say that religious practices were a direct continuation. Pre-Christian Rome was even less so.