What's your opinion on civ switching?

[ColtSeavers]

I think that is your problem with it. Yeah I don’t have any issue with not being able to play as an ahistorical representation of a fictional civilisation ( because there is nothing historic or realistic as playing as America in the Antiquity age) from the start.

I just cannot get caught up worrying about that stuff, it’s just such rigid thinking.

Building a civ to last the test of time doesn’t automatically mean building a civ based on these predetermined game specific factions we have presented to you in previous games. Some people just need to open their minds a little.

Civ Switching has a lot of far more pressing issues to deal with and we shouldn’t be wasting effort trying to appease those who want to continue to think inside a very tiny box.

Maybe you don't have an issue with an ahistorical representation, but you are obviously a minority, if you check the poll in this very thread!

 

[Gorbles]

If you care about ahistorical representation, starting as America in Antiquity should bother you.

If it doesn't, you're at best picking and choosing what ahistorical representation you object to.

 

[Nokturno]

An "American" civ in 4000 BC clearly isn't historical, but (IMHO) isn't impossible or illogical, either.
I think of the first game as basically happening in a divergent universe (timeline splitting in 4000 BC), on an alternate Earth where the continents are configured differently. (Unless playing on an Earth map).
So, the Atlantic could have been super narrow or non-existent, and the Angles, Saxons and Jutes could have just gone straight to North America (skipping Britain) and migrating much earlier than they did.
On the flip side - why couldn't Romans survive to launch rockets to space? There were an "India" and a "China" contemporary to Rome, end they did end up launching rockets to space. Obviously, it would be a much different "modern day Rome" with likely no columnated porticos etc and legionnaires in sandals, but you get my drift.
It is alternate history but nothing causes cognitive dissonance.

Compare that to Civ VII (I am on my second playthrough now), in both games I don't know who the hell I am playing against and which leader leads which civilization. The game doesn't make this very prominent anyway, I have to hover over banners in the upper right corner to remind myself who is who.
My first game had Jose Rizal, I think, leading, if I remember correctly, Hawaii, then Majapahit, and finally Japan; places thousands of miles away from each other in RL Earth and not very much culturally connected, either.
My current game has Ben Franklin leading Ming, and Lafayette leading the Normans. These can very well evolve into Qing and the Americans, and then when Ben Franklin pops up on the screen, I will always initially presume I'm talking to the Americans.
Huge cognitive dissonance.

(On a separate point - I wish they simply took this opportunity to get rid of immortal leaders. I think the first game had them as a joke; Sid liked humor in his games, and it was funny to see Lincoln in Stone Age clothes and Caesar in a suit I guess. But the current Civs are dead serious and they still have immortal leaders).

Anyway, they made the game the way they did, and I accept that. My only wish is that when there are sufficient numbers of civs and leaders, an option will be added to only allow historical transitions. This won't take anything away from the players who like this approach, but it will mean a lot to players like me.

 

[ColtSeavers]

If you care about ahistorical representation, starting as America in Antiquity should bother you.

If it doesn't, you're at best picking and choosing what ahistorical representation you object to.

Sure, and according to this poll, a majority prefers playing America in Antiquity instead of playing Catherine the Great of Buganda, that's all I'm saying.

 

[Gorbles]

Sure, and according to this poll, a majority prefers playing America in Antiquity instead of playing Catherine the Great of Buganda, that's all I'm saying.

Well, it's a relative majority (the American word is apparently plurality), but sure, when you rank it according to preference, sure.

But this is a very separate and distinct point to claiming that only a minority has issues with ahistorical representation. People could prefer games without civ-switching without being a fan of the fact that they're not really historical at all.

In my opinion, Civ-switching is more historical than immortal dynasties. But people seem to prefer the immortal dynasties. People prefer the more ahistorical design, would be the accurate conclusion to me.

 

[ColtSeavers]

Well, it's a relative majority (the American word is apparently plurality), but sure, when you rank it according to preference, sure.

But this is a very separate and distinct point to claiming that only a minority has issues with ahistorical representation. People could prefer games without civ-switching without being a fan of the fact that they're not really historical at all.

In my opinion, Civ-switching is more historical than immortal dynasties. But people seem to prefer the immortal dynasties. People prefer the more ahistorical design, would be the accurate conclusion to me.

Well, only about 20% like the way Civ Switching is implemented right now. Another 25% think it has some negative aspects. This can be interpreted in different ways. For instance, someone might like having different civilizations, but prefer them presented in a comprehensible historical fashion (so, for example, Romans eventually evolving into Italians). Anyway, I was just responding to McSpank01, who called people like me "anti crowd". I was simply trying to point out that people who think differently about Civ Switching than he does are actually the majority, not the minority. That’s all!

 

[Haig]

Quentin Tarantino described most of his films taking place in some sort of "Tarantino world", and in sort of same way I think of Civilization happening in their own game universe.

So there is nothing weird about Gandhi waging war or Benjamin Franklin in antiquity.

At least that how it works for me!

 

[Gorbles]

Well, only about 20% like the way Civ Switching is implemented right now. Another 25% think it has some negative aspects. This can be interpreted in different ways. For instance, someone might like having different civilizations, but prefer them presented in a comprehensible historical fashion (so, for example, Romans eventually evolving into Italians). Anyway, I was just responding to McSpank01, who called people like me "anti crowd". I was simply trying to point out that people who think differently about Civ Switching than he does are actually the majority, not the minority. That’s all!

That wasn't at all clear from your original comment, as "civ switching" (as it's come to be known) is a mechanic in Civ VII. "ahistorical representation" is a whole other thing. But I appreciate the clarifications regardless!