LOW number of civilizations at launch

[TheGrayFox]

The commentary is only there because you've decided it's there, which I think is very relevant.

Not really

History doesn't exist in a vacuum. The devs are trying model a "layered" model of history and specifically pointed at England/London as an example for this. However anybody with a high school history education could tell you that those layers only exist because conflict, conquest, and collapse.

Firaxis can't have its cake and eat it too. You can't model a layered history without also implying conquest or collapse caused by crisis. What other way there is to interpret my Shawnee tribe morphing under crisis into the state that literally genocided them?

You would think so, wouldn't you. Unfortunately, too many people are too keen to put words and even motives into the developers' mouths instead of being happy to agree to disagree over valid differences in opinion over a video game.

What motives have been put in the devolopers mouths that they haven't put there themselves with their deliberately stated interpretation of history?

 

[Gorbles]

What motives have been put in the devolopers mouths that they haven't put there themselves with their deliberately stated interpretation of history?

Well, handily:

History doesn't exist in a vacuum. The devs are trying model a "layered" model of history and specifically pointed at England/London as an example for this.

History doesn't exist in a vacuum. But the developers aren't saying that it does. In fact, the layered approach that you're simultaneously criticising is reflective of that (vs. not having layers).

But this is cyclic, because you and I have been over this before. And I'm completely sympathetic to a lack of personal engagement with what the developers are offering here. I've said it before, I'll say it again. I get it.

But to talk about history not existing in a vacuum is something you can't hold any other game in the franchise to, because they fail the bar by more. Improvement matters. Translation of something as infinitely-complex as "history" to anything in a video game takes reduction; inherently. You have to. But again, we've been over this before as well.

So yes, you're putting words into the dev's mouths to emphasise the difference in opinion you have with the game's vision and how you think the game should approach the same problems. Why? Why not agree to disagree? What authority do you have to claim some kind of objective superiority? What logic does this conclusion stem from?

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

Well, handily:

History doesn't exist in a vacuum. But the developers aren't saying that it does. In fact, the layered approach that you're simultaneously criticising is reflective of that (vs. not having layers).

But this is cyclic, because you and I have been over this before. And I'm completely sympathetic to a lack of personal engagement with what the developers are offering here. I've said it before, I'll say it again. I get it.

But to talk about history not existing in a vacuum is something you can't hold any other game in the franchise to, because they fail the bar by more. Improvement matters. Translation of something as infinitely-complex as "history" to anything in a video game takes reduction; inherently. You have to. But again, we've been over this before as well.

So yes, you're putting words into the dev's mouths to emphasise the difference in opinion you have with the game's vision and how you think the game should approach the same problems. Why? Why not agree to disagree? What authority do you have to claim some kind of objective superiority? What logic does this conclusion stem from?

Nothing about those two quotes you've picked out is a contradiction. The second quote is listing one of the first quotes aforementioned deliberately stated interpretations of history from the devs, which is called out as an explicit exclusion clause to motives being put in the devs mouths (even though it shouldn't need to be, as this isn't being put in the devs mouths, it is paraphrasing what has come from the devs mouths)

 

[Gorbles]

Nothing about those two quotes you've picked out is a contradiction. The second quote is listing one of the first quotes aforementioned deliberately stated interpretations of history from the devs, which is called out as an explicit exclusion clause to motives being put in the devs mouths (even though it shouldn't need to be, as this isn't being put in the devs mouths, it is paraphrasing what has come from the devs mouths)

Nowhere did I say it was a contradiction. A question was asked, and I provided an answer. Folks can read into this however they please. Paraphrase, too, if they want.

(edited for grammar)

 

[Zaarin]

However anybody with a high school history education could tell you that those layers only exist because conflict, conquest, and collapse.

That's not true, though. Culture changes, with or without outside conflict. Cultural change, like linguistic change, is inevitable. England hasn't been conquered in about 800 years, but England today is very different from what it was when Chaucer wrote The Canterbury Tales--and that's only 600 years. Conflict can cause change, but it's far from the only factor in culture change.

What other way there is to interpret my Shawnee tribe morphing under crisis into the state that literally genocided them?

That the Shawnee developed a constitutional form of government (they already had one, in fact) and industrialized. That and the Maya > Inca are my least favorite transitions in the game; I'll be glad when both of those are smoothed out. Since the Maya and Shawnee were first introduced I've been suggesting a three-era Maya civ of Maya > Mayapan (or Itza) > Yucatec and a Modern Age Native American civ. But there's no need to impute malice to the developers or read in a worst-case-scenario. You can if you want to, but that doesn't mean it's the only plausible interpretation or that others are under some compulsion to accept your cynical reading.

 

[queenpea]

Wait do the older buildings really not always reflect your previous in game culture choices but instead an arbitrary “ancestor”? That’s really unfortunate and hard to believe as it goes against everything they seem to be pitching their vision towards. I hope it’s not true and it was just that demo build. Can anyone from firaxis confirm this when they get back?

I would love an answer on this as well!

I’m confused if “history is built in layers” I would expect Modern Age America to look different if its “layers” consist of Greece and Normans vs. Mississippi and Shawnee?

 

[TheGrayFox]

That's not true, though. Culture changes, with or without outside conflict. Cultural change, like linguistic change, is inevitable. England hasn't been conquered in about 800 years, but England today is very different from what it was when Chaucer wrote The Canterbury Tales--and that's only 600 years. Conflict can cause change, but it's far from the only factor in culture change.

Here we go with another strawman. Has anyone argued that conflict is the only means for cultures changing in history? No they haven't.

Of course cultures can change without conflict but many of those changes were already modelled in previous civilizations. From adoption of new ideologies, civics, religion, technologies, etc.

The very specific model of "layered history" that the devs are using to justify their model of "rises and falls" in Civ however is absolutely one that shaped by conflict (which is exactly why these swaps are preceded by era defining crises)

That the Shawnee developed a constitutional form of government (they already had one, in fact) and industrialized.

And why would those things cause the Shawnee to become the United States of America...? Also who to say that the Shawnee ingame devoloped a constitutional form of government? Does being the US in Civ 7 now mean you have to have a constitutional government?

That and the Maya > Inca are my least favorite transitions in the game; I'll be glad when both of those are smoothed out. Since the Maya and Shawnee were first introduced I've been suggesting a three-era Maya civ of Maya > Mayapan (or Itza) > Yucatec and a Modern Age Native American civ. But there's no need to impute malice to the developers or read in a worst-case-scenario. You can if you want to, but that doesn't mean it's the only plausible interpretation or that others are under some compulsion to accept your cynical reading.

Personally Abbasids > Buganda upsets me more than Aztecs > Mexico but I think they're both issues created by a wholly unnessecary change to the formula.

Again like that other user pointed out, intent doesn't matter. You don't have to defend Firaxis from accusations no one is making against them., I don't think the devs purposefully intended malice in their design but that doesn't change the implications of what they have created and how they justified those changes.

 

[Zaarin]

Here we go with another strawman.

There is no strawman; I was responding to your exact words. However, I'm not going to continue with this discussion; I'm too familiar with your tactics to fall for them at this point.

 

[Gedemon]

The very specific model of "layered history" that the devs are using to justify their model of "rises and falls" in Civ however is absolutely one that shaped by conflict (which is exactly why these swaps are preceded by era defining crises)

no.

 

[Gorbles]

Let's see, then.

Here we go with another strawman. Has anyone argued that conflict is the only means for cultures changing in history? No they haven't.

You can't model a layered history without also implying conquest or collapse caused by crisis.

???

 

[TheGrayFox]

There is no strawman; I was responding to your exact words. However, I'm not going to continue with this discussion; I'm too familiar with your tactics to fall for them at this point.

Please quote where I said "conflict is the only means for a civlization to change". I'd love to see where in my post I made or even implied that argument. This is exactly what was being awknowledged when another user pointed to bad faith argumentation that constantly happens here.

Surely i'm the problem and its my nefarious "tactics" that have caused you to retreat from this discussion. How dare I disagree with you and provide solid reasons why without insult on a public forum.

 

[TheGrayFox]

no.

yes.

 

[TheGrayFox]

Let's see, then.


???

There is no contradiction here

You keep finding contradictions that don't exist and which other users have even explained aren't there. I'm not the on who created the devs interpretation of "layered history", I'm not the one who modeled era crises and conflicts that lead to civs collapsing and/or evolving into different culture groups using London as an example.

 

[Gorbles]

There is no contradiction here

Again, nobody said there was a contradiction. You asked a question, and an answer was provided.

 

[Gedemon]

yes.

no, as in "no, I disagree with your interpretation", not as in "no, you're wrong"

or do you mean you don't post opinions and interpretations but an absolute truth we should not contest ?

well, sorry, but I do disagree.

 

[TheGrayFox]

Again, nobody said there was a contradiction. You asked a question, and an answer was provided.

You didn't answer my question though, either of them

you just quoted two unrelated excerpts from my post that don't contradict each other in any way and don't make the argument you're obviously trying to make/imply.

 

[TheGrayFox]

no, as in "no, I disagree with your interpretation", not as in "no, you're wrong"

or do you mean you don't post opinions and interpretations but an absolute truth we should not contest ?

well, sorry, but I do disagree.

Oh you are welcome to disagree with my interpretation. You gave me your one word opinion on my interpretation and I gave you my opinion on your interpretation back in return.

unless are you saying that your opinion is an absolute truth which cannot be contested....?

 

[Gedemon]

Oh you are welcome to disagree with my interpretation. You gave me your one word opinion on my interpretation and I gave your mine back in return.

unless are you saying that your opinion is an absolute truth which cannot be contested....?

no.

 

[Gorbles]

You didn't answer my question though, either of them

you just quoted two unrelated excerpts from my post that don't contradict each other in any way and don't make the argument you're obviously trying to make/imply.

What argument am I obviously trying to imply?

 

[TheGhostEnthusiast]

I would like to point out that, even after the Civilization's name is changed to America or Mexico, Tecumseh will still be the face and representative of the nation. I think leaders might make these transitions feel less like "replacements."