|
haha deviant art, good job firaxis the tomyris portrait also comes from an halloween website http://takebackhalloween.org/tomyris/ Take back halloween
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 10:56 |
|
|
It was at least a professional commission for a publication.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 21:56
|
|
|
Captain Fargle posted:Really disappointed with that lineup. Obnoxiously eurocentric yet again. It's a little worse I think, take the first 20 civs from Civ v and you get Europe - 6 Asia - 9 America - 3 Africa - 2 Jump King fucked around with this message at 03:40 on Aug 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 22:35
|
|
|
Kurtofan posted:the tomyris portrait also comes from an halloween website I'm pretty sure it's just an illustration from a DK book or some poo poo that the halloween website ripped. I've seen it before in other places. OTOH I'm pretty sure it's not even supposed to be Tomyris. Considering these are just references for the developers though it's pretty harmless wherever they got it from
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 22:56
|
|
|
Scipio Africanus wasn't black.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 23:45
|
|
|
I think they were talking about Septimus Severus.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 00:10
|
|
|
Septimius Severus (probably) wasn't black, either. He was Roman and Libyan. He most likely would've looked more like Gaddafi.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 00:30
|
|
|
Captain Fargle posted:Really disappointed with that lineup. Obnoxiously eurocentric yet again. Only one Sub-Saharan civ, only one pre-Colonial Americas, nobody at all from SE Asia and Oceania, no Ottomans, no Persia, no Mongols... It's almost as if they prioritize countries where the game actually sells and makes them money. And that way they can add other, shittier, civilizations as DLC later.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 01:15
|
|
|
Koramei posted:I'm pretty sure it's just an illustration from a DK book or some poo poo that the halloween website ripped. I've seen it before in other places. OTOH I'm pretty sure it's not even supposed to be Tomyris. it looks like an osprey military history book to me, all their illustrations look like that
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 01:48
|
|
|
Flagrant Abuse posted:Septimius Severus (probably) wasn't black, either. He was Roman and Libyan. He most likely would've looked more like Gaddafi.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 02:30
|
|
|
Rad Russian posted:It's almost as if they prioritize countries where the game actually sells and makes them money. Civ is big in Scythia.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 02:40
|
|
|
Rad Russian posted:It's almost as if they prioritize countries where the game actually sells and makes them money. And that way they can add other, shittier, civilizations as DLC later. I mean like, that's obviously why they did it, but I don't think you can say the unused civs are shittier when they left out literally the largest contiguous empire. On another note, I saw somebody saying something like "why do the developers hate us" in response to Poland being relegated to dlc, which was pretty funny.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 03:40
|
|
|
Byzantine posted:Civ is big in Scythia. Prioritize. Obviously they can't just do USA and European countries only. It's just a silly complaint to bring up when it's extremely obvious why they're doing it and the other more obscure Civs will just be there later as DLC. Rad Russian fucked around with this message at 05:04 on Aug 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 04:53
|
|
|
Ghostlight posted:but it's worth remembering that Irish people were once considered non-white. Strudel Man fucked around with this message at 08:15 on Aug 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 08:12
|
|
|
Rad Russian posted:Prioritize. Obviously they can't just do USA and European countries only. It's a particularly silly complaint to bring up when they have always done this and will always do it for known good reasons. Spoiler: Civ 7 will also have more european civs at release. Now people can hopefully have a chance to process this information in advance so when that game eventually comes out they won't be disappointed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 08:20
|
|
|
I somewhat doubt the geographical appeal of the game shifts on what Civs are available to play in it. Is this just a theory or does anyone have stats to back it up? Did the Spain DLC sell better in Spain than any other DLC? Smells like spurious bullshit to me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 08:26
|
|
|
nationalism is one hell of a drug
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 08:31
|
|
|
JeremoudCorbynejad posted:I somewhat doubt the geographical appeal of the game shifts on what Civs are available to play in it. Is this just a theory or does anyone have stats to back it up? Did the Spain DLC sell better in Spain than any other DLC? Players in a country get fairly uppity if they consider their country to have had a significant historical impact on the world and they're missed out, so a balance has to be struck. Spain has had an enormous historical impact. It's an interesting discussion as to whether any one particular non european civilization has had a bigger impact on world history but has been left out, but it's subjective as hell. If they doubled the number of civs in the game I'm sure you'd be able to strike more of a regional balance, but we're restricted to 18 at launch for presumably some good reason and the ratio doesn't seem unreasonable based on some vague measure of historical impact.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 08:32
|
|
|
Right but I still don't buy the link between Civ-in-game, sales-in-country. (For what it's worth I don't care about the regional representation in the game, I'm only taking issue with this particular theory)
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 08:49
|
|
|
10/19 European civs (11/20 with Poland) is a pretty big step up from Civ V's 7/19. The expansions didn't do much better, being full on half European.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 08:53
|
|
|
I don't know if there's any specific reason to hold it to 18 vanilla civilizations, other than it's tradition going back to Civ IV (I had 14, II had 21, III had 16) and probably fits their resource planning best. Babylon and Mongolia were only a month after release for V, and VI has Aztecs as day 1 DLC with signs pointing towards early development of Poland. I'd expect a full-fledged expansion within 2 years, anyway.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 08:53
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:Pretty sure you are the only one who cares and I guess some random post on some civilization forum. It just bugs me because basically Gorgo really feels like they're reaching, while someone like Tomyris actually seems like a cool addition. It's probably because there's so many people who did notable poo poo during the Persian Wars and you decide "Yes, I'm going to go with Gorgo". You could've just went with Artemisia if you wanted a notable woman from the Persian Wars. Since I'm bored, here's what they could've done if they wanted 9-10 Ancient Civs: Babylon: Hammurabi Caria: Artemisia Carthage: Hannibal Celts: Boudicca Egypt: Hatshepsut/Nefertiti/Cleopatra (in order of personal preference) Greece/Macedon: Pericles/Alexander Palmyrene: Zenobia Persia: Cyrus Rome: Trajan (or Livia, that'd actually be cool as hell) Scythia: Tomyris If you're desperate to have Sumeria then just take out Carthage, I dunno, I'm contemplating a fantasy here anyway.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 09:13
|
|
|
I'd love for someone to make an "Ancient Civ" style 4x game. The original Civ V had a scenario where you had to race to make wonders with a bunch of custom ancient leaders in it and it was great.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 09:21
|
|
|
JeremoudCorbynejad posted:Right but I still don't buy the link between Civ-in-game, sales-in-country. One right-wing nationalist posted on the Internet that he was disappointed his country wasn't in the game therefore
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 09:29
|
|
|
JeremoudCorbynejad posted:Right but I still don't buy the link between Civ-in-game, sales-in-country. It's not so much about including countries that will buy the game directly, but rather including a range of civilizations that people in those countries would consider historically significant. I'm certain that a game aimed at a different region would anticipate a different opinion on historical significance and would alter the ratios accordingly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 09:32
|
|
|
JeremoudCorbynejad posted:Right but I still don't buy the link between Civ-in-game, sales-in-country. IIRC, Brazil and Indonesia were added to Civ5 specifically because those countries are formidable markets for games. I don't know whether their inclusion boosted sales in those countries, or if they were included because there were a lot of Civ players from those countries already. Nevertheless, regional sales and representation do walk in hand in hand somewhat, but it's hard to say which causes which.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 10:07
|
|
|
The only European civs that were unrepresented by the end of Civ V were Belgium, the Baltics (unless they are in the Sweden/Poland namelist?) and the Balkan. Personally I wouldn't mind seeing countries/ethnicities bundled together like the Celts, Denmark and Sweden did in CiV. Like, you could conceivably roll the Netherlands and Belgium together into some sort of United Kingdom of the Netherlands or United Seventeen Provinces thing. Hell, maybe Burgundy. They could be some sort of trade civ based on pastures (wool industry and carpets were important to Medieval trade in the Lowlands) with defensive bonuses (they more or less held out for 80 years against the Spanish). The Balkans can be rolled together with Russia as the Slavs, for maximum comedy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 10:29
|
|
|
mitochondritom posted:I'd love for someone to make an "Ancient Civ" style 4x game. The original Civ V had a scenario where you had to race to make wonders with a bunch of custom ancient leaders in it and it was great. Anno Domini mod for Civ V?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 10:34
|
|
|
Lord Hypnostache posted:IIRC, Brazil and Indonesia were added to Civ5 specifically because those countries are formidable markets for games. I don't know whether their inclusion boosted sales in those countries, or if they were included because there were a lot of Civ players from those countries already. Nevertheless, regional sales and representation do walk in hand in hand somewhat, but it's hard to say which causes which. Are you sure about that? I seem to recall one of the designers saying it was because they were rapidly modernizing emerging economies, which fitted with BNW's theme of transitioning into the colonial/modern era (whereas, for example, putting the Byzantines, Netherlands and Sweden in GnK reflects its focus on the Medieval/Renaissance) - as well as the fact that they represent regions that have been poorly represented in previous Civs. The actual reason for their inclusion might well have been more cynical, but I'd be very surprised if they'd just say that straight up.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 11:02
|
|
|
Anyone know if they'll put up the latest devstream (from yesterday) somewhere? Missed it and I can only find an older one on their twitch channel.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 11:11
|
|
|
Just have a Europe civ with leaders from a handful of different nations. Boom, problem solved
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 12:27
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:No, they weren't. That idea is a modern invention borne largely from a single writer's absurd suggestion that celts came originally from Africa. They were despised as Irishmen, since distinctions between people on the national level were thought of as far more significant at the time, and moral comparisons were made between them and blacks (such as calling one "white niggers," or the other "smoked irish"). But they were covered under, for example, the late 18th century naturalization acts, which offered citizenship specifically to free whites.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 12:29
|
|
|
Deltasquid posted:The only European civs that were unrepresented by the end of Civ V were Belgium, the Baltics (unless they are in the Sweden/Poland namelist?) and the Balkan. Personally I wouldn't mind seeing countries/ethnicities bundled together like the Celts, Denmark and Sweden did in CiV. Like, you could conceivably roll the Netherlands and Belgium together into some sort of United Kingdom of the Netherlands or United Seventeen Provinces thing. Hell, maybe Burgundy. They could be some sort of trade civ based on pastures (wool industry and carpets were important to Medieval trade in the Lowlands) with defensive bonuses (they more or less held out for 80 years against the Spanish). Personally I'd rather they go in the opposite direction and base civs on concrete nations or other united entities, but that is also what I feel was done with Denmark and Sweden (as opposed to the nebulous Viking/Scandinavia civs in older games), and junk like Arabia being the Abbasid Caliphate and not having a "Native American" civ et cetera.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 13:43
|
|
|
majormonotone posted:Just have a Europe civ with leaders from a handful of different nations. Ah, the "Polynesia solution"
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 14:27
|
|
|
I'm holding out for a Sealand civ.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 14:28
|
|
|
I would prefer 4 civs, the Orient, the Occident, the Nadir , and the New World, with the leaders being White Man, Yellow Man, Black Man, and Noble Savage.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 14:36
|
|
|
Omnicarus posted:I would prefer 5 civs, the Orient, the Occident, the Nadir , the New World, and Poland
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 14:57
|
|
|
So much virtue signaling in this thread I thought it was a TED talk
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 14:58
|
|
|
Chalks posted:It's a particularly silly complaint to bring up when they have always done this and will always do it for known good reasons. Just because you know why something happens doesn't mean you can't be irritated. Particularly because they teased at the beginning that they'd do the best true start location vanilla set yet and then we actually got more European civs than last time. I figure they might be doing region based dlc though
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 15:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 10:56 |
|
|
Furthermore, Brazil must be destroyed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 15:14
|
|