Animals are never killed

[hucker]

Anyone else noticed that when you blow up a scout/cavalry etc, the dog/horse always runs away instead of dying? How unrealistic!

 

[Tacgnol]

No animals were harmed in the making of this game!

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

No animals were harmed in the making of this game!

Not like Civ IV where you have to clear them out.

 

[Guandao]

Maybe they did this to avoid criticism from Animal Rights groups? I remember the horses dying along with the human riders in Civ5.

 

[ShakaKhan]

No animals were harmed in the making of this game!

Except what do you think happens when you "harvest" a cattle or sheep... that produces a lot of food...

 

[Victoria]

Except what do you think happens when you "harvest" a cattle or sheep... that produces a lot of food...

But it's all in the visuals, now if a slaughter woman came out ant slit their throats I am sure their would be complaints... harvest is such a nice word

 

[Leyrann]

I loved this when I first noticed it. Poor animals didn't have any choice, after all.

 

[Uberfrog]

I can only imagine the animators were animal lovers . I don't mind, it's quite sweet really.

What happens to the elephants when a Varu is killed?

 

[Victoria]

What happens to the elephants when a Varu is killed?

They lie down, go to sleep then gently vanish

 

[bite]

It is most likly a small thing they could do that impacts on the rating in some countries

 

[kaspergm]

I loved this when I first noticed it. Poor animals didn't have any choice, after all.

Me too, I really appreciate this design detail.

 

[devonitar]

Dying animals wouldn't really fit the visual style of Civ VI.

 

[DJ_Tanner]

It is most likly a small thing they could do that impacts on the rating in some countries

Its more that it is simply unappealing to many. Look at movies, unless it is vital to the plot, dogs basically never die onscreen. People just don't want to see it. Add to that, it adds literally nothing to the actual game, its a pretty easy thing to leave out.

 

[Disgustipated]

People just don't want to see it.

Count me in this group, especially with regards to dogs. I suppose you can say it lessons the realism of the game, but this is one change I don't mind. Especially since animals dying or not has no impact on gameplay. Although you can argue that having healthy horses was a serious issue in maintaining cavalry units over the years, but no one wants that level of micromanagement.

I don't mind PC changes like this which have little impact. But the lack of a slavery policy card you have to wonder if they are being too PC in games now days.

 

[TLiciousX]

Dog- and Horse- lovers are very passionate people in general.

 

[Zaarin]

I wouldn't say it annoys me per se, but it definitely strikes me as odd. Especially with horses, since the quickest way to bring down a cavalry regiment is to discomfit their horses, not take down the rider. It definitely comes across as cloying at any rate, and this from someone who loves the art style and very much objects to its being called "cartoony." If you are traumatized by the death of an eight-pixel dog but not the accompanying twelve-pixel human, you may be in need of psychiatric help.

 

[unpossible251]

a dead horse is cover, a live horse is a big lump of panic... miss u Mal.

 

[GenyaArikado]

I'm glad they aren't. Specially for dogs

 

[gunnergoz]

What would be the point of it? The combat routines are already cartoony to reduce the violence level. There is a deliberate effort to break the illusion of actual, realistic warfare going on. And can you imagine swinging an enemy overhead using the spear that pierced him? Basic leverage would tell you that's nearly impossible for anyone but some kind of mythical giant to do. It's a game, not a simulation. I'm fine with it, especially since it allows a wider base of users to play the game without concerns for appropriateness. It can also be used in schools for this reason. (BTW, for a gore fix, I play XCom 2.)

 

[Abraxis]

If you are traumatized by the death of an eight-pixel dog but not the accompanying twelve-pixel human, you may be in need of psychiatric help.

To the extreme of being traumatized I certainly agree. As far as being disproportionately affected by the concepts, you have to wonder why there is a difference in how each is perceived. The need to try to normalize, accept, even in some cases embrace the death of others we see as equals; I think it has to do with our general struggle to understand and cope with our own mortality. We accept our own deaths by accepting the deaths of others we can relate to. It's also something we grow reinforcing as an inevitability which mutes the unexpectedness.
Obviously this wouldn't apply to children and to animals in a position of service, not only do we feel an innate sense of responsibility for them we don't have for our equals, we have no reason to expect or try to accept their deaths. So we bear the full brunt of the concept of loss in their case.

Also, just imagine how long it took to train them all to participate in the game.