Bye-Bye Religions?

[Seventh Child]

Religions were used to create diplomatic blocks but were rather awkward in doing that. Religious wars were indeed important (crusades), but many such wars were not between civilizations but inside one civilization (schism between shiites and sunnites, religious turmoils in Eastern Roman empire, religious wars in France under Henri III, Henri IV, Louis XIV...), and some civilizations didn't seem to view religions as a major reason for warfare (China doesn't seem to have had religious wars the way Europe or the middle east had).
So, much as I think religions are important, I think their implementation in Civ IV wasn't a very good rendition of the concept. I'm rather happy they don't bring it back to civ V.

Good points. The Eastern Religions didn't really cause too much trouble because they're not as important to them as some of the big hitters further west. They're either fairly vague and open spirituality like Shinto or more of a philosophy like Confucianism and Tao.

When you think from that perspective, Religion wasn't really important.

It was still pretty important for most of western Europe though (and to some degree, North America later on).

I'd hate to see it go, but if it doesn't fit I'd rather see it out than have it shoved in as a poorly thought out mechanic.

 

[Vrenir]

I'm a huge fan of religions in CivIV, but not in the way that they were used in the vanilla game. Essentially, Firaxis took the most politically correct route possible. They made every religion the same except for founding technology, and they made every leader (even the crazy zealous ones) switch to Free Religion as soon as it became available. At the same time, the way you could use certain wonders to tweak your religion's emphasis was great - Sankore turns religion into a scientific powerhouse, Spiral Minaret into a goldmine, etc. The CivIV setup also gave us the freedom to do what we wanted in the XML and SDK, which meant that we (being less constrained by public opinion) could make the religions different and strategic.

Religion being dropped is sad, and I think it takes away a really fun element. However, most of what I see as the true potential of the religious part was modded in. Firaxis used religion primarily as a way to make diplomatic alliances stronger, plus those wonder bonuses. Both can be accomplished easily without using religion as a mechanic, and the designers have probably done just that in CivV. I just wish that they would have left us the tools to make religion an actual factor.

 

[daniel192]

Even though I am an atheist, having it in the game adds charm to it and makes it much more realistic. It was one of the biggest implements in the franchise, but I guess Firaxis either doesn't see a need for religion, or they don't want it to be in, under some circumstances.

 

[zulu9812]

I see that the poll is overwhelmingly in favour of retaining religion. I like religion: it helps to give my empire 'character'. I would be very disappointed if it were absent from CiV.

 

[MeteorPunch]

I don't think it was very well implemented in Civ 4, so I'm fine with it being gone. It was annoying having diplomacy effected by this.

 

[LDiCesare]

I just wish that they would have left us the tools to make religion an actual factor.

I can't see why it wouldn't be possible to mod them back in. If Civ V is as moddable as Civ IV, that should be possible. Think Fall from Heaven II, where not only religions actually make sense, but also the mod has an entire mini game inside so if Civ V is as open, one can add religions in for sure.

 

[EmpireOfCats]

The Eastern Religions didn't really cause too much trouble because they're not as important to them as some of the big hitters further west.

Ah, no. So sorry.

Hinduism is enormously violent -- one reason why the Indian authorities don't know who blew up the "German Bakery" a few days ago is because it could be the Moslems or the Hindus. They are perfectly happy to kill people in the name of their religion as well. Trust me, it is very important to them.

Buddhism didn't "cause too much trouble" because it is less about things you are supposed to believe in and more about things you are supposed to do (which is why there is an influential book called Buddhism without Beliefs). It doesn't encourage violence at all, not even against homosexuals, witches, unbelievers or other people "not like us"; there is no "righteous anger" so popular with the American Evangelicals. There has never been a Buddhist religious war. Buddhism also doesn't claim to be the "one true faith", so Goldie Hawn can be a "Jewish Buddhist" with no problems -- try being a "Islamic Christian" and see what happens. The Buddhist Kalama Sutta actually tells you to question authority and not accept things on faith alone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalama_Sutta).

(Hindus see Buddhism as just a minor sect of Hinduism, which is probably just as well or things would be more violent in India than they are already.)

I could go on with the other religions, but it's all in the Wikipedia and the basic thrust is: They are either just as violent, or don't have the "convert or kill all the others" streak of the Abrahamic religions and are non-violent. However, this doesn't mean in any way that they are "not important" to the people there, just because they don't go around slaughtering each other like we did in the West and currently do in the Middle East. Historically, they are of supreme importance: China wouldn't be China without Buddhism and Confucianism.

Which leads us back to why Civ should keep religions. I mean, you can't have Asoka in a game that doesn't have Buddhism any more than you can have Washington in a game that doesn't have democracy.

 

[EmpireOfCats]

Having written all of that, I find it hard to believe that PC is not a primary reason that they are going to dump religions. To make sense, you would have to include things like the Christian crusades or the Islamic Jihads, both of which were very, very important for history. However, to satisfy the PC crowd, they would have to make all religions equally violent, even if they clearly are not. But then you end up with Taoist or Buddhist crusades, which is beyond silly.

I understand their reasoning -- they're in the business to sell games first, be accurate second. Still, it's too bad. Even in this minor form, religions made a lot of sense. Maybe I'll live long enough to see a version of Civ where they can tell it like it was.

 

[ColdFever]

Religion and especially its rich consequences via the Apostolic Palace for me belong to the most beautiful achievements of Civ4. Probably no other single aspect did have such an influence on history as Religion, and Civ4 made a good effort of implementing a believable gameplay mechanism. If Civ5 would dump Religions and its rich consequences, I hardly can imagine it favoring it over Civ4.

IMHO it would be terrible if in the end we would sit there with Civ5 and its rich graphics, longing for the rich gameplay of Civ4...

 

[Pikkis]

IMHO it would be terrible if in the end we would sit there with Civ5 and its rich graphics, longing for the rich gameplay of Civ4...

Seconded.

 

[The Turk]

They should definetly keep religions, but I strongly believe that they should take out Daoism, its so random since its more of a philosophy then a religion, even Theravada Buddhism is more of a religion then Daoism, if anything there should be a pagan religion, ie Hellenism

 

[Silv Something]

Religion and especially its rich consequences via the Apostolic Palace for me belong to the most beautiful achievements of Civ4. Probably no other single aspect did have such an influence on history as Religion, and Civ4 made a good effort of implementing a believable gameplay mechanism. If Civ5 would dump Religions and its rich consequences, I hardly can imagine it favoring it over Civ4.

IMHO it would be terrible if in the end we would sit there with Civ5 and its rich graphics, longing for the rich gameplay of Civ4...

Seconded.

But you see, if Civ V is really as moddable as Civ IV, we could just mod the rich gameplay back in!

 

[sappy]

I always thought that the way religions needed to be looked at. I always thought it would be better to be able to found your own religion with the same technology as another one. But then you could merge your religion with another Civ's if they have the same foundations (i.e. bourne out of the same technology). I think this is how religion works in real life. Also, if your religion is bourne out of a more advanced technology. Then you should be able to spread it to other Civ's.

This would also lead on being able to religions spliting into denominations, then possibly early Civ's becoming polarised and seperating which again i think would mimic history. It also annoys me that religions don't die out, which we know they can do as well.

I just would like the new CIV to make religion a more dynamic concept where it does become interchangable with the governments.

I wonder if anyone else has thought about this like i have?

 

[EmpireOfCats]

if anything there should be a pagan religion, ie Hellenism

Actually, I never thought of that, but you're right: They only have "modern" religions (though the roots of Hinduism go back so far they could probably claim it's been around forever). I second Hellenism, or even better, whatever the name is for the Egyptian gods.

 

[sappy]

Actually, I never thought of that, but you're right: They only have "modern" religions (though the roots of Hinduism go back so far they could probably claim it's been around forever). I second Hellenism, or even better, whatever the name is for the Egyptian gods.

It could be argued that Hinduism is a pagan religion.

 

[Hyronymus]

I voted No (I like religions as a flavour to your gameplay) but I wonder: who or what is the source of the rumour that religions may not be included in Civ5?

@sappy: let's not get into a discussion of what religions are best and the like. It always turns ugly.

 

[LDiCesare]

I mean, you can't have Asoka in a game that doesn't have Buddhism any more than you can have Washington in a game that doesn't have democracy.

Funny, I know some games with Washington in and no democracy (wargame about Frensh-Indian wars featuring Washington, admittedly as a very minor character)

I stand by my statement that eastern (Chinese) religions haven't had that much influence on China vs. foreign states relationships. Also, hinduism is probably at least as violent internally as externally.
Religions are important, but their effect in Civ was mostly a diplomatic effect that wasn't realistic at all. Crusades were about Christians freeing Jerusalem from pagans (or Muslims, to the medieval knight, it was the same thing), so why did one of them end up conquering the very Christian Constantinople instead? How are intra religious wars represented in Civ IV? Did people ever actually care they were at war against their 'brothers of the faith'? Was it fun to lose the game because one city in your empire had religion X, which amounted to 10% of total world population, and someone won the Religious victory? Religion implementation in Civ IV was average at best, and its main effect was a iplomatic one. If they get rid of it to provide a better diplomacy, then the game will be better imo (all other things being equal).

 

[sappy]

I voted No (I like religions as a flavour to your gameplay)

@sappy: let's not get into a discussion of what religions are best and the like. It always turns ugly.

I wasn't trying to imply one religion was better than another. I wouldnt put religions in with their current names, I would like to see it where you basically make your own religion up with its own characteristics that give you different bonus'. Then you could tweak your own religion which could cause your civ to fracture. I just basically wanted to see something a bit more fluid, so your civ's identity would change.

The best example I can think of is where older European civ's were very much Chrisitan orientated, however now they're secular. Seeing civ's being able to change in this manner would be great in respect to your religions make up altering/evolving.

 

[marioflag]

I think that losing religion is a huge blow. Anyway in civ4 it was one of the feature which was worst implemented anyone remember all the world filled with cities with Buddhist or Induist religion.
If they can find a more sophisticated and better way to implement religion it would be the best option but a reimplementation of religion like it was in Civ4 is not a good idea imo

 

[The_J]

I voted No (I like religions as a flavour to your gameplay) but I wonder: who or what is the source of the rumour that religions may not be included in Civ5?

Look here.