Hints That Religion Won't Be Returning?

[Zyxpsilon]

On the subject of civics, where's the option for free trade?

I'd risk the current "Diplomatic Dealings" analogy for a swift related fact but i guess, it wouldn't really count as a proper Civic principle, somehow.
Funny how interpretation can turn anything into controversy though.

The Human mind is sooooooo complex when cornered into variable spiritual concepts that have Economic (and Social!) implications.

 

[cavilier210]

I like the idea of being able to name the religions. Maybe even get a choice of symbols. Some of real religions, some just there to make variety.

I mean, come on, this game is pretty shallow now. Giving it flavor, while also adding another (hopefully working) demension to diplo would be awesome.

I liked racing to found christianity in IV (me being a christian... i think O.o )

It also opens up new policy possibilities.

 

[KingYosef]

One of Civ 5's biggest blunders was not including religion. Who was the idiot on that call!?

 

[cavilier210]

One of Civ 5's biggest blunders was not including religion. Who was the idiot on that call!?

The "Director of Political Correctness and Proggressive Thinking"

 

[forty2j]

and expressing your opinion is good, but only when necessary, not when trying to grief people.

I would expect the religiously sensitive wouldn't get anywhere near the game, let alone these forums. I mean.. I'm atheist myself, and even I cringed when the words "New York has founded Islam" appeared on my screen in Civ 4. Can you imagine..?

I do think the atheist concept should be better represented in the game, though not in a tongue-in-cheek way like pastafarism or discordian. Civ 4 used "no state religion" to represent freedom of religion, which is far and away not the same thing. There have been large, moderately successful nations (primarily communist, I believe) where the state "religion" was atheism.

 

[Horizons]

I'd risk the current "Diplomatic Dealings" analogy for a swift related fact but i guess, it wouldn't really count as a proper Civic principle, somehow.
Funny how interpretation can turn anything into controversy though.

Trade via diplomacy isn't the same as spontaneous free trade between the individuals of different nations that the government doesn't get involved in.

We already have an abstracted representation of trade routes (and abstractions are fine by me) ... it's just that they are internal ONLY, i.e. the citizens of the nations of Civ5 trade with their own kind but never with foreigners, not even allies or city-states.