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

[TheMeInTeam]

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."

If that were true I'm surprised to see nations like Aztec/Maya/Inca/Iroquois making headway into Civ games. I wouldn't anticipate these having a larger presence in foreign history courses than Indian history, aside from the countries that interacted with them directly/took their land.

Mughals for example were huge, military juggernauts at their height with a large amount of territory and population...and they lasted longer than a significant number of civs in the game at present. Their presence had a lasting impact throughout the world, but especially in Iran and India. Less recognizable than Georgia, Mali, Cree, Mapuche, and Scythia? That'd be a hard case to make. In USA maybe Cree are more easily remembered given our direct dishonest and brutal treatment of native populations, but that won't be true everywhere and w/o this kind of direct interaction all of those would be less recognizable. I don't think that's the basis being used.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

C'mon man. Aztecs...big pyramids, human sacrifice, jungle warriors...anyone that watches television or movies or reads books anywhere in the developed world is gonna recognize Aztecs. It isn't their 'lasting impact on the rest of the world' that gets them into the game with a probably misrepresented but distinct image. Those same people saying "oh, okay, Aztecs" are gonna say "Mughals? WTH? Where are they even from?" and you bloody well know it.

And Mali? Who hasn't heard of Timbuktu? That all by itself gives them sufficient recognition value.

 

[Lexicus]

What else would you expect?

I don't expect it, but I'd hope that they troll racists by actually just having "Europe" be in Civilization 7. It would be hilarious watching them freak out about it.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I don't expect it, but I'd hope that they troll racists by actually just having "Europe" be in Civilization 7. It would be hilarious watching them freak out about it.

Trolling the customers is generally recognized as a poor business plan...and that wouldn't be trolling racists, it would for the most part just be trolling everyone.

 

[Lexicus]

Nah, just racists.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

And Mali? Who hasn't heard of Timbuktu? That all by itself gives them sufficient recognition value.

Timbuktu existed before Mali took it, and best I can tell Songhai actually had it longer than Mali!

Even if Aztecs are instantly recognizable the world over (didn't want to assume that, don't know what pop culture stuff is in other countries), I doubt this is true for all of my examples.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Timbuktu existed before Mali took it, and best I can tell Songhai actually had it longer than Mali!

Even if Aztecs are instantly recognizable the world over (didn't want to assume that, don't know what pop culture stuff is in other countries), I doubt this is true for all of my examples.

The point is that recognizable, specifically among the largest segments of the customer base, is what 'qualifies' a 'civ' into the game. Historical accuracy and fair distributions are not even secondary considerations.

And @Lexicus, how does my vastly greater familiarity with say, Germany, than I have with Xhosa make me a racist? It might identify me as lazy AF, since it isn't like I ever went out of my way to reach the point where I can see Germany pop up in my civ game in the form of a "stone age" scout and say "ah, Germany, aggressive and industrious sorts that will be a pain in my backside even before they get those Panzers...if I let them live that long," where if that scout was a Xhosa I'd have to go grumbling to the Civopedia to even have a clue what they were likely to be about...and I'd be annoyed.

 

[Lexicus]

Well I'm assuming that while you might be annoyed at having to look up some new civs you didn't know anything about, racists would be freaking out and melting down about the end of civilization, so it would be funny.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The point is that recognizable, specifically among the largest segments of the customer base, is what 'qualifies' a 'civ' into the game.

Somehow, I don't think most people you asked on the street could tell you much about the Mapuche. Maybe I'm mistaken, but I suspect knowledge of them would be comparable to Mughals, though perhaps you'd have some final fantasy fans get confused.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Somehow, I don't think most people you asked on the street could tell you much about the Mapuche. Maybe I'm mistaken, but I suspect knowledge of them would be comparable to Mughals, though perhaps you'd have some final fantasy fans get confused.

I agree. I take it these Mapuche have somehow landed in one of the latest and far from greatest iterations of Civ with which I am still unfamiliar?

 

[Lexicus]

Google says they're in Civ 6.

 

[Synobun]

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

Has it? Only like, three people still play it.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Google says they're in Civ 6.

Yeah, that's so far off my radar I barely know it exists. I'm willing to try out a Civ V Complete when it appears at GoG, but I don't even read about Civ VI yet.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Has it? Only like, three people still play it.

This seems odd, since that would mean that I know all three of them personally...well, being one of them.

 

[tjs282]

Having only ever played CivDOS and CivIII to any great extent, I had an idle thought the other day, based on CivDOS's 'civ-splitting' and III's 4-era mechanic.

I wondered if it would be possible, (in addition to the tech-tree), to construct a 'genealogical' Civ-tree? So instead of starting the game as an ahistorically modern nation (like the USA), you'd instead start the game as an Ancient Civ (like the Babs, or the Numidians), and then after researching X no. of techs, or conquering Y number of tiles, or whatever other Achievement might seem appropriate, you would then be able to pick one of a limited pool of 'successors' to your starting Civ -- like the Franks, or Byzantium, or whoever -- and switch into that new Civ (with new units, buildings, traits, governments available, etc.).

So e.g. even if you'd already got an early-game Golden Age, you could then get another mid-game GA if you picked the right descendant Civ.

But the downside would be that switching Civs mid-game might also result in you losing part of your previous empire (or it being taken over by an AI), or some other similar penalty. Like maybe if when you switched, you could pick a new location for your Palace, but with the proviso that you might have to give up some of your previously colonised territory to neighbours whose Capital(s) were now closer to your old cities than your new one was.

Also, the 'Civ-tree' would be interconnected, so e.g. the Celts might become either Anglo-ish or Frankish, but the Norse could also become Anglo-ish (or maybe German, or Rus, etc. -- I'm kind of hazy on the actual history, but bear with me). So another challenge would be that if you weren't fast enough to reach the trigger-point, your 'wished-for' descendant-Civ might already have been pilfered by another AI (or human, in MP), leaving you stuck with your second or even third choice (or you might have to stick with your starter, and make do).

 

[Hygro]

Nah, just racists.

I think the first Civ I ever played as was civ2 America. It's fun to.

 

[Lexicus]

Actually, I played as Civ 3 America first But it didn't take long before I developed a taste for mowing down all the European dogs as Shaka

 

[Hygro]

I played a lot of Persia and Ottomans. Later, agricultural civs.

 

[Lexicus]

I played a lot of Persia and Ottomans. Later, agricultural civs.

Hahahah same yo. Those UUs and the Industrious/Scientific combo right?

 

[Hygro]

The triple threat.