I've always seen myself as playing the sort of zeitgeist of the civilization, and I've always seen the "leader" (particularly the AI leaders) as the sort of manifestation of that zeitgeist, not as a literal immortal god-king.
I pretty much agree with this. I don’t feel I’m playing as a singular person at all, nor would I want to. I feel more as if I’m playing as the civilization and its people themselves.
On the event, I'm on the Gori end of the spectrum.
For me, it feels like a way of scraping in more history, and specifically bits of history the Devs found fun and want to share but couldn't wrap into the civilizations themselves.
That doesn't fit well for me because civilization isn't a game about history as it was, it's a game about making your own.
I don't want to be pigeon holed by the conventional wisdom about how pre 18th century societies would respond to an event. Hypothetically I might want my American chariots to chase and shoot the thief with a boy and arrow like they've spotted a varmint. In practice though I find the narrative events a bit cringe and click through micro that I would more happily do without. I don't Roleplay civ in any conscious sense, I just like building civilizations.
Do any of you use the word "we" in your internal narration of your gameplay: "I guess we'll build a granary next" or "We could probably take out Spain."?
It's not definitive on the matters we're discussing. If you use "I" it could still mean "I as the present ruler of this people," "I as the god controlling this people," "I as the Volkgeist of this people," or "I as the player making the most advantageous set of game moves."
But I wonder if any of you civ-identifying players go so far as to use "we" when you are narrating your game activity.
Do any of you use the word "we" in your internal narration of your gameplay: "I guess we'll build a granary next" or "We could probably take out Spain."?
It's not definitive on the matters we're discussing. If you use "I" it could still mean "I as the present ruler of this people," "I as the god controlling this people," "I as the Volkgeist of this people," or "I as the player making the most advantageous set of game moves."
But I wonder if any of you civ-identifying players go so far as to use "we" when you are narrating your game activity.
I generally find myself using "I" for my internal narration, but when I'm telling people about the events of a game I'll sometimes switch over to 'we'. Something like "So then when they attacked us on the eastern front, we held them off with our encampments, and launched a naval invasion from near our capital. It went pretty well, and we took over two of their cities permanently by the end of the war" would not be out-of-place for me to say when describing my game
Do any of you use the word "we" in your internal narration of your gameplay: "I guess we'll build a granary next" or "We could probably take out Spain."?
It's not definitive on the matters we're discussing. If you use "I" it could still mean "I as the present ruler of this people," "I as the god controlling this people," "I as the Volkgeist of this people," or "I as the player making the most advantageous set of game moves."
But I wonder if any of you civ-identifying players go so far as to use "we" when you are narrating your game activity.
I do not. I use 'I' in exactly the way you described; I as the king of a monarchy, I as a God of a theocracy, I as a system of bots in a subverted digital 'democracy', etc.
Likewise I always refered to myself as the Civ over the leader, but my units in the possessive. My horsemen, etc.
"I" is probably going to be the default just because the player is one individual person. But that means that mostly, when playing, you are imagining your in-game presence as some single entity, whatever that might be (ruler, god, spirit-of-the-people), and not a community.
And that maybe speaks to the side discussion we had about events. Narrative generally focus on one central character (e.g. the argentinus). So the events in that person's life can only represent a civilization if you treat them, as has been suggested, as generally illustrative of broad ethical trends in your society.
I think I sooooooooometimes use "we" in the way Arcaian says. But it's rare.
For me, I'm playing as the ruler of the civilization, but not as the ruler the dev team says I am. I've always ignored who the game says my name is, and focus only on the names of the AI leaders I'm interacting with.
This is also why Civ mechanics like religion often sit poorly with me. I don't want to be able to pick the tenets of religions, although I'm okay with taking actions to favour one religion over another.
It's also why I don't mind micro-managing individual unit actions in the early game, but would rather the game shift focus to higher-level decisions as my empire gets bigger. I'll be interested to see if the ages system and the different rulesets per age improve this experience for me
Diplomacy screen in CIVII unfortunately demotes this feeling of being a controlling entity. Not being addressed directly makes me a mere spectator, even if I make some clicks.
Diplomacy screen in CIVII unfortunately demotes this feeling of being a controlling entity. Not being addressed directly makes me a mere spectator, even if I make some clicks.
Hard agree, and this is by far my least favorite thing about Civ7. I really hope we get a mod that makes leaders address the camera directly instead of playing Mortal Kombat: Diplomacy Edition.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.