Civ 7's Victory Paths can Use Some Work to Feel Less Western Specific

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

The youngest branch? My argument is that Christianity can only be defined by what was believed and preached by Christ and the Apostles, long before the Middle Ages, not after. I’m saying that Christianity is whatever Jesus Himself believed, and insofar as later individuals calling themselves Christians differ from Him in their beliefs, they’re wrong about what Christianity is.

There’s nothing specifically American or Protestant about that definition. The early Church, the Fathers, the Councils, and the Creeds were all trying to preserve and explain the teachings that had been handed down by Christ.

Instead of talking about the particulars let's stay on topic and not get into a theology debate in the game thread.
I think we can all agree that relics played a major role in the Catholic Church and the Orthodox world, which is what the main timeframe of the Exploration Age is mainly supposed to represent.

 

[sTAPler27]

Oh I agree with you but I don't think the problem is inherently the victory conditions. It's how the ages themselves are framed around an western narrative of history, particularly the Modern age and Age of Exploration. This problem has always been present to some extent in the series ex: modern age has always lead to European style industrialized nation-states adopting and clashing over European born ideologies but its more grating now that we're also being forced to engage in overseas colonialism modeled on western history to "win" the "Age of Exploration"

I agree with you. It's no coincidence that the Antiquity Age ends at 400 CE when Rome fell meanwhile several of the non European civs (some who didn't even know Rome existed) fell centuries after the fact. I love the Age system as a mechanic but in their attempt to create a balanced system in which everyone uses the same time frame it pigeonholes a lot of mechanics into a very narrow view of history.

 

[Zaarin]

The youngest branch? My argument is that Christianity can only be defined by what was believed and preached by Christ and the Apostles, long before the Middle Ages, not after. I’m saying that Christianity is whatever Jesus Himself believed, and insofar as later individuals calling themselves Christians differ from Him in their beliefs, they’re wrong about what Christianity is.

There’s nothing specifically American or Protestant about that definition. The early Church, the Fathers, the Councils, and the Creeds were all trying to preserve and explain the teachings that had been handed down by Christ.

I don't think this is the appropriate venue for arguing over the nature of Christianity or Christian theology. The fundamental point is that in a historical game, a definition that excludes Catholic and Eastern Christianity is not useful; in a historical game, Christianity should be defined in historical, not theological, terms.

 

[The_goggles_do_nothing]

Ancient and Exploration would have a Legacy Path where you try to develop a 'Art Style'

Civilian Artist unit that you move to a Natural Wonder or World Wonder to then be inspired to create art. By researching civics you could open up art styles to create art in.

 

[Krikkit1]

The youngest branch? My argument is that Christianity can only be defined by what was believed and preached by Christ and the Apostles, long before the Middle Ages, not after. I’m saying that Christianity is whatever Jesus Himself believed, and insofar as later individuals calling themselves Christians differ from Him in their beliefs, they’re wrong about what Christianity is.

There’s nothing specifically American or Protestant about that definition. The early Church, the Fathers, the Councils, and the Creeds were all trying to preserve and explain the teachings that had been handed down by Christ.

And the teachings of any form of Christianity at any point in time or space, are Absolutely Completely and Totally Irrelevant to a game mechanic where the religion name is only a name* (there are beliefs but they aren't linked to the religion like uniques are to a civ)

That said, one thing that could help is splitting some of the other religions as well ie Sunni/Shiite/?Sufi Islam, etc. Follow the same idea as for Christianity, take the basic model (ie Crescent instead of Cross) and add some variations on it.
[It would be nice if the Religious Tree actually anticipated that...as well... only ~6/7 religions to start.. but you can adopt a foreign one and research theology to the point of Reformation... then you get to choose a specific form for Your empire]

*and Christianity isn't even one of the Religions.

 

[Zaarin]

That said, one thing that could help is splitting some of the other religions as well ie Sunni/Shiite/?Sufi Islam, etc.

I've played with Tomatekh's Historical Religions for so long I sort of forget this isn't a thing in the base game.

 

[aelf]

"While we are at it, can this western game about imperialism stop being about imperialism."

Why mention both if both are not a facet of the game's identity?

Indeed. Seems like a rather inane defense of what that poster said. Why mention "western" at all if not implying it's about Western imperialism?

Not to mention describing the Babylonian Empire or something as "imperialist" is rather... quaint.

Yes the game is a western game about Imperialism. Nothing stated there is incorrect.

Firaxis is a western game devoloper and the western bias of this series is obvious especially in its earliest interations. Which is why half the civs are almost always specific European/western nation-states, why Ghandi leading a modern India is so common, why we've seen America represented in every game of the series while we've also seen a catch all Native American civ for all indignious North Americans, etc. The series has only recently moved away from using the most popular leaders and figures in western histriography as leaders. Civilization is a western game series

This makes zero sense in the context of what we're talking about. You can argue that the game is by definition a western take on some facets of history, but there's still no reason to conclude that it must necessarily be trying to represent only Western exploration and colonisation. It's an incoherent argument.

 

[TheGrayFox]

Indeed. Seems like a rather inane defense of what that poster said. Why mention "western" at all if not implying it's about Western imperialism?

Because the implication was that it was a western game about imperialism. Not that the game was specifically only about only western imperialism. My defense wasn't "inane" your argument is just kind of not good and obvious misrepresntation of the post you responded to

Not to mention describing the Babylonian Empire or something as "imperialist" is rather... quaint.

Why is it weird to refer to an empire that expanded through military conquest as imperialist...? Quaint? Do you think the city state of Babylon conquered and controlled Jerusalem through hugs and kisses?

This makes zero sense in the context of what we're talking about. You can argue that the game is by definition a western take on some facets of history, but there's still no reason to conclude that it must necessarily be trying to represent only Western exploration and colonisation. It's an incoherent argument.

Who is arguing that Civilization MUST represent ONLY western exploration and colonization....mods forgive me but that is literally a strawman. Again that wasn't the point and you are arguing against the most uncharitable interpretention of that post. . This Civilization series has an obvious western bias as it's designed by westerners and the series' is inherently about imperialism. Those two points shouldn't be contentious to point out together

 

[TheSpaceCowboy]

Instead of talking about the particulars let's stay on topic and not get into a theology debate in the game thread.
I think we can all agree that relics played a major role in the Catholic Church and the Orthodox world, which is what the main timeframe of the Exploration Age is mainly supposed to represent.

My original contention was exactly the opposite - that mechanically, the Relic system is not a good representation of Western religion in Medieval and Reformation Eras precisely because relics were not of major importance to the Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant branches of Christianity.

My subsequent posts were merely in defense of original one about the game mechanics.

I also made mention of Mohammed and Siddhartha so as not to get into a discussion or debate about Christianity specifically.

My objection to the Original Post still stands, but I’ve been playing around with ideas for a Religion focused expansion pack, and I’ll explore my ideas in a post about that instead of relitigating my above arguments again in this thread.

 

[Krikkit1]

My original contention was exactly the opposite - that mechanically, the Relic system is not a good representation of Western religion in Medieval and Reformation Eras precisely because relics were not of major importance to the Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant branches of Christianity.

My subsequent posts were merely in defense of original one about the game mechanics.

I also made mention of Mohammed and Siddhartha so as not to get into a discussion or debate about Christianity specifically.

My objection to the Original Post still stands, but I’ve been playing around with ideas for a Religion focused expansion pack, and I’ll explore my ideas in a post about that instead of relitigating my above arguments again in this thread.

Well there's 2 issues there
1. the name (Relics).. definitely big significance in Medieval Catholic and Orthodox Practice (if not teaching)
2. the mechanics (you get them by spreading your religion in a particular way) which fits all of the missionizing religions (of which Christianity is definitely one)

 

[TheGrayFox]

My original contention was exactly the opposite - that mechanically, the Relic system is not a good representation of Western religion in Medieval and Reformation Eras precisely because relics were not of major importance to the Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant branches of Christianity.

this isn't true though

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

My original contention was exactly the opposite - that mechanically, the Relic system is not a good representation of Western religion in Medieval and Reformation Eras precisely because relics were not of major importance to the Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant branches of Christianity.

Then why is the majority of Relics in Civ 6, linked to Christianity, whether Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant?
And I'm not counting the Heroes relics or the Voidsinger relics from the game modes.

 

[TheSpaceCowboy]

Then why is the majority of Relics in Civ 6, linked to Christianity, whether Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant?
And I'm not counting the Heroes relics or the Voidsinger relics from the game modes.

You’re responding to an entirely different question: Among the relics in existence, are many of them Christian?
I agree that the answer to that question is absolutely yes.

But I was responding to a different question: Of the things which are important to the Christian religion, are relics among them?
I say no.

If we were to make a list of the things important to the Christian religion, we might include:
1) Faith in Jesus
2) Right doctrines / correct theology
3) Rituals / Sacraments such as Baptism and the Lord’s Supper
4) Scripture
5) Moral behavior / living out the faith
6) Prayer
7) The authority of the Church / clergy
7) Evangelizing the Gospel
8) Relics

I would imagine different denominations might order that list very differently in terms of importance, but none would place relics particularly high.

Civ VII’s depiction of Religion really only focuses on the bottom two items and ignores the rest. That’s why I don’t think it’s a very good mechanical translation of religion, and certainly not of Western religion in particular

 

[Zaarin]

I don’t think it’s a very good mechanical translation of religion

On this I agree. Every version of Civ's take on religion has gotten a little worse and a little gamier.

 

[Sirimiri]

I think the presentation of the victory would be aided by a diversification of the kinds of 'relics' - there could very much be room for e.g. Daoist talismans, shamanic objects (e.g. knives, paintings and fans from the Korean tradition), Kongo nkisi (which their ability in Civ VI was named after) or Quechua wak'a within this sort of model which Civ adopts because these conditions have to be understood by a massive audience.

I agree that the model of religion in the game is often flawed, but tbh I don't think most people would be interested in the kind of changes which matter to those of us who care this much about it. It's probably more interesting to think about what could be added at this stage, as I don't imagine a huge reworking of these systems is on the horizon at this point.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

But I was responding to a different question: Of the things which are important to the Christian religion, are relics among them?
I say no.

I will agree with you that it's not important today. Now when talking about the Middle Ages, which is what they are putting the emphasis on with religion, I would say they are much higher. That's what everyone else is trying to say.
There's a reason why the emphasis on religion and relics isn't needed once you reach the Modern Age.

Civ VII’s depiction of Religion really only focuses on the bottom two items and ignores the rest. That’s why I don’t think it’s a very good mechanical translation of religion, and certainly not of Western religion in particular

I don't necessarily like the way the game is going in terms of religion or culture victory either, besides the Antiquity Age with building wonders. They've certainly simplified it.

 

[hoplite_fan]

For example a Science Oriented Civ could found a religion that was more philisophical than spiritual that grants Science based on Followers within your own Settlements. Religions are really different from one another in our own world so why make the gameplay around them so uniform?

Your conception of history is so misguided, religion and science are reconciliated all the time

 

[Ornen]

This makes zero sense in the context of what we're talking about. You can argue that the game is by definition a western take on some facets of history, but there's still no reason to conclude that it must necessarily be trying to represent only Western exploration and colonisation. It's an incoherent argument.

the game is made by westerners, it comes from a western perspective. it is directly relevant to the topic at hand, which is the claim that certain gameplay systems operate from a western perspective.

 

[Albertan Civfanatic]

It never ends...

 

[sTAPler27]

the game is made by westerners, it comes from a western perspective. it is directly relevant to the topic at hand, which is the claim that certain gameplay systems operate from a western perspective.

Bias is innevitable but claiming that because they're a western developer that they are incapable of making a game that represents all of history means a dead end for the future of growing the game in the future. What would the game be without fleshing out old mechanics and adding new civs, you can only do that so much if your view of history and civilization is narrow.