LOW number of civilizations at launch

[TheGrayFox]

Yeah it is. However, most Mexicans can thrace their lineage back to either the Spanish or the indigenous people that lived in Mexico (Aztecs, Mayans, Zapotecs), so *on paper* they're both viable paths. It's become its own thing.

It's perfectly viable to dislike and criticise the 3 Age methodology, and the fact that Mayans, Incans and Shawnee lead into Mexico. I am personally not bothered by it, and recognise that it's a Lesser of Multiple Evils type of solution.

Yeah thats were our opinions will differ because I am bothered by it and recognize that it was a lesser of Multiple Evils type of solution to a problem that didn't need fixing. In the series about leading an empire to span the test of time, why is my Native American empire collapsing/evolving due to unavoidable arbitrary crisis into an undeniably European colonial state?

If the Shawnee themselves have no issue with the possibility of being absorbed America, Mexico and Cherokee, I don't understand why I should.

This isn't the first time I've seen it but I really don't like this argument because Firaxis only consulted with one Shawnee tribe of several and we have no idea how much of the game and its design that tribe was actually shown. We have no idea if they played through and were consulted about the era/civ swapping mehanics, all we know is that they were consulted about their tribe being included and music/designs/units to represent them in game.

and even then a few tribal heads do not always speak EVERY single member of that tribe, even if they are elected. Tribes/people are not hivemind.

That said, I have no refutation for your argument. The pathways are a mess, and are going to remain a mess no matter how many Civs you add. That is the choice the devs made for themselves and if you desire to criticise that, I won't stop you.

(just don't expect me to agree with *every* point you make. but that's the nature of a healthy discussion. ideas and opinion clash. and that leads to insight.)

That's totally fine, I have no problem with constructve and healthy discussion and at the end of the day, you are totally just as entitled to your opinion as I am entilted to mine.

I'm not expecting everyone to agree with every point I make, what I do expect is for clearly stated points be not be disingeniously dismissed, handwaved and strawmanned as seems to be a common occurance on this board. (not blaming you for that specically)

 

[AD1730]

Yeah thats were our opinions will differ because I am bothered by it and recognize that it was a lesser of Multiple Evils type of solution to a problem that didn't need fixing. In the series about leading an empire to span the test of time, why is my Native American empire collapsing/evolving due to unavoidable arbitrary crisis into an undeniably European colonial state?



This isn't the first time I've seen it but I really don't like this argument because Firaxis only consulted with one Shawnee tribe of several and we have no idea how much of the game and its design that tribe was actually shown. We have no idea if they played through and were consulted about the era/civ swapping mehanics, all we know is that they were consulted about their tribe being included and music/designs/units to represent them in game.

and even then a few tribal heads do not always speak EVERY single member of that tribe, even if they are elected. Tribes/people are not hivemind.



That's totally fine, I have no problem with constructve and healthy discussion and at the end of the day, you are totally just as entitled to your opinion as I am entilted to mine.

I'm not expecting everyone to agree with every point I make, what I do expect is for clearly stated points be not be disingeniously dismissed, handwaved and strawmanned as seems to be a common occurance on this board. (not blaming you for that specically)

And here you outline one of the many problems that civ switching creates. It's built around a cultural commentary that many find offensive.

There are ways to fix the problem of balance and snowballing that don't create these issues.

 

[The_goggles_do_nothing]

Yes... Modern Mexico is quite literally a European colonial state.

Your wrong. It’s not. We don’t say France is a Roman colonial state.

Now, I don’t mind if you or anyone else having that opinion. But when someone makes a post complaining about people not agreeing with not having it that’s another thing.

 

[Zaarin]

It's built around a cultural commentary that many find offensive.

Perceived cultural commentary. I really don't think the devs are sitting around rubbing their hands together and cackling at how they can perpetuate colonial narratives the way you seem to be implying.

 

[Krikkit1]

Yeah thats were our opinions will differ because I am bothered by it and recognize that it was a lesser of Multiple Evils type of solution to a problem that didn't need fixing. In the series about leading an empire to span the test of time, why is my Native American empire collapsing/evolving due to unavoidable arbitrary crisis into an undeniably European colonial state?

This is one where I think name (and graphics) control would really help.

If your Shawnee/Roman/Khmer etc. empire in the Modern Age
Was still named Shawnee….
Had the same city name list
Had the same style of graphics for its nonunique units/buildings

Would it fit with the flavor that in the modern age….one of their “unique packages” would include Marines, Industrial Parks and a Captain of Industry civic?
(they would also have other possible ones)

Or would the Shawnee empire have to keep all the same uniques through time?

Not sure about for you specifically, but I’m hoping that would help some, since it wouldn’t change the gameplay…but it could change the feel of the gameplay.

Even though my empire changes…I get to choose what parts of its Identity change or stay the same.

 

[TheGrayFox]

Your wrong. It’s not. We don’t say France is a Roman colonial state.

No I am not wrong, New Spain/Mexico was quite literally a Spanish colony.... and Mexico's independence was only gained from fighting a colonial indepence war against their masters.

No one would say France is a Roman "Colonial" state because Rome collapsed in the early 400s and afterwards Roman Gaul was conquered by Germans that assimilated into local Roman-Gaul culture by adopting their langauge and religion. The Merovingians and Carolingians Franks were not Roman.

The same cannot be said for the prominently Criollo class (Full blooded Spainards born in the America) that would help pave the way for Mexican independence and dominate the Mexican state post-independence

Now, I don’t mind if you or anyone else having that opinion. But when someone makes a post complaining about people not agreeing with not having it that’s another thing.

You're* the one who is wrong here though...

 

[AD1730]

Perceived cultural commentary. I really don't think the devs are sitting around rubbing their hands together and cackling at how they can perpetuate colonial narratives the way you seem to be implying.

I’m not assuming intent. To be frank, intent doesn’t matter. The commentary is there, whether Firaxis intends it or not, because they have put this mechanic out there.

 

[sTAPler27]

I'm not saying that at all, I'm saying that if we're supposed to interpret them as "America-like but with different cultural heritage" then why are we calling it the US when it wouldn't be?

Because the game still uses real world civs at its base. You could say the same thing about America in any previous other game, it didn't exist as a country until a couple of hundred years ago yet in the pre games it existed since the dawn of human civlization. The versions of the cultures you play in this game are from the start of any given game different from their real life counterpart in terms of world conditions and moreso take influence from them rather than seek to replicate them as they were.

 

[Potworny]

On the matter of the pathways being a mess: I think that the civs unlocks should be both accurate ones and slightly alt-historical ones mixed together. The number of civs at launch causes us to only have alt-history ones in some cases, so it's clear to me that it will take time until civ switching works without somewhat of a flaw. The game, and the mechanic itself may be fun either way, we'll see.

This is one where I think name (and graphics) control would really help.

If your Shawnee/Roman/Khmer etc. empire in the Modern Age
Was still named Shawnee….
Had the same city name list
Had the same style of graphics for its nonunique units/buildings.

Once again I'd like to say that I also think that it should be in the game. (Though i think the buildings style should always be determined by the successor civ, so that there's architectural progress)

Maybe the idea deserves it's own thread?

 

[Zaarin]

I’m not assuming intent. To be frank, intent doesn’t matter. The commentary is there, whether Firaxis intends it or not, because they have put this mechanic out there.

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

 

[Gorbles]

You'd think the discussion about the topic would've atleast moved past the constant strawmanning at this point and yet here we are...

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.

 

[AD1730]

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

No, that simply isn’t the case.

Let’s say George Orwell wrote Animal Farm just as a novel with no intention to write a commentary on communism. Would the audience have been wrong to interpret the work as a commentary on communism? I say they would not be.

What an author intends is completely irrelevant to determining what a work says. I’m keeping my analysis to what the mechanics of the game are, and those mechanics say something about culture many find offensive.

 

[Gorbles]

Let’s say George Orwell wrote Animal Farm just as a novel with no intention to write a commentary on communism. Would the audience have been wrong to interpret the work as a commentary on communism?

Sorry to post after post, and sorry for the tangent (I read Animal Farm as a kid, repeatedly, even before 1984), but to say that Animal Farm was a commentary on communism is to neglect the cyclic nature of the overall narrative, which takes aim at (significantly, imo) more than merely communism if mapped to real-world ideologies.

 

[Zaarin]

No, that simply isn’t the case.

Let’s say George Orwell wrote Animal Farm just as a novel with no intention to write a commentary on communism. Would the audience have been wrong to interpret the work as a commentary on communism? I say they would not be.

What an author intends is completely irrelevant to determining what a work says. I’m keeping my analysis to what the mechanics of the game are, and those mechanics say something about culture many find offensive.

We're not critiquing a work of literature (and even there reader response criticism has very little value outside of high school classrooms IMO); you're imputing bad faith to the devs because of your very specific interpretation of civ switching.

 

[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?