• Civilization 7 has been announced. For more info please check the forum here .

Genius Design in Civ5 should come to Civ7

In case I haven't made it clear (and I think it's you disingenuously pretending not to grasp it, what they call, "playing dumb"), I am not criticizing mechanic, but the ideological and historical framework it's built on. I was clear on that, and clarified several times. So, continuing to argue against my point as though it were on one notion, when I am clearly arguing on another, is not really a clever debate diversion. It's quite transparent.
The post you responded to was about how it impacts the game, so you're definitely criticizing the mechanic. If the word "Ideology" bothers you so much, we can call it Pizza Topping Preferences like I said above and the game would still benefit I think.
 
The post you responded to was about how it impacts the game, so you're definitely criticizing the mechanic. If the word "Ideology" bothers you so much, we can call it Pizza Topping Preferences like I said above and the game would still benefit I think.
You're trying to retrospectively misrepresent the flow of this conversation, on this thread, and that's not working, either.
 
I did what where now?

I feel the design is rather silly historically and a very first degree reading of history, but the game does do first degree history a lot, it's Civ, not Paradox ; if the resulting mechanism is interesting enough I can handle first degree enough. I may suggest tweaking the mechanisms to have a little more historical depth, but I'm not going to let a good mechanisms be stopped because it's first-degree history.

What I do feel distaste for is the concept of limiting this game mechanism to only the late game, which by necessity is going to be a less-played period of the game (since all games must necessarily go through the early game, but many games will end or be abandoned before the late game). If you have a cool shining game concept, you should try to find ways to make it relevant to as much of the game as possible (though it can be more relevant to certain parts than others). My preferred approach to solving that met with some opposition because people have strong feeling about religion even as a game mechanism, so I did not argue it further ; but I stand by the general view: that any such mechanism should be more broadly used.

Which is less "I don't want the mechanism" and more "We should have more of the mechanism if we're going to have it."
 
I did what where now?

I feel the design is rather silly historically and a very first degree reading of history, but the game does do first degree history a lot, it's Civ, not Paradox ; if the resulting mechanism is interesting enough I can handle first degree enough. I may suggest tweaking the mechanisms to have a little more historical depth, but I'm not going to let a good mechanisms be stopped because it's first-degree history.

What I do feel distaste for is the concept of limiting this game mechanism to only the late game, which by necessity is going to be a less-played period of the game (since all games must necessarily go through the early game, but many games will end or be abandoned before the late game). If you have a cool shining game concept, you should try to find ways to make it relevant to as much of the game as possible (though it can be more relevant to certain parts than others). My preferred approach to solving that met with some opposition because people have strong feeling about religion even as a game mechanism, so I did not argue it further ; but I stand by the general view: that any such mechanism should be more broadly used.

Which is less "I don't want the mechanism" and more "We should have more of the mechanism if we're going to have it."
I was actually referring to your restrospective view on the Cold War in portrayal, which was mostly what I was talking about, too, regardless of pokehl's disingenuous and false allegegations. My only real comment on mechanics, here, which I made early in the thread, I still stand by - that major systems and mechanics in new Civ iterations should continue the trend of being new, original, and innovative concepts, and not taking right from old iterations.
 
Then it is of precious little relevance to the overall thread, because while, yes, it's a very primary reading of history, that's not a significant issue for civilization.
 
But the conflict forced is in a cliched pastische, that is overly simplistic, almost cartooish, it seems. Not only it is ahistorical, disasteful to a more and more growing number of people than even when Civ5 was released, hamfisted and arbitrary, it also forces a geo-political conflict every game that makes it to that level that wasn't inevitable, and that what-if's of a Civ game should be able be avoid and allow other paradigms.
Its not forced, it's organic. (just a slight asterisk to the gameplay aspect of this, although I get you want to now talk about the non-gameplay aspects)
 
If "first degree history" means history at face value, then I would agree that Civilisation is definitely not the type of game to go knees deep in the stuff. It regularly loves to just paint its fairly-historical mostly-board-game-like game with a bit of random flavourings that don't actually mean anything.

Basically. I would like to say that I understand the so called cynical view, although I do disagree about your perception of most people's POV. I don't think the world has gotten more cynical (wrt to this) and less accustomed to the concept of ideology as a gameplay mechanic. I think it would work just as well as it did (about 10 years ago?)

But then what do I know? I used to say no one would care if Stalin was in but clearly people didn't agree 😅
 
Its not forced, it's organic. (just a slight asterisk to the gameplay aspect of this, although I get you want to now talk about the non-gameplay aspects)
Regardless, my views on the historical subject matter and my views on future mechanics (which are distinct, despite a disinguous poster misrepresenting them), and, the Civ5 mechanic (which I do not should be reprised, anymore than any other such specific mechanics from previous games, as such, as I made clear) very much sound, from all that can be gathered, to be arbitrary, not organic.
 
Regardless, my views on the historical subject matter and my views on future mechanics (which are distinct, despite a disinguous poster misrepresenting them), and, the Civ5 mechanic (which I do not should be reprised, anymore than any other such specific mechanics from previous games, as such, as I made clear) very much sound, from all that can be gathered, to be arbitrary, not organic.

Well at least you're now conceding that they're your views and that you aren't speaking for any other posters or the rest of the world.

I don't understand your opposition to gameplay mechanics returning in the future. That means we shouldn't have had religion or spying or city-states or strategic resources or any number of other important mechanics in Civ 6 that are from prior iterations.

Your viewpoint is at odds with the Civ design philosophy, which specifies that each games are to be 33% new systems, 33% old systems, and 33% old but reworked or improved systems. Thus, Ideology certainly has a lot of headway to return, and I hope a lot of other older systems come back with improvements as well (World Congress, natural disasters and climate, religion, city-states...)
 
Well at least you're now conceding that they're your views and that you aren't speaking for any other posters or the rest of the world.
I am not conceding something I haven't said to counteract something I haven't said. That would be ridiculous. I was talking about a general trend in modern society of moving away from the classic cliches of retrospectively viewing the Cold War to a more cynical, critical, nuanced, and dour view of it, that has, indeed, been a notable shift since the release of Civ5, and would affect new players' attitudes in Civ7. I've said this several times.
I don't understand your opposition to gameplay mechanics returning in the future. That means we shouldn't have had religion or spying or city-states or strategic resources or any number of other important mechanics in Civ 6 that are from prior iterations.

Your viewpoint is at odds with the Civ design philosophy, which specifies that each games are to be 33% new systems, 33% old systems, and 33% old but reworked or improved systems. Thus, Ideology certainly has a lot of headway to return, and I hope a lot of other older systems come back with improvements as well (World Congress, natural disasters and climate, religion, city-states...)
If I actually thought I'd get a rational and good faith response, I'd explain. But given almosrt every post by you to me has been disinguous, distorting what I say, pretending to not understand simple notions or how others have responses, putting words in my mouth, and other noxious habits that makes discussion a test of patience, I feel it would be a waste of time.
 
I am not conceding something I haven't said to counteract something I haven't said. That would be ridiculous. I was talking about a general trend in modern society of moving away from the classic cliches of retrospectively viewing the Cold War to a more cynical, critical, nuanced, and dour view of it, that has, indeed, been a notable shift since the release of Civ5, and would affect new players' attitudes in Civ7. I've said this several time
This is a baseless claim which you don't have any evidence for. Cold War historiography hasn't undergone some radical shift in the last 9 years since BNW was released, and neither has popular opinion shifted on it. I can just as easily state that the lack of an ideology system would affect new players' attitudes in Civ 7.
 
I mean, we do have a case study for games without ideology systems not being negatively impacted by the lack. They're called every Civ Game from I to VI except V. So, you know, I find the argument hard to sustain.

Otherwise I agree with you - the claim that the presence of an ideology system would not fit the modern zeitgeist is ridiculously unsupported and unprovable - but still.
 
You can argue that VI is negatively impacted by the lack of an effective late game system to push players against each other.
 
I mean, we do have a case study for games without ideology systems not being negatively impacted by the lack. They're called every Civ Game from I to VI except V. So, you know, I find the argument hard to sustain.

Otherwise I agree with you - the claim that the presence of an ideology system would not fit the modern zeitgeist is ridiculously unsupported and unprovable - but still.
I hear you but my point was we can all go back and forth all day with unfalsifiable ad populum fallacies—the claim can be easily tweaked as GeneralZIft pointed out above.
 
This is a baseless claim which you don't have any evidence for. Cold War historiography hasn't undergone some radical shift in the last 9 years since BNW was released, and neither has popular opinion shifted on it. I can just as easily state that the lack of an ideology system would affect new players' attitudes in Civ 7.
I mean, we do have a case study for games without ideology systems not being negatively impacted by the lack. They're called every Civ Game from I to VI except V. So, you know, I find the argument hard to sustain.

Otherwise I agree with you - the claim that the presence of an ideology system would not fit the modern zeitgeist is ridiculously unsupported and unprovable - but still.
It's pretty apparent in the notable change of tenor and treatment of the Cold War in the last decade in media, academia, and lot of online discussion. I'd read an article about the impact of the last almost a decade of U.S. politics on this, with the lack of appetite for military interventionism under Trump than any de facto Republican national party leader since Robert Taft, and the rising Social Progressive movement within the Democratic Party that shows more sympathy for the people and cultures of the Third World proxy states than the West or East Blloc. Compared to the '70's, '80's, and '90's, how many Cold War-themed movies, books, TV shows, computer games, and academic works of late has anyone seen with the older, simplistic view, rather than a more cynical and critical view? Honestly?
 
It's pretty apparent in the notable change of tenor and treatment of the Cold War in the last decade in media, academia, and lot of online discussion. I'd read an article about the impact of the last almost a decade of U.S. politics on this, with the lack of appetite for military interventionism under Trump than any de facto Republican national party leader since Robert Taft, and the rising Social Progressive movement within the Democratic Party that shows more sympathy for the people and cultures of the Third World proxy states than the West or East Blloc. Compared to the '70's, '80's, and '90's, how many Cold War-themed movies, books, TV shows, computer games, and academic works of late has anyone seen with the older, simplistic view, rather than a more cynical and critical view? Honestly?
That’s a lot of words for “trust me bro.” Most of this has nothing to do with the point and is just confusing.

Any actual shift would’ve been precipitated by a key academic publication from notable thought leaders and resulting scholarly discourse. But of course there’s nothing like that to be cited because you’re just citing your feelings and unfalsifiable anecdotal evidence.
 
Obviously there was going to be more "cold war" media before the fall of the Soviet Union rather than after. Am I stupid or isn't this common sense?
 
And up until and including the late 2000s we had for example, Red Alert 3.
It's not that cold war media depicting a simplistic view went out of style because people realised "the shocking truth about the cold war!"
It's literally that Cold War in general went out of style... Because it was over and media shifted towards the War Against Terror
 
That’s a lot of words for “trust me bro.” Most of this has nothing to do with the point and is just confusing.

Any actual shift would’ve been precipitated by a key academic publication from notable thought leaders and resulting scholarly discourse. But of course there’s nothing like that to be cited because you’re just citing your feelings and unfalsifiable anecdotal evidence.
Are you REALLY confused, or is more of your infamous, "playing dumb." Either way, another disingenuous and insulting distortion of my words from you does not magically invaliate my point, or conjur sources of it that are not so out of fairy dust, and they never have and never will. I don't know why you keep trying with these flimsy, disingenuous, and noxious ploys and habits - nobody's fooled, even if a few agree with your non-rhetorical views.
 
Are you REALLY confused, or is more of your infamous, "playing dumb." Either way, another disingenuous and insulting distortion of my words from you does not magically invaliate my point, or conjur sources of it that are not so out of fairy dust, and they never have and never will. I don't know why you keep trying with these flimsy, disingenuous, and noxious ploys and habits - nobody's fooled, even if a few agree with your non-rhetorical views.
Try to avoid using pejoratives in at least one single post today.

Simply asking someone to provide any proof of their claims is not “distorting” anything and it’s not noxious or obnoxious or disingenuous or whatever other words you pull out of the thesaurus today. It’s a critical aspect of the exchange of ideas.

No one should get this offended or angry when their ideas are challenged. Well-reasoned viewpoints can be backed up with evidence.
 
Top Bottom