ColtSeavers
Prince
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!
What's your opinion on civ switching?
- Thread starter stealth_nsk
- Start date
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.
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
Prince
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
Prince
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!
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!
So there is nothing weird about Gandhi waging war or Benjamin Franklin in antiquity.
At least that how it works for me!
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!
The thing is, if you follow your explanation why an America in 4000 BC exists, you could do the same for the switching. The explanation for Egypt-Mongols-Japan seems equally logical (or even more – not that it matters). The Mongols almost reached Egypt in their conquest. If they would have just concentrated a bit more to the south (and didn't lose their first battle against the Mamluks of Egypt in what is modern Israel), it seems plausible that they conquered Egypt and either kept it as part of their Empire (if it didn't fall) or established a Khaganate of Egypt. So Egypt > Mongols is checked if we allow a few "what ifs" (and we don't even have to bend the world to make Egypt more Eastern than Persia or something like that or have things happens thousands of years earlier). Now, the Mongols tried to conquer Japan in history, but failed. Yet, if they succeeded, they might have blended into the Japanese (as a nobility, for example, as is often the case). So, Mongols > Japanese is also not really implausible.
I don't understand why people keep complaining about Rome not having the right options. If you keep to layers, and go to places like Rouen, you can clearly see Rome > Normans > French Empire. And in Spain you can clearly see Rome > Spain (e.g., in Cordoba), but I actually don't know examples where you find the French Empire on top in Spain itself. You can find these three in Southern Italy though, for example. In contrast, the often heralded India path has no such examples that I'm aware of. No place saw Maurya > Chola > Mughals afaik, and there is also not really much going for the line except that they are all part of the modern state of India (mostly, the Mughal heartland as much in modern Pakistan). The India path to me looks like Rome > Norway > Turkey tbh, and not like Rome > Normandy > Britain.
I know it's tempting to think of Rome > Italy as the only correct path, but this is just a very narrow (and misleading) geographic proximity rule imho. Sure, Rome's heartland has been the Apennine Peninsula for a long time, but the Roman Empire thrived in many places, and people and ideas migrated also a lot inside the Empire. Capitals changed or were split (to e.g., Thessaloniki, Trier, Antiochia), the Emperors (which were also from almost any place of the Empire, really, not just Italians, see Trajan or Constantine for example) moved away to Split for example, many of the most prestigious building work is built far away from Italy. And finally, we have Constantinople as new heartland (with Ravenna taking a Western spot at some point), and over time people speak Greek as main language etc. So, historically, the continuation is Rome > Rome (= Byzanz). Any of the Italian states and cities might have geographic proximity to Rome (city) on their side, but culturally (and ethnically) the continuation isn't larger there compared to e.g., Spain or Southern France. They all kept many Roman systems, part of the local population stayed, but other parts were exchanged (the Lombards are usually the prime example here in Italy itself). The HRE has obviously a big claim as alternative to Rome, as they were an alternative historically, taking over as simultaneous Emperors and ruling large parts of Italy (and various other important parts of the Roman Empire). I would actually like very much to have one of Tuscany, Genoa, Venice (without the 1 city limit), Papal States, or Milan as civs at some point, but I don't think that they are really a 'better' continuation than Spain or Normandy, either looking from past (= Roman Empire), where they are just a random geographic splinter of the Empire, nor looking backwards from today, where Florence isn't more Roman than York.
I honestly think that a lot of this has to do with familiarity. What we are used to doesn't cause as much cognitive dissonance as what we aren't used to. What we know and have accepted as "this is just how civ works" 20+ years ago is deeply engraved as normal and plausible. What challenges this fictional world in which civ takes place that we've created in our minds is automatically seen as wrong. But it really isn't more wrong than what we are used to. Getting used to Ben Franklin being Ben Franklin, and not the leader of America might take some time and games, and might be confusing for a longer period (it isn't for me, for some reason though). But it shouldn't be more confusing than Montezuma ruling his peaceful island empire, being the spearhead of technology, having a great influx of tourists from Russia and Australia, a large cavalry army, and owning some Arabian cities. It's just that we learned to accept that the game allows Monty to have an empire that has nothing to do with the one he ruled historically – we don't even expect any more that he behaves historically or rules an empire that resembles the Aztecs. In contrast, we (or at least many of us) haven't yet made the disconnect between leader and civs in our minds. As you describe, you see Ben and think of America. Maybe, in some time, you see Ben and think science, getting more endeavors – and aside from America (which he often ends up leading) of him going from whatever he currently is (Greece, Rome, mostly) into Normans if he can.
All that said, two last things:
a) I hope for more civs to smooth out the paths and give more options. I think with 10-20 additional civs, it will feel much better to most players – even to me as someone who doesn't care much about historical or geographical paths in many (but not all) of my games. And I honestly think this is a point most can agree on: more civs will improve their experience. Yet, as it seems, it will come at a hefty price.
b) As said above, I don't think history is too important for how the game plays out and what it does. I don't see it as alternative history, but as a tournament between leaders duking out who is the best in this round. An embellished and historically themed Super Smash Brothers, if you want.
Last edited:
GeneralZift
Professional
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2019
- Messages
- 1,183
The history never mattered to me, it's a nice teaching tool, but at the end of the day I know it's a game, which by definition has to be different from reality.
Obviously I like when Civs are lead by the appropriate leader, it teaches you something relevant.
And it makes sense when Civs are in the appropriate era, but it doesn't really matter in the long run.
But the game is in between a simulator, a narrative game and a sandbox, designed partially around the idea that you can play 'like' great empires from history.
Anyway, this is why the 3 era system doesn't appeal to me, not the other way around. When you play the game you're not actually going through what Rome went through to become France. You're doing something else entirely, and then a predetermined point, you just become something else entirely.
It's like Schrödinger's nonsense.
You switch empires but then you don't, because all the cities are still there in their old name. Time elapses but all that happens is everything is reset.
You switch because of a crisis but also because of natural progression. Which is it? And why?
It feels less like 3 rounds and more like you play 1 game of football and then switch football club. But take all the players with you. It's weird and it doesn't feel fluid.
I don't crave unique bonuses every era, I'm quite happy with a design like Civ5/4 where you can just pick new permanent policies to shape your empire.
So yeah and I don't subscribe to people criticising the past games for "having America in Antiquity" and "Maya in the Space Age". Who cares? Part of the fun was hearing Roman music remixed with Space Era sounds.
And it's just hypocritical because instead of that they just added a similarly historically inaccurate civ switch system and system where you can pick any leader for any Civ.
Obviously I like when Civs are lead by the appropriate leader, it teaches you something relevant.
And it makes sense when Civs are in the appropriate era, but it doesn't really matter in the long run.
But the game is in between a simulator, a narrative game and a sandbox, designed partially around the idea that you can play 'like' great empires from history.
Anyway, this is why the 3 era system doesn't appeal to me, not the other way around. When you play the game you're not actually going through what Rome went through to become France. You're doing something else entirely, and then a predetermined point, you just become something else entirely.
It's like Schrödinger's nonsense.
You switch empires but then you don't, because all the cities are still there in their old name. Time elapses but all that happens is everything is reset.
You switch because of a crisis but also because of natural progression. Which is it? And why?
It feels less like 3 rounds and more like you play 1 game of football and then switch football club. But take all the players with you. It's weird and it doesn't feel fluid.
I don't crave unique bonuses every era, I'm quite happy with a design like Civ5/4 where you can just pick new permanent policies to shape your empire.
So yeah and I don't subscribe to people criticising the past games for "having America in Antiquity" and "Maya in the Space Age". Who cares? Part of the fun was hearing Roman music remixed with Space Era sounds.
And it's just hypocritical because instead of that they just added a similarly historically inaccurate civ switch system and system where you can pick any leader for any Civ.
0urBall
Warlord
This may also be a large part of the negative feeling around the game, the feeling of paying more for less. Previous titles would turn out to be "cheaper" in the long term, due to the ability of the player to role-play as a Civ and thus replay the same Civ/leader in multiple different ways. CivVII feels like it's going to cost a lot of additional Civs/leaders to get to a similar point where the Civ-switching doesn't feel so weird/jarring in some cases.
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2011
- Messages
- 2,245
@Siptah your point b is exactly how I see the game too. But I disagree with your logic on why the reception to changing it is poor.
Humankind was a blank slate, and the concept of Civ switching just doesn't interest me enough to buy it. I'm not against Civ switching in Civ VII because it's less familiar, I'm against it because I have no interest in it.
I know what I like, and some previous Civ entries have supplied it quite well, others not so much. After this launch I'm not even sure I'd consider myself a Civ fan, as I've only actually enjoyed 1 entry. But I enjoyed it enough to sink 3000 hours into it.
I stumbled on Civ V trying to remember what I think command and conquer was called, because I wanted that bash empires at each other through history feel, where I get lots of ahistorical flavour and the satisfying feeling of launching a rocket as ancient Egypt. Turns out Civ V scratched that itch for me a lot better, and I never went looking for whatever game it was again after that.
Civ VI became a boring slog that just didn't click for me sadly, and Civ VII is just doesn't appeal to what I've picked up Civ for in the past. Familiarity isn't the problem, it's taste
Humankind was a blank slate, and the concept of Civ switching just doesn't interest me enough to buy it. I'm not against Civ switching in Civ VII because it's less familiar, I'm against it because I have no interest in it.
I know what I like, and some previous Civ entries have supplied it quite well, others not so much. After this launch I'm not even sure I'd consider myself a Civ fan, as I've only actually enjoyed 1 entry. But I enjoyed it enough to sink 3000 hours into it.
I stumbled on Civ V trying to remember what I think command and conquer was called, because I wanted that bash empires at each other through history feel, where I get lots of ahistorical flavour and the satisfying feeling of launching a rocket as ancient Egypt. Turns out Civ V scratched that itch for me a lot better, and I never went looking for whatever game it was again after that.
Civ VI became a boring slog that just didn't click for me sadly, and Civ VII is just doesn't appeal to what I've picked up Civ for in the past. Familiarity isn't the problem, it's taste
@Verified_Confection_Being familiarity and taste are no contradiction here, as familiarity is one of the most important drivers for taste (if we can transfer from music and arts to video games). That doesn‘t mean that familiarity is always involved for everybody though.
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2011
- Messages
- 2,245
I agree that they aren't mutually exclusive, I stand by that at least for me it's not familiarity. I also disagree that familiarity is one of the most important drivers to taste. Familiarity is one of the most important drivers to engagement, but I think it would probably have a poorer correlation to taste. Civ VI was familiar to Civ V, and it got my engagement, but it wasn't to my taste.
stealth_nsk
Deity
I think HK did a huge disservice to Civ7, compromising civ switching mechanics, despite the implementation being completely different.
Which is completely fine, of course.
That's also fine, but – as I tried to allude to in my previous post – this is a relatively well-researched pathway in many domains. I'm not aware of studies that looked at it in the area of psychology of video games, but I would be very surprised if the causality is not to be found there when it is so common and important in arts, music, culture, books, food, and movies. Again, it doesn't mean that it has to be the main driver for everyone – that's not how psychological research works, individual differences commonly trump almost everything and you'll always find anecdotal evidence for the contrary – but that familiarity is in general one of the most important factors that shapes personal taste.
GeneralZift
Professional
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2019
- Messages
- 1,183
Ah yes, even Humankind is to blame... couldn't be a game failing on its own merits.
The mechanic itself has no merit in a 4X game, unless that 4X game was designed exactly like EU or those other grand strategies where you actually play on the real world map, as the real empires.
That's where you might look at it and say, okay I can play as literal Rome and Rome can become something else under certain circumstances which you can SEE and CONTROL.
It doesn't fit in a world where your empire doesn't change, and doesn't mirror the real circumstances which lead to dissolution and evolution of empires.
It leads to logical inconsistencies, like everyone switching empires at once, or a worldwide crisis (under what rare circumstances is a sudden crisis going to hit everyone on earth and dissolve all empires??).
When we first booted up Civ, we accepted one fundamental suspension of belief - yes 'the Americans existed in the Stone Age' - but after that, you continue to play a game that feels rather natural and goes through the processes of the evolution of Empire across history, culminating in a hopefully dramatic end era where you all race towards various objectives and obliterate each other in a climb to be the best.
Now with C7, you have to continuously jerk yourself out of immersion because you're constantly faced with things that make no sense.
Why is Napoleon leading Egypt? Well, to get to France that's why.
The Mongols have no successor, so who are they now? Mughals? So they used to be thundering nomad hordes, and now they're merchants?
Wait and the language changes too? But why are the cities still named in the old language?
The narrative aspect is disrupted but you don't leave space for the gameplay aspect either.
Civilizations pivot their entire gameplay overnight during an 'unseen' period of time.
You get this railroaded experience where you pick the new Civilization and just play out their unique until the end, then switch, and it's essentially musical chairs.
Most of the progress you make is impacted, unless, you happen to make very specific progress to fill out a very specific tree to keep some part of the snowball.
So it's even more railroaded as you design your entire playstyle to fill out this tree to stay in the lead.
Actually Humankind had the same issue with Era Stars.
Stop making players fill very specific trees, or get specific stars, or writing in specific narrative junctions, era switches, civilization switches, stop forcing a narrative on a game
whose entire purpose is to make a narrative out of itself. The game IS the narrative. We don't need the FIRAXIS narrative.
When you win a war against a long-time rival, that's the narrative.
When you steal a Great Person from another Civilization, that's the narrative.
When you edge out your Spaceship just 2 turns before your mate does, that's the narrative.
When you bully the city states and others rise up to defend them, that is the narrative at work.
The better of a sandbox the game is, the better it is at writing its own natural narratives that actually fit what is actually happening in the game.
The more a game adds friction between players, the more interesting stories you can get out of playing a game.
Just keep the game open-ended, with open objectives you can fill in a multitude of ways, with plenty of player interaction, and you will get a winner Civilization, of that I have no doubt.
SupremacyKing2
Deity
Discussing historical immersion might be missing the forest for the trees. I feel like civ-switching fails because it violates two very core principles of game design that actually apply across all game genres.
1) Player Identity
Players care about their identity in a game and they want to experience the game and try to win as that identity. In a sports sim, they identify with a sports team. They want to win as that team. In a RPG, they identify with a character. They want to experience the RPG narrative as that character. In a first person shooter, they identify as their character. They want to shoot stuff as that character. And in a 4X strategy game like civ, the identity might be a faction, a nation or a civ. The player wants to explore, expand, exploit and exterminate as that faction/nation/civ.
Games will give the player ways to "level up" that identity but it is important not to break that identity. That is why RPGs will let you upgrade your gear or acquire new skills for your character but you still play as the same character. In a sports sim, you might hire new players or have a training screen where you can improve your players stats. But you are still playing as that team. Imagine a RPG where you play as an orc in the first level and then the game forces you to select an elf character for the second level. I think a lot of RPG players would find that problematic. It would break their sense of identity. or imagine a football sim where you play as the Steelers in the first quarter and then are forced to play as the Patriots in the second quarter. Or a tennis sim where you play as Djokovic in the first set and then as Sampras in the second set. It would completely break the player's identity. Similarly, in civ, players identify with that civ that they select at the start of the game. It breaks player identity to be forced to switch to a new civ in the next Age.
What this means for civ is that having mechanics to "level up" your civ can work as long as the player can still identify with the same civ. So a mechanic to add new civ traits during an Age transition could work as long as the player feels like they are still playing the same civ. But if the player feels like they are losing that identity by switching to a new civ, that will be a problem.
2) Outcomes need to connect with player actions
I think players need to see a connection between their actions and outcomes in the game. This means that games should avoid arbitrary and forced mechanics. Again, I think this principle applies across all game genres. Players would probably not like a football sim where you are forced to swap players at the end of each quarter. Players in a RPG would probably not like it, if they were forced to change gear when they change locations. Likewise, I think civ players don't like it when they are forced to switch civs during an Age transition. it breaks that connection between their actions and the outcome in the game.
What this means for civ is that any mechanic to "change" your civ has to be grounded in the player's actions or in-game events. It cannot just be a civ selection screen during an Age transition that says "pick a new culture". And yes, the game does unlock certain civs like getting 3 wines unlocks France as a new civ to pick in the Modern Age. So the game does try to create some connection between your actions and the civ switch. But I don't think it is enough. And the player is still being forced to select a new civ when maybe they don't want to.
1) Player Identity
Players care about their identity in a game and they want to experience the game and try to win as that identity. In a sports sim, they identify with a sports team. They want to win as that team. In a RPG, they identify with a character. They want to experience the RPG narrative as that character. In a first person shooter, they identify as their character. They want to shoot stuff as that character. And in a 4X strategy game like civ, the identity might be a faction, a nation or a civ. The player wants to explore, expand, exploit and exterminate as that faction/nation/civ.
Games will give the player ways to "level up" that identity but it is important not to break that identity. That is why RPGs will let you upgrade your gear or acquire new skills for your character but you still play as the same character. In a sports sim, you might hire new players or have a training screen where you can improve your players stats. But you are still playing as that team. Imagine a RPG where you play as an orc in the first level and then the game forces you to select an elf character for the second level. I think a lot of RPG players would find that problematic. It would break their sense of identity. or imagine a football sim where you play as the Steelers in the first quarter and then are forced to play as the Patriots in the second quarter. Or a tennis sim where you play as Djokovic in the first set and then as Sampras in the second set. It would completely break the player's identity. Similarly, in civ, players identify with that civ that they select at the start of the game. It breaks player identity to be forced to switch to a new civ in the next Age.
What this means for civ is that having mechanics to "level up" your civ can work as long as the player can still identify with the same civ. So a mechanic to add new civ traits during an Age transition could work as long as the player feels like they are still playing the same civ. But if the player feels like they are losing that identity by switching to a new civ, that will be a problem.
2) Outcomes need to connect with player actions
I think players need to see a connection between their actions and outcomes in the game. This means that games should avoid arbitrary and forced mechanics. Again, I think this principle applies across all game genres. Players would probably not like a football sim where you are forced to swap players at the end of each quarter. Players in a RPG would probably not like it, if they were forced to change gear when they change locations. Likewise, I think civ players don't like it when they are forced to switch civs during an Age transition. it breaks that connection between their actions and the outcome in the game.
What this means for civ is that any mechanic to "change" your civ has to be grounded in the player's actions or in-game events. It cannot just be a civ selection screen during an Age transition that says "pick a new culture". And yes, the game does unlock certain civs like getting 3 wines unlocks France as a new civ to pick in the Modern Age. So the game does try to create some connection between your actions and the civ switch. But I don't think it is enough. And the player is still being forced to select a new civ when maybe they don't want to.
Last edited:
This is why the sort of civ switching you see in the EU, CK, and Victoria franchises works. It has a connection to your original "team", yet (usually) upgraded.
SupremacyKing2
Deity
Thanks. I have not played those games a lot so correct me if I am wrong. I think the way it works is that you basically have quests and if you complete the quests, you get to upgrade your nation in a historically relevant way. So for example, if you conquer these provinces, switch to this government and adopt this religious stance, you can upgrade your original nation to the Holy Roman Empire. You are still playing as your team, just upgaded in a way that makes some historical sense.
Similar threads
- Poll
