Evolving Names
- Thread starter Francophile
- Start date
Francophile
Chieftain
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2004
- Messages
- 20
Wow, I didn't really expect this idea to have so much feedback. I admit that the names need alot of adjustment, but it was a prototype of the concept. Corrections are welcome.
frekk
Scourge of St. Lawrence
Francophile said:
I actually like the idea too.
People are screaming about "gross violations of history" but, ahem, what exactly do you call Lincoln in a fur cap, Queen Elizabeth parading around a cave, and Hammurabi taking a moment to teleconference with you from his modern office? Or how about "City of Washington founded in 3890 BC".
I think it's perfectly reasonable to have evolving names. It clears up more inaccuracies than it creates.
Jack the Ripper
King
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2004
- Messages
- 785
Scotland anyone?
Jon Shafer
Civilization 5 Designer
There's a difference between things like that and gameplay accuracy. Civilization is designed to allow players to recreate history, and playing an imaginary or fictional civ from 4000 BC to 2050 AD is acceptable because it follows that recreation theme, but a sword functions the same as a sword however you look at it (within reasonfrekk said:
). It's the use of those swords (in realistic ways) that most people want correctly modelled.Chazbagel
Prince
Yes i agree with trip, if you want the game to be historically accurate, then use the mapmaker/modmaker.
Take the example of India, after the mongol conquest of north India.
The part of mongol empire who conquered India becames the Moghul Empire with a lot of people been indian in ethnicity and the ruler cast been mongol. At that point this is an event that change the name of civ, but once they recover they independence the civ come back with the original name.
Since there are regions of India who don't have been captured and the mongols conquest change religion in actual Pakistan, Kashmyr and BanglaDesh, this regions have gained a sense of culture split to India that don't haven't if they remain Hindus or Budhists, and therefore this bring a dynamic to subcontinent. Compare this with Pundjab with their Hindu/Islam combo religion, but don't want separate of India.
Another example is the muslims bosnians, who convert to Islam by under Turks domination.
When Spain conquered Aztecs they become Mexico.
But in the way around? There are no historical examples. And if Irquois conquest Aztecs?
We can solve these problem only change the names that we know from history, but I think that is useless, since don't bring much more to the game, only a change of names and a sense of a more dynamic game, so why not? Although that I like the idea of a civ conquered by another and remain their ethnicity, and later recover its independence.
To play with certain dates and names more accurate we can play a cenario, since the game it's not a world history cenario.
And by the way that leave the player with less more options and predeterminate situations no matter what the player do.
The game are not historically accurate, so what, only for fun. The idea is you pick up a civ in 4000 BC and stand the test of time trough 2050 AD. It's only this. Otherwise could be there a confusion between game itself and cenarios we can modelling.
The part of mongol empire who conquered India becames the Moghul Empire with a lot of people been indian in ethnicity and the ruler cast been mongol. At that point this is an event that change the name of civ, but once they recover they independence the civ come back with the original name.
Since there are regions of India who don't have been captured and the mongols conquest change religion in actual Pakistan, Kashmyr and BanglaDesh, this regions have gained a sense of culture split to India that don't haven't if they remain Hindus or Budhists, and therefore this bring a dynamic to subcontinent. Compare this with Pundjab with their Hindu/Islam combo religion, but don't want separate of India.
Another example is the muslims bosnians, who convert to Islam by under Turks domination.
When Spain conquered Aztecs they become Mexico.
But in the way around? There are no historical examples. And if Irquois conquest Aztecs?
We can solve these problem only change the names that we know from history, but I think that is useless, since don't bring much more to the game, only a change of names and a sense of a more dynamic game, so why not? Although that I like the idea of a civ conquered by another and remain their ethnicity, and later recover its independence.
To play with certain dates and names more accurate we can play a cenario, since the game it's not a world history cenario.
And by the way that leave the player with less more options and predeterminate situations no matter what the player do.
The game are not historically accurate, so what, only for fun. The idea is you pick up a civ in 4000 BC and stand the test of time trough 2050 AD. It's only this. Otherwise could be there a confusion between game itself and cenarios we can modelling.
Similar threads
