Discussion in 'CivBE - General Discussions' started by Sal, Sep 2, 2014.
So we're back to the point of why it's called culture.
Indeed. If man goes to a other planet to settle it, it will have culture.
Culture envelops all this: arts and other manifestations of human intellectual achievement, The ideas, customs, and social behaviour of a particular people or society, and many many more.
Even if man goes into 1 of the 3 affinities (purity: stay human, supremacy: "evolve" into advanced cyber species, harmony "adapt" to live on this planet) it will still be "human" in some way and have values, opinions, customs, make art, ...
Only if man becomes " brainless zombies" and has/makes no art, traditions, opinions, values, ... anymore then there will be no more culture...
Its called culture because it represents the shared beliefs of the population.. beliefs in military might or knowledge or industry or prosperity, beliefs in their particular city.
It also apparently encourages those who are wandering off far to regard themselves as still part of the group, and to lay claim to their surroundings. (China and Japan may have been isolated, but that was only on a large scale..on an area that was already well settled..just like later tiles will only be acquired slowly)
Now... we don't know that it Doesn't help cities flip (or help espionage in general)...and I hope it does.
It could also help annexed cities be more "healthy"
The idea of culture in an increasingly interconnected, globalized world is a bit odd anyways. I can definitely see political allegiances, but unless globalization somehow stops, people are going to become more and more culturally similar.
I think culture is a bad name for this mechanic. Someone mentioned spirit, which makes a lot more sense. Spirit would make denizens more adventurous to venture beyond the city limits in addition to trying new things (virtues). A faction that lacks spirit is too paranoid or afraid or conservative (in the social/psychological meaning) to tame the unknown environment or to adapt (virtues).
On the new world, globalization HAS stopped. No instant trade between all cities in the world overnight.
Also I think you overestimate the effects of globalization in wiping out differing cultures. Particularly when you include things like religion in culture.
Political allegiances can reduce that globalization (McPeace theory soundly demolished this year with Russia)
Small, local cultures will get wiped out, large powerful ones will use globalization for their own purposes.
I am often surprised how many people request markedly more innovative Game Mechanics in every sequel these days. Some studies have show that people tend to purchase subsequent games in any given franchise in direct correlation to the similarity of the Game Mechanics to a previous iteration. Put simply, imagine how much complaining we might see if Civilization 6 innovated itself into a F2P FPS MMO model. Are we in such a demanding hurry today for NEW NEW NEW GAME MECHANICS that we cannot appreciate the gradual innovation of the OLD MECHANICS folks?
As to Abstract (open to interpretation) vs. Concrete Game Mechanics (closely modeled on the real world/closed to some interpretation) don't you folks see that arguing that your personal interpretation of what the Concrete Game Mechanics should be may not reflect the desires of many other Civ Players? Can't you see that Abstract Mechanics please more players? With Abstract Mechanics you can draw any lien of reasoning you enjoy. With Concrete Mechanics we only seem to get in arguments about what is 'Right' and 'Wrong' with a game...for example with the constant complainants about the Civ 5 AI. Many players of Civ 5 seem to have made peace with the Imperfect AI and learned to work with what they have before them. Can't we all do the same instead of arguing about Specific Mechanics not being Good/Innovative enough?
Is everyone forgetting that Alpha Centauri was a reskin of Civ II? And look how good that turned out.
It wasn't quite only a reskin, but it had about as much in the way of new mechanics compared to Civ2 as CivBE has relative to Civ5. That's what people tend to forget.
One significant difference is that SMAC had a change of engine compared to its "parent" Civ, which created an extra, if ultimately misleading, feeling of playing a truly new game.
I like the Civ V engine, so I have no complaints with how Beyond Earth plays in that regard. The only thing I'm really hoping for is much improved AI so I can get by through Harmony in relative peace. Honestly, I would much rather them save their resources to make a new engine for Civ 6. BE is merely holding me over until then.
But you're right. It didn't really offer anything in the way of new mechanics, yet still turned out to be a great game. BE at least has unit customization, so it's taking nods from both Civ V and AC alike. Sounds good to me.
Actually, Culture was a part of the original CIV, it was invisible and had a negligible effect on the game, but when you retired you could see your cultural borders. It was used for one of the victory conditions own x% of the world land mass.
I like culture, I think it's still appropriate, in Civ 5 or 4 or whichever you weren't converting barbarians with culture (although I guess you could destroy their camps with it) it was to insulate you from your enemies and to let you work more land.
Separate names with a comma.