Would you be offended

[Praetor]

Why be offended? We are what we are, and pray to whome we pray, thats if we even pray? We should accept others for what they are, live and let live, BUT BACK to the game, religion will make it interesting, and give it that bit 'o realism....

 

[Yellonet]

Why would anyone in their right mind be offended by something that is made up?
Face it, religion is just something for people who can't accept that we can't understand everything around us...
Hmm... I don't understand this.. it must be something about god!

 

[Afgnwrlrd]

People would be offended if something that they believe in their hearts is being stereotyped by the gaming community as suicide bombers. However, if the religious traits were more subtle then I doubt anyone would care.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Actually, my main issue with pre-determined traits is far less because I find it offensive, but more because it would seriously reduce the replay value of the religion element of the game. i.e., you play each of the 7 religions-with their traits-once, and then all of their enjoyment is pretty much gone. This, ultimately, was the problem with the Governments in Civ2 and Civ3. They had pre-set 'traits' which everyone quickly got used to.
Here is a much better solution. 12-20 traits (6-10 of them 'mutually exlcusive' from each other), from which you can either choose-or acquire-if you found a religion. For example, lets say you get Code of Laws first-and found Islam. You consider that your civ's Leader is Expansive and Creative, so you look through the list of traits and pick 'Evangelical' and 'Baroque'. The first trait grants a bonus to city conversions and the building of missionaries, but you get a penalty to happiness in cities with a different religion to yours. The second trait gives you bonus culture from religious buildings, but increases the maintainance costs of those buildings. Then every 500-1000-or whenever the Holy City changes hands-the current controller of the Holy City gets to change that religion's traits-at the cost of 1-turn of anarchy (but they must belong to the same faith as the holy city they control).
Alternatively, the traits are acquired via gameplay. i.e. the above player founds Islam, and goes on to pursue trade and science with some vigour. After about 20 turns, you get a message from your domestic advisor telling you that your religion has acquired the 'Commercial' and 'Scholarly' traits-and ask whether or not you wish to adopt these traits (at the cost of 1 turn of anarchy). As with the previous case, every 20 turns or so, you might get a change in traits if you radically alter your gameplay style-but still at the cost of anarchy. Now, the important point is that any civ which adopts your religion gets the traits of that religion too. However, if you play against those traits, then you might find your cities becoming unhappy-and your relations with the religion's founder, and at risk of creating a new sect of that faith within your nation.
As you can see, we seriously avoid causing any offense whilst at the same time allowing for almost unlimited amounts of replay value, when you consider the total number of Trait+Trait+Religion combinations you can have. (i.e. consider 7 'mutually exclusive' traits and 7 religions. This would allow a minimum of 7*7*7 or 343 different combinations.)

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Xia]

Actually, my main issue with pre-determined traits is far less because I find it offensive, but more because it would seriously reduce the replay value of the religion element of the game. i.e., you play each of the 7 religions-with their traits-once, and then all of their enjoyment is pretty much gone. This, ultimately, was the problem with the Governments in Civ2 and Civ3. They had pre-set 'traits' which everyone quickly got used to.
Here is a much better solution. 12-20 traits (6-10 of them 'mutually exlcusive' from each other), from which you can either choose-or acquire-if you found a religion. For example, lets say you get Code of Laws first-and found Islam. You consider that your civ's Leader is Expansive and Creative, so you look through the list of traits and pick 'Evangelical' and 'Baroque'. The first trait grants a bonus to city conversions and the building of missionaries, but you get a penalty to happiness in cities with a different religion to yours. The second trait gives you bonus culture from religious buildings, but increases the maintainance costs of those buildings. Then every 500-1000-or whenever the Holy City changes hands-the current controller of the Holy City gets to change that religion's traits-at the cost of 1-turn of anarchy (but they must belong to the same faith as the holy city they control).
Alternatively, the traits are acquired via gameplay. i.e. the above player founds Islam, and goes on to pursue trade and science with some vigour. After about 20 turns, you get a message from your domestic advisor telling you that your religion has acquired the 'Commercial' and 'Scholarly' traits-and ask whether or not you wish to adopt these traits (at the cost of 1 turn of anarchy). As with the previous case, every 20 turns or so, you might get a change in traits if you radically alter your gameplay style-but still at the cost of anarchy. Now, the important point is that any civ which adopts your religion gets the traits of that religion too. However, if you play against those traits, then you might find your cities becoming unhappy-and your relations with the religion's founder, and at risk of creating a new sect of that faith within your nation.
As you can see, we seriously avoid causing any offense whilst at the same time allowing for almost unlimited amounts of replay value, when you consider the total number of Trait+Trait+Religion combinations you can have. (i.e. consider 7 'mutually exclusive' traits and 7 religions. This would allow a minimum of 7*7*7 or 343 different combinations.)

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

Thankyou for that incredibly long paragraph that I will probably never read. jk, like I said earlier, I wouldnt find the suicide bomber offensive, but someone probably would.

 

[farting bob]

I would in no way offended by religion traits or UU's. Religion has been used in other games as a key factory, people dont get offended by that.
Anyway, surely in civ where you get to attack and destroy real world cities (ive bombed london on many occasions), is having 1 religion slightly different to anyother going to make a difference?
Religion has played a massive part in world history, possibly more than any other factory, and yet its totally negated in civ.

 

[Ranger99]

Humph... Why get offended it's just a game.

In my opinion stuff like that might be kinda cool to add... Crusaders, and stuff would be pretty neat. Although in C3C can't you already build Crusaders? I dont own it so i dunt know but that's what i think.

This is a game where crazy things happen, that's what makes it fun.

 

[Alo]

i think the length and intensity of discussions in this thread themselves show that it is clearly a bad idea to implement religion specific traits in the game.

 

[Superkrest]

i think the length and intensity of discussions in this thread themselves show that it is clearly a bad idea to implement religion specific traits in the game.

in the simpilist possible way..it has been sumed up...thank you

 

[MasrTheEgyptian]

I think it's very offensive and very illogical just to of religions as a war machine that's very not true
yet abilities for religions isn't that bad idea I even voted "no" as I'm against the examples only

one more thing I'd like to thank the programers very much I saw in the screenshots saladin and hatshpsut instead of abu bakr and hatshpsut viewing abu bakr was also very offensive and getting bad comments towards him in deplomacy from other leaders was even more painfull so again thanks very much firaxis

 

[ew0054]

I wouldn't be offended at all. In fact, I'd welcome such an imbalance. It woudl add more realism to the game.

People have to stop worrying about being politically correct and all that crap. Anything is going to offend someone. I was smoking in my van at the McDonalds drive thru once, and a lady came up to me and said it offended her, and told me to put it out. I told her that her face offends me, and that I'd put out my cigarette when she put on a paper bag.

 

[Xia]

lol, good for you!

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I can honestly say that it will be well nigh impossible for Firaxis to put anything half as offensive as some of the really stupid things that have been said on this site in the last few months. Fortunately, Firaxis is run by adults.

 

[henry k c]

It would be okay if:
1. The abilities were equal,
2. If there is no negative sterotyping, no suicide bombers

 

[rhialto]

As a company with the balance sheet in mind, Firaxis can't put anything in that would gnerate such heated controversy. However, they can put in the tools to let us make the controversy, which would keep their hands clean.

Kind of like with the recent story about a certain other computer game, except in this case the controversial content would not be a bundled part of the distributed product.

 

[Unexisted]

I wouldn't be offended, but I would not like it. One cannot judge an entire religions by some fanatics.