Is Civ IV a Racist and Immoral Game? HA!

[Psyringe]

Colonization a racist game? Perhapss. But then again, it's just a pale shadow compared to the content of the most violent and racist game of all: Chess. Can't you see it? Black and white figures murdering each other all the time, even the board is painted in black and white to highlight the intrinsic racism of that game. Ban chess, I say. BAN CHESS!

 

[r_rolo1]

And checkers too....

 

[TotalPackage]

somebody is-hyper sensitive

 

[Bohemus]

seems like everyone is pretty much in agreement. The guy writing for variety is just overreacting very very badly. I really don't like how he calls for people to basically boycott the game... that's just stupid...

 

[frekk]

That is actually a very interesting article. I too would indeed be offended IF i was not a computer games player. This is another one of those episodes where non gamers dont understand how games work. Colonization is a re-imagining of history and nothing more. If he wishes to get himself worked up, he should perhaps take a look at the WW2 genre. With all the nazis and communists and comminazi zombie monsters one can role play as, he will get himself into a lather and forget he even heard about this game...

I can see the reason for concern, as he's right when he says games are now "media with moral implications". People often cite civ as a way to learn about history, and if it has biases or incorrect history, it is fair to criticize it for those biases and errors.

That being said ...

If we were to never make games dealing with any morally objectionable period of history, what historical games could we have? None!

I will agree with him on one other point though: really, the game should allow you to play as the natives. I don't like being forced to take a perspective; maybe I'd find it challenging to see if I could preserve my independance.

And yeah, the stars and stripes on the ships are absurd beyond belief.

 

[jkp1187]

Eh, the article has a point. I have to say, though, the original box art for Colonization is jingoistic as hell. The stars and stripes as the sails on the Santa Maria? Y'kidding me?

The stars and stripes do not equate to jingoism.

 

[SharpMango]

I read the link:



Nice piece of Sarcasm.

did you read the variety article too? that wasnt sarcastic. What's weird is that he appears to be a 'video games' reporter and he doesnt know anything about video games. I mean, i dont actually think he plays them, unless he thinks playing wii sports counts.

 

[SharpMango]

I can see the reason for concern, as he's right when he says games are now "media with moral implications". People often cite civ as a way to learn about history, and if it has biases or incorrect history, it is fair to criticize it for those biases and errors.

That being said ...

If we were to never make games dealing with any morally objectionable period of history, what historical games could we have? None!

I will agree with him on one other point though: really, the game should allow you to play as the natives. I don't like being forced to take a perspective; maybe I'd find it challenging to see if I could preserve my independance.

And yeah, the stars and stripes on the ships are absurd beyond belief.

yeah, perhaps we better not tell him about the aztec sacrificial altar or the mesoamerican mod where we get bonus points for human sacrifice etc.
The thing is, most civ players, or gamers in this genre LOVE their history. If they dont, then they quickly start to learn about the great moments of history...(i got introduced to people like hammurabi via civ)..we know all about horrible civilizations, we know the difference between 'right' and 'wrong'
another poster is absolutely right, sid meier and his teams always tackle the subject as it is rather than making allowances. Perhaps this is another one of those 'political correctness gone mad' stories? and just like those stories, the man in question doesnt know what he is talking about.

 

[r_rolo1]

Well ... some time ago , someone posted the Gamespot tutorial on BtS and the guy analysis and game were particularly dreadful ( good science city = 70 bpt ) and he managed to lost in Noble..... Given that atleast half of Civfanatics and apolyton communties can win on Noble, they could had easily spent better their money if they hired someone from here than paying that guy that was thinking that Civ IV was meant to be played like AOE ( given the UU descriptions, it was clear that it was the case )

In resume: video games reporters quality is pretty poor most of the times.

 

[frekk]

Perhaps this is another one of those 'political correctness gone mad' stories? and just like those stories, the man in question doesnt know what he is talking about.

I think it's fairly obvious that the writer is not greatly interested in history. If he was, then he'd be aware that it is impossible to write a history game which doesn't deal in objectionable material. You can't even write a WW2 game playing only as the Allies without bombing German cities.

And he says he'd be offended even if you did avoid morally objectionable subjects, because then you'd be "glossing over" things.

 

[Oatse]

Well ... some time ago , someone posted the Gamespot tutorial on BtS and the guy analysis and game were particularly dreadful ( good science city = 70 bpt ) and he managed to lost in Noble..... Given that atleast half of Civfanatics and apolyton communties can win on Noble, they could had easily spent better their money if they hired someone from here than paying that guy that was thinking that Civ IV was meant to be played like AOE ( given the UU descriptions, it was clear that it was the case )

In resume: video games reporters quality is pretty poor most of the times.

Link please!

 

[r_rolo1]

Must dig a little... wait pls

 

[r_rolo1]

Correct to myself: it was from IGN... It was posted in Civfanatics by xfactor99 ( I recommend you to read the thread as a apetizer ) and if you want to jump in , here is the link ( read it all for more prolonged ).

Believe me, it makes to respect people around here much more

Just for a peek....

Spoiler :

The Incas are a challenge, but they can hold their own in the beginning of the match due to their unique unit and building coming very early. Still, they'll need to be on the ball and constantly expanding if they want to exist in the last turns of the game.

Hwachas get a bonus against melee units, but siege weapons in general are overrated, and shouldn't be relied upon.

If you thought the Ottomans were bad, trust me, the Romans are quite insane as well. Though Rome isn't quite up to the military ability as Germany and Mongolia (!), they are quite a force in the early turns. Praetorians are enough to turn the tide of early-mid-match wars, and can lead to Rome possessing large amounts of land very quickly. Fight and claw your way to winning, but just don't expand too quickly too fast; that was what brought down the real Rome. Learn from its mistakes.

What a noob.....

 

[Oatse]

Oh my lord...

I'm not really as experienced with the game as some of the people here but even I know how blatantly wrong that guy is

 

[r_rolo1]

And he got payed to play.....

 

[BCampbell]

"If everybody minded their own business, the world would go around a great deal faster than it does." - The Duchess, Alice in Wonderland

If you think about it for a minutes it totally true, if people focussed on stuff that actually matters like healthcare, education, crime, family, and stopped focussing on stupid silly petty crap our society would be such a better place. Focus on fixing things instead of spending the whole time trying to find out who's fault it is.

Man, I know, like, all that stuff going on in Darfur. Doesn't affect me! Why should I care!

 

[frekk]

Siege weapons overrated?

 

[r_rolo1]

And should not be relied upon

 

[BCampbell]

another poster is absolutely right, sid meier and his teams always tackle the subject as it is rather than making allowances.

That's not quite true. If you read the interviews in the Chronicles box set, you'll find they were very careful in many areas of Civ 4, especially with the religions. Many allowances were made there to make the portrayal of religions in the game "fair".

And this is exactly as it should be, and why the original article makes a great point (though overstates it). When we deal with these issues, we have to be sensitive in how we portray them. This doesn't mean candy coating history, but it does mean recognizing the scope and reach of the media and being responsible. The reactionary article completely missed this in a storm of juvenility, which does everyone a disservice and makes those of us who enjoy the game look like vitriolic idiots.

 

[BCampbell]

In resume: video games reporters quality is pretty poor most of the times.

...until you realize that they don't have the hundreds of hours to devote to a single game that the members here and at Apolyton you mentioned do, and they have to cover many games (sometimes dozens) in a month. Trust me, it's not an easy job to play enough of a game to figure out what an audience will or will not like about it, then write a review that's concise enough to see print while being thorough enough to cover the topic and fair to the game's target market, all while speaking to your particular audience.