History or Fantasy?

[Karpius]

I am curious to see what the general sentiment is concerning "Civilization" and its role as an historical strategy game versus a military fantasy.

I suppose it could be argued that it falls somewhere betwixt the two. However, other than historically true labels for civilizations, their leaders and certain unique units, I see nothing else that truly lends itself to history.

Now don't get me wrong! I like it! Despite the lambasting I have read through several threads about bugs and patches and the game being 'broken', I find Civilization 6 to be eminently enjoyable. However, it is exactly the fantastical bent that I find intriguing. Where else can my American Clubber (Warrior, to be official) fight a Greek Hoplite over a banana laden territory in a tropical jungle?

Its those sort of instances which move the game away from the historical for me.

If it were indeed historically reflective then most of the civilizations could never begin in the Ancient era.There is no record of American Swordsmen facing off against Japanese Samurai. How about Aztec bombers obliterating the city of Berlin? German U-boats sinking Egyptian Frigates? My own personal favorite, Teddy Roosevelt adopting Islam as the American religion. Priceless!

These are the quirks that make it interesting for me. Most of our games are played on a random map, with civilizations beginning in an era ages before they were ever conceived and can progress to technology and culture that would not come into existence for centuries after they were an influence on the world stage. To me, that is fantasy.

Okay, for those who wish to be more particular....perhaps it is Speculative Fiction.

 

[Siptah]

It's plain and simple alternate history. Just not the propaganda one from real life.

 

[UWHabs]

It's essentially a "historical fantasy" game. Essentially a fantasy game, however there are some history elements to it.

I know I've learned more about general history playing civ than otherwise (learning about the wonders of the world, getting interested in history, learning about Hammurabi or Gilgamesh). It's not always accurate history (ie. pyramids = granary from civ 1), but there's enough there that more often than not, I am intrigued by a concept and will research it further.

Essentially, there's not enough there to teach a history class with it, but all other things being equal, someone would likely do better in a history class if they play the game.

 

[EgonSpengler]

It's unquestionably fantasy, in my view. It isn't Orcs & Elves-style fantasy, but it bears little resemblance to history, not even alternative or speculative. It starts with the premise that N civilizations begin on an even footing and proceed towards goals envisioned millennia in advance. That each civ is guided by a single, near-omniscient hand also prevents the swerves and stumbles that define real life cultures and nations. And everything is (over-)simplified, with an eye towards gameplay. The way combat is handled in this game is not even a gaming simulation of strategic combat. It's... uh... I don't know what it is. It's its own thing. Think about it: Archers can hit targets as far away as they can march in a single, years-long turn.

 

[HEF]

I see the Civilization series as a electronic interactive board game replete with some interesting historical context and facts; That Civilopedia is a very fascinating read.

This is the kinda game I play while watching the news, doing daily chores and sometimes...

---when I wanna sneak in 'just one more turn'™ late at night!

 

[Archon_Wing]

It is a fantasy loosely inspired by history. We take some of the more idealistic traits of societies and bring them all together.

Though I suppose 6 feels a bit flat in this regard. Some of the leaders feel too much like caricatures (Cleopartra is crazy and sex appeal. Catherine is drinking wine and spying, etc etc and Cyrus needs not to be talked about.) Though weirdly enough Montezuma might actually be less so this time around. And I do like this version's of Gandhi; probably the best presentation of a peacelover without going too over the top.

 

[ghost88]

It's essentially a "historical fantasy" game. Essentially a fantasy game, however there are some history elements to it.

I know I've learned more about general history playing civ than otherwise (learning about the wonders of the world, getting interested in history, learning about Hammurabi or Gilgamesh). It's not always accurate history (ie. pyramids = granary from civ 1), but there's enough there that more often than not, I am intrigued by a concept and will research it further.

Essentially, there's not enough there to teach a history class with it, but all other things being equal, someone would likely do better in a history class if they play the game.

It would appear that US schools differ with your opinion. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...school&usg=AFQjCNEX4mmMDotoALmsISxIYEu-HLmX1w

 

[Xur]

I like the alternate history where every civ starts equal and got no unique units or traits. I like that actions define the game. Its good for replayability.

Civ6 has gone against all that, and I think thats why every game feels the same and boring.

And I'd drop civilization faster than a warm turd if it was a fantasy genre.

 

[Victoria]

A mashup explore, fight, build game based very loosely on history. It's the combo of all 4 that makes it so appealing.
Just a little bit too strong on the fight club side (oops, ssssshhh) but it's just great as long as you appreciate
Caveat emptor
You cannot make an omelette without breaking eggs
There is no pleasing some people (that's what Jesus said)

 

[EgonSpengler]

A mashup explore, fight, build game based very loosely on history. It's the combo of all 4 that makes it so appealing.

I agree. The "4x" games that have their own settings dry out for me much faster. I find historical societies, wonders, and people are innately interesting, and there's a near-endless well of things to draw upon. I think real-world history is also a good bet for attracting a large audience. Civ: Beyond Earth didn't grip me in part because I found the factions/civs kind of dull. I'd be thrilled if they got a Star Trek license and created a Trek-Civ game, but then maybe other people would roll their eyes and walk away.

 

[Karpius]

A mashup explore, fight, build game based very loosely on history.

'Loosely' based on history being the operative word, and quite likely the reason for its broad appeal. Considering the scope and context of the game, I think it does a fair job of incorporating several of the dynamics involved in shaping the history of civilizations.

I would agree that it has a tendency to encourage warfare, but of course warfare is a major appeal to most players. Also, if your goal is to meet Victory Conditions as fast as possible, conquest is the surest avenue.

Perhaps I am simply too much of a novice to know any better, but the game appeals to me on a number of levels (despite some of the more obvious flaws) and I don't often understand all the complaints I read about. Most of them seem rather subjective. Then again, this is the first computer I have played since Civ 3 some ten years ago.

I have something like 300 hours under my belt at this point (a drop in the bucket compared to some, I know) but my personal highlight was America choosing Islam as a religion. And yes, that was the AI that had done that.

 

[Acken]

A boardgame with an historical theme.

 

[Esperr]

Its like a giant culture fantasy draft.

 

[Lanthar]

The Civilization series are 4x games with a strong historical theme. They aren't historical simulation games, like the Hearts of Iron series.

I don't think fantasy really applies.

 

[drubell]

It's a video game that uses definitions that very loosely refer to historical concepts in its mechanics as a 4X game.

 

[Calcifer]

I think scenarios are more historically accurate, while in normal games you get the chance to play as you like

 

[Karpius]

Its like a giant culture fantasy draft.

I think that is a fairly accurate description. Sort of like fantasy football. Even better, something like Madden football where one can build a team of legendary players from all eras.

THAT is the fantasy!

 

[sonicmyst]

This for me is an alternate history where I can see what will happen if peace loving Gandhi actually started beside a warmongering Alexander? Will Macedon finally conquer India, or will Macedon get wiped off the map by nukes?

These kinds of alternate possibilities are fun despite the issues with gameplay, UI, and AI. Just because we are not forced to relieve the historical starts and mistakes of real-world leaders and civs.

 

[Mr. Shadows]

It isn't fantasy because it does not incorporate the superatural. The SV does add a mild element of science fiction, but for the most part it's just fictional.

 

[Karpius]

I was unaware "Fantasy" required the inclusion of the supernatural. I always considered it to broadly mean "that which is unreal".