This framing also sweeps under the rug the massive devastation to the biosphere that has come as a result of these modes of civilization.
You either die in obscurity or live long enough to see yourself become the rapacious empire. In a very meaningful way, you're only letting us play as the "bad guys'' of history. It was and is through their suffering that the obscene concentrations of wealth we see in those societies came about and continue to perpetuate themselves. When you treat the modern, developed West as the logical endpoint for any successful society, you do a disservice to the victims of colonialism. The emphasis on the destination distracts from the journey. Everything from the dawn of my civilization to the very end is in pursuit of launching a rocket, or conquering the world, or making everyone buy my blue jeans.
It no longer feels like I have the freedom to build whatever kind of society I want. This might be good for competitive players, but it takes some of the feeling of "roleplaying history" out of the series. Let me set my own goalsĬiv 5 and 6 represent a departure from their forebears by evoking neatly-packaged board games focused on bespoke win conditions that everyone is racing toward. So here's how Firaxis can keep Civ relevant. But as our standards for historical strategy games change, and new devs and players come onto the scene to mix things up, I think this would be a major missed opportunity. Firaxis could probably keep doing what it's doing and skate along for another decade or more. Civ 6's DLC has been well received, and the series maintains a large, dedicated fanbase. I may be making the situation sound gloomier than it probably is.
0 kommentar(er)
