The bold nature of civ7 goes deeper than just civ switching - it's about sandbox vs structured narrative

[Thormodr]

The only immortal thing is change. I think what you refer to is the ability to identify and track that "constant change". I understand that. It's much easer to track something red (that empire's name, that leader's name) in a sea of something green.

Even now, there is very few things connecting a Civ game empire on Turn 1 to an empire at turn 200. Empire's leader, color and name is the only thing that is truly the same. I guess you could keep a roman legion unit around in modern era, just for novelty.

Well, I think we could go off on a rabbit trail discussing my own personal beliefs I believe to be Immortal but I will restrain myself.

Anyway, this article touches on what I am attempting to convey. (perhaps not very well)

-------

Introduction to the quest for immortality
The quest for immortality has been a fundamental part of human culture since ancient times. It has captivated the minds and imaginations of people across different civilizations, driving them to explore various methods and practices in the pursuit of eternal life. From alchemy and the search for the mythical elixir of life to religious rituals and ceremonies aimed at achieving immortality, humans have left no stone unturned in their quest for eternal existence. Ancient philosophers have also pondered the concept of immortality, contemplating the nature of the afterlife and exploring the possibility of reincarnation. The quest for immortality has had profound ethical implications as well, raising questions about the meaning of life, the value of mortality, and the consequences of eternal existence. Despite the elusiveness of immortality, the human fascination with eternal life endures, shaping our understanding of the past and influencing our hopes for the future.

The Quest for Immortality: Ancient Search for Eternal Life - History of Yesterday

Overview Introduction to the quest for immortality The quest for immortality has been a fundamental part of human culture since ancient times. It has captivated the minds and imaginations of people across different civilizations, driving them to explore various methods and practices in the...

historyofyesterday.com

Perhaps playing an immortal Civ in a computer game is a reflection of that?

 

[Krikkit1]

Even now, there is very few things connecting a Civ game empire on Turn 1 to an empire at turn 200. Empire's leader, color and name is the only thing that is truly the same. I guess you could keep a roman legion unit around in modern era, just for novelty.

That NAME is the thing that Firaxis should Focus on. Really disastrous that you can’t rename your cities except for the one capital relocation.

Your civ name should be
1. Customizable (at least at Age Transitions)
2. Able to be retained/switched to newas an easy option

Applies to city names as well. As well as place names (Continents, River names)

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

That NAME is the thing that Firaxis should Focus on. Really disastrous that you can’t rename your cities except for the one capital relocation.

Your civ name should be
1. Customizable (at least at Age Transitions)
2. Able to be retained/switched to newas an easy option

Applies to city names as well. As well as place names (Continents, River names)

I agree. Simple feature, but it will help people build the narrative that they want.

 

[TheGrayFox]

What I mean is that what leads to historical "unrealism" in 4X games is the idea that a single empire can exist for a 4000 years.

A single immortal leader still rules for 4000 years in Civ VII, nothing has changed in that regard.

Every empire grew out of the specific requirements of it's era, geography, peoples and conflicts. The moment those difficulties were overcome, stagnation and eventual downfall would follow. Or an absorption into another empire . Or the empire somehow managed to reinvent itself

This was already represented in the mechanics of 4x genre. Civilizations grow out of their geography, grow/change through the eras and some lose the game because of stagnation and/or not overcoming challenges which lead to their inevitable absortion into other empires. Internal struggles and Revolutions were also abstracted in previous Civilization titles.

There is nothing "more" historical about arbitrary end of round mechanics that see everyone dealing with arbitrary crisises that have them all mighty morphing into completely different cultural groups at the same exact time.

. The snowball effect from 4X games doesn't exist in real life. Except for Elon Musk. He seems to be "the exception" in everything.

The 4x Snowball effect of types absolutely existed in real life history. European industrialization and 19-20th century imperialism is built on the back of Western Europe's earlier exploration and explotation/colonization of the Americas, Africa, and Asia for example.

Now of course in reality, no empires stands for all of time but this is a 4x video game not a strict historical simulator (which is something defenders of the changes love to point out whenever the historicity of Firaxis' questionable design decisions are criticized.)

 

[TheGrayFox]

But the whole point of Civ 7 is that your Empire (or Civilization) DOES exist on and on.

It doesn't die. It grows and gets stronger. It keeps the best of its past and adds new layers from the current Age.

Well Firaxis is doing a pretty awful job representating that empire existing on and on imo because their crisis model has my Roman empire of antiquity absolutely falling/dying and replaced and/or eventually built over by a completely foreign cultural group/civilization because of arbitrary end of round mechanics.

The Incan Empire is a tragic tale because it DID fall . . . but an Incan empire that survived wouldn't have stayed the same . . . it would have evolved . . . at least I sure hope so (I don't fancy ritual sacrifice of children and animals in a modern society!).

I don't expect my Roman empire to keep running legions around in the 1800's or to fail to modernize its government, religion, and society.

Civiilizations already do evolve overtime in this series. My Roman Empire in late game Civilization isn't using legions in the 1800s and usually has a government based around modern ideology. What I wouldn't expect is that An Incan empire that survived would have arbitrarily become the UK because they settled 3 coastal cities and

 

[chaosprophet]

The only immortal thing is change. I think what you refer to is the ability to identify and track that "constant change". I understand that. It's much easer to track something red (that empire's name, that leader's name) in a sea of something green.

Even now, there is very few things connecting a Civ game empire on Turn 1 to an empire at turn 200. Empire's leader, color and name is the only thing that is truly the same. I guess you could keep a roman legion unit around in modern era, just for novelty.

From what we heard, all units you have at the end of an era are upgraded to the basic alternative of the next era at transition. So keeping a legion isn't an option. You would keep things like the unique districts, and can keep older weaker buildings if you want (and I must repeat again, if not on vanilla I hope an expansion can make use of that, keeping some old buildings urban district having some use for culture or tourism on the modern age).

That NAME is the thing that Firaxis should Focus on. Really disastrous that you can’t rename your cities except for the one capital relocation.

Was that said anywhere? Or just an assumption because the era change allows a free capital change which also comes with an auto rename for flavor? Cause chances are very likely we can rename our cities at any time like previous games, no?

Renaming Civilizations is something that wasn't an option before, but shouldn't be too hard for them to make a thing, so I can see they adding it at release or not long after considering that would appease some of the fanbase, albeit I don't have an interest in using it myself.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

Renaming Civilizations is something that wasn't an option before, but shouldn't be too hard for them to make a thing, so I can see they adding it at release or not long after considering that would appease some of the fanbase, albeit I don't have an interest in using it myself.

It was a thing in Civ IV, and something I've missed since its removal. Small thing but I think bringing it back would help people.

 

[chaosprophet]

It was a thing in Civ IV, and something I've missed since its removal. Small thing but I think bringing it back would help people.

Yeah, and probably not hard to do. I also hope they add it to help those who want. And maybe I can use it at some point when trying to roleplay as some kind of fictional story nations or the like.

 

[Gorbles]

What I wouldn't expect is that An Incan empire that survived would have arbitrarily become the UK because they settled 3 coastal cities and

It wouldn't, so I think you're good. Unless you're intentionally exaggerating to make it sound ridiculous?

 

[TheGrayFox]

It wouldn't, so I think you're good. Unless you're intentionally exaggerating to make it sound ridiculous?

You'd have a point about my exaggerating if the default "historical" routes presented weren't also complete nonsense like Eygpt > Abbasids/Songhai > Buganda and Rome > Normans > England

The default the swap path for the Inca would likely lead to something like Brazil (which would also be ridiculous) or Gran Columbia (which leads us to a different problem)

 

[Gorbles]

You'd have a point about my exaggerating if the default "historical" routes presented weren't also complete nonsense like Eygpt > Abbasids/Songhai > Buganda and Rome > Normans > England

The default the swap path for the Inca would likely lead to something like Brazil (which would also be ridiculous) or Gran Columbia (which leads us to a different problem)

None of these are Incans > United Kingdom (not that the UK is the same as England, either), so yes, it does still seem like an exaggeration.

Everybody gets you don't like aspects of the progression system. But trying to argue against the historical fact that empires rose and fell, and rose again in different forms, despite there being threads of continuity throughout them, is a losing battle imo. "the progression routes Firaxis have chosen are less accurate than I personally prefer" is a viewpoint I understand. This constant aggressive misrepresenting of what we at this point know what we're getting (based on the available examples) isn't.

 

[TheGrayFox]

None of these are Incans > United Kingdom (not that the UK is the same as England, either), so yes, it does still seem like an exaggeration.

Abbasids to Buganda and Roman to Normans is just as if not more ridiculous, so I don't see why the exaggeration matters that much.

Everybody gets you don't like aspects of the progression system. But trying to argue against the historical fact that empires rose and fell, and rose again in different forms, despite there being threads of continuity throughout them, is a losing battle imo.

No where have I argued or even implied against the fact that historical empires rose and fell. Please do not put words in my mouth. My argument was never that empires last forever and that George Washington in 4000AD is historical. My point has always been fixated on the purely gamey and also historically inaccurate abstraction of that reality Firaxis has managed to present us under the guise of historicity, which goes against the series' core design philoposphy stretching back decades.

Can you explain when in history there were arbitrary crisises that effected every civilization in the world at the same exact time leading them all arbitarily morphing into completely different cultural/political groups that existed on opposite sides of the continent and resulted in them all rubberbanding closer to each other in regards to technological and cultural achievement? If not, I don't want to hear about how much more realistic and historical VII's design choice is.

"the progression routes Firaxis have chosen are less accurate than I personally prefer" is a viewpoint I understand. This constant aggressive misrepresenting of what we at this point know what we're getting (based on the available examples) isn't.

I hope no one gets offended or thinks I'm being aggresive when I point out that the only person who has agressively misrepresenting anyone or anything in this discussion is you.

 

[leif erikson]

Moderator Action: Please keep this discussion civil.

 

[Gorbles]

Abbasids to Buganda and Roman to Normans is just as if not more ridiculous, so I don't see why the exaggeration matters that much.

In your opinion. In my opinion, "Incans to the UK" makes considerably less sense even if considering most iterations of alt-history I can think up on the spot.

No where have I argued or even implied against the fact that historical empires rose and fell.

The post you were replying to was making the argument that the Incan empire fell, and that one which had survived would've evolved. Your response to this was the "I don't expect the Incans to evolve into the UK" as though this is some kind of accurate counterargument r.e. what Firaxis are attempting.

They're not attempting that. If your tolerance for civ-switching is so narrow (and I don't mean this critically; it's a moving threshold for all players) that you equate Romans > Normans > England to be the same as "Incans > UK", then making exaggerations still isn't going to help your argument. The fact that you dislike Romans > Normans is valid enough. You don't have to go further, and choosing to do so opens your arguments up to more criticism than you might feel warranted. Because it weakens them.

Can you explain when in history there were arbitrary crisises that effected every civilization in the world at the same exact time leading them all arbitarily morphing into completely different cultural/political groups that existed on opposite sides of the continent and resulted in them all rubberbanding closer to each other in regards to technological and cultural achievement?

Why should I have to? You're essentially complaining about gamification. Can you explain the point in history where every civilisation settled within a game turn (which at the beginning of the game is what, represented by a 50 year tick?) of each other? Can you explain immortal leaders? Can you explain tech slingshotting? Of course you can't, these are intentional gameplay and / or aesthetic choices (or strategies players came up with to exploit issues in design).

Your argument is that you don't like that. I respect that. But it's nothing more than opinion. There are no rules of design being broken here. No "objective" issues in what is being presented. There is just a change to the game (as the franchise has done, on occasion), that you dislike perhaps more than any change that has come previously. And that's fine. But you seem to be trying your hardest to mold that opinion into a kind of ironclad fact that proves what VII is doing is somehow objectively "wrong". Or maybe I'm reading too much into it and misrepresenting your posts (for real, this time).

It's not my intention. I simply just don't think you're being fair, and the utility of venting aside (we all need a vent from time to time), misrepresenting what the game is doing does your argument no favours. If you want to take anything away from this tangent, that's it. Misrepresenting what the game is doing does your argument no favours.

 

[AntSou]

Introduction to the quest for immortality
The quest for immortality has been a fundamental part of human culture since ancient times. It has captivated the minds and imaginations of people across different civilizations, driving them to explore various methods and practices in the pursuit of eternal life. From alchemy and the search for the mythical elixir of life to religious rituals and ceremonies aimed at achieving immortality, humans have left no stone unturned in their quest for eternal existence. Ancient philosophers have also pondered the concept of immortality, contemplating the nature of the afterlife and exploring the possibility of reincarnation. The quest for immortality has had profound ethical implications as well, raising questions about the meaning of life, the value of mortality, and the consequences of eternal existence. Despite the elusiveness of immortality, the human fascination with eternal life endures, shaping our understanding of the past and influencing our hopes for the future.

I find it a bit of a stretch to link people's interest in Civ to this "quest for immortality". Storytelling too as been a part of human culture since ancient times, and often the best stories are the ones that deal with loss. Maybe the fascination with immortality and loss go hand in hand, but had the norm been switching Civs and were we now trying immortal Civs for the first time, the argument could be made just as easily of how loss and the impossibility of eternity is what drew people to the game. And such an argument would be equally vague and tenuous.

 

[TheGrayFox]

In your opinion. In my opinion, "Incans to the UK" makes considerably less sense even if considering most iterations of alt-history I can think up on the spot.

The post you were replying to was making the argument that the Incan empire fell, and that one which had survived would've evolved. Your response to this was the "I don't expect the Incans to evolve into the UK" as though this is some kind of accurate counterargument r.e. what Firaxis are attempting.

They're not attempting that. If your tolerance for civ-switching is so narrow (and I don't mean this critically; it's a moving threshold for all players) that you equate Romans > Normans > England to be the same as "Incans > UK", then making exaggerations still isn't going to help your argument. The fact that you dislike Romans > Normans is valid enough. You don't have to go further, and choosing to do so opens your arguments up to more criticism than you might feel warranted. Because it weakens them.

We'll have to agree to disagree because as someone who studied history the Abbasids swapping into Buganda as a historical choice is literally just as ridiculous as the exaggeration of Inca to the UK presented. Even the Romans going into Exploration age Vikings/Normans is silly and divorced from any real semblance of historicity or historical continuation.

Also a very important distinction, the person i was originally replying to said "if the Incan empire survived and continued/evolve" not "if the Incan empire fell". Even if i fix my admitted exaggeration to be accurate and say "if the Incan Empire survived they wouldn't arbtrarily morph into Brazil or Gran Columbia" the point being made remains.

Why should I have to? You're essentially complaining about gamification. Can you explain the point in history where every civilisation settled within a game turn (which at the beginning of the game is what, represented by a 50 year tick?) of each other? Can you explain immortal leaders? Can you explain tech slingshotting? Of course you can't, these are intentional gameplay and / or aesthetic choices (or strategies players came up with to exploit issues in design).

You don't have to defend it if you don't want, the devs who marketed this mechanic no one asked for on the basis of historicity do.

I don't want civilization to be some strict history simulator and I know that the series will never be a 1:1 recreation of human history. I don't care about immortal leaders. Leading us back to what seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of many of the arguments being presented to justify why people don't like civ swapping and era mechanics the devs have presented as historical.

Your argument is that you don't like that. I respect that. But it's nothing more than opinion. There are no rules of design being broken here. No "objective" issues in what is being presented. There is just a change to the game (as the franchise has done, on occasion), that you dislike perhaps more than any change that has come previously. And that's fine. But you seem to be trying your hardest to mold that opinion into a kind of ironclad fact that proves what VII is doing is somehow objectively "wrong". Or maybe I'm reading too much into it and misrepresenting your posts (for real, this time).

It's not my intention. I simply just don't think you're being fair, and the utility of venting aside (we all need a vent from time to time), misrepresenting what the game is doing does your argument no favours. If you want to take anything away from this tangent, that's it. Misrepresenting what the game is doing does your argument no favours.

My argument has always been i don't like that and with clear reasoning for why... no where have i presented my opinions as objective other than the reality that the series' guiding tagline of "building a civilization/empire to stand the test of time" is being undermined philoshopically by these design choice of splitting the game into seperate eras and civilization swapping.

Again I am not misrepresenting VII or what Firaxis is trying to do and it's kind of annoying to have you imply I am while also misrepresenting and strawmanning my argument repeatedly

 

[bladex1200]

I feel like the biggest issue with "structured narrative" is that the civ transitions based on the info provided for Civ VII don't feel very narratively-flavorful, they feel very gameplay-flavorful. I had the same issue with Humankind not restricting options by region/historicity - it was a cool gameplay option but it led to "optimal" civ choices since there was almost no sensible continuity to build a narrative, despite the game being heavy on flavor. It was the player who had to self-impose the continuity by choosing civs that made cultural/regional sense (e.g. choosing to stick to "Asian" civs when moving from era to era, even if the actual civs in question had no relation to each other).

As an aside, I felt Humankind's flavor for new civ on era transition only really reached even a minimum of its potential with modders adding numerous civs to each era, allowing for the possibility of a "historical" playthrough by having civ-equivalents across all the eras (e.g. a dynasty for China in each era, an option for declining Rome during eras where Rome/Italy were absent, etc). The game as-is lacked enough options to maintain continuity for your civ.

It's obviously too late for the devs to rewrite the game like this, but I feel like having the era transition civ choices being based around a "modification" of your previous civ with historical references for flavor (but not imposing jarring foreign naming conventions necessarily) might have been a less-shocking and more immersive choice. They could still have the same functional outcome, but without necessarily having the jarring name transitions that remind you you're effectively playing a new civ.

I feel like something similar to what Millenia did with National Spirits, but dressed up for era transition, might have been less controversial here and still allowed for a lot of change in gameplay without having the jarring shift of completely reinventing your civ's culture each era.

 

[Gorbles]

I don't want civilization to be some strict history simulator and I know that the series will never be a 1:1 recreation of human history. I don't care about immortal leaders. Leading us back to what seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of many of the arguments being presented to justify why people don't like civ swapping and era mechanics the devs have presented as historical.

With respect, you absolutely seem to value the strictness of history applied because your main issue with civ-switching seems to be in how lax the progression ties are.

Maybe I'm not understanding something, but to say as a student of history the available options ingame are as ridiculous as your hypothetical Incans > UK progression, and then to say you don't want it to be a strict history simulator are statements that don't agree with each other.

It would help me to understand where the threshold is for you. How strict would a strict historical simulator be in your opinion? What would be an acceptable level of latitude?

Again I am not misrepresenting VII or what Firaxis is trying to do and it's kind of annoying to have you imply I am while also misrepresenting and strawmanning my argument repeatedly

Fair enough, but at the same time I'm also not doing what you say I'm doing. Even if we disagree, and ultimately I'm happy to agree to disagree at the end of the tangent, is a little more good faith on both sides acceptable? I'm including myself there.

 

[aieeegrunt]

But the whole point of Civ 7 is that your Empire (or Civilization) DOES exist on and on.

It doesn't die. It grows and gets stronger. It keeps the best of its past and adds new layers from the current Age.

The Incan Empire is a tragic tale because it DID fall . . . but an Incan empire that survived wouldn't have stayed the same . . . it would have evolved . . . at least I sure hope so (I don't fancy ritual sacrifice of children and animals in a modern society!).

I don't expect my Roman empire to keep running legions around in the 1800's or to fail to modernize its government, religion, and society.

How does it grow, change and get stronger?

That is why we have a tech and a civics tree as well as other mechanics

So I’d expect my 1800 Romans with muskets

 

[TheGrayFox]

With respect, you absolutely seem to value the strictness of history applied because your main issue with civ-switching seems to be in how lax the progression ties are.

Maybe I'm not understanding something, but to say as a student of history the available options ingame are as ridiculous as your hypothetical Incans > UK progression, and then to say you don't want it to be a strict history simulator are statements that don't agree with each other.

I really don't value strictness of history as much as you seem to believe because if i did I would be rallying against immortal leaders and modern Civs/leaders existing in the times before the common era. Which again, I literally do not care about in the Civilization series. My actual arguments about why I have no interest in the game being split into three rounds and Civ Swapping is almost entirely fixated on my own subjective sense of immersion and identity towards the Civilizations/leaders I play and play against and the aforementioned undermining of a key series design philosphy of "building an empire/civilization to span the test of time" that has stretched several decades. The problem is taking a 4x historical sandbox series and trying to introduce forced/structured narrative into each campaign that serve a gameplay purpose first and foremost under the guise being "more historical'

The reason why the conversation of realism and historicity keeps getting brought up and revisted because the devs marketed this mechanic on some flimsy notion of historcity (thus opening themselves up to the criticism) and you have people here comparing the realism of civ swapping to their corporate starts up. It's possible to criticize the mechanic introduced as historical for being a poor abstraction of history while also having deeper concerns about fundamental changes being made to the game series.

It would help me to understand where the threshold is for you. How strict would a strict historical simulator be in your opinion? What would be an acceptable level of latitude?

If I wanted a stricter and more "realistic" simulation of history and historical time periods. i'd go play Paradox grand strategy games (which i do, when that is what i'm looking for). I reiterate, the people who don't like and remain vocal about civ swapping don't want Civilization series to be a 1:1 recreation of human history.

Fair enough, but at the same time I'm also not doing what you say I'm doing. Even if we disagree, and ultimately I'm happy to agree to disagree at the end of the tangent, is a little more good faith on both sides acceptable? I'm including myself there.

I'd consider the fact that we are addressing each other's points without insult or sarcasm to be the definition of good faith. At the end of the day, I am totally fine with respectfully agreeing to disagree and in the future, I will also try to avoid exaggeration (even if I think that addmitted exaggeration isn't far off from the truth).