Oversimplicity of technological progression?

[Colin]

Sorry my first post has to be rather a negative one, but has anyone else got a problem with the way all new technologies in Civ2 (and Civ3 by the look of things) bring only positive results?
I would have preferred to see a better balance in the new game. If a civilization puts efforts into researching for instance Communism, Nationalism, or nuclear power the potential negative effects of these should be shown.
A good example is when a civilization discovers Capitalism. The benefits of this are obvious both in the real world and in Civ, but where are the negative effects represented - what about the 'darker' side the profit motive, unemployment, alienation etc. brings?
Am still looking forward to the new game, but would have liked some new potential technological advances to be an effort of balancing the pros and cons.

 

[cort]

..boring boring boring..

 

[jjoakim]

I'm not so sure it would be a good idea to have negative effect when you discover new technology, the sheer knowledge of something doesn’t mean that you make use of or apply that knowledge in your civilizations way of living. But I would have been glad to have hade the same social engineering as you have in SMAC, with both positive effect in some areas and some downs for all kinds of government…

 

[Craterus22]

I agree with you Colin. I hope we can edit for these types of things in the editor.

Capitalism and Communism have both postives and negatives. SOme would argue that the negatives are that you aren't getting the postives of the alternate choices available. I believe there is more to it than that though...

 

[Dearmad]

There ARE negative effects, you've just chosen to overlook them because the game doesn't throw them in your face:

Casualties in war increase dramatically as your technology progresses- typically players and AI get more aggressive and kill people more often with each new military advance. And each pop "point" lost in an attacked city is a lot more people killed the larger a city is. I think genocide (a *typical* strategy in civ) rather atrocious, don't you?

Communism has its downsides too- since when is that the be all end all gov't in CIV. But ALL governments have a downside.

The environment gets polluted with greater productivity (albeit not polluted enough IMO to make me ever question progress).

People DO get rippingly angry in Civ-Democracies when you slacken on bringing in the money and start fighting wars... And people ARE left more destitute in demos- *that* is why there are more *unhappy* people to deal with in demos and *none* in communism.

If you *played* civ as if each pop point was representative of real people you would have a fuller understanding of how negative the advance of technologies can be on your people, but what are you to do in the face of other nations getting guns? You need to join them in the evil or you will not survive.

 

[Stuie]

I made a scenario for Civ2 where once you reached a certain point on the tech tree, you were forced to research "Dark Ages" that basically stripped away a lot of your Civs abilities until you progressed through the Dark Ages. That was cool for a scenario, but I think the regular game tries to focus on the positive side of human technological advancement. Guess Sid's an optimist in this regard.

 

[Scout]

Originally posted by Colin

Am still looking forward to the new game, but would have liked some new potential technological advances to be an effort of balancing the pros and cons.

It's funny you bring this up. I was thinking it would be neat if your civ invented computer gaming and it was easier to keep your population contented, but industriousness fell off. Or television could also raise contentment but make it tougher to fight foreign wars without unhappiness.

I don't know if it would do anything for gameplay, but it sure would be realistic.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

The techs in Civ are only a simulation of the real life situation. As it is, I think they work fine in the game. And I think the negative aspects of the techs are already being presented but not that obviously as had already been suggested by the other posters. How about a nuke launched against one of your SDI-less cities? That would be negative enough.

 

[The Last Conformist]

In Civ2, there actually was one negative effect of a tech - Communism made Cathedrals less effect.

IIRC, Industrialization also increased the risk of pollution.

 

[Magnus]

I believe the very core of the Civilization Series is progress and creation, not regression and destruction.

I think the strongest appeal of the game is seeing something amazing built by your own hands - why do you think wargames dont have the same appeal as civ?

 

[Cunobelin Of Hippo]

The discovery of Automobile in Civ 2 drastically increased one's pollution in a large city.

 

[Anunikoba]

There are repercusions to a lot of the techs, but only depending on how you use them. Each of the governements get certain bonuses, while also having bad effects (discontent) while also lacking other bonuses (communism doesn't research well).

Nukes are pretty obvious- nuclear weapons are available in CIV, and that is just about all the backlash anyone would need from discovering this tech.