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.

2

Posts

  • matisyahumatisyahu Registered User
    edited June 2008
    dgs095 wrote: »
    Of all the video/computer games to pick on this has got to be one of the least offensive and most benificial to society. You have to balance a budged (taxation/spending), prepare for the future, prevent revolts, negotiate with other players or AI....and thats completely ignoring cultural or historical signifigance.

    That's the problem. The core of the game, managing resources, planning ahead, manipulating the AI, is completely excepted from cultural or historical significance. Nothing matters, its all just pretty pictures, you have to find the Civilopedia to learn anything you couldn't learn from a map.

    electricity-- I don't know how it could have a better narrative, maybe you could have more realistic animations for natives being displaced, maybe a voiceover could read a Paul Celan poem when you succeed in genocide, maybe a little cutscene would do the trick, I'm not a game designer here, but I've played games where the mechanic encourages empathy, where the devastating impacts of tribulation and conflict are supported visually. In seriousness, if it even acknowledged in the actual game that colonization was a morally dubious endeavor, that would be a start.

    matisyahu on
    i dont even like matisyahu and i dont know why i picked this username
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    matisyahu wrote: »
    That's the problem. The core of the game, managing resources, planning ahead, manipulating the AI, is completely excepted from cultural or historical significance. Nothing matters, its all just pretty pictures, you have to find the Civilopedia to learn anything you couldn't learn from a map.
    So? That's not its job.

    Quid on
  • Casual EddyCasual Eddy The Astral PlaneRegistered User regular
    edited June 2008
    matisyahu wrote: »
    dgs095 wrote: »
    Of all the video/computer games to pick on this has got to be one of the least offensive and most benificial to society. You have to balance a budged (taxation/spending), prepare for the future, prevent revolts, negotiate with other players or AI....and thats completely ignoring cultural or historical signifigance.

    That's the problem. The core of the game, managing resources, planning ahead, manipulating the AI, is completely excepted from cultural or historical significance. Nothing matters, its all just pretty pictures, you have to find the Civilopedia to learn anything you couldn't learn from a map.

    No, it isn't.

    I already pointed out how colonization was historically relevant.

    the earlier civ games don't as good job admittedly, but you'd have to play civ 4 with blinders on to not get any historical knowledge from it.

    Casual Eddy on
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    The other point is that presenting a morally biased view of history is a pretty poor way to present history in the first place. Like it or not, the conflict between the colonists and the natives does not intrinisically lend itself to an apologist view.

    electricitylikesme on
  • Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    How is civ an irresponsible telling of history?

    The fourth one especially is very telling about a number of historical concepts. Just because of the nature of the game it's not possible to tell history, but it still explores the progression of technology, warfare, and culture.

    Yeah, if you actually take the time to read through the civilopedia you will learn things. I learned things from the civilopedia in Civ IV that were new to me. Specifically: I didn't know jack shit about the Spanish religious oppression in the Netherlands and how the lingering influence of that dark period in Dutch history still affects contemporary Dutch law and government. If someone wants to bitch about video games that lack educational virtues, they will have to go elsewhere; Sid Meier makes games that smart kids like.

    Regina Fong on
  • DocDoc Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited June 2008
    In GUN didn't you shoot Native Americans?

    Like LOTS of them, with two guns at a time? Not only that, but as I recall it was because "with all the injun attacks, we can't get the Irish to work; just the Chinamen."

    Seems silly to complain about a Civ game, when ALL the Civ games have been along more or less the same theme.

    Doc on
  • ChurchChurch Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    To be fair, them injuns were killin' all the Chinamen.

    Also you got to shoot Confederate renegades so it was okay.

    Church on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • KageraKagera Imitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    On the one hand, I can see how some, particularly the descendants of 'victims' of colonization may feel offended at such a portrayal of historical events as a fun and silly mishmash of kooky characters.

    On the other hand, I cannot imagine a person who would play a Civ game and come away with the idea that it was historically accurate. Because it's not, nor should it be.

    Now, what is a game meant to do? Entertain.

    Entertainment doesn't mean I kill German soldier then the game pauses to tell me who he was, who his family was, his purpose for being there, and whether he really was a nazi or just a proud German. Because any situation covered in history is a lot deeper than 'good guys/bad guys'. Take the example of the Confederacy. People generally regard the North as the 'good guys' but how many people know of the Union army taking part in looting, rape, and other malicious acts against Southern civilians? People know of Sherman's March but barring people who live in Georgia how many realize just how devastating and horrific that event was? These things may be the truth but that doesn't make them good game mechanics.

    And as for movies? Yeah I recall a movie about a Scottish guy who single-handedly almost defeated the comically evil British king and his namby-pamby son of a prince. 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.

    One last point. The dirty thing about history is that it's led to the present. Colonization is the reason the United States even exists let alone is a prosperous nation. It was a pretty horrific way to get to this point that's for sure and so like I said I can understand where some may squirm about the concept of a game like this. But to think a game could carry all the nuance and harshness of such a time and still entertain is silly. "I sure loved killing those natives boy howdy!"

    However, the best thing about media is that anyone can create anything. So if by some chance some devs come together to make a historically accurate version of Colonization I'd be much anticipated for it.

    Games like Civilization brought me to the door of beginning to learn about history, it got me interested in learning about it beyond 'Colombus sailed the world to prove it was round' and the history behind Custer's last stand. But this is not the main goal of entertainment like games. Do people rail against Risk?

    Kagera on
    My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
  • NoelVeigaNoelVeiga Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Kagera wrote: »
    On the one hand, I can see how some, particularly the descendants of 'victims' of colonization may feel offended at such a portrayal of historical events as a fun and silly mishmash of kooky characters.

    On the other hand, I cannot imagine a person who would play a Civ game and come away with the idea that it was historically accurate. Because it's not, nor should it be.

    Now, what is a game meant to do? Entertain.

    Entertainment doesn't mean I kill German soldier then the game pauses to tell me who he was, who his family was, his purpose for being there, and whether he really was a nazi or just a proud German. Because any situation covered in history is a lot deeper than 'good guys/bad guys'. Take the example of the Confederacy. People generally regard the North as the 'good guys' but how many people know of the Union army taking part in looting, rape, and other malicious acts against Southern civilians? People know of Sherman's March but barring people who live in Georgia how many realize just how devastating and horrific that event was? These things may be the truth but that doesn't make them good game mechanics.

    And as for movies? Yeah I recall a movie about a Scottish guy who single-handedly almost defeated the comically evil British king and his namby-pamby son of a prince. 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.

    One last point. The dirty thing about history is that it's led to the present. Colonization is the reason the United States even exists let alone is a prosperous nation. It was a pretty horrific way to get to this point that's for sure and so like I said I can understand where some may squirm about the concept of a game like this. But to think a game could carry all the nuance and harshness of such a time and still entertain is silly. "I sure loved killing those natives boy howdy!"

    However, the best thing about media is that anyone can create anything. So if by some chance some devs come together to make a historically accurate version of Colonization I'd be much anticipated for it.

    Games like Civilization brought me to the door of beginning to learn about history, it got me interested in learning about it beyond 'Colombus sailed the world to prove it was round' and the history behind Custer's last stand. But this is not the main goal of entertainment like games. Do people rail against Risk?


    Victims of colonization? How old would a victim of the colonizations depicted in the game be? 200 years? For the record, in the game you could take the role of the confederates, as in several other strategy games (some of the best are by Meier, by the way) or even the Nazis. Dozens of games let you play a nazi general. And not just videogames, either, also tabletop strategy games.

    I wonder if the idiot who wrote the article knows that you can use fascism as your political system in the game.

    This is what scares me, when you get to the point of considering a moral censorship of history you know your society is in trouble. Do we sugar coat Hitler in history books to prevent exposure to the holocaust?

    Damn, I think I puked a little inside my mouth.

    NoelVeiga on
  • KageraKagera Imitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    NoelVeiga wrote: »
    Victims of colonization? How old would a victim of the colonizations depicted in the game be? 200 years? For the record, in the game you could take the role of the confederates, as in several other strategy games (some of the best are by Meier, by the way) or even the Nazis. Dozens of games let you play a nazi general. And not just videogames, either, also tabletop strategy games.

    I wonder if the idiot who wrote the article knows that you can use fascism as your political system in the game.

    This is what scares me, when you get to the point of considering a moral censorship of history you know your society is in trouble. Do we sugar coat Hitler in history books to prevent exposure to the holocaust?

    Damn, I think I puked a little inside my mouth.


    Read again, particularly for the word that starts with the letter d and ends in escendants.

    As for the rest of your post I don't know which side you are even taking. On the one hand you talk about Meier's best games and the writer being an idiot as if you were disagreeing with him but then you lament the problem of 'moral censorship' and sugar coating Hitler, which is not at all what the article is saying. In fact it IS saying that all of history should be included, every horrible and ugly detail.

    So my only suggestion is to read the article again so you can understand what the writer is suggesting and then comment your agreement or disagreement.

    Kagera on
    My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
  • AroducAroduc regular
    edited June 2008
    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.

    Aroduc on
  • ChurchChurch Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    I loved Sitting Bull in Beyond the Sword.

    "Would it be politically correct to offer you a peace pipe?"

    Church on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • AroducAroduc regular
    edited June 2008
    Church wrote: »
    I loved Sitting Bull in Beyond the Sword.

    "Would it be politically correct to offer you a peace pipe?"

    I love conquering his ass. :P He's immune to my patented ultra early warrior swarm by dint of his axemen not needing copper, but then you realize that because his axemen are 20% weaker than normal axemen, he has no answer to swordsmen swarming all over the fucking place and goes down like a bitch. It's even worse for him if you're Roman. He has literally no answer for Praetorians at all.

    Aroduc on
  • KageraKagera Imitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered 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.

    Lal was Indian.

    The OTHER Indian.

    Kagera on
    My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
  • poshnialloposhniallo Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Some people just have a problem with fiction.

    Civ is a fiction. The world wasn't that shape. The Aztecs never survived long enough to develop airplanes and mass media (which helped them in that cultural victory over the Russians). Boadicea didn't lead the English for 6000 years.

    The writer of that article doesn't believe that it's ok to alter historical facts in order to make fiction. He may not understand that he believes that, but that's the core disconnect here.

    This kind of thinking comes up a lot in English and American culture, where again and again creating a fictitious work is seen as 'condoning' or 'promoting' a behaviour within it. GTA promotes crime, LOTR promotes racially-motivated violence, D&D promotes satanism, Lolita promotes paedophilia.

    I only know one other culture well (weeaboo moon-language-land) and here people don't often think that way. Fiction, whether the silliness of a comedian's created persona, the grossness of some porn, or the emotional depth of a good novel, is not seen as affecting the real world to the same degree as in the UK and US.

    I've no idea how you'd prove who was right, but I just can't see how Civ existing has any important effect on the world. It might educate some, but it's not exactly hardcore realism. It might allow some to re-enact world history with Native Americans ascendant (of course that victory would come in exactly the same evil way as the real history did). It might allow you to re-enact the most horrible aspects of 'true' history.

    I don't know why he thinks any of this matters, and I don't think he does either.

    poshniallo on
    I figure I could take a bear.
  • Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    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

    Regina Fong on
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited June 2008
    Throwing my hat in the 'if you find Civ offensive, its only because human history is, lets face it, pretty offensive itself' ring.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    The funny thing is Civ tends to pretty accurately get you to portray history. "Hm, they have 5 cities and do not understand gun powder...dispatch the army"

    electricitylikesme on
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Aroduc wrote: »
    Church wrote: »
    I loved Sitting Bull in Beyond the Sword.

    "Would it be politically correct to offer you a peace pipe?"

    I love conquering his ass. :P He's immune to my patented ultra early warrior swarm by dint of his axemen not needing copper, but then you realize that because his axemen are 20% weaker than normal axemen, he has no answer to swordsmen swarming all over the fucking place and goes down like a bitch. It's even worse for him if you're Roman. He has literally no answer for Praetorians at all.

    Wait Dog Soldiers are theoretically slightly better against melee before promotions than a normal axeman. 4 strength + 100% bonus vs. 5 strength with 50% bonus. They overall suck for obvious reasons, but I wouldn't think swordsmen would be one of them. And no one has an answer for Praetorians.

    The totem pole thingy is actually kind of cool and makes for some bizarrely powerful crossbows in the middle ages.

    enlightenedbum on
    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
  • kildykildy Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    The rule for offensive should be "do your infantry fist pound after wiping out one of their cities"

    kildy on
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited June 2008
    I do kind of hate that if you make it to the relatively modern eras with a civ that wasn't 'supposed' to survive that long, you don't get a modern special unit like you do with those who actually made it to the IR. Sure, you'd have to go pretty fictional to do it (lol lazar aztecs!), but at that point you're already well into fantasyland anyway.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    I think it would be pretty cool if we did add some more pragmatic realities of military conquest to Civ - like linking your cultural influences to the effectiveness and character of your troops. So newly pacified cities have a higher crime rate or something if you're a warlike people who believe in strong discipline since you have no respect for barbarians.

    electricitylikesme on
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    I think it would be pretty cool if we did add some more pragmatic realities of military conquest to Civ - like linking your cultural influences to the effectiveness and character of your troops. So newly pacified cities have a higher crime rate or something if you're a warlike people who believe in strong discipline since you have no respect for barbarians.

    I think there's an area on Civ Fanatics to suggest these kinds of things for Civ 5. And considering the guy who designed Beyond the Sword was hired directly from being a forumer and managed to work his way up that high, you might even be listened to.

    enlightenedbum on
    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    The Cat wrote: »
    I do kind of hate that if you make it to the relatively modern eras with a civ that wasn't 'supposed' to survive that long, you don't get a modern special unit like you do with those who actually made it to the IR. Sure, you'd have to go pretty fictional to do it (lol lazar aztecs!), but at that point you're already well into fantasyland anyway.

    To be fair, Germans or Americans don't get the early game unique unit or building either. And frankly the early game is tons more important than the late game when if you set things up right you're just smashing through enemy lines with massive stacks of tanks with bomber support. I'd much rather have a Praetorian/Immortal/Vulture than a Navy SEAL or Panzer.

    enlightenedbum on
    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
  • Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    The Cat wrote: »
    I do kind of hate that if you make it to the relatively modern eras with a civ that wasn't 'supposed' to survive that long, you don't get a modern special unit like you do with those who actually made it to the IR. Sure, you'd have to go pretty fictional to do it (lol lazar aztecs!), but at that point you're already well into fantasyland anyway.


    But the civs that get a modern unit don't get an ancient one, so it balances. The idea is to use the period in which your special unit is "special" (and available) to seize an advantage. For the ancient civs, this means seizing an early advantage and trying to hang onto it. For medieval or renaissance civs, it means a potentially awesome mid-game boost (Oh God, the Dutch have an awesome unit!). The modern civs actually have it the worst, because if you aren't already pretty dominant by the time you get panzers or Navy SEALS, they aren't going to turn things around.

    Regina Fong on
  • TofystedethTofystedeth Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    The funny thing is Civ tends to pretty accurately get you to portray history. "Hm, they have 5 cities and do not understand gun powder...dispatch the army"
    Wow, you're pretty soft on them. I trade them technologies they don't have for ones I need, then demand gifts until they hate me and crush them before they can leverage any of their new abilities. Pretending to be a friend is great!

    Tofystedeth on
    steam_sig.png
  • Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    The funny thing is Civ tends to pretty accurately get you to portray history. "Hm, they have 5 cities and do not understand gun powder...dispatch the army"
    Wow, you're pretty soft on them. I trade them technologies they don't have for ones I need, then demand gifts until they hate me and crush them before they can leverage any of their new abilities. Pretending to be a friend is great!

    Man, those kinds of shoddy civilizations never have any tech I want. And no matter how pissed off I make them, they're too smart to declare war on me when I have the overwhelming advantage. Except for Isabella, and I enjoy blunting her theocratic ambitions by cleansing her civ from the Earth with the holy light of reason.

    Regina Fong on
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    jeepguy wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    I do kind of hate that if you make it to the relatively modern eras with a civ that wasn't 'supposed' to survive that long, you don't get a modern special unit like you do with those who actually made it to the IR. Sure, you'd have to go pretty fictional to do it (lol lazar aztecs!), but at that point you're already well into fantasyland anyway.


    But the civs that get a modern unit don't get an ancient one, so it balances. The idea is to use the period in which your special unit is "special" (and available) to seize an advantage. For the ancient civs, this means seizing an early advantage and trying to hang onto it. For medieval or renaissance civs, it means a potentially awesome mid-game boost (Oh God, the Dutch have an awesome building!). The modern civs actually have it the worst, because if you aren't already pretty dominant by the time you get panzers or Navy SEALS, they aren't going to turn things around.

    Fixed.

    enlightenedbum on
    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited June 2008
    jeepguy wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    I do kind of hate that if you make it to the relatively modern eras with a civ that wasn't 'supposed' to survive that long, you don't get a modern special unit like you do with those who actually made it to the IR. Sure, you'd have to go pretty fictional to do it (lol lazar aztecs!), but at that point you're already well into fantasyland anyway.


    But the civs that get a modern unit don't get an ancient one, so it balances. The idea is to use the period in which your special unit is "special" (and available) to seize an advantage. For the ancient civs, this means seizing and early advantage and trying to hang onto it. For medieval or renaissance civs, it means a potentially awesome mid-game boost. The modern civs actually have it the worst, because if you aren't already pretty dominant by the time you get panzers or Navy SEALS, they aren't going to turn things around.

    True that, but i can't help but think there's a problem inherent in the assumption that the early-advantage civs would never have a strategic or military breakthrough again. Or that the mid and late-advantage civs didn't have anything at all going for them earlier. I understand why the game is structured the way it is, I just think it could be possible to keep the game interesting while allowing all the civs to advance in their own ways, and advance properly (hell, the special units don't have to be military, even). As it stands, the game accidentally promotes a narrative that reinforces the notion that 'primitive' civilisations were doomed to failure, unable to adapt to modernity primarily because they couldn't defend themselves. Its an oversimplification of history that kind of contradicts the game's goal of teaching the subject in a fun way.

    Also, don't get me started on the lawl-the-Indians-and-chinese-breed-fast civ trait D:

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    The Cat wrote: »

    Also, don't get me started on the lawl-the-Indians-and-chinese-breed-fast civ trait D:

    That is pretty bad.

    Regina Fong on
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    The Cat wrote: »
    Also, don't get me started on the lawl-the-Indians-and-chinese-breed-fast civ trait D:

    Expansive? I think that's a fair description of the (ancient) Chinese and Indian civilizations. Also Roman, American, and Russia, which I believe are expansive under at least one of their leaders.

    enlightenedbum on
    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
  • PeekingDuckPeekingDuck __BANNED USERS
    edited June 2008
    And... accurate?

    PeekingDuck on
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited June 2008
    The Cat wrote: »
    Also, don't get me started on the lawl-the-Indians-and-chinese-breed-fast civ trait D:

    Expansive? I think that's a fair description of the (ancient) Chinese and Indian civilizations. Also Roman, American, and Russia, which I believe are expansive under at least one of their leaders.

    No, its actually is a glossing over of the effects of colonialism. The current large population of India and China is a direct result of the colonial period, wherein the Brits introduced modern sanitation and medicine but didn't allow their economies to develop as theirs did, to a point where people got all middle-class and avoided having scads of kids (if it had, they'd have been in a position to demand independence far earlier). Death rate plummets, birth rate stays high, next generation lives longer, hey presto. People all over. There aren't just more of them because they magically breed more than 'other' humans, which is what the game structure implies. And it is a different expansion mechanism to the other civs. The cities just grow way faster.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    The Cat wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    Also, don't get me started on the lawl-the-Indians-and-chinese-breed-fast civ trait D:

    Expansive? I think that's a fair description of the (ancient) Chinese and Indian civilizations. Also Roman, American, and Russia, which I believe are expansive under at least one of their leaders.

    No, its actually is a glossing over of the effects of colonialism. The current large population of India and China is a direct result of the colonial period, wherein the Brits introduced modern sanitation and medicine but didn't allow their economies to develop as theirs did, to a point where people got all middle-class and avoided having scads of kids (if it had, they'd have been in a position to demand independence far earlier). Death rate plummets, birth rate stays high, next generation lives longer, hey presto. People all over. There aren't just more of them because they magically breed more than 'other' humans, which is what the game structure implies. And it is a different expansion mechanism to the other civs. The cities just grow way faster.

    But cities don't grow faster because of the expansive trait, beyond the fact that granaries are built faster, which is a couple turn advantage and the cities grow larger because expansive civs get a health bonus. Which based on what I've read accurately reflects India/China BCE, they had better sanitation and general health than contemporary western civilizations. Barring perhaps Rome with their aqueducts and the Minoans.

    enlightenedbum on
    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Also upon further review, I don't know what the fuck you're talking about, 1 of 4 Indian/Chinese leaders have the expansive trait (as of Beyond the Sword), and neither of their unique buildings effect growth rates.

    enlightenedbum on
    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited June 2008
    You've never noticed how much easier it is to build out with the indians in particular? Because it is. Its half connected to the fast-worker unit. Anyway, relax. I love the damn game, that doesn't mean I can't point out problems with characterisation. here's another one: the female leaders are all squarely in the virgin-or-whore camps, and their personalities are exaggerated to make them fit that better than they otherwise would. Also, the only female unit is 'sexy-lookin' spy'.The game is far more careful to avoid offensive racial tropes (no doubt in response to the previous 'everyone's white' character models) than sexual ones. not a dealbreaker either, but definitely irksome. Not going to freak out over that, are you?

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    The Cat wrote: »
    You've never noticed how much easier it is to build out with the indians in particular? Because it is. Its half connected to the fast-worker unit. Anyway, relax. I love the damn game, that doesn't mean I can't point out problems with characterisation. here's another one: the female leaders are all squarely in the virgin-or-whore camps, and their personalities are exaggerated to make them fit that better than they otherwise would. Also, the only female unit is 'sexy-lookin' spy'.The game is far more careful to avoid offensive racial tropes (no doubt in response to the previous 'everyone's white' character models) than sexual ones. not a dealbreaker either, but definitely irksome. Not going to freak out over that, are you?

    No, I'll give you that. The worst offender is Boudica, who is just ridiculous looking. And yeah, India is easy to expand with, but then again, India was one of the earliest civilizations. It's also exceptionally easy to kick ass and take names early in the game with say Persia or Rome.

    enlightenedbum on
    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
  • Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    The Cat wrote: »
    You've never noticed how much easier it is to build out with the indians in particular? Because it is. Its half connected to the fast-worker unit. Anyway, relax. I love the damn game, that doesn't mean I can't point out problems with characterisation. here's another one: the female leaders are all squarely in the virgin-or-whore camps, and their personalities are exaggerated to make them fit that better than they otherwise would. Also, the only female unit is 'sexy-lookin' spy'.The game is far more careful to avoid offensive racial tropes (no doubt in response to the previous 'everyone's white' character models) than sexual ones. not a dealbreaker either, but definitely irksome. Not going to freak out over that, are you?

    I think Victoria is a decent characterization. I mean, obviously it's not an AI simulation of the real person, but it seems right.

    Regina Fong on
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Most video games, if you think too much about them, have plenty of themes to be offended about. That's an unfortunate truth about a medium where you get to blow shit up and kill people and conquer places for fun.

    It's interesting to talk about, and probably good to be cognizant of, but not worth getting offended over.

    Feral on
  • Dis'Dis' Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    The Cat wrote: »
    No, its actually is a glossing over of the effects of colonialism. The current large population of India and China is a direct result of the colonial period, wherein the Brits introduced modern sanitation and medicine but didn't allow their economies to develop as theirs did

    Direct result? Asia regions have historical had considerably greater populations than Europe right up to the 1600s, possibly due to different crops and associated agricultural systems (rice especially) and generally more productive huge flood plains deposited by the big river systems.

    Plus the British did very little to improve the sanitation and medicine outside certain areas, and worsened a lot of things. Whilst the introduction of better sanitation and medicine later on kicked off a boom it was working from a much larger base to begin with.

    /quibble

    Besides having a singular 'Indian' civilization is inherently a damn stupid idea to begin with, before you start giving it characteristics ;)

    Dis' on
Sign In or Register to comment.