lol.. pedro's party people? That's not real, is it? sorry Ichabod
Please don't go. The drones need you. They look up to you.
|
New Civilization 5 Expansion - Brave New World
|
|
That's horrible. Nevermind if the expansion is good or not, that just shows a lack of perspective and probably a hunk of prejudice. This is something that I'd expect from a bad flash game, not a civ game. Then again, these are the same people who picked Maria to lead Portugal...I don't think that being correct is very important to them, and hey, a party civ probably sells as a gimmick. Idiots.
Merovech's Mapmaking Guidelines:
Civilization has never been too great on historical accuracy in any of its incarnations, so keep that in mind... but at the same time, this is the game that included Giant Death Robots and XCOM squads into the mix. Expecting an intelligent and nuanced treatment of history is not what you're getting from this product.
This is why I really hope 6 reverts to the trait system. Less chance of stereotypes and narrow views of a civilization to define it.
I mean, as an American, Manifest Destiny reflects an idea that led to some really shameful episodes on our part (effective genocide of the Native Americans). It's not something that I want my nation defined by.
Playing: PB11
(March 3rd, 2012, 21:07)antisocialmunky Wrote: Civilization Economics: You have 1 Cow. You build some pastures around it to feed your people. The population grows uncontrollably. You enslave everybody and work half of them to death.
While civ has never been great at historical accuracy, that is usually just the result of game play taking precedence over historical accuracy. This just seems like racism.
(May 14th, 2013, 16:03)Oxyphenbutazone Wrote: While civ has never been great at historical accuracy, that is usually just the result of game play taking precedence over historical accuracy. This just seems like racism. I would call it stereotyping of a nation rather than racism, and I think that's just how the civ series works - it has this idea that certain nations are better at certain things, which is actually a big hit in terms of gameplay - people just love it. I think it becomes most apparent when the stereotype chosen is a modern one rather than a stereotype of people from long ago. For example, the german UA is basically "hey, we are barbarians!" but it's not such a big deal because it's claiming that about people living in germany thousands of years ago. When it's in the present, it's obvious how blatantly stupid and over-the-top the stereotype actually is. For me, one of the more eyebrow-raising civ series decisions regarding nation stereotypes is how they put protective on a bunch of the asian leaders, in part because the general tone of civ iv is a bit more serious than civ v.
I think the following traits would be more appropriate for Chinese leaders than protective:
Creative Organized Philosophical Imperialistic Financial Industrious On top of that, I find protective to just plain be an insulting trait. Organized says you are good at empire management. Creative says you are smart and resourceful and have a strong culture that is not tied to religion. Philosophical says you are good at education and producing great thinkers. Protective says you are good at being attacked. (And it's not even useful!) |
