Something like Crusader Kings better reflects the nitty gritty details of cultural assimilation and development than say Humankind does, but its not in and of itself ahistorical to reflect culture and national identity as not static. This is mostly just shifting the goal posts of course the various combinations reflect ahistorical combinations that didn't happen historically, There was no Ottoman Mexico in our history, but it reflects a historical cosmopolitanism, shaped by migration, political intermarriage, or even geopolitical influence, that you're discounting. The idea of switching cultures is nice, but it could've been great. "American empire" with Babylon as their capital, and set of 5 cities with literally NONE having real, american names. It would also remove another problem of Humankind, where in every game you have the same set of capitals over and over again. It'd be better if you had a set of civilizations like in the Civilization series, but also be able to customize it in every age so that you would be a "Roman empire" but experiencing an "Aztec-like" era. And it transforms like that not because Aztecs conquered the Romans and imposed new culture, but because suddenly Romans decided to become Aztecs.
Since you're not simply customizing the culture in this game, but literally switch to a real life cultures - yes, it is immersion breaking when your Roman empire suddenly transforms into Aztecs, because you know that real Romans and Aztecs had nothing in common. Modern French are the continuation of medieval French, not Khmer, Aztecs or Mughals.
Historically accurate? Can you show us examples then? When cultures switched on a such massive scale (like the transition from Ottomans to Mexicans) peacefully, without conquest?Ĭultures were evolving, but their core stayed basically the same.
0 kommentar(er)
