I have been scolded earlier in this thread for criticizing rants. It is okay not to like the game, or certain aspects of the game.
As an analogy, theologians, when confronted with the brutality and immorality of the bible, go to great lengths trying to somehow reconcile the book with our modern understanding of morality and their perceived notion of a good god. In order to rationalize the bible's barbarism, they essentially make up more and more nonsense to cover what is nonsense in the first place.
I agree with this.
Yet this is not how we establish a good foundation for evaluating reality.
Well, we are not talking about reality! We are discussing a game, and the mechanics therein. That said, since the game has aspects of a simulation, the game mechanics have to make some sense -- or it is immersion breaking.
More like 1UPT, the most asinine and dim-witted decision ever to make it into a civ game. Unfortunately, also the most consequential one.
For sure, that is controversial. We agree that it is the most consequential. I would argue that, on balance, it was a fine decision. I know I sure have been enjoying 5 more than 4 or 3, and 5 certainly seems to have been a commercial success.
For me, the failures of the AI (during war and diplomacy) is probably the most disappointing aspect of the game. But that at least was not a deliberate design decision!
This is a purely modern viewpoint. Only in the last century has war gained such unpopularity in western societies.
That is at least mostly true, but I have no problem with projecting my modern viewpoint on a game for western societies. OTOH we know things didn't go well for the folk on the front lines, and sons and fathers were frequently conscripted for years (if they came back at all) -- so war == unhappy has always been true for the common citizen (even when the war was far away).
More to the point though, it's not as if the civ5 citizens dislike the wars themselves - there is no war weariness of any sort like in civ4
I actually miss war weariness, but I think unhappiness
is meant to reflecting the civ5 citizens disliking the wars.
and they don't mind losing - they actually get happier if some cities are lost
Agreed, that bit makes no sense. I think it is like that because the player mostly does not lose cities. If a player is losing cities, why penalize them more?
Yet they despise winning and capturing cities.
They despise being at war. I have no problem with that, especially since it is balanced against Ideology tenants that provide happiness. If there were no penalty associated with winning and capturing cities, which is what a lot of people seem to be wishing for, the game would be far less interesting. Domination victories would be so much easier. I very much appreciate the game tension as-is.
Now tell me, is this really worth rationalizing?
It is very interesting in play, and I find the game mechanics reasonable. If rationalization helps prevent games aspects from breaking a sense of immersion, yes, it is worth it!
I admit I'm impressed just how far and desperate your rationalizing effort goes.
Sorry, but I really don't feel like I am trying that hard. Now, please just don't ask me to justify pantheon benefits...
You'd make a good theologian!
LOL. It is my expertise in self-deception and rationalizations that kept me from atheism for many, many years...