civlization MythsVS History

[Morningcalm]

A mythology-themed Civ game would be great (though I would appreciate an epic atmosphere over one that leans into humorous territory a bit too much). PotatoMcWhiskey also mentioned the concept of a myth-themed Civ when responding to a chat comment indicating he thought it would be a great idea.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

A mythology-themed Civ game would be great (though I would appreciate an epic atmosphere over one that leans into humorous territory a bit too much). PotatoMcWhiskey also mentioned the concept of a myth-themed Civ when responding to a chat comment indicating he thought it would be a great idea.

I'd love it if some of these game modes were a way to get feedback on the possibility of a mythology spin-off.

 

[Morningcalm]

Who knows? Maybe Firaxis already has plans for one such entry, or has discussed it internally before. Myth and legend is a good bridge between fantasy and history.

 

[The Civs 6]

I think this debate hangs on a very facile idea of a myth. We see myths as things that ancient, superstitious people have and that we moderns don't have. We see myths as focused on the supernatural, while the often delusional narratives of modern society (which incidentally are premised on the unreality of supernatural things) are not myths. So I think the real question being asked is whether Civ should incorporate any supernatural elements into it.

And I think the answer is emphatically no. Civ is a game that is built on the secular, materialist framework of reality. Civ embraces a 90's view of the rise and progress of mankind as a material and adaptive phenomenon. The idea of a vampire has absolutely no place in this view of reality - a vampire exists to benefit itself in any myth that is told of it, it isn't a tool to be wielded by the state in aid of same vague goal of going to Alpha Centauri, and likewise with the heroes. Imagine vain Achilles (who isn't a hero, I know, but he is akin with Hercules) being wielded about at your whim. There is no thematic match between the legend and the gameplay.

 

[Morningcalm]

I think this debate hangs on a very facile idea of a myth. We see myths as things that ancient, superstitious people have and that we moderns don't have. We see myths as focused on the supernatural, while the often delusional narratives of modern society (which incidentally are premised on the unreality of supernatural things) are not myths. So I think the real question being asked is whether Civ should incorporate any supernatural elements into it.

And I think the answer is emphatically no. Civ is a game that is built on the secular, materialist framework of reality. Civ embraces a 90's view of the rise and progress of mankind as a material and adaptive phenomenon. The idea of a vampire has absolutely no place in this view of reality - a vampire exists to benefit itself in any myth that is told of it, it isn't a tool to be wielded by the state in aid of same vague goal of going to Alpha Centauri, and likewise with the heroes. Imagine vain Achilles (who isn't a hero, I know, but he is akin with Hercules) being wielded about at your whim. There is no thematic match between the legend and the gameplay.

I disagree with your view that Civ is "built on the secular, materialist framework of reality". Moreover, vampires are already in Civ VI, and mythic/legendary heroes, including Hercules, as well. Whether we want supernatural elements or no, Firaxis has seen fit to include them, albeit in a gameplay mode rather than the main base game of Civ (so far).

Also, have we asked the vampires what they think? Do they want to "benefit [themselves] in any myth that is told of [them]"?

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

The idea of a vampire has absolutely no place in this view of reality - a vampire exists to benefit itself in any myth that is told of it, it isn't a tool to be wielded by the state in aid of same vague goal of going to Alpha Centauri, and likewise with the heroes.

I believe @Boris Gudenuf would disagree with you on the vampires, right, Boris?

 

[jasper]

No mythological gods but real gods are ok?

Theres really no more or less justification for gods of modern day religions than those "mythical" gods.

 

[Kupe Navigator]

No mythological gods but real gods are ok?

Theres really no more or less justification for gods of modern day religions than those "mythical" gods.

let's not be disrespectful to religious people ok? You are implying that all religious folks are primitive barbarians.

 

[The Civs 6]

I disagree with your view that Civ is "built on the secular, materialist framework of reality". Moreover, vampires are already in Civ VI, and mythic/legendary heroes, including Hercules, as well. Whether we want supernatural elements or no, Firaxis has seen fit to include them, albeit in a gameplay mode rather than the main base game of Civ (so far).

Also, have we asked the vampires what they think? Do they want to "benefit [themselves] in any myth that is told of [them]"?

You are entitled to your opinion, but this position is completely inconceivable to me.

No mythological gods but real gods are ok?

Theres really no more or less justification for gods of modern day religions than those "mythical" gods.

There are no gods in Civ, only religions. Civ includes religion as a purely social phenomenon, except for the position of prophet (which is not necessarily supernatural given the inclusion of real people like Confucius, Lao Tzu, and Paul). So if you take away NFP, AFAIK there are no features in the game that are necessarily spiritual/supernatural.

 

[jasper]

let's not be disrespectful to religious people ok? You are implying that all religious folks are primitive barbarians.

People think theres some difference between myth gods and "real" gods of current religions like current religions get benefit of the doubt.

Stop reading between the lines. What i was say is people, you, should not dismiss so easily "mythological" gods. Zues, aries, mother earth or whoever are no less deserving to be brought into civ than christianity, islam etc. Modern religions are no more well founded or proven than those myths that people dismiss.

People believed in those "mythological" gods with the same belief, passion and with no less evidence based in reality than what people do with christianity and Islam.

 

[Kupe Navigator]

People think theres some difference between myth gods and "real" gods of current religions like current religions get benefit of the doubt.

Stop reading between the lines. What i was say is people, you, should not dismiss so easily "mythological" gods. Zues, aries, mother earth or whoever are no less deserving to be brought into civ than christianity, islam etc. Modern religions are no more well founded or proven than those myths that people dismiss.

People believed in those "mythological" gods with the same belief, passion and with no less evidence based in reality than what people do with christianity and Islam.

difference is that people don't believe in them anymore. that is the main difference. As such these mythological gods don't have a direct impact in today's society. While "modern" religion DO have a direct impact- especially on nations that are heavily relgious- Middle East, and south east Asian nations. for example. There is a reason why pope is still relevant.

 

[Evie]

Civilization is a game covering all of history, not just the modern stuff. Discounting past people's beliefs as less respect-worthy or significanT than contemporary ones is simply recency bias.

 

[jasper]

difference is that people don't believe in them anymore. that is the main difference. As such these mythological gods don't have a direct impact in today's society. While "modern" religion DO have a direct impact- especially on nations that are heavily relgious- Middle East, and south east Asian nations. for example. There is a reason why pope is still relevant.

Then you missing the point of civ games. Civ games are not modern playgrounds where only the currently relevant make it into the game. Civ game is about the human history as a whole. Its about everything that impacted our history not only the things that currently impact us.

Zeus religion impacted the greeks just as much as phalanx and triremes. Zues religion impacted their world just as much and current religious myths pact our world. Currently relevent is not a reason to dismiss old myths but not current myths.

 

[The Civs 6]

Look I agree with the point that, from the secular perspective that takes religions as mere social movements, pagan worship is worthy of inclusion as well as the Abrahamic tradition. However, and this is more of an FYI, I have never heard a classicist who would have classified pagan practices as akin to Abrahamic religion. Even in the classical Hellenistic world, Israelites were outliers in their way of worship and their system of belief. And certainly Confucianism and Taoism aren't really comparable to religions. And you have firsthand accounts, such as that of Plato, where contemporary Hellenes basically acknowledge that the Greek mythological world is a fictional construct.

It's a common mistake from a certain perspective (that dismisses any spiritual practice, and lumps them all together), but if you drill down into it with a critical eye, the idea of a "Zeus religion" can't be squared with the facts. But certainly pagan practices were social practices (IE many temples of the Greeks/Latins served as banks) that are as worthy of inclusion in the game, as Abrahamic/Buddhist/etc. practices are, as social practices - and without having any sort of supernatural element.

And by the way, the fact that this is nuanced and complex and not black and white is all the more reason for Civ to deal in the sociological, but not the spiritual/supernatural.

 

[anonxanemone]

I mean "vampire" figures existed in history such as Vlad Tepes and Elizabeth Bathory. So I don't have any problem with them any more than a guild of Alchemists or a underground religious cults.

Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction.

 

[Gedemon]

Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction.

and that's exactly why there is no need to use fantasy elements in an historical-themed game. You want a one-man unit combatworthy on the map, there, just name it Leo Major.

 

[Sostratus]

George Washington mythos.

If you’re going to tell me George Washington didn’t ascend to godhood then how do you explain the fact that it’s painted on the Capitol’s rotunda? Would Art lie to me?

~~
I like having some of the stuff that sort of half/half in the game. For example, Gilgamesh being king of Sumeria. Maybe he was their George Washington. But a great choice with deep historical background.
Likewise, wonders like the Hanging Gardens that are semi mythological and semi historical or for which we don’t know much. I’m okay with that. In both cases they seem to go over quite well with the fan base for filling in the ancient/classical eras.

I think those types of things are where I draw the line.

 

[Republic of San Montuoso]

I mean "vampire" figures existed in history such as Vlad Tepes and Elizabeth Bathory. So I don't have any problem with them any more than a guild of Alchemists or a underground religious cults.

Well, yeah, sure, but immortal people that are imply to suck vital froce from enemy nd able to teleport? Not really. But, from all a supposidly "fantastical" mode, having four immortal guys is not really a problem I'd say. I just prefered that the only unkillable people in those worlds were our Almighty Leaders That Watch Every Move (praise be on them and on us, the Players).

And you have firsthand accounts, such as that of Plato, where contemporary Hellenes basically acknowledge that the Greek mythological world is a fictional construct.

As well as you had firsthand accounts of atheists for every religion. But atheism was still a crime: Socrates was condemned for atheism and corrupting the youth (with his atheism). This particular sentence means nothing.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Well, yeah, sure, but immortal people that are imply to suck vital froce from enemy nd able to teleport? Not really. But, from all a supposidly "fantastical" mode, having four immortal guys is not really a problem I'd say. I just prefered that the only unkillable people in those worlds were our Almighty Leaders That Watch Every Move (praise be on them and on us, the Players).

I have nothing against Great People recruited by Brazil or Russia, just the one that recruits them.
Oh wait you're talking about Vampires.

 

[Manol0]

A mythology-themed Civ game would be great

Even though I m a hardcore fan of historical themed games I have to admit that gaming community as a whole lean more towards fantasy titles. For example the most popular Total War game is the Warhammer II despite the fact Total War is considered mostly a history themed series with 12 history titles. Therefore I cant complaint for that Civ Developers thought of adding some fantasy into their game. And as it seems they were not wrong since the majority of players enjoy playing with heroes. I personally never play with them. I play with Secret Societies because somehow I can relate them with real life in my mind. PS: (I m glad that in Paradox titles at least HOI IV is still above Stellaris in popularity) .

though I would appreciate an epic atmosphere over one that leans into humorous territory a bit too much

I never understood why they made Civ VI cartoonish after the majestic atmosphere of Civ V. That was the reason I hadnt approached the game until 2019. I finally got persuaded to buy the game when GS came out with all the new great features.
Thankfully through the years visuals of Civ VI have been significantly improved as for realism. Not only textures look better but even new coming leaders look more humanlike. Just see how Basil and Ambiorix look in comparison with Hararld and Philip II.
Governors though are still silly caricatures.