What Video Games Have You Been Playing, Part 10: Or; A Shameful Display!

[EgonSpengler]

And - let me guess - still one civilization each for "India", "China," and so on.

India has two leaders you can choose from, Gandhi and Chandragupta, but basically, yes.

 

[Lexicus]

India has two leaders you can choose from, Gandhi and Chandragupta, but basically, yes.

There isn't a good facepalm smiley so

 

[GoodSarmatian]

There isn't a good facepalm smiley so

Good thing you don't know about the second expansion that came out today !
Norway was in the base game and Sweden is a new civ.
Eleanor of Aquitaine is an alt-leader for France and England. India, Greece, England and France are the only civs with more than one leader.
Dido now leads " The Phoenecians" instead of Carthage.
Canada is also a new civ. Finally we have all the mostly white Anglo offshoots.

 

[EgonSpengler]

There isn't a good facepalm smiley so

The Civ series gets evermore "Civvy" with each iteration, not less. C'est la vie. I do think there's room for a Civ-like game that takes the premise in different directions, but I don't know how big a market that'd be.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

The Civ series gets evermore "Civvy" with each iteration, not less. C'est la vie.

Nah, It's two steps forward and one step back. Civ 6 isn't more eurocentric than 4 or 5. Pre-Colubian America is woefully underrepresented, but at least Africa has Kongo, Nubia, Zulus and Mali.

I do think there's room for a Civ-like game that takes the premise in different directions, but I don't know how big a market that'd be.

I think it's possible, but you'd have to use some trickery. Your off-brand Civ game should come out two months after the new Civ or expansion is released. That's when Civ fans are most angry about bugs, balance and AI.

 

[Synobun]

I've been playing a lot of Prison Architect. I have no idea how to enable achievements in sandbox mode. Online threads say something turns red when achievements are disabled but I see nothing of the sort when setting up the prison.

Building the prison ends up being more interesting than the running of the prison, but it's fun all the same.

 

[Lexicus]

I've been playing a lot of Prison Architect. I have no idea how to enable achievements in sandbox mode. Online threads say something turns red when achievements are disabled but I see nothing of the sort when setting up the prison.

Building the prison ends up being more interesting than the running of the prison, but it's fun all the same.

How uh...expansive is Prison Architect? Can I run a prison as a gulag designed to consume prisoners by working them too much and not feeding them enough?

 

[Synobun]

You sure can, buddy. Armed guards, dog patrols, snipers, constant cell shakedowns, executions... you can have it all!

 

[Hygro]

You buy the game you get in the game, plus more. Not fair but progressive.

 

[Lexicus]

You sure can, buddy. Armed guards, dog patrols, snipers, constant cell shakedowns, executions... you can have it all!

 

[TheMeInTeam]

There isn't a good facepalm smiley so

It really is a joke at this point. Of all the possible leaders of various kingdoms/empires significantly larger than many civs present in the game, Firaxis yet again stuffs Gandhi as a "ruler" of India...and seems to have zero interest in adding any great empires from that region of the world beyond a generic "India" that's somehow appropriately led by someone relatively modern and Chandragupta.

That's about as coherent as making Hiawatha an alternate ruler of the USA. Also by that logic, no native American nation in NA should exist in Civ because USA has the region (like India). In fact, all of the native civs so far have LESS justification than nations like Mughals, Bengal, Vijayanagar, Madurai, etc. Not that most people care. Nope, India has been an unchanging monolith for two millennia and the elephant UU makes just as much sense now as it would have in 200BC, lololol.

China is less ridiculous, as you can make a case that various dynasty changes all vied for the same land ultimately. That's a reach and doesn't really fit with situations like Yuan or Qing, but not as egregious as India.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Nope, India has been an unchanging monolith for two millennia and the elephant UU makes just as much sense now as it would have in 200BC, lololol.

I mostly agree with your position, but have to point out that this specific argument is brutally flawed. There is not a single empire where the UU 'makes sense' in any sort of long term historical perspective. It's not like when you come up against Germany in the early game they are busting out Panzers just because it is their UU.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I mostly agree with your position, but have to point out that this specific argument is brutally flawed. There is not a single empire where the UU 'makes sense' in any sort of long term historical perspective. It's not like when you come up against Germany in the early game they are busting out Panzers just because it is their UU.

I just didn't flesh it out. There are no 2000+ year empires in history. Civ picks uniques for flavor, but broadly based on what that Civ did really well historically.

My point is that modern India and 200 BC India are completely different entities/empires with different histories. This is why the USA doesn't have the dog soldier as a unique unit, and France doesn't have a Roman legion as its unique unit. Russia doesn't get Keshiks. Most civs aren't given the "India" treatment that way.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Does it even really matter in a game like Civ? Unless you're playing some real Earth history mod, the civilisations aren't much more than a bit of window dressing anyway. Might as well be playing against Bob, the leaded of the MadeUpName civilisation. No "India" you come across in a normal game is going to bear any relation to any India in the real world, even ignoring the immortal 6,000 year old leader thing. It's not like it's Crusader Kings or anything.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Does it even really matter in a game like Civ? Unless you're playing some real Earth history mod, the civilisations aren't much more than a bit of window dressing anyway. Might as well be playing against Bob, the leaded of the MadeUpName civilisation. No "India" you come across in a normal game is going to bear any relation to any India in the real world, even ignoring the immortal 6,000 year old leader thing. It's not like it's Crusader Kings or anything.

Then why add new civs with flavor based on historical nations at all? What cutoff point makes one bother with Scotland but not Bengal?

The only explanation that makes sense is anticipated sales. I'm not convinced by that argument, as I don't expect a German player to have a significantly greater hankering to play as Scotland than Mughals. But it's the only rationale that even sort-of maybe explains the reasoning for picking some of these civs over others.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I just didn't flesh it out. There are no 2000+ year empires in history. Civ picks uniques for flavor, but broadly based on what that Civ did really well historically.

My point is that modern India and 200 BC India are completely different entities/empires with different histories.

Well, which India is supposed to be being represented? Modern India, or 200 BC India? I guess we could say that having the leader and the UU come from 'different Indias' is the issue you are pointing at, but that applies to just about every Civ. I mean from that perspective the dog soldier wouldn't be any less appropriate for Washington than the F-15 is, would it?

 

[Synobun]

Does it even really matter in a game like Civ? Unless you're playing some real Earth history mod, the civilisations aren't much more than a bit of window dressing anyway. Might as well be playing against Bob, the leaded of the MadeUpName civilisation. No "India" you come across in a normal game is going to bear any relation to any India in the real world, even ignoring the immortal 6,000 year old leader thing. It's not like it's Crusader Kings or anything.

I think it matters. Just look at Beyond Earth. It was a colossal failure.

 

[Lexicus]

There is far more continuity between the various civilizations in the Indian subcontinent than there is between the native civilizations in North America and the invading European civilization that annihilated what came before.

The real problem is that by the logic of "India" being one civilization, "Europe" should be another civilization, there should be no distinction between English, Spanish, and French let alone English and Scottish.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Well, which India is supposed to be being represented? Modern India, or 200 BC India? I guess we could say that having the leader and the UU come from 'different Indias' is the issue you are pointing at, but that applies to just about every Civ. I mean from that perspective the dog soldier wouldn't be any less appropriate for Washington than the F-15 is, would it?

USA from 1776-present is a contiguous political entity. India from 200BC (earlier actually) to present is NOT a contiguous political entity, nor is it even kind of close if you squint a little.

"Which India" question is similar to asking "which Mongols", failing to distinguish between modern Russia and 1200's AD Genghis Khan.

I think it matters. Just look at Beyond Earth. It was a colossal failure.

That's a bit tangential, BE's problems went well beyond that. Prior to release it had excitement as an effective successor to Alpha Centauri.

BE failed on gameplay mostly.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I think it matters. Just look at Beyond Earth. It was a colossal failure.

And yet Alpha Centauri has demonstrated greater staying power than any other game in the series.

Then why add new civs with flavor based on historical nations at all? What cutoff point makes one bother with Scotland but not Bengal?

The only explanation that makes sense is anticipated sales. I'm not convinced by that argument, as I don't expect a German player to have a significantly greater hankering to play as Scotland than Mughals. But it's the only rationale that even sort-of maybe explains the reasoning for picking some of these civs over others.

It isn't about the German player having a hankering to play as Scotland. It's about the German player seeing Scotland pop up among their randomly selected opponents and saying "Scotland, ah, Highlanders, masters of early guerrilla warfare, yet builders of walls," as opposed to saying "Bengal...uhhh...hmmmmm."

USA from 1776-present is a contiguous political entity. India from 200BC (earlier actually) to present is NOT a contiguous political entity, nor is it even kind of close if you squint a little.

"Which India" question is similar to asking "which Mongols", failing to distinguish between modern Russia and 1200's AD Genghis Khan.

Yeah, it is similar. What's your point there? The game is full of civs that represent the same territory and come from different eras. It's also full of civs that have longer histories that are amalgamated into one mash up civ that sort of represents a handful of their different phases. What else would you expect?