Venice Controversy

Do you want Venice in BNW?


  • Total voters
    30
Status
Not open for further replies.

Goldkoron

Chieftain
Joined
May 8, 2013
Messages
63
There is a lot of controversy over Venice in Brave New World, most of this controversy is based either the common thought that Venice was just a small city state in the Medieval Era when it actually was an empire, and the Uniques for Venice as a Civilization.

Do you want Venice in Brave New World? In my opinion, yes, it is a very unique civ and I am very excited to play it.
 
This isn't the freaking Afghan war.

I think the mods should remove the privilege of using the word "controversy" until people get some perspective.
 
Controversy means a lot of people disagree and a lot of people agree on a subject, it has no connection to a Afghan war.
 
Is it a controversy? I mean, I would call things like the move from stacks of doom to 1UPT controversial; but, there's a disgruntled vocal minority anytime we get down to the last couple civs of a Civilization expansion.

I don't have a problem with it. The devs pick 'em and I play 'em.
 
UUUUUUUUGHHHHHHHHHH.... TOO MANY STUPID VENICE THREADS!!! WHO CARES ANYMORE! THERE ARE OTHER THINGS IN THE EXPANSION! IT'S "Brave new world", NOT "Venice is in. You heard me, Venice. What're you gonna do about it?" I don't care anymore. I actually OPPOSE these guys, but seriously, I am so sick of talking about them.
 
The reason I posted this thread, is because I see a lot of people voicing their opinion that Venice is a horrible civilization, I want to see what the majority of people's opinion is on Venice.
 
The reason I posted this thread, is because I see a lot of people voicing their opinion that Venice is a horrible civilization, I want to see what the majority of people's opinion is on Venice.

Venice is a horrible civ.
 
My preferred option isn't in the poll - "there could be better choices, but it looks interesting to play" (I voted 1 as the closest option).

Even without the misconception that Venice was "just a city state", as an imperial power it's questionable whether it justifies inclusion in a game like Civ - it was a strictly regional power within Europe, its own culture was of Byzantine origin and it didn't have much uniquely "Venetian' influence beyond carvings of winged lions in occupied cities, and it survived as a city-state much longer than as an empire.

All that having been said, similar things can be said of Sweden and even to a lesser degree Austria, and Venice brings two important things to the table:

Firstly, thematically it's unique. It's a medieval European power, while the vast plethora of European civs in the game are all either ancient/classical, Renaissance or modern in the primary time period they focus on. This is actually a slightly odd omission given the popular interest in Europe's Middle Ages (EDIT: except Denmark - forgot them. Okay, Venice is only the second medieval European power). There's a lot of clamour about which geographical regions to include for civs, but much less about the temporal scope that each region should cover. Aside from Venice, every medieval power in the game except Songhai is Asian or, in the case of Arabia, Mediterranean, and almost all Asian civs are medieval in their main focus (China, Japan, Siam, Korea, Mongolia and now Indonesia - basically everyone except India and the Huns). There should be much more temporal diversity within each region.

Secondly, and above all, it's a very interesting civ in terms of its game mechanics. As a design it's really set up to satisfy both camps - yes, it's an empire, but yes it's also an empire that's based around - and starts from - a single core city that acts rather more like a city-state than like a civ.

Thematically, I wasn't a fan of the Huns, but I like the AI Attila personality and the leader screen is great. There are numerous better civs that could have been chosen than Venice in terms of "importance", but few if any that are better choices for the unique game mechanics it's been given. And that leader screen is astonishing.
 
Christ.

There's always one or two raging aspies who are angry that Zur-barbaraland or the Island of Tang'Tang'B'Dango isn't in.

I don't find that fair. Tang'Tang'B'Dango has a rich cultural history, are the inventors of plastic sprue AND toenail polish remover, and defeated the tlangoporxians at the battle of Gorbongolan, leading to the collapse of the church of Kpinga.
 
You can make arguments for the inclusion or exclusion of any particular Civ ad nauseum. There's really bugger all point debating it. Now, if you were to talk about their UA and how you can effectively force a city-state out of the game with it then you'd probably have more fruitful discussion on a controversial aspect of the Civ.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom