Darwin completely missing from Civilization 5?

Status
Not open for further replies.

AlpsStranger

Jump jump on the tiger!
Joined
Feb 8, 2009
Messages
5,820
Does anyone have any idea why there is no mention of Charles Darwin in any form in Civilization5?

He's not a great scientist ( would even his detractors consider him historically insignificant?, ) he's not quoted on anything, and he's conspicuously absent from the entire 'pedia.

Anyone? Darwin in Civiliztion 5 in any form?

Have I overlooked him?
 
There's nothing in this game that would require him to say anything to be quoted on, though him being a Great Scientist woudl be nice, but then again, I never even pay attention to the names of my Great People either way.
 
There's nothing in this game that would require him to say anything to be quoted on, though him being a Great Scientist woudl be nice, but then again, I never even pay attention to the names of my Great People either way.

I would think he would at least be a strong candidate for Biology. That's not what bothers me though. Him not happening to be quoted is understandable, but from what I can tell he isn't on the Great Scientist list.

This reeks of some kind of bizarre political correctness.
 
I would think he would at least be a strong candidate for Biology. That's not what bothers me though. Him not happening to be quoted is understandable, but from what I can tell he isn't on the Great Scientist list.

This reeks of some kind of bizarre political correctness.

Great Prophets aren't named, either. Connection? ;)
 
This reeks of some kind of bizarre political correctness.

...incorrectness, you mean ^^.


You should maybe take a look at the unitInfos.xml, just to see if he's really not a GP (don't know, but someone should make this sure).
 
...incorrectness, you mean ^^.


You should maybe take a look at the unitInfos.xml, just to see if he's really not a GP (don't know, but someone should make this sure).

Right-wing political correctness is still political correctness.

FWIW, I would have slavery, Hitler, Stalin, etc in the game so I'm not really on board with any form of PC in the game. I'm also very happy about religion being added despite my own atheism. So I'm not being in any way hypocritical here.
 
Right-wing political correctness is still political correctness.

FWIW, I would have slavery, Hitler, Stalin, etc in the game so I'm not really on board with any form of PC in the game. I'm also very happy about religion being added despite my own atheism. So I'm not being in any way hypocritical here.

Yea, I love how they quote "Those who do not know their history are doomed to repeat it", but PC is the best way for no one to know anything bad that happened and wind up repeating it.
 
PC is against free speech, and is probably the greatest threat to freedom we have at present.

If you don't allow folk to express their thoughts, they fester, and become more polarised, they are then so much easier to be recruited as terrorists etc... if they express them, others have the chance to argue against them and repudiate them.
 
I would also have the "bad guy" leaders like Hitler and Stalin, they are more fun to main and kill than leaders i "like".

Also, i think it would be fun if every civ had a second leader so that it could be used. That is, if you are in a game state where you need to be leader 2 instead of leader 1, you would "elect" the new leader for a turn of anarchy.

As new diplo options, you could demand (or sue for peace) leader change as a stipulation. This could be used to "force" enemy civ to change to a worse leader or nudge an friendly one to change to a better one.

Changing a leader would also slightly alter diplomacy IN A GOOD WAY. There would be 2 types of diplo modifiers - One that is pinned to the civ, no matter who leads it, and another pinned to leaders. Monty hates Oda but likes Tokugawa. Despite this, he still has reservations about japan.
Likewise, Tokugawa doesn't care much for China but he can tolerate Empress Wu while he can not stand Mao Zedong.

Everybody hates hitler! - but not all people hate germany, and some of them like bismark. This would mean if Germany is forced to leader change to Bismark, but later reverts to Hitler, he still has all the penalties for his warmongering (in addition to being a d-bag).

Hey, it would be a fun change. It would add a sense of internal diplomacy. And renew external diplomacy. Pacachuti will try to woo you with religion and diplomacy. Tupac Inca would rather skewer you with spears.
 
PC is against free speech, and is probably the greatest threat to freedom we have at present.

If you don't allow folk to express their thoughts, they fester, and become more polarised, they are then so much easier to be recruited as terrorists etc... if they express them, others have the chance to argue against them and repudiate them.

Interesting when government "bans" something, its censorship. However, if EVERY corporation makes the same policy it isn't censorship. In the end, you are forced to do something or abstain from something because someone else said so. Interesting the corporations have become greater authoritarians than the government - they play by less rules, have few if any regulations, and can do a LOT more "against the people" than government.

Still, people trust corporations and not government, even though government (in theory) is of the people and serves the people and has rules on how it operates - while corporations (in fact) are of the few, for only itself and serves ONLY those who own it.

edit - i tried to explain both sides with a sense of neutrality.

Corporations are the new Cesar and government is powerless.

However, there is a reason that you don't have unconditional free speech (anywhere), because freedom OF free speech also includes freedom FROM free speech. Some people might want to say something but i have the right to not hear it, so if i make the rules then obviously i will violate the free speech of a flaming racist so that i don't become offended.

This part of MY free speech, is backed by my own responsibility to hold some form of ethics about time and place (rhetorical situation) and audience (anyone who can hear me). And in order for me to expect to hold others to THIS rule, i had better follow it myself. So, do we have free speech on the internet or in civfanatics?

Well, you have the freedom to "speak within the boundaries set by the administrators" who need to maintain a neutral environment that is minimally offensive when it "has to be", and maximally enjoyable where it "can be", meaning they can't allow a hostile environment.
 
I've looked it up and I did not see Darwin listed in any of the XML files.

But then again that file seemed to only list Great Generals :/

FOUND IT :

<Row Tag="TXT_KEY_GREAT_PERSON_CHARLES_DARWIN">
<Text>Charles Darwin</Text>

I guess this technically means the thread should be closed xD
 
Moderator Action: Thread answered, and the only remaining avenue of discussion seems to be an off-topic one. So closed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom