"Rediscovering Hope" opening Cinematic

[JNR13]

The object is a tool - it can be used for war, for art (the Reamker [Cambodian] / Ramakian [Thai] dance), for commerce and trade, etc. The question asked here is "to what ends will our tools be put?"

I think it's interesting that the main use of a sword is never actually shown. The most battle we get it seeing it drawn from its sheath and Ashoka reflecting on the aftermath. But otherwise, we see the sword used for a lot of stuff except for fighting itself. "You can use a sword for bartering" is true on one hand and shows on how many aspects of society its history can touch, but it also makes the object rather... interchangeable. It makes me think "oh, I guess this sword could've also been a necklace or so."

There's another thing I found noteworthy: In Civ VI, we followed the agents of change. Our protagonists were a man and his daughter who were stand-ins for people who changed the course of history. It is a great intro to the game because it basically tells you "you get to make history!" Civ VII, however, it's "you get to experience history!" It has us follow a passive object, a mentioned a "tool" that "is put" (passive voice!) to certain uses. Following the sword means following something with lack of agency. The sword doesn't really do anything, it's characteristics are fairly irrelevant. As I said before, in pretty much all the scenes its role could've been filled by a necklace (only cutting a rope - why, in the middle of a storm?! the whiplash is gonna kill someone - is where you actually need a blade).

Maybe this passivity is just an honest primer for the game. Maybe it represents how we now get a more railroaded narrative experience where history is written in the form of ages, events, crises; we're here for a magnificient ride through history. Just like the sword, we'll experience trade, battle, spirituality, arts, travel. But it's like a set of scenes we travel through, carefully curated and formed into a coherent narrative for us already, with strong personal emotions about the fate of individuals in it. Vignettes of history have been prepared for us to be experienced greater than ever before. But we are no longer in charge of history itself. War is no longer a choice we make, something where strategically opt into but then are faced with the cost of it. It's something that just so happens now (hello, crises!) and has us make sad.

Oh, and his passivity further fits how we shift to third-person view in diplomatic scenes. We become "physically" separated even from the leaders as change agents ingame (unlike e.g. in Civ VI Rise & Fall intro where the advisor, one of the protagonists representing us, the players, appears as Seondeok).

 

[m_mus]

I actually love, that this cinematic is wholesale not euro-centric. Judging by the analogously diverse roster for the initial set of civilizations Civ7 is going to launch with, you appear to have made it a priority (beside others ofc) of drawing attention to civilizations which a distinct impact on the world's history, but which often are neglected. I think that's a wonderful approach.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

Well, I liked it. I don't know that it screamed CIVILIZATION at me but I think it serves its purpose well enough.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Small point, but I don't think the word "auger" is used properly.

 

[SeelingCat]

Small point, but I don't think the word "auger" is used properly.

I think it's "augur" in this case - to foretell or predict.

 

[BlueWildRye]

I like the cinematic, but I wish it could have had a bit more geographic diversity rather than a focus on South East Asia with a little bit of West Africa mixed in. Compare it to Civ V's base game cinematic, which opens in a tent in an ambiguous location with two ethnically ambiguous guys and proceeds to take us on a journey from the Vikings, to Egypt, to Istanbul, to Japan. While it doesn't show us everywhere (unfortunately the Americas are entirely ignored and the only African scene we get is Egyptian), it certainly has a wider geographic scope than the new one.

 

[CivLuvah]

I think the cinematic is very good. But that's just my personal bias because I'm Southeast Asian. Personally I think it still tells the great sweep of history; albeit all focused on one object and what it means to people.

I actually love, that this cinematic is wholesale not euro-centric. Judging by the analogously diverse roster for the initial set of civilizations Civ7 is going to launch with, you appear to have made it a priority (beside others ofc) of drawing attention to civilizations which a distinct impact on the world's history, but which often are neglected. I think that's a wonderful approach.

This brings my assumption (in good faith) that the reason why some people feel the intro doesn't give that feeling of the passage of time and change, is because it doesn't feature any European civs? The unselfconsious impression of many that somehow Europe and things from Europe are "dynamic" and other cultures are "not".

Or maybe I'm reading too much on this. It's something to think about though. People can rebut me if my assumptions are wrong and they also think other cultures are dynamic idk

 

[Uberfrog]

I miss looking at an old man with a big nose sitting in front of a campfire.

I feel like the scene around 1:59 is kind of reminiscent of the Civ 5 intro, no?

 

[Gori the Grey]

I think it's "augur" in this case - to foretell or predict.

Hah! I spelled it wrong. (that's the blush emoji; doesn't look like it with the santa cap on) But no, for all that, I know the word. And I think the video misuses it.

When it is transitive, the direct object should be the thing in the future that is predicted. "The build up of troops augurs war," e.g.

And lessons shouldn't be the subject. Lessons are not the kind of thing that augurs.

 

[Sagax]

I think the cinematic is very good. But that's just my personal bias because I'm Southeast Asian. Personally I think it still tells the great sweep of history; albeit all focused on one object and what it means to people.

This brings my assumption (in good faith) that the reason why some people feel the intro doesn't give that feeling of the passage of time and change, is because it doesn't feature any European civs? The unselfconsious impression of many that somehow Europe and things from Europe are "dynamic" and other cultures are "not".

Or maybe I'm reading too much on this. It's something to think about though. People can rebut me if my assumptions are wrong and they also think other cultures are dynamic idk

I wouldn’t jump to that conclusion. Even within the cinematic’s non-European scope, I didn’t feel like there was enough…. “civilization” on the screen? The storytelling was definitely less about people coming together to build something bigger than their lives, and more about smaller stories connected together via the sword. Which isn’t bad per se, but requires more mental hoops from the audience to associate this with the advancement of humankind.

If I were to summarize my opinion on this cinematic: it does a great job showcasing “time”, but not so much “can your civilization stand the test of time”. Maybe because that last part is no longer possible with Civ-switching, so they decided not to false-advertise

 

[pokiehl]

Hah! I spelled it wrong. (that's the blush emoji; doesn't look like it with the santa cap on) But no, for all that, I know the word. And I think the video misuses it.

When it is transitive, the direct object should be the thing in the future that is predicted. "The build up of troops augurs war," e.g.

And lessons shouldn't be the subject. Lessons are not the kind of thing that augurs.

The use of the word is totally fine. Anything can augur -- we're talking about metaphors and literary writing. And the thing in the future that is predicted are the next lessons.

In other words, "The lessons we learn in the past (meaning, the challenges we endured and overcame to learn those lessons) help us prepare for the next challenges (the things that will teach us the next lessons)." What's so wrong with that?

 

[Gori the Grey]

What's wrong with that is that the sentence gives us a direct object.

And my quibble with "lessons" serving as the agent is that lessons have their own way of impacting the future.

 

[pokiehl]

What's wrong with that is that the sentence gives us a direct object.

And my quibble with "lessons" serving as the agent is that lessons have their own way of impacting the future.

I'm not following. Above you said it gave the "wrong" direct object and made a point about its transitive use, and now you're saying that it's wrong to give a direct object in the first place?

 

[Gori the Grey]

It gives as the direct object "age." The lessons of one age augur the next [age]

Then it would mean "The lessons of one age predict the next age"

 

[pokiehl]

It gives as the direct object "age." The lessons of one age augur the next [age]

Then it would mean "The lessons of one age predict another age"

From a fellow grammatically punctilious person in recovery, this is just coming off as incredibly nitpicky and pedantic. I think the intended meaning was clearly "the lessons of the next age" -- the subject is "lessons", and "of one age" can be disregarded as a prepositional phrase so the object would not refer to it, and even if it did, it is no huge stretch to interpret "age" broadly and metaphorical in this sense.

 

[Gori the Grey]

If you're taking the assumed direct object as "lessons," then you have a sentence saying "The lessons of one age predict the lessons of the next age."

Yes, I'm being pedantic. I am not in recovery. It is nitpicky. That's why I called it a "small point" in my original post.

 

[pokiehl]

If you're taking the assumed direct object as "lessons," then you have a sentence saying "The lessons of one predict the lessons of the next age."

Absolutely correct, and indeed the entire point of my initial reply to you where I restated it in those terms specifically.

Yes, I'm being pedantic. I am not in recovery. It is nitpicky. That's why I called it small in my original post.

Fair enough. I am in recovery since encountering a person who put my nitpickiness to shame, which reflected an uncomfortable image in the mirror to me! Few things are as sobering as the realization "Oh Lord, do I really come across as that?!"

 

[Gori the Grey]

Who would ever say that: "The lessons of one age predict the lessons of the next age"?

(And have it feel like it's a grand, epic quote appropriate to a Civ cinematic, I mean.)

 

[pokiehl]

We're derailing the thread with a discussion that is surely incredibly uninteresting to everyone else. If you want to refer back to my first post and PM me about it, feel free, otherwise I think we can just disagree and let the thread return to topic

 

[Gori the Grey]

Yeah, I'm fine with that.