A reasonable plea - don't be so shallow

[The Last Conformist]

Tell me, why am I reading the posts of someone who believes that India and China account for more than half the world's population?

 

[Denarr]

Really they should have all the civs that ever existed. Current computer HDs could easily handle it. Heck, I would even do some research, and I think most of the people on this forum would, to get Firaxis the info they needed. It would make a good community contribution to add some historical(replaying history that is) depth to Civ 4.

The problem I see with this is that no everyone can offord multiGig hard drives. Some poor folk are still using computers that are five to ten years old, making the number of people buying the game lower as the size of the game gets larger. Something Game makers have to take into consideration as they choose just how large to make the game.

 

[tcjsavannah]

You know what the great Wstern civilization is to China? A spot on the map. A country that can be overrun with chinese soldiers armed with spoons. A market that is not wothy of fighting for.

In 20 years, you'll be begging to have any western civilization inculded in any compter game, so better start to make some changes now, before its too late.

Two words: Yao Ming.

 

[Bibor]

Tell me, why am I reading the posts of someone who believes that India and China account for more than half the world's population?

Because you just might learn something. Here, follow these links:
China's population (currently 1,2 billion):
http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/LUC/ChinaFood/data/pop/pop_7.htm

India's population (currently 1,1 billion):
http://www.folium.ro/world-encyclopedia/india/33.htm

Now just add the other far east countries and calculate yourself.

Ohh, I'm sorry. I'ts not 50%, its 35%. I'm so sorry. My bad.

-kirby

 

[mitsho]

There's a big difference between 50 % and 35 %. And can you tell me, why the eastern civilization should overrun the western one? If it develops the way you think, the 'civilizations' should be even...

mfG mitsho

 

[geishapunk]

I think you are not satisfied with the shallow level of representation of the various nations, e.g. Egypt: Cleopatra look, Pyramids, War Chariot. That's the only difference to other civs. Besides two rather fitting traits because they were really very religious and industrious because they used so many slaves to build the Pyramids. Was that your point?

hmmm... the egpyts used workers not slaves to build the great pyramids.

 

[mitsho]

not exactly, the fellachs (farmers) had to help building it during the time where few work had to be done on the farms along the Nile. (sorry for nitpicking)

mfG mitsho

 

[socralynnek]

The Pyramids are still The Pyramids.
If Cambodia builds Angkor Watt, then Egypt cannot build The Pyramids. This way every culture has unique architechture, you can even see that in the city view. The city view also nees a major upgarde, specifically accurately reflect the population. it is not as though it has any other purpose then to show the city, although all it really is now is some houses, a skyscraper, and the improvements.

If you want all the civs to be different, then there probably should be differential developement. All civs reserach techs in different orders and arrive at units resources in different ways. Maybe some discover tech early that others discover later. Some might get special unit types(not UUs) etc. I would like this kind of system. They approached it in the Middle Ages scenario.

Really they should have all the civs that ever existed. Current computer HDs could easily handle it. Heck, I would even do some research, and I think most of the people on this forum would, to get Firaxis the info they needed. It would make a good community contribution to add some historical(replaying history that is) depth to Civ 4.

Different development I could live with, but then it would be really hard to balance it.
But the other thing you propose is just giving the same things different graphics and different names for different civs. That's also ok for me, but I have always seen Civ not as a history game but as a "make your own history" game, something like: What would have happened if the romans build the Pyramids and not the Egyptians?

So, I don't see the point in doing a lot of artwork, if the same money could be spent of making actually the game better ( I hope they even make better graphics, I like some eye candies especially when I have a new game, but is just a minor thing). I really hate those games that look nice but the game sucks after playing a few hours.

EDIT: Hey, this is my 300th post... I can make my avatar...but what do I take....hmmmm

 

[thestonesfan]

At least when Sid created Civ1 he had the conscience not to put America as a civ into game. With civ2, things only get worse, and he probably knows this.

Hey genius, America was in Civ1. What do you mean things got worse in Civ2? Have you even played that?

As for the game being Euro/Middle-eastern, it's a matter of time when the western civilization will be begging the Eastern for mercy. Hell, I'm western too, but I can see it coming.

When?

So put your haughty ideals like "black people are not humans" and "indians are to be slaughtered" to a safe and lock it down forever.

Lordy, you're a buffoon.

Every nation has its great virtues and flaws. India and China make more than half of the world's population.

You know what the great Wstern civilization is to China? A spot on the map. A country that can be overrun with chinese soldiers armed with spoons. A market that is not wothy of fighting for.

So the Chinese, armed with nought but spoons, could destroy the combined armies of Western Nations?

In 20 years, you'll be begging to have any western civilization inculded in any compter game, so better start to make some changes now, before its too late.

You really should consider never posting anything, ever again. You aren't flattering yourself, to put it mildly.

 

[Synthshadow]

Unflattering and almost dangerously wrong on a lot of things.....

The early bird may get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese!

 

[gazdeluxe11]

I dont think anyone on this forum has ever suggested that "black people are not humans".

Either you are a moron, or english is not your first language. I suspect it is the latter.

America will be in the next Civ, because we have dominated the Modern Age. The UU should reflect this (maybe a bit more powered than the F-15, but still a modern age unit).

-john

 

[Longasc]

This is in danger of getting way off topic.

Bibor:
If you are insisting on discussing cruelties that were done to native americans or the slavery of blacks, you should either switch the forum and speak a little bit friendlier because you already provoked a lot of people here as you can read.

I am afraid you are losing the historical context and the connection to the game, pointing out what certain groups or civilizations did wrong gets easily mixed with ideologies that are based on hate and prejudice.

You should verbalize your points anew and bring this discussion back to the topic, I hope you did not want it to develop this way.

 

[geishapunk]

not exactly, the fellachs (farmers) had to help building it during the time where few work had to be done on the farms along the Nile. (sorry for nitpicking)

mfG mitsho

If you nitpick, then do it right.

They did not used slaves, plus the fellachs were not forced to build the pyramids. The Pharao paid them! And most of the workers worked the pyramids during the times they had no work at home.

Even if the Eygpts would have forced the fellachs to work the pyramids they would not be called "slaves"! Slavery is something way different.

 

[Longasc]

You are a really terrible nitpicker!

 

[geishapunk]

You are a really terrible nitpicker!

Sorry, but that shoe won´t fit. Wasn´t me starting nitpicking....

 

[mitsho]

I just won't answer to that post in order not to get off topic But basically I didn't say anything else than you. You just pointed it out more than I did.

mfG mitsho

 

[geishapunk]

I wrote: "hmmm... the egpyts used workers not slaves to build the great pyramids."

To make clear that this
"I think you are not satisfied with the shallow level of representation of the various nations, e.g. Egypt: Cleopatra look, Pyramids, War Chariot. That's the only difference to other civs. Besides two rather fitting traits because they were really very religious and industrious because they used so many slaves to build the Pyramids. Was that your point?"

is not true.

You wrote: "not exactly, the fellachs (farmers) had to help building it during the time where few work had to be done on the farms along the Nile. (sorry for nitpicking)"

;P

 

[Algernon Pondlife]

I just want some more realism - not in game mechanics - but in the general relation to history.

Hi Bibor,

This is what I have always been shouting for as well: more realism in the general relation to history

Unfortunately your first post did not seem to be about that. It seemaed to be demanding more realism in the specific relation to history.

That is the opposite of what I want. (I must tell Firaxis someday; maybe they will listen to me and ignore the other 1.5 million purchasers)

Civilization is not about history; it is about the nature of history. It is about the way that communities grow and develop and intreact with their neighbours technologically, culturally, politically, philosophically. It is about managing and competing for and exploiting resources. It is about adjusting to changing circumstances from external and internal causes. In a sense the use of real names of countries and peoples etc. is the single biggest hindrance to understanding this. But they are essentially irrelevant (of course if you play an Earth scenario and are interested in history then you will want some kind of correlation - try TAM), comfortable labels.

I don't know what else to say. The nature and depth of realism in a game is properly derived from its underlying premis and even then it is always a compromise with playability.

You will get a different kind of very detailed realism in Europa Universalis and its offshoots and in games like The Operational Art of War and a still different kind of realism in Alpha Centauri for example. f you want to challenge the validity of the civ design then please address what it is, not what it is not.

cheers

Algae

 

[Trade-peror]

Exactly, Algernon Pondlife!

I have long wanted to make clear that maintaining historical authenticity, essentially a "generic version of history," has been crucial to Civ's identity and its appeal, and differentiates it from historical simulations that are a model of what actually did happen. That said, I would even consider throwing unique units and traits out, and having a more generic approach whereby such characteristics/abilities are derived from a civ's actual development during a game. Algernon has a point in saying that even the usage of real names and historical figures is irrelevant but comforting, especially to establish the "feel" of historical authenticity.

Finally returning to the original topic at hand, I agree with the original post that the "cartoony" feel of Civ3 is detrimental, although I would also object to an atmosphere that rigidly adheres to what actual history dictates (for the reasons stated above). Therefore, I would simply prefer, as Warpstorm put it, "more class and elegance" as opposed to Civ3's comedic atmosphere.

 

[sir_schwick]

I don't mind the comedic, cartoony representation of the developement of Civilization. I just think the way development is currently portrayed is very condescending to non-Western cultures and civilizations. It should be more open minded, or distinctly unique in many ways of developement. That could even be a strategic part of planning research, where one path has certain advanatages and disadvantages, based on terrain, security needs, and other. This system would make civs that had a reason to develop the way they did.

The civilization of Minos actually descended from many barbaric European tribes who took over parts of the Mediterranean. Some of there brothers, and bitter enemies, include the Dorians(who destroyed Mycenean culture and later evolved into the Hellenic peoples of Greece). I may not be 100% accurate on this. This point is pretty moot, since most players don't really want to know that much history. I know that was a condescending remark, but in general players want to replay there greatest historical heros, not live in the crappy world of the past(except for Greece, Minos, Indus River Valley and Mayan empires, they all would rock to live in, even if you were a slave, maybe).

I know this rambled on a bit after the first paragraph, which was designed to be seriously considered. I apologize for that and hope this doesn't incur the wrath of the forum gods.