Is there a civ that doesn't deserve to be in Civilization?

[Yzman]

You (as a member of the USA) were once part of england, france, spain, and the netherlands. Would it be fair then to lump you into those civs? No, because the US is very culturally distinct, as is Norway with Denmark. The polynesians shared a very similar culture and language throughout, and while at first I did oppose them, I have grown to love and accept the side. The celts on the other hand shared little with each other and are a very ill defined area, with much debate as to who is celt and who is an offspring, sister clan, influenced neighbor, unrelated, etc. where as what we call Polynesia is usually an agreed upon set of islands

You shouldn't assume what my answer would be, and you also missed one of my requirements "wouldn't be in otherwise". The US is always in these games and probably rightfully deserves its place. It would be hard to argue that BOTH Norway and Denmark would deserve a spot so I have no problem with them being put in together, since historically they were together at one time.

If the USA was culturally insignificant enough to not be considered into the game, than absolutely, I would be OK with them being grouped with one of those countries. The problem is that they are a distinct entity that would be in the game, so it makes no sense to do so.

I would always prefer the individual civs to be in the game as opposed to grouped. However, if they are not going to BOTH be in the game and they were historically together or historically similar enough, I have no issue with them being together.

I hope that clears up what I mean.

 

[blackcatatonic]

To answer the OP: no.

 

[Morningcalm]

Huns aren't worthy, even if they were interesting and important during the time they ravaged Europe. Goths would have made more sense for a Dark Age civ, as their presence was longer, and they actually built things (like the Tomb of Theodoric, for example). Also they have interesting ties to Spanish history, and were great rivals of the Byzantines as well as the Romans.

Venice is also not worthy, but again presents interesting gameplay opportunities, which is why they were in. I'm not too opposed to their inclusion now since they are a very new and interesting civ, and we don't have many Renaissance era leaders or civs at all in Civ generally (which prefers Ancient/Medieval/Modern rather than late Medieval/Renaissance).

Would have liked to see Hebrews, Scythians, Kongo, Dahomey, Tibetans, Khazars or Sioux, however.

 

[Monado]

Being in Civilization is not an award. It's an opportunity for yet another slightly different play experience.

It's pretty hard to argue with a straight face that Venice and Huns don't offer unique play experiences.

nope.

To answer the OP: no.

No, is the answer to the OP.


EDIT: This is where the thread is heading. Trash/hopefully locked.

Probably Ethiopia. Being a third world backwater with crippling rates of corruption, poverty and an out of control birth-rate is not what I would consider an "empire".

 

[Botswana]

Probably Ethiopia. Being a third world backwater with crippling rates of corruption, poverty and an out of control birth-rate is not what I would consider an "empire".

 

[Morningcalm]

Poland and Greece aren't doing too well in the modern day either, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be in Civ. Ethiopia did quite well for itself once upon a time, and that is the era of Ethiopia represented in Civ.

 

[Nujabes]

Probably Ethiopia. Being a third world backwater with crippling rates of corruption, poverty and an out of control birth-rate is not what I would consider an "empire".

lol. if any thread deserves such ridiculous trolling, i guess it's this one.

Moderator Action: You are responsible for what you quote. This quote, as well as your accusation of trolling, makes you a troll as well. Please report the post and then ignore it in future.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[SpaceJesus]

No. There is however, a tired old thread topic that doesn't deserve to be on these forums and this is it.

 

[Melo-Franco]

As Clint Eastwood's character in Unforgiven said, "Deserve's got nothin' to do with it." Being in Civilization is not an award. It's an opportunity for yet another slightly different play experience.

It's pretty hard to argue with a straight face that Venice and Huns don't offer unique play experiences.

I appreciate and respect your point of view, but if we want to understand what happens in Civilization rigorously, there is no way to ignore an ethics of representation. Power, as the German word Gewalt makes it clear, is sometimes violent, sometimes not. Politics pervades everything - culture industry (videogames) included. The moment when this game represents (semiotically, as C. S. Peirce put it, something stands for something) real-world entities/abstractions, their inclusion has real-world meaning, as much as their exclusion. Money gets a role there as well. My country, Brazil, has tons of young people and lots of gamers; I think you get the point. An "internal" approach to videogames is totally fine (civilizations are in Civ for the sake of gameplay), but it's nothing but partial, it just informs a single dimension of the work. To erase everything else is potentially naive.

Having said that, I think there's a problem with some cultures (some of them are developed countries, some are not) when it comes to uniqueness. This subject is possibly sensitive.

 

[Leugi]

Well I'd say Sealand probably wouldn't deserve to be in Civilization, and surely they aren't (they could have interesting gameplay though). You didn't ask about Civs that are already ingame they all do deserve it.

 

[VainApocalypse]

Whenever someone says, "Venice shouldn't be in because city-state, city-state, city-state," there's always someone pointing out to them that it wasn't a city-state. It had cities throughout the Adriatic and Aegean seas, and was the preeminent naval and commercial power of the Mediterranean long before England, Spain or Portugal -- putting it in an entirely different league from anyone else in renaissance Italy. The fact that no one has a rebuttal to that says a lot.

I would also like to ask how Italy could be included when it shares city names with Rome and at least 6 city-states.

 

[Princeofnigeria]

You shouldn't assume what my answer would be, and you also missed one of my requirements "wouldn't be in otherwise". The US is always in these games and probably rightfully deserves its place. It would be hard to argue that BOTH Norway and Denmark would deserve a spot so I have no problem with them being put in together, since historically they were together at one time.

If the USA was culturally insignificant enough to not be considered into the game, than absolutely, I would be OK with them being grouped with one of those countries. The problem is that they are a distinct entity that would be in the game, so it makes no sense to do so.

I would always prefer the individual civs to be in the game as opposed to grouped. However, if they are not going to BOTH be in the game and they were historically together or historically similar enough, I have no issue with them being together.

I hope that clears up what I mean.

That is were you and I differ. I believe if their are two sides, one which shall get in and one which shall not, who historically are different but unified at one point, and share some culture (USA phillipenes/ Inda Nepal/ Siam vietnam) they should be kept separate, saving the other for city statesmanship or future inclusion. Only if many shall be left out but they are culturally sound as a whole (polynesia) should clumps be formed. I however respect your opinion, and as it is an opinion poll cannot declare you "wrong".

 

[Roman Emperor]

I like all civilizations included I believe as more CIV games come out they will eventually get each CIV as close as possible to it's history. I guess will find out when CIV VI comes out if I am right. But we do need to remember as someone stated earlier that CIV is a game and even though Firaxis state they try to get as much of the history of civilization history correctly they are going to make a mistake because they try to get as much of an area together in order to represent it. But I still enjoy reading the little history story they include in the game. Hope I made sense of what I was trying to say lol.

 

[HeraldtheGreat]

Whenever someone says, "Venice shouldn't be in because city-state, city-state, city-state," there's always someone pointing out to them that it wasn't a city-state. It had cities throughout the Adriatic and Aegean seas, and was the preeminent naval and commercial power of the Mediterranean long before England, Spain or Portugal -- putting it in an entirely different league from anyone else in renaissance Italy. The fact that no one has a rebuttal to that says a lot.

I would also like to ask how Italy could be included when it shares city names with Rome and at least 6 city-states.

The idea would be that they replace the current Italian city states, use them in they're own list and either Change Rome's name to Roma, or make the capital Venice or Florence or some other influential City-state.

 

[bite]

Moderator Action: Hi guys, this in not the place for discussions of history, we have a history and offtopic forum for that on the site, so please direct these conversations there /
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889