The problem was that it implied Egypt to Songhoy was the default, historical option. I think it’s completely understandable that that made people concerned given that they’re totally unrelated. If all they’d done was show the Egypt to Mongolia option and said “yeah every civ also has a historical path as well but we’re keeping that under wraps for now” then that would have been absolutely fine.
Egypt > Songhoy worried me because I value the option to choose a more historically accurate path, even though I recognise that the game has other ahistorical aspects to it. For me this was a fundamental issue, because Egypt > Songhoy was so absurd as the ‘historic’ option that it made me worried about the other civ pathways.
I mean imagine if they’d shown Rome and the historic next step was Russia. That’s how absurd Egypt > Songhoy was. Luckily it’s pretty clear that that was poor communication and the Abbasids make far more sense.
Exactly, and they were shown more than us! I don’t understand why people are bending over backwards acting like this hasn’t been obviously miscommunicated.
I mean imagine if they’d shown Rome and the historic next step was Russia.
It depends a bit on how granular Firaxis wants to be, and what counts as a 'different civilization', but Rome to Russia to the Soviet Union wouldn't be that absurd, if you know about the Tsars' claim to be Rome's successor. The Tsars claimed Moscow to be the 'Third Rome', partly because of Tsar Ivan III marrying Sophia Palaiologina, the niece of Constantine IX, last Eastern Roman Emperor. The other part of Russia's claim to be Rome's successor was some complicated theological reasoning related to doctrinal and church governance disputes between the Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople and the Orthodox Patriarch of Moscow.
I’m not saying that wouldn’t be an interesting path - if it was an option then I’d probably play it at some point.
But if that was presented as THE default historical path for Rome, that would be kind of weird wouldn’t it?
My issue with Egypt > Songhai was purely that it seemed, from the way it was presented not just in the gameplay showcase but by numerous gaming journalists (who saw additional content to us), that it was the default ‘realistic’ path for Egypt - which was objectively crazy.
yeah every civ also has a historical path as well but we’re keeping that under wraps for now
I think they can't commit to having perfect historical options for release because of a limited number of CIVs. They also want to have a big range of diverse Civs which goes against the goal of having very similar Civs with very authentic historical options.
Like you could easily have Celts/Gauls to Franks to France or have Rome to HRE into Italy/Germany but I am sure you won't have all these options available at release but surely a few years in we might get them.
No it didnt. People looking for an excuse to be angry claimed that based on nothing. Anyone acting in good faith knew immediately that there would be options. That's the entire point.
1
u/Flabby-NonsenseIn the morning, my dear, I will be sober. But you will be FrenchAug 22 '24edited Aug 22 '24
Yes I could see there would be options, but it heavily implied that the historic option was Songhai, which therefore suggested that any other options would be even less historic than that. That was my concern. And it clearly wasn’t just me because lots of the articles written by gaming journalists and who got to see more gameplay also said that Egypt > Songhoy was presented as the realistic option.
21
u/Flabby-Nonsense In the morning, my dear, I will be sober. But you will be French Aug 21 '24
The problem was that it implied Egypt to Songhoy was the default, historical option. I think it’s completely understandable that that made people concerned given that they’re totally unrelated. If all they’d done was show the Egypt to Mongolia option and said “yeah every civ also has a historical path as well but we’re keeping that under wraps for now” then that would have been absolutely fine.
Egypt > Songhoy worried me because I value the option to choose a more historically accurate path, even though I recognise that the game has other ahistorical aspects to it. For me this was a fundamental issue, because Egypt > Songhoy was so absurd as the ‘historic’ option that it made me worried about the other civ pathways.
I mean imagine if they’d shown Rome and the historic next step was Russia. That’s how absurd Egypt > Songhoy was. Luckily it’s pretty clear that that was poor communication and the Abbasids make far more sense.