Benjamin Franklin, leader of Greece

[Fire Game Studios]

I started playing now and it says Benjamin Franklin is Greek and ruler of Greece. Are you guys high or something? I was going to play with my son so he can learn something, but I didn't know you guys lost your minds.

[back_buffer]

Don’t forget to teach your son about the time Abraham Lincoln built the Great Pyramid in New York City then turned America into a communist nation, all in 3000 BC.

[Ðe§er†FoX]

Highly advertised feature explicitly stated on the store page... perhaps you should learn to read about something first before buying it.

[Count]

Bastardization of history.

[Fire Game Studios]

Now we’re getting to the real issue: it’s not just historical inaccuracies, it’s how far they’re willing to stretch them. Yeah, Civ always let you rewrite history, but there was still some level of internal logic. You could have Lincoln building the Pyramids, sure, but at least he was still leading America.

Now, when you have Benjamin Franklin ruling Greece or random leaders thrown onto civilizations they had no connection to, it starts feeling less like ‘what-if’ history and more like a parody of itself. The difference is that before, Civ asked, ‘What if history had gone differently?’ Now, it’s just, ‘Here’s a mix-and-match of famous people, enjoy the chaos.’

So yeah, I can roll with historical weirdness, but there’s a point where it stops feeling like a Civilization game and starts feeling like a joke. That’s the problem.

[Flash]

Excuse me? Benjamin Franklin leads the Khmer and Chola Empire.. XD ... its the silliest rubbish ever.
As I've said in my review as well as in other threads.. The objective of Civ was always to guide your civilization to supremacy. With these swappable civs, its become more of a stat\competitive pvp focus style game than a strategy survival sim.

[Mercutio]

You said you played earlier Civ's... but obviously you never played Civ 4. This type of thing was possible in Civ 4. You play games to have fun, not to fulfill some Historical 101 class. Please go out and create the game that you want to play.

[Fire Game Studios]

Of course I played Civ 4. And yeah, weird historical scenarios were possible there too; but the difference is in how they were presented. Civ 4 still maintained a sense of internal consistency. Leaders were tied to their actual civilizations, and while alternate history played a role, it didn’t feel like a complete free-for-all mix-and-match like it does now.

And yeah, games should be fun; that’s the whole point. But fun doesn’t mean removing depth or making things feel random for the sake of it. Civ used to strike a balance between creative history and meaningful mechanics. Now, it leans more into spectacle than strategy.

As for ‘making my own game,’ that’s a lazy argument. I can critique something I’ve invested time in and still want it to improve. If people never criticized games, nothing would ever get better.

[Mercutio]

A discussion involves two sides with open minds. Nothing we say can or will change your mind as you just want people to agree with you. Hence it's not a discussion. Peace out.

[Fire Game Studios]

Two sides with open mind: that means my mind is open to you changing it... with no arguments.

[Lostronaut]

People will truly complain about anything.

[Flash]

Originally posted by Mercutio:

A discussion involves two sides with open minds. Nothing we say can or will change your mind as you just want people to agree with you. Hence it's not a discussion. Peace out.

There is open mind and there's stupidity. There are deviations and then there are substitute. If u asked for a Coca Cola and were given a orange juice would you say 'ITS ALL FOR THIRST'.
Rofl.. it takes a certain type of person to just white knight defend for no reason but to argue

[Fire Game Studios]

Doesn't Benjamin Franklin, ruler of Greece (and no option to put leaders in their respective civilizations) seems like a fair complaint to you?

[Gigawatts]

There's no point having anything historical anymore. In my game I've just met some random woman called Tubman, leader of the Ming Civ. It's ridiculous.

This would work much better with made up leaders and Civs. Just ditch the pretence but that won't sell DLC.

[Fire Game Studios]

I agree with Gigawatts. If you're going to throw history under the bus (which wasn't the objective in Civ 1) - use made up leaders and Civs

[XartaX]

Personally, to be honest, I don't find the idea of Benjamin Franklin leading Greece any more egregious than, say, America existing thousands of years before Christ. To me both are equally stupid, and the second has existed for a long time in the civ franchise.

What I find worse, is that you jump between civs between ages. It would've made a lot more sense to change leaders, than your entire civ. So you'd have leaders from each age to swap out as you progress through ages.