Why does Firaxis still use BC and AD?

[DWilson]

I will note that while at both secondary and collegiate levels across the US the texts use BCE/CE, the professors and teachers tend to verbalize BC/AD and accept either as correct. When grading (not as a professor, but as an aide), I noted many more instances of the latter.

 

[nzcamel]

I wrote out a serious response, but I don't think I need to post it, because I hope that we can all accept that a minor change in annotation is not even a little close to lib****s rewriting history, yes?

Anyway, all this reaction over the mere discussion of said minor change in annotation... it's something else. I just want to say, for the record, that no one is Triggered by seeing "AD" after a year in the game;; I have seen no one writing screeds about how Bad and Evil the old system was. It's just that the new system is better. It makes the normative calendar slightly more secular and accessible! This is not religious persecution of Christians (lol)- the faith of my family, a faith that I personally think is absolutely, even in its worst moments, beautiful and transcendent. It's a harmless, absolutely common and familiar way to make things slightly more inclusive to non-Christians. I'm sorry, but I just can't believe that anyone would actually be thrown by the change if they made it. We'd all get used to it and move on with our lives and civ-playing.

Well that struck a nerve lol.

 

[Equilin]

Cultural calendar based on Civ/Religion founded/adopted -> BC/AD -> BCE/CE for me
Seriously i barely see any use of these CE irl, texts in my country uses the local Buddhist year instead. Most people here notices 2017, but if you ask them which system it is they'd say BC/AD.

 

[God of Kings]

For civs that use the Western reckoning, they could use the BC/AD until researching either Globalization or Social Media, when it switches to BCE/CE.

 

[Vandlys]

I think his opinion may represent the Chinese opinions since those billion Chinese citizens all over the world you are talking about used the Gregorian calendars since the early 20th century. If it is about cultural or religious purpose, what about creating a mod instead that able to show both the western year and the cultural year you choose instead ?

I did not know that and I did my research poorly : D Thank you : ) If there were a mod for this, I might download it. But, like I said in previous posts, I myself am not wishing for it to change per se, although if I had had the choice in development I would have pushed for something other than BC/AD.
I made this post because to me Firaxis often seems to use non-orthodox perspectives, is keen on using history as correctly as generally possible (even though they make many minor mistakes, I read on this forum), and wishes to reflect history from a diverse perspective. To me, the choice for BC/AD doesn't make sense then. But hey, I'm the guy that wondered their choice of having the sun rise in the west and set in the east... : P

 

[Republic of San Montuoso]

It's funny to see all the English-speaker arguing about all the BC-AD/BCE-CE thing. In France, we do not have that, only av. J.-C. and ap. J.-C. (avant Jésus-Christ and après Jésus-Christ, which mean before Jesus Christ and after Jesus Christ). The Anno Domini system is officially adopted in France but, in the reality, we only use the av./ap. J.-C. system (if you heard someone saying “2017 de l’ère commune” (2017 of the Common Era) he will look at you with big eyes… and on the other hand, sometimes we said “avant notre ère” (before our Era) for BC).


Anyway, I’m not really fond of having a calendar based on the Civ you play or the dominant religion of your civ. Because I like how Civ6 manage to let you create your own, measure-made empire and culture. If I want to found Catholicism with zen meditation, mosques and warrior monks, it’s up to me. If I want to build the Potato Palace in Uruk, it’s my choice. The best for me (and it will perfectly suit the will of the dev to make Civ6 more RP than ever, that and the timeline) would be some kind of “measure-made” calendar, created automatically with some requirements.


First of all, you won’t have a calendar if you have not research the Calendar tech (the same way in Rhye’s and Fall, where you were in Bronze Age, Stone Age and then…).

Then, once you have the tech, the year 1 would be calculated from a specific event of your empire (ideas: foundation of a religion, building of your first wonder, discovery of your first natural wonder, construction of the Government Plaza, discovering of your first relic or your first great work of anything, beginning of your first Golden Age or Heroic Age, or even foundation of your first city if you have nothing else). In a RP way, it would be logical to choose an event that happened before the research of Calendar, but it will reduce the possibilities.

If a culture become dominant in a civ, it adopts the calendar of the dominant civ.

I think it could add flavour to the game while personalizing each play.

 

[Ryika]

It's just that the new system is better. It makes the normative calendar slightly more secular and accessible!

The part about accessibility is clearly not true, BC/AD is more commonly used, more people understand its meaning.

The part about it being more secular... well yes, but is that actually a good thing? It's not a government, it's an UI element of a pseudo-historical game, partly from a time where BC/AD were used in many parts of the world. If anything, I personally would be annoyed by BCE/CE, because it's an invention of our modern society that would be completely out of place in my personal opinion. History was, for the most part, not "secular", it was dominated by religion, and BC/AD fits very well because of that.

 

[Disgustipated]

because it's an invention of our modern society that would be completely out of place in my personal opinion

The same could be said about the meter or gram. Sometimes things are just invented because they are better. Of course I don't feel like CE is one of those things since it is still the same exact calendar system.

 

[Ryika]

Sure, but the meter and the gram have been in popular use for a while now (at least in most countries where the game is popular). It's not a "new" thing, it has been there for a while. BCE/CE is not a particularly new thing either, but it has not gained mainstream acceptance, and the only reason to include it is a clear political goal, the very modern notion of "inclusivity".

"Inclusivity", I guess, is the idea that some Chinese people might have a heart attack if they try to play Civ and realize that it's centered on an European view of history... or something like that. The actual impact on people outside of the Christian sphere hasn't actually been defined so far, there's just the vague notion that it's bad if there are references to the background of the people who developed the game (and the people who are the main target audience). But think about it, would that work that way? If you played some Chinese, localized game, and... I don't know, then suddenly the game tells you that it's the year of the dragon and you become so *triggered* that you have to shut off the game? No? Then why would you assume that it makes the game less "inclusive" for other people? Why would you expect the Chinese person to react with anything other than "Oh... interesting. That's part of their cultural heritage."? A game cannot be "culturally neutral", and Civ certainly does not try to be, so this change would feel very out of place.

Being respectful to other cultures, and trying to hide away the Western background in which the game was created are two completely different beasts. One is actually inclusive, the other is the tackling of a non-problem that might actually make the game less sincere.

Oh and... yeah, I went on a bit of a tangent there, plus that was a royal 'you', not you-you

 

[SammyKhalifa]

The same could be said about the meter or gram. Sometimes things are just invented because they are better. Of course I don't feel like CE is one of those things since it is still the same exact calendar system.

I agree. It's not like going from pounds to grams. It's like going from pounds to a new thing called "Common Pounds" which is the the same exact thing but we'll be damned if we're going to still call them by that old exclusive term.

 

[Martinus]

Non-Christian here. Don't care.

 

[KayAU]

What's the point of the frame of reference when the tech and civics tree don't even make sense in the context of a world that didn't have the same historical conditions as ours? ie: Stirrups showing up on the tree when Europe was introduced to them but far after asian nations did, etc.

The way I see it, it's just a bit of fun, playing into the "alternative history" aspect of civ. Talking about "the Aztec invasion of France in 500 BC" is just more fun than referring to a turn number. Also, it is nice to have a frame of reference which is both instantly recognizable, and somewhat independent of game speed.

I don't really mind if it doesn't match up that closely to real history.

 

[WillowBrook]

It seems that Firaxis has not taken a position on this debate. While the in-game year uses BC/AD, the webpage on the new Indian leader uses BCE. (https://civilization.com/news/entries/civilization-vi-rise-and-fall-chandragupta-leads-india)

I've not checked the webpages for the other leaders or the civilopedia to see which convention they use.

 

[Hans Castorp]

Personally I employ the Positivist Calendar: today is 25th Bichat, 229. However, I suppose I could settle for the Republican Calendar, which would make it 7 Nivose, CCXXVI.

 

[Acken]

They could use different calendars for different civ for immersion. But the BC/AD vs BCE/CE debate is a really silly one to me. It's the same calendar based on same event of origin. All that in the english language only.
In France there isn't even a debate around it. Its before and after christ.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I did not miss your point, I just don't think it's relevant in any way. What is the norm in certain subgroups of society does not have any bearing on what is the norm in society as a whole. To see what is being used in society, you look at mass media, and places where public discourse between people from different backgrounds takes place.

The game does give us turn numbers anyway, so it's not lacking the only relevant date/data that exists to the game.

There is absolutely no real life system that aligns with game progress. Space ships going to other systems before humanity could manufacture long/rifled barrels puts a crimp in the date plausibility. So does city growth and that low populations grow faster. I don't see how any one date would add more immersion than another to any coherent reasoning for immersion...to me they might as well not be there, but their presence doesn't hurt gameplay so there's no need to actively mod to diss it.

In my opinion there's no point worrying about what the so called 'global norm' might be

Certainly not for Civ 6, which can't conform to anything any "norm" in question represents in a meaningful way.

 

[Thormodr]

It has always been BC/AD in the Civ series and I don't mind them keeping it the same. Change it to BCE/CE if you want but it won't make a difference really.

Whether you use BC/AD or BCE/CE, it is still centered around the most important event in human history, the birth of Jesus Christ/Yeshua HaMashiach.

As to certain Civs getting different calendars, it sounds pretty cool but it is also a lot of work. Perhaps some talented modders could tackle that?

 

[liv]

In France there isn't even a debate around it. Its before and after christ.

I think EC and AEC are creeping in there as well (ère commune)

 

[orasis]

Personally I do not care and I would rather the devs work on things like AI and late-game performance than calendars.

Can't this be modded anyways?

 

[Ryika]

The game does give us turn numbers anyway, so it's not lacking the only relevant date/data that exists to the game.

There is absolutely no real life system that aligns with game progress. Space ships going to other systems before humanity could manufacture long/rifled barrels puts a crimp in the date plausibility. So does city growth and that low populations grow faster. I don't see how any one date would add more immersion than another to any coherent reasoning for immersion...to me they might as well not be there, but their presence doesn't hurt gameplay so there's no need to actively mod to diss it.

It's a different discussion, but that's why I like the idea of scaling the year that is shown with the game progress of the players. It would not only remove the awkwardness of the year that never matches up at all, but also turn the number into somewhat useful information that tells us something about the overall progress of the world.