1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Polynesia? Seriously!?

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by jtb1127, Mar 1, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Zyxpsilon

    Zyxpsilon Running Spider

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2009
    Messages:
    3,062
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    On Earth
    Yes sir... i am out of this thread & forever will regret being a CiV supporter for what it once was.
    Consider my mods, locked & unfinished.
    Farewell and take care.
     
  2. brianshapiro

    brianshapiro King

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2003
    Messages:
    775
    The_J,

    In all seriousness, I think it would be an interesting topic to debate. I don't know why some people take it personally, but I wouldn't mind an off-topic thread.
    Moderator Action: Public discussion of moderator actions is not allowed in this forum here.
     
  3. blasto

    blasto Prince

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2010
    Messages:
    424
    My Google search is better than your Google search....
    Moderator Action: Please don't spam around.
     
  4. NiRv4n4

    NiRv4n4 King

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2010
    Messages:
    702
    Location:
    USA
    I feel like political correctness may have something to do with it. If they have to many European empires, who comprise of like 80% of the most important ones, then it would seem Euro-centric. I would understand if they did Carthage instead of the Vikings or Dutch, but the Polynesians just seem ridiculous. They never had a truly unified empire over the vast small islands of the Pacific, and their power was really negligible. I guess they just want to diversify the available civilizations, and figure the Dutch and Vikings are too similar to the British or Germans. Which doesn't make much sense to me.
     
  5. Truthy

    Truthy 194539

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Messages:
    2,104
    Location:
    Tidewater
    That's all wonderful, but you might not have caught why the the OP posted. He was stating that there are more worthy civilizations that should have been in the game than Polynesia. Now please don't call me racist unless you are willing to call Firaxis and the entire Civilization series racist and quit playing.

    How do you think they determine who goes into the game? They can't put every civilization in history into a single game just because self-righteous and condescending people like you will call them ignorant.

    The fact is Firaxis tends to only put the most SIGNIFICANT civilizations from history into the game. What civilization goes into the game is ENTIRELY based off of who has been most important.

    JTB1127 was stating in the original post that Polynesians are not important enough to be in the game.

    It is not NOT "undeniably racist/nationalist/manifest destiny undertone" to debate what civilizations have been most important/influential, because this is how it is determined whether or not a civ makes it into the game. This is what the debate is over.
    _____________

    Another issue you have missed is it is not "undeniably racist/nationalist/manifest destiny undertone" for the OP to state that Polynesia is not a single empire. There are thousands of different islands and cultures in Polynesia. They were never ruled under one leader and they were never culturally or nationally linked.

    What is undeniable is that Polynesia is not a country and never has been one. Categorizing them under one civ name is the same thing as creating a "Native American Empire". Now really the OP was arguing that is not right for Firaxis to do this and they are the racists.
     
  6. Truthy

    Truthy 194539

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Messages:
    2,104
    Location:
    Tidewater
    They can avoid being Euro-centric simply by placing some of the many non-European empires in the game. There are loads of them listed in this thread.

    I agree that the Polynesians are a bit ridiculous because they were not a civilization, they were many different civilizations.
     
  7. blasto

    blasto Prince

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2010
    Messages:
    424
    I want to see the "Branch Davidians" added. Didn't they claim to have ceded from the United States and were their own country?
     
  8. brianshapiro

    brianshapiro King

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2003
    Messages:
    775
    In all honesty, I don't see it as Euro-centric to begin with, which doesn't mean I wouldn't mind them adding some more non-European civilizations.
     
  9. Trias

    Trias Donkey with three behinds

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2008
    Messages:
    594
    Really? Is that a fact?

    And all this time I thought that Firaxis decided which civ to added based on what they thought would be most interesting for the game/would most appease the target audience.
     
  10. brianshapiro

    brianshapiro King

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2003
    Messages:
    775
    Its one of the criteria they use to make a decision. It would be weird to have five civilizations: China, India, Rome, Aztecs, and Albanians. They want to cover certain bases first.
     
  11. edgie

    edgie Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2011
    Messages:
    2
    Why is everybody so uptight about who "deserves" to be in ciV? Why not just enjoy the fact that adding an extremely unique seafairing civ adds a new dimension to the game.

    They are fun to play and they are fun to play a against.

    It's a game. Get over it.
     
  12. esemjay

    esemjay Prince

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2008
    Messages:
    386
    Location:
    USA
    Given my first-hand experience in the subject, I found this to be personally offensive; but maybe I'm wrong in assuming this was a reference to OEF/OIF. If you were talking about that, you need to understand a few points.

    First, Canada was one of the more involved peacekeeping players in both theaters; involved through both the ISAF (International Security Assistance Force) and through direct involvement in OEF.

    Second, On a per-troop basis, Canada has about an equal attrition rate as the US; with some years actually being higher. The difference is, the US just had thousands of troops compared to Canada's ~1000.

    Third, much like the word "Proof", most people don't really understand the significance or definition of "non combatant"; particularly, the civilians who don't see how the "non-combatants" act. If you see someone planting IED's along a roadside, they still count as a non-combatant. If someone shoots at ISAF forces, drops their gun, and runs away... they become a non-combatant. Another common instance is when these self-proclaimed non-combatants use actual non-combatants as "shields" to protect themselves while they shoot at coalition forces. If someone is coordinating attacks on coalition forces, but never picks up a gun- they are still a "non-combatant", but are still more dangerous than any of the people on the ground; and both the media and the locals are more than willing to proclaim that we are killing "innocent" people. The phrase you should be hearing is "previously hostile unlawful combatants."

    Fourth, you don't seem to understand what the concept of "massacre" is. Your civilian buddies may not know the difference, but being that I am one of the people you are accusing of "massacre", it's obvious to me that you have no idea what it is you are talking about. I am almost entirely certain that you have never served overseas, and I have a hard time imagining that you know anyone who has actually been involved in either war. You seem to be suggesting that we ride around in helicopters and tanks blowing up houses and killing families for amusement. This isn't Vietnam, the media just likes to pretend that it is.

    Your poor choice in words demonstrates a complete ignorance on the subject, and a dependency on the news for your misinformation. It's both saddening and offensive, and frankly it disgusts me every time i see people regurgitate that line like it's their own original, educated and informed opinion.
     
  13. builer680

    builer680 eats too much Taco Bell

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2010
    Messages:
    525
    I agree with you in general, but on principle I must reply.

    It's a forum on the internet. People argue about everything, including whether or not the sky is blue. Get over it.

    Welcome to CFC.
     
  14. The_J

    The_J Say No 2 Net Validations Retired Moderator Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2008
    Messages:
    31,592
    Location:
    DE/NL/FR
    Moderator Action: 2 warnings are enough: Thread closed.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page