Should there be magic/mythology in the next game?

[Henri Christophe]

In other words, if you want Mythology/Legends you can play Age of Wonders 4, which seems to be a good Game. Civ is a historical Game, and should stay so. I'm ok with a Civ Spin-Off or a new Title making a History-meets-Mythology Game, but the main game should refrain from any Fantasy/Mythology nonesense.

I googled this Age of Wonders and seems to be a game based on European mythology only.
A game as Civilization, if it made a mythological spin off, should do mythologies off all world.
A civ as Zulu should have unique mythological elements as it have unique features in regular series.
I don't think there are a game who already misture the concept of the history off all humanity with mythology.

 

[Zegangani]

I don't think there are a game who already misture the concept of the history off all humanity with mythology.

Civ doesn't represent all Civilizations/Cultures in the World, and puts more emphasize on western Civs/Cultures, and leaves a lot of non-western Regions unrepresented (where Europe for example is nearly fully mapped out in Civ6, but Africa and South America leave a lot to be desired). In that sense, you can say that Civ isn't a good representation of History too. But it's not supposed to represent all of Humankind's Cultures and Civilizations throughout History, and you know how Game Industry works, or where the Profit is. Same thing with other Games.

 

[pineappledan]

I’ll just say that myth and history are porous, more like a slider. different ideas and tidbits have shifted back and forth between the two, as oral history has been rehabilitated or archaeology comes to support or refute something that was either thought of as just a story or was presumed to be unembellished history.

Because of that I’m mostly ok with some mythic history, but I draw the line at mages casting fireballs or manticores running around.

 

[Henri Christophe]

Civ doesn't represent all Civilizations/Cultures in the World, and puts more emphasize on western Civs/Cultures, and leaves a lot of non-western Regions unrepresented (where Europe for example is nearly fully mapped out in Civ6, but Africa and South America leave a lot to be desired). In that sense, you can say that Civ isn't a good representation of History too. But it's not supposed to represent all of Humankind's Cultures and Civilizations throughout History, and you know how Game Industry works, or where the Profit is. Same thing with other Games.

I agree with you this game overrepresented Europe over Africans/Native Americans.
But, at least, I think they try to cover the entire world.
I mean, they don't are sucessfull on represent the history of entire worlds, since because do that is impossible, but I fell like they are in the right way.
And making a mythological spin off in SId Meier's Civilization style should be very unique.
And they already give a step in this direction when made the Heroes&Myths modes. I remeber to have Yorubas gods as Oya, Mayan gods as the twins and also european gods as Hercules and King Arthur. I think that can be extrapolated very well mantain the Civ mechanics.

 

[Zegangani]

I’ll just say that myth and history are porous, more like a slider. different ideas and tidbits have shifted back and forth between the two, as oral history has been rehabilitated or archaeology comes to support or refute something that was either thought of as just a story or was presumed to be unembellished history.

Because of that I’m mostly ok with some mythic history, but I draw the line at mages casting fireballs or manticores running around.

I agree. And as a religious Person myself, I believe in a lot of things most People don't. But as you say, even though certain fantastical things influenced Humans throughout History or played a part of in Human Life, what people are suggesting to make out of it, and how Games portrait them, is more than over-exaggerated. Like, let's say there was some kind of Vampire in the past, though, what's his real impact on History (no matter if realistic or magical or what not)? According to how his represented in Civ6, It seems that he was a very mighty being that could destroy entire Armies! That's nonesense. His biggest accomplishment didn't come to fruition until 1950+ with some Pop-Culture Influence. And that's the only representation I would accept for a Vampire in a Civ main Game.

And making a mythological spin off in SId Meier's Civilization style should be very unique.

Yea, that's what I'm saying. If at all, it should be a Spin-Off Game. Where even the main Civ Game doesn't represent most Cultures/Regions in the World, and where it or other Titles never accomplished to properly represent Oral Traditions, or even properly implement Religion, why then add questionable fantastical elements, that really didn't play as much of a role as certain Pantheons/Beliefs, to a historical Game? Make it its own game, and let the main Civ Game have more room for historically more relevant things.

 

[Henri Christophe]

His biggest accomplishment didn't come to fruition until 1950+ with some Pop-Culture Influence

The book of Dracula is from 1897, but I guess there was a Vampire myth on Romenia even before the book.

 

[Zegangani]

The book of Dracula is from 1897, but I guess there was a Vampire myth on Romenia even before the book.

The Myth of a Dracula indeed existed even before that year, maybe even for Centuries, but it was a local thing, nothing that had a major impact on history until mid 19th century, in form of Pop-Culture (Books, Movies and what not), not real Vampires that exposed themselves.

In other Words, I'd rather an actual Romania Civ, with perhaps an Ability related/inspired to/by Vampires (like Enemies in own Territory get Damaged when next to Romanian Units (bc sucking their Blood / loosing Moral bc of Fear from the Rumors)) than an actual Vampire Unit. This way we would get an actual historical Civ, Myth inspired Ability, but still not something that all other Civs get (like no Egyptian Vampire or a South American King Arthur).

 

[pineappledan]

Sort of like how age of empires did an age of mythology game, and it was really good.

That could be pretty dope, actually. It would require some very heavy adjustments to the civ formula.

Re: the depictions of pantheons and religions, you can see a heavy bias in Mesopotamian and Indo-European pantheons, and a bias towards Abrahamic and Buddhist beliefs in the mechanics, objectives, and abilities for the religion system. There is an emphasis on evangelism, which ignores pluralistic religious systems like Hinduism or Zoroastrianism. There is emphasis on monotheism as a progression from a pagan pantheon, rather than progressing into monism, animism, or pantheism. There are no beliefs based on new world religions at all.

Arguably, the entire religious spread mechanic in civ 6 is based off of Elijah’s duel with the priests of Baal, complete with lightning from heaven. I think the religion/belief mechanics is where “mythology” can most comfortable exist in the franchise, but they aren’t doing much to capture the diversity of spiritual practices or systems with the tools they have.