MatrixTheKitty
Skitty
It's been shown many times that you need twelve pentagons mixed in with the hexagons to make a "hexagonal" sphere. It's not happening.
*I* do, but a fair number of Civ players don't. More to the point though, having a dual core PC does not somehow inherently mean that processor power is no longer an issue, and that you can make a map of any size you like without performance suffering.
Also, too big a map makes the game unplayable, because it takes too many turns to get anywhere. (How long should it take for England to get to North America or India or New Zealand?)
Civilization isn't just "genetic structure of the people". Its the whole culture.
Rome the *city* exists, but Imperial Roman culture was totally destroyed. Modern Italy comes from Lombards and Vandals - conquerors of Rome - not from ancient Rome.
Celts are gone - pushed out of Anatolia by Turks, pushed out of British isles by Angles, Saxons, Normans, Vikings, etc. There is no real "Celtic" culture anymore.
Carthage totally gone - and it long outstripped Phoenicia in scope, the colony surpassed the motherland (much like US surpassed Britain).
Aztecs: culture is gone, assimilated into Spanish conquests. Mexico is not Aztec.
Similarly Incas, excepting a few pockets of Quecha speakers in Peru and the like. Culture is mostly gone.
Byzantines are totally gone, devoured by the Ottomans. Ottoman Empire was not culturally Greek/Orthodox/Byzantine.
HRE (as distinct from Germany) is gone, devoured by Germany and Austria/Hungary.
Zulus are still a significant political group in South Africa, but they are not a separate civilization anymore.
The only thing that I would point out is that the Byzantines were the remainder of the Roman Empire after the WRE fell in the 400's AD. While, technically, it was Greece and the surrounding areas, the Byzantines carried on what remained culturally of the Ancient Romans for the thousand years following the fall of the west.
the main problem with the developers are that; their managers are too young. they just follow the new world's trend, that's why gfx is 1st priority for them.
civ4 gfx was already more than enough for a turn based strategy game.I see no evidence that Civ5 developers are prioritizing graphics over gameplay.
well, i already like civ4 gfx so much, that's why i said it.If they did not include at least *some*graphical improvements, they would find it difficult to sell a new version.
[Witness the "Civ5 looks ugly" type threads]
It seems to me like they are focusing on gameplay, while having some nice graphical updates too. (I like the ocean look, and the moderate terrain/tile mixing, and the mountains. Rivers look ugly....)
I think for a game with as big an audience as Civ, they get a big enough development budget to do both.