"Firaxis takes representation seriously." than do the complete opposite...

[EntityofDesire]

In the recent trailer, Firaxis emphasized the importance of representation. However, the choice of leaders in the game, who are not culturally or historically linked to the civilizations they lead, contradicts this statement than goes further with how the game handles civilizations transitioning into new eras. For example, Firaxis suggests that modern Meiji Japan evolved from Edo Japan—a historically accurate progression.

Yet, in-game, the only available options for evolving Asian civilizations (into Japan) do not represent any previous Japanese culture or civilization; instead, players might see Ming China as the predecessor.

This choice alone could be highly offensive to some with the whole WW2 thing that happened, those massacres and war crimes Japan committed. Not really sure how this respects chinese culture...

Similarly, the representation—or lack thereof—of indigenous nations like the Shawnee or Inca beyond a SINGLE era is problematic. These groups don't naturally progress into modern eras within the game (as evolutions); instead, they are replaced entirely by civilizations like America or Spain, which historically colonized these areas and slaughtered
or conquered their people.

To be clear, yes, thats usually how history works - but very few nations completely eliminated an entire race...unless we are talking about Spain and the Aztec both directly and indirectly.

But take the fall of roman empire - rome might not exist today despite spanning the world at one point as a "civilization' - but Italy sure does - so where is italy in modern times? There just isn't ANY logical progression to civilizations in this game which claims to be representative of.

This approach not only simplifies but distorts historical complexities, such as the Shawnee’s resistance to losing their land and traditions. It feels as if historical and cultural legacies are just names on a board to pick from rather than the representation Firaxis says they are championing.

So what went wrong???

Considering the scale of production and people at Firaxis on Civ 7, I can't believe they didn't have the resources to properly flesh out each civilization's growth through the eras historically correct rather than this weird cookie cutter manner we are presented with.

To be clear no civilization title has ever done this correctly, obviously there were no USA cavemen settling washington, it was just a game mechanic. BUT their focus on seeing civilizations evolve through eras which would have allowed us to naturally see colonial powers evolve into the next era into America would have made LOT more sense than...Ming China becoming USA in modern times.

An actual LOGICAL progression of civilizations and again this could have easily be done with this games budget and staffing. Than they go on about representation and cultures, history lessons, etc in the trailer...but...can't properly represent it in game? Its just weeeeird.

To be clear, I'm not upset about any of this, I just found it funny how they had the perfect mechanic to show civilizations evolving into modern versions from antiquity, but changed civilizations into a perception of names, not their people, history or race. Very progressive I suppose...though I suspect it was just bad game design lol.

[SLG]

Which video are you referring to?

[EntityofDesire]

Originally posted by Lee:

Which video are you referring to?

Second video on the steam page i believe they comment on it around the 19 or 18 minute mark where I took the quote.

[hardy_conrad]

Not to try and negate the point you're making, but historically wasn't Japan derived from Korea, which was derived from China? Excluding the Ainu I guess... Anyway perhaps they'll improve stuff in the future.

[EntityofDesire]

Originally posted by hardy_conrad:

Not to try and negate the point you're making, but historically wasn't Japan derived from Korea, which was derived from China? Excluding the Ainu I guess... Anyway perhaps they'll improve stuff in the future.

Well again historical complexities, technically the Jomon Period (c. 14,000–300 BCE) which is characterized by its cord-marked pottery, has some of the earliest known pottery in the world.

to the point your making the Jomonians were a hunter-gatherer culture and it was the later Yayoi from the Korean peninsula that later crossed over who brought rice field techniques. But most koreans dont identify with Yayoi ancestor today, because they are having considered to have migrated to japan.

BUT that could have been represented in early era for example in this game. Teaching players some history at the same time.

[hardy_conrad]

On the other hand I give Civilization credit for realizing Gandhi was a complete lunatic long before it was fashionable for other to point out, heh...

[EntityofDesire]

The only other thing that could explain this design (decision) goes back to my example of Rome - where when rome conquered much of the world, "the world was rome" regardless of the culture, race or people within it, but that seems like a bad way to go imagining the entire world as "one" civilization, where in a game is DEFINED by civilizations (and apparently representation....)

I dunno, I just feel they was a MASSIVE design opportunity lost here, not to mention way to expand the game with DLC. I really have no desire to "buy leaders" vs entire civilizations.

But again...not really sure what they were going for here...lots of contradicting statements...

[RJ Dork Bard]

3 years from now you will be able to take every age 1 Nation all the way to Age 5 with a progression that makes sense either threw DLC or the workshop, So chill dude , indulge in you fav vice , be nice to dogs and family , live your life . by 2028 you'll be happy about it all , if not i will delete this badly punctuated and much longer than i intended post .

[EntityofDesire]

Originally posted by RJ Dork Bard:

3 years from now you will be able to take every age 1 Nation all the way to Age 5 with a progression that makes sense either threw DLC or the workshop, So chill dude , indulge in you fav vice , be nice to dogs and family , live your life . by 2028 you'll be happy about it all , if not i will delete this badly punctuated and much longer than i intended post .

Oh I'm chill, and I suspect somebody will make a mod. Again its not offensive to me - its more that I realized just what a MASSIVE opportunity they missed - which also would have completely removed the issue some people have with the way eras transition civilizations. Thats all.

Ya i'm very curious what those later eras will be and what civilizations will exist...I feel like they will be completely made up? Its possible we might even see the game take a much later era 6 sci-fi angle - the game DEFINITELY allows for it since each era replaces how the world looks (or well is represented) that it could allow for a sci-fi like era with "Canada Maximus" suddenly being a civilization you can play lol.

[Ellye]

Originally posted by EntityofDesire:

Similarly, the representation—or lack thereof—of indigenous nations like the Shawnee or Inca beyond a SINGLE era is problematic. These groups don't naturally progress into modern eras within the game (as evolutions); instead, they are replaced entirely by civilizations like America or Spain, which historically colonized these areas and slaughtered or conquered their people.

There's something else that's also ridiculous related to the representation of indigenous people in Civ7.

In every match of Civilization 7, all players start of in a single continent, and a new continent appears on the Exploration Age, just to be colonised.

It's like, for Fireaxis, transatlantic Colonization is an obligatory step in the developing of a Civilization.

And they said that they wanted to escape the euro-centrism that dominates history-related media. I'd consider that a pretty big miss on that goal.

[RJ Dork Bard]

The new continent has AI players .

[HatlessHorseMan]

Yeah, there really isn't a perfect way to represent the actual course of history with Civ switching, either from an authenticity or representation standpoint. I think it would have been really cool if large empires (like Rome or China historically) would suffer such cataclysmic crises that they would collapse and become fertile soil for future civs/cultures. Rome becomes either Normandy or Spain, not multiple Western/Central European medieval states like it actually did. Beyond the conceptual and developmental complexity that would bring, most strategy gamers are extremely loss averse; having your God-like run as an expansionist power house getting truly reset into a minor regional power, having to rebuild basically from scratch in the next era, would make everyone rage and eventually stop playing all together. Civ is also a game about forging your own path, but you can't, say, build a Roman Empire with the right secret sauce that persists into the modern age with Civ 7.

I don't think just adding more Civs (which they are definitely going to be doing lots of) really gets at the root of the problem. At the end of the day, no Civ game, even one that is so different from the rest of the series it barely feels like Civ anymore, can really represent these things particularly well. You're better off going with PDX if that's what you want.

[neonhigh]

You can tell when people are straight white men by how insanely dramatic they get over ish like this.

[Larkis]

They simply cant create every civ that was there sometimes in the world. So some shortcut were needed.

Also Civ doesnt represent history and never has. Its based on gameplay. You dont select the next civ cause its historically accurate, you select them cause it helps your gameplay. When you start surrounded by friends and go for the cultural/science victory, you will not take a militaristic civ, even when its the historic accurate choice. Also its not genocity. They evolve and find a new identity.

[EntityofDesire]

Originally posted by Larkis:

They simply cant create every civ that was there sometimes in the world. So some shortcut were needed.

Also Civ doesnt represent history and never has. Its based on gameplay. You dont select the next civ cause its historically accurate, you select them cause it helps your gameplay. When you start surrounded by friends and go for the cultural/science victory, you will not take a militaristic civ, even when its the historic accurate choice. Also its not genocity. They evolve and find a new identity.

No I agree thats how the system is working, just feel its a missed opportunity but its become VERY VERY clear to me now the gameplay seems to boil down to pick a leader than shape your choices around them to best support whatever type of gameplay you want WITH that leader. They seem to really have moved away from the civilization to a leader based empire - much like age of wonders. I have no issue with that, its interesting and different for the Civ series.

[Larkis]

Originally posted by EntityofDesire:

Originally posted by Larkis:

They simply cant create every civ that was there sometimes in the world. So some shortcut were needed.

Also Civ doesnt represent history and never has. Its based on gameplay. You dont select the next civ cause its historically accurate, you select them cause it helps your gameplay. When you start surrounded by friends and go for the cultural/science victory, you will not take a militaristic civ, even when its the historic accurate choice. Also its not genocity. They evolve and find a new identity.

No I agree thats how the system is working, just feel its a missed opportunity but its become VERY VERY clear to me now the gameplay seems to boil down to pick a leader than shape your choices around them to best support whatever type of gameplay you want WITH that leader. They seem to really have moved away from the civilization to a leader based empire - much like age of wonders. I have no issue with that, its interesting and different for the Civ series.

I my understanding they want the "history in layers" where one civ is the foundament if the next one. Like Humandkind. Ist solve a lot problems but create new one, cause ai faction loose identity. Thats why they seperated the leader from the civs. Now you have all the advantages, without the disadvantages. A nice move in my eyes.