Good vs. evil civs?

[Nohbody8]

For anyone who has played Galactic Civilizations, you will know what I am talking about. In that game, choices you made during certain random events would place your civilization along a good vs. evil spectrum. Eventually, once your civilization progressed close enough to either end of the spectrum, you were granted access to technologies that were unique to your end of the spectrum.

If I remember correctly, the good end of the spectrum received the fastest engines and some extra trade routes. Obviously, the evil end of the spectrum received stuff like weapons to help them become even more evil. My question is, with the advent of random events in Civ4, how many of you would like to see something like this implemented in future Civ games?

[Marcusem78]

I would definitly like to see something along these lines. Factors like happiness, ww, relations with other civs (which could also differ depending on the end of the spectrum they are on) and even simple concepts like whipping could all be affected in various ways.

[snoopy369]

An interesting mod, but definitely out of scope for Civ regular. Civ is a strategy game, not a role playing game.

[Nohbody8]

So Galactic Civilizations is an RPG or is it a TBS with RPG elements?

[snoopy369]

I haven't played it, but this is an RPG element.

The difference between something like that, and UU/UB or traits, is that the latter simply differentiate the players slightly; they are constants and don't require gameplay decisions to be made towards them. Adding something that you can 'strive for' that affects the gameplay itself (rather than being an end in and of itself) is an RPG element and not particularly interesting in a pure strategy game. (HOMMx is a more completely blended RPG/strategy game, for example). Certainly could be an interesting game, but Civ is not an RPG/Strat blend, it's a pure strat game.

I'm also not a big fan of the quest events, tbh, for the same reason, but to each his own

[Verrucosus]

I do not like the idea of good vs. evil for Civilization. The concept just doesn't fit into a game that tries to give players an idea of the richness of human history.

Importing the concept from GalCiv2 into Civ under a different label (for example, capitalist vs socialist) to simulate certain periods of block-building isn't that attractive either to me. I'm afraid that would work like a script for the game and make its flow too predictable in a similar way that the age restrictions on research (you know how I mean that) did in Civ3.

I imagine that a mechanism of earning certain traits based on where a player has focused the energies of his civilization (as an alternative to leader-based traits) could be intriguing. It would make sense if a civilization that builds lots of wonders gets the "industrious" trait or a war-mongering civilization ends up with an "aggressive" trait, but I am not sure that it would do much good for balancing the game.

P.S.: Role playing as an approach to the game (rather than a description of the genre) is great fun even in a game like Civ where the roles are less pre-defined (than in SMAC, for example) and a lot is left to the player's imagination.

[Krill]

Properly balanced it could be a fun SP mod, if you could get the AI to understand it.

[Crossfire]

Having played both games pretty extensively, I really don't think the 'good vs. evil' choices in GalCiv play a much different a role than religion does in Civ. Both provide a means for other civs to either like or hate you. The fact that you get a slightly different research path in GalCiv never was a determining factor for me as a player. Usually I became evil because the random events offered too much benefit when the evil path was chosen to ignore them and it was too costly to undo those choices when it was time to select a bias.

[mkorin]

Originally posted by Crossfire
Having played both games pretty extensively, I really don't think the 'good vs. evil' choices in GalCiv play a much different a role than religion does in Civ. Both provide a means for other civs to either like or hate you. The fact that you get a slightly different research path in GalCiv never was a determining factor for me as a player. Usually I became evil because the random events offered too much benefit when the evil path was chosen to ignore them and it was too costly to undo those choices when it was time to select a bias.

That is almost a scary reflection on life by the game designers. Evil being the easier path in most cases and redeeming yourself comes at a high cost.

Mike

[Crossfire]

Originally posted by mkorin


That is almost a scary reflection on life by the game designers. Evil being the easier path in most cases and redeeming yourself comes at a high cost.

Mike

But! It isn't even that Evil is the easier path in GalCiv, it is just that it is usually the far more lucrative path. Often in the game it is quite painful to be evil because everyone else hates you and makes war against you.

Unlike in real life, taking the evil path in GalCiv has ramifications. If only we could make our goverment representatives pay the same way, eh!

[Hydro]

Crossfire,

Oh, I beg to differ on GalCiv2 good-and-evil. If you tally up the benefits of good-neutral-evil and the price you pay then you'll determine that Evil is good and Good is dumb. If you've got some smattering of conscience then take the Neutral route. Play Good if you want a disadvantage.

I love RP (such as SMAC), but don’t think it has much of a role in Civ4. By modern definitions all civs are evil (slavery anyone?) until you get more advanced governments - so what’s the point?

Hydro

[One_more_turn]

Alex, Hannibal, that Khmer dude, Monty are all backstabbing, evil bastards.

[LzPrst]

while shaka, genghiz and stalin are frontstabbing evil illegitimate sons of female canines.


and no to the idea. you want evil? read history. it's filled with nothing but. and good is usually done by individuals, occasionally small groups, while cruelties are performed by nations and empires.

[Nohbody8]

Originally posted by Hydro
Play Good if you want a disadvantage.

Call me sappy but I always liked that I picked the "good" option most of the time (sometimes I went neutral) even though it was technically more beneficial to choose neutral or evil options.

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by LzPrst

and no to the idea. you want evil? read history. it's filled with nothing but. and good is usually done by individuals, occasionally small groups, while cruelties are performed by nations and empires.

QFT

That is one of the reasons I slightly dislike it in GalCiv, I mean they could at least have the decency to put humans as evil leaning or dead neutral. But nooo, they had to make humans "teh good guys cuz we are".