hidden racist agenda

[Captain]

that title's meant to be provocative just so someone besides myself will read this.

consider:
after a certain amount of turns, people of foreign nationality in your cities become assimilated. they don't become integrated, they become assimilated. they lose their identity. their little face icons change. they've been bred out. their skin colour changes.

I don't like this. please firaxis, change it. don't assimilate them. leave them their ethnicity. I like the idea of having Greeks, Egyptians, Zulus, Germans, Chinese, Iroquois, etc... all living together in one city. let us encourage diversity, not a monoculture. perhaps this would make it easier to win the UN if you had large populations of foreigners under your benevolent rule.


yes, I understand that assimilation represents the transfer of loyalties, but why is this accompanied by the obliteration of their former identity? couldn't we just leave their faces the same? Or produce a new "mixed" nationality? Consider, former black slaves in America aren't lily white now, are they? and sure racial tension is a problem, but most blacks consider themselves american. they overwhelmingly support america, even though they are their own culture. integration doesn't happen because blacks become white, it's because they're accepted by the majority and given rights. the chinese flood of immigrants in vancouver doesn't culture flip to china. but they're not lily-white either. I want my New York to have people of all ethnicities, not one big white-faced crowd. (I use "white" here only because that is the dominant ethnocultural group of north america).

Unity is not equal to uniformity!!!


Admittedly this is not a major gameplay issue, just a question of offending my sensibilities. I cannot abide such overt racism, even if unintentional. I don't expect Firaxis to change any of this, they've got bigger issues at mind and I'm not sure they care, but I had to say it. Silence is compliance.



---
*even cooler would be that if you have a city with another ethnicity being dominant, if they were well-integrated into the empire, you could build their UU. example: cossacks aren't russian. russia wouldn't have that UU if the cossacks hadn't signed on with them. (IIRC the Germans swung cossack loyalty to their side in some war, military historians please correct me)

[zulu9812]

I don't think it represents a "change in loyalty" - it is actually the two peoples coming together and breeding. I don't really have a problem with this - it just shows one race being integrated into the new society over a number of years (it's not like it happns overnight).

However, you still get native americans in the USA, blacks and whites in South Africa, etc.. Would you be happier if the faces didn't change, but the lables did? THat way you'd know when the danger of rioting was lessened.

[Captain]

that would be much better. it would assuage my guilty conscience for obliterating entire people groups from the face of the earth.

I don't mind bringing them under my benevolent rule, just don't like the idea of "ethnic cleansing".

preferably, the labels would be different from both. let's say I'm Roman and I take some Greek cities. the Greeks living there would become Greco-Romans after some time, and even some Romans might become Greco-Romans. Some captured egyptian workers that I add to my cities become Egyptian-Romans. I capture an Egyptian city that used to be Zulu who had traded for a Chinese worker and added it to the city, would now become either Chinese-Zulu-Egyptian-Roman, or Mixed-Roman, or Multi-Roman, or Proto-Roman.

that would make me happier, but again, I know it's just a fantasy.

[Cyclotron]

Oh, please. How many people need to be reminded this is just a game? Take your sensitivities somewhere where it matters.

[Akka]

yes, I understand that assimilation represents the transfer of loyalties, but why is this accompanied by the obliteration of their former identity? couldn't we just leave their faces the same? Or produce a new "mixed" nationality?

Yes, let's add even more confusing stuff to the game.

The change in face represents assimilation and the change in nationality (when people cease to consider themselves from another country, but rather from the one that controls the city). You accepted that. Well, I find it much more easy to have just a look on the faces and see who has been assimilated and the presence or not of foreign individuals. Keeping the faces would just make the whole nationality system confusing.

[Jawa Jocky]

Somebody call Johnny Cochrain

[Captain]

Originally posted by cyclotron7

Oh, please. How many people need to be reminded this is just a game? Take your sensitivities somewhere where it matters.

Cyclotron,
generally, I respect your opinion. here your response seems somewhat reactionary.

It matters here because it matters to me. I am always concerned with the way certain things are portrayed, because they can affect our attitudes. Attitudes matter because they strongly influence our behaviour. The way in which we treat a person, depends on how we look at a person. dehumanizing, demonizing, and villainizing our enemies is what allows us to kill, torture, and oppress them without remorse. And the time we spend playing games, watching movies or tv, the types of books we read, the people we hang around and have conversations with... all of these affect the way in which we view things.

Consider that FPS are used by the military to train soldiers to overcome their inherent resistance to kill others (and it is proven effective). That is hard evidence. Anecdotally, I am sure you can find as many examples as I can of personal friends and acquaintances whose attitudes and treatment of other human beings is less than kind because of the type of movies they watch and games they play. I am not talking about the overreaction of authorities to blaming media and games for Littleton. I am talking about the reality of propanganda effects, especially innocuous, unconscious ones.

Remember, except for unrestrainable impulses, it begins in the mind, so don't be so shortsighted.

Is Civ 3 the harbinger of doom? no. but I know of at least one other person on these forums who said that when he heard of a recent war going on, he never stopped to think about what that war was doing to the people going through it. all he thought about was what kind of aircraft they were flying and the technical specifications. he stopped to think about it and doesn't like it. the person treating war as a chance to test equipment isn't the type of person he wants to be. many others haven't reach this level of awareness. they continue to play their wargames, and when real war breaks out, they think it's a game. and modern war is like that, blip on a screen, touch a button, another blip intercepts. flashing lights. buzz. hurray, we've destroyed the enemy. not, oh my god, I've just killed a thousand people. not, a moment of silence for the souls we've slaughtered. think of the recent Israel-Palestine conflict, can you honestly say you've been more concerned with the lives lost than of ways to accurately simulate this in a Civ 3 scenario? How about the battle of Agincourt? were their lives any less valuable?
again, this doesn't mean I'm against war games, I just think people should be more aware of how it affects their views.

Besides, I already said I knew this wasn't a big issue for most people. I just wanted to put it into the open so that, on the off-chance, someone might read it and think about it, not dismiss it outright. the entire civ genre of games has many educational aspects, it's one of the reasons I hold it on a higher level than a shoot-em up. As we suspect the game players of Civ 3 to be better "thinkers" than FPS players, we hold the game makers of Civ 3 to a higher standard than the rednecks of FPS. Firaxis doesn't have a duty to make a fair and non-racist game anymore than they have a duty to make an entertaining game, but criticism of either, is a fair response.

I have definitely made a bigger deal of it than I originally intended. Thank you for your response, because it made me more aware of the ignorance that is still so pervasive.

First, and hopefully last, "flame" I ever write.

Originally posted by Akka le Vil
The change in face represents assimilation and the change in nationality (when people cease to consider themselves from another country, but rather from the one that controls the city). You accepted that. Well, I find it much more easy to have just a look on the faces and see who has been assimilated and the presence or not of foreign individuals. Keeping the faces would just make the whole nationality system confusing.

fair enough. that's a good point. I shall instead argue for an more powerful editor so that I can make these changes myself, and everyone else can play the way they want to. I have no desire to impose my vision on someone else, just offering alternatives.
with such an editor, we would all me happier then, no? so please lend your voice to asking for a more powerful editor. thanks.

[zulu9812]

Originally posted by Captain
I know of at least one other person on these forums who said that when he heard of a recent war going on, he never stopped to think about what that war was doing to the people going through it. all he thought about was what kind of aircraft they were flying and the technical specifications. he stopped to think about it and doesn't like it.

A very good point - we, as human beings, sometimes need to stop and think about the human cost involved.

However, there is a certain detachment when playing a game like Civ3. This remoteness keeps us at a distance and thus we know in our heads that it is just a game and these acts are not justified in a real life context. I do not think that this detachment makes us callous or oblivious to human suffering, it just means that we are free to step back and decide - it's a TBS, hardly the blood, guts and irrationality of Quake.

[The Eliminator]

I just think its cool having people from different civs in your cities. I agree, they should not be assimilated, but over time they should become citizens of your empire, but their icons should not change. Great post, Captain!

[Bella Hella]

yeah, i agree that it would be nice to have them keep their cultural identity. i haven't played for very long, but i seem to remember taking over a large zulu city and they were all wearing yellow. why can't they just change into green to indicate that they're my little peeps now?

[nato]

Well I do not find this offensive or sinister like Captain does, but I would much prefer if assimilated population retained their original ethnicity.

I really love having diverse populations, and I really love having the people I conquered as part of my empire. In MoO2 I always made a point of having at least 1 pop point of each race that was in my empire on the capital planet, so everyone was represented. I also liked to move guys around so races weren't restricted to their own seperate planets.

Yeah its a game, but I found it really fun. I imagined it a diverse, accepting empire kind of like the Romans had, and it was a way to make my empire distinctive and more personalized.

Now if you're gonna make fun of me for stuff like that, you are wide open to being made fun of for pushing imaginary tanks around and everything else in the game.

I would do this in Civ3 by joining Workers to other cities, but they all turn into the same thing anyway.

I definitely don't think the current model is at all racist or anything ... that is being too sensitive. Its just a detail not represented; and after all it has no real game effect.

But I would love if it was changed! They went through all the trouble of making different ethnicities and different graphics sets ... why not let it stick around!

[Andrew Cory]

I wouldn't mind if they kept certain characteristics, and it might even be unreasonable to expect that 100% of all loyalties would be transfered to a new nation, regardless. But there does come a point where "African" becomes "African-American", and that point should be represented in the game...

Having said that, there would require an added level of complexity, and I wonder if it is worth it. To me, just having different color faces for a given civ just the sake of having "diversity" is meaningless without having the concomitment diversity of ideas and belifes makes a mockery of what diversity is suposed to be about...

[bignickel]

Actually, for anyone who's read Jarod Diamond's "Guns, Germs & Steel", they'd see that Civ3 is ANTI-racist.

It has been a common opinion throughout colonial history that various peoples were the conquered, rather then the conquerors, because they were inheritently 'unfit' or 'savage' or had 'predispositions to lower IQs' (whatever that means). But Jaron Diamond dispels such thinking in his book by pointing out how geography affects science and technology, food productions, resistance to disease, etc.

In my first Civ3 game, I found myself stuck on an island by myself. No matter how fast I tried to expand, sooner or later other nations would land with their superior technology and start planting colonies: just like our own world history, with Europeans landing on the Americas, already populated with people who hadn't developed sea-going technology to enable them to do the converse to the Europeans.

How did this happen? Because I had no one to trade technolgies with, but the other nations on their larger island did. They all could research different technologies, while I had to research them all myself one by one. Just as it happened in our own history. As a result, even trying to develop sea-going technologies first, and even with 20/20 hindsight insisting that I had to, I still got 'colonized' instead of the other way around.

To really make the game more realistic in this regard, 'farming' would be a technology, and it would allow you to grow more than 1 food per square. And it would only be initially discovered by the nation(s) in the most fertile part of the world map (aka "the fertile crescent"). For anyone else to get more than 1 food per square, they'd have to trade for this technology to in order to grow their villages into towns and then cities (thus increasing technology, money, more production to build military units).

bignickel

[nato]

To really make the game more realistic in this regard, 'farming' would be a technology, and it would allow you to grow more than 1 food per square. And it would only be initially discovered by the nation(s) in the most fertile part of the world map (aka "the fertile crescent"). For anyone else to get more than 1 food per square, they'd have to trade for this technology to in order to grow their villages into towns and then cities (thus increasing technology, money, more production to build military units).

I have been pushing that idea for a long time! It is my get-rid-of-workers plan. Instead of irrigation or mining, discorvering techs like crop rotation or strip mining increases output. No Workers or Public Works needed!

This is my very favorite civ idea! But I'm not sure what it has to do with the thread...

Another thing I'm not sure about, but that does have to do with the thread:

Akka and Andrew Cory, you both say keeping ethnicities would be too complicated ... I just don't get it, what is complicated about it? Seems simple and straightforward to me.

[spy14]

Whats the point? Its only eye candy at the end of the day, and a small minority population will make no differance to gameplay. Although race riots would be a interesting touch...

[Andrew Cory]

Originally posted by nato
Akka and Andrew Cory, you both say keeping ethnicities would be too complicated ... I just don't get it, what is complicated about it? Seems simple and straightforward to me.

Well, the complications arise from wishing "ethnicity" to be more than a mere cultural icon. For instance:

Many Americans didn't want to declare war on Germany in WWI and WWII because they were of german decent. In Civ3 terms, many American cities had people of German nationalitiy. This would make them likely to culture flip if things got bad enough, even though IRL no German-Americans would have likely joined Nazi germany!

What would need to happen in Civ3 to make ethicity more than a mere iconic change would be for them to be unhappy because "stop this war of agression against our mother country", but not actualy in counting for purpouses of a flip. This would be a complex system, or at least more complex than it is now...

[Tuberski]

I undrstand what Captain is saying. But, I have never even really paid much attention to the people in my cities after I conquer them.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Captain
Cyclotron,
generally, I respect your opinion. here your response seems somewhat reactionary.

It matters here because it matters to me. I am always concerned with the way certain things are portrayed, because they can affect our attitudes. Attitudes matter because they strongly influence our behaviour. The way in which we treat a person, depends on how we look at a person. dehumanizing, demonizing, and villainizing our enemies is what allows us to kill, torture, and oppress them without remorse. And the time we spend playing games, watching movies or tv, the types of books we read, the people we hang around and have conversations with... all of these affect the way in which we view things.

That's all very true.

Consider that FPS are used by the military to train soldiers to overcome their inherent resistance to kill others (and it is proven effective). That is hard evidence. Anecdotally, I am sure you can find as many examples as I can of personal friends and acquaintances whose attitudes and treatment of other human beings is less than kind because of the type of movies they watch and games they play. I am not talking about the overreaction of authorities to blaming media and games for Littleton. I am talking about the reality of propanganda effects, especially innocuous, unconscious ones.

I think it's a bit of a stretch to think that a game is a propaganda tool. Now, it's true that everything we create is an extension of our beliefs, but it seems unlikely that the feature of "assimilation" was purposely included to promote racial theories. What you are interpereting as a "propaganda effect" to me seems like you're just reading that into the game.

Remember, except for unrestrainable impulses, it begins in the mind, so don't be so shortsighted.

I apologize if I seemed shortsighted to you.

Is Civ 3 the harbinger of doom? no. but I know of at least one other person on these forums who said that when he heard of a recent war going on, he never stopped to think about what that war was doing to the people going through it. all he thought about was what kind of aircraft they were flying and the technical specifications. he stopped to think about it and doesn't like it. the person treating war as a chance to test equipment isn't the type of person he wants to be. many others haven't reach this level of awareness. they continue to play their wargames, and when real war breaks out, they think it's a game. and modern war is like that, blip on a screen, touch a button, another blip intercepts. flashing lights. buzz. hurray, we've destroyed the enemy. not, oh my god, I've just killed a thousand people. not, a moment of silence for the souls we've slaughtered. think of the recent Israel-Palestine conflict, can you honestly say you've been more concerned with the lives lost than of ways to accurately simulate this in a Civ 3 scenario? How about the battle of Agincourt? were their lives any less valuable?

I think that your treatment of violence is somewhat unrealistic. Violence, war, and conflict are indeed a part of our lives, and they have been for all time. Most of human history involves what you find objectionable, and to regard these topics as unspeakable is an affront to history and it is also ignoring a basic part of human behavior, tradition, and custom.

again, this doesn't mean I'm against war games, I just think people should be more aware of how it affects their views.

That's fine, but when you post a thread called "hidden racist agendas" that doesn't sound like a views awareness thread... that sounds like angry propaganda and closemindedness. If you want people to be aware of something, you'd do well not to approach it like you have done with this topic.

Besides, I already said I knew this wasn't a big issue for most people. I just wanted to put it into the open so that, on the off-chance, someone might read it and think about it, not dismiss it outright. the entire civ genre of games has many educational aspects, it's one of the reasons I hold it on a higher level than a shoot-em up. As we suspect the game players of Civ 3 to be better "thinkers" than FPS players, we hold the game makers of Civ 3 to a higher standard than the rednecks of FPS. Firaxis doesn't have a duty to make a fair and non-racist game anymore than they have a duty to make an entertaining game, but criticism of either, is a fair response.

I don't agree with that. What you see as racism, I see as a valuable and logical game feature. To me, it's gameplay; nothing more, nothing less. I need to point out that Firaxis makes games to be entertaining, not PC.

I have definitely made a bigger deal of it than I originally intended. Thank you for your response, because it made me more aware of the ignorance that is still so pervasive.

I encourage you not to use personally offensive attacks. I would highly doubt that all people who disagree with you qualify as ignorant.

First, and hopefully last, "flame" I ever write.

It wasn't a flame. Stay away from the insults, and it will continue that way.

[Captain]

I'm glad some people are willing to discuss this.

I know I made a big deal out of it and the title is misleading, but I wanted to make sure I got your attention. No, I don't really think Civ 3 is racist, and I think Firaxis did a decent job. It's not insidious or sinister. It just rubs me the wrong way. (Just like predetermined UUs. I'm not against UUs, just want it to be based on gameplay and not predestination. I think bignickel can agree? ex. english are completely landbound but have a man-o-war UU? what??? why? it should depend on situation.)

sure, Civ 3 is a detached game, you look over it from above. but that's kind of a problem too. it may not make us more willing to snipe someone in the head like a FPS does, but Presidents and high ranking military officers don't sniper people either. They're not pulling the trigger directly, they're giving the command to kill and destroy, without ever seeing the victim. that's why it's all the more gruesome. some people would never kill a cow themselves, calling it cruelty, but they're ok with paying someone else to kill it so they can eat a hamburger. but that's all kindof-off thread. I just think it is good idea if we all reflected on how we are influenced, if for no other reason than not to be taken in by Madison Avenue.

I am glad you raised the issue of tokenism andrew, if its just a graphic, what difference does it make? well, some people hate mining grassland too But it's a step in the right direction IMHO. I would like to see the mix-labels. Sure diversity has its problems (like race riots, discrimination, ghettos, etc...), but it also has great benefits too.

bella, uniform colour change is a good idea! I like it.
nato, I did the same thing. I joined workers to my cities to make them more diverse. but sadly they ended up all the same. I like ot have different cities, with not just different wonders, but different buildings and different people too.

good point about them having the stuff already there, why not have it stick around? it would add a lot more fun to my game too.

to all those, "it's a just a game" people, that strengthens my argument too. what if I'm not a power player? I like to sandbox it, make different cities, put them in the right place, nitpick on terrain improvements, and so on. it's fun. I still conquer, but that's not the only thing. this would make it more fun for some people.

heck, I even tried to encourage the distant Egyptians in one game to help me settle an empty sector so we could trade (and keep the rabid Zulus out). I gave away horses so their weak empire wouldn't fall. humanitarianism should be a viable way to play.

andrew cory, perhaps one way to add some value to having diversity are diplomatic bonuses.
ex. it will be easier to make peace, RoPs, MPPs or permanent allies with Chinese when there are Chinese citizens spread out in my Roman country. we'll be less likely to go to war with each other. propaganda effects work better since these Chinese citizens are living well under your rule. More chinese citizens want to join your enlightened civ and have a better way of life. works better if you are Democratic or Republic.
or even better how about this? once you get to a certain percentage (say 10-25%) of a minority, you can build a "civil rights movement" that would confer that civ's attributes on you as well. so your Roman civ would keep its attributes and also gain Chinese attributes.

sure it adds complexity, but it'd be nice. otherwise, I'll take the icon change. that can't be hard to change can it?

[PhoenixPhlame73]

kewl ideas, all!

[Civ Old Timer]

Captain, I'm sure you mean well, but, my god man, get a grip. People do indeed come together into one entity and this is a good thing. Minority cultures add to and change the cultures they mingle with. In Canada we do have Quebec here, y'know, and it's influence on the political culture of this country at quite out of what with it's size and population. I'm not complaining about it, just pointing out that it's so. It's simplistic in the extreme to think that "the only reasonable thing we can assume is that these people have been ethnically cleansed or assimilated Borg style." C'mon, mate, the world is more complicated subtle than left liberal dogma would have you believe. Furthermore, every culture has subcultures.

Yikes! That this upsets anyone freaks me out. We are people first and cultures second. Obsessing over culture is divissive, just the opposite of what you intend - which I take to be a defese of diversity.

[ChaotikVisions]

I agree that it would be nice if the face icons didn't change, but its hardly racism or anything even close. The culture is assimiliated, the people interbred, and since your people would(assuming) be the majorirty, they'd all mostly look like your people did. But its not that important overall.

However, i've got to disagree with something else you said. I've heard this arguement alot, that the games we play, movies/tv we watch, and things we read affect how we see things and how we act. This is true, but to a very limited extent. The only things that change us are those that we let change us. I've played countless hours of FPS games, but I don't think any less of death, or people being murdered, or anything else. Perhaps my line between what is real, and what isn't is just stronger then others. But things don't affect how I see things unless I let them, the same with anyone else.

To say that peoples perception of war is fogged by war games, and FPS games is just ridiculous. Its only if the people believe what they're playing to be truly like war, and how they play the game like the war. Just because I plot years in advance on which Civs I will "annex" doesn't mean I think its a good thing when a country IRL does it. Civ is just a game, and bares no strong comparison to IRL. In Civ I can send countless units to there doom on a various city and not be bothered, I can watch it happen IRL and most certainly be bothered, but then i've always liked to study war history as well.

I don't view war as one blip on a screen moving towards another, I view it as well, war. Odd as that sounds, I do like watching war, and no, not the slaughter, but the strategys involved and such. I know many die, even those who wern't a part of the fighting at all, and they do have my sympathy. As for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I don't mind it much. Since it doesn't have much to do with me, or has involved people I know, unlike wars America has been involved in. Again, they have my sympathy, but I care less about it then I do a war fought by America. As for trying to emulate it, who would want to have a terrorist scenario? I've heard terrorist units proposed, but never a scenario based around it, it seems a dumb idea to me, but then again i've never played many scenarios either.

As for FPS games being used by the military to get soldiers over the inherent resistant to kill, where, and when, and can you post a source? I could see the military perhaps using it to train reaction and accuracy, but in the end a computer image is just a computer image, no matter how large or advanced, the mind knows it isn't real, you can't be more easily motivated to kill someone just becase you have in a game. And again I ask, when have peoples attitudes changed off of games they play? I've never seen any of my buddies suddenly become a jerk after a game of UT, we both usually enjoyed and laugh about it. Do you have a source for this too? Too many things are blamed on tv/movies/games/books, rather then the simple fact that the person is who is messed up.

And why exactly are people who play Civ3 different from those who play FPS games? I'm sure a large number of Civ players also play FPS. I enjoy a 12 hour stretch of playing Civ3 just as much as I enjoy a 5-10 minute round FPS match, they just require different abilitys for each one. Civ is hardly a game of only "thinkers" since its quite easy to just go mass war and win through conquest(though not on higher difficulty levels, i'll admit). FPS games take just as much skill to play as strategy games, its just in different areas. I won't even comment on the makers of FPS games being rednecks, thats just a joke, right? Firaxis makes Civ3 how they want it, but I don't think anything at all in the game can be interpreted as racist unless you actually work at it and want it to be. The face icons changing is like sueing the goverment for not having an equal distrubation of black and white stripes on the flag.

Part of the problem is all the people trying to convince themselves its real, which isn't helped by all those that say its too real, in the end it is JUST A GAME. It matters not in real life, nothing done it in should affect your real life, and nothing you see in it should either. Its bits of code formed together to respond to your actions, it isn't real, and never will be. Those who are affected simply let it or don't have enough will power or logic to tell the difference. More people need to realize this and quit blaming other things for how they act.

Edit- Reply to second post: How does "its just a game" strengthen your arguement, and how are we power players? I control all my workers and pick specific terrain improvements myself, unless i've just got too many(over 40-50) working to keep track of. I usually don't agree with AI placement of things, even though it may work better. And whos said they only conquer? Very few civ players focus ONLY on conquering, many try a multitude of strategys and variations on how they play, myself included.

I've tryed to help civs survive before also, giving them an uneeded border city or two and extra resources, but simply because I didn't want the other guy taking over that part. I would like more options available for alliances and such, theres not enough as it is now.

The UUs are fine, can't you just remove them if you don't like them? Its there to add a bit more of history and theme to the game.

As for civ3 being detached, it is, but it doesn't make us easily order thousands to there doom or anything. :P As for presidents and military officials easily ordering people to be sniped, thats part of there job, they know they have to make the decesion and will answer to it if they are wrong as well. As for cows, if I had to kill one to get the meat from it, I would. But right now the money I pay for to get the meat goes to someone who kills them for a living. I don't consider it killing, I consider it dinner.

[Cyclotron]

I know I made a big deal out of it and the title is misleading, but I wanted to make sure I got your attention.

That's not the point. When you post inflammatory topics, you'll get inflammatory replies. Your purpose in doing so is irrelevant.

No, I don't really think Civ 3 is racist, and I think Firaxis did a decent job. It's not insidious or sinister. It just rubs me the wrong way. (Just like predetermined UUs. I'm not against UUs, just want it to be based on gameplay and not predestination. I think bignickel can agree? ex. english are completely landbound but have a man-o-war UU? what??? why? it should depend on situation.)

Yeah, I really never liked UUs either... in fact, I debated against those for a long time before Civ3 came out. The reason for my opposition, however, was not because of UUs being racist... they are not, merely historical. I opposed them because I believe Civ3 and other such games are to re-write history, not re-live it on a different physical map.

sure, Civ 3 is a detached game, you look over it from above. but that's kind of a problem too. it may not make us more willing to snipe someone in the head like a FPS does, but Presidents and high ranking military officers don't sniper people either. They're not pulling the trigger directly, they're giving the command to kill and destroy, without ever seeing the victim. that's why it's all the more gruesome. some people would never kill a cow themselves, calling it cruelty, but they're ok with paying someone else to kill it so they can eat a hamburger. but that's all kindof-off thread.

Killing is part of history. Civ is an abstract representaion of history. Therefore, it is entirely logical that Civ is a representation of killing. I don't think of FPS players as any better or more moral than RTS players... nearly all of our entertainment makes referense to violence, and it's unavoidable without massive censorship of what is a basic human feature.

[DrFell]

Well I'm glad they assimilate eventually. After all I'd rather that happened more often rather than me having to raze their city to the ground, butcher the vast majority of the population, and send the rest to either work on the land for the rest of their lives or be whipped to death building my temples (I know, I have a sick imagination), which is what I do most of the time. It's funny that the people in my democracy are not at all bothered that thousands of Aztec slaves have been building my railroads for centuries. Just try to remember it's only a game, it's not as if most of central Europe's cities were razed in WW2, is it?

[zulu9812]

Originally posted by Andrew Cory
I wouldn't mind if they kept certain characteristics, and it might even be unreasonable to expect that 100% of all loyalties would be transfered to a new nation, regardless.

I have to say, even after 800 years of English domination, I don't consider myself 'culturally assimilated'

[Andrew Cory]

Originally posted by zulu9812


I have to say, even after 800 years of English domination, I don't consider myself 'culturally assimilated'

Right! but would you try and break free of England, even if given the chance? I think that this game needs somthing called "post-nationalism", that makes assimilation unnessicary...

[DrFell]

Actually there are a fair few people up in Scotland who want it to break off from the UK...

[zulu9812]

damn right

[Andrew Cory]

Originally posted by DrFell
Actually there are a fair few people up in Scotland who want it to break off from the UK...

So why haven't you? Why doesn't someon pull a gandi and organize a work stopage? Or even an armed rebellion?

[zulu9812]

Dude - people are more laid back up here...