and this is exactly the reason why no one should be surprised that we on the other side of this argument struggle to sympathize with your want for more obscure civs and leaders that cut into time, resources, and devolopment required to give us the civs and leaders we actually want and which actually drive sales and excitement for the series.
You're totally entitled to your opinion but I don't think your position is the popular one among the fan base and the low playercounts and constant criticism of civ/leader choices and DLC model should make that obvious to Firaxis.
I guess that's where we are left... unfortunately, there can only be one Civ VII... I suppose I should just be happy that I've gotten what I've got, Augustus and Genghis are almost certainly the ones paying for my thinkers and archeological cultures, rather than vice versa..
Frankly, the way they have dismantled the core concept of civ, which is to play a civ to stand the test of time, who still bothers about the leaders or civs. They turn into some formulaic thing in my mind.
I also don't comprehend the desire for another age. I have not seen many reviews of the modern age, but so far they all point to a quick finish or the same slog of end turn clickfest. Who needs another age after that....I would think the entire mechanisms need rework
Not sure if its even proven she existed?
There is a clear agenda from above that Firaxis has to obey putting low quality "leaders" in the game. Otherwise T2 oligarchs wont get their new Porsches.
I'm just sat here trying to figure out why exactly I had that impression... I don't even remember when or where I first heard of her, she's been encoded in my brain as "famous person" as long as I can remember, I think even before I knew what she was known for. I tend to remember the specifics of how I've learned things, so I must have been pretty young...
She has an outsized cultural impact in IT and STEM as an early woman in the field, and that snowballed with the ADA programming language being named after her, but she's still not exactly famous even in those fields.
To the British public she is a relative unknown. And its understandable why given her contribution to the field was notes on the side of a translated Italian paper. She was an intelligent hobbyist fitting it around raising a family before dying young in a time when that was an unusual hobby for a wealthy woman to have.
Mary Anning would have been an infinitely better choice to fill that particular niche as her contributions to her own scientific field were much more consistent and numerous than Ada's and she genuinely pushed forward her field in her lifetime.
Not sure if its even proven she existed?
There is a clear agenda from above that Firaxis has to obey putting low quality "leaders" in the game. Otherwise T2 oligarchs wont get their new Porsches.
I don't think a 19th century noblewoman and the legitimate daughter of Lord Byron who was in contact with a number of famous Englishmen such as Babbage, Faraday, and Dickens, really needs to be proven to exist.
There's also no agenda, Firaxis just likes picking diverse options. If there was some conspiracy for 2K to push, wouldn't they want as many famous faces as possible?
You can say whatever you else you want, I know the non-heads of state are a topic that many will never budge on, but RELATIVELY OBSCURE? I refuse to believe that this is the public perception of Lovelace. If you asked me to name any 10 British people who aren't musicians, she'd come right after Churchill and Turing (and then would come Victoria, Elizebeth, and Anne Boleyn before I start counting Henrys to cinch a win with no further effort)
Firstly i dont actually mind having Ada as a leader, although i think scientists should be great people not leaders it is no big deal.
But as a brit myself i think if you asked 100 of the public to name 10 British scientists of past and present, far less than half of them would think of Ada.
In all honesty i would be amazed if half of them named Babbage either.
I would expect Newton, Hawking (as he is a recent scientist), Darwin, Fleming, Berners-Lee (again recent), Turing (on bank note) and maybe Faraday to get repeatedly mentioned.
Apparently, many people don't. Otherwise, I would assume every civ 6 player who didn't know her and has an interest in (science) history would have looked her up when she was recruited?
I would prefer to have more interesting people that I'm not familiar with (it was only Himiko in civ 7). At least there were a few about which I didn't know much beforehand (Rizal, Trung Trac, Lafayette).
and this is exactly the reason why no one should be surprised that we on the other side of this argument struggle to sympathize with your want for more obscure civs and leaders that cut into time, resources, and devolopment required to give us the civs and leaders we actually want and which actually drive sales and excitement for the series.
You're totally entitled to your opinion but I don't think your position is the popular one among the fan base and the low playercounts and constant criticism of civ/leader choices and DLC model should make that obvious to Firaxis.
Civ games (I started with Civ V) has always been an influencer to me to read about historical entities (civ, people, concepts) that I have no idea about.
And if that is part of the purpose of making this game, then the devs have greatly succeeded to me.
I want the leaders and civs I know and love... but I also want the names that I don't. If we only got fan favorites, we'd never have Tamar of Georgia, or the Mapuche. Sure, some people would love it if the initial roster of every civ game was the same 18 civs as existed in civ 1. But I like seeing some of the new names and experiencing different civs and cultures.
I'd be upset if every Civ game launched with Only the Vanillas. You just can't win with some people, id feel nickel n dimed if all the interesting leaders with fresh mechanics were the DLC I have to wait and or pay extra for.
I like what Ed said in the early Feb stream, About getting to spend all this time hashing out how VII plays, how it works, and getting to do Britain after they had all that practice.
We all understand from every previous release that the DLC civs and leaders are usually better cooked, more interesting and most of us see the value in them and go along with buying expansions.
"Well, I've never heard of her," should never be a reason not to have a leader. Always broaden your horizons. Always seek new perspectives. Always destroy ignorance in yourself.
I want the leaders and civs I know and love... but I also want the names that I don't. If we only got fan favorites, we'd never have Tamar of Georgia, or the Mapuche.
You're acting as if Tamar was never a fan favorite.
Anyways as I agree with the sentiment that I'd like a mix of both, the classic civs and leaders along with new and exciting options.
"Well, I've never heard of her," should never be a reason not to have a leader. Always broaden your horizons. Always seek new perspectives. Always destroy ignorance in yourself.
Unless the one isn't even a leader at all. But some overly privileged, blue booded white playing a scientist, now capable leading any nation and conquer the world. Its falsifying history at best.
And its not an end of the world. And I can live with it. I dont personally like it and its fine if others do.
Ignorance to others opinions is what many cannot seek inside indeed.
I know DLC will sell better when Sid's vision is followed later on. Sadly this is just a way to make the milking happen. And its quite blatant.
I am strongly against saving series staples later to milk cash and giving some minor local the honors.
Its not about if you are willing to "teach history" or "willing to learn anything", its plain greed.
You’re welcome to your opinion but the 10+ page threads exclusion of Britain and constant arguments about leader choice seem to suggest otherwise and the current player counts don’t seem to support your position that fans of the series wanted to play an obscure scientist over Victoria, Elizabeth, or Churchill
"Well, I've never heard of her," should never be a reason not to have a leader. Always broaden your horizons. Always seek new perspectives. Always destroy ignorance in yourself.
Because when warmongers who never had a peaceful thought in their actual lives get to lead peaceful empire and win scientific and cultural victories (something that has ALWAYS been possible in the game), it's fine, but when cultural, philosophical and intellectual get to have armies and conquer it's an outrage against realism.
And of course, this all rest upon the ridiculous idea that "the leader" in the game represent some kind of immortal human who act as political leader of the civilization for six thousand years, which has never been a reasonable interpretation of Civ.
Because when warmongers who never had a peaceful thought in their actual lives get to lead peaceful empire and win scientific and cultural victories (something that has ALWAYS been possible in the game), it's fine, but when cultural, philosophical and intellectual get to have armies and conquer GASP NO THIS IS AN OFFENSE AGAINST REALISM.
Warmonger "it's 4X so all leaders should be conquerors" types have always been fine with leaders in the game doing things they were not known for - just so long as they were *your* leaders and the things they did that were out of characters were the ones you didn't care about.
And of course, this all rest upon the ridiculous idea that "the leader" in the game represent some kind of immortal human who act as political leader of the civilization for six thousand years, which has never been a reasonable interpretation of Civ.
The series is literally about imperialism at its core and you can try to shame people for wanting popular traditional heads of states and leaders but it’s not going to work when your alternative is obscure scientists and explorers who have never led more than a few hundred people at anything
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
