My Beef with Religion

I know it's come up many times before, and some people are probably sick and tired of hearing me rant about this one. But I'm a pessimist about what Religion can offer as a major feature in Civ 4.

I start you off with some great stuff from Chris Crawford, one of the godfathers of electronic games as we know them.

Chris Crawford on Game Design said:

Concentrate on the problem that really lies at the core of your game: its interaction. Is the interaction going to be a matter of fast reflexes? Deep strategy? Complex logic? Intuition? Human Insight? Random trial and error? What's the challenge of the game? How will the player interact with the game?

What does the user do?

These are the crucial questions, and so at the very outset of the game conceptualization process, you must concentrate on these questions. After you have answered these questions, then you can ask yourself what topic best serves these goals? Then and only then can you decide the topic. Don't be dishonest with yourself -- if the topic really is the initiating concept in your thinking, then you simply don't understand game design well enough to do a good job.

It is certainly possible to be inspired by a topic, and use that inspiration to guide your conceptualization process. ...

(Lesson 20: Conceptualize your design in terms of its challenge, not its topic.)

Click to expand...

(Emphasis is Chris's.)

TOPIC DRIVEN DESIGN IS BORING

My worry with religion is the developers came up with the topic first, and the challenge and conflict are secondary. (This is the same beef I have with a future age.) Great new topic, same old challenge.

When you define the topic as religion first, and then ask What does the user do? You get more of the same.

• war is holy
• culture flips are religious
• units are zealots
• wonders are spiritual

Some people might think that religious flips, religious wars, religious units and religious wonders are awesome. I don't. To me, it's trying to overcome a lack of creativity shiny new packaging.

CHALLENGE DRIVEN DESIGN IS BETTER

(Not challenge in terms of "make this really difficult", but challenge in terms of "what does the user do?")

When I ask "what does the user do" BEFORE I think of the topic, I get much more interesting challenges:

1. build unity in your fragmented empire
2. satisfy the demands of a special interest group
3. try to cripple that special interest group entirely
4. compete for the love of transnational actors, who impact your neighbors

Now that we have the new challenges, we can apply them to a topic.

NEW CHALLENGES, NEW RELIGIOUS TOPIC

Now that we've come up with the challenges, we can apply them to a topic. And when you apply them to religion, I admit, the results sound really fun!

1. Your empire has muslims and christians. How do you keep them getting along?
2. Christians are demanding that you free all your slaves. Can your empire make that sacrifice?
3. Christians are making too many demands altogether. Can we get rid of them?
4. Can we win the love of the Pope, who will threaten the entire Roman people with excommunication if Caesar doesn't stop attacking us? (Or will Caesar win the love of the Pope, who will declare us heathens who need to be cleansed?)

NEW CHALLENGES, EXISTING TOPIC

But this is a game where your empire is homogenous. Your people don't even have a sense of who's rich and poor. Your people don't even really care what government you are. Why bother differentiating between religions if your people don't ultimately care who's who?

I'm arguing that you can do the above challenges without religion. You could apply it to many existing features. Say, government:

1. There are communists and fascists in our empire. Can we hold it together?
2. Fascists are demanding lower taxes for corporations. Can we make that sacrifice?
3. Fascists are making too many demands altogether. Can we get rid of them?
4. Can we win the love of international fascists, who will overthrow the Republic of Rome, and align closely with us?

The topic could be many things. Say, class (rich/poor), or ethnicity (black/white), or something else entirely.

CIV 4 WILL LIMIT FEATURES

Soren Johnson said:

"If you put something in, take something out"

- Drop unfun legacy (pollution, rioting, maintenance, corruption/waste)
- New killer features (religion, civics)

Click to expand...

Not to frighten people.

I do think that limiting the number of features is the right way to design a game. And for a limited number of features, the Civilization games feel FAR from limited. That's the good news.

But fans ought to recognize that even the best ideas might not be implemented, because they can't just pile on features. They'll limit features to keep the game moving fast and elegantly. So they ought to be choosy.

THE DILEMMA

I argue that you have a choice. A new topic with no new gameplay challenges, or new gameplay challenges with no new topic.

NEW TOPIC: religious wonders/wars/units/city flips, not much different from existing wonders/wars/units/city flips

- or -

NEW CHALLENGE: build unity, cater to factions, persecute factions, but no religious factions

Ultimately, my beef with religion is I worry it will prevent the implementation of truly new gameplay. And I'll choose gameplay every time.

Truthfully, "build your own religion!" looks better on a box than "build unity, and manage the various factions in your empire!", or some other gameplay challenge description. You buy a game because of the topic, not because of the gameplay. Hence the success of movie-games.

Not to mention a lot of people who refuse to limit features, believing they can always have more.

I know I'm probably alone on this one. But I figure I'd throw the poll up there anyway, for morbid curiousity.

As for discussion, I'm interested in what people think about the mental trap I've set up for myself.

• Is the dilemma real?
• Will religion be more than just a "topic"?
• Can we have both the religious topic AND the challenges of religious factions?
• Can religion be interesting without factions in each Civilization?

Again, I'd like to reiterate my belief that both can be used.

The ideas are not bad at all. I would want to see what they have in mind first. There are probably a lot of different variants as to how religion will/should work.

These are my thoughts on religion:
Everyone should begin the game with a kind of primitive mysticism. Every so often, a random event should occur, giving rise to a particular religion. When this happens, you should be asked if you want to convert your civ to this faith. Religion gives you advantages with culture and morale, and, in the case of 'state religion,' propaganda and inherently better ties with other states who have institutionalized the same religion. You don't need to institutionalize religion, but there will be nonaligned, "barbarian" clerics circling around your territory, converting your citizens. You can easily kill these clerics, but it will hurt your standing with other civs (particularly those who profess the same religion). In addition, foreign nationals may have other religions as well. If you decide to implement a state religion (which will hurt your science, slightly), then you are able to build clerics of your own, units of hidden nationality which you can use to convert your rivals.
You can also boost the cultural impact of your religion, and entrench your people against conversion by building temples and cathedrals. However, this is something of a double-edged sword; you also have difficulty converting your own cities with temples (i.e, when your absorbing a new conquest or changing your state religion). Eventually, you will probably succeed at converting a majority of the citizens in your city, but before you do this, there will be a great deal of resistance to the rededication of old temples to new gods. This resistance increase the liklihood of rioting and civil war.

I am excited that religion will be added. Hopefully they can make it work right though, maybe something like in Europa Universalis. In fact the team can learn a lot from Europa Universalis I wonder if Sid has ever played it.

What does the user do? - Chris Crawford

Click to expand...

It seems to me that this question is foremost in Soren's mind. After all, why get rid of whack-a-mole pollution? Because what the user does to cope with it is repetitive, dull and boring.

If Soren thought first about things the user is doing that are not fun, then it follows that he would think up fun things to do to replace these, and then concoct a topic to embrace them.

Is there any evidence to suggest that the concept of Religion will be botched in Civ4? None that I've seen.

I voted for "wait and see".


- Sirian

Clergy as hidden unit? like unconventional units in CTP? if this is what religion is about in civ4 I rather have no religion.

I think that if religion is done as part of a broader system of Civics, along with major improvements to the diplomacy and economics systems of the game, then it could work very well. Another thing religion could allow for is a REDUCTION in warfare-in some cases-if your religion has broad enough appeal. After all, if you can convert enough foreign citizens to your religious beliefs, then it will be harder for the nations to which they belong to prosecute long bloody wars with you. In time, the nation may even adopt your faith as the 'one true religion'. Religion also throws up a whole host of new dilemmas for a player. After all, enforcing strong religious beliefs may increase your 'religious culture', and keep the people relatively 'pacified', but it also gives unparalleled power to your states religious leaders (as well as a possible foreign influence if the religion did not originate with you) and very likely reduce your rate of scientific progress. It could also leave your nation more prone to a religious schism! Just these things along could make the 'religion/civics' system (I see them as going hand in hand) the best thing they have done to civ since culture and resources!!!!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

I'm with Dida -- that if religion is something where you get a special unit, the concept is boring. Not to mention that I think it's insulting to peoples' intelligence.

And Corvex, if you're converting your citizens -- that is, if some of your citizens are one religion, and some of them are another religion -- you're immediately getting into "factions". Something that is far from implemented in Civ 3. We're talking about a lot more complexity than mere "religion". Tying that into my main point: I would rather have factions without religion than religion without factions. (And I don't think they have the time to do both.)

I do appreciate Sirian's intelligent optimism, though. The pollution example is spot on.

Is pollution realistic? Yes. Is pollution a historical issue? Absolutely. But is "pollution whack a mole" a great gameplay lick? Not at all. Moreover, does pollution make an impact if you can clean it up in a few turns anyway? I vote no. For Civ 4, they're shifting pollution into a broader concept of health -- where pollution can still make an impact, if not more of an impact than it does now. And with more interesting decisions for the user than "where are my idle workers? good thing I built those railroads".

I just hope they're approaching religion with the same intelligence. That it's the solution to a problem in the game, instead of just a "wouldn't it be cool if..." feature. I would hope and pray that this is their thought process:

1. Expansionism is too powerful a strategy in the game.
2. Perfectionism isn't a powerful enough strategy.
3. Land gets taken up way too fast.
4. The game is won in the first two ages.
5. Maybe bigger empires should have to deal with unity.
6. The player would have to please different factions in their empire.
7. Or if the player wanted to persecute the factions, they could do that too.
8. What if they could mess with the factions in other empires?
9. What should some of these factions be?
10. Government affiliation -- Fascists and Communists.
11. Maybe class? Rich, poor, middle?
12. Hey, why not religion?

To me, that's one way an intelligent game designer would arrive at religion as a good addition for the Civilization franchise. Not to say it's the only way, but it seems like most of the other advocates of religion focus on Holy War and Crusader Units -- which could already be done in Civ 3, really.

I went for the new challenge.
I don't think they are doing both, topic AND challenge. Unfortunately, they have proven not to master concepts in the past. So I am very pessimistic on how they deal with religion.

At least I desperately hope they refrain from implementing "real" religions. I just don't want to see exploding threads dealing with "why didn't <insert religion of your choice> get that advantage, whilst <insert another religion> got it?"
Let religions be abstract - the "believers in the winged turtle" or whatever, but don't confront us with Christianity, Islam, Buddhaism or whatever else. Please.

If they follow through with religion, I think your choice is between:

A) real religions (Christian, Muslim, Hindu), but no traits
B) religious traits (Happiness, Unity, Loyalty), but the religious choices are abstract (Legalistic, Philosophical, Xenophobic, Animist)

(Although if it is A, then religion becomes just a bunch of "labels" for "teams". You could do this with culture -- with similar culutres feeling a kinship. What gameplay advantage to you get from giving it a label "Christian"?)

As a side note, my interpretation of this poll is:

- 7.5 out of 10 civ fanatics are optimistic about religion, even if it requires other features too
- as much as 4 out of 10 civ fanatics believe religion will be great by itself
- 2.5 out of 10 civ fanatics believe religion is less important than other new features

Of course, interpreting poll numbers is always touchy. The categories are somewhat artificial.

I'm under the Wait and See category.

It makes me back away a little with Religion being added if they use the real-world examples, because that is a subject that almost always incites people, and if there is even a perceived advantage to having one Religion over another, it's just grounds for trouble.

On the other hand, if they use the names of real-world Religions and give each a set of advantages and disadvantages for having them around that are truly balanced, then it would work out okay. I think that if there is no benefit for promoting (or destroying) Religions in your Empire (which Religion dependent on your strategy), then why bother having Religion in the first place?

I'm gonna trust Firaxis on this one. They haven't truly disappointed me in the past, and I doubt they're gonna start now.

What I've been saying, though, is if you can promote or destroy religions in your empire, you're immediately dealing with some kind of faction system. Influencing your peoples' opinions, even though they might differ at the start.

(And it's also the problem I have with a lot of other religious suggestions, where the player has complete control. If you get converted to someone ELSE'S religion, why would you be a party to that at all? Why wouldn't you pull a new religion from a drop down list, secularize, or just plain stop producing religious stuff?)

Factions are a good idea. As long as it doesn't go overboard. I'd like to still be in control of my civilization as God-Emperor, you know.

I'd actually really like the idea of religion as a "Label" for "teams" for a couple reasons

1. No complaints about real world religions not Really having that bonus

2. Provides a dynamic improvement on the 'Culture Group'.. in the sense that religions, like Culture Groups, can include more than one civ and thereby influence diplomacy..but
Your 'Team' can change
Your people may be on different 'Teams'

The thing with factions like Communists/Fascists in your empire is that..they have a defined game effect already..they don't hate each other just because they are different, they hate each other because one wants a Fascist government, and the other wants a Communist government.

Now, as to what they could actually do...shudder... from worst to best (IMO)

Religions with specific bonuses (very bad)

Religions as a replacement for Civ culture.. each civ has one religion that they and only they promote to keep people loyal to them and only them (problem is too few examples of that past ancient religions..other than the Anglican church)

Religions as the old MOO3 Ethos system was ('Religion' is a way for your people to 'want' something) [the problem is real 'religions' are much more constant than the 'wants' that they generate]

Religions as seperate Civ-like entities (in my opinion this could work but focuses WAY too much on the mideval Catholic Church. Ignoring the fact that most religions don't have that degree of government)

Religions as a flexible 'Culture group' my favorite because it fits right with the numbers (real religions big enough to model in the game run from maybe 6 to 16 if you don't subdivide too far)

Krikkitone, I do agree with your rankings though, except that I'd reverse the last two. Religion as independent Civ-like entities would be ideal. The Catholic Church would be the force that tries to control many Civs, while other religions would try to spread simply by the appeal of its benefits. This would also make for a great expansion pack.

But to bring it back to factions...

Factions without religion is something -- two forces in your country competing for power, and you try to find ways to pacify both of them, or get rid of them. Religion without factions is nothing. If your entire country is the same religion, what's even the point?

Without factions, you can't have little priest units running around converting cities to your religion. Instead, the priest would be no different from a swordman. Throw him at a city, and the city becomes a part of your empire, not your religion.

That's my beef.

I can see where an 'autonomous religion' might have some value (POSSIBLY, let it have 'diplomatic relations' with different Civs or other religions...It could be the one that produces and controls 'Missionary' units)

Actually, I think I've been converted (sort of)
Assuming that those are the only two things they can do (produce 'Missionary' units and be more/less friendly with different Civs and Religions..That would be good)

Different religions would be more or less amenable to "National Control" (Catholicism low, Orthodox high)

Few other things religions should have,
Techs: based on techs in Civs that they are wide spread in, because some techs should have a religious effect
Money: Religious buildings of their religion could generate$ for them... and that money is spent on making 'Missionary' units or Diplomacy or maintenance for their religious buildings (or helping to build religious Wonders..although that could fall under Diplomacy)
Holy Sites: NOT something they own, but somewhere of importance to them (ie Jerusalem, Rome, Constantinople, Ganges)

Things they should NOT have,
Research (They get Techs through having a strong 'presence' in a certain civ),
Normal units,
Cities/Territory,
Government (They should have something that corresponds to Government ie their susceptibility to national control, their centralization, etc. but it should not be able to change)

[of course when it comes down to it , the "Wait and See" is the only real answer to this poll, because that's all we can do...I'm pretty sure their model is basically fixed]

I agree with Epic's hesitations regarding the incorporation of religion. Ideally, if they could add a new topic with new gameplay value...that would be great. My opinion, however, is that religion will detract from gameplay more than it will add. Perhaps it is just my playing style, but managing religious factions at anything more than a macro level would be obnoxious. Culture as included in civ3, for example, is a great system...but it had some negative effects on the flow of war. Cultural flips annihilating entire armies, "cultural radius" somehow determining which roads were usuable and which were magically too hard to walk on, and cities that had been bombarded to hell somehow regaining their huge cultural radius if liberated. Adding another "feature" such as religion is, more likely than not, going to make conflict even more tedious. Not to mention, the more useless divisions you create in a game system, the more frustrating the whole game becomes.

Religion could be a great addition, I just do not think anything less than tireless effort on Firaxis' part will produce the good results we are hoping for.

Many people are forgetting the vision of the product. The Civilization interprize was built to create a fun game that tought us about history.

In college courses such as Anthropology, Sociology, Psychology, World History or any Art class that discusses the realm of History and Great Civilizations, you must speak of the one issue that separates Man from Animal the greatest: that is religion. All these topics say the greatest evolutionary step in the progress of Man is religious thought. And if you happened to do well in your history classes, you may have noticed how important religion was in our philosophical thinking of laws, governments and culture.

I believe that if your gameplay involves dealing with religious groups you will see why particular Wonders are considered Wonders in the eyes of the world. How religion inspired cultures to grow rapidly. I have a feeling many people nowadays are threatened by religion thus wanting to shut it from their life and ignore its significance. And Sid isnt going to push the religion feature to be a key aspect of the gameplay, so that argument is weak. The religion feature will probably be used to enhance and manipulate your peoples.

Religion isnt a replica of Culture flips, Wonder buildings, and War; it is a tool that you can use to incite those occurances. If you want people to support you to build a Wonder, make it complimentary to your people's religion. Go to war with an oppressive Religions State. Why is Constantinople in a Muslim country? Let it flip to become a part of Greece!