Why Only Four Civs?

[Dale]

Originally posted by Zealot
Dale it's obvious that you have a bias against significant cultural differences that may exist between the Spanish and Portuguese. There were and are quite remarkable differences.

That is where you are completely wrong. I do NOT have a bias against Portugal.

If anything, you should note from the start of the thread (and other comments in Modcast and other threads) I too am asking "Where's Portugal?" I am merely saying that these may be why Firaxis didn't include them.

To start, the Portuguese weren't conquistadores like the Spanish, they were colonizers. Also, the Portuguese weren't looters, they were traders, although the farming industry was one of the first industries developed in Brazil for the precious sugar and Pau-Brasil (a very valued wood, hence the name).

As for not being the primary catholic country, I have to say it was one of the TWO primary countries, more than Italy at the time.

Portugal was not a major military power but they did kick the Dutch out of Brazil. The only land war that resulted in a loss for Portugal is the territory south of Brazil called Uruguay. The Spanish won that one.
And it damn right was an economic power. With all the spices coming from India and sugar from Brazil, the Portuguese Feitorias were thriving in Flandres, selling the goods that no one else in Europe had in abundance.

In fact it was because of the wealth the Portuguese had that the Dutch then woke up and went for a share of the New World.

The major "component" that the Portuguese were lacking was population. Small country you know...

So basically you're saying they weren't a leader in anything, but good in everything. Exactly what I said, and why I think there is no real play style in Colonisation for Portugal, and why I think they are not included.

[snoopy369]

If anything, I suppose you could make the argument that you should include them because they are not a leader in anything, but good in everything. You have the four 'extreme' playstyles, and then a fifth that is in the middle and can play any of the styles somewhat well.

I suspect that they left them out because they wanted to balance the game for four civs. That and the fact that it does leave an obvious mod to be made...

[CyberChrist]

@Dale:
I am sorry but you are coming across as being fairly biased on this issue - wheter it be a historical, national or even Firaxis based bias I don't know.

But several wastly different play styles that would all fit the Portuguese (including the Jack-of-all-Trades role) have been presented in this thread - and you dismiss them all as being the same as the existing ones which they obviously aren't.

Surely you are not really saying that there can only exist 4 different ways to play a game about the Colonization of the Americas?

[snoopy369]

You're interpreting Dale's experience and understanding of the point of view of the developer as bias

The game developer must create the different play styles, to some extent, because they do after all create the game in the first place... not to say that people won't play it differently from how they intend, and that often creates a more fun game than the developers intend (such as the spore creature creator has shown); but ultimately, the base game must be created in a balanced manner, and created to play in a certain manner. Each additional civ you add must have its own play style (as they clearly do want one play style per civ, or else they'd just have 20 civs like Civ4) and you must re-balance the game for each civ you add. Given the relatively short development time, it's clear to me that they prefered a balanced game that has four civs, rather than a less well balanced game that has five; and I have no problem with that decision. There will always be a last civ that they left out; add portugal, and you ask about Rusisa, or Sweden, or ... whatever. They chose this line to draw based on rational game design, and I have no problem with that. This discussion is no different than the discussion about adding Israel or Poland to the original Civ4 game, or about adding various leaders (a certain Greek leader for example)...

In any event, similar to the above mentioned Civ4 civs, it will be added by modders soon enough, and it's quite possible that the mod-added Portugal will be superior to anything they'd have put in, because modders have unlimited time and resources compared to the profit-driven business

[CyberChrist]

Sigh ...

I am sorry, but I still haven't seen anyone provide even a single remotely valid reason for not including Portugal in a game based on the historical Colonization the Americas.

So far all the 'reasons' seems to boil down to either historical ignorance, political correctness or any number of personal biases - and all poorly concealed under the guise of being for the good of the game.

I am 100% sure there will be a mod for Portugal, but the point is that there shouldn't have to be.


EDIT: only grammar corrections

[snoopy369]

You haven't seen a valid reason because you don't agree with the reasons provided, not because they're not valid

The problem with your statement is a single word. "Historical". The game is in no way claiming to be a historical re-enactment of the colonization period, nor is it intending or claiming to be perfectly historically accurate; no more than Civ4 does.

First and foremost, they are making a fun game to play. You could take out "England", "Spain", "France", and "Holland", and replace them with "Federation", "Klingon", "Romulan", and "Cardassian", put in appropriate graphics and such, tweak the terminology a bit, but otherwise leave the game the same, and it would hopefully be the same game. They use the real countries because it's more interesting to us that they do - but ultimately, it is important to make a fun game first, and historically accurate second. Hence why only four countries - it is simply easier to make a four-country game than a five country game; or perhaps someone at Firaxis tested out the game with five players and thought it was too crowded or less fun.

[Locutus]

I think there are probably a combination of reasons why Portugal wasn't added, but probably the most important one is that Colonization is a game about the history of the United States: the timeline (1600-1800), the selection of units, buildings, resources and (both native and European) civs, the concepts of Founding Fathers, Liberty Bells, the (US) Constitution, the War of Independence and many other things (even the box art of the original) all show us that this is not a game about colonization in general or even the colonization of the Americas, but specifically about the colonization of the United States. This was true for the original game and this appears to be very true for the remake as well. One could easily make a game that included Portugal, that lets you play as the Native Americans, that extends the game from 1492 to 1914, etc but such a game could not faithfully be called Sid Meier's Colonization.

[CyberChrist]

@snoopy369:
Lol, that is a complete cop out.

Whether Firaxis actually directly say that the Civilization line of products is historical or not, it is clearly one of the productline's main selling points and Firaxis is shamelessly playing on that point.

But ok, I will hereby consider past, present and future products coming from Firaxis as having absolutely zero historical credibility.

[snoopy369]

It's true, regardless of your opinion on it. They've made that clear from day one on all of their games. They are making fun games, that happen to have historical groundings. Read some of Sid's interviews, or Soren's, if you would like.

At the end of the day, what 99% of the game buyers want (their market) is a fun game. The historical grounding is interesting, and they certainly try to give it some degree of accuracy - in fact, generally if it won't interfere with the gameplay, they try to make it precisely accurate (within the limits of their knowledge of course).

Look at SMAC. It is largely considered the best of the Civ-ish line ... and yet it is the most historically inaccurate of all of them (unless B.R. knows an awful lot about the future that I don't ... ) It's largely considered the best, because it has excellent gameplay, not because of any degree of realism. People like a game that is fun, not a game that precisely mirrors history; if I wanted a game that precisely mirrored history, i'd buy some History Channel DVDs.

[CyberChrist]

Originally posted by snoopy369 ...They are making fun games, that happen to have historical groundings. ...

And this is where the problem starts.

[snoopy369]

It's apparently a problem for you, which is fine ... but you have to be able to understand their point of view. People who are willing to accept a slightly less fun gameplay in exchange for more historical accuracy are in the far minority; so they do not make that choice.

[CyberChrist]

Originally posted by snoopy369 Look at SMAC. It is largely considered the best of the Civ-ish line ... and yet it is the most historically inaccurate of all of them

What an odd thing to use as an argument in defense for lacking historical accuracy in a game like Colonization(as it has been announced). SMAC wasn't in anyway being promoted under the guise of any part of recorded history - historical accuracy simply doesn't apply to SMAC.

[CyberChrist]

Originally posted by snoopy369
It's apparently a problem for you, which is fine ... but you have to be able to understand their point of view. People who are willing to accept a slightly less fun gameplay in exchange for more historical accuracy are in the far minority; so they do not make that choice.

Are you trying to say that including Portugal in Colonization in any way would make the game less fun?

[snoopy369]

Yes, that was what I wrote in my post a bit up...

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by CyberChrist

What an odd thing to use as an argument in defense for lacking historical accuracy in a game like Colonization(as it has been announced). SMAC wasn't in anyway being promoted under the guise of any part of recorded history - historical accuracy simply doesn't apply to SMAC.

My point indeed Many people prefer SMAC to Civ (of various flavors), because it has better gameplay than Civ (even what, 8 years later?). Historical accuracy is not what makes Civ/Col/etc. fun, but rather excellent gameplay.