Very disappointed

[Felch]

Yeah, I wasn't trying to pick a fight or anything. I just get bored and like to rant. Nothing personal.

[CEO Aaron]

CEO Aaron debates like a gentleman

Thank you.

In Civ IV all these "events" (or whatever you want to call them) that lump together religions and technologies but also social advances are a more generic class of "things" that share a central feature : their appearance (whether discovery or invention or whatever) changed the course of history.

That's a fair point, and it's certainly true that the faiths included have had a greater impact on the development of world cultures, based on their succcess alone. And to be entirely accurate, my complaint about the inclusion of religion as technology is a bit un-nuanced. After all, polytheism and monotheism were techs in the original Civilization, if my memory serves.

To more accurately position my grievance, let me say this. The way they have ossified religion into the currently most popular brands takes away some of the notion that I'm creating my own history, with its own culture. I also feel that their positive role in the creation of a healthy culture is wildly overstated, in comparison to earlier Civ titles, and in comparison to actual history. In effect, in their haste to a) include religion as a feature and b) not offend any particular religious group, they've sugarcoated all of the major religions, and painted them as an unambiguous boon to an empire, entirely compatible with rival beliefs. Actual history paints an entirely different picture.

Leaving aside my complaints of verisimilitude, however, I also just don't like how the religions were implemented mechanically in game. The 'first come, first served' nature of the early religions makes the imperative for a philosophical tech grab very strong, and if you're one of the unlucky civs who doesn't start with the mysticism prerequisite, you're faced with a pair of loathsome choices. Either adopt the faith of your credulous neighbors for the sake of diplomatic tranquility, and forgo the benefits of founding one of the later faiths (which are very powerful), or go it alone and consign yourself to an uphill battle of conversion and warfare.

It's undeniable that philosophical and religious thought play a crucial part in history. Some notion of religion belongs in a game like Civ. But what they've done in this version is, in my opinion, very badly implemented, unrealistic, and overall makes the game less pleasant to play. A more abstract view of religion and culture, without assigning particular real-world sects, would have been better.

[Willem]

But what they've done in this version is, in my opinion, very badly implemented, unrealistic, and overall makes the game less pleasant to play. A more abstract view of religion and culture, without assigning particular real-world sects, would have been better.

I agree that it could have been implemented better but keep in mind that it's a brand new feature of the game and because of it's overall delicate nature, they were probably reluctant to devote too much time and energy into it's implementaion. They weren't at all sure what the response would be and how it would play out in the game so they left it as featureless as possible. Hopefully with the next version they'll expand on that role more and make it a bit more interesting. Although I agree that giving a particular religion certain traits and abilities would be far too controversial as a feature, I don't see why we couldn't choose those abilities ourselves and make our own choices from a prescribed list. I'd also like to see some negative effects from having certain religions, or combinations of religions, in the game.

[TriMiro]

I agree that it could have been implemented better but keep in mind that it's a brand new feature of the game and because of it's overall delicate nature, they were probably reluctant to devote too much time and energy into it's implementaion. They weren't at all sure what the response would be and how it would play out in the game so they left it as featureless as possible. Hopefully with the next version they'll expand on that role more and make it a bit more interesting. Although I agree that giving a particular religion certain traits and abilities would be far too controversial as a feature, I don't see why we couldn't choose those abilities ourselves and make our own choices from a prescribed list. I'd also like to see some negative effects from having certain religions, or combinations of religions, in the game.

Great idea!!!

Make some religions with some traits "hate" each other (i.e. two aggressive religions would fight, peaceful ones would coexist).

[CEO Aaron]

I don't see why we couldn't choose those abilities ourselves and make our own choices from a prescribed list. I'd also like to see some negative effects from having certain religions, or combinations of religions, in the game.

Yes. A philosophical buffet from which to create your own religion would be far, far more interesting. Basically, they'd be civics for values instead of laws. Basically, I'm looking for a more complicated version of the 'values' choices on the Society Effects table in Alpha Centauri.

[slnz]

To more accurately position my grievance, let me say this. The way they have ossified religion into the currently most popular brands takes away some of the notion that I'm creating my own history, with its own culture. I also feel that their positive role in the creation of a healthy culture is wildly overstated, in comparison to earlier Civ titles, and in comparison to actual history. In effect, in their haste to a) include religion as a feature and b) not offend any particular religious group, they've sugarcoated all of the major religions, and painted them as an unambiguous boon to an empire, entirely compatible with rival beliefs. Actual history paints an entirely different picture.

To reiterate, I don't think they included "the currently most popular brands". I can't think of one that has actually had effect on the politics and governing enough to be considered a "state religion" but is not included. Note that many of the old religions such as the Norse and Greek mythology fall under the Civilopedia definition of Paganism, and one pantheon didn't differ from another very much except nominally. Also for example, there are many religions that have more followers today than Judaism, but it's still included for its historical rather than contemporary importance.

The main negative incombatibility and negativeness of religions is also implemented, namely the fact that civilizations with differing religions have great suspicion and distrust for each other. Though this is, in part, negated by the fact that the player is allowed to change his state religion like a shirt, if he wants. I think there should be a VERY much longer cooldown on changing state religion, and also a period of unhappiness in the cities that have the former state religion.

They were hardly in a haste to include religion in the game; I'm sure Sid has thought about including them from the beginning of the series, which is almost 20 years ago. They didn't before, because faith by definition means different things to each individual and thus it's extremely hard to generalize them enough to fit in a computer game. Point b is quite valid though, I don't think there's any way they could have made the religions diverse enough to matter in the game mechanics. The sugarcoating was pretty much compulsory; same reason why the leader pool is "sugarcoated" by leaving a certain Austrian out of it. I do agree that the religion mechanics could be much more interesting in theory, but for practical (PR) reasons they had to leave implementing those mechanics to modders.

Also I agree that in mass culture generation, mainly when pursuing a cultural win, the importance of religions is overrated with respect to reality.

It's undeniable that philosophical and religious though play a crucial part in history. Some notion of religion belongs in a game like Civ. But what they've done in this version is, in my opinion, very badly implemented, unrealistic, and overall makes the game less pleasant to play. A more abstract view of religion and culture, without assigning particular real-world sects, would have been better.

I'd like to hear how that "abstract view" could be implemented in practice. For one, I think removing factual references to existing religions would generate a host of new problems. All the problems with the game mechanics for culture and religion stem from the fact that they are abstract concepts, but for the sake of a game they have to be transformed into numbers and lines on a map. I think that under the circumstances they did a decent enough job at it.

Although I agree that giving a particular religion certain traits and abilities would be far too controversial as a feature, I don't see why we couldn't choose those abilities ourselves and make our own choices from a prescribed list.

I think this would be a very good and dynamic game mechanic. Like:
Pretentious: +4 culture from this religions buildings, but -1 diplo hit with all other religions
Militant: Cannot build temples, but monasteries give +1 experience to military units

[CEO Aaron]

I don't think they included "the currently most popular brands". I can't think of one that has actually had effect on the politics and governing enough to be considered a "state religion" but is not included.

And I think that's a remarkably ethnocentric point of view. The Hellenic and Hellenistic cultures that dominated the west for several thousand years were hinged upon what Civ IV deems mere 'Paganism'. Just because the states were smaller and hegemonic doesn't mean there wasn't a State religion. Egypt's monarchy was utterly founded on their contemporary religious beliefs, and for that matter, the current constitutional monarch of Japan, his Imperial Majesty the Emperor claims direct descent from Amaterasu-ōmikami, the Shinto Sun-Goddess. No Shinto in Civ IV, now, is there?

Make no mistake, the religions included in Civ IV were chosen based on market dynamics, not historical significance.

[slnz]

And I think that's a remarkably ethnocentric point of view. The Hellenic and Hellenistic cultures that dominated the west for several thousand years were hinged upon what Civ IV deems mere 'Paganism'. Just because the states were smaller and hegemonic doesn't mean there wasn't a State religion. Egypt's monarchy was utterly founded on their contemporary religious beliefs, and for that matter, the current constitutional monarch of Japan, his Imperial Majesty the Emperor claims direct descent from Amaterasu-ōmikami, the Shinto Sun-Goddess. No Shinto in Civ IV, now, is there?

Make no mistake, the religions included in Civ IV were chosen based on market dynamics, not historical significance.

Okay I yield on that aspect, even though I still think an enumerated list of real world religions is the way to go (and one problem with many of the religions of old are that they don't have a catchy unambiguous name). Based on the list of World Wonder list the game does certainly think that the Greeks got "production bonuses" from their religion I also think that if they would have balanced the game to encompass, say, 3 more religions, Shinto would be included.

Though, naturally everything they had to choose is chosen based on market dynamics (= what interests people ~ what they know), like the included Civs and especially the Wonders. I think for example that if the names for ToA and Shwedagon Paya would be swapped, people would build the new "ToA" more often than the current Shwedagon Paya, just because they recognize the name and it "feels familiar". Thus there's a definite bias towards Western culture, especially American (Broadway? Pentagon? 'Native American Empire'? Really?). Though annoying at times, I think it makes the game better on average. Main reason why Alpha Centauri wasn't as interesting as Civ, people just don't relate to researching "Hyperbolic Quantum Divergence Encompassing Field Generators" as much as "The Wheel"

[CEO Aaron]

So long as you substitute 'Interesting' with 'Successful', I'll agree with you, with regards to Alpha Centauri. It's true that the tech tree in SMAC was much less intuitive. However, having a blank slate to work with let them create some more interesting choices, and made the early game a lot more brisk.

I'm not suggesting that SMAC isn't without its flaws. Its AI is entirely at sea when the player isn't subject to the rigorous constraints added to later Civ offerings, and some of the tech tree decisions proved to be poorly balanced after in depth analysis. That said, Firaxis has produced prettier games since SMAC, but not better ones.

[Speaker]

Seriously, did no one notice that one of the lead developers of Beyond the Sword posted in this thread? So Jon, have you checked out the Youtube links in the OP, and will you be removing religion from CIV?

[Alinestra Covelia]

The entire technology/civic/government tree is completely linear and historically based thus revealing the lack of basic understanding of anthropology, sociology and social psychology. It should have been broken down to basic elements, not randomly created historical notions-

Yes, that has actually been a very longstanding valid point of criticism about all the Civilization games. The tech tree is stacked in a linear fashion that roughly approximates to the European historical discovery tree. In other cultures, basic assumptions like Alphabet may not even hold true. (The Chinese script is entirely pictographic, for example.)

If nothing else, Civ 4 does have a redeeming feature in this respect insofar as the tech tree often has several parallel routes to a certain tech, so it's possible for you to deviate a little from the linearity.

And why do all units of all the races look exactly the same?!
This is the main flaw of the game, it invalidates any feeling of having your own unique civilization.

Yeah, this has been the case for all Civ games to my knowledge.

If racial/ethnic variation for the same unit is an important game factor to you, you may want to pick up Rise of Nations. (An RTS based on historical civilization progress like Civ.) All the build-icons of the units are the same, which is to say Euro-centric, but the units themselves are quite accurately portrayed by ethnic group, which I rather like. It's even got different models of Fighter Jet units for different nations, even though they all function the same.

[Fistleaf]

Atheism is the new religion!

The way Andrew puts it, atheism sounds like a religion to me.

The complete faith in the non-existence of god fairies, the absolute belief that all the evidence debunking religion is true, the total confidence that atheism must be the truth regardless of what everybody else believes in, the putting down of all non-believers of atheism.....

All hail the new "institutionalised superstition" of atheism, and Andrew is the Prophet.

[Alinestra Covelia]

I have heard serious debate as to whether atheism counts as a religion. Most hinge on whether or not it depends on faith - i.e. an affirmative belief (as you mention) that a certain situation exists, given the absence of hard proof either way.

I guess the scientist in me would be an agnostic (wait and see what proof we can collect either way) but the skeptic in me is an atheist (I believe there is no overarching omnipresent intellect guiding our futures - even though the burden of proof breaks down past a certain point).

[wodan11]

I don't believe God has "forms to fill out" and if you don't, you're SOL. i.e., get baptised. In fact, the multitude of different versions of faith (there are probably 40-50 different versions of Christianity alone... add in all the different versions of Islam, of Judiasm, etc, plus Buddhism etc.) would argue that God doesn't in fact have such... he is accepting of quite a lot. Otherwise, umpteen billion people will be pretty unhappy when they get to the pearly gates and are turned away simply because they're the wrong flavor.

Ultimately it comes down to live a good life. If God exists, he'll accept you. If he doesn't exist, then it doesn't matter either way, now does it?

As for CIV from the OP... the Civilopedia is historical flavor to enhance the game experience. Take it as such. It's not trying to tell you the metaphysical reality of the universe. For that, go to church or read the Bible, Koran, Torah... whatever floats your boat.

[Jaybe]

Nah, various religions are in Civ4 to give additional basis for conflict, as it has provided IRL.

There are always some of those holier than thou'ers that believe their religion is the ONLY way, so they try to convert (sometimes by force), or they decide everyone else is going to hell anyway, so let's hurry them on their way. Unfortunately sometimes those some get into positions of power to influence governments and other social factors.

I haven't been keeping up on this thread, so if I have restated a post (or FEW), then my apologies ...
but I hadn't said it yet!