Q&A with Dennis Shirk

[Gucumatz]

I don't think its unlikely that a 2nd African civ gets in [I would say odds are very high, maybe 90% considering the major scenario of the expansion is dedicated to Africa]. The question is, will a 3rd [Or even possibly a 4th]?

Since I probably won't make the Q&A and don't use twitter personally, would someone mind asking him tomorrow the state of the Pueblo? We still have not fully ruled them out, but it would be nice to receive confirmation if they have been ruled out, or just the leader Popey

 

[PhilBowles]

I'd rather have Shaka (who I fondly remember from 4) than, for example, more Native Americans and especially more Europeans. I want more Asia and more Africa, and the Zulu, like it or not, are an exemplar of South Africa. It's not like the Huns, who I think were truly undeserving (its telling that they had to steal city names in order to make that Civ work).

It's telling they had to name Zulu "cities" after battlefields to make that civ work too...

The intent isn't to exemplify South Africa, where the Zulu are a minority group infliuential mainly for having the largest single-ethnic politocal party, and as a country for whom the Xhosa leader Nelson Mandela is a much more obvious choice. It's merely to include the Zulu because the Zulu have been in the game in the past.

I don't have any particular objection to including the Zulu in the same game as the Huns or Celts, which are at least as awkward a fit for 'Civilization', but there really are no grounds to justify their inclusion based on anything other than fan interest. As a state they were short-lived, in the European race for Africa they were a minor aside known only for a single victory against the British, part of a war the Zulu lost (and long after Shaka's era). And their city names are every bit as arbitrary as those of the Huns or Polynesians.

 

[Tchuli]

To me, they can introduce The Martians, with Ajax as a leader... as long as it's a different way to play the game that will net me some more hours...

Everytime I describe CiV to my friends I say that the greatest thing about the game is that you can play it in a lot of different ways... And they're all fun!

I'm from Brazil, but what I liked most about its announcement was the new way to play (totally focused on tourism)... Don't really care to play as Santa Claus...

If the Zulu are announced tomorrow and they have some cool (and different) combination of UA/UB/UU/UI... I'll love them!

 

[turingmachine]

It's telling they had to name Zulu "cities" after battlefields to make that civ work too...

The intent isn't to exemplify South Africa, where the Zulu are a minority group infliuential mainly for having the largest single-ethnic politocal party, and as a country for whom the Xhosa leader Nelson Mandela is a much more obvious choice. It's merely to include the Zulu because the Zulu have been in the game in the past.

I don't have any particular objection to including the Zulu in the same game as the Huns or Celts, which are at least as awkward a fit for 'Civilization', but there really are no grounds to justify their inclusion based on anything other than fan interest. As a state they were short-lived, in the European race for Africa they were a minor aside known only for a single victory against the British, part of a war the Zulu lost (and long after Shaka's era). And their city names are every bit as arbitrary as those of the Huns or Polynesians.

First, not all of their cities were battle names. The Civ IV city list actually included some really cities in Zululand.

Second, so what if they're only being included because of fan response. Civ is a game. Part of making a game is appealing to what would be popular, what people would recognize, and catering to your long term fans and series history. Those are just as important reasons to include a faction in a franchise than anything else. It's funny how some people seem to have this over-inflated idea of what civ is.

 

[AriochIV]

I think we'll get a puddle and some folks will try to dive in headfirst anyways.

There are folks here who could easily drown in a puddle.

 

[cakes]

just a reminder that the civilization series is about building a civilization, so historical impact is not an argument against a nation's inclusion

 

[poom3619]

Hear we go again... Zulu argue.

About the Q&A. I might join it today. It will start half past midnight here. But you know, Sleeping can wait! (or I should take some nap that usually cause insomnia to me?)

 

[Rob (R8XFT)]

There are folks here who could easily drown in a puddle.

Indeed. Get ready to update your excellent website !

 

[Nyanko]

Hear we go again... Zulu argue.

About the Q&A. I might join it today. It will start half past midnight here. But you know, Sleeping can wait! (or I should take some nap that usually cause insomnia to me?)

Sleep is for the weak!
Now go watch that QnA while I get some sleep...

 

[jddods]

To me, they can introduce The Martians, with Ajax as a leader... as long as it's a different way to play the game that will net me some more hours...

Everytime I describe CiV to my friends I say that the greatest thing about the game is that you can play it in a lot of different ways... And they're all fun!

I'm from Brazil, but what I liked most about its announcement was the new way to play (totally focused on tourism)... Don't really care to play as Santa Claus...

If the Zulu are announced tomorrow and they have some cool (and different) combination of UA/UB/UU/UI... I'll love them!

I am with you, new and different it good,
I understand that some of us have a fav civ (e.g. Zulu or Kongo) and it's human nature to construct an agrument why such and such a civ should not be included if it mean your favourite civ won't be.
We have Huns (a short lived empire of nomadic tribes united by single leader), Polynesia ( collection widely dispersed culturaly and genetic connected peoples), India (a group of peoples sharing religion and some culture, only ever united under a foreign power) I could go on, but to me what defines a civ in this game (and that is all it is) is quite loose.
For me if a new civ that I don't know much about is announced, I read up about it and learn stuiff I didn't know about before ( the info provided in game is just for flavour).
I am happy with Zulu or kong, I am happy if they have Gondor, although I'd prefer Rohan.

 

[Heinage]

I hope they show something about the World Congress

 

[Dragonflow]

8 more hours until the the Q&A.
I hope we'll at least get a hint at some civ other then the Zulu.

 

[Bakspatel]

Now, for dark horse, if they really wanted to mess with people, they'd put in the Boer with De La Rey. Technically African, but also European...

Well they call themselves Afrikaners, not Europeans so you can't really say that they are European civ . Although they keep an interest in the developments in Europe.

I think I would like such a dark horse, though it might be a bit controversial in South Africa; I recall some controversy in SA and Namibia when someone released a nationalist song about De La Rey and the second Boer war.
Anyways, their UA could either be related to farming (higher bonuses, better development or more gain from farming in arid locations) or settling in new locations (faster movement, less production required to gain settlers).
That also makes me wonder about the language: if I remember correctly, De La Rey came from the Netherlands and back then the Boers officially talked Dutch (it is officially Afrikaans now, though it still has a lot in common with Dutch). I'd prefer them to speak Afrikaans though I wouldn't mind Dutch.
Hey they would even fit in the theme of the expansion: Brave New World as they were settlers in an unknown and sometimes quite hostile area. So they were brave people

 

[Dragonflow]

A Boer leader would probably speak Afrikaans, just like Gandhi speaks Hindi.

 

[camfrlas]

i don't have facebook, but i just hope that someone'll ask him not only about new stuff, but also to clearify some old things. status of pueblo/popé, assyrian library and barbarian axeman for example.

 

[Deggial]

I'm neither on facebook - and I will by no means subscribe to this devil's tool. Not even for to Civ5!

So, pretty please, will some of the already doomed facebook-followers report the revealed facts on the fly in this thread? I would be so greatful and pray for your poor, condemend souls this evening...

--

Edit:
Ooops, I just saw it... there will be an open live stream and not only some facebook-chat. Facebook just for the questions! Great! No need for any realtime-reports. Not, that they won't come anyway....

 

[blackcatatonic]

It's a pretty good time for me to watch, so I will watch. Although if the only new info we get is more strong hints at the presence of Shaka, I'll be sorry I bothered.

 

[PhilBowles]

First, not all of their cities were battle names. The Civ IV city list actually included some really cities in Zululand.

"Some", sure - even there, Ulundi may have been named after the major battle rather than the Zulu capital "city". One of Attila's cities is named after a genuine Hun settlement too.

Second, so what if they're only being included because of fan response.

So nothing, it's a perfectly valid reason to include them. What isn't valid is suggesting other motives for including them based on their imagined virtues or impact as a civilization, or because they're deemed to meet criteria other civs lack (such as having "real" cities) which they don't really meet themselves.

As for the Huns, the Huns weren't given other people's city names because there were no alternatives - as with the Celts or Iroquois they could readily have been given modern city names from their home region with no connection to the historical culture - they were given other people's city names for flavour reasons, because these represented minor settlements of other in-game civs that they had overrun, as specified by the developers when they revealed this part of the UA.

 

[Scaramanga]

"Some", sure - even there, Ulundi may have been named after the major battle than the Zulu capital "city". One of Attila's cities is named after a genuine Hun settlement too.



So nothing, it's a perfectly valid reason to include them. What isn't valid is suggesting other motives for including them based on their imagined virtues or impact as a civilization, or because they're deemed to meet criteria other civs lack (such as having "real" cities) which they don't really meet themselves.

As for the Huns, the Huns weren't given other people's city names because there were no alternatives - as with the Celts or Iroquois they could readily have been given modern city names from their home region with no connection to the historical culture - they were given other people's city names for flavour reasons, because these represented minor settlements of other in-game civs that they had overrun, as specified by the developers when they revealed this part of the UA.

Ulundi was the actual Zulu capital. It means "the high place".

 

[shaglio]

To me, they can introduce The Martians, with Ajax as a leader...

If the Martians made it in, why wouldn't their leader be Marvin?

"I shall disintegrate you with my PU-36 exploding space modulator!"

EDIT: forget it, I just realized Marvin doesn't have a beard