Civ4 too PC?

[vicawoo]

The discussion on Hitler on this forum is never-ending, oatse. X-rated fps, politically sensitive material, will game censorship never end?

But seriously, list of why isn't ___ topics:
why isn't hitler in civ 4 (but mao/stalin)
why isn't poland in civ 4
why isn't canada in civ 4
why is HRE is civ 4

 

[r_rolo1]

I can understand why ppl can get offended with mr Hitler. But I have some kind of dificulty why they forgive others of the same kind..... Cui Fortuna favet multos amicos habet, I assume

 

[Justy]

It's all about money that's all. I disagree that the PC tag really applies here. If Global Warming were not in the game and was newly added into the game for Civ IV then the PC tag would apply.

I agree that it's hypocritical to an extent but Hitler does get all the crap for WWII. Not that he doesn't deserve it or anything like that. He'll just never get the whitewash from his crimes.

 

[Turner]

For the record, Hitler threads (especially where Civ4 is concerned) tend to get locked not because of Hitler, but because people can't debate the topic rationally and those threads generally devolve into troll/flame wars.

I personally have no problem with the threads so long as they can stay, well, Civilized.

 

[arcane assasin]

Are there really people who can't understand why people would be offended by Adolf Hitler?

It's not because of the PC buzz word people like to throw around when it comes to issues like sexism and racism, have we forgotten why Hitler was propelled into infamy?

Should ethnic cleansing and concentration camps be added as well? Perhaps as a way to remove foreign culture from your cities?

I hold very libertarian views in many areas, so in response to your question about concentration camps, yes, I believe anything that adds another aspect to the game would be a welcome addition, complete with all of the positive, and negative effects it incurs. It should be left up to the individual player which path they will take, but nothing should be left out because it may be considered offensive. Perhaps you choose to ignore slavery, and its significant impact on the game already, or maybe since it's been over a hundred years since we left that behind, it is now acceptable. In fact, including slavery allows for a very powerful civic, emancipation, which becomes almost neccesary to adopt as time progresses, much like.in the real world.

I believe the best version of Civilization, the game, would be one that effectively mirrors all aspects of human history.

 

[Pluvo241]

The point is that, yes, Hitler's holocaust was a horrible crime against humanity, but the fact that it did happen only shows that it is a reality one must face in the coarse of human history, which is what this game is about. I for one would rather see a game as acclaimed as Sid Meier's Civilization be more historically correct, than politically correct.

From the very first version of Civ, the game was about "Building a Civilization that would stand the test of time." Not "Building a Civilization that is historically correct." In fact Civ IV in particular tries to avoid merely replaying history in favor of creating your own history by allowing alternate routes through the Tech Tree. A first in the series. So historical correctness isn't the goal of the game in the first place, though it can certainly be played that way if you would like to.

 

[Lemon Merchant]

I believe the best version of Civilization, the game, would be one that effectively mirrors all aspects of human history.

I see your point, but I'd like to point out something.
History isn't pretty. Man has been doing some pretty horrible things to his fellow man for a very long time. In fact, slavery is still practiced in some parts of the world to this very day.
Hitler isn't in the game because the wounds are still fresh and he was the most notorious villain in recent times. He was truly a reprehensible man, but he wasn't the only one in history who committed crimes against his fellow man. The afore mentioned Genghis Kahn, Stalin, and Mao all come to mind. Stalin's purge was nearly as vicious as the things that Hitler did, but in western history classes, it's largely glossed over.
That being said, there are some mods which feature Hitler. I have to admit that I feel uncomfortable with the idea of playing him. He popped up in a game once and I took special delight (glee, actually) in rubbing him out. Me. Miss "Non Aggressive". The reason he isn't in the game is because of the way he makes most of us feel. He's still a "hot button", even today.

I'm as anti-PC as you can get, but even I accept that you can't have a completely historically accurate version. It's too soon. Maybe for Civ 23.

 

[reverend oats]

He lost.
Yes, Hannibal, Napoleon, and Boudicca also lost, but Hannibal was both a military and economic genius who took on one of the best armies in the world with a mix-and-match force from many different cultures.
Napoleon took on nearly of Europe single-handed, was a military genius, managed to rise from no-one to emperor twice, and his reforms still effect French laws to this day.
Boudicca... should not be in in my opinion.

While Hitler did restore the German economy and gain temporary domination of Europe, he was neither a great military or financial wizard (in fact his meddling usually torpedoed his own army), and his role as ruler of mainland Europe lasted less than five years.

 

[InigoMontoya]

It's not so much the truth, as the public opinion of the character. Ghengis Khan is hardly thought of along the level of Hitler, simply because he hasn't been in the public eye for millenia - if they included Hitler, it would be offensive to the Jewish and German fans of Civ, looking back on something better not looked at when trying to have fun.

Not many Mongols play civilization, correct?

 

[Lemon Merchant]

Not many Mongols play civilization, correct?

True. Intel never had any success with the yak powered Core 2 Duo.

 

[arcane assasin]

Apparently the German government went from panzers to panzies. Not allowing certain images cannot erase history, nor will it effect those who still carry unjustified hatred.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I can understand why ppl can get offended with mr Hitler. But I have some kind of dificulty why they forgive others of the same kind..... Cui Fortuna favet multos amicos habet, I assume

Khan was a tad more successful, no? .

Although I wouldn't mind hitler or anyone else for that matter in the game.

Another consideration as to why he's left out is the civ he's a part of in the first place ---------> is he more historically relevant/desired than Biz or Fred? There is always competition as to which civs are included, and within those civs which leaders (There are other very important US leaders and leaders of other countries that didn't win out vs those included as part of their civs).

Vanilla/Warlords didn't even have Lincoln, not to mention entire civs like Ethiopia, Byzantine, Maya, etc. There are only so many trait combos, and before Germany gets its 3rd leader who would for reasons rational or otherwise be controversial, what about a second leader for civs that only have one, or perhaps better representation of south america? He isn't just competing against his own merit, but that of others who could potentially be included as well. Combined with political landmines and the fact that they'd have to change the game, it's understandable that it's easier on fireaxis just to throw Maya in and leave hitler to the mods...

 

[soverkun]

I would mind a civgame with Hitler in it, and I am neither jew nor german.
I am not saying I like that Stalin is in the game, in fact I dont, but Hitler is definitely much worse than Stalin. Stalin was a ruthless bastard, but Hitler was an outright murderer. There is a difference.

Stalin wanted to consolidate and strengthen his (and Soviets) power, and he didnt care for those who was in his way. In this way he is no different than most leaders in world history, just way more ruthless.

Hitler was an abnormally. He killed to kill. The killing was not a means to an end, it was the goal in itself. Hitler would pay to kill jews, so to say. In fact he did.

Besides, there would be obvious gameplay issues if you included Hitler. His goal would not be to win the game, but to kill anyone with jewish religion - it would make no sense. And to include a Hitler who acted like a normal AI would seem to me to be very nazi-apologetic.

 

[Lemon Merchant]

I am not saying I like that Stalin is in the game, in fact I dont, but Hitler is definitely much worse than Stalin. Stalin was a ruthless bastard, but Hitler was an outright murderer. There is a difference.

I'm sorry but I disagree. There is no difference. Stalin was directly responsible for the killing (murder) of nearly 2 million people. He did it for the exact same reasons as Hitler did. He thought he was right and that his cause was just. He simply implemented mass murder in the guise of political stability and empire consolidation, rather than trying to cleanse the world of an ethnic "menace" that Hitler thought that the Jews and Gypsies were, among others.

In terms of severity, Hitler and Stalin can sit around in whatever Hell people like that go to, and Hitler can definitely say "I did it better than you did." But really they are both vicious, reprehensible, and unrepentant mass murderers. One is no better than the other, it's just a matter of degree, and both are more than worthy of contempt.

Personally, I would have rather had Lenin in the game for a Soviet leader. He gave birth to the Soviet Union, and IMO is much more important historically than Stalin. I can sort of understand the choices the designers made for the most part, and the USSR should be represented for it's historical significance, but the choice of Stalin eludes me.

 

[Julian Delphiki]

While Hitler did restore the German economy and gain temporary domination of Europe, he was neither a great military or financial wizard (in fact his meddling usually torpedoed his own army), and his role as ruler of mainland Europe lasted less than five years.

Actually economy was one the main reasons Germany had to go to war under Hitler rule. Their economy was few months from collapse before invasion of Poland.

 

[Chiyochan]

Let's see how fast this thread gets closed...

now you know why new threads keep poping up

 

[airmikee]

There are laws in Germany that prohibit the use of Nazi related things in games

Hitler, Swastikas, images of high ranking Nazi people etc.

Infact there are pretty big fines that a publisher would face for every swastika, image of hitler or whatever was found in a game.

For this reason if a company wants to sell a game in Germany all this has to be left out.

Publishers do somtimes make two versions of a game, one for Germany and one for other places but its usually not worth the hassle of having two lots of assets and twice the testing.

Hope that answers your question

Quoted for truth.

It's also not just Germany, but most of Europe these days that have anti-Nazi laws. The entire European Union has considered banning everything Nazi many times over the course of its short history, most of the time stopping short because of the more democratic countries concerns about free expression, but the topic keeps coming back.

But since the game hasn't become a hit (compared to international games like WoW) in Europe, I don't think that's the problem.

I think the problem in this thread is that excluding Hitler isn't a politically correct thing these days, it's the socially acceptable thing these days. I'd guess that to the majority of the population in this country, Hitler is nothing more than a punching bag to be whipped on, and giving anything positive to his name, even in a video game, is tantamount to condoning his existence and what he did.

Excluding Hitler from Civ4 has absolutely nothing to do with being politically correct. He wasn't that great of a leader, his civilization was a blip in almost any historical context, and if he were to be included his Traits would have to be, "Stupid, Bumbling".

The world is starting to accept that Stalin is actually the worlds most murderous leader, putting Hitlers death toll to shame (Holodomor was recognized this year by the EU as a crime against humanity), Stalin left a mark on the world that lasted for nearly half a century creating one of the worlds largest superpowers, the Soviet Union.

If the Nazi empire had lasted more than 5 years, it probably would have been included in Civ4, but Civ4 doesn't have room for civilizations or leaders that have failed in the only the most spectacular of fashions.

 

[Death2thepelicn]

The WW2 scenario for civ 2 was great, wasn't it? I mean, here's an idea. What if they didn't put Hitler in as a playable leader, but if they made a scenario where you could fight against him? That would be tight. Maybe that would be good for civ 5.

 

[Iranon]

About the Anti-Nazi Nazis in Germany: We have slightly odd laws restricting the use of Nazi imagery (and to be on the safe side, just about anything else involving Those Whacky Nazis).

This is a bigger problem for computer games than film because games are classified as toys rather than art and thus not protected by the right to free expression. For the same reason, you can't get historically accurate models of German WW2 ships here - no swastikas.

While I disagree with our level of censorship, I don't want Hitler in the main game. The other controversial leaders in Civ4 were either a lot more successful in the long run or they remain cultural icons, with an ambiguous image in their home countries at worst.

Another - and imo stroger - reason is the scope of the game. Hitler's 12 years in power were hardly representative of Germany's history. It wasn't even a single entity for most of its history as a civilsation... reflected by its available leaders. Frederick was merely king of Prussia, and Bismarck was no head of state at all.

***

Still, seeing von Papen as Germany's leader in the WW2 mod bundled with the game is a bad joke.

***

Generally, the game leaves out a few darker aspects of history... for example, I would have expected a way to remove religion from one's cities (inquisititors?). However, striking the right balance without giving gratuitious 'darker and edgier!' vibes would be difficult at best.

 

[Roxlimn]

The Great Khan gets a bad rap. In many instances where the enemy submits, Mongol rule was tolerant - even enlightened in some ways. His campaigns only became terrifying when done in revenge or as a policy of enforcement, which is not much different from how Alexander conducted his wars. His bloody conquest of the Khwarezmid is atypical of Mongol conquests, and he was, after all, not lacking for provocation.