Religion as a game concept - good or bad?

I think there's too much religion in Civ V. Seems like every other tech comes with a bible quote ...

MoonBase said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

MoonBase said:

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.

Click to expand...

No labeling, but you're splitting hairs. Civ I through III represented the concept of religion in a superficial way that could have been easily excised without any significant change to the character of the game - Civ IV gave meaning and significance to the concept of religion. Concept and implementation are tied in this case, and you can split hairs if you want to and argue that religion was some integral element of Civ I through III, but even conceptually, it could have been dropped completely in favour of other historical concepts and the games would have been all but identical.

Dralix said:

I think there's too much religion in Civ V. Seems like every other tech comes with a bible quote ...

Click to expand...

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.

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.

AfterShafter said:

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.

Click to expand...

"It was represented", so you're not arguing that the concept wasn't there, you're arguing about the mechanic. I agree.

And I'll concede, you're correct; my statement about it being probably impossible to remove doesn't hold up under scrutiny. Really, I guess, there's no concept that couldn't be removed while retaining the structure of the game.

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.

Click to expand...

Except both Slavery and Conscription were replaceable with other concepts underlying the actual mechanic -those being construction rushing and unit generation- within the very same game. Even the specific format of the "Sacrifice Population to Rush Construction" mechanic had different names associated with it through-out the first four games, with no actual change to the underlying mechanic.

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.

Click to expand...

I am splitting hairs, I freely acknowledge. As I said, I consider the proper use of terminology important in these sorts of discussions, and when I see people talking about Religion not being present at all in any of the Civ games because it lacks a specific game mechanic with the name applied to it, it causes me to point out the error.

When there are posts splitting hairs over whether or not people liked Religion, regardless of specific implementation, versus whether or not they liked CIV Religion, then the "Splitting Hairs" cat is already out of the bag, and it's not untoward for us to be specific in what we're actually talking about.



We're not talking about Concept. We're talking about Mechanic. Whether as superficial as using names like "Egypt" and "America" rather than "Player 1" and "Player 2", or as specifically-implemented as units moving into an opponent's square after a successful attack, the distinction matters.






Hell, even the Religion game mechanic in CIV could have gone by a different name without changing the mechanism... and in fact does, in large part, once you found a corporation (I actually found inter-corporation conflict and spread to be more interesting and engaging than the same of Religion, but that's me)

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.

AfterShafter said:

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.

Click to expand...

I had little-to-no intention of starting an argument with you, specifically, and I'll even apologize if my use of the phrase "this thread" was taken by you to be a specific targeting at your intentions, which was not at all my intention, and sloppy-wording on my part.

I was taking issue with the statements separating out the concept from its implementation, and then talking as if the concept had been utterly excised, or missing, simply because a specific implementation of a specific game-mechanic had been removed. To remain specific, it was posts such as Fistalis' response to bonafide11 on the first page, and his subsequent response to PrinceScamp, as well as your response to TPQ later on, as well as numerous posts through-out the thread which went as I described above, that got my attention and pointed towards a disconnect between the usage of the terms "concept" and "mechanic".

Again, I'll apologize if my opening phrase of "I don't get this thread" was taken by you as an attack on the whole discussion, which it was not intended to be. It was confusion over the difference between the specific wording of the poll and many of the posts, and the discussion therein.

I'm not even sure what it is we're actually "debating", since you seem to agree with my initial point -that the concept of religion is present even in CiV- and you've explained that you're talking about the actual, concrete mechanic-with-a-name-attached that happened to have been called "Religion" in CIV, rather than the overall concept of "religion" at all... which is what confused me with regards to the poll, since it says nothing about the mechanic. Since my "debate point" is that We're Talking About The Mechanic, and you agree, there doesn't seem to be much "debate".

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.

Click to expand...

Pizlenut said:

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.

Click to expand...

Actually I'd argue that more people are upset that they had to deal with religion in Civ IV than are upset that their religion was featured, especially that all the religions are pretty much the same, other than their starting tech. It sounds more like your just arguing against religions people here. Rereading your first paragraph, I'm now sure of that.

That said, I agree with your first sentence.

AfterShafter said:

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.

Click to expand...

BTW, *this* is what I specifically disagree with, now that I see it. Wording the poll as "Would you like a game mechanic for Religion" or the like, would have settled my hash instantly, and would have negated the need for numerous posts through-out the thread explaining the position of not considering the religion in Civ1-3 to be a game mechanic... which it wasn't.

But I get it, I'm a jerk for not being able to mind-read. My apologies.

Rexflex said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

strategynoob said:

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.

Click to expand...

I actually liked the basic idea behind religion in Civ IV, although it had issues. I found that having religion as a tangible thing in the game increased my enjoyment by aiding in the "imagination" or role-playing aspect. However, as a mechanic it doesn't have to have different religions with different strengths and weaknesses. It just needs to add new fun things for the players to do while offering choices and some sort of risk/reward.

As an example, what if there was a religious specialist that could be housed in temples/cathedrals, which which would create a Great Prophet when enough points were accrued? The Great Prophet might, I don't know, add some number of happiness to the Empire (through a tile building?), start a Crusade/Jihad/whatever (give all non-garrison armies a bonus out of your territory/penalty in your territory for x turns), go to a CS and burn for a bunch of points, or whatever. Something religious Add some graphics or whatever to increase the "flavor" (a big letdown for me in Civ V is the absence of those wonderful wonder-building animations, btw).

This would put religion more in the players' mind, which I think in a game about civilization is a good thing. And if done correctly would give the player more meaningful things to do. I just don't think that by definition not having specific attributes/penalties means that it shouldn't be bothered with.

Thankyou AfterShafter for the informative post re Stalinist Russia. What about present North Korea? Wikipedia says its basically the opposite of what you said about Russia, in that the official line is "freedom of religion is ok", but in "the real world" religion is disallowed, basically because you should be "worshipping" Kim Jong-Il instead.

CGG1066 said:

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).

Click to expand...

I think in Civ4 it was intended as something to provide some momentum to diplomacy - rifts between nations would arise because of the different foundings of religion throughout the world. In Civ5 this role has been replaced by city states, which are there for the same reason, to provide momentum to diplomacy. Rifts between nations can arise when more than one civ attempts to ally with a city state, or when a civ attacks a city state that is allied to another.

What I like about religions in civ iv is that they are a clever way of allowing you to build multiple culture and science buildings within certain restrictions. It always annoyed me in previous civs that you could only build one temple or library per city. In civ iv, thanks to religion based temples, monasteries, "big temples" and shrines, if you are lucky enough to have a "cosmopolitan" multi-religion city, you can really go to town with the builder aspect of the game, should you choose to do so.
(Sorry if this has been said before, haven't read the whole thread)

Voted yes, but: Religions are a double-edged blade. They had a huge influence on humanity so immersion almost dictates a representation of them in a game like civ. However, if you represent them in any meaningful and realistic way, you have a great risk of running afoul religious organisations and bigot people who don't really understand their own religion.

In history, religion has always been used as a political tool. In the early historic times, there is good evidence of the deification of rulers: A divine justification for your rule is maybe the easiest way to get the support of your population. This trend continues all the way to the era of nation states. Even today, heads of government are often very sensitive about religious issues because if they decide on laws that go against the major religion in their country (if any), they can expect repercussions, especially in democracies.

Unfortunately, if you represent religion as a political tool of any magnitude, you will, as a game developer, earn similar repercussions. In the same way, you are likely to generate problems if you "mis-"represent real-world religions, which basically happens with any representation you choose. This is the reason why the different religions in Civ4 were all the same, I think.

So, yes, while I would be in favour of representing religions I can understand why the devs stay away from it. Similarly, slavery isn't represented in Civ5 anymore, probably partly, but not exclusively, for reasons of political correctness.

Yes. But religion if it were added to Civ5 would have to be implemented just right, or else it turns into something pointless that the AI won't care about. Remember the AI plays to win and only win in civ5, not to role-play/win like in Civ4. For instance religion in Civ4 was more of a diplomacy/culture/happiness bonus. Civilizations in Civ4 were more friendly to civs of the same religion, and less friendly to civs with another state religion. In Civ5 civilizations no longer have that 'blind' friendliness that was just based on you and the other civ having the same religion.

I have an idea on how to implement it into the game (all balance issues aside): So religion in Civ5 would have to have some sort of value to the AI. Religion in Civ5 would have to give unique bonuses based on religion. An idea I have is that there be a separate religious policy tree for each religion. A religion could be founded by a great prophet and the person with the holy city can make upgrade their religion with new "policies" by spending something like religious points. Religious points are gathered from every city on the map that has your religion and double from every city within a civ with the religion as its state religion. If you have 2 holycities then you can only improve on the religion that is your state religion. Something like a religion unique wonder (like the Apostolic Palace in civ4) could be build by another civ or your civ to take control of the religion. If the civ that has the building changes religion then the building is destroyed and no further religious progress can be made until a new one is built. The AI can choose religion based on the perks given and how it suites the AI's needs (historically accurate). The Apostolic Palace type building can also allow the "religious leader" to make diplomatic propositions on behalf of every civ that has the religion as its state religion. Religion becomes strategic because in order to spread it you need to understand the needs of the AI. And with the Apostolic palace building you can have diplomatic influence over civs under your religion.

My idea here is that religion could bring some depth into the game and give you something to think about weather you control the religion or not. It would add diplomatic depth as well as some added immersion into the game. Religion could definitely play a part in city state diplomacy as well.

Religions were awesome in Civ4, except for the need to build missionaries I very much enjoyed them. The diplomatic repercussions to adopting religions were sweet. Here is how I see religion in Civ 5:

City States found religions once a certain event is triggered - tech tree or wonder or whatnot. Perhaps City State gives the quest to build the Oracle for example, and once it is built Polytheism is founded and the builder of the Oracle gets + diplo with the now Holy City State.

Perhaps it can be renamed Vatican, Mecca or Jerusalem, and then give religion oriented quests).
Or, perhaps a new type of City State - holy state is founded that gives you + happy.


Being friends/allies with a holy City State would cause that religion to spread to your cities. That Holy State would naturally give quests to conquer other Holy States - but that will not endear you to the progressive mankind... Once a religion spreads into your lands you can adopt it as the state religion.

Basic effect of Religion on diplo are mild - reflecting the relatively religiously tolerant ways of the Ancient World.

But then Piety comes into play. Pious empires would seek to spread religions onto their neighbors through blood and iron. They would get +happy for successful holy wars and other empires converting to your religion. They would get -happy for infidels in countries you trade with and their heathen ways. Thus Piety would be a strong option for War mongers. As it was historically accurate.

Once you adopt Piety you cannot change religions.

Their religious buildings will be more culturally effective and add some +happy.
Obviously major +diplo with fellow religions, major -diplo with the heathens.

Once you discover another continent... all hell would break lose as the popular opinion would force you to send conquistadors to bring true faith to the unbelievers - different continents would end up with different religions.

Then Rationalism would come into play. Rationalist empires (especially ones with secularism) will tend to like each other and bond together against the religious fanatics (regardless of base religion).
In the Renaissance therefore, there would be a showdown between the religious and the secular empires reflecting the real world rift around that time. Will progress prevail, or will Inquisition quell these nascent ideas at inception?

Since Rationalism and Piety are very strong Civic trees as it is, every empire will be on one or the other side of the divide.