Changing temples to, "I don't know, theme parks" would represent a fundamental change in the core conception of the game series, because you wouldn't be playing a game based on human history, simply because ancient cities built temples, not theme parks.
And again, you're confusing "concept" with "game mechanic". I agree completely that religion wasn't a game mechanic until IV, and if that's the question ("do you want religion as a game mechanic?"), then so be it. But the idea of it "separate from specific implementation" keeps getting mentioned, and if you want to separate out the concept from the implementation, then the fact that I build temples and cathedrals and King Richard's Crusade and researched Monotheism and Theology while I was playing Civ1 is actually relevant.
Yes, in terms of the phrasing being used, the concept of religion is, indeed, present in CiV, just as it was in Civs1-3. Temples, technologies, cultural tracks, etc. It's silly to say "the whole concept of religion -an important part of all Human Histories and Cultures!- has been completely excised from CiV!" when there's a whole set of cultural policies centered around religion and called "piety". The same use of the concept of Religion was in CIV, as well, in addition to the separate and distinct presence of the game mechanic of Religion that was implemented in CIV.
What got removed, and what's being discussed here, is religion as a game mechanic... which depends entirely on its specific implementation as-such. CGG1066 stated it pretty well, actually: if you want Religion-as-a-game-mechanic, then what is it supposed to do?
As a "concept -- separate from specific implementation" ? Yes, yes it does.
I know I'm going to probably be labeled as some sort of irrational CiV "lover" because I think that using correct terminology is somewhat important in these sorts of discussions, but them's the breaks.
Disagree and Agree, in that order. I'd even pay $15 for an expansion pack that included Civ4 type religions in Civ5. However, I really dislike the surfeit of inane religious quotes for techs; they're usually of marginal relevance to the tech itself, and almost always irrelevant to its historical discovery.I think there's too much religion in Civ V. Seems like every other tech comes with a bible quote ...
Here's the thing... Your first paragraph, which makes it out as if it were some massive change I was suggesting, which in turn would support your idea of how central and hard to remove it would have been from the earlier Civ games? That change could have been made and next to no-one would have really noticed. Choose vomitoriums instead of theme parks if you want something ancient cities actually built, and Civ would have gone on. Change theology to slavery as a tech and Civ would have gone on. The concept of religion is one integral to history, but it's one that Civ more or less didn't deal with until Civ IV. Zonk nailed it - "I'm sorry, but no --- a handful of pink techs and maybe a few blue techs does not even rate a 'concept'." They could have changed a few names and easily removed religion as a concept entirely from Civs 1, 2, and 3 - it was represented, but in a definitely superficial manner.
I'd argue slavery and conscription were far more represented concepts than religion between Civs 1 and 3, but go figure, both have been effectively removed from Civ V. Their concepts were represented through specific implementation that mirrored (to some degree) how they worked in the real world. Conversely, religion was represented conceptually, but in a very limited and generic manner, to the extent it could have been easily replaced with another concept entirely in Civs 1 through 3 with about 10 minutes of rewriting game files. Go figure, slavery and conscription, both major historical concepts which had more substantial representation than religion through the first three civ games, are no completely gone. If that's the case, you honestly believe religion could not have been removed? Again, Zonk nailed it - a few buildings a few pink techs does not an integral concept make. For the first three civ games, the names of a few techs were all that kept the games from being completely bereft of religion.
If I'm confusing "concept" with "game mechanic," you're confusing "superficial representation" with "idea which couldn't be removed without changing the core concept of the game." I get where you're coming from, and I acknowledge that Civ has always had religion in some form or another, but frankly, for 1 though 3, it was of little to no consequence and could EASILY have been excised despite what you're saying. You say "Temples, technologies, cultural tracks" - well, take out cultural tracks for 1 and 2 and you have this core, irremovable concept consisting of a few names which could have been easily subbed out for other historical things. I didn't consider Civ 1 through 3's representation of religion relevant enough to count for religion because it was horribly abstract, generic, superficial, and easily replaceable without changing the character of the game more than superficially - and you sir, are splitting hairs and making a big deal out of it.
You know Moonbase, I've got to admit, I don't really consider it worthwhile continuing argue with you in this thread. You openly admit that you're basically splitting hairs and consider it important that "proper terminology" be used for a discussion like this, but when I started this poll, I intentionally chose to ignore Civ 1 through 3's religious representation because it was so superficial and acting as if they included religion would likely create a lot more confusion than just saying it wasn't there. In the interest of having the discussion flow with relative ease, I worded it as I did, and in the interest of having the discussion continue to flow, I'm not going to argue.
I'm not interested in splitting hairs, the thread has been pretty clear to almost everyone but you, and I think there are grounds for starting your own thread on this subject if you'd like to discuss whether religion was conceptually represented in any sort of significant and irremovable way in Civs 1 thorugh 3. That's not really what this thread is about. In Civs 1 through 3 religion was a conceptual nonentity - that's an assumption this thread operates on, and you're the first person to have a real problem with it. If you'd like to debate the point, start a thread on the subject - this one is proceeding quite smoothly as is. I'll even participate in a thread that you start, but this will likely be my last post here until tomorrow any which way.
If you want to split hairs though, consider the thread as talking about religion with any sort of specific character or any but superficial lip-service in the series.
I think religion is an excellent game concept and should continue to be explored. I thought it worked fairly well in Civ4. It spread around like a virus and tore the world apart and usually into war. It was used throughout the early game to influence and control civilizations indirectly that may otherwise want nothing to do with you.
It effectively stuck its nose in political affairs and spawned biased hatred towards specific entities that were not "apart of the group".
I thought the Civ4 religion mechanics were fairly accurate and reasonable. If you did not use religion you didn't suffer the negative effects from it, but you also did not reap its early game rewards.
Problem is people get all uppity when they see their religion listed, which confuses me beyond reason. To them its not something to be made fun of (and games are for fun), its a very serious thing and its very real with everyone spewing different translations of what everything means... what I don't understand is why they can't uniformly agree that they can't all be 100% right therefore the possibility exists that a lot of religions or parts of religion are fantasy.
If they could make that logical step it would be far less of a "serious crime" to see their religion loosely referenced in just or to make a game mechanic exist.
It would be like saying the Chinese are upset that their empire isn't accurately represented in the game. Its just stupid. Of course its not, its a game.
but when I started this poll, I intentionally chose to ignore Civ 1 through 3's religious representation because it was so superficial and acting as if they included religion would likely create a lot more confusion than just saying it wasn't there. In the interest of having the discussion flow with relative ease, I worded it as I did, and in the interest of having the discussion continue to flow, I'm not going to argue.
It is all very well to want something to be conceptually added, but as a mechanic it has already proved to be problematic. There has to be something more than saying "I want religion in Civ 5" - how do you want it in such a way that it is meaningful and adds to the game play?
The practicality of the religion mechanic demonstrated in Civ 4 was at odds with the intent. Instead of racing to build your own religion and then spend resources to spread it to all your cities and all of the AI's cities, it made far more sense in the harder levels to allow your neighbors to go to the trouble of founding and then spreading their religions to your cities and agreeing to make it your official religion as well for the diplomatic gains. It became a passive human player mechanic rather than an active one, and therefor arguably worse than useless.
You could argue that it could be done different from Civ 4 - but different how?
It has been mentioned that the religions should have more flavour to them - but there is no way that the game developers will ever flavour the religions as they are in real life anymore than you'll see Hitler officially added as a Civ leader for Germany. The chances of it upsetting people is too strong. We see enough of that in arguments about the choices of civilizations and how they are portrayed - even the dead ones.
This is like the 4th or 5th time this same, very valid point of view, has been brought up in this thread and none of the proponents of religion in vanilla Civ have addressed it, I'm guessing because they can't.
Aside from the implementation of Civ IV religion, which many people (like me) take issue with, the bottom line is, Firaxis will not implement individual religions that have different attributes/penalties than other religions for fear of offending anyone. Without this kind of dimension, religions just aren't very interesting as a gameplay mechanic and won't really add anything to the gameplay.
If something doesn't add to the gameplay and make it more fun, it probably shouldn't be in the game.
I guess the question is - what do you want religion to do for the player??????
This has to be answered before we decide whether we want it in or out (and I don't think they asked this properly in CivIV).