Worldreligions or Generic-only-Religions

[menwia]

My Thoughts:

Giving specifci abilities to real-world religions is a bad idea. Even culture in Civ 3 has the saem universal abilities for civs. If they did not, the number of offended groups would go up. I am not worried about causing controversy, but those kinds of effects should not be tied to how a civ was historically, it should be tied to the current game. Religion either needs to be very compelling, but Cultural improvement comes first, since religion is a dimension of culture.

True, but what's wrong with giving each specific religion certain characteristics - after all each one is different, and the particular race you are does not really determine which religion you want to choose. It's up to you in a sense, and you can decide which one you want to be depending on the pros and cons and style of game play. Where's as culture as you say is all the same - I accept that point - but relgions are the same in essence to the different races attributes - why is one race scientific and another race miltaristic - there's no great controvosey over that - and like races - relgions to have their differences, you will get one advantage whilst getting another disadvantage. You will be able to build different buildings and have different units if you're one religion as appossed to another. You can't have every religion building the same building for example or the same wonder - it just won't work. A christian ain't gonna build a Mosque or vice versa, there's just no sense in them doing it. And each religion, will have its own characteristics - like it or not, that's just the way it is. It's not something I approve or disapprove of Sir S, its just the way things are. But that's a good thing in a sense, it makes for a more fun game. And just because you are lets say druidist or Christian or Islamic or Romanist' (I don't know what they call their religon). Doesn't mean you have to do certain things. You don't have to go on Crusades if you don't want to. You don't have to go on a Jihad and convert everybody by the sword. But it would just be reflecting historical characteristics of religions. You build a Synogue, Church or Mosque, YOu build differnt wonders for each relgion and have one shared wonder that all compete to build in the same Class. You have crusaders in the middle ages for Christian's, for the Muslims and jews you have a counterpart unit that they can build, which gets obsolete in modern times - then you can build different units in modern times. For the jews you can buid Rabi units, Priest unit, Muller Units, Missionaries, Druid units, Clerics, you name it. You can have kinds of miltary fighting units as well as intel or dip units for each one.
Sir S. what's the point in havinig everyone the exact same religion? You can incorporate it into the Culture, because it is a part of culture as you said before, but you can still retain the diversity of it.

I hear what you're saying, we might get into the getting differnet groups anger areana - but if its done properly most of that could be avoided I think.

And it also can get incorporated into culture, become an aspect of culture. I don't see nothing wrong with actually reflect the actuall facts that different religions are differnt and have differnt effects on a society pros and cons. And if people get insulted or offended by actually stating what is the fact and truth, then there's no pleasing that kind of people. It's like talking to people who deny that a holocaust ever happened during WWII or that Assyrians were not one of the greates and most powerful nations ever to exist. Teh differences have to be done sensiably and true to the nature of relgions which are going to be used.

There is a chance that mistakes can be made, but that can be resolved. Isn't it worth taking the risk? The alternative is having the same - bland - boring religion theme for every single race - what's the point in that?

 

[dh_epic]

I think there can be benefits and penalties that are sensible without being overtly one way or another. They key, to me, though, is that the benefits would either have to be for vague categories or specific sects. No benefits for Christianity over Islam. More like benefits for Monotheism over Pantheism (vague categories) or benefits for Calvinism over Protestantism (specific sects).

The whole Christianity VS. Islam thing is a can of worms I don't want to open. Not because I'd offend anybody, but because I'd just be grossly inaccurate. Christianity has been used for a dual purpose as much as Islam -- it all depends on who's in charge and what specific beliefs are involved.

Still, I'd like to throw out a more advanced permutation of this idea:

If you "discover" new religions and religious ideals... and going down one path prohibits another, or makes another path harder to reach...

What we're really talking about is a "Social Progress" tree/web, not unlike the tech tree. But notice that in the current tech tree, religious progress tends to stop by the industrial age.

In other words, what we're doing is pulling apart the religious and social techs from the military and science techs. Military and science techs can be discovered in a very free, natural way, with each one building on the other. The religious and social techs, however, force you into real dilemmas, prohibiting different branches.

So why stop at religion?

Throw democracy in the social tree, and make it harder to discover democracy decided to research the "Divine Right" social-value -- the one that makes your people believe that you are, in fact, related to God. If your people will believe that, then surely democracy would be harder to break out.

Maybe this is what Firaxis means by "Religion and Civics".

Religion and Civics need to be pulled out of the Science Tech Tree and have its own mechanics and flow. Christianity and Communism have a lot more in common than Christianity and Rocketry, or Communism and Magnetism. Magnetism and Rocketry can be discovered and understood by anyone. Communism and Christianity will simply *never* pop up in certain places, because of the way those Civilizations have progressed socially: Religion and Civics.

Hope you appreciate the tangent.

 

[sir_schwick]

Actually I meant pre-assinge dtraits. If players could choose the attirbutes, then there would be no problem because there is no generalization or presumption. I just meant the post above saying Modern Islam is warlike while Modern Christinaity is automatically peaceful. That would be unacceptable and very limiting. Player dictated or influenced choices make a lot more sense. Personally I think governments should evolve the same way, because no two nations have exactly the same government.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

Giving specifci abilities to real-world religions is a bad idea. Even culture in Civ 3 has the saem universal abilities for civs. If they did not, the number of offended groups would go up. I am not worried about causing controversy, but those kinds of effects should not be tied to how a civ was historically, it should be tied to the current game. Religion either needs to be very compelling, but Cultural improvement comes first, since religion is a dimension of culture.

Not that it has to be the way I want, but there's nothing wrong with tieing religious traits to the history of the religions. There has to be a mix between historically accurate things and things open for the player to form.
The things that are tied to history increases the immersion while the things untied give a more open gamefield. I for one likes the unique units in civ3, the at least attempted historically accurate traits for the civs, and the option for culturally linked starting locations even if it doesn't work.
I would like to see some kind of traits for the religions based on their history. And while I'm at it you're wrong about religion being a dimension of culture, unless your concept of culture is way broader than mine.

What about having a religous techtree that only the founder, the one civ where Jesus, Buddha etc. appeared, totally free of charge can change the pace and paths of the religious progress. When he reaches a new 'tech' there's from that point a chance of having an event, say Martin Luther might appear somewhere in this religious sphere. That civ he appears in may then decide what to do with him (all this is abstract..you get a message), support his teachings, which might lead to this civ become protestantic with some changes from catholosism and have their own religious techtree to control the pace and paths, or if you kill him there might be some other consequences, a small chance of civilwar throughout christianity, or a penalty in the religious progress which increases the chance of Calvin coming or nothing happens.
The founder of the religion will be benefitted by having the control but might at the same time be targeted more often from other religious groups or by other civs in the same religion.

So why stop at religion?

Throw democracy in the social tree, and make it harder to discover democracy decided to research the "Divine Right" social-value -- the one that makes your people believe that you are, in fact, related to God. If your people will believe that, then surely democracy would be harder to break out.

Maybe this is what Firaxis means by "Religion and Civics".

Religion and Civics need to be pulled out of the Science Tech Tree and have its own mechanics and flow. Christianity and Communism have a lot more in common than Christianity and Rocketry, or Communism and Magnetism. Magnetism and Rocketry can be discovered and understood by anyone. Communism and Christianity will simply *never* pop up in certain places, because of the way those Civilizations have progressed socially: Religion and Civics.

Hope you appreciate the tangent.

True it would make more sense.

Actually I meant pre-assinge dtraits. If players could choose the attirbutes, then there would be no problem because there is no generalization or presumption. I just meant the post above saying Modern Islam is warlike while Modern Christinaity is automatically peaceful. That would be unacceptable and very limiting. Player dictated or influenced choices make a lot more sense. Personally I think governments should evolve the same way, because no two nations have exactly the same government.

Of course Fireaxis will have to think before handing out the traits to the different religious paths but at the same time different religions influence people differently and all religions have some inherent things that affect people, these things often become more obvious the more fanatic the people is.

 

[sir_schwick]

I define Culture as the overall forces that affect a society. This includes the religions present, the products that are used, the media that is experienced, the myths and history of the society, the various ethnic, national, and racial groups, and many other factors. As all are different, and all have multiple faces within a society representing many different areas of origin and such.

Personally I did not like how UUs were implemented. it seems like reverse logic that use of the UU causes the GA, rather than the UU emerges during the Golden Age. I still think you could have maintained a unique look by having a UU emerge during the Golden Age which is a pumped up version of regular unit, with a look and history that resemebles what it was or would have looked like. Imagine Rome rises in the WWI Era. It would use Legionarries, but those would be powerful Infantry. Currently a lot fo gampelay is pre-ordained by when your UU emerges. This should be the same with Religion, or Civs in fact, that you keep the descriptions, art, look, etc., but allow all substantive parts to be different by game. Right now in many respects all civs look alike. I would rather all civs play alike, but look a whole lot different in terms of how units look and are named then the current, mechanical changes but a lot of similairity.

 

[menwia]

Actually I meant pre-assinge dtraits. If players could choose the attirbutes, then there would be no problem because there is no generalization or presumption. I just meant the post above saying Modern Islam is warlike while Modern Christinaity is automatically peaceful. That would be unacceptable and very limiting. Player dictated or influenced choices make a lot more sense. Personally I think governments should evolve the same way, because no two nations have exactly the same government.

Im not going on opionon but rather fact. The presumption of modern Christianty being peaceful and Modern Islam being warlike is someting brought about by their own actions. When was the last time a Holy War was declared by the Pope or any other major Christian leader - Orthodox - protestant? Not for a very long time. But just look at Iran V Iraq war - that was a Jihad - declared so by the Iowtola (sorry for the bad speliling) The war against Israle when the arab nations ganged together was a Holy War. The civil war in Lebenon was a Holy War. Every war that Muslims go into they declare it a Jihad - a Holy War - the war between Pakistan and India - was a Jihad. My friends, I"m not the one making Islam to be warlike in modern Times - Muslims themselves are doing it to themsevles - nearly every single war they get into they declare it a jihad. That's Fact - I challenge anyone Muslim or none muslim to deny that . . . same reason why Christianty in the middle ages was to an extent warlike -eg, crusades and such. I know you can say the teachings advise peace and tolerance and such, so did Christianty -but it didn't stop it being warlike - so to is Modern Islam - everytime a Muslim nation has a war it is declared 9 times out of 10 - a Jihad - a Holy War, If I'm wrong, please tell me . . .oh -and another one - AFganistan against Russia - another holy war for muslims - how many Jihad's have we had in the last century - compare that to how many Holy wars Christianty has declared. Not saying that modern predominat Christian countries have had less wars - I think its the opposit - its just that they don't use relgion as the driving force or declare them a Holy War - no western predominatly Christian countires has ever said that WW1 or WWII were ever Holy Wars - that's the main distinction between Christianby being predominatly peaceful in modern times and isalm being warlike in modern times. The religious Christian leaders don't go around declaring Holy War's nor do their Counterpart State Leaders, I'd like Bush to declare the war in Iraq a Holy War or Tony Blair, if he did what would happen to them in their own countries -what would Christians do? Tehy wouldn't accept it, because they don't like Christianty being used in the modern age as a excuse for war, however, in islamic countires it seems it pretty popular to have a Jihad and perfectly fine for their religous leaders or State leaders to make such a declaration - I beat no Saudi would have batted an eyelid if the Saud's declared a Jihad against Israel, do you see what I mean. But any Christian leader like the Pope declared a Holy War against lets say Saudi Arabia, the majority of Christian's now adays wouldn't accepts it. However - in Islaminc Countries the Religous Leaders are more then happy to declare a jihad or Holy war as well as the State leaders and the populations of those countries more or less go along with such things.

If no one thinks there's no proof, then I put this to you. Ask any Musliim now around all the world that are caught up and involved in armed conflict for one reason or another. Ask them if it is a Jihad they are fighting or not, I think that 90 out of a hundred would answer you they are fighting a Jihad, for the good of their religion. Then go to all the western countries which are predomentally Christian and ask the soliders or the people fighting in them wars. If you ask them is this a Holy War? I think you already know that the majority would say no and give some other excuse like a fight for freedom, or Justice and such - they wouldn't consider it a Relgious War and wouldn't use it as a front. That's the big difference, of course predominatly Christian countries have caused and fought alot more wars in the past decade - but it has been wars for freedom, greed, power, you name it. it's very difficult to remeber a time when Christain religous were declaring to the world a Holy War agasint this country or against that country within the past century.

Not my doing people - I'm not the one going around declaring jihad every chance I get - Its just teh way things are at the moment. Tell me if I"m wrong.

 

[sir_schwick]

It just adds to the image that Islam promotes the kind of violence people believe it does. Besides, this is more of a gameplay issue then a perception one. Being tied to a fact that may be irrelevant or counter-intuitive for my current game is very frustrating. Maybe I don't want to have a war in the ancient era, however that is the only time my UU is useful. The nice written histories and images and whatnot give the different civs flavour, and that needs to be emphasized. UUs and GAs and even traits should emerge because of player actiosn and situation, not because it was that way in history.

On the issue above, you are correct in that Jihad was declared. However, as with many of the Holy Crusades, the term is more used by politicians then theologians to describe the motivations for the conflict. Jihad also has a much less aggressive connotation(if taken from the Quran, spelling might be incorrect) then Crusade every did. However, I do not wish to carry this discussion into comparing which was worse, just that justifying something as a HOly war is much easier for a Theocracy then justifying it in other terms. Also, by definition Jihad is the defence of the faith and your lands. Some extremists, note the term extremists, take this to mean that offensive action(not really sure if that legitimates intentional attacks of non-hostile civilizans) is a form of defence.

 

[menwia]

It just adds to the image that Islam promotes the kind of violence people believe it does. Besides, this is more of a gameplay issue then a perception one. Being tied to a fact that may be irrelevant or counter-intuitive for my current game is very frustrating. Maybe I don't want to have a war in the ancient era, however that is the only time my UU is useful. The nice written histories and images and whatnot give the different civs flavour, and that needs to be emphasized. UUs and GAs and even traits should emerge because of player actiosn and situation, not because it was that way in history.

On the issue above, you are correct in that Jihad was declared. However, as with many of the Holy Crusades, the term is more used by politicians then theologians to describe the motivations for the conflict. Jihad also has a much less aggressive connotation(if taken from the Quran, spelling might be incorrect) then Crusade every did. However, I do not wish to carry this discussion into comparing which was worse, just that justifying something as a HOly war is much easier for a Theocracy then justifying it in other terms. Also, by definition Jihad is the defence of the faith and your lands. Some extremists, note the term extremists, take this to mean that offensive action(not really sure if that legitimates intentional attacks of non-hostile civilizans) is a form of defence.

all i'm saying is when was a Holy War declared by a Christian country as appossed to an Islamic country. Not debating the facts about Crusades and which is worse or which is better - its just at the present time Christianty and its main religous leaders don't go around declaring Holy War's where-as Islamic Relgious leaders as well as heads of state do. Today, in the present.

but moving on. I agree with you. Just because I'm one relgion or another - I should have the opition of going to war or not. That's why i proposed in a sense that relgion be incorporated into the game play - I could have a Christian Religon - but if I saw it benifical to me in the game to go war then I would - if you know what I mean. What effects one would want to put on those actions can be looked into further. But with the same token - I could be germans and have a Islamic Relgion in the modern times and decide that I don't want to go to war. But I see the point you're getting at -

GamePlay wise, it is unfair for one religion to declare war in lets say Modern Times, whilst if I skip to another it would be okay. i see your point here - and to an extent I think i agree, that it might not work in the game play and might restict your choices - but you don't have to go to war . . .I think, anyway. But the comment your reffering to was made in a different struture and frame that religion was going to be implemented in - the later one I thought of makes it a bit awkward - though not impossible to achieve.

But hen that brings me on to another question. What's wrong with actually saying that in modern Times or some other Era that if you are this religion, declaring a Relgious War is gonna be more difficult then in a certain age? Just a question, I can see the problems it might envoke -game wise, but if it could be done with out causing conflict in actuall game play -then what's the harm?

It could be that in certain government types you can't declare a Holy war or Jihad, For example if you're a democracy then it is very difficult to delcare a Holy War - also if your communist. But being A Theocricy -they are nothing but holy wars - you could also declare Holy/Jihad wars in a Monarchy - eg the Crusades/Saudi Arabia or Depot.

Sir S. I think though you raise some very good points - and I agree to an extent at what you are saying. The aim here is to try and improve Civ - one can give it flavor and such - but of course teh actual events that happen in each civ game should depend prdominatly on the player. There might be a few things with some parameters or restirctions - just to be true to the nature of religions and realism, but as a whole - one shuold be able when or not when to go to war - Just because for example - I"m a Christian Relgion or Islamic or Druidic or Romanistic (sorry -0 still don't know what they call the Roman Greek many gods relgion), it don't mean that I have to go to war at soe predifined time. If and I emphasis the word IF - if there is somekind of mechanism which the Game declares that a certain event has occured - do you wish to liberate the Holy City? for example, tehn you candecide to declare war or not - I"m just throwing things out from the top of my head here, not really thinking this through - but i'm with you on this one Sir S., there should be parametes and flavours and traits which keep true to the world religons within the game, as well as some kind of mechanism to keep the discoveries of such religions/techs to some reasonable time period -but hte majority of how a player wants to do should be his/her decision. That's what Civ is about, makiing up your own history - that's the fun of it. Thining that for example if I was Ceaser I could have done it better, because the game tries to be as close to the real world as possible but also gives you the freedom to make your own history.

phew . . .

 

[dh_epic]

The KKK are Christians, and that is a fact. Every assault they've made on the remainder of the world is based on religious predudice and this is a fact. I challenge any Christian or non-Christian to deny this. It is not the mass media or world leaders who are creating the perception that Christians are racist, spiteful bigots -- Christians are doing it themselves.

World Vision is a Christian organization, and that is a fact. Every act they've taken to help the world, with hunger, poverty and sickness, is based on their religious belief that they ought to help people and spread their beliefs and this is a fact. I challenge any Christian or non-Christian to deny this. It is not the mass media or world leaders who are creating the perception that Christians helpful, peaceful people -- Christians are doing it themselves.

The real problem with either of these mindsets isn't that they are morally wrong or unfair to religion or that they'll offend anybody. It's that they make the game SUCK. Forcing gameplay decisions down the throat of someone because they pick a religion would suck. I'm Christian so I have to be peaceful now, or warful then.

This is the biggest problem I have with religious proposals. All of them have sucked for this reason. People want to have religion so they can generalize people's behaviors into convenient categories because it will fit their understanding of history, no matter how much it makes gameplay suck.

On the other hand, pointing this out and making it so every religion can equally declare "holy war" and have an "inquisition" sucks just as much. Those add very little to gameplay. I direct people to this post:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2193279&postcount=146

And you pretty much have all the cop-outs there. Civ-Religion is forced alliances, or teams, or auto-teams, or they're pretty much synonymous with any war or genocide you could commit in the name of your *government* -- not your state. Absolutely no value added.

 

[menwia]

The KKK are Christians, and that is a fact. Every assault they've made on the remainder of the world is based on religious predudice and this is a fact. I challenge any Christian or non-Christian to deny this. It is not the mass media or world leaders who are creating the perception that Christians are racist, spiteful bigots -- Christians are doing it themselves.

World Vision is a Christian organization, and that is a fact. Every act they've taken to help the world, with hunger, poverty and sickness, is based on their religious belief that they ought to help people and spread their beliefs and this is a fact. I challenge any Christian or non-Christian to deny this. It is not the mass media or world leaders who are creating the perception that Christians helpful, peaceful people -- Christians are doing it themselves.

The real problem with either of these mindsets isn't that they are morally wrong or unfair to religion or that they'll offend anybody. It's that they make the game SUCK. Forcing gameplay decisions down the throat of someone because they pick a religion would suck. I'm Christian so I have to be peaceful now, or warful then.

This is the biggest problem I have with religious proposals. All of them have sucked for this reason. People want to have religion so they can generalize people's behaviors into convenient categories because it will fit their understanding of history, no matter how much it makes gameplay suck.

On the other hand, pointing this out and making it so every religion can equally declare "holy war" and have an "inquisition" sucks just as much. Those add very little to gameplay. I direct people to this post:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2193279&postcount=146

And you pretty much have all the cop-outs there. Civ-Religion is forced alliances, or teams, or auto-teams, or they're pretty much synonymous with any war or genocide you could commit in the name of your *government* -- not your state. Absolutely no value added.

I think a balance might be struck - with different relgions, and differnet government types, and different oppenants that you declare war will have differing effects.

On your other points, alot of people do alot of things, in the name of diffenet things - one of them being religion. There are good and bad. All I"m saying though - every one is responsible for their own individual actions - and you can't labelise a whole group of people when a section of society or just a very slight minority do one thing or anothe. however, you have the right to make a judgement when it become A Government/STate policy or policy of a Major Religous Leader. the KKK are not the same as america declaring a Holy War, two very differnt things. Eg, lets say Saudia Arabia went to war in Israel, and the government and the leading Mullers stated that it is a war of freedom and only a very minor group with Saudi Arabia declared it a Jihad - then no can say "see, Islam is very War - like in these Modern Times." But when a government or a leading relgious leader who speaks for millions upon millions of people declares a Jihad - then I think it quiet rational to say that one gets this perception from the actions of RElgious Leader or head of State - especially when the majority of the people go along with it. I think the goverment types we have in alot of these countries is also a contributing force - I would think it very difficult though not impossible for a Islmaic Democracy to declare a Holy War.

phew again . . . all i'm saying one does not judge by the actions of few minor groups or individuals who do something against the wishs of the majority - but when a whole country and major religous leaders take that action - then you can't deny the fact.

 

[sir_schwick]

I am with dh_epic, the current religion concepts will take away from a better Culture model. The current model is a more even way of establishing borders. It needs major improvements before adding more features. In Civ 3 it had never been tried, but now it has been and needs to be improved.

 

[menwia]

I am with dh_epic, the current religion concepts will take away from a better Culture model. The current model is a more even way of establishing borders. It needs major improvements before adding more features. In Civ 3 it had never been tried, but now it has been and needs to be improved.

I'm completlely with you on this Sir S. and I agree with dh - we got enought problems already in Civ and alot of areas's which need very immidiate attention. One of them being Culture - another one which I think is just as critical and more important then adding religion at this time - is Diplomacy as well as intel. We really got to ge the foundations right before we start adding more levels to the building.

but will they listen to us guys? (they being the developers).

 

[dh_epic]

I think if we speak loud enough they'll listen. There are some things they won't budge on, though, because we're not the target audience. We're already buyers, as far as they're concerned, we're "hooked". They need to find things that will get casual gamers into Civ.

But I think I speak for a more casual fan than most people might think, in spite of the fact that I'm on this board posting quite often. I look at Civ not as someone who's played it for years, but trying to remember:

Why did I buy Civ? Why did I even look at the back of the box? Who recommended Civ to me and why?

I just don't think a flimsy religion mod is gonna cut it -- in terms of word of mouth a bland execution is going to suck. And in terms of "back of the box", you could just as easily talk about religious scenarios and buildings and events without actually programming a new mechanism.

I think a lot of people who are into Civ and not, say, Age of Empires is going to get into the idea that "Dude... I was playing and it seriously felt like I was playing history. Like every game is totally different, but at the same time believable." You NEED that word of mouth, that kind of review on a website would be killer.

PS: forget religion.

 

[sir_schwick]

Maybe they will pull off another revolutionary feature. But like any feature, its first couple iterations will be more Beta then true complete versions. Culture was not terrible, but it is time for Culture to be upgraded. The concept worked at its base level, now expand on that.

 

[dh_epic]

Agreed. Expanding culture would do everything that religion would provide, and more ... just under a different name.

 

[sir_schwick]

Agreed, but I think we need someone besides dh, me, and menwia supporting the cause. In general the only people who appreciate improved features are those who see the improvement, and that means fan-boys like ourselves who will probably buy the next installment anyway. Anyone who plays Civ 4 for the first time(the hope of Firaxis) would not realize that the Culture model is about the same. On a box more features sounds better even if they are all still beta versions instead of improved.

 

[dh_epic]

Don't get me wrong, I think "the box" is important.

Saying "Religion and Culture" is much better than saying just "Enhanced Culture".

But I think they could do the cop out of all cop outs and say religion was in there with only a few new buildings, techs, and diplomacy features. Put it on the box as "Religion: Build temples, cathedrals, and chapels, and crusade against your enemies!" Things that are more or less already in Civ 3, if you just highlight them properly. That's how marketing works.

Secondly, I think for all the value putting the word "religion" might have on the box, it would TANK in word of mouth.

"Whoa, new Civ?"
"Yeah."
"What's the big new difference?"
"Well it's 3D and it's got religion"
"How is it?"
"Well it's still basically the same game. I like it though."
"Yeah, I tried Civ a few times but didn't really get into it."

Compare that to:

"Whoa, new Civ?"
"Yeah."
"What's the big new difference?"
"Well it's 3D, but it just plays way different."
"How is it?"
"It's crazy. Like, all of the sudden, the game feels alive, you know?"
"How'd they do that?"
"Like, I dunno, they overhauled culture and science and stuff. But now it plays differently every time, like you're really playing through and changing the course of history."
"Word. I actually checked out Civ a few times but thought it was too limited/boring."
"Dude, you gotta come over and try it."

I dunno, that's just how I see it. Think about how much this is magnified by news reviews too, on gamespy and such.

 

[menwia]

So is that it then, there wil lbe no more religion in Civ4. Or are we just buring our heads in the sand - and they're gonna put in religion nevertheless?

 

[dh_epic]

Like we know. It's hard to know how much time we're wasting on this forum. They might not go with every answer, but they might be open enough to read them -- in which case, the answer would be "a little bit of time wasted". On the other hand, they may have already closed the door on other aspects like "there is no way we're doing this or that", in which case, the answer would be "a lot of time wasted".

I know Soren and the developers expressed religion and civics as two killer features that would help Civ 4 reach new audiences beyond any of the fanatics or fans of Civ 3 and such.

My passion in this thread is based on the belief that I think that religion would be the wrong track, and other features would be more "killer". I believe they only expressed religion as a "mild interest" or a "straw man example" of what a killer feature could be.

Of course, I could be wrong and they could have a 16 page document outlining the details of implementing religion, and they're 100% sure it's the right thing to do.

 

[warpstorm]

Soren said that religion was in. You have to remember that at the GDC in March they were already playing Civ4 MP and it was in then.