TheGrayFox
King
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2024
- Messages
- 679
Once you've swallowed this level of absurdity:
It seems odd to draw the line at this:
The first set is just those disconnected bits I referenced that have existed in every iteration, and that even you think give the game its charm. The second set is just different bits being disconnected/differently-connectable-in-game-than-IRL.
you're essentially asking "well if you are okay with some level absurdity then why aren't you okay with a completely different type of absurdity which fundamentally changes a long established formula which you've come to enjoy as a fan" and you don't see the disconnect? This same line of reasoning could be used to ask you why you wouldn't be okay adding fantasy races and alien leaders to the game or to inquire why a fan wouldn't be okay with leaders changing completely randomly every age.
As Sagax so elegontly pointed out, every person will subjectively draw a line in the sand at different places when it comes to how they role play and immerse themselves into a game like Civ. So it's really a fruitless for you to try reason that I should be able and willing to shallow different absuridities and changes, just because you can.
If Firaxis let us keep our civs fundamentally and just pick new era bonuses, we wouldn't be having this discussionWhat if the new bonuses were originally inspired by modern European colonial states (or modern Asian/African states*) created by genocide/oppression….but they kept their civ(name+city list+graphics)
*since gameplay unlocks would mean the Shawnee might be able to unlock Qing, Buganda, Mughal**, etc. sets of unique ability/unit/infrastructure/civics
** all formed through oppression (and occasionally genocide) …but not of the Shawnee.