Why Only Four Civs?

[Dale]

CyberChrist:

You want the MOST VALID reason why Portugal isn't in?

Answer: Because they weren't in the original.

Firaxis has stated time and again they are making Col2 to be a failthful remake. Therefore the Civs stay the same.

Also, as mentioned before, games are designed with FUN in mind first, to the exclusion of HISTORY. And personally, I'd prefer FUN (gameplay) over history any day. A fun game is what I want, not a history lesson.

Thirdly, tell me in what capacity Portugal participated in the colonisation, founding and consequent war of Independance of USA? Loc hit the nail on the head with his statement, as Colonisation is definitetly USA based.

And finally I still have to come back to the fact that even in history, Portugal weren't really that big a player in the Americas. If the game included Africa and Asia, then yes Portugal MUST be in. But essentially Portugal was over-shadowed by the operations of the big four.

And regardless of whether you call that "bias" or what, it's fact.

[CyberChrist]

Heh, I forgot that Apolyton was the den of Firaxis fanboys - they simply can do no wrong. Any arguments are simply pushed aside or ignored if they dare challenge the wonder that Firaxis is

You guys seriously need lessons in history, game design and marketing. Because you are currently failing in all 3 fields.

[CyberChrist]

Originally posted by Dale And regardless of whether you call that "bias" or what, it's fact.

No, but I don't think I'll bother repeating why - just read my previous post.

[Dale]

So because we don't view the game the same way as you we're fanboys?

Sorry, but that's a very immature comment.

You think that what we're saying is a slight against Portugal. You couldn't be further from the truth. Read what we've been saying.

We have been trying to explain what might have been their decision in leaving Portugal out. We have not once advocated that decision. In fact, if you bothered to read the whole thread (and other threads) you will notice that some of us want Portugal in the game (me for instance).

Please see my final sentence in post #28 of this thread. Here's a link for you: http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...37#post5329637

[CyberChrist]

Sorry, my apologies, thought I was editing mine - Dale.

[Dale]

So because I've been advocating more Civs (including Portugal, Russia, China, Norway etc) and Snoopy really hasn't been saying anything of much in this thread (sorry mate ) and then both of us provide some conjecture on what possibly went into the decision to leave Portugal out; we're fanboys?

[CyberChrist]

The fact that you consider the reasons Firaxis may or may not have for excluding Portugal (those mentioned in this thread) as being VALID does make you come across as fanboys, yes.

Your repeated comments about Portguese influence in the America's as being minor/insignificant (especially with the Dutch in the same game) and that they wouldn't be fun to play if they were included, does make you come across as either anti-Portuguese or history-ignorants, yes.


As a side note then I am not Portuguese myself, I don't know any Portuguese and I never have or wanted to play a Portuguese nation (no offense intended in any way), but from a historical point of view it does annoy me that they are excluded (again) and even more so that the exclusion is defended by bogus reasons (they could at least be honest about it).

[Dale]

Okay we're straying off topic now, let's turn it back before it gets ugly.

Whilst I can understand from a gameplay/design perspective some of the reason that may have gone into only having England, France, Spain and Holland in the game, from a historical standpoint I'm disappointed they neglected other major colonisers such as Portugal, Russia and the potential colonisation power of China.

[snoopy369]

I consider the reasons valid in the sense that they are a valid reason to make a decision in creating a game. Reasons can be valid without being agreed to ... they're just reasons. I can't say I know for a fact the actual reason - sadly, i'm not involved with creating the game, and was not sitting in on the discussions that went into it. So, as with Dale, I'm just guessing as to why they left it out.

The fact that I am able to understand a point of view different from my own is normally considered a positive trait... sorry if you don't see it that way

Personally, I don't care if Portugal is included or not; if the game is more fun with 4 civs, then leave it as is. If it's more fun with five, then include them. I'm not someone who wants a history lesson with my game, though I certainly love the taste of history in a game. I completely understand your point of view (that you want it as historically accurate as possible), and it's certainly a very valid point of view; but you don't seem to understand the developers' point of view, which is what I was trying to explain to you. They simply don't have that point of view, and from a business perspective cannot.

If you can find posts by Jon Shafer on game design, I suggest you read them; he's a former Apolyton poster who now works for Firaxis. He has a lot of background in game design, and why you make gameplay vs. realism decisions. They're certainly not easy decisions, as each time you choose gameplay over realism, you irritate some people; you have to balance the two appropriately.

[Dale]

Originally posted by snoopy369
If you can find posts by Jon Shafer on game design, I suggest you read them; he's a former Apolyton poster who now works for Firaxis. He has a lot of background in game design, and why you make gameplay vs. realism decisions. They're certainly not easy decisions, as each time you choose gameplay over realism, you irritate some people; you have to balance the two appropriately.

CyberChrist I would also recommend reading this interview by Soren Johnson where he talks about strategy games, and design. It provides a developers view on exactly what we've been discussing: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/featur...n__spores_.php

[Zealot]

Guys I spent a fair bit reading all lines in all posts in this page and the "excuses" speculated here in favour of Firaxis. I very much like the work produced by Firaxis, but the excuses stated on this page are total rubish, and as a regular customer of a company, I entitle myself to voice my expectations on the products it produces.

And the excuses are rubish. When I read that "it's a copy of the original", it comes to my mind the huge amount of times that I spawned east of the Brazilian coast in the original, and wondered what was the problem in adding a colour for the Portuguese and add one specific trait. Trade would be the most accurate, but for some strange lobby the Dutch managed to get in the game anyway.

Civ 4: Colonization is certainly going to be more elaborate than the original Colonization 1, but the excuses are still rubish, and the game designer(s) should be brought to the attention that they made a very big mistake by choosing to ignore Portugal from launch. I don't know if Firaxis has a Community Manager or are leaving that work for 2k Games, but it's obvious someone didn't think it through and there was no one in place to prevent such a big grievance to show up against this decision.

Will we be able to change anything? Will Portugal still be in the game from launch? Will it be offered later on as a "Service Pack" download? Or is it the only credible way to sell an Expansion Pack?
I don't know how far ahead the production is, but I really wish that there's still time to get the Portuguese there ready for launch.

[CyberChrist]

Originally posted by snoopy369 ... I completely understand your point of view (that you want it as historically accurate as possible) ...

What is getting my water boiling about the omission of Portugal is that it so heavily REDUCE the level of historical accuracy that the end result can't be assigned any real historical credibility - and without the excuse of the hardware limitations of the original game that is no longer an acceptable choice to me.

... you don't seem to understand the developers' point of view, which is what I was trying to explain to you. They simply don't have that point of view, and from a business perspective cannot.

You have no way of knowing this of course, but I am in fact very familiar with the corporate mindset and reasonings that so often results in less than perfect products ending up in the consumers laps.

As for Developers taking shortcuts then that normally boils down to corporate time pressure and/or inadequate skill/creativity.

But knowing/recognizing the underlying reasons for making the choices that is made, does not mean you have to accept or condone those reasons and their following (shoddy) consequences.

[Dale]

I'm sorry, but an argument based off "historical credibility" for a game such as Colonisation (and Civ4 while we're at it) does not hold water.

Not whilst one group of soldiers will fight another group of soldiers and the other 100 groups stand around watching.

To use this point in discusions about these games is ludicrous considering the massive liberties these games take at history's(/realities) expense.

As for Developers taking shortcuts then that normally boils down to corporate time pressure and/or inadequate skill/creativity.

I'm sorry, but I totally disagree with you here. Yes, sometimes that is the cause of shortcuts / alternatives being needed, but not always. Not even most of the time as far as I can tell.

As far as the Firaxis designers go, they have always been fun gameplay first, reality second. They have constantly stated they make "fun games based on historical contexts".

I would suggest Europa Universalis series for people concerned about realistic history.

[SandroTheMaster]

Err... who the hell said that the Portuguese influence in the Americas was minor? I mean, they only ended up being the founders of the second most powerful nation of the Americas, nothing interesting.

The portuguese were colonizers since the later medieval era, the other european only jumped the bandwagon because they were being economically crippled by the portuguese and noticed they had something interesting in their hands. The portuguese advanced most of the navigation and shipbuilding techniques for most of the navigation era. The english navy was only more powerful because the english had a very heavy reliance on the navy to do anything in Europe, being an island and all, but just because they had better cannons doesn't mean they had the better overall ships. The portuguese caravels were way better at sea-fare than anything out there. I think all this pretty much boils down the historical reasons to include the portuguese, and saying they're not really concerned about history is rubbish, the game is based on history as its major selling point, that's all the reason of their big intake into the USA colonization.

Now, saying the game is only about the USA, that's more plausible. Saying that the game is only a big polish propaganda of how awesome the USA is, alright I get it. But saying that adding more nations will unbalance the game to levels impossible to correct? The game was balanced the Gods know how many years ago, at a time 4 sides with actual different gameplay was out of question. Today there are strategy games with dozens of different sides working just alright, so it wouldn't kill Firaxis to add one "minor" nation to the game. Saying it is for the sake of fun? In what way adding more adversaries, more nations makes the game something other than fun? Especially if these sides are much more different than the original ones were between each other. That only adds replayability. Makes the game more interesting. Saying otherwise is conservative talk that, if we depended on, we'd still be playing Zorg and everyone would be perfectly happy with that infinitely frustrating game.

Now, the worse is saying that "It is alright. The game doesn't need Portugal, because surely modders will add it." is just insulting. It the same as making a game about world war II and saying "Hey, it's alright, the modders will add the Americans, just go along with it."... Actually, this is an perfect example. You say the portuguese weren't a major player in the america (what is just not right) or that they were less important than the english or whatever. Well, the North americans weren't the biggest allies players in world war II. The russians were. Who the hell lost more lives and who the hell took over the german capital? The hell, the americans never had their soil not even remotely threatened of invasion. By that mentality all WWII games should be about russianXgerman conflicts. But then again, I guess the americans would think: "No way, this game is lame. It is not even historically correct. We won the WWII. The commies were allied with the axis. We fought them until what, 1996? The WWII only ended in 1996 because that's when the commies, the last of the axis, finally fell." So I guess the game wouldn't sell very well, would it? Heck, I'm sure that if you put the portuguese in the game your target audience would go: "Portugal? Who the **** are they? I didn't hear about them in the history of americas. What are they doing in my continent? They are stealing this large patch of land south of mexico and south america. They are stealing my american soil! Oh, it's on, you non existent pirates."

[Dale]

Okay folks time to calm down.

Regardless of whether Portugal should be in or not, this discussion will do no one any good getting in a slagging match.

Let's bring it back to civility thanks.

The summary of this thread so far is thus:

Portugal will not be in the release of C4C which has upset some people. Let's leave it at that shall we?