No, this is not another thread about hisotry and racism and other irrelevant topics relating to unique civs. Don't judge me yet... I think unique civs are a good idea, but Firaxis just isn't doing it right.
Unique civs, if implemented properly, should be a great tool. So why does Firaxis' implementation sound more like a straightjacket? Well, because uniqueness is created, not born. I will not oppose the idea on realism anymore... too subjective. Instead, I will say that the idea of Uniquee Civs that have built in characteristics that can never be changed, altered, or earned during the course of a normal game is inherently destructive of gameplay. Civ-specific features should enable civs to earn and customize their advantage in the course of a game; instead, Firaxis proposes to give each Civ a "historic" unit, even if this unit has no value to the player due to his geographical location.
In addition, I have heard that each civ will have only one unique unit... which is the greatest mistake of all for gameplay. What happens when that Zulu impis goes obselete? Well, as a culture, they no longer have any distinguishing traits... just the thing that proponents of unique civs try to say the idea will avoid! Firaxis' implementation so far means that the Americans will be the same as the Germans until the modern era... which is obviously not unique.
Differing Civs is a good idea, but not in this implmentation. Realism, whatever... Civ is not a simulator, it's a strategy game. But for gameplay, Firaxis' idea of unique civs is incredibly shortsighted, and for gaming is a giant leap backwards.
Any gameplay (not realism) comments?
------------------
- Cyclotron7, "that supplementary resource fanatic"
Unique civs, if implemented properly, should be a great tool. So why does Firaxis' implementation sound more like a straightjacket? Well, because uniqueness is created, not born. I will not oppose the idea on realism anymore... too subjective. Instead, I will say that the idea of Uniquee Civs that have built in characteristics that can never be changed, altered, or earned during the course of a normal game is inherently destructive of gameplay. Civ-specific features should enable civs to earn and customize their advantage in the course of a game; instead, Firaxis proposes to give each Civ a "historic" unit, even if this unit has no value to the player due to his geographical location.
In addition, I have heard that each civ will have only one unique unit... which is the greatest mistake of all for gameplay. What happens when that Zulu impis goes obselete? Well, as a culture, they no longer have any distinguishing traits... just the thing that proponents of unique civs try to say the idea will avoid! Firaxis' implementation so far means that the Americans will be the same as the Germans until the modern era... which is obviously not unique.
Differing Civs is a good idea, but not in this implmentation. Realism, whatever... Civ is not a simulator, it's a strategy game. But for gameplay, Firaxis' idea of unique civs is incredibly shortsighted, and for gaming is a giant leap backwards.
Any gameplay (not realism) comments?
------------------
- Cyclotron7, "that supplementary resource fanatic"
Comment