Leaders we don't want.
- Thread starter CornPlanter
- Start date
)Zarathustra(
Chieftain
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2010
- Messages
- 28
I don't say that military doesn't matter. I say that military by itself doesn't matter, that it's not sufficient. Napoleon is there because of his military combined with the Revolutionary spirit which carried him, which had a huuuge influence on the destiny of Europ. Gengis Khan or Alexander are there because of their victory combined with the incredible mixes of cultures they have brought with them. It's not question of moral, just of significance. Zulu's culture is emblematic of Sub-Saharian civilizations before colonization, which were in no way less amazing than ours.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
That's pretty questionable; there were a variety of far more worthy, and, significantly, far more civilised candidates than the Zulus, they simply happen to be the most widely known example. The other Sub-Saharan civs which have so far appears- Mali, Ethiopia, and the upcoming Songhai- or all far worthier of inclusion. To argue for their inclusion over that of a civ like Songhai is like arguing for the Cherokee over the Iroquois, simply because they better ft the stereotypical image of Africa entertained by the West.
Dom Pedro II
Modder For Life
I've always been of the opinion that "interesting" leaders are a better choice than historically accurate or even great leaders.
For that reason, I am more forgiving about females who weren't actually leaders of their country (Joan of Arc) or whose accomplishments were dwarfed by their disastrous policies (Cleopatra). It breaks up the sausage fest.
I also think name recognition is important, which might make one leader preferable over one who was less well known or had a name that was particularly unpronounceable.
As for the civilizations themselves, I think they have to be weighed along similar criteria. Sure, the Zulus had a short run and limited greatness, but they're well-known and their badassitude is undeniable.
Because every game of civ takes place in a fictional world, there's no need for strict historical accuracy, and I would personally prefer that the game mechanics fit more of a historical model than the names and places... but everyone has their own criteria, which is why I think the game developers have often preferred name recognition, gender and ethnic diversity over all other criteria.
For that reason, I am more forgiving about females who weren't actually leaders of their country (Joan of Arc) or whose accomplishments were dwarfed by their disastrous policies (Cleopatra). It breaks up the sausage fest.
I also think name recognition is important, which might make one leader preferable over one who was less well known or had a name that was particularly unpronounceable.
As for the civilizations themselves, I think they have to be weighed along similar criteria. Sure, the Zulus had a short run and limited greatness, but they're well-known and their badassitude is undeniable.
Because every game of civ takes place in a fictional world, there's no need for strict historical accuracy, and I would personally prefer that the game mechanics fit more of a historical model than the names and places... but everyone has their own criteria, which is why I think the game developers have often preferred name recognition, gender and ethnic diversity over all other criteria.
Ribannah
Fighter Druid
Absolutely. You have the right to REMAIN poor. Sometimes you are even allowed to sleep under the bridge.
cybrxkhan
Asian Xwedodah
I generally agree with that, although I think of course this has to also be taken within reason. For example, Joan of Arc as the French leader in Civ3 was a terrible choice in my opinion, even if she was "interesting"; Napoleon, Louis XIV, and a few other French leaders are just as famous and probably better leaders than her, so I don't understand much of why they didn't make into Civ3. I mean the game still has to sell, and if the developers stuff the game with a bunch of leaders no one has ever heard of, that'd be bad for marketing - but they still can't have like Nero for the Romans, obviously.
You also have the right to move out of poverty. Pursuit of happiness and all that.
"force" might not be the word to use since you're also guaranteed freedom of religion. You always have the right to protest or ignore them.
I admit the USA has its faults but this is ridiculous.
Well, just this very week, a high school in Mississippi, USA, cancelled its end of year prom to stop a female teenager attending with her girlfriend. I'm not sure how you even begin to comprehend that sort of decision, let alone defend it.
seasnake
Conquistador
Love the USA. Traveled quite a bit abroad. Wouldn't want to live elsewhere. It's a place where you can be anything if you're willing to work hard. As for "forcing" one's beliefs on another, that happens in every democracy. If more people think something is bad than good, there's a law passed to prevent it. It's as simple as that. You'll always find someone who feels that a right is being trampled by a law (no cousin marriage, have to be 18, no polygamy, no same sex marriage, etc.) because no law is universally popular. But when the majority want change they can actually change the laws, amend the Constitution, they don't have to live the same way forever.
Great place to live. People mock it, but whatever. I don't mock other countries, I respect peoples' homes, so people who go out of their way to do so just have issues.
Great place to live. People mock it, but whatever. I don't mock other countries, I respect peoples' homes, so people who go out of their way to do so just have issues.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
In Britain, we call it "a sense of humour". It's a tragically common affliction here, sure enough. Probably something in the water.
Heh. Yes, in this country, we mock ourselves, our people, (especially!) our politicians and our country, so much so that we're renowned for our irreverence, just like the Italians are for their lothario natures, the French for their cowardice in battle, the Germans for their boring personalities (and startling ability to steal poolside seats at hotels), the Canadians for not being American and the Americans for their national touchiness regarding slights against their glorious country.
Not that any of the above is necessarily true in the slightest of course - it's just how we perceive our neighbours and more-or-less allies.
Not that any of the above is necessarily true in the slightest of course - it's just how we perceive our neighbours and more-or-less allies.
seasnake
Conquistador
I've heard of a sense of humor, but this "humour" thing is totally new.
Inspector Javert
Prince
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2005
- Messages
- 510
Well I don't want any "legendary leaders" so no Gilgamesh, that would be like making Krishna the leader of India.
I'd also like to avoid any modern tyrants, Mao, Stalin and Hitler should all be out.
I'd also prefer if FDR wasn't in since he was pretty close to being a dictator himself it'd be better to use less controversial leaders such as Washington and Jefferson (note the key word is "Less")
For what it's worth, Here's my theory BTW on why Mao and Stalin were put in other games
I'd also like to avoid any modern tyrants, Mao, Stalin and Hitler should all be out.
I'd also prefer if FDR wasn't in since he was pretty close to being a dictator himself it'd be better to use less controversial leaders such as Washington and Jefferson (note the key word is "Less")
For what it's worth, Here's my theory BTW on why Mao and Stalin were put in other games
Spoiler :
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
I think it's more to do with the fact that they both left their nations as more powerful and more prosperous than when they found them, that they are seen, however questionably, as iconic representations of their nation, and, crucially, that all the millions of people they had horribly murdered lived within their own borders.
Agreed. It's "Zee" and not "Zed" (Z)Colour, humour ok.
Aluminum. (All-loo-min-ee-um?) Ok, that one I don't get.
Hey, I'm from Michigan, and I'd be very thankful if you didn't lump me and my state in with gods-forsaken Mississippi. The US is a diverse country, and most of us are totally aware that Mississippi sucks. Hell, there's even differences in-state - look at San Francisco vs. Orange County. Damn.
Language is populism. The people who use language are the people who define it - why do you think we only have knowledge of Vulgar Latin instead of High Latin? It's what got preserved, because it was what the people spoke. There's no "correct" way to use language, that's simple fallacy - because if there were, then either everybody would always be wrong or the definition would literally have to change every few years. Is the use of "google" as verb incorrect? What about twenty years ago? Twenty years from now? Who knows.
Point is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:English_dialects1997_modified.svg
The majority of english speakers in the world speak US English. Therefore, it is the "correct" way. You can babble on about the Queen's English as much as you want, but language is evolution, and by your argument I could get all up in your stuff about not using "thee" and "thou" - because it's proper, and the laziness that leads to not using it is part of the downfall of the english language. Forsooth. We should have never shifted our vowels in the thirteenth century, that was a terrible idea.
Note that this is not a defense of Webster, I hate the guy. I prefer my humours with u's in them. But the majority of time when you're speaking English, it's correct to spell it humor. Because the majority of the time, you'll be a US English speaker. And that's language.
edit: Also, we really need to convert to Metric already. Just saying. I'm already mentally using Centigrade, just need to mentally convert to meters now.
