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

[uppi]

I don't think you need to find some transitions offensive to find them weird though. I think introdcing historically preferred transitions was a bit of a mistake. They aren't going to have enough civs to make paths which feel like logical progressions. If they had just themed the transitions as something else other than "historic paths," or if it was a free for all switches would feel less out of place for some people...

I don't think the unlock system was a mistake. A free-for-all would be worse in my opinion. First, because having too much choice is a bad thing. Second, you would be struggling more to recognize who becomes who. Aksum into Songahai is a weird transition, but at least you know that this is likely. So when you see Songhai, you can recognize: ah that is what Amina chose. In a free-for-all, you might wonder: who the heck became Hawaii again?

The naming is a bit off, though. "Regional transitions" might have been better to describe what they are doing. Or maybe just "preferred choice" for each leader.

I think by relaxing the diversity requirement a bit, they could have moved at least into squint-and-I-can-see it territory. Inka, Songhai and Hawaii are the only ones which are completely out of place for me. Replace those three, and the transitions look much better already. Of course, that would leave huge gaps on the world map, but that would be the price I'd be willing to pay.

 

[pokiehl]

I think your take is out of line with the general sentiment in the gaming community at the moment. People understand money needs to be made, but can also understand when mechanics have been designed around money instead of gameplay optimisation eg. Loot boxes. Now this isnt as egregious as loot boxes and the famed "sense of pride and accomplishment" that comes with them, but it's somewhere further towards that on the spectrum of consumer friendliness that previous civ iterations have been. At least to me, and seemingly to others. It's in fact crossed the line for me personally.

What mechanics have been designed around money? I don't understand how anything in Civ 7 is anywhere close to loot boxes. If selling DLC crosses the line for you, fine, but it's not new for Civ, and the DLC model is 100% inline with Civ 6's.

The other thing to underestimate at your peril is how chronically online the gaming community is (and by design). Battlefront 2 was brought down by a social media comment.

Battlefront 2, sitting at "Very Positive" on Steam and generating over $500 million in revenue? You and I have very different definitions of "brought down." Battlefront 1 and 2 have sold over 33 million copies combined, as confirmed by EA, and that was more than 5 years ago. I'm sure they're quite happy with it.

I think you are overestimating at your peril how real or pervasive any widely online sentiment is.

Gaming being more successful than every before was a true statement w-5 years ago, but recently we're seeing more failures than successes. Gargantuan losses are being made by big developers, Anthem and Concord come to mind as two extreme examples. Ubisoft, a leading name on people's tongues for DLC sins, is now sinking in their share prices are successive missed hits.

Gaming is more successful than ever before, point blank period. Revenue is up higher than ever for the industry. You're listing specific examples of failures. Imagine there's a booming economy, and I tell you it's doing well as reflected in market indexes, and in disagreement, you point to a single company whose share prices have fallen. The industry can be generating more revenue than ever and certain products can fail. These things aren't at odds with each other; it's how the market works. Failure is actually necessary for a booming market.

Civ may be more shielded from prevailing gaming culture than most other games by being primarily single player, but there's still a lot of overlap with other gaming audiences that are online by necessity thanks to gaming wide trends like always online Denuvo and binning of hot seat over online multiplayer - trends this community isn't immune from.

Denuvo Anti-Tamper is not an "always online" software, and I promise you the vast majority of consumers have no idea what it is and don't care either. Perceived outrage over Denuvo is a prime example of echochamber behavior.

I think you're outlook is far more binary on this, and far more compromising towards the developer than the vast majority of people who have bought prior entries. How this fairs on social media, and where it lands in gaming zeitgeist, will absolutely impact it, and the reason it may under or over deliver this time will be it's DLC model

I'm still unclear on what is so uniquely nefarious about selling civs as DLC, considering we've had that for over a decade now.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I think by relaxing the diversity requirement a bit, they could have moved at least into squint-and-I-can-see it territory. Inka, Songhai and Hawaii are the only ones which are completely out of place for me. Replace those three, and the transitions look much better already. Of course, that would leave huge gaps on the world map, but that would be the price I'd be willing to pay.

I partially agree. I don't think those are the only ones which are the least out of place, but I do believe that two of them might be the most glaring options.

It might have been better to replace the Inca with Aztecs, and wait for a full line of South American civs to put them in. Same thing with a full line of Polynesia to make it work.

 

[CivKirk64]

Not to mention seemingly universally disliked idea to inexplicably switch from "the leader talks to you, the player" to "leaders face each other like in mortal kombat" (seriously, what market research made Firaxis thinks that a good idea??).

You can't say universal, because you didn't consult me. This feels like complaining about 2 note xylophone keys.
I for one, didn't even notice, this is such a small thing that is "Universally disliked" is absurd. "Inexplicable", can explain it for you, its just an artistic choice.
Also big plus is you actually get to see your own leader emoting in diplomacy for a change. This has such a small impact on how the game is played and perceived, I'm shocked anyone would mention it, and that I needed to spend this many characters defending Firaxis on it.
So many people here are just so eager to nit pick the silliest things. Makes me wonder if you are even fans, or just want to hear yourselves type.

 

[Evie]

While working on my proposed list, I've come up with a loose tier list of various possible connection between civs. Of course, higher tiers are to be prioritized, but sometime some civs will have to make-do with lower tiers because higher tiers do not exist, or because their higher-tier connection is to a civ that would have too many (see: Rome, Han), and it still has to be done while having only a limited number of civs in the game, so not everyone can have top-tier connections.

They are :

S-Tier : the best, but only to be used when the two civilizations can be suitably distinguished and given recognizably different names. Will actually be rare in practice.
Succession. There is a general political and cultural continuity between the two civilizations, or at least alleged continuity that is generally recognized (Ex: Rome-Byzantine, Han-Ming). S-Tier connection.

A-Tier. This will be the most common level of high connection, as direct successors cannot be too common in the game.
Legacy. While there is no political continuity, there is a clearly traceable and significant cultural heritage or evolution from the former to the later. (Roman-Norman)
Claim. The later civ present itself as the successor of the former, and claim their heritage, but the continuity is not evident or contested. (Byzantine-Russian).
Conquest. The later civ conquered the former, resulting in the people of the former civ intermingling with the conquerors and becoming part of a new post-conquest society (Egypt-Abbasid).

B-Tier. Also a pretty common level of good connection.
Colonization. Much as conquest, however with much reduced intermingling. These connections should be made carefully where they involve still-extent colonized people. (Shawnee-American).
Kinship. The later civ belong to the same relatively broad cultural grouping or has a reasonable cultural relation with the former. (
Exchange. There was historical partnersthip, alliance trade and/or influence between the two civilizations or their respective spheres or regions. (Carthage-Songhai, Scot-France).

C-Tier. PReferably there should be at least one higher tier connection, but these will do if nothing else will.
Proximity. There is no particular relation between the two civs, but they existed in relatively good proximity to each other. (Aksum-Swahili).
Speculative. There is no proven historical or generally accepted connection, however there are theories and hypothesis with reasonable support that suggest a potential connection between regions (Tonga-Inca).
Migratory. A significant amount of people of the former civilization (or their kin) settled (or were forcibly move) in the land of the later civilization, and played an important part in its history. (Songhai-America)

D-Tier. These really only should be secondary options.
Referential. The connection is not between these two specific civilization, but represent a higher-tier connection that happened earlier or later in history between their kin (Hawaii-Meiji, alluding to Japanese migration to Hawaii)
Legendary. There is no accepted theory or fact regarding connection, but well known legends, fringe claims or meme refer to it (You know who they are).

F-Tier. These shoudl be avoided wherever possible, but may have to do in some cases ; ideally no more than one and certainly never only those (if a civ only has those connections, it shouldn't be in the game).
Geographic. They were sort of on the same very broad area and otherwise not really connected at all. (Egypt-Songhai).

 

[kaspergm]

A-Tier.
Conquest. The later civ conquered the former, resulting in the people of the former civ intermingling with the conquerors and becoming part of a new post-conquest society (Egypt-Abbasid).

B-Tier.
Colonization. Much as conquest, however with much reduced intermingling. These connections should be made carefully where they involve still-extent colonized people. (Shawnee-American).

Really good post, but these two I really disagree with.

Conquest and colonization are imo. both examples of one civ defeating another civ in game-terms. It goes against the very essence of what I think the Civ game series is about to make these valid "evolutions" of a civ. I know once again it also boils down to what one thinks about the idea of a Civ not being able to make it through to another era, but even given this premise, I still think there should be a distinction between evolution and defeat. But of course, the problem is that with many of the civs that were "defeated" in real life, we don't have an actual successor, which is the corner the developers have painted themselves into with this design.

 

[Evie]

That's a far too strong binary idea where you either survive and are defeated: a game logic that find little to no reflection in actual history. Historically, very few conquests (save only those that were successfully genocidal in nature) ever has taken place that didn't involve a great deal of cultural (and genetic) intermingling between conquered and conqueror, and a continued presence of the conquered people's influence in the society that arise from the conquest. There weer exceptions, and colonial society in particular were more problematic hence why they are treated separately, but the norm for a post-conquest society is a hybridization of conqueror and conquered, not an annihilation of conquered. The resulting society is as much an evolution of the conquered people as the conquering one.

History of cultures is not the Game of Thrones. There are outcomes other than victory or death.

Of course, in cases where there wasn't intermingling leading a new post-conquest society, then these two connections don't apply. That's why the intermingling is specially noted in the description.

 

[kaspergm]

That's a far too strong binary idea where you either survive and are defeated: a game logic that find little to no reflection in actual history. Historically, very few conquests (save only those that were successfully genocidal in nature) ever has taken place that didn't involve a great deal of cultural (and genetic) intermingling between conquered and conqueror, and a continued presence of the conquered people's influence in the society that arise from the conquest. There weer exceptions, and colonial society in particular were more problematic hence why they are treated separately, but the norm for a post-conquest society is a hybridization of conqueror and conquered, not an annihilation of conquered. The resulting society is as much an evolution of the conquered people as the conquering one.

History of cultures is not the Game of Thrones. There are outcomes other than victory or death.

I agree that colonization is probably the more problematic of the two, and I also acknowledge that not all conquests are equal (or all problematic in this context). But I can't help find the idea of Maya or Inca evolving into Spain or the native north americans evolving into USA/France/England/etc. offensive. But I don't have any cultural roots in those cultures, so maybe I'm the one who's misunderstanding things.

 

[Evie]

We are told the Shawnee consulted by Firaxis were okay with Shawnee-USA, so, I don't feel it is my place to substitute my judgement to theirs. Different indigenous North American groups might have different feelings on the matter. Nor do I think Aztec-Mexico or Inca-Peru would be particularly distasteful, given the importance of the Nahuatl and Quechua people in their respective country and region to this day.

Having native societies evolve into Spain in the Ancient-Exploration transition would be much too early for representing the Spanish conquest ; having them evolve into a hypothetical modern Spain would be much too late (as a modern Spain civ would be a Spain that has lots its American colonies). Any connection there would be at best a referential connection, not a colonial one. Evolutions into colonial countries, not European colonizers, is more what this category is meant to cover.

There's a reason, however, that colonial transition has an explicit note to be careful while making those connections involving still extent people. It is a sensitive topic, and that makes it a connection to be used with great care. But where it is determined that it can be used, it does remain in my opinion a reasonable connection.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

I don't find any of the proposed or possible transitions offensive at all. What I dislike is that it has removed the alt history element of becoming the Aztecs that conquer Europe and go on to lead the world into space for instance.

To me its like that annoying friend we all had when we were children that said "come and play with my Lego" but then said "no not like that, dont don't build your own, I've already built it, play with that". The point of Lego is the building, not the thing at the end to me, and to me this feels like the building is removed and we're presented with the thing. I know others will feel differently, and say you can build more because you can customise each age, but that's just not my jam, and it's lost the magic civ factor for me.

At least that's the closest I have got yet to explaining the feeling I have about the way this has been implemented.

 

[queenpea]

We are told the Shawnee consulted by Firaxis were okay with Shawnee-USA, so, I don't feel it is my place to substitute my judgement to theirs.

Has this been explicitly confirmed? If so, can a source be cited? The Shawnee livestream avoided the Age transition entirely.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I agree that colonization is probably the more problematic of the two, and I also acknowledge that not all conquests are equal (or all problematic in this context). But I can't help find the idea of Maya or Inca evolving into Spain or the native north americans evolving into USA/France/England/etc. offensive. But I don't have any cultural roots in those cultures, so maybe I'm the one who's misunderstanding things.

Maya into Spain certainly doesn't look to be a thing, at least not in terms of historical progression, and Inca and Spain inhabit the same age. Though they do both probably go into Mexico, but for different reasons.
Inca because of geographic reasons, and Spain because it's a Spanish post-colonial nation.

Has this been explicitly confirmed? If so, can a source be cited? The Shawnee livestream avoided the Age transition entirely.

It wasn't specifically said but at this point they would have to know, right?

 

[Arcaian]

But of course, the problem is that with many of the civs that were "defeated" in real life, we don't have an actual successor, which is the corner the developers have painted themselves into with this design.

I think an advantage of their design is that the final era starts in the 18th century, where there are actually a great deal of potential successor states for colonised groups around the world. There are individual peoples who might not have an easy successor state, but when looking at most regions of the world afflicted with colonisation, there are many important groups continuing successful resistance in the 18th century. Benin in West Africa would be a very interesting choice, Kongo in Central Africa, the Rovzi in southern Africa instead of always going for the Zulu, the Maori in New Zealand, the Mapuche returning to the series in South America, quite a few choices for Mayan resistance in mesoamerica, you could go for the Haudenosaunee Confederation in North America if you want a big name or you could go for groups further west if you want a better fit on the time period. If the final era was drawing more from ~1900-2050, you'd have a much harder time finding successful successors, I think.

 

[queenpea]

It wasn't specifically said but at this point they would have to know, right?

I'm really not sure. It's also possible it's not the "historical" path for the Shawnee? Though it's unclear what the other options would be.

It's possible that the tribal representatives were consulted on how their civilization was represented in the game, including the music, art style, and Tecumseh as well, without providing feedback on the Mississippian civ, or the American civ.

It's not my intention to open that can of worms again, but I was just curious of more information, or a more explicit confirmation had been issued. If so, that would be news to me, but it doesn't seem like we've received any new info on this path.

 

[Evie]

I may be wrong, but it was the impression I had gotten from discussion. At the very minimum it seems excessively unlikely (to the point of ridiculous) that Firaxis consulted Shawnee people but did not touch on potentially the most controversial aspect of the civ design with them. Claiming that amount to accusing Firaxis of deliberately deceiving the people working with them, and I think that's far in exçess of reasonable speculation. By almost sll measurable standard, it'd a safe assumption Firaxis asked about the Shawnee-America transition during their collaboration,

Indeed it's far more likely that their Shawnee consultants know things we don't yet know about the Shawnee's future in civ, that that they didn't even know about the American transition until now.

 

[queenpea]

I may be wrong, but it was the impression I had gotten from discussion. At the very minimum it seems excessively unlikely (to the point of ridiculous) that Firaxis consulted Shawnee people but did not touch on potentially the most controversial aspect of the civ design with them. Claiming that amount to accusing Firaxis of deliberately deceiving the people working with them, and I think that's far in exçess of reasonable speculation.

It's possible - I'd like to think it likely - that Firaxis has also shared further plans we don't know yet with their Shawnee consultants, particularly regarding further civs to be added. There may well be a "are you okay with America as your starting point on the understanding we intend to add X as an alternative indigenous pathway in the future?". But on that we can only speculate,

It's fine to make the assumption you've made, but I was simply curious if we had learned more on what has been confirmed with the likely transition and their approval on the concept.

 

[Moi Magnus]

I don't find any of the proposed or possible transitions offensive at all. What I dislike is that it has removed the alt history element of becoming the Aztecs that conquer Europe and go on to lead the world into space for instance.

I agree with both this and Firaxis' opinion that the old civ design was too focussed on one age, leading to awkward design.

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.

Although, maybe an easier way to proceed would be to reduce the impact of unique units/buildings, and instead focus on giving to each civ a different unique ability for each age.

 

[Gori the Grey]

I don't find any of the proposed or possible transitions offensive at all. What I dislike is that it has removed the alt history element of becoming the Aztecs that conquer Europe and go on to lead the world into space for instance.

To me its like that annoying friend we all had when we were children that said "come and play with my Lego" but then said "no not like that, dont don't build your own, I've already built it, play with that". The point of Lego is the building, not the thing at the end to me, and to me this feels like the building is removed and we're presented with the thing. I know others will feel differently, and say you can build more because you can customise each age, but that's just not my jam, and it's lost the magic civ factor for me.

At least that's the closest I have got yet to explaining the feeling I have about the way this has been implemented.

I feel similarly. My objection is not to the our-world historicity of various of these evolutions but to the fact that, in a game of Civ, I want such evolutions to be ones that are a result of my actions in the game. There was a splash screen at the age transition in the Exploration livestream that tries to "explain" how the second-era civ evolved from the first era civ (not Greece into Spain specifically, just generically what is involved in such historical transitions) and it said something to the effect that over time my people start speaking the language of others who have immigrated into my lands. I'll go get the exact text in a minute, but what charged into my head is "No! In a Civ game I want those kind of developments to result from my game actions." (I narrativize my Civ games and I even work out how many years it would take before the inhabitants of some city I conquer come to speak my language, and what percentage go on speaking the old one--stuff like that).

Here's the quote: "a wave of immigrants and refugees reshape who we are, what tongue we speak" This is a major transformation in my civilization, but it is is happening to me rather than being something I achieve. The objection is a game-satisfaction objection, not a historical-dynamics objection.

 

[Evie]

I'm torn on that one. I always liked the idea in civ that my game action dictated history ; but at the same time, I think there is room to say that...this resulted in history being too easy on your chosen civilization. There was no external force interacting with and pushing you to make changes that woudl alter civilizations beside conflicts with AI that usually do hot challenge players unless they want to push themselves at difficulty levels they,re not comfortable with. I simply don't think relying on the AI as the only factor of change outside the control fthe player was a working approach, and I think it's right that the game is now more dynamic in its enforcement of evolution.

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.

 

[queenpea]

I feel similarly. My objection is not to the our-world historicity of various of these evolutions but to the fact that, in a game of Civ, I want such evolutions to be ones that are a result of my actions in the game. There was a splash screen at the age transition in the Exploration livestream that tries to "explain" how the second-era civ evolved from the first era civ (not Greece into Spain specifically, just generically what is involved in such historical transitions) and it said something to the effect that over time my people start speaking the language of others who have immigrated into my lands. I'll go get the exact text in a minute, but what charged into my head is "No! In a Civ game I want those kind of developments to result from my game actions." (I narrativize my Civ games and I even work out how many years it would take before the inhabitants of some city I conquer come to speak my language, and what percentage go on speaking the old one--stuff like that).

"a wave of immigrants and refugees reshape who we are, what tongue we speak" This is a major transformation in my civilization, but it is is happening to me rather than being something I achieve.

Yeah, I'm not a fan of the fade to black and significant events taking place off screen. This kind of narrative script though is inevitable with the Age/Crisis system, I'm afraid.