Discussion in 'Civ4 - General Discussions' started by Mad Hab, Nov 10, 2006.
Isn't this a take on the old adage that "Politics makes for strange bedfellows"?
+10 We had sex.
-50 You never called me back.
If you pull that off, your nick should be King Flatulence.
Good points they had corned the market with strategy for all ages
Really worse? Hmm any examples? No, Civ4 has bottomed out in this cateagory. Civ3 was stylish in comparison, just like in Civipedia format and content.
Catherine was considerated beautifull in her time(see the wiki picture of her and go figure out..), so as she was a woman who did as much, and even more, as the male leaders did during all history about sex, Firaxis prob decided that they wanted to show her for us as she was seen in her time, beatifull and nasty They simple decided to show her as a beatifull person(because she WAS beatifull in her time) and with all caracteristics that made her "legendary" between the people of Russia(I mean not the military or politician(she was good on that or wouldent be called The Great) caracteristics if you get what I mean ).
One question for you then. Do you enjoy carnaval?
Most leader comments are OK.
I just roll my eyes every time I read these stupid Caesar jokes...
Not so much bad taste as it is a window into the political leanings of the game developers and a completely banal addition to the game.
Frankly, I find incidences such as Catherine's hints towards loose morality appealing in a game of this nature. This is a thinking man/woman's game, one that appeals to those of curious natures, among other intelliectual qualities. My belief is that the game designers intention, in addition to adding humor (IMO not necessarily directed at children), is to instill curiosity about the parties at hand. Revisiting the OP is justification of this belief. People who partake in this game usually have access to the internet, and there's always the library, and such curiosity leads them to educate themselves. Regarding the youth, what's more appealing than having a mode of recreation lead them to want to educate themselves?
well said Bassist
I agree. I haven't been playing extensively yet but so far I find the leader comments smart, enlightening, funny, and bizarre all at the same time. I do like that they incorporate the leaders' salient features into the comments. None of the leaders are always shown in a good light, and it so happens that this was Katherine's quirk, as others have mentioned.
One of the things I like about the game is the surrealism, like "Plato was born in Beijing" or "Julius Caesar has converted to Judaism." Having Katherine make a (slightly) suggestive comment to me as Hatshepsut just adds to that.
The only problem I see with this is IMO it would be better to just giving them much more defined personalities. This way through playing the game, it gives you a point of view to see the opposing leader from a historical aspect. I always loved Civ 2's leaderhead system back when I was 16-17. I don't see many kids (especially the ones from the "new audience" they claim to be going after by 'simplifying' the system.) playing Civ 4 and making themselves go do homework past reading a few paragraphs.
I think it would be better to try and model them after a more serious nature to better reflect their real personalities instead of urban legends that revolved around them. Then the kid learned a more accurate way to view say "Montezuma" the next time they see people discussing the topic. Without having to do much research. This is what got me more into looking them up. I highly doubt I would have been inspired to learn by these cartoons.
But that is just my take on it.
Not really. More like they are based on common misperceptions of these people.
As a student of history, I find a lot of the little blurbles to be most inaccurate and almost insulting to the real world in which these people lived.
Catherine the Great was not a flirtatious hot and skinny little biddy that was ready to pose for Penthouse. She had what is often called "sturdy ankles."
But, why let facts creep into an argument?
But flirtatious, hot and skinny little biddies weren't attractive at the time.
I think of it like Moulin Rouge, the Baz Luhrmann movie. Some people got all torqued off because he used Nirvana and Fatboy Slim for the can-can sequences. But my interpretation is that he was aiming to show what it was like to be at the Moulin Rouge, but as translated into 21st century music and visual language. So Katherine gets a modern representation of how she appeared in her day.
I guess I'm looking at this from an adult's perspective, that knowing the real history of these leaders, their representation is funny and kind of smirky. I agree that it's not the best way to teach about each particular leader. But that doesn't make it in bad taste, in my opinion.
I know Civ is not supposed to truly recreate history, but I think that the leaders from Civ III and Civ IV take away that "epic" feel of Civs I and II. For me, it's a pity the feeling of terror inspired just by listening to the mongolian or russian musical themes of Civ I is lost. Your virtual opponents inspired fear (or, at least, respect) back then...
Since Civ III, all we have are pathetic leaders, who talk about silly subjects as salads and lovers as they stare at you with a cartoony expression in their faces...
At least I am glad they got rid of that stupid Civ III Street-Fighter-esque finale, with icons of the world history shown with black eyes and band-aids... pffffff!
Another thing: the leader's personalities are improved over Civ III, but I still think the AI is not aggressive enough. I mean, Genghis Khan, Tokugawa, Shaka, Napoléon, they all should wage war more often (and be more competent at it). An alternative is to select "Aggressive AI", but then even Gandhi becomes very hostile towards you...
I agree with you Mad Hab on all of those points. Except I don't see clicking Agg AI as all that much of a help for me but I only play vanilla. Clicking Agg AI for me just garauntees me 1 war sometime in the game and thats about it.
Zen Monkey, I think you are stretching here. Comparing Civ 4 to the artistry direction of Moulin Rouge is a little out there. I would be pissed if I found out that Firaxis addressed something like this more than game balancing issues. If they discussed the leaderhead graphics and lines to this degree of depth to make sure they got it right... what a waste of programmer's time. They coulda used that time to Fix the UN, or give us missles, etc.
But the real deal is, these leaderheads have little research behind them and were almost just thrown in without much thought whatsoever. The lame humor is a hurried attempt to give the dialogue a small dash of variety. Like it was someone's job to come up with the opening line for Julius Ceaser. Which he probably tried thinking about for a while but this is not a part of the game designers want to spend alot of time on. So they went with the old Ceaser Salad joke. Which targets the appropriate audience they were trying for and gives Julius his opening line.
I would prefer a more serious nature to it myself, but this is very easy modding. I probably will change alot of this stuff later on when I feel like messing with it.
I never claimed she was or that the game portrayed the leaders image exactly as they were in real life
this is a game that represents historical figures based on modern stereotypes and views of the past, of course the leaders are not going to be represented with 100% accuracy
Catherine was attractive and promiscuous for the standards of her time and as such she is presented as a stereotypical promiscuous female who is young, attactive, and flirtatious, using modern standards to get the point across to the average player, so she is not shown as an older enlightened despot
if you look at paintings of Catherine in her youth she looks very much like she is portrayed in the game
anyway the appearance of the animated leaderheads is meaningless, and the only way to accurately show what the leaders looked like is to have portraits similar to civ 2 and we don't even know what all the leaders looked like as only some of them had paintings and sculptures that have survived
it is blatantly obvious they did this in order to appeal to a larger market not just those who are students of history
the leaders personalities in the game are still based on the historical figures, they are just altered to fit into simple modern stereotypes that a wide range of players can easily recognize
and as for the lame jokes I dislike them as well, especially the Caesar salad comment
is this last comment directed at me? and what exactly is this suppose to mean?
blah blah blah.
It's great that you're trying to have a serious discussion about this, and it probably does deserve a serious discussion. But don't get so worked up.
Why to the members of this forum care about things like what the leaders say/look like, what the intro movie is, what the soundtrack is ... I cared about these things ONCE. Now I either click away the intro movie or make sure I'm off doing something else while the game loads. I pay attention to what's being offered when a diplo head comes to visit. I have the sound turned off so I can listen to something I like.
I consider topics as these as merely small talk, automator. I don't think this is anything Firaxis should worry about. It takes very little knowledge to learn how to mod these dialogues. A bit more if you're wanting mod leaderheads but Firaxis has bigger fish to fry with their patches and expansions. I think it just gives us something to talk about in the time that we wait to see what their next move is.
I too thought of the comment "politics makes for strange bedfellows" when I read the opening post, but then, I don't know much about Catherine.
The Ceasar line is silly.
I thought history would be a fascinating subject to every Civ player. How can you enjoy the game and, at the same time, think human history is boring?
So, instead of repeating the same famous misconceptions, Civ designers could help people who play the game, history-lovers each and every one of them , to learn new things and to reconsider old beliefs. That would make for a better experience, I belive.
Don't think I don't see the progress Firaxis have already made. They have included Mali (I bet several Civ players never heard of Mansa Musa before Civ 4 - now they have!), the Inca and the Arabs (isn't it incredible that one of the 10 most influential civs of all time had to wait until the expansion of Civ 3 to be included?), for exemple. But, without unnecessary provocative jokes and Ceasar salads (that can make some people think Gaius Julius Caesar really had something to do with the dish), it can be even better!
Separate names with a comma.