Polynesia? Seriously!?

[Zyxpsilon]

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.

 

[brianshapiro]

Moderator Action: Seriously, it's enough now!

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.

 

[blasto]

My Google search is better than your Google search....
Moderator Action: Please don't spam around.

 

[NiRv4n4]

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.

 

[Truthy]

I've never seen so much pompous-arsed twitheadedness in all my life. Americans bashing Canadians, Canadians acting rightfully offended, the whole thread started with an undeniably racist/nationalist/manifest destiny undertone to begin with.

People, we're all people. When it comes down to it, we're all human beings, we all have buildings in our countries, and we all occupy four dimensional space. We're all proud of our national distinctiveness to a certain degree, but that gives nobody the right to say 'Your nation isn't as distinct or valuable to you as mine is to me, and your history means less to all of us than mine does to me'. It's a dispicable impulse that in this thread is being given free reign.

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.

 

[Truthy]

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.

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.

 

[blasto]

I want to see the "Branch Davidians" added. Didn't they claim to have ceded from the United States and were their own country?

 

[brianshapiro]

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.

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.

 

[Trias]

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.

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.

 

[brianshapiro]

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.

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.

 

[edgie]

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.

 

[esemjay]

... and our news isn't full of news of our sons and daughters dying off in foreign lands while massacring tens of thousands of noncombatants ...

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.

 

[builer680]

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.

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.

 

[The_J]

Moderator Action: 2 warnings are enough: Thread closed.