Big J Money
Emperor
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 1,141
First of all, I don't want to paint an inaccurate picure: I'm not against the evolution of one civilization into another from a conceptual standpoint. My gripe has been with the example they showed in the big gameplay reveal -- Egypt becoming Mongolia -- and how that demonstrated to me a lack of plausability in terms of which civilizations can become which. I just don't find it within the realm of imagination that simply because Egypt could become societally dependent upon horses that they would have become Mongolia. Mongolia is culturally a lot more than horses, geographically nowhere close to Egypt, spoke a completely unrelated language to ancient Egyptian, and didn't ascend from any remotely similar tribes.
However, I think something is confusing all the conversation on this, and that's one word: "Civilization".
When you transition into a new age, who is transitioning? I don't think we really know yet. We know that a crisis brings your civilization to its knees. My interpretation of this is:
1) Government and authority break down
2) Many people die, perhaps whole people groups
3) Cultural skills and talents are lost to time
Taking the Mongolia example, if we imagine that a tribe of people prospers among the chaos that saw Egypt collapse, a new one could arise. If you imagine that the people called "Mongolians" come from a tribe of people who lived among the Egyptians, and shared some of their culture, but also had some of their own, this is quite believable. The word "Mongolians" is a bit confusing because I associate it with "people from Asia", but in this context it could simply mean "steppe nomads famed for their horsemanship and skill at warfare", geography be damned.
As far as language goes, we simply imagine that the new Mongol civilization speaks either Egyptian, or their own Mesopotamian language. It could be called Mongolian, but it wouldn't be historical Mongolian.
As far as physical appearance goes, this is where things could get weird. If the people of my first civilization have a North African appearance, then it wouldn't make sense for my second civ to suddenly be red and blonde headed people who look Norse. I'm curious how they will handle this. I suppose you could blame this on Sea Peoples, but what about other crises?
As far as architecture goes, it's quite feasible that the new civilization will have a new architecture. Where this could get weird would be to see, for example, Asian architecture arise in Egypt due to the Mongolians, and then the exact same Asian architecture arise on the other side of the world due to (for example) the rise of Korea. I guess we could say aliens...
So my question really is: how much are we evolving "a civilization", and how much are we starting over with a new civ that has some influences from the past; a different, dead civilization? I think there are ways to imagine these kinds of scenarios plausibly, but it's going to depend on how they portray it.
Regardless of whether it's plausible, and regardless of whether it ends up being fun, it all leads me to some interesting, fundamental questions, though.
Are we really building an empire (or civilization) to stand the test of time, if the first two will always fail in crisis?
Is the game Civilization, or Civilizations?
However, I think something is confusing all the conversation on this, and that's one word: "Civilization".
When you transition into a new age, who is transitioning? I don't think we really know yet. We know that a crisis brings your civilization to its knees. My interpretation of this is:
1) Government and authority break down
2) Many people die, perhaps whole people groups
3) Cultural skills and talents are lost to time
Taking the Mongolia example, if we imagine that a tribe of people prospers among the chaos that saw Egypt collapse, a new one could arise. If you imagine that the people called "Mongolians" come from a tribe of people who lived among the Egyptians, and shared some of their culture, but also had some of their own, this is quite believable. The word "Mongolians" is a bit confusing because I associate it with "people from Asia", but in this context it could simply mean "steppe nomads famed for their horsemanship and skill at warfare", geography be damned.
As far as language goes, we simply imagine that the new Mongol civilization speaks either Egyptian, or their own Mesopotamian language. It could be called Mongolian, but it wouldn't be historical Mongolian.
As far as physical appearance goes, this is where things could get weird. If the people of my first civilization have a North African appearance, then it wouldn't make sense for my second civ to suddenly be red and blonde headed people who look Norse. I'm curious how they will handle this. I suppose you could blame this on Sea Peoples, but what about other crises?
As far as architecture goes, it's quite feasible that the new civilization will have a new architecture. Where this could get weird would be to see, for example, Asian architecture arise in Egypt due to the Mongolians, and then the exact same Asian architecture arise on the other side of the world due to (for example) the rise of Korea. I guess we could say aliens...
So my question really is: how much are we evolving "a civilization", and how much are we starting over with a new civ that has some influences from the past; a different, dead civilization? I think there are ways to imagine these kinds of scenarios plausibly, but it's going to depend on how they portray it.
Regardless of whether it's plausible, and regardless of whether it ends up being fun, it all leads me to some interesting, fundamental questions, though.
Are we really building an empire (or civilization) to stand the test of time, if the first two will always fail in crisis?
Is the game Civilization, or Civilizations?
Last edited:
).
