Indeed. I don't see what speaks against a unique dedication for each civ that pops up in the age which featured their golden era in history or when their leader lived (although I don't know what to do with Gilgamesh in that regard since you can't choose a dedication for the ancient era).
My impression is that the dev team doesn't prioritize civ power balance. Otherwise why did they never nerf the Aztecs, Sumer or Nubia, but intervened against Scythia (*Siptah thumbs up*) or England (*Siptah thumbs down*)? It is always a luring danger that new mechanics weaken the vanilla civs compared to newer ones that make use of these mechanics, but if the devs wanted to make things more equal, changing a few numbers here and there alone could do a lot. The thought that keeping the power "balance" as it is right now is a reason to not add new things feels unsatisfying to me.
I would say no. If you had the DLC, you would have Cyrus and Leader 2 leading Persia; if you did not have the DLC, then you would just have Leader 2 leading Persia. It would probably be very easy to do; the question is if Firaxis considers Persia worth a second leader (and as much as I'd love the answer to be yes, I'm guessing the answer is no ).
I have a feeling if that were the case then there would be a lot of disabling of the first DLC if you could get Persia now without Macedon. I'd still keep it though.
Indeed. I don't see what speaks against a unique dedication for each civ that pops up in the age which featured their golden era in history or when their leader lived (although I don't know what to do with Gilgamesh in that regard since you can't choose a dedication for the ancient era).
Not to mention that it's just more blown resources and time taken for things they could be doing to add to the game in a more meaningful way. They'd have to make (how many ages are there again?) six leader screens for every leader for every civ.
Not to mention that it's just more blown resources and time taken for things they could be doing to add to the game in a more meaningful way. They'd have to make (how many ages are there again?) six leader screens for every leader for every civ.
And the whole thing was a bit too euro-centric. The suit and tie would not be the standard formal attire for the modern era in a world where the Inca achieved global dominance, for example.
And the whole thing was a bit too euro-centric. The suit and tie would not be the standard formal attire for the modern era in a world where the Inca achieved global dominance, for example.
We live in a culture where it's okay to talk about Hitler being evil, ambiguous to talk about Stalin or Mao being evil, and best to forget as soon as possible that the West has ever done anything evil unless you can blame it on Christians like the Crusades or witch trials.
I have a feeling if that were the case then there would be a lot of disabling of the first DLC if you could get Persia now without Macedon. I'd still keep it though.
I'd be torn, because I love Cyrus (ahistorical as he is), but I'd be delighted to never see Alexander again--especially since he shows up in 95% of my games.
Civ 5 missed a great opportunity by not customizing this quote to the culturally dominant civ. "Darn you Maria Theresa, our people are now buying your lederhosen and listening to your opera music."
Civ 5 missed a great opportunity by not customizing this quote to the culturally dominant civ. "Darn you Maria Theresa, our people are now buying your lederhosen and listening to your opera music."
There's a very high correlation between the sensitivity of topics like slavery and the degree of political correctness, even in countries where slavery has never been allowed (though most of those countries still traded slaves on the Atlantic).
Only in one direction - topics that are politically correct tend to be sensitive, more or less by definition, but far from all sensitive topics are politically correct. No one would likely describe airbrushing climate change or pollution out of Civ games as 'political correctness', but those have been excised for precisely the same commercial reason as slavery. There's also nothing to be gained by portraying a reasonable (to gun-shy US companies) commercial caution with what amounts to a value judgment, which is all the 'PC' label is.
"Immersion" is a bit over-stated anyhow. I'm no professional; but if anyone reading this is ever playing a video game and forgets they're playing a video game, I'd suggest that they seek help (or maybe just go outside for an hour or two).
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
).
