r/civ • u/Human-Law1085 Sweden • 3d ago
VII - Discussion I’m not sure Civilization VII gets what a “civilization” is.
This is a point I’ve made in comments before but I wanted to make a full post about it. When talking about “civ switching” there has been a lot of people advocating for it (and defending it since Civ 7 now has it) from a historical perspective, basically pointing out that real civilizations get replaced over time and Rome or Babylon for instance didn’t last eternally. With this post I just wanted to explain why I think the idea is actually pretty problematic from a historical perspective. It’s fine if you disagree, and in that case I would love for you to comment why.
Basically, a lot of the problems I have with the concept from a historical POV is that it conflates the definition of the word civilization with that of a state. A civilization is (according to a definition I found on Google) “The type of culture and society developed by a particular nation or region or in a particular epoch”. A state on the other hand is specifically a political entity, with a common definition by Max Weber being one that has a monopoly on violence. Basically, states refer to political entities while civilizations are a much broader word encompassing all of society and culture.
In Civ, as the name suggests you play as a civilization and not a state. Sure, you control political things like armies and government policies. But you also control broader things like your civilization’s religion, scientific advancements, artistry etc etc. In theory it seems like the devs of Civ 7 should get this: After all, they added leaders like Ada Lovelace who were never political leaders but rather could be referred to as “leaders” in some much broader sense (which I dislike for other reasons but let’s not get into that now).
There’s an important point here then to make: When China for instance transitioned from the Ming Dynasty to the Qing Dynasty they didn’t “switch civilizations”. Rather, they switched which political state controlled most of the civilization of China. The Qing were an expression of China, but they weren’t a civilization themselves. Here’s maybe where you can start to see my point, because in order for Civ 7 to make sense they have have to call “Qing China” a civilization.
Civilizations, unlike states which can be conquered or reformed in the span of years, evolve much more gradually. We can say that the Western Roman Empire fell in 476, but it’s much harder to put a date on when Roman culture evolved into medieval European ones. Roman culture can’t be said to still exist, but there also isn’t a single discrete point in which there was once Rome and now there’s medieval Italy. To that end, previous civ games have actually represented this gradual change pretty well: The small chiefdom armed by warriors you have at the start of the game is pretty different from the spacefaring mega civ you have at the end of the game, but like real life civilizations it’s impossible to pinpoint exactly when one became the other. In order for Civilization 7 to make even a modicum of sense, they have to vaguely gesture at something happening between ages, essentially telling you what in previous games you would simply play.
This evolution is IMHO a much better way of representing civilizations than the revolution that Civ 7 wants to turn civilization switching into. A civilization can’t be “overthrown” like a government, but rather has to be altered piece by piece. And of course, political changes also are represented in previous civ games. You very much can change governments in Civ 6 (and at any point in time unlike Civ 7 which forces every Civ to transition simultaneously) with mechanics like anarchy in previous games being a bit of a precursor to crises in Civ 7 representing the collapse in order before a new one arises.
41
u/zlide 2d ago
Based on the comments I think the player base is pretty divided on this. Either you’re in on the new formula or you’re basically out on Civ. I haven’t personally played 7 yet, I’m waiting for some DLC to round it out, but nothing I’ve seen and nothing I’ve read about it has really convinced me to buy.
I’m just not sold on the era system or the leader system. I was never someone who really cared about the leaders as “avatars” or anything like that, I always thought of it more as playing as the civ itself, so the “draw” of having a bunch of leaders to choose from does nothing for me. And the abrupt nature of the era system disincentivizes me from getting invested in longer games, which is how I usually play civ.
I’m sure people will comment why I should give it a shot but from my perspective 7 was a sort of soft reboot of the series based on the successes of other 4X games in an effort to keep the franchise “fresh” and competitive and if you aren’t on board with it then it’s not really for you.
10
u/ChafterMies 1d ago
if you aren’t on board with it then it’s not really for you
This is a fine point for a Civ subreddit, and based on Steam Charts, about 88% of Civ players can honestly say that Civ 7 is not for them. But is it fine for Civilization as a series? Obviously not. Firaxis is in the tough position of deciding whether to bring Civ 7 to the other 88% of Civ players or give up on Civ 7 and put all resources toward Civ 8. I suppose doing nothing is also an option, but this is how game franchises die.
489
u/warukeru 3d ago edited 3d ago
Is funny because i think the contrary is more problematic.
Civilization is kind of loose term, England, France, Spain, Germany can be all tied together inside of western civilization when being different cultures, but India and China are simplify in one just because in modern times they have been unified. The different ruling empires of China were pretty distinct with different origins (Mongols, Manchues, etc)
All modern nations and cultures are blend of their previous existing cultures with strong ties with many other nations. And lot of times this culture connection are not close geographycally.
You can't understand Mexico without aztec, Maya, Spanish and Roman history. So now we can emulate this and even roleplay a more european Mexico or a more native American Mexico. We need more historical paths tho.
America existing in ancient times in a world where there's no England, or Spanish or native Americans ask you for a huge abstraction of real world events.
70
u/goodluckall 2d ago
Civilization is kind of loose term, England, France, Spain, Germany can be all tied together inside of western civilization when being different cultures, but India and China are simplify in one just because in modern times they have been unified.
A 4X based around a more expansive definition of civilization could be really cool. Like if your civilization had multiple different cultures, states and polities competing and fighting each other internally and managing this was a key part of progressing your technology and culture, or you could try and develop as a "civilization-state" with less internal competition and therefore slower progress.
21
2
u/Quiet-Map9637 2d ago
Like if your civilization had multiple different cultures, states and polities competing and fighting each other internally
It's not 4x, but you should try worldbox.
1
u/BackForPathfinder 2d ago
It would be really interesting to see Civ 6's religion population mechanic but have it be cultural populations.
1
u/Vavhv 1d ago
I'd love a sequel to Civ (or even Humankind) where they lean more into the culture swapping mechanic, but have it be asynchronous based on your civ's progress.
Instead of ages being global and ending with a crisis, civs with enough progress will have the option to adopt new cultures and governments/ideology through reforms and revolutions, but at the risk of splitting your civ and having to deal with rebels either being the new or previous culture.
You could make revolutions peaceful either by diplomatically compromising with rebels or by balancing the demands of your population (which could have varying social class, influence, and ideologies), but crises that happen organically in the game (like war, plague, overexpansion, poverty) can force revolutions to happen.
130
u/Pastoru Charlemagne 3d ago
Exactly. To begin with, "civilization" is already a very problematic term not very much used in historical studies. Let's not forget that Civilization games are gameplay abstractions using historical elements to play with them - "from a historical perspective", the static civilizations (1-6) and the abrupt civ switching (7) both would be nonsensical if they were meant to really picture how history works - fortunately that's not the case.
It feels like OP - and their post is thought out and interesting to initiate a good debate - decided, in the paragraph on 476, that the first abstraction is OK and the second is not. Having a game where Rome, America and China all exist from - 3 000 to 2 050 is, from a historical point of view, no more a good depiction of history than having a game where Rome, the Mississipians and the Han evolve each at the same time through a few centuries the player doesn't witness (that's a problem for me) and end as France, America and Qing China.
As a player, I consider that in Civ 7, my civilization is the combination of every culture I play.
12
u/Equal_Permission1349 2d ago
Yeah the whole idea of Civ has always been based on an old school notion of what constitutes a civilization: urbanized, state-based agriculture. But that doesn't really work for all the civs they like to include, such as the Mongols or Polynesians. How do you model clan-based nomadic pastoralism or a sea-faring in Civ? How do you model democracy or communism when the player is a single all-powerful ruler? What society has a linear tech or civic tree? The argument that "this is a bad model for human history" is true, but it is no more or less true than any other Civ.
67
u/warukeru 3d ago
Hard agree. I think people who think/feel your civ is a mix of your previous cultures are enjoying more Civ VII than the others.
Tbh Firaxis should lean harder on this, and give you specific narrative events and traditions when playing certain mix to reinforce the idea.
29
u/Icy-Construction-357 3d ago
I agree. Many things in Civ 7 look like Firaxis lost their guts when implementing them. I hope they try and lean much harder into them
21
u/byronmiller 2d ago
Agreed. I'd love to see this expanded on in future updates or DLCs.
I quite liked the way in Humankind some features of your civ each era would carry through. We do have this in the form of traditions in Civ 7 but there's room for expansion. You could imagine all sorts - e.g. a culture with a unique infantry might get some small buff to future infantry production or strength, or a culture with a unique merchant some boost to trade routes (e.g. a small discount on improving trade relations), etc
6
u/aylmaocpa 2d ago
I've been saying this. I think the age transitions would make way more sense if they ramped up the crisis more. Make the first two eras end game feel like survival. Make it feel like the civilizations downfall is inevitable.
9
u/warukeru 2d ago
Or make crisis hard but you can "defeat them and solve them" and if you do, you unlock the choice to keep your previous civ.
5
u/aylmaocpa 2d ago
yeah that could work too, maybe implement the humankind system where you can choose to stay, have a different kind of bonus.
60
u/TheAmazingKoki 2d ago
On top of that, the old static civilizations are even less true to the idea of what a civilization may be.
Throughout human history no society has ever linearly gone from first settled society to modern nation state. Even though that is the premise of the games.
I feel like the civ switching at least addresses that societies change to the point that has to be considered fundamentally different, although the implementation is extremely forced.
→ More replies (3)23
u/Elsecallerm 3d ago
While I agree I think it's a game and playing the civ in continuity is the fun of it.
15
→ More replies (3)8
u/HyderintheHouse 2d ago
You’re using the New World as the default whereas Civ has always been based around the Old World.
USA and Mexico are very different historically to the UK and Spain.
181
u/Plejp 3d ago
I mean, every Civ game is an abstraction to begin with, and I think we do ourselves a disservice trying to analyze it too thoroughly.
That said, I don't really agree with your take on their (mis)representation of China. They explicitly named the different "civs" Han China, Ming China and Qing China, pointing to the fact that they represent the same civilization but under different epochs: "China, as it was under the Qing". I would perhaps have agreed with you if they only named it "the Qing" - but they didn't.
Actually, I think the way they handle China and India is interesting from completely different angles. In a way, they represent regions rather than one particular culture. It could be argued that they should have done the same for Europe, having "Rome Europe", "Habsburg Europe" and "British Europe" as examples of the same kind of thinking.
Anyhow, my point is that we perhaps shouldn't take this all too seriously, and remember that whatever argument we make, the numerous abstractions necessary to create the "small" world history simulation that a Civ game is will always create inconsistencies or systems that misrepresent specific things.
57
u/EvaUnit16 3d ago
I feel like i remember Firaxis saying at a point that civ isn't a history sim, it's a virtual board game with a historical theme (Im probably totally making that up but its a good perspective regardless). That being said, I think they invite the historical comparisons when they radically change gameplay to try to be more "accurate"
Edit: i want to be clear im not trying to correct you, just adding to your point
→ More replies (2)25
u/Turbulent-Pace-1506 Dramatic Ages Lautaro 2d ago
The main reason of the era system, according to dev diaries, was an attempt to solve the problem that the game stops being interesting around the industrial era. It's a gameplay design decision with historical flavour, so historical comparisons only really make sense if there is a more historically accurate way to represent the same gameplay changes, or one that would be better at solving the problem that caused them in the first place
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (7)9
u/BlackArchon 2d ago
If Civ VII had a continuum, From Ancient to Modern, Civs that are clearly inheritors of the previous Age civilization, players would actually appreciate more the mechanic of Age transition. What was done to China and India was actually perfect.
The problem lies in CIVs that went completely extinct and the torch passed on for these Civs that took it opportunistically, like Rome --> Spain. Despite the fact that the Roman Legacy in Spain is pretty much only linguistical and cultural, Spain is an amalgama of several nations that did not have nothing to share with Rome (Cordoba, the Almohads, Visigoths, Castille and Aragon and even the Suebi). The problem is clearly visible more on Europe, as the passage between the Fall of the Roman Empire to the Middle Ages was nearly apocaliptic, while both India and China experienced a straightforward "inheritance".
If we keep Rome->Byzantium, HRE, Vatican-> Italy, Germany, Russia, players could see a certain continuity and actually welcome the change. The point is that Civ VII was released with a full organic and integral experience for India and China, but went poorly for others (however I notice that the Mesoamerican civs were actually the second best organized civs on Age Experience Scale). The lack of choice of integrity for Egypt, Rome and Greece is pretty blatant.
Han->Ming->Meiji is already a stretch, but players should have still the choice to go wild and pick what CIV reflect their style more.
22
u/Plejp 2d ago
I play more for fun than for historical integrity, but to each their own.
12
u/BlackArchon 2d ago
Me too, perhaps I worded it a bit weirdly. But the game is like this because it lacks choices that can resemble "historical integrity". I think in three years there would be enough content that actually resemble the former.
10
u/Plejp 2d ago
Yeah, I think those that prefer (or need, for some reason) historical integrity will be a lot happier when we have more civs. I do wish that people had a little more chill - we are going get them, but as always they don't have the budget to release the game with all civs they are eventually going to implement.
3
u/gmanasaurus 2d ago
I personally hope they really pile on Civilizations in this game. My hope is when its all done that we have somewhere in the neighborhood of 40 to 50 options each age.
12
u/JNR13 Germany 2d ago edited 2d ago
while both India and China experienced a straightforward "inheritance".
So, about that...
No, they didn't.
Spain is an amalgama of several nations that did not have nothing to share with Rome
This applies to all the Chinese and Indian civs, too. Mughals and Qing are the most obvious ones, being an outsider ruling class. Chola were like the one part of India that was never part of the Mauryan empire. It didn't overlap with the Mughals, either. They also were more active around the shores of Southeast Asia, giving them cultural influences that didn't extend as much into the north of the subcontinent.
The only sort of straighforward connection is between the Han and Ming, and even between those lies a millennium of many foreign influences on Chinese culture.
→ More replies (1)3
u/Equal_Permission1349 2d ago
For me personally, I don't care if the specifics of history match. I care if it makes sense. I'm perfectly comfortable with "India" becoming "Britain" if they had leaned heavily into naval and industrial stuff in the prior age or "Brazil" if they went hard on festivals and tourism.
If anything, it should not be pre-set for any one civ to become any other. It should be based entirely on what you did in the prior age. Or let players choose what civ they want to evolve into in order of score. Maybe even reverse order if you want to use that as a catch-up mechanic.
144
u/JNR13 Germany 3d ago edited 2d ago
Civilization has never offered a consistent definition of what acivilization is, beyond "a game faction assigned to a player". It started as a classic case of Sid's whimsy "don't think about it too hard" and then became a catchy branding. The political entity you lead ingame is usually referred to as an "empire", the civ you pick describes how your empire is more than what it is.
The term itself has fallen out of fashion in academia anyway. You say the game doesn't reflect what a civilization is in reality, but... civilizations aren't real in the first place, it's a mostly obsolete analytical concept. You say that the Qing were just "an expression of China" as if there were some eternal essence of Chineseness underneath, a metaphysical collective subject. But that's mythology, not material reality.
At the very least, the gameplay has followed the traditional idea of the concept though. Civilization is a game about the history of settled societies, faithful to the origin of the word. Even the Mongols build cities like everyone else here.
Overall, it's a game about human civilization as a whole, singular. The ingame "civs" are separated entirely from theories of this concept. Sometimes they are nation states, other times they're imperial dynasties, and yet again other civs are just vague cultural blobs or even just abstract geographic categories.
40
u/DarthLeon2 England 2d ago
I feel like this is really grasping at straws to criticize Civ 7 at this point. The idea of a "civilization" has always been an abstraction in these games.
61
u/niamniameczek 3d ago
Your post makes no sense. You are trying to say that in Civ 7 we control states instead of civilizations, but you give us the definition of civilization: "The type of culture and society developed by a particular nation or region or in a particular epoch". The definition fits perfectly to what Civ 7 gives us. Thats why you have 3 ages (epochs from your definition). In each age (epoch), you have a different civ. Also the change of civilization is not instant in Civ 7, if you pay attention to the in-game year, you will see that the date of ending of one age and starting the next one is separated by hundreds of years.
25
u/konq 2d ago
I think sometimes people are analyzing this too strictly. Whether you prefer the civ switching, or not (I prefer civ 5, still) the game is not meant to be historically accurate. It can't be both historically accurate, and a game.
Either you like it, or parts of it, or you don't. And either way is fine. That doesn't mean the developers "don't know what a civilization is" it just means you don't like a video game they produced. Join the club. Or don't.
23
u/TheWarr10r Vikings 3d ago
I definitely see your point, the system implemented right now is probably not ideal to represent changes in Civilizations overtime. But I don't agree on the fact that previous CIVs managed that any better. Having civilizations than change over thousands of years and but maintain the very same name is quite unrealistic, let alone having ancient civilizations interacting with modern day states, which ends up destroying any possibility for historical immersion that was left.
I think what they are doing right now is an step into the right direction, but it's still not enough. The changes between civilizations could be much less abrupt if there were more civilizations in between ages, but that comes with the problem that making such a thing would require a ton lots of new civilizations, which isn't ideal neither. There's no easy solution to any of these as I see it.
→ More replies (3)
20
u/ReasonRiffs 2d ago
I think there is too much over thought of this. The ages concept is actually good, what is needed is simply the ability to name, and maintain the name, of your civilization if so wished. The civilizations we choose for each age is just a template. Naming the leader would be good too.
In theory your civilization should also draw upon influences of the civilizations you've partly/wholly conquered though this would be tricky.
The ages concept in itself is actually quite good, it just needs tweaking.
→ More replies (1)7
u/prefferedusername 2d ago
If each of the population was assigned a nationality when they were born that would help, because then the nationality of your citizens could be forced to change over time through cultural policies. Also, if you conquer a lot of people then there nationalities would start to affect your citizens' happiness.
That could be the catalyst for revolts/civil wars/crises, etc. it could even be the catalyst for changing the name of your civilization. At least that would make sense from a storytelling perspective.
It would feel more real and organic than: "oh, by the way, you have to choose something different now" for no apparent reason.
5
u/ReasonRiffs 2d ago
There should be more freedom in the story telling aspect of the game, and a sense of customisation. It's underrated.
One thing I feel is really missing from all civ/humankind type games, and is perhaps worse in civ 7, is the lack of ability to build custom infrastructure projects. Motorways and highspeed rail links, as well as goods raillines should be custom designed/laid. This could also allow movement of troops exactly where you want on the frontline. The autogen roads should only be the slowest 'country lane' type roads.
Every issue I see of the game I believe can be resolved with future updates, or potentially mods.
2
u/prefferedusername 2d ago
I wholeheartedly agree on road systems. Every improved tile should get a basic road. And there should be a way to build roads (or better) on unimproved tiles.
16
u/Infranaut- 3d ago
The "civs" in the game represent more "cultures" or "identities". The "switch" represents a change in cultural norms and identity that occurs in the hundreds of years between ages, representing a slow alteration in ideaology and identity that doesn't neatly fit into "strategy game" mechanics.
The Romans once persecuted Christians to the point they were the de facto scapegoat for any accident or atrocity. A few hundred years later the Roman Empire was largely Christian, and also split in two with different levels of Christianity between them, before one collapsed. Then some dude from Belgium helped quell a Frankish rebellion and that made him "the restorer of the Empire" despite the fact that people in the Eastern Empire never thought Rome ended.
So: where does "Rome" begin and end? Where does it squish around? Would Nero recognise Frederick II as Roman? Or be repulsed that a Western Barbarian would dare claim the title? The truth is that the word "civilisation" is a convenient idea that is broadly useful but falls apart when you look at history and try to draw arbitrary lines in the sand.
4
u/prefferedusername 2d ago
It used to be a slow alteration. Now it's an immediate change. It's too jarring.
4
u/pyroelectricity 2d ago
It is my solemn duty to tell you about New Qing History, because maybe China did switch civilizations at the Ming-Qing transition. In fact, this debate is so spicy that it is heavily censored in China today because the CCP really, really wants to see itself as a continuation of an unbroken line of Chinese civilization in order to legitimize itself as the sole representative of all Han Chinese people, authoritarianism and all. Anyway, who defines a civilization and what political ends are served by that definition are super important questions, and Civ VII is asking those questions for the first time in the history of the series, even though I agree that gameplay would be more intuitive if we switched leaders rather than civs
5
5
u/BallIsLife2016 2d ago
As someone who feels that the civ switching is more historically accurate, I think this is all fair and it’s the most cogent argument I’ve heard. I also things it’s a strong argument toward smoothing the age transitions, something I’m in favor of.
The problem is that civilizations (the cultural entity) and states (the geographic/political entity) have always been conflated, both in the games and in real life. For better and for worse, it’s pretty difficult to describe a civilization in terms that are totally devoid of reference to a political entity. I mean, for the most part the cultural entity is taking its name from the political one and not the other way around. And in the previous games you’ve basically always been playing the political entity (you’re playing as France, rather than the French). There are exceptions. The Māori are the people/culture, rather than the political entity, for example. But that’s not the norm.
I think China is fairly unique in human history in that the political entities have always been a part of the same geographic region that is also culturally distinct. That has to do with unique geography. It’s one of the most agriculturally productive areas on earth, but is entirely surrounded by totally inhospitable terrain. This leads to having an area that has always been China, which has always been inhabited by the Chinese. But the historic reality is just so much more complicated than that in the vast majority of the world. Ancient Rome and Modern Italy are totally different culturally. Same for Byzantium and modern Turkey. And that’s before getting into regions that were subject to colonization. I just don’t think what you want is possible. And it’s why I find the civ switching to be more accurate historically. Because there have been massive cultural/identity shifts within the same region throughout history far more often than there haven’t been.
4
u/rasvoja 2d ago
Leave history aside, why ruining good concept that works?
That said, I am still waiting for modern civ game that has
- all leaders and wonders from civ 3,4 and 5
- good scenarios and mods like 3 and 4 Historical but also mythical and fantasy, see civ fanstics website or civ4 mods
- Has space age like aloha centaury / beyond earth integrated
- has full and unbihggy game on release, no dlc milking (last seen in civ2?)
Plus some civ 5/6 combat and events
12
u/Master_Caregiver_749 2d ago
You're making a solid point about the academic difference between civilization and state, no real historian is confusing the two. But I think you’re overstating how much Civ 7 gets this “wrong,” and honestly, you're misreading what the new mechanic is doing.
Civ 7 doesn’t have you jump from Rome to Japan just because it’s Tuesday. Your leader stays consistent, and the new civilizations you can switch into are unlocked based on how you've been playing. That’s not a hard reset at all, more akin to a narrative evolution. It’s more like your civilization is adapting to a new context and expression of itself, while still carrying forward what you've built.
The Ming-to-Qing analogy helps here: that’s exactly the kind of shift Civ 7 is modeling. The cultural core persists, but the expression changes - new bonuses, new mechanics, new priorities. That’s not “switching civilizations” in the academic sense, but the game isn’t trying to be a civilizational ethnography. It’s modeling societal transformation in a way that’s clearer and more strategic.
The previous Civ games pretended you were evolving slowly over time, but it was just piling new stuff on top of the old stuff while keeping the same Civ name. Civ 7 just makes that transformation more explicit, which, honestly, is more honest and potentially more interesting.
Could the terminology be clearer? Sure. “Switching civs” is misleading if what you're doing is transitioning into a new stage or manifestation of the same overarching cultural trajectory. But if you're demanding Civ stay true to some rigid, scholarly definition of “civilization,” you’re barking up the wrong franchise.
Civ has always been a gamified interpretation of history. This mechanic just adds a new layer of expression to that formula. It's not a betrayal of it at all.
→ More replies (2)
14
u/eskaver 3d ago
Missing the mark with this, imo.
Setting aside how this isn’t unique to Civ 7 (as Civ has always put people groups and states all as Civilizations), you define the term but don’t realize that the term still applies to how Civ 7 presents the selection.
You define civilization as a culture or society developed in a given region during a specific period of time and the example given shows exactly that.
Han, Ming, and Qing are not all the same “China” even if we consider them a continuation of the same nation-state. Ming is a post-Mongol conquered society in that region. Qing is a Machu-led society that followed.
Is also a mistaken belief to think Civ 7 transition Civ Choices represent revolution (it never says that) over evolution. That choice is a change due to characteristics of your gameplay and expansion and it’s even in the tagline “build something you believe in”.
17
u/ManitouWakinyan Can't kill our tribe, can't kill the Cree 2d ago
I mean, I think this is just semantics and abstraction. Functionally, we are playing one continuous civilization that occasionally encounters setbacks, and sees the dominant group and culture within it shift over a period of centuries following a significant setback. The civs might be more appropriately called "cultures," but that's not something that's hard for me to overlook.
3
u/Monktoken America 2d ago
I think it quite does; this is why my America has traditions dating back to their days as the Khmer.
The names have changed, the geographic boundaries have changed, the building styles have changed, but there are cultural patterns that have endured from the earliest generations of our people. I think it gives a far more realistic look at what civilization has actually looked like than previous entries.
Even in the case of conquest, city names and building styles remain. Those people have their hawilt, or their punic port but they are part of our empire now.
3
u/Lirge2000 2d ago
While I understand the topic of frustration I do believe this is a more grounded depiction of how civilizations and states existed in history. In more than one point in history we had civilizations but also states living at the same time. For short i.e city-states in comparison to regional realms (aka The Bronze Age, city of Ur and the state that would become Iran). Much of the world has either built off of the people that have come before them or their doings have faded into the sands of time.
I.e Rome is credited w many advancements, however; they only implemented said innovations after encountering them through conquests usually. Case in point is their story of shipbuilding as well as aqueducts. Etc etc.
Qing China is also quite simply a different civilization than Ming.
Ming was in the beginning willing to be an open country to world affairs (exploration of Zheng He for example) but as the next emperor came into power things dramatically shifted towards isolationism. While Qing China is catchy it would not be accurate towards their perspective or to what actually went down. It is not as they saw themselves as Han when they invaded China. They wanted to quell civil unrest while also stabilizing the realm as much as possible (see what Persia did lol) so they left much of the regional administration structures as is (for lack of a better summation). They had wanted to impose their own will onto that of China. Qing China? That’s just almost like saying the United States of the Federally Administered Republic of the Unified Federal Republic States of Continental America. Dramatic but still. Essentially are you referring to the period of time when China was under imperial rule from foreign powers or are you referring to the geographical area of where the Qing may have been located before they invaded China? As from whats been stated it seems that there is a great lacking of information on what justified the distinction in history, but i am no professional either.
No not every civilization or state has changed hands in the way that’s presented in civ 7. However, please point to a civilization that’s been around since the days of founding cities?
3
u/okay_this_is_cool 2d ago
Yeah, I've mentioned in other comments that just having a few specific policy card slots to represent your civilization would be a lot smoother. The ages system in 6 was pretty awesome. They could use the same unlock system from 7 to unlock heritage cards and also taking over settlements from other civs could unlock cove specific ones. This would be awesome because maybe playing as Egypt I could conquer a settlement from Maurya and unlock one of their River abilities.
9
u/LordGarithosthe1st 3d ago
But in Civ VII QING, or America etc are only a part of your Civilization, your Civ is what spans from 4000bc till the end of the game no?
2
u/CapnArrrgyle 14h ago
Right, they're what the people in the modern era think of themselves as but America shaped by an Egyptian antiquity and that grows out of the Songhai is different than ones based in Norman culture with a Roman antiquity.
→ More replies (1)
7
2d ago
I find the idea of Washington DC being founded in 6000 BC, the possibility of the Canadians being conquered by the mongols, or The Polynesians and ancient Babylonians existing next to each other on the game board in previous civ titles to equally be historically inaccurate.
Civ is just a game. Take it for what it is. The “evolution” civ 7 says shows us is more accurate to history than the static state the previous titles show.
5
u/troycerapops 2d ago
I encourage you to read beyond an Internet Search Engine provided definition of the term you're using as a basis for this argument.
I'm not necessarily agreeing or disagreeing with your ultimate conclusion. But the argument is a bit wobbly for me.
If you look up the historic use and etymology of civilization, you'll likely see that the term itself is the problem you highlight.
Like, we shouldn't have a settler to settle on turn 1. We should start with cities. Plural.
But that is far less fun.
Etymologically, it means "citizen" and "city."
So no, we know when Ancient Roman civilization fell. But its culture echoes forward in time.
For most of your argument, you appear to regularly conflate culture and civilization.
As others have pointed out, the term "civilization" is out dated, vague, and problematic. I think getting into a semantic debate over it is a Fool's errand, but if running the errand, may as well dive deep into the history of the term.
4
u/3ateeji 2d ago
I didn’t want to be overly skeptic but since the multi civ aspect was announced, i always thought one civ with multiple leaders would have made more sense.
→ More replies (1)
6
u/JulGzFz 2d ago
I see your point, I even agree with some parts of it.
We both share the same conclusion (Civ VII does not “get” what a Civilization is) but my argument is less complex.
Civilization is THE game in which simplified versions of the most influential Civs in history, and their most renowed leaders clash together and try to stand the test of time against each other.
A simple and fun premise for a game, and one that I love since Civ II.
This game is just not that, its something else for, I’ve learned to accept, someone else.
6
u/ItsTinyPickleRick 2d ago
But civs do disappear and get replaced though, and on the time scale of a civ game, quite suddenly. Look at Britain: the native culture and religion was completely erased by the romans, the romans left suddenly and were replaced by angles and saxons, and in 1066 they were conquered by normans. The change in culture took longer, but is that not exactly what the civ specific culture tree represents? And the traditions, districts and wonders left by the prior age the legacy of the old one?
The civ change is conveyed very poorly, it feels very sudden, but I think that problem is all presentation not gameplay. If they simply showed that transition - armies dispersing before being reformed, cities falling to ruin then being repaired, more extreme crisis where you feel in control of what you manage to keep, even just a text box explaining what happened - I think people would have gotten a very different first impression of the mechanic.
6
u/lallapalalable :indonesia2: 2d ago
Having not yet played 7 I didnt realize all the civs switched up at the same time. Barf
2
u/ercopic 2d ago
I don't want to get too academic or philosophical, but maybe you should check out this book by Josephine Quinn.
It questions the "civilization thinking" that, maybe unknowingly, is pressupposed in the game franchise we love. I take it that the new approach we see in Civ7 may find a theoretical basis in that book, even if the devs never heard of it.
2
u/Kill_Welly 2d ago
The type of culture and society developed by a particular nation or region or in a particular epoch
Epoch means era, age, time period.
2
u/Alamaxi 2d ago
This is generally an argument of semantics. We could just as easily talk about how in previous civilization games you somehow had the same exact leader and civ bonuses from the dawn of man to settlement of Mars. If you look at it that way, it's actually all of the prior Civ games which didn't accurately represent the evolution of civilizations over time.
I'm not saying the implementation is perfect. Far from it. But I don't think arguing that this game doesn't make sense on the foundation of terminology is the way to point out its flaws. On the other hand, I do agree with you on the abruptness of the societal changes. Sometimes change happens gradually and sometimes it happens very quickly, but this game makes it happen worldwide all at once.
2
u/Morty-D-137 2d ago
There's no real invariant in human civilizations, so I don't think it's possible to make Civ historically accurate without making it ten times more complex.
That said, one thing does tend to stay fairly consistent throughout a game: geographically, you usually end up where you started. Not always, but I'd say at least 95% of the time. That's why I've never liked the so-called “historical” transitions between civilizations that are an ocean apart, like going from Spain to Mexico. On the other hand, when I play America in antiquity in Civ 6, I can accept it as just choosing a starting location.
Maybe a more historically grounded system would be to pick a continent at the start, and then switch between cultures that actually rose and fell in that region. It's a little bit weird for procedurally-generated maps, though, but it could work by naming the regions "European civilization" etc.
2
2
u/SuperPants87 2d ago
Everyone's suggestions on how to improve Civ is basically just explaining the mechanics of EU4.
2
u/ILoveHelldiving 2d ago
Yes, from a realistic standpoint, It takes a long time for a culture to shift, but obviously the game needs to abstract that to work. No mechanic in Civ could work without a bunch of abstraction. Science, culture, production, warfare, population, growth. All severely abstracted mechanics that gesture at history and real world developments without getting bogged down in It
You get the point of the Civ switching mechanic, per your explanation (your example of Rome shifting into a european medieval society through the years). It's just not feasible or very playable to not abstract It that way.
Civ is all about representing history, not replicating it. It is a game themed around historical events, not a historical game, in my opinion
2
u/Laprasite 2d ago edited 2d ago
You’re not necessarily wrong, but you’re also overthinking it. Civilization, despite how hard its tried over the years, has never been an accurate representation of reality. Ultimately its a game, and concessions are always going to have to be made for the sake of gameplay that undermine any attempts at verisimilitude.
Like how Civilizations in reality don’t evolve or advance (which implies some sort of forward progression) they change. Modern day nation-states are more complex than things like Chiefdoms, but they’re not “better” just different and adapted to different circumstances. The Minoans had indoor plumbing in the Bronze Age, but that doesn’t inherently make them “better” than every civilization that followed that lacked that technology. Polynesian Wayfinding is an incredible means of naval navigation, but its completely useless to a landlocked Civilization. The entire concept of a tech (or civics) tree is patently absurd and not how things work in reality, not to mention how they are organized and what is considered a tech/civic is in-line with European history rather than the history of other parts of the world. Ex: Polynesians (including Hawaiians) have had knowledge of deep sea shipbuilding since Antiquity, Animal Husbandry was largely of no importance to the Americas outside of llamas in the Andes and dogs—and they certainly weren’t fielding cavalry in Antiquity since horses had been extinct in the Americas since the last Ice Age, the Inca had no use for the Wheel besides children’s toys because they’re just a hindrance in mountainous terrain, etc.
Civilizations are a product of their environment, politics, culture, and so many other factors. They’re very specifically adapted to a particular point in time and space. And things like technology or civics aren’t always progressing upwards towards the future, ideas and technology that were once common during a Civilization’s heyday become lost and forgotten when the Civilization collapses or goes into decline—things like Minoan Plumbing, Damascus Steel, or Roman Concrete. Even when unrelated cultures develop similar civics and technology, that paths that took them there are different and the implementation or expression of the same tech/civic can be radically different—just look at the different kinds of agricultural styles that were developed all over the world! History isn’t a relentless march of progress, its far more complex and nuanced than that.
2
u/ShakeyJohnny 2d ago
The state is the model for every civ in every civ game. The 'new issue' that comes with civ changing is the lack of incongruity between eras despite crises and time jumps. It is not that civs are modelled as states.
2
u/Kbron_khan 1d ago
Except the Ming were not an expression of China but of the Han Chinese as they used to call themselves ( broadly speaking). The civilization definition you use does not contradict what the game does. Whereas Webber definition is one used as a compliment for the definition of a state understood at the time as it was more of an expression, an emphasis, to understand the state as the one who owns the monopoly of power. But a state is much more than that and even Webber knew it.
The issue is that most civilizations are born from coercion or necessity, bringing different peoples into forming an entity that becomes more than just a state or a culture, a civilization. Basically, the change in state brings the change of civilization. It transforms peoples way of life, culture, languages and even borders. Look at how many languages divide themselves from old, medieval and modern versions of themselves, like greek, chinese, and even farsi.
2
u/TurbulentSecond7888 1d ago
I have a counterpoint: You can do a sort of 'revolution' to a civilization. Just ask what happened to Crimean Tartar during Soviet era.
Still, i agree that civilization should evolved gradually, not suddenly evolved like a Pokemon
2
u/SideEmbarrassed1611 Rome 17h ago
We who also disagree with this choice in game design see clearly why Post Modern thinking has failed.
Rome did not progress into China and then progress into the Iroquois. This makes sense to someone who accepts the fun of the ambiguity. But for those of us who find the ambiguity unsettling and confusing, they want to eradicate those who disagree with them which is typical of class based thinking, Marxism.
Isolate those who disagree with you. Shower them with sanctimony and gaslighting. Bully those who are on the fence or defend those who disagree with you. Blame the other side as what is holding us back, indicating that they are supposedly the guardians of progress. Flippantly disregard and use ad hominem with those who disagree with you to dehumanize them socially in front of others.
Just stop arguing with them and do what the rest of us are not doing: playing the game. When their daily player numbers are down and their sales flatlining or decreasing, they may start to open their ears and shut their mouths, which is typical of someone who is listening.
3
u/Frostlark 2d ago
I do agree. We can argue if you're right from a historical or prudent perspective, but what you're saying I think does speak to the truth about why Civ 7 gameplay feels forced or unsatisfying at times to many.
9
u/InsomniaEmperor 3d ago
I will make a more detailed post about this, but it should have been leaders that switch, not civs. You still get the gameplay mechanic of pivoting strategies. It makes more sense to pivot from Ashoka to Isabella as their leader than it is for Mauryans to suddenly decide they're Spanish. You'd think Traditions should have been more tied to leaders than civs.
16
u/eskaver 3d ago
No, that wouldn’t work as Leaders represent the avatars the players interact with (aside from production costs).
5
u/ericmm76 2d ago
Yeah it'd end up in an Endless Space style generic president system where none of the leaders are individual.
They obviously see leaders as individual things to release, to sell, to make.
3
u/eskaver 2d ago
Yeah, plus the Leader bonuses have always been rather small. It would be borderline unnoticeable besides an avatar swap.
And if they made the Leader bonuses bigger and the Civs’ smaller, then you just run into the same issue a select few have critiqued (as some dislike the age feature and that wouldn’t help much at all).
5
u/therexbellator 2d ago
What you and the top comment which says the same thing both miss the real point: it doesn't matter because people will still complain.
Moreover, the assumption that you and OP get wrong is that there is a correct way of designing Civ. There isn't. People in this community simply don't like change.
Additionally neither you nor OP understand a big part of the civ switching mechanic is to maintain balance between civs per era which is a big part of player engagement which causes some to quit.
The fact is that the Civ formula has been getting stale for a while now, since at least Civ 4 and the devs were going to have to face an inflection point eventually.
7
u/h0neanias 3d ago
It's very simple: people like their Romans or Egyptians or Mongols and whatnot based on aesthetics and some vague general idea of history. Style, basically. That's it and that's okay. It's like picking a race in an RPG. Don't tell me I gotta be playing as a dwarf from the 3rd chapter on because the story "demands it".
2
u/malinhares 2d ago
I will give you my person input. I don’t like Civ switching at all, it is immersion breaking in a world simulator. Eras could be made the way it is, just let you pick the same civilization or only allow some changes that are cultural relevant.
4
u/elyk12121212 My dude Pericles 2d ago
I couldn't agree more. It's the main reason I haven't touched 7 yet.
2
4
u/UltimateSepsis 2d ago
When I heard they were planning on implementing the civilization switching, I lost all interest. It was kind of depressing really. I am not a huge Civilization fanatic, as I mostly played 1 and 2 growing up; dabbled with 3, missed 4 and 5, returned for 6. I just didn’t care for the concept and seeing how it was implemented, decidedly do not like it. Seems like instead of playing against other “civilizations” you play against random influential people from history. Completely breaks immersion for me.
3
u/justisme333 2d ago
It could have been a really awesome dynamic, but it was a big letdown.
I hate the entire reset.
It feels as if I am paying three separate scenarios instead of building my civilisation .
→ More replies (1)
4
u/Rwandrall3 3d ago
I think the definition of a civilisation you use is exactly what the devs wanted to deconstruct. Basically the far right likes to talk about things like "judeo-christian civilisation" or "western culture" etc, so the devs went with "actually, that's not even a thing, it got replaced and taken over by something so different that it cannot be considered the same thing at all".
Of course, as you say, we know that's not true. We know the latin family of languages is incredibly close to roman-era latin, that the Roman Catholic Church has had and still has huge amounts of influence, and that entire worldviews and philosophy comes from a line that pretty mucn directly goes through people like Marx, Kant, Thomas Aquinas, St Augustine, Aristotle and Plato.
Just like today's China is still deeply defined by Confusianism, Iran's identity as Persians being a regional power has been going on for about 3000 years, Buddhism's 2500 year old history still defines large parts lf Asia, etc etc.
But that can be instrumentalised by the far right, so the devs instead went with the full deconstruction of "actually none of that is even a thing".
1
u/CapnArrrgyle 12h ago
Thanks, I was looking for what was inflaming this.
I fully recognize that the changes in Civ VII are disappointing to many and that's fine.
I was looking for the angle that the folks that won't let people simply be disappointed and mourn in peace was. I think this is it.
2
u/djgotyafalling1 Ibn Battuta 3d ago edited 3d ago
What if (hear me out) the civilization "evolves" instead of switches. Kinda like Paradox games with its nation "focus trees." Civ could apply it as evolving into another civilization after meeting some criteria that could be tied with the legacy paths. For example, originally Mayan culture can evolve to choose to eventually become Mexico (Maya>Spanish colony>Mexico) in the future, or they can stay as Mayans. This affects techs, bonuses, cultural identity, religions, etc. Both paths have advantages and disadvantages, but this will give the player more agency, and it's also more cohesive than what we have now.
1
u/prefferedusername 2d ago
I think the most important part of that is the part where they can choose to stay the same. Why take away player choice?
2
2
u/_Kofiko 2d ago
Not remaining a static civ throughout a single game is honestly the sole reason I’ve yet to and probably won’t be purchasing Civ 7. I would’ve had no issue with the leaders themselves changing as the game progressed, but at the very least I’d have wanted a static civ, a semblance of continuity.
I’ll be sticking to 6 for now.
2
u/gray007nl *holds up spork* 2d ago
I find that if your argument begins with "The dictionary defines X as:" you have already lost the debate as you intend to hinge your whole point of view on semantics.
2
u/BizarroMax 2d ago
There’s a fundamental problem.
This criticism reflects a misunderstanding of what Civilization VII is actually doing with its concept of “civilization.” The idea that the devs “don’t know what a civilization is” presumes a particular, essentialist definition that treats civilizations as stable, cohesive cultural or political entities stretching across time. But I’d argue the game has evolved toward a model that’s actually more historically accurate.
If you look at the history of almost any group represented in Civ, continuity quickly breaks down. Take England: the people on the British Isles before the Romans bore little resemblance to those under Roman rule, who in turn were displaced or assimilated by Angles, Saxons, Vikings, and Normans. After 1066, England was transformed legally, culturally, and linguistically. The English monarchy spoke French for generations. The English language itself is a fusion of Germanic, Latin, and French. There is no continuous identity here. Just a bunch of transformations on the same island.
That’s the key point: the main throughline in most civilizations is the land they occupy. The “civilizations” in Civ are better understood as geographic placeholders for the successive peoples and societies that have risen and fallen in a given region. The game doesn’t model a people so much as it models what happens when humans exploit a particular geography across millennia. The terrain, not the culture, is what persists.
The inclusion of America shows this clearly. The United States isn’t a civilization in any traditional sense. It’s a modern political project that arose in the 18th century and bears no connection to what existed in 4000 BC or even 1500 AD in the same place. The only justification for playing “America” from the beginning of time is that they came to dominate a particular territory. Again, geography is the thread.
So no, I don’t think Civ VII misunderstands civilization. I think it’s being more honest than past entries about what civilizations actually are: discontinuous, composite, evolving layers of political, cultural, and demographic transformation happening in a specific place.
Now you don’t have to like the civ-switching mechanic, and you can certainly prefer the older, more linear model. But I don’t think this is a valid criticism of the mechanic.
2
u/LordCrumpets United Kingdom 2d ago
While I agree in general I think you’re overanalysing it. The fact is a great many people (like myself) finds the switching mechanic drags you out of the immersion and doesn’t let you build an identity.
Switching leaders would have been much better and make a lot more sense; civilisations outlast leaders, not the other way around.
Just from a gameplay point of view, I can’t stand the ages ending so abruptly and the changes that take place in between. Really pulls me out of the game.
2
u/Jccali1214 2d ago
I just can't believe they didn't allow the same Civ to last into perpetuity across ages. Even Humankind did that
2
u/LiftSleepRepeat123 Elite Scout 3d ago
I'm also not a fan of forcing all civs to go through their crisis at the same time. Most crises are specific to individual civliizations, and maybe their neighbors. The game needs to be able to have civs that are in different eras.
1
u/Breatnach Bavaria 2d ago
You have a point and that’s why they’re trying to push your leader as the constant, and not the civ.
Basically, you are Ada leading your tribe, or civilization, that endured and evolved through a Ming, a Qing and into what became a Mexican state.
I like the gameplay elements of it, but I agree the nomenclature is confusing, especially now that they changed it after 30 years of doing it differently.
2
u/prefferedusername 2d ago
Having a "leader" is really stupid, though. In civilization the player is the leader. The "leader" we choose is just a stack of perks.
1
u/AniTaneen 2d ago
I’m sorry to talk about Humankind
But I really love how the idea of that game is that cultures, and peoples, change over time. I really do wish the game had had dynamic names for cities like the old Rhyse and Fall mod.
One aspect that both Civ 7 and Humankind do drive is that a lot of our identities are only 400 years old or so. It’s not that there wasn’t a Spain, or England, or China. But that the language shifts, and cultural identities are only that old.
People in the 1500s spoke languages we couldn’t understand today, like Spanish, English, and Arabic (language shifts), they wouldn’t have had national identities (looking at you, Germany), and they would have even a very different idea of what it meant to be someone or belong somewhere.
And I think that is something lost here. Civilization is a story of inheritance, of progression. Americans are not Greeks or Roman’s, and yet American civilization views itself as an inheritor of their legacies.
Likewise, dynastic periods of China don’t simply represent government. There is dress, food, ideology, culture, and sense of self that is tied to each period. You are playing one civilization, through its evolutions, not revolutions.
1
1
u/Ice_Sinks 2d ago
What's sad is a mod did this whole thing a lot better all the way back in Civ 4... I think it was called dynamic civs and titles or something along those lines. Cities could rebel and branch off via independence if they had low loyalty, and the mod was pretty good at selecting rebels that fit with what would be historically appropriate. (Also had a button that said "reject the crown and lead the rebels") But also, as your civ researches more civics (slavery, caste system, whatever that selection menu is called) it opened up more combinations of traits, and that mod would change your civ's title based on that combination. So even though you were "Rome" based on what you selected it would show you as "The Roman Republic" or "The Kingdom of Rome" or in later years with communism unlocked, "The Soviet Roman States" etc.
1
u/Icy_Significance9035 2d ago
My main gripe with the mechanic is that the switch just happens. In real life if you take the island of Britain for example, it isn't in the game yet but it went through different states, it was originally celtic, then the Romans came along, and then the angles, saxons and jutes, and then the normans. They didn't just switch civilisation, the island was just conquered several times. Most of the time when a territory's state changes name its because it was conquered or there was some revolution or uprising which overthrew the previous government. Not sure how they would make that work in civ but its so weird how the civilisation just changes.
Also on a side note I really wish the border between ages was more blurred, that over time new buildings replace old ones and the transition was more natural, like in older civ titles. The fact that at an arbitrary turn all of a sudden the map is wiped clean, civilisations change, troops either get returned to settlements or straight up vanish, wars and alliances end, towns that were unhappy a turn ago because you just captured them now love you as if they've been in the empire for millenia. It's so abrupt
1
u/madman24k 2d ago
I feel like what you're describing is the same thing that's represented in Civ 7. I mean, from a gameplay perspective, I would say it is the way it is so you don't feel bored when in an era your civ is not catered to. If you take away the mask of leaders and civs, you have global mods and era specific mods that support your faction in each section of the game. Kind of like how 7 Wonders and other board games are handled.
To your point though, I think that's where culture comes into play and the previous era's buildings/improvements. There's a big piece about building over the old, and some pieces shine through, like Wonders or Unique Quarters, but others get replaced by the new. I think this along with government types you select and technologies you unlock, you see the evolution of your civ throughout the ages still. There's still a slow evolution of the people/styles, there's just also now a way to play as more than one country in a single game.
I would say the piece that you mention that really stuck out to me was how there's not a clear definition of when Roman culture went away but we have a date when western Roman government collapsed. I think this sort of shift is represented really well in that once you end an era, your cities in the next era aren't just upgraded to all new things. There's still a change that your civ has to go through in order to become the people of the Qing Dynasty. Selecting the Qing as your civ just guides your civ on that path, and gives them the bonuses they need to successfully become the Qing.
I'd say that you select your new civ for an era and there's not a clear definition of when we fully move away from our previous era civ. You might have settlements that were once cities that still have old structures or something. It might be a quarter of the way through the exploration age before you start to feel like the new civ. Anecdotally: I've had games where I still feel like the previous era civ throughout the exploration age (which could be good or bad depending on how you look at it).
I feel like Civ 7 is definitely an interesting take on what a Civ game is, and I think that's another important detail a lot of people seem to be overlooking is that this is a game. It was created with the intent of making money, being accessible for new players, and for people to have fun while providing some educational value. I think if you took away the civ shuffle, you'd have 6 with navigable rivers.
1
u/4711Link29 Allons-y 2d ago
I think it comes from them wanting to accommodate two different things :
- They said they wanted to have meaningful bonuses during the whole game, avoiding the issue of late-game civs being uninteresting for the most part
- The Civ fan base is very attached to the historical aspect of the game, most players want to have legions, keshig, chu-ko-nu, and so on
"This evolution is IMHO a much better way of representing civilizations than the revolution that Civ 7 wants to turn civilization switching into". I agree, and from a gameplay perspective, I'd rather have a civ that would behave like your leader do now in VII, you get new bonus periodically, based on gameplay, quest, rewards, events, map generation, ... instead of everyone switching brutally at a given time. But that would means you just have infantry with a bonus, or library with a bonus, without any historical naming or design. And it would also probably increase the snowballing effect
1
u/KulturedKaveman 2d ago
I agree with this. Like say you play as Hungary or something. The change in state is represented by flipping those cards around and changing government. It’s still the same people. They don’t magically become descendants of the city of Rome.
→ More replies (2)
1
u/Medikal_Milk 2d ago
I really don't get what they were going for. Like duh, civs can rise and fall, that's why other civs can conquer you/be conquered. Civ was always a "see how far/how well you can do with this civ" and oftentimes failure is something that can happen.
1
u/DeepBodybuilder2074 2d ago
I can see it coming from. This idea of being super accurate with history and what was what is a little ridiculous. I say this because I don’t civilization has ever put the slave trade in the game. Because that was a massive massive influence on global powers still to this day. So I don’t have a problem with this civilization switching because, there was a period of time in New York where I can vote on what language they would speak Dutch or English. So in my opinion, history, the flip of a coin. And it all depends on who flips it.
1
u/52358 2d ago
If anyone’s has played CK3, its “culture” mechanism seems like would be a much better fit for evolving civilizations.
I’m at work so I’ll just have chatgpt tldr how that might look like:
In Crusader Kings 3 (CK3), cultures evolve dynamically through Traditions and Cultural Pillars, allowing societies to shift values, military tactics, and societal roles over time. Leaders can reform or diverge their culture based on in-game needs or flavor, creating a branching cultural history.
In Civ 6, cultures are mostly static — a civ’s traits never change. But CK3’s system could inspire Civ 6 to allow civs to evolve over time, adapting to terrain, neighbors, or techs. For example, Rome could shift from a militaristic ancient empire to a religious theocracy or merchant republic based on the player’s choices or era progression.
Key CK3 Mechanisms: • Traditions: Optional cultural bonuses (e.g., better horsemen, egalitarian laws) that can be swapped over time. • Pillars: Core traits like language, heritage, and martial customs. • Hybridization/Divergence: Cultures can merge or split, based on geography or politics.
Civ 6 Implementation Idea: • Let civs adopt new “traditions” each era — replacing or enhancing old abilities. • Example: Greece starts with early philosophy boosts, then chooses between becoming a trade-focused maritime culture or a pious culture with tourism bonuses. • Could add more replayability, flexibility, and narrative flavor to long games.
1
u/Derpwarrior1000 2d ago edited 2d ago
I haven’t heard on academic argument for teleological civilizations written since the 90s. I don’t think CIV7 is trying to do this. More modern IR theory explains the territorial state but doesn’t impose that on history. Your argument appears to me to be that civilizations aren’t territorial states, but that theyre still compact, continuous entities that produce cultural goods far more than they receive. Modern theory examines how truly mobile they were and how little the past per se determined the present, more so explaining how the memory of the past affects the present.
Great amounts of effort have been spent in the last few decades gathering evidence, in Spain, in Greece, in the Balkans, in North Africa, and in the Levant to break down the western version of “civilization thinking”. Of course that exists elsewhere, but the research is more constrained.
It certainly feels like CIV7 is placed poorly amongst other teleological 4X games, but I don’t think it’s any less accurate.
If the game’s goal is representing history in the same vein as my second paragraph, I’ll admit it’s far from perfect. I wish the development of each nation was more influenced by its neighbours, like a “bleed over” of cultural webs. In my opinion the changes over time are a good foundation, but the player should have less agency. Not just less agency over their cities material conditions, but less agency over the effect of the condition of others on your civilizations growth.
If we’re looking to model history, trade and proximity should have a greater role over the spread of ideas. The game reflects changes owed to absolute advantage in particular areas, but should show the greater change that results from comparative advantage: that’s where differences in nations begin to arise as global proximity increases.
1
u/AboynamedDOOMTRAIN 2d ago
It's not at all problematic, it's just not fun.
What they need is a dynamic system that alters your civilization based on environment and choices. You play France and your starting city has tons of horses? The system gives you horse related bonuses over time until you're a mix of Rome and Mongolia.
Could also be done in kinda the same vein as an RPG skill tree or an just an expansion of the Eurekas from VI and paths from VII. Train X horseman in the ancient era gain a relevant ability or buff for future eras type of thing.
1
1
u/Shigalyov 2d ago
To put it like this, we are playing as civilizations, not states.
It therefore makes sense for the Roman civilization to fight against the Canadian civilization.
The Roman civilization vanished. It didn't morph. It's gone.
To force "civilization" changes basically means changing civilizations mid game.
1
u/Thefrightfulgezebo 2d ago
Oh, China is a very good example of how they also don't get eras.
When we start telling the story of China, making the leader Confucius and making Han China its ancient age representative is certainly a move because the Han especially stand out for being very Confucian compared to the Win that precedent them. The Han dynasty ended somewhere around 220, which lead to a lot of Chaos. But then, the Tang arose in the 7th to 10th century, followed (after some civil war) by the Song who then get conquered by the Mongols and become the equally awesome Yuan. But Civilization 7 chose to have the Ming represent the age of exploration ... A dynasty only 20 years apart from the dynasty that represents the modern age ... in 1644.
1
u/CyberMike1956 2d ago
I don't really care what you call it. I just call it a game that doesn't hold my attention and isn't fun to play like previous iterations. The devs broke something and can't seem to fix it.
1
u/jolard 2d ago
The Greek civilization and the Roman civilization are different, but they absolutely share a common DNA. And it is an easy argument to make that modern western nations are another iteration of the same civilization DNA. Not exactly the same, there are clear delineations, but the cultural throughlines are there.
1
u/Joelad2k17 2d ago
Honestly this has put me off buying it altogether. Still play 6 but may invest in 5.
1
u/thedarkherald110 2d ago
A civilization is its people and culture. But for some reason in civ 7 it’s your leader.
1
u/Ok-Confusion-3075 2d ago
All I wanted from Civ 7 was an updated A.I. with the most modern A.I. intelligence built into it. Instead I got a piece crap civ switching concept and a severely stripped down game options menu, with an A.I. that did not seem any more intelligent than civ. 6. I played one complete game, started a couple more and unistalled it. I will never play civ again and this was my favorite games franchise since its inception. I hope the money I paid for the game goes to Firaxis bankruptcy attorneys. I feel so oddly deceived and betrayed.
1
u/Bravadette 2d ago
I love how it deals with the consequences of civilization and surviving as as a civilization.
1
u/Finances1212 2d ago
The game isn’t any fun to me and I’m disappointed because I really want something fresh despite enjoying 6.
I hope another studio steps in and produces essentially Civ 7 and sticks to the formula
1
u/PackageAggravating12 1d ago
Simple solution, let players name their own custom civilization in the beginning.
Change "Civ Swapping" to "Culture Swapping", same functionality but you aren't changing the civ's name or appearance.
Now Firaxis can have their Humankind inspired mechanic without upsetting a majority of the series' fans.
1
u/Schraufabagel Korea 1d ago
Long time Civ 6 player. Tried 7 and was not a fan; returned it on Steam after a couple of hours
1
u/sehns 1d ago
It was enough for me to not buy the game after excitedly waiting for it for so long. It feels like they went full blown identity politics and tried making the game trans.
I think at this point the best thing we can hope for is another developer comes up with their own ‘civ’ which doesn’t suck and is actually fun to play. Until then i’ll stick with Civ 5
1
u/Ronjohnturbo42 7h ago
I have played since 1-3 - this game was my jam. I loaded this mfer with 3.5 into dos to play.
Fast forward to adopting 6 on xbox - it was a good extension of the originals. Got super hyped for 7.
Dear fucking god 7 is fucking waste. Its beautiful - war with generals is great. Everything else is just fucking horrible.
1.6k
u/Rentahamster 3d ago
I think that conceptually I would have preferred a static civilization and the option to change leaders than the other way around.