Scenarios as expansion content, yea or nay?

[Watiggi]

I haven't read this thread, so apologies if this has been said:

I would rather they make mods rather than scenarios. Think about it: Scenarios are limited to only one map where as mods can have that same flexibility as the standard game does. Imo, most people are put off of scenarios because of their inflexibility. NOW, if they made mods called AfterWorld which had a whole new gameplay style that wasn't dependant on a particular map, then that would essentially give Civ4 a whole new dimension. Add many mods and you'd have many dimensions.

 

[Quintillus]

I haven't read this thread, so apologies if this has been said:

I would rather they make mods rather than scenarios. Think about it: Scenarios are limited to only one map where as mods can have that same flexibility as the standard game does. Imo, most people are put off of scenarios because of their inflexibility. NOW, if they made mods called AfterWorld which had a whole new gameplay style that wasn't dependant on a particular map, then that would essentially give Civ4 a whole new dimension. Add many mods and you'd have many dimensions.

The major attraction of scenarios, IMO, is their historical relevance. Mods like AfterWorld or FFH don't have that, and don't reflect Civilization. It's a different game. Scenarios > Fantasy mods.

Era mods would be reasonable, however. For example, I'd like the idea of a Roman Era mod with the historical elements of 500 BC - 500 AD and playable on random maps. But it still wouldn't be the same without scenarios also being there.