Since when opportunity cost or restriction of system to choose one specific trait is drawback?
Chosen social policies don't have drawbacks, they just have bonuses.
You cannot compare it to what other civilizations are picking and call it drawback if you have diffrent ones.
I can't?
Otherwise in similar fashion civics in Civ IV could be considered to have extra drawbacks since different civilizations have different civics chosen. Which doesn't make sense.
Except that in Civ IV it was very easy to completely change civics totally on the fly. It's not much of an opportunity cost if you can easily change it.
Also if you consider them as REALLY reflecting what they represent they would have to have some kind of drawback in relation to other aspects of society within that civilization that chooses them.
I have hard time also seeing how exactly some community achievements bought with strange "points" and "leveling up" has anything to do with history.
I have a hard time seeing how gathering hammers that apparently are growing out of the ground, and piling them in your city can build an entire building.
I have a hard time seeing how that building can then somehow reliably and consistently produce technological breakthroughs by apparently manufacturing piles and piles of small blue beakers.
I mean, really, you expect me to believe that my people somehow know that they're ten years away from discovering electricity, and at least 25 years from refrigeration? How absurd!
That's like if you told me that I could completely change the system of governance on a whim, at the cost that everyone would be upset for about one year or so. After that, things would be back to normal, though.
Like I said, the realism argument is very silly. Typically, things people don't like seem unrealistic to them, and things they like, they are more willing to accept as 'realistic.'
* * * * *
@sketch:
You're right, 'abstracted' doesn't mean 'inaccurate' but again, Civilization is hardly 'accurate' in just about any regard. If you're having fun, your brain connects the dots and you're less likely to gripe or notice things that don't make sense. If you're not having fun with something, then all of a sudden the flaws are easy to spot.
When I was little, and playing Mario, my dad asked me why jumping on their head killed bad guys, and how come Mario didn't get hurt from jumping on them, only from bumping into them. A silly question, right? I mean, Mario jumps on their head. He stomps on turtles. It's what he does. But step back for a moment and pretend you have no concept of video games and recognize that "jumping on their heads" is kind of bizarre. Jumping on the heads of things has never been a way of defeating enemies. It's not a martial art or anything. It makes no sense except for the fact that we understand that's how the game is played and we never think about it.
If you want to complain about social policies being inaccurate, then you should really acknowledge the fact that the technology trees, and gold production, or luxuries are all ridiculous. Archers can fire farther than rifles? Rifles don't have
any range? So on, so forth.
I don't have problems with these things, they don't bother me, because I understand they're part of the game like Mario jumping on a turtle's head, and I don't give them a second thought. It doesn't prevent me from creating an image in my head of my empire or becoming 'immersed.'
As for which newspaper, I'd really rather not say. Internet hygiene is very important.
).
