Civilization is not for 3 year olds.

[FrostyBoy]

Please don't make cIV a kids game.

You (Firaxis) keep making all your games childrens games.

Civ is not really a kids game. Yes, I played Civ1 when I was 10, but if it were all cartoonie, etc, then I would never have taken history, politics, econimics, etc seriously.

What MAKES Civ FUN is the seriousness of it. That's what its about. We want to think we are building a civilization strong enough to take on other civilizations, we want real issues, real life obstacles. We want to feel like an actual leader with actual responsibilities.

[Earthling7]

Hear, hear.

two extremes, CivIII vs EUII. CivIV should be somewhere in between.

[Robert]

Is anybody really afraid that cIV will be a kid game?
c'mon, that's not going to happen this millenium.

[Shogun Gunner]

Agreed...the realism and sophistication is important to me.

[Brent]

Cartoony: better than graphically violent.
Seriousness: not in every way.
Sophistication: absolutely.

[Kuciwalker]

No! I liked C3.

[Patroklos]

I like Civ three, but gloss over alot of things that made a major difference in real history.

Remember the uproar when slavery was added? So really can we blame them?

[petermarkab]

Originally posted by Patroklos

Remember the uproar when slavery was added? So really can we blame them?

Come on, do we really want a sanitised game? I recall reading recently that Civ is used educationally. Its not a comprehensive encyclopaedia of the world but how are people expected to learn about unpleasantness in history if this game continues to follow the trend of appealing to certain demographics in certain countries?

At least Darwin's Theory of Evolution is still there!

[Brent]

I want a sanitized game. That's what first attracted me to it. I won't complain about other games being less sanitized for people who want it that way, but Civ is special in this attribute. I don't know of any other history games that are this way. Galciv doesn't fill the same space. Civ is a game. Unpleasantness is unpleasant. There are other ways to learn about unpleasantness. Now I realize I don't want realism as much as I thought I did. I still want some kinds of realism, but not every kind.

[LDiCesare]

I think this poll is very badly worded and doesn't fit the thread title.
My daughter is 6 and she plays civ3 (I have to read her the text as she is only in the process of learning to read). I want civ4 to make such a thing possible. If anything, it can help her learn history (or get interested in it, which will help her later).
So serious means what? We don't need cartoony characters, agreed. What my daughter likes is there is some terrain and you build houses (cities), and you can view these cities. Kids want visual, graphical stuff. Grown-ups are more into gameplay and ai. Being historically as accurate as these fantasies can be is needed for civ, but this wouldn't make kids run away. Don' underestimate kids. They are very much able to like complex games.

[Earthling7]

Originally posted by LDiCesare
...there is some terrain and you build houses (cities), and you can view these cities.

This is the whole point. Civ, unlike pure wargames, is not about war. Sure, some players are more aggressive than others and most of their games will be layed out on the battlefield. The beauty of Civ is that it allows the player to pick the strategy he/she wants.

Slavery is bad. If you don't like it, don't use it. Better still, persuade your neighbours to stop using it.

Simplified and sanitised is not where Civ should be going. It doesn't need to so realistic that children have nightmares and adults get bored. Humour is welcome, but there is no need to re-write history and make it a Noddy in Toyland thing.

[FrostyBoy]

I see Civ1 and Civ2 as a really fat chess game.

But I see Civ3 as half chess half snakes and ladders.


That's my drift.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
No! I liked C3.

Exactly, we don't want a kids game.

[FrostyBoy]

are you being sarcastic Ludd?

[Apocalypse]

I doubt he is. Kuci is just a kid.