No Gandhi in Civilization 6?

[Krajzen]

As people point out, Gandhi is a very recognizable figure and probably helps boost sales with the general public.

General public doesn't care in the slightest what historical people are in the video game. General public cares about how cool the video game sounds, looks, what first impression makes and how does it play.
I don't think there are any people unfamiliar with the series, anywhere, who see Civ on the shelf and say 'damn, Gandhi is in - I will buy it'. Besides, I don't think majority of the general public outside India have slightest opinion who Gandhi is, besides 'duhhh I think he was uhm liked love and peace from India'. You greatly overestimate the interest of general public in exotic, faraway history

I'm pretty sure changes of sales would be negligible even if Civ had no leaders at all (well except the fact that's civ tradition - let's just imagine it'd be a 'fresh start') - then it'd be known as 'cool strategy game when you lead great nations through history'.

IMO Ghandi is a good choice because he is funny and when people unfamiliar with the Civ games see him, they have some sense of who he is and what the game is going for. Those are the reasons he is always in the game.

According to this logic every leader for civ should be major recognizable, and every civ should be deeply rooted in popculture, because suddenly people would stop buying the video game if - next to mandatory and classical civilizations and leaders that will always be here - it would have some, even one, more obscure leader or civilization.
I cannot understand this reasoning at all. Furthermore, according to the same logic, if one leader was once chosen by devs to be the leader of a particular civ, it should be its leader for the entire eternity of this franchise 'because he is already known'.
Why there are obscure leaders and civs in recent civ iterations? Because
a) Fresh is fun and keeps the franchise changing
b) General public buys games based on looks, marketing and first impressions, not nitpicky choices of historical figures.
c) There are a lot of super cool characters that are obscure, cooler and more interesting than many popularly known characters, because pop vision of history is terribly deformed. Thereby, Firaxis shouldn't care about it at all, just use the entire human history, more or less known, as an inspiration (also because - point a)

I never really got why some people insist on "right and true" leaders in this series (Hatshepsut for Egypt instead of Cleopatra is another one). I find those "true" leaders boring. IMO the most interesting characters are characters--there's something there to kind of mock. The joke is the ridiculousness of the situation: the Aztecs building nukes while holding off the invading Romans, and cutting deals with the Koreans to backstab Dido of Carthage, who they have learned is building the Eiffel Tower. I mean, this is a game where the USA starts in 4000 BC. It's always been outlandish.

Well, that's the first time ever I meet with the opinion the essence of the franchise is absurd humor, me and a lot of people treat it as monumental strategy game inspired by history and many even view it as 'simulation of history' furthermore, I have never found the base concpets of the franchise 'ridiculous' - it's just deeply alternate history of alternate humanity. So no, I don't think civ should tolerate wild absurd things, unless they are really necessary for the gameplay itself.

Anyway we got Ashoka in Civ IV and he was so dry his name should have been Sham-Wow.

Firstly, Ashoka was fascinating person and Firaxis could fail with depicting him. Secondly, civ4 had incomparable leader's personality and graphics to civ5-6.
Thirdly, I can google two dozens of other great Indian rulers that would be more fresh and interesting than tired, cliched caricature of 'hippie pacifist' that reduces Indian civ in every civ iteration ever to the same boring 'never attack until nuke meme' pattern.

The reason why people oppose gandhi for India is because he is simultaneously boring, overused, inappropriate and unnecessary. Well personally I also find him the most overrated person of 20th century and repulsive, amoral, hypocritical, fanatic fool but not many people actually bother to read his biography or ideology so I'm in the minority

 

[nukehumvee]

Given that the leaders we've seen so far are the same ones in the leader bingo picture, I think Gandhi is a certainty, as he is also in that picture.
If so I hope Ed doesn't make him a nuclear bomb-hurling something. The tendency in Civ I was due to a bug anyway.

 

[Gintoki89]

Given that the leaders we've seen so far are the same ones in the leader bingo picture, I think Gandhi is a certainty, as he is also in that picture.
If so I hope Ed doesn't make him a nuclear bomb-hurling something. The tendency in Civ I was due to a bug anyway.

Well, if they can do that and at least have an installment where that meme has been stifled and they've broken their connection to it, that seems like it would be the first step to being able to replace him down the line in either DLC or a later installment of the game.

 

[stealth_nsk]

For Civ6 we could only hope for additional leaders DLC

For later civs I really hope for other India leaders.

 

[Lord of War N02]

I don't like Gandhi as being leader but he is icon and popular meme about nuclear war for Civ series since Civ 1, For Indian leaders I think Gupta leaders, Rajput leaders or Akbar of Mughal Empire could be leader for India. I don't think Chola leaders would be choice for India, they might represent as separated civ for Chola, Tamil or Dravidians. Otherwise Ashoka would be nice to see him back in Civ 6 again.

 

[Morningcalm]

I don't like Gandhi as being leader but he is icon and popular meme about nuclear war for Civ series since Civ 1, For Indian leaders I think Gupta leaders, Rajput leaders or Akbar of Mughal Empire could be leader for India. I don't think Chola leaders would be choice for India, they might represent as separated civ for Chola, Tamil or Dravidians. Otherwise Ashoka would be nice to see him back in Civ 6 again.

Agreed. I think Changragupta II (Gupta) or Chandragupta Maurya (Maurya) would be great, or Ashoka. We have better images of what Maurya and Ashoka looked like, so they might be the next Indian leader of Civ VII. Can't wait.

 

[El Castellano]

I don't like Gandhi as being leader but he is icon and popular meme about nuclear war for Civ series since Civ 1.

A picture is worth a thousand words.

Spoiler :

 

[Mustakrakish]

"Recognizable figure that helps boosting sales with general public... When people unfamiliar with the game see him they think he's funny and have a sense of what the game is about..."



Here's how "general" public reacts, an example of my 2 friends trying civ 5, both never played a civ game before.
Also shows what "general" public cares / questions first instead of "presence of known figures".

First upon encountering Gandhi on turn 7 or something (first contact)... "Lol WTF why he has glasses, how did he get glasses?"

And the second one. His first encounter was Dido, whom he did not know and who did not raise any reaction really. I guess she looked the part. Then he encountered Washington and was a bit confused, asking if he was much more advanced or WTH is going on? Notice how he did not question America being around in 4000 BC something (favorite argument of protectors against reason), that concept he understood and embraced. Oh and since we talk about Gandhi, here's his reaction. He met him a little later after Washington and "...look at this clown!".

Noticing the pattern? Perhaps make the leaders look the part with each era if you want to "boost the sales with general public". BTW this part I don't understand since V. They go through all that trouble making "beautiful fully animated leader screens" only to leave it half-arsed. Anyway having Gandhi in there has zero impact on sales.

 

[citmrocks]

1) He wasn't a leader of India
2) He wasn't an architect of Indian independence
3) He wasn't a nice person
4) His ideas were mostly horrible or fanatic
5) He is imo the most overrated person of 20th century and I despise him with a passion

http:// http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/07/the-real-mahatma-gandhi/308550/

Highlights of his life include ridiculous anti-black racism, admiration for Mussolini and, yes, Hitler, recommending capitulation vs Nazi Germany and suicide of all European Jews (to avoid holocaust), fanatic hostility against technological progress, education and industrialization, ruthless pursuit of power behind the mask, opposition against medicine (his abused wife died because he refused giving her vaccine... but when he got ill he immediately went into luxury hospital; he also had moments of general vaccine denial), he was sleeping naked with underage girls, was total abusive tyrant vs his entire family, and literally nothing of his ideology was ever implemented or succeeded (mostly for good because most of his ideas was idiotic, he wanted to turn India in a bunch of communal agricultural villages with no modernity). He also opposed sexuality in general, homosexuality and birth control.

What he was very good in was marketing and making pop star out of himself in the eyes of journalists. The day when I won't see him in the iteration of civ will be the glorious day.

+He also sucks as Indian leader in civ series, because he always warps this great civilisation into a ridiculous pacifist caricature which has nothing to do with how Indian subcontinent looked... well... ever in its history full of warfare and empires. This tired nuke makes India even more of a caricature overshadowed by popcultural mascot.

And you are wrong.

Gandhi was leader who brought all Indian together which no one could do before. so, yes, he was the architect of Indian Independence and Indian unity and nationalism.

Gandhi was not against modernity rather he supported swadeshi i.e. indian manufacturing on their own in which they are capable.

Gandhi never supported racism infact he fought against very same during his time in South Africa.

And all other things you have mentioned about his nature i.e. he was tyrant, abusive etc etc. are false. Indians are not that stupid that we have chosen him as Father of our nation. So please stop dishonoring him with your false and baseless facts.

 

[ZTZaorish]

They wouldn't put him in the trailer if he wasn't in the game. The scenes in the trailer are not chosen randomly. The idea that they'd put him in there to be deliberately misleading is absurd; it would be unprecedented and would serve no purpose.

Nobody seems to consider the fact that maybe, just maybe they are recognizing him as an icon with the trailer, before moving on to a new leader. Think about it , they know they arent going to have him in 6, so they acknowledge him, and move on. It mkers perfect sense. People need to consider this.

 

[Thormodr]

A picture is worth a thousand words.

Spoiler :

Lol. Very good!

 

[sugerdady87]

And you are wrong.

Gandhi was leader who brought all Indian together which no one could do before. so, yes, he was the architect of Indian Independence and Indian unity and nationalism.

Gandhi was not against modernity rather he supported swadeshi i.e. indian manufacturing on their own in which they are capable.

Gandhi never supported racism infact he fought against very same during his time in South Africa.

And all other things you have mentioned about his nature i.e. he was tyrant, abusive etc etc. are false. Indians are not that stupid that we have chosen him as Father of our nation. So please stop dishonoring him with your false and baseless facts.

He brought all of India together? The subcontinent was inevitably partitioned into what became three states, something he absolutely opposed. He failed to ever unite the Hindus, Muslims, and Christians, unless you don't count Muslims and Christians as Indian? His idea of a pseudo-confederation under one central provisional government was never taken seriously.

"Swadeshi" was beyond nonsensical. It's essentially isolationist socialism and incorporated boycotts of foreign goods. The guy would fail a basic microeconomic 101 class. The fact that anyone even takes it seriously today is troubling. India would have been much better off without any of his Ideas.

 

[citmrocks]

He brought all of India together? The subcontinent was inevitably partitioned into what became three states, something he absolutely opposed. He failed to ever unite the Hindus, Muslims, and Christians, unless you don't count Muslims and Christians as Indian? His idea of a pseudo-confederation under one central provisional government was never taken seriously.

"Swadeshi" was beyond nonsensical. It's essentially isolationist socialism and incorporated boycotts of foreign goods. The guy would fail a basic microeconomic 101 class. The fact that anyone even takes it seriously today is troubling. India would have been much better off without any of his Ideas.

First I said he brought indians together not India. Non co-operation movement in 1920s was the first movement against british rule where there was large scale participation from all sections of india including muslims and others. it was gandhi who brought muslim leaders along with the other party leaders at that time.

Second only when communal riots broke in 1947 and was becoming uncontrollable in bengal and punjab provinces, he accepted partition formula.

Third, tell me what u know about modern indian history. I believe u have read only from wiki and some other sources from internet, thats why u don't know about Swadeshi at all. Swadeshi before partition was a tool to protest against british rule because of their economic policies in india (about which u can read in Wiki). So it was not what u think, a isolationist policy.

 

[Valmighty]

I doubt Gandhi will be on civ6. His face on the trailer indicates that he won't be leading India.

 

[sugerdady87]

First I said he brought indians together not India. Non co-operation movement in 1920s was the first movement against british rule where there was large scale participation from all sections of india including muslims and others. it was gandhi who brought muslim leaders along with the other party leaders at that time.

Second only when communal riots broke in 1947 and was becoming uncontrollable in bengal and punjab provinces, he accepted partition formula.

Third, tell me what u know about modern indian history. I believe u have read only from wiki and some other sources from internet, thats why u don't know about Swadeshi at all. Swadeshi before partition was a tool to protest against british rule because of their economic policies in india (about which u can read in Wiki). So it was not what u think, a isolationist policy.

You don't have to read wiki. Gandhi's letter on "Swadeshi" is available for anyone to read. The guy had the economic knowledge of a child. You are wrong when you say he was "not against modernity". To the contrary; modern technology for him was sinful and evil. He saw the industrial revolution as evil and preferred if people returned to village communities (strikingly similar to the ideas in communism).

Gandhi on why railroads are evil: "...God set a limit to a man’s locomotive ambition in the construction of his body. Man immediately proceeded to discover means of overriding the limit. ... According to this reasoning, it must be apparent to you that railways are a most dangerous institution. Man has gone further away from his maker"

Don't get me wrong, I understand why a lot of people believe in his ideas. They are attractive, although they make no sense. There are also people who still think minimum wage laws help poor people, for example.

 

[Brianstorm]

Noticing the pattern? Perhaps make the leaders look the part with each era if you want to "boost the sales with general public". BTW this part I don't understand since V. They go through all that trouble making "beautiful fully animated leader screens" only to leave it half-arsed. Anyway having Gandhi in there has zero impact on sales.

This was a feature in Civ 3 if you didn't know

 

[citmrocks]

You don't have to read wiki. Gandhi's letter on "Swadeshi" is available for anyone to read. The guy had the economic knowledge of a child. You are wrong when you say he was "not against modernity". To the contrary; modern technology for him was sinful and evil. He saw the industrial revolution as evil and preferred if people returned to village communities (strikingly similar to the ideas in communism).

Gandhi on why railroads are evil: "...God set a limit to a man’s locomotive ambition in the construction of his body. Man immediately proceeded to discover means of overriding the limit. ... According to this reasoning, it must be apparent to you that railways are a most dangerous institution. Man has gone further away from his maker"

Don't get me wrong, I understand why a lot of people believe in his ideas. They are attractive, although they make no sense. There are also people who still think minimum wage laws help poor people, for example.

What you are not understanding is that Gandhi's Swadeshi Idea at that time was not against industrial revolution as such. Before 1947, India was under British Rule i.e. Indians were not in control of their government but some foreigners were. It means all the economic policies and other also were favoring the interest of colonial rulers. Gandhi wanted to promote village industries for self-sufficiency which were flourishing in India once before the British came and made India as a source of raw material and market for finished European goods.

He opposed industrial revolution under British since all the modern facilities which were started by British in India like railways etc were for their benefit. His criticism for the railroads is related to British rule because Britisher brought railways in India for transporting the raw materials to ports and finished goods to market from port i.e. their benefit not indian interest. His views over railroads as evil are reflection of situations going on at that time.

You have to study all this keeping in mind Indian history and situation at that time. Because one of the great Indian leaders, Subash Chandra Bose met Hitler. Now you will start thinking about him in wrong way but no, he never supported his ideas and action.

 

[Slayan]

A picture is worth a thousand words.

Spoiler :

Very Nice, thanks

 

[SMcM]

"Recognizable figure that helps boosting sales with general public... When people unfamiliar with the game see him they think he's funny and have a sense of what the game is about..."



Here's how "general" public reacts, an example of my 2 friends trying civ 5, both never played a civ game before.
Also shows what "general" public cares / questions first instead of "presence of known figures".

First upon encountering Gandhi on turn 7 or something (first contact)... "Lol WTF why he has glasses, how did he get glasses?"

And the second one. His first encounter was Dido, whom he did not know and who did not raise any reaction really. I guess she looked the part. Then he encountered Washington and was a bit confused, asking if he was much more advanced or WTH is going on? Notice how he did not question America being around in 4000 BC something (favorite argument of protectors against reason), that concept he understood and embraced. Oh and since we talk about Gandhi, here's his reaction. He met him a little later after Washington and "...look at this clown!".

Noticing the pattern? Perhaps make the leaders look the part with each era if you want to "boost the sales with general public". BTW this part I don't understand since V. They go through all that trouble making "beautiful fully animated leader screens" only to leave it half-arsed. Anyway having Gandhi in there has zero impact on sales.

I can't think the reactions of your friends are especially relevant to anything. I see no reason why they would perfectly sum up the view of the general public. Though I also do not like Gandhi's inclusion, there are several clear reasons for it, and one of them is how famous he is- he is probably the most famous Indian person in history at this point in time. There are others; he works well for a peaceful agenda, is considered a staple of the series having been in every game, and even if many here would disagree (I'm not the biggest fan in every respect myself), he is widely regarded as a great leader (though more of a spiritual independence leader, as he never actually governed the country), and a great man.

I saw someone claim 'having Gandhi has no impact on sales'; this is certainly not true. Maybe very minimal impact on sales, but you are dealing in absolutes; there is no chance it has absolutely no impact on sales. I have seen one user here pledge at least to not buy the game until it is cheap on sale if Gandhi is in the game. Even if they in the end do not keep to this, you can imagine others will be similarly upset. Even if something which annoys people like this is not major enough to put people of buying, when coupled with other disappointments (e.g. people not like visual style, etc.), someone could lose their excitement for the game, even if only due to illogical minor reasons, and this would make them less likely to end up buying the game. Similarly, people who are massive fans of Gandhi could feel similarly put of by him not being included.

You need to remind yourself that some people have concluded this game looks awful solely due to the new visual style (and at least some of these people will likely end up not buying the game). When things like this are enough to put people off buying the game, it is apparent that some very silly things can put people off buying games.

 

[nukehumvee]

I doubt Gandhi will be on civ6. His face on the trailer indicates that he won't be leading India.

Teddy was in the trailer too.