As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

Apparently, Sid Meier makes highly offensive and insensitive games.

13»

Posts

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    You know, I want to smack the artist who thought that it would be a good idea to put the number 88 on the Panzer.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    You know, I want to smack the artist who thought that it would be a good idea to put the number 88 on the Panzer.


    Uh, why? :?:

    Regina Fong on
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    jeepguy wrote: »
    You know, I want to smack the artist who thought that it would be a good idea to put the number 88 on the Panzer.


    Uh, why? :?:

    Because it's Neo-Nazi code.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited June 2008
    jeepguy wrote: »
    You know, I want to smack the artist who thought that it would be a good idea to put the number 88 on the Panzer.


    Uh, why? :?:

    Because it's Neo-Nazi code.

    I thought that was 888.

    I'm not gonna go looking it up right now through my work firewall.

    Feral on
  • NocturneNocturne Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    JebusUD wrote: »
    This just makes me want to go download super columbine massacre and play it in public to outrage more people.

    JFK Reloaded all the way. God that's a fun game.

    Nocturne on
  • KageraKagera Imitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    jeepguy wrote: »
    Kagera wrote: »
    Hell I remember the movie Gettysburg, that cast a sympathetic light to the Confederacy. So the idea that movies need to have some required level of accurate telling about history and all the dark deeds of humanity is pretty darn silly to me.


    I now lolz becuz the confederites were like, totaly evul and stuf

    I wasn't trying to imply that, merely using the article's example of a game where you play the Confederacy to show that yes indeed, there already was media out there that showed the South in a viewpoint that doesn't totally demonize and polarize one side.

    Which he seemed to want.

    Kagera on
    My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
  • chasmchasm Ill-tempered Texan Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    The obvious comparison that spring to my mind would be if somebody released a game called "Civilization IV: Confederacy," in which players have to "lead a proud people to defend their values and traditions against their oppressive neighbors to the North." Sure the game might not require you to own and abuse your slaves. But defending the Confederacy is inherently about defending the racist practice of slavery. And "conquer[ing] and rul[ing] the New World" is inherently about engaging in the racist practice of exploiting and abusing native people.

    I loathe journalists who don't do any more research than recalling their 7th-grade US History class. The Civil War wasn't about slavery. And not every Southerner owned slaves. US Grant's wife owned slaves till the 13th Amendment was ratified, and Lincoln was an avowed racist who advocated shipping the slaves back to Africa, or failing that, sending them to Liberia.
    Kagera wrote: »
    jeepguy wrote: »
    Kagera wrote: »
    Hell I remember the movie Gettysburg, that cast a sympathetic light to the Confederacy. So the idea that movies need to have some required level of accurate telling about history and all the dark deeds of humanity is pretty darn silly to me.


    I now lolz becuz the confederites were like, totaly evul and stuf

    I wasn't trying to imply that, merely using the article's example of a game where you play the Confederacy to show that yes indeed, there already was media out there that showed the South in a viewpoint that doesn't totally demonize and polarize one side.

    Which he seemed to want.

    Gotcha. Cos initially, I took it the same way jeepguy did.

    chasm on
    steam_sig.png
    XBL : lJesse Custerl | MWO: Jesse Custer | Best vid ever. | 2nd best vid ever.
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    chasm wrote: »
    The obvious comparison that spring to my mind would be if somebody released a game called "Civilization IV: Confederacy," in which players have to "lead a proud people to defend their values and traditions against their oppressive neighbors to the North." Sure the game might not require you to own and abuse your slaves. But defending the Confederacy is inherently about defending the racist practice of slavery. And "conquer[ing] and rul[ing] the New World" is inherently about engaging in the racist practice of exploiting and abusing native people.

    I loathe journalists who don't do any more research than recalling their 7th-grade US History class. The Civil War wasn't about slavery. And not every Southerner owned slaves. US Grant's wife owned slaves till the 13th Amendment was ratified, and Lincoln was an avowed racist who advocated shipping the slaves back to Africa, or failing that, sending them to Liberia.

    Point of order: Liberia is in Africa.

    enlightenedbum on
    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
  • chasmchasm Ill-tempered Texan Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Sorry...I'm running on 20 hours sleep for the week and I'm on painkillers for kidney stones.

    chasm on
    steam_sig.png
    XBL : lJesse Custerl | MWO: Jesse Custer | Best vid ever. | 2nd best vid ever.
  • Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    jeepguy wrote: »
    You know, I want to smack the artist who thought that it would be a good idea to put the number 88 on the Panzer.


    Uh, why? :?:

    Because it's Neo-Nazi code.


    Oh. Well, if the shoe fits.

    Regina Fong on
  • ScooterScooter Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    chasm wrote: »
    The obvious comparison that spring to my mind would be if somebody released a game called "Civilization IV: Confederacy," in which players have to "lead a proud people to defend their values and traditions against their oppressive neighbors to the North." Sure the game might not require you to own and abuse your slaves. But defending the Confederacy is inherently about defending the racist practice of slavery. And "conquer[ing] and rul[ing] the New World" is inherently about engaging in the racist practice of exploiting and abusing native people.

    I loathe journalists who don't do any more research than recalling their 7th-grade US History class. The Civil War wasn't about slavery. And not every Southerner owned slaves. US Grant's wife owned slaves till the 13th Amendment was ratified, and Lincoln was an avowed racist who advocated shipping the slaves back to Africa, or failing that, sending them to Liberia.

    Well, to be fair, when you're talking about the generation that were themselves taken as slaves, sending them back home would probably be the good thing to do. I mean, not rounding them up and sending them back whether they want to go or not, but I don't know exactly what plan he was advocating. It'd be a racist thing to say now but back then a lot were probably actually from Africa.

    Scooter on
  • Mai-KeroMai-Kero Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Scooter wrote: »
    chasm wrote: »
    The obvious comparison that spring to my mind would be if somebody released a game called "Civilization IV: Confederacy," in which players have to "lead a proud people to defend their values and traditions against their oppressive neighbors to the North." Sure the game might not require you to own and abuse your slaves. But defending the Confederacy is inherently about defending the racist practice of slavery. And "conquer[ing] and rul[ing] the New World" is inherently about engaging in the racist practice of exploiting and abusing native people.

    I loathe journalists who don't do any more research than recalling their 7th-grade US History class. The Civil War wasn't about slavery. And not every Southerner owned slaves. US Grant's wife owned slaves till the 13th Amendment was ratified, and Lincoln was an avowed racist who advocated shipping the slaves back to Africa, or failing that, sending them to Liberia.

    Well, to be fair, when you're talking about the generation that were themselves taken as slaves, sending them back home would probably be the good thing to do. I mean, not rounding them up and sending them back whether they want to go or not, but I don't know exactly what plan he was advocating. It'd be a racist thing to say now but back then a lot were probably actually from Africa.

    Yeah, but Lincoln was racist anyways.

    And saying "Not everyone owned slaves!" in defense of the south is the dumbest bullshit ever. Nearly all of them were still okay with people owning slaves, and most tried to achieve the wealth required to buy them. In any event, America would be a better place right now if we had just executed all of the slave-owners during the war. Well, maybe not, because, people would probably still be kinda pissed at the government for it, but goddamn those are pretty much the worst people ever. Maybe tied with Imperial-Era Japanese let's-make-this-Korean-town-into-a-rape-camp guys.

    Mai-Kero on
  • Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Mai-Kero wrote: »
    America would be a better place right now if we had just executed all of the slave-owners during the war.

    You are a crazy person.

    Mai-Kero wrote: »
    Well, maybe not, because,

    Hope?

    Mai-Kero wrote: »
    people would probably still be kinda pissed at the government for it, but goddamn those are pretty much the worst people ever. Maybe tied with Imperial-Era Japanese let's-make-this-Korean-town-into-a-rape-camp guys.


    Nope, still crazy.

    Regina Fong on
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited June 2008
    chasm wrote: »
    The Civil War wasn't about slavery.

    What was it about, then?

    Feral on
  • ShadowfireShadowfire Vermont, in the middle of nowhereRegistered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Feral wrote: »
    chasm wrote: »
    The Civil War wasn't about slavery.

    What was it about, then?

    Money.

    Edit: Specifically, there were many economic issues at hand, as well. As with everything, there was not a single cause for the conflict.

    Shadowfire on
    WiiU: Windrunner ; Guild Wars 2: Shadowfire.3940 ; PSN: Bradcopter
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Shadowfire wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    chasm wrote: »
    The Civil War wasn't about slavery.

    What was it about, then?

    Money.

    Edit: Specifically, there were many economic issues at hand, as well. As with everything, there was not a single cause for the conflict.

    Right. It was about secession, so the south could form their own country to keep slaves. And states rights, because they wanted the right to keep slaves. And money, because they made money on crops supported by slaves. And politics, because the two parties differed on the slavery issue. And the role of the federal government, after electing a President who wanted to end slavery.

    Quite the complicated and multifaceted issue. I wonder if we'll ever know the real cause.

    Feral on
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited June 2008
    Mai-Kero wrote: »
    Scooter wrote: »
    chasm wrote: »
    The obvious comparison that spring to my mind would be if somebody released a game called "Civilization IV: Confederacy," in which players have to "lead a proud people to defend their values and traditions against their oppressive neighbors to the North." Sure the game might not require you to own and abuse your slaves. But defending the Confederacy is inherently about defending the racist practice of slavery. And "conquer[ing] and rul[ing] the New World" is inherently about engaging in the racist practice of exploiting and abusing native people.

    I loathe journalists who don't do any more research than recalling their 7th-grade US History class. The Civil War wasn't about slavery. And not every Southerner owned slaves. US Grant's wife owned slaves till the 13th Amendment was ratified, and Lincoln was an avowed racist who advocated shipping the slaves back to Africa, or failing that, sending them to Liberia.

    Well, to be fair, when you're talking about the generation that were themselves taken as slaves, sending them back home would probably be the good thing to do. I mean, not rounding them up and sending them back whether they want to go or not, but I don't know exactly what plan he was advocating. It'd be a racist thing to say now but back then a lot were probably actually from Africa.

    Yeah, but Lincoln was racist anyways.

    And saying "Not everyone owned slaves!" in defense of the south is the dumbest bullshit ever. Nearly all of them were still okay with people owning slaves, and most tried to achieve the wealth required to buy them. In any event, America would be a better place right now if we had just executed all of the slave-owners during the war. Well, maybe not, because, people would probably still be kinda pissed at the government for it, but goddamn those are pretty much the worst people ever. Maybe tied with Imperial-Era Japanese let's-make-this-Korean-town-into-a-rape-camp guys.

    Most southerners didn't own slaves, if I recall correctly, and there was enough discontent for some people to go off into the Appalachians. The main problem is that the slave-owners were like the Republicans are today: rich as hell and really good at getting poor people to support causes against their own interest.

    Anybody who knows the why of Sid's work should know why he includes colonization: it happened. The only problem is that, in the real world, there's almost always a bigger fish. He should have taken a Wellsian view and, when you send the Tasmanians smallpox, the Chinese send you the bubonic plague (the Native Americans gave Europe another pathogen, but I can't remember which, except that it was a sexually transmitted form of a preexisting one)

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Syphilus, I believe.

    enlightenedbum on
    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
  • DaedalusDaedalus Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Feral wrote: »
    Shadowfire wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    chasm wrote: »
    The Civil War wasn't about slavery.

    What was it about, then?

    Money.

    Edit: Specifically, there were many economic issues at hand, as well. As with everything, there was not a single cause for the conflict.

    Right. It was about secession, so the south could form their own country to keep slaves. And states rights, because they wanted the right to keep slaves. And money, because they made money on crops supported by slaves. And politics, because the two parties differed on the slavery issue. And the role of the federal government, after electing a President who wanted to end slavery.

    Quite the complicated and multifaceted issue. I wonder if we'll ever know the real cause.

    It was about a wide range of different issues but slavery was the only one big enough to fight a war over. It was an embarrassing chapter in our nation's history; let's not try and defend the indefensible.

    Daedalus on
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited June 2008
    Syphilus, I believe.

    Well then, the Navajo answer smallpox blankets with syphilis dildoes.

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Daedalus wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Shadowfire wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    chasm wrote: »
    The Civil War wasn't about slavery.

    What was it about, then?

    Money.

    Edit: Specifically, there were many economic issues at hand, as well. As with everything, there was not a single cause for the conflict.

    Right. It was about secession, so the south could form their own country to keep slaves. And states rights, because they wanted the right to keep slaves. And money, because they made money on crops supported by slaves. And politics, because the two parties differed on the slavery issue. And the role of the federal government, after electing a President who wanted to end slavery.

    Quite the complicated and multifaceted issue. I wonder if we'll ever know the real cause.

    It was about a wide range of different issues but slavery was the only one big enough to fight a war over. It was an embarrassing chapter in our nation's history; let's not try and defend the indefensible.

    Agreed, but lets not fly off the handle and wax psychotic about how things would be better if only we had just killed more people during the Civil War either.

    Regina Fong on
  • KageraKagera Imitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Dude if only we had sent Southerners to the camps, the country would be a perfect place now.

    Kagera on
    My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Scalfin wrote: »
    The main problem is that the slave-owners were like the Republicans are today: rich as hell and really good at getting poor people to support causes against their own interest.

    There isn't enough lime on the Isle of Wight for this statement.

    Feral on
  • JohnDoeJohnDoe Registered User
    edited June 2008
    Hi there D&D! Full disclosure - this is my first post here. Been lurking for awhile. Smart folks in these here boards. With that said, please be gentle.

    I happened upon an article taking issue with an upcoming expansion for Sid Meier's Civilization IV game called "Colonization," which you may find here.

    Here are some bits:
    ...the idea that 2K and Firaxis and Sid Meier himself would make and release a game in the year 2008 that is not only about colonization, but celebrates it by having the player control the people doing the colonizing is truly mind boggling.

    ...the lack of outrage over the game does make me feel like I have to explain myself... Throughout history, colonization regularly involved stealing, killing, abuse, deceit, and the exploitation or decimation of native people. Anybody with a shred of a moral concience who studies the history will be appalled.

    The obvious comparison that spring to my mind would be if somebody released a game called "Civilization IV: Confederacy," in which players have to "lead a proud people to defend their values and traditions against their oppressive neighbors to the North." Sure the game might not require you to own and abuse your slaves. But defending the Confederacy is inherently about defending the racist practice of slavery. And "conquer[ing] and rul[ing] the New World" is inherently about engaging in the racist practice of exploiting and abusing native people.

    Now, I've enjoyed a few games of Civ back in the day, and I personally feel that his outrage is absolutely misplaced, but I'm very interested to hear what this community has to say in regards to this article. Much like the author, I know very little about the game itself, apart from what's been put out via press release.

    So, good people of D&D, what say you?

    EDIT - Oh, and I just noticed, he totally spelled "conscience" wrong. For what it's worth, this gentleman works for Variety.

    We need to stop movies and books about these things as well. Put them on a pile, and burn them all!

    JohnDoe on
  • gtrmpgtrmp Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Scooter wrote: »
    chasm wrote: »
    [...]Lincoln was an avowed racist who advocated shipping the slaves back to Africa, or failing that, sending them to Liberia.

    Well, to be fair, when you're talking about the generation that were themselves taken as slaves, sending them back home would probably be the good thing to do. I mean, not rounding them up and sending them back whether they want to go or not, but I don't know exactly what plan he was advocating. It'd be a racist thing to say now but back then a lot were probably actually from Africa.

    Actually, most of the ex-slaves living at the time of abolition were at least second-generation Americans. Congress banned the international slave trade in 1808, and most (all?) of the states had made it illegal before that. Granted, that didn't completely eliminate the (illegal) influx of slaves into the US, but it did severely curtail it.

    gtrmp on
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited June 2008
    gtrmp wrote: »
    Scooter wrote: »
    chasm wrote: »
    [...]Lincoln was an avowed racist who advocated shipping the slaves back to Africa, or failing that, sending them to Liberia.

    Well, to be fair, when you're talking about the generation that were themselves taken as slaves, sending them back home would probably be the good thing to do. I mean, not rounding them up and sending them back whether they want to go or not, but I don't know exactly what plan he was advocating. It'd be a racist thing to say now but back then a lot were probably actually from Africa.

    Actually, most of the ex-slaves living at the time of abolition were at least second-generation Americans. Congress banned the international slave trade in 1808, and most (all?) of the states had made it illegal before that. Granted, that didn't completely eliminate the (illegal) influx of slaves into the US, but it did severely curtail it.

    Also, dumping people from all different tribes on the one country would be a recipe for disaster. Especially since a lot of the original slaves were captured during intertribal raids and warfare. Africa didn't want them back.

    The Cat on
  • David_TDavid_T A fashion yes-man is no good to me. Copenhagen, DenmarkRegistered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Scalfin wrote: »
    Syphilus, I believe.

    Well then, the Navajo answer smallpox blankets with syphilis dildoes.

    Worst Axeman replacement unit ever.

    David_T on
  • Professor PhobosProfessor Phobos Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Aroduc wrote: »
    They're onto something. In SM's Pirates, the Indians were just a bunch of bloodthirsty savages in canoes who tried to kill everybody. They were cowards too, immediately surrendering when you tried to board their canoes with your galleons. And in Civ4: BtS, Sitting Bull and the Native Americans are just plain awful. Seriously. Dog soldiers? And unique monuments? What is that bullshit? Philosophical and Protective? More like Crappy and Doomed. And the Indians didn't even have a faction in Alpha Centauri. Even pirates had a faction. Clearly, Sid Meier is working for the pro-pirate, anti-indian shadow council.

    Oh hell no, Sitting Bull is awesome. Protective is vastly underrated, and Philosophical makes him a great builder. Put the two together, and he can sit happily by being invincible and running his SE economy. And the Totem Pole+Barracks can churn out extremely badass archers.

    Professor Phobos on
  • interceptintercept Registered User
    edited June 2008
    The Cat wrote: »
    gtrmp wrote: »
    Scooter wrote: »
    chasm wrote: »
    [...]Lincoln was an avowed racist who advocated shipping the slaves back to Africa, or failing that, sending them to Liberia.

    Well, to be fair, when you're talking about the generation that were themselves taken as slaves, sending them back home would probably be the good thing to do. I mean, not rounding them up and sending them back whether they want to go or not, but I don't know exactly what plan he was advocating. It'd be a racist thing to say now but back then a lot were probably actually from Africa.

    Actually, most of the ex-slaves living at the time of abolition were at least second-generation Americans. Congress banned the international slave trade in 1808, and most (all?) of the states had made it illegal before that. Granted, that didn't completely eliminate the (illegal) influx of slaves into the US, but it did severely curtail it.

    Also, dumping people from all different tribes on the one country would be a recipe for disaster. Especially since a lot of the original slaves were captured during intertribal raids and warfare. Africa didn't want them back.

    Liberia was a disaster.

    intercept on
  • CaffeinatedGuyCaffeinatedGuy Registered User
    edited July 2008
    I loved the original Colonization and I'm excited for the remake never really thought about it being controversial.

    CaffeinatedGuy on
  • YarYar Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Next there will be outrage at the idea that we should even teach about colonization in schools. It was so evil the only moral thing to do would be to erase it from our minds altogether.

    Yar on
  • Casual EddyCasual Eddy The Astral PlaneRegistered User regular
    edited July 2008
    I loved the original Colonization and I'm excited for the remake never really thought about it being controversial.

    I remember it getting flack for completely sidestepping the issue of slavery in the colonies, but I don't see how that could have been handled tastefully.

    Casual Eddy on
  • hawkboxhawkbox Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Civ 1 didnt really address slavery through 4/5ths of its game time either if I recall correctly.

    hawkbox on
  • skyknytskyknyt Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited July 2008
    Just you wait, people will be getting up in arms about the original SM Alpha Centauri when the actual colonization of that star system commences.

    "Unrealistic and simplifies the conflicts of actual interstellar travel!"

    skyknyt on
    Tycho wrote:
    [skyknyt's writing] is like come kind of code that, when comprehended, unfolds into madness in the mind of the reader.
    PSN: skyknyt, Steam: skyknyt, Blizz: skyknyt#1160
  • YarYar Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Also, regarding the Civil War, Northern and Western States had been bargaining votes with each other in Congress on major issues, to the detriment of the South, since western expansion first started. This aggravated an existing ideological divide between North and South regarding federalism and "big government" that stretched back to colonial times.

    Slavery reared its ugly head several times in this mess, and particularly became the central-focus issue in the generation that preceded the Civil War. It was the election of Lincoln as President that directly prompted seccession and aggression. And from a practical standpoint, this was most likely because of rich plantation owners afraid of losing their free labor, therefore stirring up grudges mentioned above and other ideological fears amongst the middle and lower classes.

    Several slave states fought with the Union, and Slavery was not brought to the forefront of the war effort until halfway through it with the Emanciapation Proclamation, outlawing slavery in southern states. Slavery was not outlawed in the slave-holding Union loyalist states until the 13th Amendment, after the War.

    It was followed shortly by the next Reconstructionist Amendment, the 14th, arguably the most powerful and course-changing Amendments in the Constitution, which eventually changed the meaning of almost everything in the Bill of Rights and granted vast new power to the federal government on a whole host of issues originally intended to be left to States.

    Split?

    Yar on
  • ClickForthClickForth Registered User
    edited July 2008
    hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

    ClickForth on
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited July 2008
    hawkbox wrote: »
    Civ 1 didnt really address slavery through 4/5ths of its game time either if I recall correctly.
    To be fair, they've made an effort to improve that aspect. The original CivIV had slavery as a really low-cost option, but BtS is more realistic, with the increased maintenance costs and the odds of an uprising.

    The Cat on
  • TaminTamin Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    matisyahu wrote: »
    Warcraft III came with a lengthy book full of Azerothian history that most people didn't read. The parts people read are a) how do I do stuff b) how do I win. When the product contains very little information, but the accompanying literature that most people throw away does, there's a problem. The accompanying literature needs to be better incorporated into the games.

    edit: It's obviously less egregious with Warcraft III or something like Assassin's Creed or whatever because they are fictional, giving people a fantasy world instead of perverting the real world.

    Which brings up one of my minor complaints with WoW. In it, they did exactly as you suggest - dumping the manual (for the various games) into books in the game. The problem is that's all they did. It would have been far more interesting if they had re-written them from the perspective of whoever is writing them. Say, the Legend of the Burning Crusade found in Alterac should be grossly misinformed compared to what the version in Darnassus says... but the latter might be overly-glorifying certain points, whereas the former is more objective. Not all the correct facts, but presented more objectively.

    Tamin on
  • CantidoCantido Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    I've never played a Civ game. I'm about to try the Xbox Live demo. The intro gives me such warm feelings. Why the fuck haven't I played this before?

    I hope there is a "Pierce the Heavens" achievement for completing Space exploration for Japan.

    EDIT: I don't care if they try to raise a ruckus. The more people know about this great game, the better.

    I can't bring myself to start shit with any of the neighboring empires. I'm gonna go for an Economic or Cultural Victory in my first play. So my friends are Shaka Zulu, Alexander, and especially Cleopatra :winky:

    Also, the Civipedia is fantastic. When you choose a topic, like Da Vinci or Acrobats, little videos play of live examples.

    Cantido on
    3DS Friendcode 5413-1311-3767
Sign In or Register to comment.