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

[The_goggles_do_nothing]

as a side note, anyone mind if I start a thread focused squarely on victory conditions? in my view, this is one of the most interesting changes to the game.

was thinking about starting a thread before this one got posted, and it might yet help to have a more general thread that is not squarely concerned with western vs non-western perspectives on history (a very interesting topic, but also one distinct from talking more generally about the VC)

I'd request waiting to create the thread until after the game come out.

 

[Krikkit1]

I feel like Civ 6's diplo victory needs to be sneakily won. You almost need to get the last 4-5 points from other sources other than votes because all AIs will band against you to make you lose victory points, even allies since forever. It's kind of silly.

I suppose it's trying to mimic how other players would behave, but it just makes the victory type not what it says on the tin even in the single player mode.

For any game to have a true "Diplomatic" Victory you need to have some method of sharing a Victory.... ie if the EU "wins" did France or Germany or Italy or Poland won?... they all won

 

[sTAPler27]

I feel like Civ 6's diplo victory needs to be sneakily won. You almost need to get the last 4-5 points from other sources other than votes because everyone will band against you to make you lose victory points, even allies since forever. It's kind of silly.

I suppose it's trying to mimic how other players would behave, but it just makes the victory type not what it says on the tin even in the single player mode.

They should've made it a point where you only earn a victory point if your votes actually made a difference and removed the "this player gets 2 diplo points" resolution . That way the gameplay isn't just waiting ages for the next session just so all the players could mindlessly dogpile on the winning player with a single proposition. It would also make the voting strategy more substantial because there'd be more emphasis on those regular propositions which would mean you might have to risk giving the top player a point because the proposal that alligns with their interests also alligns with yours.

 

[sTAPler27]

For any game to have a true "Diplomatic" Victory you need to have some method of sharing a Victory.... ie if the EU "wins" did France or Germany or Italy or Poland won?... they all won

Maybe throw the people who joined the union some kind of sub-victory? Feels a bit like a participation trophy but you're right making diplomacy a soft domination victory does feel a bit ironic

 

[chaosprophet]

We already have too much RV for me. I think religion should bolster any victory like it did in Civ4 and Civ5.

If they expand legacies in a future update/expansion, to get like 2~3 different ways to get legacy points in each age, I could see they making it so each of the legacies on Exploration has at least one path that uses religion and at least one that doesn't. (also would be nice if at least one path didn't make use of distant lands or at least less use). That way people can focus more or less or even not make use of religions but still have a way to progress in all legacies.

 

[Zaarin]

If they expand legacies in a future update/expansion, to get like 2~3 different ways to get legacy points in each age, I could see they making it so each of the legacies on Exploration has at least one path that uses religion and at least one that doesn't. (also would be nice if at least one path didn't make use of distant lands or at least less use). That way people can focus more or less or even not make use of religions but still have a way to progress in all legacies.

Not sure if that's better or worse. I guess it would break the game less when I use a mod that limits the numbers of religions that can be founded...

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

For any game to have a true "Diplomatic" Victory you need to have some method of sharing a Victory.... ie if the EU "wins" did France or Germany or Italy or Poland won?... they all won

Not necessarily. I proposed it being the first one to complete the United Nations project, which is effectively being the first civ to both found and host it.

 

[Ornen]

So what's your objection against the idea of moving away from purely Western representation of colonialism?

not sure what your point is there, I never objected to that. I have objected to your dismissing as ridiculous the notion that the Civ games operate from a Western perspective. in my view this is not merely plausible, it is the plain and simple truth.

I'd request waiting to create the thread until after the game come out.

any reason why? happy to keep talking about VCs more broadly here, but a general thread is different in focus from one pointed at a specific issue, namely whether or not the VCs are too western in focus

re Diplo victory — what would that even look like in the early ages? I can imagine a religion themed one in Discovery age (like the Apostolic Palace in Civ 4), but it's hard for me to picture what 'winning at Diplomacy' would look like in Antiquity

I'm hoping we see alternative paths. for example, maybe for culture victory in Discover someone could lock into either scoring based on religious relics or scoring based on Renaissance artworks

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

re Diplo victory — what would that even look like in the early ages? I can imagine a religion themed one in Discovery age (like the Apostolic Palace in Civ 4), but it's hard for me to picture what 'winning at Diplomacy' would look like in Antiquity

Delian League: Befriending a certain number of independent powers.

It's simple, but it works.

 

[lo24681]

tbh with Diplo the one I have the hardest time with is something for exploration.

 

[Zaarin]

tbh with Diplo the one I have the hardest time with is something for exploration.

I was going to suggest something to do with ecumenical councils. Then I remembered everyone has their own religion so that's pointless.

 

[sTAPler27]

I was going to suggest something to do with ecumenical councils. Then I remembered everyone has their own religion so that's pointless.

This idea could still work. Lets say you're founding your religion late and you realize all the good bonuses are taken, so you do a schism where you add at least one unique belief to create a branch of another player's religion

 

[Zaarin]

This idea could still work. Lets say you're founding your religion late and you realize all the good bonuses are taken, so you do a schism where you add at least one unique belief to create a branch of another player's religion

Given I play single player and rather casually, I don't care how badly it breaks the game; I have every intention of modding it so that only two or three religions can be founded per game (assuming such a mod is possible). I found that enhanced my Civ6 experience, and if it cuts a few AI players out of a legacy path I won't weep for them.

 

[The_goggles_do_nothing]

any reason why? happy to keep talking about VCs more broadly here, but a general thread is different in focus from one pointed at a specific issue, namely whether or not the VCs are too western in focus

I think everyone having played the game will keep threads on track and focused on Civ 7. Seems like a lot of the talk right now is from people are not interested in civ 7.

 

[TheGrayFox]

not sure what your point is there, I never objected to that. I have objected to your dismissing as ridiculous the notion that the Civ games operate from a Western perspective. in my view this is not merely plausible, it is the plain and simple truth.

This. Firaxis is a western game devoloper who created a western game series about "doing an imperialism" which is meant to provide a very loose abstraction of all of human history and which has always operated from a very western centric view of World History. That is the Civilization series..

Though more recent titles have tried to be more inclusive, the realities of modern history are inescapable. Our "modern age" is defined by Western imperialism, colonialism, and technological advances/maritime expansion. You're not going to escape that reality in the Civilization series either, whether it's smacking you in the face in the form of Moteczuma donning a suit and tie in an western themed industrial age ala Civ 3, Colonization/revolution mechanics modelled on the Americas ala Civ IV, or the game ending in cataclysmic clash of European born ideologies ala V. This is a western series attempting to abstract all of human history into a game about imperialism at its core.

Asking Firaxis to make victory paths feel "less western" is like asking Jane Austen to make her novels "more black" or asking James Baldwin "hey where are all the straight, white male character?" It's just fruitless. Instead of arguing about the victory paths being "too western" it's probably makes more sense to argue about how the restrictive design of eras and their accompanying victory conditions will force the players into the same exact historical narrative every single game and turn what used to effectively be a very customizable long form sandbox 4x campaign experience into a glorified terra map script with short themed scenario packs for rounds.

 

[aelf]

Now that I think about it, one of the dev streams mentioned the Ming Treasure Fleets. So the Economic victory concept might not be that Eurocentric either (same as, as I mentioned, the Cultural/religious one, since China and Japan also saw big proselytisation efforts during this period).

I guess that shouldn't be surprising since Firaxis did choose to launch with only 2 Euro civs in Exploration Age. I think, time and again, the studio has shown that it seeks to represent not only Western macro-historical trends, but that of the world at large, which is great. The exclusion of England/Britain from the initial roster seals this for me. I don't see how that's deniable.

not sure what your point is there, I never objected to that. I have objected to your dismissing as ridiculous the notion that the Civ games operate from a Western perspective. in my view this is not merely plausible, it is the plain and simple truth.

Maybe you want to keep track of the topic of this thread and the conversation? Someone said that the OP's premise is unsound because Firaxis is a western studio with a western perspective. You were effectively continuing that part of the conversation.

 

[Nic@Melbourne]

This. Firaxis is a western game devoloper who created a western game series about "doing an imperialism" which is meant to provide a very loose abstraction of all of human history and which has always operated from a very western centric view of World History. That is the Civilization series..

Though more recent titles have tried to be more inclusive, the realities of modern history are inescapable. Our "modern age" is defined by Western imperialism, colonialism, and technological advances/maritime expansion. You're not going to escape that reality in the Civilization series either, whether it's smacking you in the face in the form of Moteczuma donning a suit and tie in an western themed industrial age ala Civ 3, Colonization/revolution mechanics modelled on the Americas ala Civ IV, or the game ending in cataclysmic clash of European born ideologies ala V. This is a western series attempting to abstract all of human history into a game about imperialism at its core.

Asking Firaxis to make victory paths feel "less western" is like asking Jane Austen to make her novels "more black" or asking James Baldwin "hey where are all the straight, white male character?" It's just fruitless. Instead of arguing about the victory paths being "too western" it's probably makes more sense to argue about how the restrictive design of eras and their accompanying victory conditions will force the players into the same exact historical narrative every single game and turn what used to effectively be a very customizable long form sandbox 4x campaign experience into a glorified terra map script with short themed scenario packs for rounds.

Agree very much with most of this.
It’s a game made by the West, it’s fair it has a Western Bias, they are allowed to have their own history after all. But since most the West is multicultural these days, it’s good to see other histories woven in. Particularly like the 3 Chinas and 3 Indias.

Side note, this edition has taken a big step challenging modern nationalist ideas of culture being fixed and eternal, highlights that cultures morph, mix and change throughout history with its era systems

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

"Instead of arguing about the victory paths being "too western" it's probably makes more sense to argue about how the restrictive design of eras and their accompanying victory conditions will force the players into the same exact historical narrative every single game and turn what used to effectively be a very customizable long form sandbox 4x campaign experience into a glorified terra map script with short themed scenario packs for rounds.

What I still don't understand about this argument is the notion that Civ has ever been a "very customizable long form sandbox". It may just be a lack of imagination on my part, can you be more specific about what you mean, in gameplay terms? My personal experience of Civ is that it is extremely linear, since everything is tied to the linear progression of tech trees. Where's the sandbox? Civ VI has a ton of mechanics that you can choose to engage with, or ignore if you prefer - is that what you mean? But is VII really different in that regard?

 

[Connor_CivFan]

For any game to have a true "Diplomatic" Victory you need to have some method of sharing a Victory.... ie if the EU "wins" did France or Germany or Italy or Poland won?... they all won

I dont agree, the EU is a separate entity and frankly a win for the EU is not a guaranteed win for multiple countries. What may be good for one doesnt have to be good for others

 

[stealth_nsk]

Shared victory between multiple players doesn't seem right from gameplay point of view, in the first place. The game should have a clear winner.

I was thinking about some kind of diplomatic domination, which is an alternative to just conquering. First idea which comes to mind for contemporary age is military base placement. Winning civ agrees to protect another one by placing military units, that sort of thing. Protected country counts towards domination/diplomacy victory for protector, but could still try to reach another victory type.