Where'd My Zulu Go?

[GigaNerd]

After reading the IGN preview, I was given the strong impression that Askia is a bit too similar to Shaka. Honestly, standing in front of a burning village??? I dunno about you, but that should've been Shaka.

Also, IGN's version of Askia doesn't seem to be consistent with Wikipedia's version. Wiki says that Askia seems to be right in between Saladin and Suryavarman: big on religion & willing to kick butt for Islam, but also culturally prosperous and very good at running a government. Even if he did declare Jihads on the Mossi, that doesn't make him the warmonger IGN says he is!



So here's the question: If IGN isn't making stuff up, and Askia is up there with Genghis and Napoleon, why'd they sacrifice Shaka's soul to Songhai???

(P.S. This isn't relevant, but a lot of threads have been popping up saying that they've confirmed 17 of the 18 civs. I was only aware of fourteen: America, Aztec, China, Egypt, England, France, Germany, India, Japan, Ottoman, Rome, Russia, Inca, and Songhai. Where'd these other three pop out of? )

 

[Insanity_X]

Stop complaining about the noninclusion of a Civilisation and leader. Leaders can have whatever personality Firaxis wants them to have. Tokugawa wasn't a surly isolationist either, but looking at CIV you wouldnt think that.

and the other three poipped out of the more recent gamesite takes on the matter.

 

[cardgame]

The Songhai are more of an actual civilization.

 

[GigaNerd]

The Songhai are more of an actual civilization.

I can agree with that, but Askia seems just like Shaka! In real life, he's not a tribal warmonger like IGN suggests!

Getting rid of the Zulus and replacing them with an almost identical African civ? That's not cool.

I hope that Firaxis will change this before the release.

 

[Insanity_X]

*slaps OP* dont use realism to justify anything in game.

Also, how about we wait for tha actual game before we start judging AI personalities?

 

[Zulu Impi]

Insanity your taking a really aggressive tone for what seems like little reason... Its cool they're adding a civ but it doesn't make sense to make him into another Shaka when in all likelyhood he will be in the expansion.

 

[Turquoiside]

For those other confirmed civilizations, you're missing Greece, Mongolia and Arabia.

 

[Insanity_X]

I'm taking a harsh tone because quite frankly people citing realism is getting very annoying and I'm deciding to display that in the most visible way possible.

and it's not as if this should come as a surprise, I did pretty much say I was going to be doing it in advance (I said 'I'm going to start slapping people who use realism as a reason for anything in this game' or words to that effect).

 

[mechaerik]

Realism is a good argument... to a point.

What if that 18th civ was, say, the Atlantian Empire?

Remember (well, actually I don't, but its a valid point).


Civ is a historical game. Realism has a place.

 

[bonafide11]

Have to agree with Insanity. He and I seem to be the only ones defending Civ V on this forum while everyone else is finding everything possible wrong with it because they were hoping for Civ 4.1 instead of Civ 5. So many people think that any break with previous Civs is dumbing the franchise down or getting away from realism, when in reality, all the game developers are doing is trying to make the game more fun -- and that's what their job is.

 

[Thormodr]

Have to agree with Insanity. He and I seem to be the only ones defending Civ V on this forum while everyone else is finding everything possible wrong with it because they were hoping for Civ 4.1 instead of Civ 5. So many people think that any break with previous Civs is dumbing the franchise down or getting away from realism, when in reality, all the game developers are doing is trying to make the game more fun -- and that's what their job is.

I have been defending ciV as well. I think it's going to be a super game. It is in very capable hands and the changes look very positive so far.

 

[Pangur Bán]

I can agree with that, but Askia seems just like Shaka! In real life, he's not a tribal warmonger like IGN suggests!

What character in Civ4 is like Real Life? Was Monty an aggressive psycho? No, he was the guy who got attacked and tried meekly to defend his city from the Spanish. Was Saladin a religious nut? Not in the slightest. Was Justinian? Nope. Was Isabella? Not really. Was Huayna Capac a great techer? Nope. Was Alexander philosophical? Funny. Was Augustus a build-monger? Nope. Did Frederic have a largest Empire? No. Was Catherine a particularly bad back-stabber? No. And so on ...

 

[mechaerik]

I'm not so sure of your Augustus statement, but the rest of your point is valid.


After all, didn't he find Rome a city of brick and leave it marble?

 

[bonafide11]

I have been defending ciV as well. I think it's going to be a super game. It is in very capable hands and the changes look very positive so far.

Good to know! Too many people here just seem SO negative for a game that we barely know anything about, and considering Firaxis hasn't let us down yet, I think we should give it a chance before we talk like the game is going to be terrible.

 

[mechaerik]

Good to know! Too many people here just seem SO negative for a game that we barely know anything about, and considering Firaxis hasn't let us down yet, I think we should give it a chance before we talk like the game is going to be terrible.

Well, some would say Firaxis let them down with CivRev.

 

[Pangur Bán]

After all, didn't he find Rome a city of brick and leave it marble?

Haha ... no. He has that kind of image, though it would suit organized more, maybe financial.

Industrious ... maybe for Vespasian or Justinian, actual builders of wonders, not Augustus.

 

[Thormodr]

Good to know! Too many people here just seem SO negative for a game that we barely know anything about, and considering Firaxis hasn't let us down yet, I think we should give it a chance before we talk like the game is going to be terrible.

Exactly. Firaxis has a very good track record. Jon Shafer also played a big part in BTS which was the best expansion ever IMO so I trust him to do a great job with ciV.

Like you said, some people want Civ 4.5. I want a new game.

All the changes are positive. I do hope religion and espionage will be added in some way in ciV or its expansions though.

I think I am most excited about City States. It'd be very cool if you could have the option to play one as a OCC (One City Challenge) Perhaps you could share the victory of the Civ you were allied with.

Anyway, the sky indeed is not falling. ciV is going to be great.

 

[bonafide11]

Well, some would say Firaxis let them down with CivRev.

It was a console game! What did people expect of a game made for consoles? I think Civ Revolution was exactly what people should've expected for a game made for consoles. It didn't match the depth of the PC franchise, but it wasn't supposed to; it was supposed to be a game that you could win an hour or two. If they called Civ Revolution Civilization V, then I could understand the disappointment, but it was clearly a different game made for a different purpose.

Personally, I enjoyed Civ Revolution quite a bit, but I never expected it to match the PC franchise, I knew it would be a break with the prior versions of Civ (hence the "revolution"). It was fun for what it was.

 

[grant2004]

Realism has it's place in civ it's not something we should slap people for suggesting. What we want is a REALISTIC GAME. Notice the two capitalized words there, they are both important. If we go 100% realism yes it's going to be no fun, if Civ ignores realism at every step for the sake of making the game 'more fun' you'll loose the hard core civ fans, and this game won't have the same lasting appeal that the others have.

Going back to the original topic. In my opinion what they've done with the Songhai isn't too unusual, they make caricatures of all of the leaders they select. A good biography of any of them includes nuances, but Civ can't be wishy washy on how the leaders act, otherwise you won't see their personality traits clearly.

 

[BSmith1068]

Good to know! Too many people here just seem SO negative for a game that we barely know anything about, and considering Firaxis hasn't let us down yet, I think we should give it a chance before we talk like the game is going to be terrible.

I'm with you guys too... haven't been as vocal about it, but definitely on the side of lets wait and see before criticizing and glad for the departure from previous versions in many aspects.