civlization MythsVS History

[Duke William of Normandy]

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 Tota War game is the Warhammer II despite the fact Tota War is considered mostly a history themed series with 12 history titles. I suppose this fact made the Civ Developers think 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) .


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.

Glad to see you have a good conversation and debate with other people on this forum after your recent threads. In all seriousness and sincerity, I'm glad to see you not getting TOO much hate about your comments.

About Ambiorix, by the way, I think @Zaarin would have to disagree with you about realism... And by that I mean the red hair.

 

[Manol0]

About Ambiorix, by the way, I think @Zaarin would have to disagree with you about realism... And by that I mean the red hair.

He looks humanlike at least and not cartoonish carricature like Ghandi or Pedro and Bruce.

 

[Kupe Navigator]

He looks humanlike at least and not cartoonish carricature like Ghandi or Pedro.

Poor Pedro... Dear lordy what have they done to you? You didn't deserve this...

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

About Ambiorix, by the way, I think @Zaarin would have to disagree with you about realism... And by that I mean the red hair.

I'm sure most of that is blood.
Probably Freddy too.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

I'm sure most of that is blood.
Probably Freddy too.

I just checked... @Zaarin is okay with Ambiorix's hair color. Not Freddy's though.

Anyway, to keep the thread on topic, Mythology in Civ isn't inherently a bad thing. Mythology is a key part of the Cultures and Stories of many Civilizations, both new and old. However, as @Boris Gudenuf has said, it would probably have been better if they had chosen real people like Zheng He instead of Sinbad. I consider myself neutral in this case, but I gladly lay the Heroes and Legends Mode because it is fun. Just my take on this whole debate.

 

[Morningcalm]

The idea that because Civ is based on “history” it must never incorporate mythological elements is inherently unsound because Civ already incorporates mythological elements (not just in using legendary figures like Kupe, Lady Trieu and Gilgamesh, but also in using the Bermuda Triangle, El Dorado, etc.). The basic point is that regardless of what people want Civ to be, that ship has sailed.

I’m a fan of realism in Civ, but the idea of Egypt building the Eiffel Tower has always been a possibility in Civ, and more recently, alongside things like banning truffles. Civ VI introduced priests who can fight each other to death with magic, vampire soldiers who are very difficult to permanently kill, and leaders who have one-sided agendas for all of history. And Heroes and Legends mode, of course.

Besides, how is mythology not part of civilization (the dictionary word)? I don’t think “civilization” as a word necessitates permanent grounding in reality. Mythology and belief was a huge part of ancient culture, and not just Ancient Greece (birthplace of many things we take for granted in the West, and influential in many other things besides). Splitting hairs between mythology and religion is ultimately pointless—are such semantic classifications going to stop people from viewing Hinduism (or Buddhism) as they do, seriously or no? Do such classifications help us understand Hinduism or Buddhism better in any way? The fact is such beliefs are part of the fabric of culture. To simply cut some off for being unrealistic, or being forced to make some coda to see whether such things are “realistic” is silly. Civ developers already abstract religious and mythological belief.

All this to say, a desire for realism shouldn’t stop Firaxis making a fun Civ spin-off with mythology. Age of Empires, which began as a series grounded in reality and was developed by Bruce Shelley (who made Civ alongside Sid Meier), also dipped into mythology for Age of Mythology.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Anyway, to keep the thread on topic, Mythology in Civ isn't inherently a bad thing. Mythology is a key part of the Cultures and Stories of many Civilizations, both new and old. However, as @Boris Gudenuf has said, it would probably have been better if they had chosen real people like Zheng He instead of Sinbad. I consider myself neutral in this case, but I gladly lay the Heroes and Legends Mode because it is fun. Just my take on this whole debate.

The thing is most heroes that existed, such as Joan of Arc and Zheng He, are already in the game as Great Generals and Great Admirals.

I don't think making them Great People on steroids would have worked out as well.

 

[The Civs 6]

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).



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.

The Hellenistic concept of "Atheism" may not mean quite what you think it does - Romans prosecuted the Christians for being atheist.

 

[Republic of San Montuoso]

Anyway, to keep the thread on topic, Mythology in Civ isn't inherently a bad thing. Mythology is a key part of the Cultures and Stories of many Civilizations, both new and old. However, as @Boris Gudenuf has said, it would probably have been better if they had chosen real people like Zheng He instead of Sinbad. I consider myself neutral in this case, but I gladly lay the Heroes and Legends Mode because it is fun. Just my take on this whole debate.

As Alexander's Hetaroi said, we already have Great People. I would have seen that much bizarre and weird to have some realistic personalities as Great Peoples and other as Heroes. Like, you can summon once Zheng He as a Great Admiral, for sure, but once he died, he's dead, and nothing can bring him back. Reviving him through faith would seems too... silly.
Plus, imagine the cultural clash it might bring? We already had some people complaned because we have too many Heroes that are european, and two are Greek. Putting some historical figures in some Hero place would have brought his share of troubles. "Buying" a Great People with faith is not like worshipping him, it's that this particularly Great Person was so impressed by the devotion your population had (or by the gold they spent) that they decided to move from their original country towards yours. But you're clearly reviving Heroes with Faith. The fist devotion is like devotion towards Great People, but the next time, you're resurecting them.

Look, for example, Joan of Arc. Was she a Great General? For sure, she led the French armies and helped winning the 100-years war. She was a General, and she was Great (or at least prominent).
But now, what would be the message if she was a hero? Joan of Arc is, in France, heavily related to alt-right, and it would bring a message than Joan of Arc wasn't merely just a good general, but a Hero, someone worthy of worship. I don't say that the Heroes&Legends mode by itself could bring turmoils in France, but for example, I might have been disgusted enough by that that I would have not played Civ 6, at least for a while (because I personally hate the all cult we have towards Joan of Arc in France). I wouldn't want a game where I'm able to resurect Joan of Arc through faith. Too many mean-intentioned people in France already want that.

It's like for Secret Societies. They could have put the Templars, the Hassachins, the Illuminati, the Free-Masons in the game with the same mechanics; but people would then have said "Look, those societies are real, and they're powerful!" Conspirationists will use the faintest element to support their insane agendas. Sure, Civ 6 is just a game, but each piece of media, no matter how silly or serious it is, should be careful about what it said.

Let's have Heroes worshipped that came from dead mythologies or attested works of fiction, it's better this way.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

As Alexander's Hetaroi said, we already have Great People. I would have seen that much bizarre and weird to have some realistic personalities as Great Peoples and other as Heroes. Like, you can summon once Zheng He as a Great Admiral, for sure, but once he died, he's dead, and nothing can bring him back. Reviving him through faith would seems too... silly.
Plus, imagine the cultural clash it might bring? We already had some people complaned because we have too many Heroes that are european, and two are Greek. Putting some historical figures in some Hero place would have brought his share of troubles. "Buying" a Great People with faith is not like worshipping him, it's that this particularly Great Person was so impressed by the devotion your population had (or by the gold they spent) that they decided to move from their original country towards yours. But you're clearly reviving Heroes with Faith. The fist devotion is like devotion towards Great People, but the next time, you're resurecting them.

Look, for example, Joan of Arc. Was she a Great General? For sure, she led the French armies and helped winning the 100-years war. She was a General, and she was Great (or at least prominent).
But now, what would be the message if she was a hero? Joan of Arc is, in France, heavily related to alt-right, and it would bring a message than Joan of Arc wasn't merely just a good general, but a Hero, someone worthy of worship. I don't say that the Heroes&Legends mode by itself could bring turmoils in France, but for example, I might have been disgusted enough by that that I would have not played Civ 6, at least for a while (because I personally hate the all cult we have towards Joan of Arc in France). I wouldn't want a game where I'm able to resurect Joan of Arc through faith. Too many mean-intentioned people in France already want that.

It's like for Secret Societies. They could have put the Templars, the Hassachins, the Illuminati, the Free-Masons in the game with the same mechanics; but people would then have said "Look, those societies are real, and they're powerful!" Conspirationists will use the faintest element to support their insane agendas. Sure, Civ 6 is just a game, but each piece of media, no matter how silly or serious it is, should be careful about what it said.

Let's have Heroes worshipped that came from dead mythologies or attested works of fiction, it's better this way.

Fair. I see your point, and I actually don't mind if it had gone one way or the other.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Look, for example, Joan of Arc. Was she a Great General? For sure, she led the French armies and helped winning the 100-years war. She was a General, and she was Great (or at least prominent).
But now, what would be the message if she was a hero? Joan of Arc is, in France, heavily related to alt-right, and it would bring a message than Joan of Arc wasn't merely just a good general, but a Hero, someone worthy of worship. I don't say that the Heroes&Legends mode by itself could bring turmoils in France, but for example, I might have been disgusted enough by that that I would have not played Civ 6, at least for a while (because I personally hate the all cult we have towards Joan of Arc in France). I wouldn't want a game where I'm able to resurect Joan of Arc through faith. Too many mean-intentioned people in France already want that.

Despite political implications it would be weird to see resurrected Joan of Arc when she leaves behind a relic in the first place. Then again the other heroes do but considering she was real it would feel different.

It's like for Secret Societies. They could have put the Templars, the Hassachins, the Illuminati, the Free-Masons in the game with the same mechanics; but people would then have said "Look, those societies are real, and they're powerful!" Conspirationists will use the faintest element to support their insane agendas. Sure, Civ 6 is just a game, but each piece of media, no matter how silly or serious it is, should be careful about what it said.

Ah yes the Templars. Bring on more unique knights.