Would you have put in Brazil as a Civ?

[jermungand]

Please link me if there's a good thread I can peruse, if/where this conversation has already been had.

I give America a pass for being in Civ on the grounds that it's had enough of a major impact on the world to justify it's inclusion, despite it's very late appearance in history. Seeing Brazil in there (yes, I know it was previously included in an expansion to Civ 5) feels quite strange to me, though. What do you guys really think about Brazil as a Civ?

 

[Haig]

People usually say "how can Portugal not be in the game when Brazil is in?!".

But look at last 200 years, Brazil has outclassed Portugal for that time, and while not being up there with the European empires of those eras, it's been easily strongest S-American nation and like I wrote, stronger than Portugal.

I think it's a colorful nice choice and has it's place in the game.

 

[indradiva]

we invite everybody to our party I don't care how old a civ is or how important it is, everyone is welcome.

 

[need my speed]

No, I wouldn't. But I suppose Brazil has a stereotyped image that can be easily translated to Civilization.

 

[Al Bundy]

Sure, Why not? The more, the merrier!

 

[Deja Vu]

Those of you saying the more civs the better arnt wrong, but look at it this way, would you of rather had them spend all the time they spent on Brazil on another Civ for example Persia or the Ottomans? I personally would of liked to see both of them before Brazil.

 

[mzprox]

For me a little immersion breaker seeing civs like Brasil in 4000 BC, for that reason I don't play them

 

[Xur]

Definition of the word "Civilization":

• an advanced state of human society, in which a high level of culture,science, industry, and government has been reached

Any country, anywhere, any time can be considered - it's a stupid question you ask.

 

[Deja Vu]

For me a little immersion breaker seeing civs like Brasil in 4000 BC, for that reason I don't play them

The same could be said about The United States but immersion is never going to be perfect in games like these. For example getting tanks in 1000AD

 

[Haggbart]

Sure, why not?

It has a distinct flavour that is perfect for a game like this.

Also I personally like Brazil, have many friends from there, have been training a brazilian sport for many many years, and have visited the country, so I'm probably kinda biased

 

[Sansa_Stark]

I think they have nice rainforest bonus.

Seriously, this has been discussed to death. Just search for older threads.

 

[eyememine]

I get the urge to include a modern southamerican civ. I hoped to see Argentina this time and I must admit I don't get why it's boring Brazil again.

 

[Al Bundy]

Those of you saying the more civs the better arnt wrong, but look at it this way, would you of rather had them spend all the time they spent on Brazil on another Civ for example Persia or the Ottomans? I personally would of liked to see both of them before Brazil.

Oh, I agree but that is a question of preferences. I would have also prefer Persia or the Incas, but I am OK with Brazil.

 

[Zaarin]

No, I wouldn't have included Brazil, nor any post-colonial civ--including America. If one must be included, I can understand it being America; Brazil makes much less sense. I wouldn't have been surprised to see Brazil return as DLC (a DLC I would have passed on), but seeing it in the base game over the Inca, Persia, or a Native American civ is blatant market pandering.

 

[MarcoFurio]

For me a little immersion breaker seeing civs like Brasil in 4000 BC, for that reason I don't play them

Do you play America, Germany, France, Russia...?
Do you stop playing Sumeria, Rome, Astecs when will get to medieval or renaicesce era?

Your comment doesn't make any sense.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Brazil would not be among my selection for the vanilla version, but I do like the way they have been implemented.

I think it is good to have a mixture of famous, obscure, and unexpected civs. As long as the uniques don't feel like garbage.

 

[Lord Shadow]

I don't think there's more than one or two civs from the repertoire which existed as such in 4000 BC.

You really can't be uncompromising with that without rejecting myriad other weird Civ occurrences, like the randomly generated world, technology that can be researched regardless of the actual year, ancient civs making it to the modern era, etc.

As for Brazil, it's alright but I was hoping for something like Argentina, for a change. We've been but a tiny blip in the Civ radar, having only tangentially appeared through José de San Martín in Civ4Col. I suppose that's more than what most countries get, but still...

 

[blackcatatonic]

No, and I have to admit it's largely because of the Portugal thing. It feels very, very weird to me to not have Brazil's most significant cultural ancestor feature in the game while they do. Still, they're in and that's cool. I just wouldn't have added them before the first expansion pack.

 

[Ricard.Bossle]

Oh, come on guys... Few civilizations would stand the "4000BC Test". Not even "everybody favorite" Persia would survive the test.
I would love to play Canada, Argentina, Ireland, Cuba. Modern States can be fun too!
This kind of thread is BORING and just encourage some kind of passive-agressive messages. Nothing good might come from this discussion.

 

[rpgalon]

I think any civilization with a different flavor and culture is a good civ to play.

Brazil is a unique country, even in South America. I think it's a far better choice than adding another civ from Europe.

I care more about Gameplay.