I played the [pick 30+1 civs mindgame] ... and it made me forgive the developers a bit for some of their choices

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

But they may, I will give it that, have gone too far in rejecting continuity between the civilizations, and the game could really stand to add some way to retain your civilization name and certain other identifiers over the years.

I think that's what they are trying to accomplish with regards to the civics tree by unlocking traditions, which are unique civics from previous civilizations that you can keep, as well as unique quarters and improvements staying on the map.
It might work, but I agree that there are still other glaring factors such as when transitioning from Greece to Spain, most cities retained their Greek names but had newer Spanish architecture, besides the unique quarter and Antiquity buildings.

 

[Krikkit1]

I think that's what they are trying to accomplish with regards to the civics tree by unlocking traditions, which are unique civics from previous civilizations that you can keep, as well as unique quarters and improvements staying on the map.
It might work, but I agree that there are still other glaring factors such as when transitioning from Greece to Spain, most cities retained their Greek names but had newer Spanish architecture, besides the unique quarter and Antiquity buildings.

Which is why the Age Transition needs
1. Choose your "Unique package civ" ie what unique civics/units/abilities you will have (probably flag emblem for a graphical indication of uniques)
2. Choose your "Name package civ" ie what civ name/city name list/generic building&unit graphics you will use
3. Then have the opportunity for which (if any) of your settlements adopt the new names... possibly Also when they turn from a town into a city they have an option to adopt a new name (or just be customized)

 

[Evie]

I think the emblems, at leadt, should reflect the civ whose game attributes you have. While it's fine to allow players to retain various aspects of their civs, this should never come at the expanse of making it self-evident at a glance which civilization (mechanically) a given leader, cities and unit are now associated. The emblems are the best way to do that, and this being a gameplay/ui/ease of access concern, it shºuld have priority over immersiveness.

 

[Krikkit1]

I think the emblems, at leadt, should reflect the civ whose game attributes you have. While it's fine to allow players to retain various aspects of their civs, this should never come at the expanse of making it self-evident at a glance which civilization (mechanically) a given leader, cities and unit are now associated. The emblems are the best way to do that, and this being a gameplay/ui/ease of access concern, it shºuld have priority over immersiveness.

I could see the emblem stuck with the uniques... good point about something that ties in.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

This is exactly why I've written off the game, I don't think there's a way they can fix this to satisfy people like me who want more of an immersive alt history sandbox without compromising the core principles of the game.

 

[chaosprophet]

On the civ transitions, while they will sometimes take inspiration in things like conquest for the civ free unlocks, on the actual game it is always the alternative history option of the culture changing with times and morphing in the next one, as said by the staff and also showcase with the Greece little vdeo at the end of age we saw on the most recent stream.

I wonder how the community would have responded if they instead went for the "alternative history" route of adding fully fledgling each civ to work from antiquity to modern time. Like adding some unique antique units to modern civs, and some modern units to ancient ones. Like a unique jet fighter for Aztecs.

I would expect a much larger uproar. The civ community seems to really dislike these types of "fantasy" history. See how much people discuss every unit / building they think aren't very well historically represented.

 

[BackseatTyrant]

This is exactly why I've written off the game, I don't think there's a way they can fix this to satisfy people like me who want more of an immersive alt history sandbox without compromising the core principles of the game.

I think to some extent, Firaxis and civ players (or at least, a vocal portion of the fanbase) have very different ideas of what the game series' core principles are. Most important in this discussion, I feel is the conception of exactly who you play as; do you play as the nation-state, or the head of state? FXS constantly talk about the games and market them as if you're playing as Gandhi, Lincoln or Napoleon, but I'm certain most players approach the game to play as India, America or France.

This might just me being overly paranoid, but I can't help shake the feeling the devs are either unaware of the games' inherently nationalistic bent, or just flat out unwilling to acknowledge it publicly. And I'm sorry, but I think there are very few things as cowardly as not addressing the themes of ones own art, especially if one of those themes are as problematic as nationalism.

What could they've done instead? I don't know, maybe instead of trying to do this rather unnecessary damage control and insist it's still the same game at its core, why not just flat out state that some core aspects that have been present since Civ1 should be left in the past? Like, say, the idea that every game needs to end with one singular civilization standing superior to everyone else?

 

[UWHabs]

I think to some extent, Firaxis and civ players (or at least, a vocal portion of the fanbase) have very different ideas of what the game series' core principles are. Most important in this discussion, I feel is the conception of exactly who you play as; do you play as the nation-state, or the head of state? FXS constantly talk about the games and market them as if you're playing as Gandhi, Lincoln or Napoleon, but I'm certain most players approach the game to play as India, America or France.

This might just me being overly paranoid, but I can't help shake the feeling the devs are either unaware of the games' inherently nationalistic bent, or just flat out unwilling to acknowledge it publicly. And I'm sorry, but I think there are very few things as cowardly as not addressing the themes of ones own art, especially if one of those themes are as problematic as nationalism.

What could they've done instead? I don't know, maybe instead of trying to do this rather unnecessary damage control and insist it's still the same game at its core, why not just flat out state that some core aspects that have been present since Civ1 should be left in the past? Like, say, the idea that every game needs to end with one singular civilization standing superior to everyone else?

I go back and forth whether I feel like I'm the civ or the player more. It's probably a weird situation where as a player, I probably feel I'm playing the civ more, but when I mentally think of my games, it's Kupe or Gandhi or Monty next door to me.

If you want the transition time, I think how they opted here does make more sense on the whole. I think you'd have some big disconnects if you start the game with Hatshepsut next to you, and then you get to the next era and suddenly Genghis Khan is your neighbor. I mean, sure, if they switch to Mongolia the next era, I should expect them to be more war-like that era.

From a game design perspective, I do think the way they are doing it is the easier way. We've long assumed that leader models are more time consuming than some individual civ infrastructure, but even aside from that, since most of the infrastructure and units tend to be associated with the civ and not the leader, those are easier to balance for the eras.

But it will certainly be a little tougher to know that you have to play practically 2 full games of civ before you can really play as America. Or that you will always have a slightly weird feeling when your legions transform into regular infantry and you can't march them across the world to conquer it all.

 

[queenpea]

I go back and forth whether I feel like I'm the civ or the player more. It's probably a weird situation where as a player, I probably feel I'm playing the civ more, but when I mentally think of my games, it's Kupe or Gandhi or Monty next door to me.

If you want the transition time, I think how they opted here does make more sense on the whole. I think you'd have some big disconnects if you start the game with Hatshepsut next to you, and then you get to the next era and suddenly Genghis Khan is your neighbor. I mean, sure, if they switch to Mongolia the next era, I should expect them to be more war-like that era.

From a game design perspective, I do think the way they are doing it is the easier way. We've long assumed that leader models are more time consuming than some individual civ infrastructure, but even aside from that, since most of the infrastructure and units tend to be associated with the civ and not the leader, those are easier to balance for the eras.

But it will certainly be a little tougher to know that you have to play practically 2 full games of civ before you can really play as America. Or that you will always have a slightly weird feeling when your legions transform into regular infantry and you can't march them across the world to conquer it all.

In Civ VI, think it’s easy to feel like you are Julius Caesar when you are playing as Rome, your capital city is called Rome, and you are commanding Roman Legions to conquer your rival’s cities, then using your looted gold to aggrandize the capital. It’s easy to feel like you’re in character when you are hitting all of your marks.

I don’t really know if you’re going to feel like Benjamin Franklin when you’re building the Oracle as Greece.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

I think to some extent, Firaxis and civ players (or at least, a vocal portion of the fanbase) have very different ideas of what the game series' core principles are. Most important in this discussion, I feel is the conception of exactly who you play as; do you play as the nation-state, or the head of state? FXS constantly talk about the games and market them as if you're playing as Gandhi, Lincoln or Napoleon, but I'm certain most players approach the game to play as India, America or France.

This might just me being overly paranoid, but I can't help shake the feeling the devs are either unaware of the games' inherently nationalistic bent, or just flat out unwilling to acknowledge it publicly. And I'm sorry, but I think there are very few things as cowardly as not addressing the themes of ones own art, especially if one of those themes are as problematic as nationalism.

What could they've done instead? I don't know, maybe instead of trying to do this rather unnecessary damage control and insist it's still the same game at its core, why not just flat out state that some core aspects that have been present since Civ1 should be left in the past? Like, say, the idea that every game needs to end with one singular civilization standing superior to everyone else?

I think this is the most interesting part about the game buildup for me. Obviously firaxis' take on what civ fans like is warped by the data available, which is basically online forums like this one and Reddit. Online forums tend to be moderated, and moderation generally errs towards principles of inclusivity and diversity and all that good stuff, and not towards respecting feelings of patriotism and nationalism. That's not me saying you can't say those things, but usually there is some element of incentive and punishment in play around what you are "supposed" to say.

Reddit in particular has this problem and it means it's audience self filters too, so it becomes an echo chamber for a single view. This forum loves diversity of civs and seeing new playable choices (I think generally everybody does).

But in seeing all that discussion around those new diverse options, I wonder whether the Devs have got the wrong impression for the wider community that isn't in these bubbles, the "at what cost" bit. I think many people would love to have Mississippians in the game, but before Germany? That's where the mainstream audience eyebrows maybe raising.

I don't know how the Devs can get a good representative view of their player base that transcends the concentration of views that can be found here and on Reddit, and I wish them good luck in doing it. I too share the opinion that they may not have accomplished it for this game, and I'm very interested to find out if I'm out of touch, or if it must be the kids who are wrong.

 

[Evie]

Mississippians going away wouldn't have added Germany. It would, at best, have added the Goths or a similar proto-germanic group. Which is a lot less likely to satisfy people who want to play their country (see how badly Spain being in Exploration was received).

In modern, quite frankly, the only exotic or out there choice is Buganda, and when you consider the PR catastrophe that having no modern African civ would be, even that make sense - it's not about posters asking for diversity, it's about the impact to marketing. The rest are either major historical players, represent massive national or regional markets (SE Asia, Latin America), or, in most cases, both. I frankly fail to see who should be cut to make room for Germany in modern without triggering a media firestorm.

 

[queenpea]

Mississippians going away wouldn't have added Germany. It would, at best, have added the Goths or a similar proto-germanic group. Which is a lot less likely to satisfy people who want to play their country (see how badly Spain being in Exploration was received).

In modern, quite frankly, the only exotic or out there choice is Buganda, and when you consider the PR catastrophe that having no modern African civ would be, even that make sense - it's not about posters asking for diversity, it's about the impact to marketing. The rest are either major historical players, represent massive national or regional markets (SE Asia, Latin America), or, in most cases, both. I frankly fail to see who should be cut to make room for Germany in modern without triggering a media firestorm.

Agree, but the decision to launch with only ten civs per Age may also be a problem for some players.

 

[UWHabs]

Agree, but the decision to launch with only ten civs per Age may also be a problem for some players.

Yeah, it definitely feels like a few of these controversies might have been avoided with just a couple more options

 

[Evie]

Yeah, the small number of civ per ages I'm not enamored of - 12-15 would have been so much better! - but within the constraint of 10 per, the choices don't seem to reflect bad market research.

 

[BackseatTyrant]

I think this is the most interesting part about the game buildup for me. Obviously firaxis' take on what civ fans like is warped by the data available, which is basically online forums like this one and Reddit. Online forums tend to be moderated, and moderation generally errs towards principles of inclusivity and diversity and all that good stuff, and not towards respecting feelings of patriotism and nationalism. That's not me saying you can't say those things, but usually there is some element of incentive and punishment in play around what you are "supposed" to say.

Reddit in particular has this problem and it means it's audience self filters too, so it becomes an echo chamber for a single view. This forum loves diversity of civs and seeing new playable choices (I think generally everybody does).

But in seeing all that discussion around those new diverse options, I wonder whether the Devs have got the wrong impression for the wider community that isn't in these bubbles, the "at what cost" bit. I think many people would love to have Mississippians in the game, but before Germany? That's where the mainstream audience eyebrows maybe raising.

I don't know how the Devs can get a good representative view of their player base that transcends the concentration of views that can be found here and on Reddit, and I wish them good luck in doing it. I too share the opinion that they may not have accomplished it for this game, and I'm very interested to find out if I'm out of touch, or if it must be the kids who are wrong.

It's probably for the better that they refer themselves only to properly moderated spaces for feedback; I saw the youtube live chat when the first gameplay trailer premiered, and those comments were utterly vile.

Also no, I don't think players who want more inclusiveness & diversity are over-represented in the voices the devs listen to, at least not enough that it matters. And I wasn't suggesting the devs aren't listening to "patriotic" players enough. In case you couldn't tell, I don't have particularly positive opinions about nationalism as a concept (even when it's called "patriotism", it's still tribalism at an institutional level), and I would honestly love to see a 4X game that properly explores the themes of nationalism and its potential consequences. The game I can think of that probably has gotten closest to that, must be Stellaris; I've seen very few games be so frank about how the logical extreme of "loving your country" basically means the enslavement and/or genocide of anyone considered not belonging to said country.

Anyway, my complaint isn't that there's too much focus on "new diverse options" like the Mississippians. My complaint is that there's too much focus on the leaders. I'm of the minority opinion that leaders should've been ditched altogether, that each civ should've been identified through its architecture, music, cuisine etc, rather than a political and/or spiritual figurehead, whose inclusion I think only reinforces the tired old myth about history supposedly being shaped solely by a small number of individuals at the top of the food chain

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

In modern, quite frankly, the only exotic or out there choice is Buganda, and when you consider the PR catastrophe that having no modern African civ would be, even that make sense - it's not about posters asking for diversity, it's about the impact to marketing. The rest are either major historical players, represent massive national or regional markets (SE Asia, Latin America), or, in most cases, both. I frankly fail to see who should be cut to make room for Germany in modern without triggering a media firestorm.

There might be more of a firestorm when there might be no Modern Middle Eastern civ, and the Abbasids might have to go to the Mughals or Buganda.

 

[Evie]

I *think* no Africa would be still worse, but yes, no Ottomans if confirmed would be by far the most surprising and risky move the devs actually did. (Far, far, far worse than no Germany).

 

[j51]

(see how badly Spain being in Exploration was received).

It was? Where? In what way? I believe you I’m just very curious to read those points of view.

 

[Evie]

Well, less Spain being in exploration and more Spain *not* being in Modern as a result - there were a good volume of posts about people insisting European civs that are still-extent countries should neçessarily be available in modern. And a response arguing against that.

Don't really have the link at hand.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I *think* no Africa would be still worse, but yes, no Ottomans if confirmed would be by far the most surprising and risky move the devs actually did. (Far, far, far worse than no Germany).

Oh yes, I meant that would be more of a firestorm than leaving off Germany.

Honestly based off of historical paths I could see Germany being the least likely Modern European addition for the base game. Russia could come from Mongolia, and obviously Britain from the Normans.

It was? Where? In what way? I believe you I’m just very curious to read those points of view.

I've seen a few people saying they should have just called it Castille, that way there could be a Modern Spain. I don't think it was enough of an uproar though even on these forums. Certainly not on other sites.